db1775

+1 to that. I went a different way after my first .22 and opted for a 12ga pump instead of another rifle as my next purchase. The .22 is fun, but nothing like the feeling of blasting away with a shotgun, and it won't bust the budget either. And the shotgun cured me of any misplaced recoil aversion as well.

Hi -- I am thinking of taking the hunter's ed course and have a question. For the field exercise, do you need to bring your own shotgun, or do they provide one? I sold mine and haven't bought another yet, but want to register for the practical soon.

I am usually never shocked by the hypocrisy and stupidity of Officialdom, but even I was surprised at how quickly they classified this as a terror attack. Funny that they had trouble doing the same for the Ft. Hood massacre. That required some serious investigation. I am fairly certain that the official designation of that true act of terror still stands as "workplace violence".

Generally a +1 to this comment. However, I'd really love to see these people get off their asses riot on the gangbangers who infect their neighborhoods for a change. It just strikes as kind of cowardly, yet typical, to push and provoke people you know aren't going to gun you down. I'd respect them more if they collectively went Charles Bronson on the people causing the problems in the first place. And it always amazes me that urbanites riot when the scumbags among them are targeted by the police, as in the 1992 LA riots. As much as I cherish the Constitution, in practice I would choose something more substantive to put my kids in harm's way and riot over, like wrongful no-knock warrants on the incorrect address, or these lowlife gangsters shooting down little kids in the streets (ie Chicago), or TSA agent jamming their hands down my pants. There are so many good reasons out there to get angry, and people always choose the worst one.

I was never into handguns, ever. All I had was rifles, and one Rem 870 for HD. I don't compete, and knew there was zero chance of ever being able to carry in NJ, so I saw no need for a pistol. Then one day I just changed my mind and decided i needed one, so I finally went through the paperwork process and got an M&P9. I love the frikkin thing, it is awesome, but it is all I know about handguns. I don't see the need for me to own more, but I have to say that the thought of owning a revolver is gnawing away at me. But I don't think I have the patience to go through the paperwork thing again. I have no regrets about my choice so far -- except that maybe I should have went for one of the models with a thumb safety.

Fumanchu - (bitter sarcasm alert) man, you must be one of those crazy tin foil hat-wearing conspiracy nuts. Just ignore any drones you see overhead in the coming years, they will not really be there. And just look away when the TSA agents at Newark Airport jam their hands down the front of your kids' pants or under your wife's shirt - its not really happening. This is all just your mind reinforcing what your inner right wingnut self wants to believe. Remember, we're crazy and It Can't Happen Here. Keep repeating that and all of this will go away. Your rights are doing juuuuuuussst fine.

I could accept being limited to 10 rd mags, if they included their protection details within the scope of the law too. I'd really respect him if he limited his security to only carrying six-shooters, but like all of these people they lack the courage of their convictions.

The context that I was commenting on here is not that of the story, but the political climate in which we are living, driving how one reads or doesn't read the article. In any other political context, this story would not have been a story. Whether these Marines are going to be deployed to AfPak, Louisiana or Jupiter is irrelevant, I think. With the advent of domestic drone use, TSA and Homeland Security procedures, and all of the other privacy concerns floating around, combined with a very real distrust of government out there, it is not surprising to me that the OP interpreted the story the way he did. As far as executing people on the side of the road, I believe the OP was referring generally to the NDAA, not necessarily to these Marines. There is still a great deal of controversy about what exactly the NDAA allows the President to do, so I will take Shawn's phraseology here as hyperbole, not a willful desire to cause panic.

I think the importance of this news is in the context of the times. Several years back, this would not have merited notice. But this story was at the top of the center column on Drudge for two or three full days. It is undeniable that people are starting to take notice about issues relating to privacy, civil liberties, etc, even people who don't yet own guns. Whether or not this is anything other than routine, I don't really see a need to worry about it yet. But as I have repeatedly said, I will never understand the "it CAN'T happen here" mentality.

