Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

  • Feedback


AVB-AMG last won the day on February 14 2019

AVB-AMG had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

413 Excellent


  • Rank
    NJGF Addict
  • Birthday April 1

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location:
    Summit, NJ
  • Interests
    Special Interest Automobiles; Golf; Wine; Travel
  • Home Range
    Ranges: Cherry Ridge; RTSP/Randolph, NJ & Lehigh Valley Sporting Clays - Coplay, PA

Recent Profile Visitors

1,867 profile views
  1. @MartyZ: I have quoted above, the original post starting this thread by @Bully that sets up this thread with his hypothetical wish list question of what handgun would one get. He also arbitrarily set a limit of only one (1) handgun purchase per calendar year, in this case the this year 2020. FYI, some of us do not purchase handguns, rifles or other types of guns on an annual basis and only buy, when possible, what we really want, when we can actually afford it. @Zeke makes a very valid point that in order to become a proficient shooter, it is just as important to purchase ammo and then use it to practice with at a range on a regular basis so that one can improve their knowledge, accuracy and comfort level using each of their firearms. Actually, I am rather envious of your self-imposed limit of purchasing one gun per year, but also like you, I have other additional hobbies and interests that I spend my time and money on throughout the year. FYI - It has been several years since my last firearm purchase and this year, so far, my winter project is to significantly modify my first handgun, a Glock 17, Gen 4, 9mm, turning it into what I am comically referring to as a "Frankenstein Glock". The Nighthawk Custom / Korth Mongoose .357 Magnum revolver that I posted about in this thread has been on my purchase wish list for the past 18+ months, but would be a significant financial investment and therefore may have to wait awhile longer. Like many folks on this forum, satisfying a self-indulgent purchase of a firearm can be easily rationalized, but the actual cost investment factor may be prohibitive, especially when compared to the other expenditure priorities that are necessary in one's life. Maybe eventually....... AVB-AMG
  2. I currently do not own a revolver. If by chance, semi-automatic handguns are ever eventually outlawed for ownership by the general public, I would like to have one, but only one revolver. Since I only want one revolver, I would invest in a very high quality one and it would be chambered in .357 Magnum. My choice would be the Mongoose .357 with a 4” barrel, in black DLC finish, made by the joint-venture of Nighthawk Custom and Korth. As many of you are aware, Nighthawk Custom, located in Berryville, Arkansas, began offering a line of revolvers in 2016. These top-tier revolvers were the result of a collaboration with Korth-Waffen of Lollar, Germany. Since Korth revolvers are known around the world for their unrivaled quality and value, a joint-venture partnership between Nighthawk Custom and Korth made sense to expand into the American marketplace with a top-quality revolver. I had seen and held one at RTSP awhile back, but have never shot one. Does anyone here have one? If so, what are your thoughts about it compared to other high-end revolvers? AVB-AMG
  3. @Lakota: I am still waiting to receive some of the parts that I have ordered. Once I have everything, I will take it to the Gunsmith who I have used previously for other firearms-related work and have him do the necessary work. My guess is that I should get it back and can post some pictures of the completed custom job sometime in February. AVB-AMG
  4. @Bully: I definitely plan on keeping the original Glock slide and the Trijicon HD Night Sights that are mounted on it, along with all of the other original Glock parts. But I seriously doubt that I will revert to any of them once all of the noted upgraded parts and accessories have been installed. AVB-AMG
  5. UPDATE: Clearly crossing the line and creating a “Gucci Glock”, or more honestly and realistically a "Frankenstein Glock", I have dived into the deep end for my winter project and have committed to making multiple significant upgrades and additions to my Glock 17, 4th Gen, 9mm handgun. I want to have at least one of my handguns to have an Ruggedized Miniture Reflex (RMR) sight on it and my Glock seems to be the ideal candidate for that modification. Especially since GLOCKS and the Glock platform, lend themselves to be so easily modified. As many of you know and I have discovered, there a quite a few of companies who make after-market components for Glocks that are in many cases, real improvements over the original factory components. I realize that none of this is really necessary. But to me, it is an interesting exercise in attempting to accomplish anywhere from subtle to very noticeable improvements to this handgun’s accuracy and reliability, as well as improving my overall shooting experience with this customized creation. Also, I will admit it….some parts are being substituted primarily for cosmetic and aesthetic purposes, because I like the “look”. Some of the components were purchased and installed several years ago, but most of them are new as of 2020. The following is a list of all of the parts and components and accessories that I have purchased. Once I have received all of the new items, I will have a professional Gunsmith who really specializes in Glocks, perform the installation of all the components, since I want it done accurately: ZEV Technologies Z17 Citadel Stripped Slide w/RMR Plate, Black ZEV PKUPPER9 9mm Stainless Steel Parts Kit for ZEV Slide Aimpoint ACRO P-1 Red Dot Sight, Black Aimpoint Acro Red Dot Sight Mount Adapter Plate, Glock MOS, Black Trijicon Suppressor Night Sight Set - White Front/Black Rear SureFire X300 Ultra 1000 Lumens Ultra Weapon Light in Black Wilson Combat Stainless Steel Match Barrel ZEV Technologies PRO Flat Face Glock Ultimate Trigger Kit Tungsten Guide