BRaptor

Typical Comcast incompetence. You pay for them to mess up constantly and shove commericals down your throat. At about 2am, my cable box/DVR went through some kind of test mode, reset itself and shut itself off. Every time this government-sponsored monopoly fails (which is quite regularly), I just chalk it up to the price of living in the "great state" of new jersey (not capitalized on purpose, this state has lost its status as a "proper" name).

I hope not. That guy sounds like an ignorant, intolerant, racist asshole. "If you are a non-christian arab or muslim, I will not teach you the class...." Classy.

In reality, the two would never fight. Both are true martial artists. Neither would let a situation come to blows. Thus, there would never be a fight, therefore, no winner. As a student of Aikido's "evil twin" (hap ki do, or hapkido), I would like to think that an Aikido black belt could handle a karate do black belt. But, Chuck is a student of Bruce Lee (in case you didn't know). Out of respect for, perhaps, the best martial artist to ever live, I would like to think that a first generation student of Mr. Lee would win any match against any martial artist. So, I will side with Adam. Their clash would either cause or be the result of a terrible tear/warp/distortion in the space-time-energy continuum. All our lives would be at risk after that point. The video of Seagal in Japan might appear choregraphed, but it is not. When one Aikido artist faces another, they are extremely adept at predicting where their moves of aggression will place them (students of aikido are not comfortable with being aggressors, btw). And, one of the main philosophies of aikido is to remain one step ahead of your opponent, to predict and understand . So, a slight/careful move by Seagal may result in the opponent throwing himself to the ground to avoid injury or loss of strategic position in order to preserve his ability to continue the attack. This is where hapkido philosophy differs from aikido. Hapkido practitioners don't expect to encounter another aikido/hapkido student, so hapkido students are trained to break bones, dislocate joints and knock people out, whereas aikido practitioners depend on the knowledge of their opponent to understand that they've already lost, even while they're still standing. In a practical sense, aikido is more "noble," and if you truly practice for 15 years, you are pretty much physically untouchable. With hapkido/karate do, if you practice for 5 years, you're not untouchable, but anyone that touches you will wish that they hadn't. Unless, you come across an aikido practitioner of 15+ years, then, you will surely lose.

That's a pretty generous reading of the statute....generous to the state, that is. But, then again, the current case law is about as generous to the state as one can possibly get. So, even if we got a judge to agree with your idea, that might be considered a victory. I just don't get how much wiggle room can be made from the very clear (to me, anyway) words of: Either way, the NJ2AS probably has a rabbit or two in their hat to pull on towns like Clifton.

The NJ2AS is well aware of our plight; both in Clifton and many, many other localities. They are currently investigating a state-wide solution.

I carry my SOG Tomcat 3.0 everywhere. It's a great knife. I've snapped this thing open and closed hundreds of times and absolutely no "play" in its action or locking mechanism. BUT, at the same time, I also bought the SOG Fusion FF-10 and it's a TOTAL piece of trash. The action is stiff, harsh, unrefined and really, really, really poorly designed! It's the first knife that I know of that damages its own blade/edge because of its poorly-designed closing mechanism! Plus, the "made in China" blade is showing surface oxidation despite the fact that it has never seen water or any type of regular use. It's a total disgrace to the brand. So, you can do well, and you can strike out with SOG.

Yes, but you didn't see the asterisk and the fine print? * Exclusions apply. This portion not applicable if the government has some sad excuse. Void where we don't wanna follow our own rules. I thoroughly believe that this issue is absolutely ripe for revisiting, though. Give it some time.

I also live in Clifton, and go through the Clifton PD. My FID took 89 days. After my FID, PPP's took about 60 days. Clifton is not a "nightmare" to deal with, but they feel absolutely no responsibility to complete the process within 30 days. If you show up and ask for a status update before 60 days has elapsed, they'll tell you that you've shown up "too early" to ask for an update.

If you were to be buying my S&W 686, I don't have a PPP for it to show you. I lawfully acquired it in a state other than NJ. Of coruse, I would never sell my 686, either.