Maybe its just the traditionalist in me, but when I get ready to participate in a riot, I leave my wife and kids at home. I don't trust anyone or any group implicitly, but in a riot situation I'd trust the police more than an idiot bringing their kid(s) to a riot. They have a habit of doing this out there in LA. In Somalia in 1993 idiots did the same thing -- whole families marched to the sound of the guns at the Black Hawk Down incident and got caught in the crossfire. Provocateurs use people like this as shields, which is something not being looked at. In that quick snippet, you can't see if anyone is beyond the people that got hit with the beanbags - maybe the real target of the police officer(?). In that chaotic environment, can we assume that the cop saw and processed that there were small kids in front of him? I'm not willing to make that assumption, given the chaos in that video and the known effects of adrenaline. And the dog was not deliberately sent after a child -- the officer seems to me to have lost control of the animal, judging by the frantic way he ran after it (and from what I've read elsewhere). Come one now, you can't seriously be comparing this to Tianenmen Square? This doesn't even stack up to the Boston Massacre, at least in body count. The one way it does mimic Boston is in the stupidity of the "victims". This is NOT Syria -- the cops were using bean bags, confronting a very angry mob who was unintelligent enough to bring their children to a riot. A good parent, a responsible Citizen doesn't do that. And the cops were not breaking down doors to specifically target children, so I think we should cut them at least a little slack until the smoke settles -- the riots are still going on out there, largely because of the way the story is being erroneously hyped as "COPS GUN DOWN WOMEN AND CHILDREN!!!!"

Mr SurfBoard -- I don't put much stock in Dick Morris' analyses, nor in anything the NRA says. HOWEVER, I agree that the aim of the treaty is in line with Obama's ultimate 2A End Game -- that seems like common sense to me. I also don't buy into the "it can't happen here" mentality as I put NO faith in the solidity of any position held by paid-for/buyable Senators. Anyone remember the Cornhusker Kickback? Even the supposed "redlines" put into the negotiations by Hillary are not written in stone. Regarding the statement above about impeaching Obama if he enforced this treaty, has he yet been impeached for the military operation in Libya last year? Not even a wink-and-nod to Congress, but he did cite UN/NATO approval for initiating hostilities. And when finally asked about it by the press he disingenuously said that the War Powers Act did not apply because our planes were not in 180 actual days of continuous combat, but less than 180 days stretched out over 6-9 months. Now, if THAT kind of willful and disgusting disregard of Congress and the Constitution doesn't scare the sh*t out of people, I don't know what will. Do I believe that this, still to be fully outlined treaty, is a real threat? Maybe not at this time -- but this man cannot be trusted, at all. And neither can the supposed positions of 67 Senators this far out from the ratification process. (Concurrence = Ratification). It just makes more sense, to me, to be touchy and reactionary regarding this issue, rather than complacent or trusting in Congress.

The POLICE CHIEF in Aurora just said the loser used, and I quote, an "AR-15 ASSAULT RIFLE". Its not just the news people. Sigh.

Wow -- I didn't think it would go THAT quick. I only sold it to him on Saturday.

Why is it always Conservatives/pro-2A people who have to perform philosophical acrobatics to defend/explain positions? You NEVER hear Liberals worry about what people are going to think about their support for medical procedures that suck the brains our of babies just before birth? They use euphemisms liberally, but they don't have to lie or elect less stridently liberal candidates to appease anyone. Why can't a pro-2A candidate go on the offense and paint an Anti as someone who wants you defenseless before criminals and a potentially tyrannical gov't (the point of the 2A in the first place)? I'll never really understand the win at all costs strategy, when even winning does us no good, or very little. Then again, I am turning into one heck of a pessimist where politics are concerned -- I don't see much hope that things can be made better for us, at least here in NJ.

The 15-22 is definitely a fun rifle, even without all of the tacticool stuff. I just sold mine to Bullseye Tactical in Woodbridge. I don't know how close you are to them, but if buying used is an option you would consider, you can probably pick it up at a good price there -- it is only two years old, lightly used and in very good shape and included three mags. I unloaded it because I bought a S&W 15 in 5.56 and, looking at my cabinet, realized that everything I had was black/polymer (rifles, shotgun, handgun). Lately, I have been finding myself even eyeing lever actions -- so it was time to get some diversity in my small collection and add something with a wood stock. You can't go wrong with a 15-22, but if money is an issue, maybe look at a used one first.

I have a Remington 870 tactical, and I just replaced the standard stock with with the Blackhawk pistol grip and adjustable stock. It comes with a nice recoil pad, and only costs $70. It is easy to install and handles the recoil better than the original stock, and the adjustability of the stock offers a better fit, I think. And they make it for both the Remington and the Mossberg. http://www.blackhawk.com/product/SpecOps-NRS-Shotgun-Stock,1157,165.htm

The reason I pointed this out is because they mentioned int he story that the police just happened to find the suspects in the very last car they searched. One thing the story does not say is how many cars were in line before and or after this car with the guns in it? The police were given no information on the suspects whatsoever. So, they arrested the guys with the guns in the car. Playing the "What if" game here, what if the first guy in line was carrying, or the guy in the vey middle of the pack? Would the cops have just stopped there? Based on the fact that they said they received no other description of the criminals, they would have had to, right? Why keep searching? And for how long? Again, the facts as they are told here are spotty. How many cars were searched? How many were at the intersection? Did they search all four directions of hte intersection or only one? Were cars still rolling up tot he intersection while the searching was going on? It just piqued my interest to think of what their procedure would have been had they found an innocent guy with a gun in his car ten or twenty cars before the robbers. And of course, if they find two cars with guns, wouldn't they have to take both of them in? Just to play it safe?

