Jump to content

raz-0

Members
  • Content Count

    4,959
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    6
  • Feedback

    100%

Posts posted by raz-0


  1. 13 hours ago, xXxplosive said:

    I was fight'in the fight when you probably were in diapers.....attended the meetings back in 80's and '90 when the NRA called it on NJ...I was there....the monies thrown at these Orgs. over the years is rediculous IMO....with little to no results or merit....other than their self promotion, advertising their books and or ranges.....I repeat, if it weren't for Thomas we would be back to square one.

    So... 

    1) The CNJFO didn't exist back then. IT is currently operated by people who were just as angered by the dysfunctional spate of 2a advocacy groups NJ has been saddled with since the 91 AWB. There existence seems to have ushered in cooperation and coordination at both the state level and with national entities. 

    2) The ANJRPC isn't the turd of an organization it used to be. It genuinely seemed to exist solely to waste everyone's time while the NRA mothership used us to drive fundraising elsewhere. It seems to have moved away from that. 

    Currently I give to those two groups locally, and to FPC, GOA, and SAF nationally. Although I have to say that SAF is on the bubble. They do good work, but are way too comfortable chipping away slowly at things on a single front. 

    Basically I set aside the price of a case of ammo each year. Around Christmas they each get $25. Then hand out the rest of the funds as I see things I want to back and or fight. 

    • Like 2

  2. 2 hours ago, revenger said:

    will gun ranges that insist that you are a member of the NRA change their tune,  how about membership in FPC, GOA, SAF and any other gun rights group that actually fights for us.

    They already have. I suspect because of a combination of not knowing if the NRA will continue to exist and because the membership has had enough of the NRA.


  3. 2 hours ago, High Exposure said:

    I gave you a specific example of my 1911 that would fire without any input on the trigger. 

    I don’t have specific examples re: Sig 320 recorded. I do have memory of quite a few instances where it occurred over the last 18 months or so (as well as an alarming number of self destructing Sigs).

    I don’t own a 320, nor will I ever - so I have no need or desire to research or catalogue these events. I just know that every month or so there is another story of a gun going off without the user touching the trigger in the spotlight. I also noted that they are almost always Sig 320s and rarely/never Glocks, HK, CZ, etc…. (Although - If it was not a mechanical issue with a specific make/model and a matter of improper handling/storage by a human you would think it would be a fairly general cross section of brands having this issue)

    The point I was making was the fact that there is such a thing as an accidental discharge vs negligent discharge. That guns are manufactured by the hands of man and are in fact apt to malfunction at times at no fault to the shooter/owners negligence.

    I was asking about the p320. And every month it's a bunch of rehashing old shit for the most part. This won't go away until the lawyers stop getting paid to try and win those cases they keep losing. But they keep beating that horse because the pre-disconnector models had an actual problem. 

    As for the general problem, The light bearing holsters is a general problem. Safariland has several notifications for incidents with glocks on their website. Glock leg is a phrase because there were general problems with glocks and NDs. It just happened pre social media where you weren't subject to some idiot dropping rage bait for clicks over and over. Once you get past glock and sig, you are down to also rans. M&Ps only got so popular. Did they have issues? Dunno, but the floppy trigger was replaced with a dingus trigger. CZs aren't in the LEOP world. In the competition world their thing is NDs while manually decocking. How many gen 1 models of firearms has ruger recalled now because they were broken in some unsafe way?  Remington? 

    But back to sig, they have always been a popular choice for LEO issue. If you look at the still ongoing lawsuits they cite a ton of hammer fired Sigs. It's like half the citations in some of them. So yeah that had a general problem. 

     

    I do agree that there are ADs and NDs. 

     


  4. 4 minutes ago, High Exposure said:

    Interesting - I was always taught that “self defense” was not an explainable lawful purpose to possess.

    That was pre Bruen where the argument was that there was no right to armed self defense outside the home, so it couldn't be an answer. while there may still be issues with doing it, the answer as to why it is not an explicable lawful purpose would have to change. And they'd have to want to defend it in court. 

     

    • Agree 1

  5. On 1/22/2024 at 3:04 PM, High Exposure said:

    There’s been a dozen or so instances of a holstered sig 320 going off without being touch by a person in the last year alone.

    About 15 years ago I had a Springfield TRP 1911 that had a problem with the sear or disconnect (some MIM part chipped/cracked). When I dropped the slide on a new mag, the hammer fell as the slide went forward and the pistol discharged. Luckily I was at the range when it happened and not loading the pistol at home. I was following all 4 firearms safety rules at the time - treating it as if it was loaded, pointing the muzzle down-range at a target I intended to shoot, and I never touched the trigger.  Those circumstances are not a negligent discharge. That was purely a mechanical failure and “accidental”.