Rod & Spring Extended Aluminum Magazine Catch Zev Technologies Titanium Extended Slide Lock Lever Stainless Steel Pin Kit (4) with Titanium Gold Finish Magpul GL Enhanced Magwell Beaver Tail Backstrap Kit Chambermax TA-1 Charging Handle Yes, I realize that the cost of what I have already done to my Glock, as well as what I am considering doing to it will significantly exceed the cost of just purchasing a new ZEV OZ9, but since I already have and like my Glock 17, I would rather just do the upgrades. All of this is not economically rational, but a subjective exercise in attempting to obtain small but noticeable improvements to what I already have. As most of you know, a basic Glock 17 costs just around $600. All of these upgraded components and accessories have a total cost of just over $2,000. Some more practical folks may think that I am nuts to do this, but I am certainly enjoying the satisfying process of tweaking this handgun, which happens to be my very first handgun, and am looking forward to the seeing, feeling and shooting the completed result. AVB-AMG
  6. FYI - I saw and had to photograph this sign on the public restroom door, when we visited the Wooden Nickel Pub in Hillsborough, NC for the first time a couple of years ago for lunch. It is now one of our regular stops on our drive down from NJ to visit relatives in Chapel Hill, NC. This whole conundrum was created and became a national issue, when the North Carolina state legislature brought up their controversial public restroom bill banning transgender folks from using a public restroom that is different from their gender at their birth. I think that this pub responded in an elegant and humorous manner. Personally, I could not care less what gender someone thinks they are as long as they do not bother me. As far as I am concerned, there are many more issues that are far more important for all of us to be worried about and motivated to do something to address..... AVB-AMG
  7. @10X & @JackDaWack: I agree with the sentiments you both expressed in your posts above. FYI - below is a link to an article in today’s NY Times that provides yet another very good example of what happens when a community, society, country have been misled and form a mistrust of vaccines that then leads to a resurgence of a deadly disease, in this case measles. AVB-AMG The article is titled: ‘Why My Baby?’: How Measles Robbed Samoa of Its Young by Isabella Kwai Dec. 20, 2019 https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/19/world/asia/samoa-measles.html Here is a brief synopsis of that article: Measles is one of the most contagious diseases known to humans. One person with it can infect 12 - 18 others. Doctors can treat only the symptoms: fever, cough and a rash. Deaths in babies occur from complications like pneumonia. And for those who survive, measles can leave a lasting mark, including the possibility of weakened immune systems and neurological complications later in life. The measles epidemic example in this article is Samoa, the independent nation that is part of the island chain that includes American Samoa, with a population of 200,000. In 2013, 90% of infants in Samoa, around the age of one year old, were receiving the Measles-Mumps-Rubella (MMR) vaccine. But the rate gradually declined over the 5 following years, bottoming out at about 30% in 2018. Over these years, many Samoan’s would also go to and trust traditional healers instead, buying into fears of vaccine validity promoted by the anti-vaccine proponents. Also, many families failed to realize how serious measles can be. In 2018, the country’s faith in vaccination was shaken after two infants who had received the vaccine died, a tragedy that was later attributed to a medical mistake. Nurses had inadvertently mixed a muscle relaxant into the vaccine instead of sterile water. After the incident, it was understandable how many parents feared losing their child. As a result of the public outcry, the Samoan government recalled the vaccine nationwide, suspending its measles immunization program for 9 months as it conducted an investigation. In hindsight, the World Health Organization (WHO) said the decision helped create “a pool of susceptible children under the age of 5 years who are now the most affected” in the current epidemic. This measles epidemic began when a person with measles traveled to Samoa from New Zealand, which was struggling with its own measles outbreak. The government announced that there was a suspected case of measles on Oct. 9, then officially announced the outbreak on Oct.16th. In November, as the death toll reached 15, it declared a state of emergency, shuttering schools and barring children from public gatherings and extended the emergency through Dec. 29th. So far in 2019, at least 5,400 cases of measles have been reported in Samoa and 77 people have died, including young children and babies. In early December, the Samoan government took dramatic measures to control the disease’s spread after initial delays in the response to the outbreak. They declared a 2-day “medical holiday, to carry out a nationwide vaccination push, aided by global groups like the World Health Organization and UNICEF. The result so far, is that Samoa has achieved a 95% vaccination rate, which is considered to be a level for effective protection from the spread of the disease. The Samoan Parliament is set to consider legislation that would make vaccinations compulsory to enter school. In summation, the Samoans had a legitimate fear of the vaccine because of an error. Because of the need to fix the mistake and re-establish public trust in vaccinations, the Samoan govt. miscalculated how urgent it was to catch up on the vaccines. They didn't see measles coming. They also failed to move quickly enough when the outbreak first began. They also under estimated their risk which is higher than other peoples, since they are an indigenous people with no natural historical immunity, which is why measles infection spread like wildfire through their communities.