One of the things I find most interesting about this situation is that the reliable tip only told the police that the bank robber was in a car at the intersection, no other descriptive details were given. I'd love to know how the tipster knew it was the bank robber, and why they gave no other details about the person fo the vehicle. That sounds really weird to me.

That's funny (not "haha" funny, just interesting) that they can get the right guy when they want something from you, but when it comes to your rights its a big clusterF.

Anyone else find this police action in Aurora, Co. disturbing? I get that they were looking for an armed bank robber, and actually ended up catching the guy by rounding up everyone stopped at this traffic light but, just like the drones issue, while it may work but it makes me kind of uneasy. If they don't do this an armed robber gets away. But what if they find an innocent guy who is carrying legally? He'll have to get booked too, right, until everything is sorted out? http://abcnews.go.co...or-bank-robber/

THANK YOU! Long guns virtually unregulated . . . I love PA. I only own long guns, so I'm good after all. I'd like to do myself a favor and get a damn AZ or FL address instead. But about an out-of-state license, how does that work? I don't have a carry permit here in NJ. If I get one of those licenses, it allows me to carry in certain other states?

Don't any of these state agencies believe in interperative statements for dummies like me? I live in NJ and shoot in PA, so I guess I break the law regularly. I guess this means I'm ok, but does an FPID count as a license for this purpose? (4) Any persons engaged in target shooting with a firearm, if such persons are at or are going to or from their places of assembly or target practice and if, while going to or from their places of assembly or target practice, the firearm is not loaded. (11) Any person while carrying a firearm in any vehicle, which person possesses a valid and lawfully issued license for that firearm which has been issued under the laws of the United States or any other state.

I'm not certain yet how much I buy into the idea of a real, gov't-driven ammo shortage. However, I do know where I stand on the "It Can't Happen Here" mentality. It can happen here, and painting people who are acting on this as hysterical is counterproductive. I have been buying ammo moderately and slowly over the past several years out of an abundance of caution, not just for plinking or training, because I have views on where I think this country is headed. I have no pretensions to being a suvivalist, or fantasies of urban breakdown, but it makes sense to stock up anyway because of the "what ifs" in life. Remember, in 2008 there were very sober people in the highest levels of government warning of tanks on the street if TARP wasn't passed. When government resorts to that kind of hyperbole it forces citizens to respond in kind. So, even though the shortage may not be real, the incompetency and recent actions of our government are creating a vacuum in which this kind of speculation will fester. One thing we can be certain of, if this kind of possible misinformation was being used to cause instability in another industry, you could be sure that BHO would be thundering from the pulpit against it.

There's all kinds of great operational reasons for covering the skies in drones. However, the thought of another dimension of surveillance in our lives makes me uneasy, though I cannot fully articulate why -- something just seems wrong about it, even un-American. As part of a specific, limited operation, I think they are fine, but as part of a continuous aerial patrol, that scares the heck out of me -- and I don't have anything to hide. As an American, I don't like the idea of people, corporations and the State looking over my shoulder. I already get enough of that with speed traps, traffic light cameras, modern direct marketing, GPS tracking and the near total surveillance of (or ability to surveil) all communications. Drones, designed for use against our enemies, seems to me to be the last straw. The LE element here, which I respect greatly, can reasonably argue that it will make their jobs easier. But there is something that is really unsettling about them being used on our soil. In the wake of the Second World War, the government granted itself the power to erect the National Security State to deal with the Soviets. It looks like the government is granting itself the same power to erect some sort of proto-police state in the drawdown of our operations in Iraq and AfPak. I am NO hippie or OWS advocate. Far from it. But I don't think we can be too flippant in dismissing the possibility of serious civil unrest, or the ability of government/police to expand their powers and capabilites at the expense of the Consitution and our tradition. That is how we got where we are today. The irony here is that it has been the Leftist/Big Gov't policies that have been jammed down our throats for most of the past century that are the cause of the forces ripping the culture apart today. And, sadly, it will take vastly increased police powers, which the OWS crowd pretends to hate, to either hold it together or put the pieces back in order.

It is a sad commentary on the state of the modern game, though, that no one on the Devils jumped in and at least tried to knock Giroux' block off. That's the best way to keep cheap shots like that under control.