    Site me some examples. Every one I have seen has gone off while something was interacting with the holstered gun in some way or the trigger has been messed with significantly (likely by someone who does not grasp the limits of the safety mechanisms with regard to dicking with the trigger).  

    The only one I know of that even comes close to "was in the holster" was 1) subjected to significant contact during a physical struggle, and 2) in a light bearing safariland holster that has a history of issues with multiple brands of firearms and NDs. 

    There was a USPSA incident where the headline was it just went off. The details form actual attendees were that nobody was looking at the exact moment, so they decided to blame the gun. But it was proximal to when the competitor would be handling a loaded gun. 

    There is only one incident that I know of that the gun "just went off" and it was a legitimate accurate description of what happened. That was an M17 with (i believe ) the army. the root cause was that a foreign body entered the gun and interfered with the operation of it. The operator of the firearm decided if you push the trigger hard enough it will have to shoot. This resulted in damage to the drop safety tab on the striker and to the striker/sear interface. There was a subsequent AD due to having effectively disabled the drop safety.  That was a few years ago now though. 


  6. 21 hours ago, 124gr9mm said:

    Your Glock will be fine.

    1911's and pimped-out race guns based on 1911's warn against it.

    Modern striker-fired pistols are designed better.

    The only potential 'risk' I can see if the extra/regular manipulation you're doing with the gun and a live round.  if your hands are compromised to the point where you can't load a round in the gun without a tool, i'd say there's a chance something will go wrong with the way you're manually loading.

    How about just carrying an extra (full) magazine in the car that you can use to top off the gun with?

    This isn't a "built better" issue. 

    You can still mess up a glock doing this, it's just that the set of mechanical issues are slightly different. 1911s may get tensioning issues due to the case rim forcing a range of motion that is not part of the normal cycling movement. More modern extractor designs will potentially suffer from the snap back over the rim, the shock it generates, and the quality of mim components. Both are not going to be super common, and you can monitor them during maintenance. The failure of the mim part is likely to be physical breakage, and should be more obvious than reduced tension. 


  7. Well there's two parts to this issue. One is any survey forms. This may not be under your doctor's actual control. Then there is the issue of the doctor, who may or may not have their own concerns. My kid's doctor never asked, but he is also fully independent and not part of a medical group. He's also Filipino, so....

     


  8. 20 hours ago, ESB said:

    Why do I have to say anything unless asked?  And then shouldn't still have the right to remain silent?  

    What happens if I don't tell them upfront?  

    Bitching about something you don't like doesn't make it a viable defense. Also you edited yoru response from this according to the email notification. 

    "What if you tell them you are carrying and they want to see your permit, then ask for your updated CCARES (which you don't need to carry, just submit to local PD) and you don't have it.  Then they say you aren't compliant and take you down to the station, now you have to lawyer up.  There is a number of things that could go wrong that could land you in trouble even if you are legal by being forced to give up your 5th amendment rights.   

    Why, when you are pulled over, do you not have the right to remain silent on that? "

    The police failing to abide by the law as written won't get a law struck down. It might get you a cash settlement. As for teh 5th amendment, you aren't incriminating yourself if you are compliant with the law. TO have standing you would have to be in violation of the law first. 

     


  9. 6 minutes ago, ESB said:

    How does duty to inform not violate your 5th amendment rights?  Taking away your 2nd amendment rights because you exercised your 5th amendment rights would violate the 2nd amendment.  

    There’s a traffic stop and you have to tell the cop you are armed and licensed. Then the cop says ok. How would that infringe on your rights to keep and bear or incriminate yourself? 

    Even if you are demanded to disarm during a stop, the scope it’s pretty limited and I don’t a case could be won. You don’t spend money on loser cases. 
     

     


  10. On 1/10/2024 at 5:22 PM, revenger said:

    lawsuits for NJ I would like to see:

    1.   duty to inform                 forces victim to surrender rights,    every CCW/gun owner holder has standing

    2.   one gun a month             harassment purposes     every non-prohibited citizen has standing

    3.  FID card                             with NICS this is unnecessary,   pure harassment     every non- prohibited citizen wishing to buy a gun 

                                                      has standing.

    that's just for starters ,    maybe the ANJRPC, the state NRA affiliate will come to life with wayne lapierre gone?

    So first up does duty to inform even impact the second amendment? I see it as doubtful unless you are referring to some aspect of it that I'm not aware of. But to have standing, you would have to both have been subjected to the law in execution, and also have suffered some kind of harm. But it doesn't appear to keep you from bearing arms or keeping them. It might be considered compelled speech. Now for criminals, it might be considered forced self-incrimination, which might win at court. Once that has one, one could make an equal protection claim. 

    One gun a month has tons of people with standing, but just isn't the best case out there, especially if you have cases pending challenging permitting as a whole, which could potentially take this with it. This is likely just sitting on the plan B shelf waiting its turn. 