  8. @remixer Merry Christmas to all of you......especially to you remixer. While I know it is not your faith, I found the perfect Christmas gift for you to wear while doing your "trigger test", as well as to all of the holiday parties that you have been invited to: AVB-AMG
  9. At the risk of becoming a “Gucci Glock”, I am seriously considering making some significant upgrades to my Glock 17, 4th Gen, 9mm handgun to improve its accuracy and reliability and improve its overall shooting experience. Specifically, purchasing and installing/substituting the following components on the gun: ZEV Technologies Z17 Citadel Stripped Slide with RMR Plate ZEV Technologies PRO Flat Face Glock Ultimate Trigger Kit Aimpoint ACRO P-1 Red Dot Sight SureFire X300U-B Ultra High Output 1000 Lumen LED Weapon Light Several years ago, I did a number of upgrades to this Glock that included purchasing and installing: Wilson Combat Match Grade Stainless Steel Barrel Trijicon HD Night Sights Tungsten Guide Rod from The Glock Store Extended Magazine Release from The Glock Store Beavertail Grip from The Glock Store Yes, I realize that the cost of what I have already done to my Glock, as well as what I am considering doing to it will significantly exceed the cost of just purchasing a new ZEV OZ9, but since I already have and like my Glock 17, I would rather just do the upgrades. It is not economically rational, but a subjective exercise in attempting to obtain small but noticeable improvements to what I already have. Do you think I am nuts to do this or can you empathize with this urge to tweak, even if it does not make financial sense? AVB-AMG
  10. @remixer: I am afraid that your thinking, based on your quoted statements above, is not logical, nor correct, since it still ignores what most likely will subsequently occur after a so-called self-defense shooting in one’s home. It does not matter if you believe that the gun owner should or should not be charged with committing a crime in the act of self-defense. Even if someone, in this hypothetical case, a gun owner who uses their gun in self-defense, somehow miraculously is not charged with a crime, (highly doubtful!), or if they were and they were found “not guilty”, they could still be sued in Civil Court. The surviving family of the deceased “robber” could bring a “wrongful death” civil lawsuit or in some states a “survival action” civil lawsuit against the gun owner, even if there was no criminal charge brough against them. In that suit, the Plaintiff, (surviving family), could even sue for punitive damages. Even if the burden of proof is on the Plaintiff, to show that the Defendant (gun owner), was negligent in causing the deceased’s death, there will still be a trial in civil court, where the gun owner will have to participate. So, the issue still remains that the gun owner will have to fork out mega-bucks to pay for their legal defense. That is why there still remains a real need for Gun liability insurance to pay for this legal bill. BTW, my stated definition of “Right or Rights” transcends political party beliefs and preferences and is based on historical precedence and acceptance. The nuance I have been describing is between human vs. Constitutional rights. I recognize that human rights transcend citizenship and reflect a much broader value system pertaining to social, economic and cultural rights in how people relate to each other. I also understand that rights stated in the U.S. Constitution are mainly civil, legal and political rights, dictating how our government relates to people. AVB-AMG
  11. @remixer (as well as @silverado427 & @ChrisJM981): If only it were that simple...... Even if a Federal law were to be passed that would do what you say it would, in all likelihood, they would not be "immune from civil lawsuits". In the U.S. legal system, there would still have to be a trial by either a Judge or Jury to determine whether or not the inevitable charged crime was in fact committed or not. During that trial the gun owner who used their gun inside their home and caused either injury or death to another person, would still have to prove that they did in fact use their gun in self-defense in the process of attempting to prevent a criminal act. Therefore, the point that I have made several times now is still valid, which is that the gun owner will still have to spend a large amount of their money to pay for lawyers to represent them in that court case, providing their legal defense. The cost of those legal services would be covered by my envisioned Gun liability insurance, described earlier. With your thinking, it appears that you are really advocating that the U.S. legal system, derived from historical precedent, now abandon its long accepted sacred principal of the maxim that "a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty....", where the prosecution must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the crime(s) that have been charged are true. Is that the case....??? AVB-AMG P.S. - See my earlier post on explaining and defining what is a "right", where I have answered most of your other questions noted in your previous post.