It's "cool," I guess. But, it's got A LOT of moving parts and many ways to fail. I wouldn't want to put my nation's security in the hands of that failure-prone thing, but that's what we're doing. yay My prayers are with the pilots and their families.

http://www.nj.gov/lps/ag-opinions.htm You're right. So, he'll need to issue a formal opinion to the NJSP.

This is the question you should be asking. It's not a matter of what I think, or what any other member of this board thinks. It's a matter of what will get your a "warning call," and then arressted/prosecuted. As an aside, any info from the NJSP is "official." But, strictly speaking, it still cannot be relied upon. Only judges acting in their capacity as a judge (issuing an opinion deciding a case) and the New Jersey Attorney General's Office can issue interpretations of NJ Statute in order for you to follow it, and then hide behind it from prosecution. So, perhaps we should write to our AG and ask for a formal opinion? LOL

Blksheep, I found a fix for that first video of yours.

That is beautiful. For you aerodynamicists and pilots, you can see his wings stalling at the very last moments of his approach. Very cool.

Very nice read! Nice to see it in Forbes, too.

That level of stupidity should hurt more than that.

Now, THAT'S funny! And, legally, any mark you make intending it to be your signature is, actually, your signature. So, you could go this route and call it "signing" the note. Question is, do you like SWAT visiting your house?

I say invite the teacher to the range? Or maybe schedule a brief "conference" with her to discuss what you've just said to us. She needs to be educated (pun) that guns are not "violent," and that nouns (except for a few really offensive ones) are also not violent. Good luck!

Bummer. I wouldn't have believed this if I hadn't read the story with my own brown eyes. Of course, the antis will put this one in their annals. I guess we all knew something like this would come down the pipes, eventually.

Since we're doing these:

Curious, then, how would you word Mr. Fiorino's complaint to properly show "true stripes" of 2A support?

This marine definitely brought the right weapon to this fight. His attorney, Mark Bederow, is the same attorney that got Jonathan Ryan (the FL landscaper that was caught with his "illegal" gun in the glove box) off scott free through jury nullification. Mr. Ryan was dead-pan guilty. But, the jury acquitted him. Jury told old Cy Vance and his band of miscreants to go fck themselves. This is a HUGE feat, because if a lawyer tells the jury to go through with "jury nullification," that is an instant mistrial (at least in NY, it is), and the bar association will likely look to sanction you, becuase you are supposed to KNOW that you can't do that. So, the fact that Bederow has accomplished this once is great. I would LOVE to watch him pull it off, again. Linkedy Link Link

If you have proof to support your "concern," please bring it forward. Otherwise, it's just a conjecture that you are using to attempt to undermine a position, because you cannot otherwise undermine it. There are a lot of great people that believe God and government should be kept separated by a clear, well-definined wall (under Amendment 1), and are willing to stand up and file suit, but fear public ridicule for standing up for what they think is right (hence the "Doe" filing--how are you attention/money mongering by filing a "Doe" lawsuit?!?!?!?!). Either way, MY pledge was written in 1892 and was last appropriately modified in 1924. McCarthy and his fear-mongering misfits fcked with it in 1954. I'm glad these people are trying to un-fck it.

What should make you more sick are the disgusting violations of rights that the McCarthy cronies did during the 50's (including perverting a beautiful, pure, all-inclusive patriotic pledge by adding his version of "Amurrricanism."). "Under God" should be removed. Then, this piece of art would be free of government intrusion. The U.S. Constitution was DESIGNED to protect the minority from oppression and persecution. It was not designed to give the majority the right to add religious references to national pledges and then require young children and their parents to choose between being indoctrinated with such references or "stand out in the hall" and feel like they're defective and ostricized from the community, because they don't have the right beliefs. It's a little sad that most people are unable to envision "freedom" from perspectives other than their own.

[little kid's voice] Tell me, again, Uncle Glock, what it's like to visit America. [/little kid's voice] Oh, Florida, how I miss the freedoms that I once took for granted.