jackandjill

I have been living under the rock for couple of years now and someone came back from Nappen's recent talk and said Tasers/Stun Guns are illegal to possess outside one's home. How are tasers to be treated outside one's home ?

You know it, they know it and grandma knows it, that the intent of these stupid laws is nothing but making "paper" criminals out of law abiding citizens. Next time someone gets arrested (and they will) for having banned magazines over 10 rounds, I wonder how many of us will say "too bad, like it or not, the guy did break the law".

Distracted by work, and other hobbies. Good to see familiar names still around :-).

FTFY.

Sorry, "fully controlled by law abiding citizen" has nothing to do with second amendment. I have heard liberals argue about nukes, biological weapons etc. The answer is always short and sweet. ANY manner of weapon, force or "thing" that may be commonly used against people (supposedly by rogue entities) is fair game for a law abiding citizen to "keep and bear". The Constitutional rights (rather declarations) are built on premise that every person is born free and have every right to protect themselves in physical, verbal, legal aspects. Same (if not better) means of those aspects must be available to regular free person. Second Amendment, specifically, is built on premise that a free person must have same (if not better) access to ANY common weapon that may be deployed against him/her. Lets also remember that Constitution does not give special powers to people. It simply spells it out so a) Traitors like Libs / Politicians/Judges etc who trample on it cannot claim ignorance when/if time comes b) Provides a moral compass and justification to Citizens. Now, God Forbid, should the day come when some entity (lets not take any names) use nukes, biological weapons against common Citizens, Constitution shall remind those citizens that equal opposing force options are their birth right.

Same happened to me before. I still have couple of physically broken windows laptops sitting around. For my kinda use :-), I like the Macbook Pro build.

As much as I dont like "Apple" in other areas, I moved to Macbook Pro about 3 years ago and never looked back. Works rock solid, compatible with streaming and what not and upgrades are always included and free. I bought a used / late model Macbook Pro 15inch, with retina display, 256G SSD and 8 GB ram for about $900 - private seller. Regularly backup important stuff to external drive. Get firefox (or chrome) for browsing, install couple of those privacy extensions / ad blockers. Secure your network and you should be good to go.

Who Killed Carol Bowne ? NJ GUN CONTROL DID.

How one should handle a traffic stop and search request is very context sensitive and individual matter. I see no reason to handle a situation involving a legal firearm, being transported in legal manner no different from any other traffic stop or search request , unless law mandates disclosure (and some State do have those). If its your thing to start spilling the beans or your thing to ask for lawyer right out the gate or something in the middle.

Sorry for thread drift. Assuming this happened in NJ, how did Officer know the gun was "purchased legally" ? May be he just checked to see if its stolen ?

Small Print: I hope you take this in good spirit.

This thread shifted around quite a bit, as expected of threads started by certain folks. On the topic of thread drifting, I am not worried about idiots & incompetents that need enlightening or training as much as I am about smart, sane people who are out to play psychological games just for the fun of it. In my worthless opinion, they are far more dangerous.

I cannot speak for the later part of that, but giving too little credit and dismissing his talent is the BIGGEST mistake Dems and MSM made and continue to do so.

To really understand WHY, we have to get deep into Second Amendment itself and other important principles of Freedom and Equality. Every person in a truly free society is independent, equal and free. Power (speech, legal and physical) is essential part of defending that freedom. No group, organization, entity or even Governing body can be more powerful than those free individuals of the society. There are exceptions about people incarcerated after Due Process protections. Constitution (especially those amendments) codify different facets / aspects of those powers that are inherent to any free person. Free Speech (verbal), Due Process (legal), Second Amendment (physical) etc. SCOTUS knows this very well (yet they skirt the issue). Hence their dancing around "commonly used". Once something is commonly used by Govt (or other group) its a fair game for a free person. In fact, one could argue that a free person has to exercise something before it becomes candidate to be exercised by a group, entity or Governing body. Lets talk automatic weapons. As long as they are "commonly used arms" by any organization, entity or governing body, they MUST be available to all other "free and equal" entities of society a.k.a regular, law abiding Joe and Jane. Now, some people (read, liberals) try to counter with extreme arguments such as "what about Nukes". Guess what ? If they are "commonly used arms", then they are fair game. But lets hope they dont become "commonly used" arms, to begin with.

I have been speculating a lot lately. So let me speculate for the other side a bit. I watched the video. Everybody in that room is playing poker and trying to put best poker face they can, including the disgrace-to-human-race sitting on left of President. Trump is the guy who doesn't show cards at all. The fact that "no one" knows where he stands on lot of things is testament to it. Trump want Congress to fail and fail miserably. He wants all these proposals to get so outrageous and packaged together, that the Congress will keep themselves busy for some time and fail miserably (again). He is thinking that including National CCW INCREASES chances of compromise and success of A bill passing and not give us much in real National CCW anyways. In that video, he insisted on a "comprehensive" bill , not multiple bills. If he was really interested in stupid solutions , he could have asked to push every bill on its own. Now, if Dems wise up and start pushing individual bills, Trump can veto them and complain that he did not get a comprehensive bill. If RINOs give in and pass a ridiculously large, "comprehensive" bill, Trump can blame RINOs and move on. Or he could veto it under "not comprehensive enough". He could sign it under justification that WE (The People) dont have balls to reign in RINOs. Remember, I am speculating a lot.