  12. To expand further on whether or not healthcare is a “Right” we need to know what exactly is a “Right”….. I pulled out some of my old college philosophy textbooks for context and precedent and re-discovered that historically, Rights, in their proper philosophical context, pertained to freedom of action, not to material goods or services. They were believed to exist because of our rational nature as human beings, which is guided by certain human rights principles that affirm and prioritize the inherent worth and dignity of all human beings. When we say that something is a “right”, it describes a relationship between individuals and also requires us to consider what are our obligations to each other, as well as the government’s obligations to its citizens. Basically, a “right” is a moral principle defining and sanctioning a person’s freedom of action in a social context. We all know the phrase, “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness”, from our Declaration of Independence, referring to the unalienable rights given to all humans by their creator and which our government must protect. IMHO, I interpret that phrase to specifically mean the following: The right to life means one has the moral right to their own life, which I believe includes the right to access fresh air, clean water and food, but not to have it provided to you. The right to liberty means one has the moral right to act by their own judgement and make their own choices in life. The right to property means one has the moral right to go out in the world, earn and acquire property, and have a moral claim on the use and control of that property. (It doesn’t mean a right to be given property from others). The right to the “pursuit of happiness” means one has the moral right to pursue their chosen purpose and fulfillment in life. Other freedoms, like speech and religion, all derive from the right to life. While there are many different rights, they all have one thing in common; they impose no obligation or burden on anyone. The right to free speech simply means no one may use force to prevent that action. The right to practice religious beliefs means no one may forcibly prevent others from worshiping. I believe that not only is healthcare both a need and consumer good, but that in this day and age, all U.S. citizens should also have the “right” to have access to healthcare. This right should not be confused or construed to mean that unlimited healthcare goods and services should be provided to everyone. Over the past decade we all have certainly participated in the debate as to how to best provide healthcare to our citizens, whether or not it is the U.S. for-profit system where you get what you pay for, or a state-run universal system paid for via taxes. I do not agree with the early 20th Century philosophical movement of Social Darwinism and the subsequent Medical Darwinism, (survival of the healthier, or wealthier, fittest), that was used to justify both the horrific Armenian genocide, as well as the Holocaust. It contributed, or at least encouraged the acceptance of the concept of healthcare as a privilege available only to those with the financial means to afford it. Yet I realize that even if healthcare is a right, we have to accept that there has to be some acceptable baselines established. We need to accept that no one has a right to make poor decisions regarding their health and then expect others to bear the costs to treat the results. Also, realistically, we have to acknowledge that our resources are limited, and therefore choices have to be made as to what is covered and to what extent, (level of care and maximum cost expenditure). The challenging task of our democratic society is to define those limits, providing a morally minimum level of healthcare services, as well as not letting an unregulated free market ration access to those rights through price. Cynically, I also know that in our country, we have basically legislated and created a "right" to healthcare by forcing our hospitals to care for any patient who appears on their property, (@Zeke, say thank you Ronald Reagan....), whether or not that patient can or ever will pay for the services provided to them. In essence, we are all paying for the healthcare of everyone who doesn't pay. Our current U.S. health insurance quagmire just makes all of this worse. When insurance companies work out deals with Doctors and Hospitals to pay only a fraction of their bills, that drives up the rates for everyone, especially the uninsured or underinsured who are expected to pay the full price. Recognizing the good intentions of, (yes I said it again @Mrs. Peel….), yet also the glaring failures of the ACA, I believe that we need to institute a so-called, low-level universal plan with hard cutoffs. This plan would cover ER visits, preventive care, dental care and basic healthcare needs. Beyond that, the private insurance coverage would kick in, where each of us will have decided for ourselves just what "extras" we want to pay for. Beyond the basic universal care, if you aren't covered or can't pay, then no treatment will be given. I know that sound very harsh, but it lets everyone make their own decisions about their health, while still providing the “right” to a base level of healthcare. AVB-AMG
