Mrs. Peel

So many breaches of the White House property in recent years - what the hell is going on? From what I've read in several articles, in one of these most recent intrusions, this guy "Tran" was apparently on the property undetected for 17 minutes - even peering into windows - while Secret Service agents ignored alarms. And more recently, someone drove a stolen car up to one of the gates, claiming to have a bomb and saying upon arrest that "this was a test." Sure, most of these people are kooks, but a kook can be dangerous. And don't you think our enemies analyze this stuff and may feel emboldened? To me, this should have absolutely NOTHING to do with your voting habits or political persuasion (which is why I'm posting it in "General Discussion"). An assassination of POTUS (or other high-ranking official) on the grounds of the White House would be a devastating event with wide-ranging repercussions. Everything should be done to prevent it. I've personally had this concern for years now. So far, I thought the most chilling event happened when Obama was president... that one case where the intruder made it deep into the building. I'm no security expert, but this continuous chain of events seems so inexcusable. - do these ongoing failures show a deeply rooted, ongoing cultural problem within our Secret Service? - or, do you think it's more about a lack of funding, inadequate staffing, etc? - why does it take so bloody long to replace the current fence with the planned 13-foot one? We've been hearing about the fence for a year now... why hasn't construction started yet? This ain't rocket science. - Food for thought: if something like this happened in Israel, how long do you think it would have taken them to close the security gap? I've afraid this situation not only shows that our Secret Service might have some serious challenges, but it's also evidence of the bureaucracy and complacency that always seems to settle deep into our government ranks, regardless of what administration is in power. Sad.

Summary: apparently Glock is none too happy that the new U.S. military contract went to Sig Sauer. They are contesting. The article also hints that in order to bid on the contract in the first place, Glock must have developed some new "modular" Glock - as that was required by the contract. So, I suppose that might be tantalizing to you Glock Fans... what did they develop? And will they be bringing it (or some of its features) to market commercially? Link here: http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/shootout-over-the-armys-new-dollar580-million-handgun/ar-AAnGGTD?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartandhp (it links to a couple other articles as well). Happy reading.

Ohhh... congratulations to you! Fabulous news.

Keep in mind.. this may have been one individual that posted it... with no "organized" plan behind it. If one of the 2A groups did it "properly" - with advance notice to their members of the "go live" date, an email push with instruction to sign it THAT DAY, they could likely reach 100,000 signatures in less than 48 hours. It's all a matter of the communications planning behind it... in this case I'm guessing there was NONE. Perhaps this could be re-posted? Or something with similar wording? What I'm disgusted about is that I sent alerts to SEVERAL 2A organizations - and heard SQUAT from each of them. Crickets. That bothers me more than anything. However, silver lining... the other one "repeal the NFA" went through. Still sends a message.

I just noticed that this is on tonight - a continuing saga of the recalled triggers on the Remington 700. My guess is that focus will be on: tearful bereaved family members, Leslie Stahl looking pensive and stricken, gun companies portrayed as "evil incarnate"... and much hysteria about the 1Mill guns that did NOT have the trigger replaced. I don't discount the concern, mind you... if there's a real problem. I'm just preparing for a very overwrought spin on the story. Maybe we'll be delightfully surprised...and see a rational, measured presentation? Doubt it.

Don't worry. We'll talk. It would be a nice collectable though! :-)

Wow. Kizmet? The Mrs. Peel character (who I took as my avator obviously) was packin' a Webley on the Avengers... you could be on to something there, kman! LOL.

Ha! The video is on my calendar for tomorrow's lunchtime viewing. Ought to be interesting! Just as a side note... for some reason, I'm utterly convinced I could shoot without hesitation to protect a loved one... but not necessarily to protect myself. And since I live alone.... ruh-roh! Is that freakin' weird? Am I the only one with that dilemma? Eeegads... this is dredging up all kinds of vexing issues of self-worth, self-identify, etc. I might need therapy by the time I'm done, LOL. Maybe I'm not glad I posed the question.

And thanks to the recent posters as well. I'm glad I posed the question... because I'm already realizing I have a major... ummm... readiness problem. (Of course, I'm a person who has a "catch and release" policy for ladybugs that enter the house.... soooo, I guess that speaks volumes about my nature. A rescuer, not a destroyer). I mentioned this issue to my older brother, and his immediate, vehement response was: Worry less about the goddamn neighbors and more about yourself. If something is happening in your house that's so bad you need to grab a gun, you need to focus 100% on destroying the threat. Mind you, my brother is the sweetest, most easy-going guy you'd ever meet...and he's never held a gun in his life. Frankly, I was startled by his response. Yet, it meshes with what High Exposure said... and several others too. I admit, that kind of aggressive thinking feels so foreign to me. Must be "man-think"?? LOL. I can see I have work to do.