    FID - permitting is being challenged. Just challenging it in NJ isn't going to bring much to the table at this point and time. IT may come if it is needed to generate a circuit split or after SCOTUS sets precedent. 

     

    • Informative 1

  11. 2 hours ago, Scorpio64 said:

    It has nothing to do with whether I like them or not.  The inescapable fact is that they are a novelty item, a sort of reliable device that sometimes simulates full auto.  it is what it is, a gimmick.  I just don't think that common use can be established.

    What does being a gimmick have to do with common use? I think you are mistaking commonly applied in practical situations for common use. 

    • Like 1

  12. On 11/5/2023 at 6:54 PM, Scorpio64 said:

    I hate to play devil's advocate but, they really are not in common use.  Bump stocks are more of a novelty, a gimmick.   Full auto sears however, are in common use.  How's that for irony.

    As much as you may not be into them, there were apparently a LOT of bump stocks created and sold just based on the numbers that were destroyed while still in the possession of the manufacturer. Unless they were warehousing decades of inventory, they are in common use. 


  13. On 10/12/2023 at 9:25 AM, CMJeepster said:

    Because they said so and few stood up to the tyranny.

    It went to court. The court said there was no taking because they weren't taken and the notion of you being deprived of the benefit of your property was fantasy. It was a bullshit ruling, but a ruling it was. People tried to fight it, but gun grabber judges plus interestbalancing means we lost. It got GVRed back down after Bruen. 


  14. 13 minutes ago, 1LtCAP said:

    the solution to that is for us to stop supplying the rest of the world. at least one of these conflicts. what has ukrain done for us? israel? they're there for us, so we gotta be there for them......

    It's not really the solution. No wars? No reason to fund lake city. As for non government owned manufacturers, there is global demand, it'll go to where the global demand is regardless. Realistically the answer for what Ukraine or Israel has done for us is that they both provide proxies in areas we don't necessarily want to engage in directly, so we pay them off to do so. 

    • Agree 1

  15. People want to panic over all sorts of things. 

    You get panic, you get price spikes from people panic buying. 

    Available ammo is likely to decrease as we are providing small arms ammo to two conflicts. There's a lot of shmucks out there trying to stir the shit to get people riled up over this pretending they have access to all sorts of secret info. It is definitely a time for proof or shens rather than believing every grifter looking for clicks. 


  16. 17 hours ago, b47356 said:

    Why is a SCOTUS regular conference (not emergency docket) suddenly a magical thing? Especially since this "news" .. is a week old.

    FYI, odds are quite low that the court will take the case at this point.

    The reporting on this has been ass. With that in mind, my understanding is this is about appeal regarding injunction rather than hearing the actual case. 


  17. I see people saying go maytag. I had an absolute shit experience with maytag top loading HE washer. It last 2 years and sucked every minute of that.

    My $0.02

    If you are going HE, front load is the only reasonable option, and you should be getting a direct drive front loader to boot. My LG has been going strong for about 9 years now, but it is a direct drive. 

    If you insist on a top loader, you do not want an HE top loader if you can avoid. it. The general consensus is that if you want a non HE washer, speedqueen top loaders are the last best choice. 


  18. On 8/2/2023 at 6:49 AM, 124gr9mm said:

    But they used computers to help with their speculation, so that makes it valid, right?

    More pseudo science from agenda driven university programs that are funded by agenda driven billionaires. 

    You are missing the point I think. Namely that the RU gun violence research program has been going on for years with almost nothing to show for it. I suspect that is because they went into it with a couple key differences from most gun control research. First is that it was formed via a bureaucratic process to figure out how to spend grant money that could be grabbed easily. This means it isn't some academic's pet project, but a team of researchers that have to worry about being stabbed in the back by their fellow academics. Second is that it was formed with one of the goals being scientific rigor. Which makes that a tool for stabbing your fellow academic in the back. 

    They aren't our friends, but I do think they thought they would storm in and rapidly get some very strong and convincing numbers that satisfied academic rigor. I don't think they are getting them because this is the first article of real significance they have produced and it's also virtually treason to the current gun grabbers unless there is a strategy shift coming. Because the line that was to be toed currently is that there are WAY less gun owners than you think and that it just looks like more because half of them are super gun nuts that own a bajillion guns and also guns are disposable goods duh. Their current premise is that there are less guns out there, and most of them are in the hands of "super owners". 