  13. @RUTGERS95 Well, there are many people, in addition to me, who disagree with your dismissal that “to think it’s (health care) is a basic right is beyond absurd”. These would include: The European Union and the United Nations (UN), who both recognize health care as a human right, and it is guaranteed in the constitutions of 38% of UN members. Pope Francis, who said: “Health is not a consumer good but a universal right, so access to health services cannot be a privilege". President Ronald Reagan, who in 1986 signed a law that guaranteed everybody access to emergency care at any hospital that took federal funds. FYI – Healthcare, as a right has been a core belief for Democrats since President Franklin D. Roosevelt's 1945 State of the Union Address where he outlined a second Bill of Rights for the postwar era. “The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health” was listed 6th among the eight enumerated rights. None of FDR's economic rights can be found in the Declaration of Independence or Constitution. But securing those rights, including healthcare, has gradually become over the past 75 years, part of our nation's laws and regulations. AVB-AMG
  14. @Kevin125: Well I disagree. The point of this effort acknowledges the fact, whether or not we like it, that there are many illegal aliens who are living in the State of New Jersey. I believe that is important (and a good thing), for these people to have some sort of STATE identification card that permits them to legally drive an automobile in this state, as well as to obtain the corresponding legally required automobile insurance, that will ultimately be to everyone's benefit. But as I said earlier, the NJ bill, as written and passed, has some real problems. Where I disagree with the NJ Bill on this subject is that they are creating two types of “licenses”, where one is what I described above and the other is one that is compliant with the Federal REAL ID rules. IMHO, that is taking this too far. Also, I realize that the passage of this bill will result in additional revenue being generated for the state, which was just one more incentive on the part of the state. Yes, I understand that this bill requires that for someone to obtain the REAL ID version of this license, that the applicant would still have to comply and meet the same 6-point identity verification system employed by the NJ Motor Vehicle Commission, that we have to, but I do not think it goes far enough There are a number of other States who have passed similar laws over the past 15+ years, where the NJ State Assembly could have learned from and incorporated additional sensible restrictions and requirements into the NJ bill, but did not. For example: I think that the law passed by Utah back in 2005 makes more sense. That law establishes a one-year driving privilege card for unauthorized immigrants. Applicants without a Social Security number must prove Utah residency for 6 months and provide a tax identification number. The card is expressly prohibited from being used for any identification purposes by a governmental entity. Also, Maryland’s law, passed in 2014 has some additional provisions that make sense. Their law authorizes the issuance of driver’s licenses to those who do not have lawful status or a valid Social Security number. New applicants must provide evidence that the applicant has filed at least 2 years of Maryland income tax returns or proof of residency or have been claimed as a dependent by an individual who has filed Maryland income tax returns. The licenses are not valid for Federal identification purposes. Finally, Connecticut’s law, passed in 2015 has some additional requirements before they will issue this license. Their law provides driver's licenses to applicants who submit a valid foreign passport or consular identification and proof of residency, regardless of legal presence in the United States. Applicants must file to legalize as soon as he or she is eligible. AVB-AMG
  15. @W2MC: It is a shame that you and some others here feel the need to exacerbate polarization by forcing a generalized label on someone, especially if it is inappropriate or incorrect. Did you ever stop for a moment to think that not everyone is so black & white in their political views and beliefs as you may be...? I believe that I, along with most of my friends and relatives are not so dogmatic or absolutely in lock-step with the views and programs and legislation proposed by either the Republican or Democrat elected representatives in Congress or the NJ State Assembly. I have stated what my political beliefs are on this forum on numerous occasions in various threads, so I will not repeat myself here. If you care to see them then you can do a search for them. BTW, all you have to do to confirm my point is look as some of the posts made by others here on NJGF for their conflicting views on our POTUS and his actions and programs. FYI - I do believe that no political party or individual politician is free of some level of corruption, nor are they unwilling to tell lies in support of achieving their political goals. AVB-AMG
  • Create New...