Enjoying all of the great feedback... you folks do NOT disappoint... - Smokin & Griz - sent you PMs. Thanks! - S-Cat - your input is more than welcome. We are all learning every day and I can already tell you know more than me! - I didn't even know about safety slugs - thank you,10x. I read up on them already. Sheesh... dizzying gadgetry w/this hobby! - bhunted and sota - damn, if I could afford it, I would just hire you 2 as my badass bodyguards... I like your "take no prisoners" attitude. - Doll - Your post reminded me I haven't taken any training but the basic pistol class. Now that I'm shooting regularly, I should really make formal training an ongoing thing. (As for the splatter-paint shotgun - very cute, but won't a BG start laughing at me? It's not very... um... intimidating). - Son of Sam - I burst out laughing at your email.... you are correct, sir... For the record...NO! Heaven's, no... I am not a "gun fighter". I'm a creampuff... a newbie who shoots a .22 at bulls eye targets. Fortunately, I'm sensible enough to have NO delusions of grandeur, NO hero fantasies of gunning down a BG .... NONE! In fact, my main emphasis has been adding improvements that make my house a less appealing target (I removed tall shrubs blocking the porch, added landscape and motion detector lighting to my dark yard and a few other things. Those efforts will continue over time as money allows. I have several other things I'd like to improve in the yard and house). I tend to be pragmatic, so it seems to me that doing all that I can to avoid a HD situation in the first place is the best defense of all.

This is a hypothetical question... but only hypothetical in that I'm not shopping for anything quite yet. The concern is real... so I'd like to "crowd source" an answer from you experienced smarty pants out there! How much should the layout of a house and neighborhood affect the choice of home defense firearm? The thought of shooting a gun at an intruder is scary enough, but I am also very concerned about a bullet missing and hitting a neighbor. I own an 1860s Victorian... the master bedroom has 6 tall windows distributed on 3 walls. The bedroom entry door is also paned glass and in the hallway immediately beyond that door is yet another large window. No exaggeration, if I were standing near the closet where the gun would be stored, almost any direction I'd be shooting in to hit an intruder is mostly single-paned glass (there's just enough solid, plaster wall to hold up the damn ceiling, LOL). Add to that, all the houses have narrow side yards and shallow front yards. (From my front yard, I could probably toss a Frisbee into 5 other yards). It's.. um... that cozy! And the other houses are loaded with their own big, single-paned windows. Plus, people sit on their front porches late at night on summer evenings, stroll down the sidewalks with strollers and pets, etc.... all quite Normal Rockwell, but doesn't that density add a lot of risk? I didn't have any particular interest (beyond idle curiosity) in trying out a shotgun, but I'm starting to wonder if a shotgun is the only safe choice for this unique situation...? I don't have a clue really about ballistics, but I'm guessing even a hollow point bullet would slice through a couple of single-paned windows like butter, without expanding and without losing much force, am I right? Whereas... would shot pellets lose most of their velocity by the time they passed through a couple of glass windows and traveled 30-40+ ft? Any insights on this would be very appreciated. Oh, and in case you're naively thinking that the close proximity should help to keep everyone safe... that's what I thought too when I picked out the house... only to have one of my female neighbors stabbed to death by a stranger a year or so after I moved in. Another fantasy rudely shattered.

As I wrote that, I thought - I give it 2 hours before someone makes a wiseass response. I should have figured it would be you, Zeke. Now... knock it off. Show a little respect for the unrequited love I hold for the uber-tasty Mr. Depp... LMAO!!!

My long-time crush on Mr. Depp just deepened. :-)

Seriously?! Wow, I didn't know that. The guy that acted so brilliantly as plucky mountain man Jeremiah Johnson doesn't like guns, huh? Irony noted. If you apply that ban consistently though, you'll be banning... what?... like 90% of Hollywood films? Because that attitude is rampant in Hollywood. I like movies too much, but I respect your right to boycott it if you so choose.

Have you seen it? Came out several years back, but somehow I missed its release and in the years since. I just caught it on cable (while home procrastinating.... er, working, I mean. Yeah, I'm working). I give the film an enthusiastic "2 Thumbs Up". "All is Lost" stars Robert Redford as a retiree sailing solo across the Indian ocean. His sailboat is hit by a floating shipping container and sustains serious damage. The entire rest of the film focuses intently on his quiet, gritty and increasingly desperate struggle to survive on the ocean as one thing after another goes wrong. Again, it's quite literally a quiet film w/almost zero dialog, no musical score, and it's not fast-paced either. So, if you're a hardcore action film buff who likes car chases and loud explosions, it may not be your cup of tea... but I personally found it to be riveting and Redford was terrific. It's rentable on Amazon... I'm guessing on Netflix too. Or you might try to catch it on the Audience cable channel. Now, back to my proc...work!

Looks like we have 2 threads running on this: http://www.njgunforums.com/forum/index.php/topic/84974-whitehousegov-petition-repeal-nfa/?hl=repeal I'm going to PM a moderator right now and ask them to lock the prior one. I'm also going to PM the OP (above) and ask him to amend his original post to remind people that it's a 2-step process to vote - you vote online and then verify through your email. Yeah, I know, no one on here is stupid... I just think that anyone who's hurried could miss that, and we want everyone's vote to count. Also, as someone else mentioned on the last thread... the 100,000 votes has been reached for the "Repeal the NFA" petition... the "Hughes Amendment" petition has over 16K - still a long way to go, but way higher than it was just 48 hours ago when I last looked at.