    If you actually care about data driven research, it's very easy to show that even the larger common number for guns in circulation is pessimistic. For it to be true, gun manufacturers would have to be sitting on warehouses of guns, and we know from panic buying shortages, that they just aren't. They insist that the NSSF numbers are overly optimistic because guns leave circulation. I think they imagine they are disposable. Some have tried to argue numbers as low as 285 million guns owned. Realistically, NSSF numbers are missing a lot and represent home builds and pre-68 guns poorly.  Then you have the grabbers cherry picking owner rates and household ownership rates and seeing them not match up with less agenda driven polling or historic trend lines. They REALLY don't jibe with minting 8-10 million new gun owners. 

    This paper is basically confirming that not only do the straight forward numbers not add up and contradict the official position that gun ownership is dying out, but that all the statistical math you can do to try to verify your sample is a good sample and can be extrapolated with the population just doesn't jibe and that the simplest answer is that gun owners know you aren't their friend and will lie to you to keep you from knowing they are gun owners. And there really isn't an alternative theory that works. You can't, for example, say southern, rural, country fans that own trucks (lets call them type A owners) used to report an ownership rate of X and now it is X minus a lot and claim all those massive amounts of newly manufactured guns aren't owned by a different demographic that just isn't showing up in the data. If you can't show the loss of ownership by type A owners was offset by an increase in type B owners,  your only theory is that those owners must be destroying their guns. The problem with that is we are selling record numbers of guns. Which means that either type A owners are lying to you or type B owners are lying to you or you are just totally missing some population,  or demolition ranch sized collections are becoming the norm. 

    ATF numbers tell us we've been making a hell of a lot of guns because most gun manufacturers report each gun made and have for a while and it adds up to a really big number that does not account for 1) the increasing number of smaller manufacturers that don't participate in the voluntary reporting 2) self made guns which have been exploding in volume 3) a shit ton of pre-68 guns. 

    This paper basically says that the standard bloomberg position to explain away these numbers has to be wrong and that the real reason is that the target population is self selecting out of being surveyed. The RU researchers I'm sure see this as an article saying "we have to figure out how to reach these people so we can finally prove they are wrong and explain it to them that they are wrong and thus end gun ownership".  What they really wound up saying is "gun control researchers are a bunch of liars and we can prove they have to be lying about something."

     

     

     


  19. "Life Hacker reports that your average incandescent bulb costs $2 to $3. LEDs price out in the neighborhood of $5 to $7 a pop. Life Hacker says that according to the DOE, LED bulbs use 75% less energy than incandescent bulbs and last 25 times longer."

    What's everyone's experience with this? 

    I've never really seen the numbers put in articles represent either real world numbers or the actual real world comparisons people are doing. 

    First I'll say I hate incandescent bulbs generally. Mostly because everything had become sylvania grade dog shit. But that dog shit, in my experience, was about a buck a bulb unless you bought them in two packs. They also MAYBE lasted a year. I was living in a place where I had a lamp near the front door. Those sylvania bulbs would burn out if you closed the door to hard.  IMO peak incandescent was late 80s and early 90s when you could still get the funny shaped phillip's bulbs. Those things lasted like 3+ years if you didn't abuse them. 

    Second, most people aren't deciding between incandescent and LED, they are deciding between CFL and LED. 

    Cost wise, incandescent was about a buck, CFL and led cost about the same and seem to have settled at about $2-3 a bulb and they took a similar cost path to get there (starting out being rare and scarce and about $30 a bulb to ~$15-20 to ~$5-7 to ~$4 then about $2). 

    As for lifespan, IMO CFL wins. The cheap ones were the longest lasting as lifespan was something that improved over time. having them last 4+ years for the non ultra compact versions wasn't uncommon. The LEDs started out great. I jumped in at like the $15 ish dollar mark for the fixtures they would fit in, and those things lasted well over 10 years. The new ~$2 ones? Maybe 2 years. 

    Energy savings are much bigger. Incandescent to LED is huge. But most people were shifting from CFL to LED. And the energy savings there was not huge. 


  20. I've been putting together ARs for like 20 years and never heard of them. I don't think I'm the only one who hasn't heard of them, and thus the general silence. 

    • Like 1

  21. 12 hours ago, Displaced Texan said:

    That's Ghislaine's little black book. The problem  with considering that his client list is that pimping out teens was the side hustle that helped them main hustle, which was gaining influence. It's going to be their clients, their mundane contacts, and their aspirational contacts all mixed in unless they kept things very deliberately separated. And there's no way to tell if that's the case or not. 

     

    • Informative 1

  22. This is stupid. So much of NJ electricity comes from natural gas. All that banning gas appliances will do is power electric appliances with natural gas plus transmission losses. Unless they build more nuclear, that's pretty much going to be the deal. 

    Maybe it'd make some kind of sense if they redid solar subsidies and rules for net metering. Like if you are going to get subsidies and/or net metering you have to convert to all electrical appliances with the solar install. That would require them to get rid of the caps based on prior usage though. 

     

    • Agree 1
×
×
  • Create New...