Indeed. Very particular. People... we have to maintain dignity! ... and strive for civility! Just say NO to loincloths. NO to outhouses. NO to the graphic poop humor (and I'm looking at you, Newtonian). What is this... Lord of the Flies? Sheesh. Such wild men on here....

Yeah, I give you credit... I admire that whole self-sufficient, back-to-nature Walden's Pond kind of thing... but I personally haven't roughed it since I was a kid. I'm not sure I could anymore. Spoiled?... weeell... cabin with no indoor plumbing vs. 4-star hotel? Ummm...NO CONTEST! :-) If there is an apocalypse... I won't last 30 days. I'll be zombie grub.

Seriously... who knew we had so many mountain men in NJ? Sheesh. I'm with you, Old Glock Guy... indoor plumbing is not "optional".

Zeke! Knock it off! I have plans that day and will not be attending. My supposed purchase of any shotgun paraphernalia exists in your mind only.

I'm not saying Fukushima will kill us all, Smokin .50 - but I am arguing that the problem will undoubtedly have implications for human, animal and plant health as the problem is MUCH larger than people have realized. You have to consider the scale. For instance, take the reports that came out in the summer of 2011 - where it was calculated that the cesium-137 released by Fukushima was already equivalent to that of 168 Hiroshima bombs. [ http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/japan/8722400/Fukushima-caesium-leaks-equal-168-Hiroshimas.html ] True, it's not the same immediate destruction as a nuke going off... but consider... this is now nearly 6 years later... and that puppy has been leaking the whole time. So, how many Hiroshimas does it equal now in terms of radiation release? And here's the kicker... keep in mind, we only just found out that it's now leaking FAR more radiation than it was back in 2011. So, all of those nuclear documentaries you've seen?... they were made prior to this latest knowledge. Again, I tend not to get caught up in alarmist thinking... but I do believe we are in completely unchartered waters with regards to this disaster and the lack of technology to contain it. The earthquake in 2016 may have made the situation far worse... but the truth is, it doesn't sound like "the experts" have a clue how long it's been spitting out these far higher levels of radiation. IMO, all along this has been the biggest under-reported story of the decade... and it's still not getting the attention it should. I'm not convinced they're throwing enough effort at this. If they need special robots with robust, shielded electronics - and they apparently do need that - they should be harnessing the efforts of every company on the globe with expertise in that field. I'd feel better if I knew that was happening and at a rapid pace. I'm just really doubtful as so much of this situation was bungled from the get-go. Color me cynical.

Yeah, I'm not prone to tinfoil hat conspiracy thinking - or - anxiety for that matter, but I confess... I've been closely tracking the Fukushima event ever since it happened... and I have NEVER been convinced that it is anywhere near under control. These most recent articles coming out (confirming melt-through in Reactor 2) are downright chilling... and yet the coverage has been surprisingly scant and low-key. I mean, think about it: they just diagnosed this melt-through... NOW?? Because they couldn't even get close enough to that mess? And now that they know, they don't have the technology to do anything about it? WTF?? How is this not on every front page of every newspaper around the globe? As I see it, here we are years later after the initial disaster, and yet the situation is still very much unfolding. We have no idea what might be the worst to come out of that initial event... and that's even if it never deviates from its current, glacier-like pace. When you figure it's still in one of the most seismically active areas in the world... one can easily imagine another earthquake and/or tsunami escalating the situation instantly into a much worse disaster than has already occurred. Ugh, it boggles my mind. I confess, it has turned me off to nuclear power big time. I just don't trust the arrogance of science coupled with the greed of big business to be in charge of such a potentially destructive force.

Awwww.. feel better, Zeke!

I for one can't figure out why #8 is even controversial. We know the damage that guns do to hearing. I've read (in more than 1 credible source) that in Europe (where guns are far more restricted) that those who do use guns regularly use them with silencers... that it's almost considered rude to NOT use a silencer... as you're potentially damaging not just your own hearing but the hearing of anyone nearby. So, that one should be a "no brainer". Not mired enough in the politics to weigh in on anything else. Other than to say... my, how the times are a'changin'.

You're right that it's complicated. But when I see I whole laundry list of organizations OTHER than the NRA lining up against it too... that gives me pause and makes me think it's not just another knee-jerk response by the NRA that says "2A at any cost". I just don't like a system where: an agency decides your fate based on less than full due process, then they make it highly burdensome to appeal, and oh yeah, if you do appeal, your appeal goes right back to them. And that's what the regulation seems to say. I just can't help but feel there's something inherently wrong about that kind of legal round-robin. But, like you, I've had (and currently have) issues in my family with dementia. There needs to be systems in place to keep guns out of the hands of people who would wantonly hurt themselves or others. I sure as hell don't want "old people offing themselves". I'm sure no one on here does. From a humane perspective, it's god-awful. And from a strategic perspective, it's also bad (free PR for the anti-gun crowd). I just don't think this particular approach sounded like a good one. A little more due process? Maybe requests from a family member create a "temporary" hold... and then due process kicks in to get the right back (if appropriate)?