SpecialK

ugh typical libtards... The do something repulsive and when(or if) they are called on it they change their mind on it. Just always pushing to see what they can get away with. I was born in Sault Ste. Marie ONT, Canada. If I had been born 2000ft. south I would have been born wet(cause I would have been in the Saint Lawrence Seaway ) and I would have been born American. My parents rectified this when I was 12 by moving me to Arizona where I went to High School. After High School I joined the U.S. Army and in doing so I took an oath to defend the U.S. Constitution, which I still take very seriously to this day. With my tour in Iraq I am guaranteed citizenship, just working on the paper work. I love this country wholeheartedly. I am an United States Citizen by choice. This boils my blood when I read things like this. We should not and DO NOT cater to those that hate this country!

I think this is a great deal for the married guys. "No honey, I didn't buy a new gun. I bought a truck that came with a free gun. We needed a new truck anyways."

this makes me want to go out and buy a 700 to show support for the company

how is this dangerous? I've been up on many sky scrappers while working construction. I say good for them for experiencing something most would be to afraid to even think about. It's only stupid if you die doing it

what's an FOID?

I would love to see someone with one of these get ticketed for some lame charge like impersonating an officer or something. I would have no sympathy at all.

Every time you want to buy a pistol in NJ you need a note from the police station

NICS has been down for a whole week? I doubt that. If you are clean then someone is not doing their job somewhere down the line and you are getting the run around.

Pizza Bob said it and I'll confirm it. Cheap optics do work, but they do not last. Save your money and buy quality.

I like this idea way better!

offer him a quarter(or whatever kids consider good money these days) for every bulls-eye he shoots. Some kids just need some extra incentive.

then you retort with the act that you do not need a loaded gun to teach gun safety. Problem solved. The main issue is if this is ever proposed seriously then the retort would be "Oh and what are we supposed to cut out of the curriculum to fit this in?" I say add it in to P.E. either that or study hall

I don't have kids, but I have taught a bunch of kids how to shoot their first time ever. The youngest was 5, oldest was 11. I taught them the exact same way I would have taught an adult. Went over the 4 rules, basic mechanics of the guns we are using and a range safety briefing all before any shooting was done. .22 rifles and pistols usually were all that we would shoot. Had a 7 year old shoot a Beretta 92 just fine though once. Kids are sponges and will take on any form you set for them. If you treat them like adults they act like them, if you treat them like kids then they act like kids. I let all of them even the 5 year old load and carry the firearm they were going to shoot, always ready to correct them on muzzle discipline and trigger control though. Last kid I taught was a friends son, he was 6 years old. We shot a .22 rifle. It was a little to big for him, but we just worked on sight picture and shot clays on the ground at about 10 feet away. It was more so for him to just try it, he kept a piece of the first clay he ever shot with a real gun and was so proud of himself.

having one out of 58 counties relaxing their requirements on CCW doesn't make the state all that much greater. I still wouldn't say which is worst though. Both NJ and CA are just different terrible types of bad.

What are the recent changes in California? I searched the web but haven't found them yet.

first you all remind me of the dogs from UP SQUIRREL! back on topic... This is why we need education in our schools about guns. Kids are curious, we need to make sure this curiosity is fulfilled in the proper manner.

I would have to say the fact that it hasn't been changed as often speaks volumes of the scum of this country that have found it easy to make laws that go against it with no repercussions. Why change it when you can bend it? Now only if people would wake up and follow the supreme law of the land then we'd be good to go.

yeah the behavior I saw this year makes me not want to hand out candy again next year. I think I am going to go with the two bowl idea one of good treats for good trick or treater's and one of dental floss for those with no manners and no costumes.

I said nope, don't intend to. Of course that is because they wouldn't let me if I showed up t do it anyways. Just moved here, evidently my vote doesn't matter.

Exactly we will have to agree to disagree the same way we have to do the same to many other interpretations of the Constitution. This is why I say we need Amendments to clarify these updates. Case law is not in the Constitution, but it is what we use as law when it comes to fighting court cases. Fine when the Supreme Court makes a ruling on the Constitution then have it so the Congress has to update the Constitution, so the new law is in black and white. The way the system is now the average citizen has to know the written law and every court case that has ever happened to know what the law is. No one would have to agree to disagree if it were in Black and White. So, lets add the reasonable restrictions that the majority can agree on to the Amendments instead of just assuming everyone has the same idea of what reasonable is.

"...shall not be infringed..." 1. infringedpast participle, past tense of in·fringe (Verb) 1. Actively break the terms of (a law, agreement, etc.): "infringe a copyright". 2. Act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on: "infringe on his privacy". More » Merriam-Webster - The Free Dictionary The 2nd Amendment does in fact say the right to keep and bear arms is unconditional. See above mainly the underlined. What you are saying is that it isn't unconditional, so with that reasoning every law that NJ has in effect is fine as they are all just conditions to exercising your right to keep and bear arms. These conditions are however infringements on the 2nd Amendment and therefore all unconstitutional. Do I agree with back ground checks, yes I do, but do I feel they are Constitutional, not I do not. This is why I keep saying the Constitution needs to be updated(to include things such as back ground checks and no nukes for my neighbor). It is a living document, not something that is supposed to sit around collecting dust.

Just curious Frank are you okay with the banning of nuclear arms for the average citizen? Nuclear arms would be covered under the 2nd Amendment as they are arms. This is what brings me back to my earlier points the 2nd Amendment means what it says and it shouldn't have to have clarification, but it does. So, once we clarify that it means what it means then we would need Amendments to say that Nuclear, Biological and other WMD's are not covered and can be regulated or restricted. If you are against nuclear weapons or citizens to the point that you support laws that restrict them, then you are against the 2nd Amendment.

Do citizens need the right to personal RPG's to fight a revolution? You do not need a majority of weapons or the "big, bad ones" to stir the pot. There are enough guns (well I never like to think that personally ) for Americans to revolt against the government as is. It is just a matter of having enough pissed off people want to actually do it. Let me run some numbers for you. There are approx. 900K law enforcement persons in the USA this include local, state and federal levels. Now lets just for the sake of argument add in all the Armed Forces (assuming they would fight on the side of the federal government, which I find very damn hard to believe that all would side with them, plus the fact that many of these persons as stationed overseas) the total possible amount of fighters for the federal government is around 3.3million then. That is only 1% of the total population. So even if only 2% of the population decided to rise up for whatever reason they would be out numbered 2 to 1. What's our unemployment rate at the moment by the way? 9.2% I believe... If you are still thinking that this sheer force of out numbering power the citizens would have doesn't mean anything because the police and military have the "big, bad guns" then why is Iraq and Afghanistan still going on? We have technology that makes them look like they are shooting sling shots at US no? I am all for the 2nd Amendment as it was meant in the first place, a way for us to fight the government is need be. I would however support amendments to the constitution that 1) says the right to bear arms means just that and no restrictions is what shall not be infringed means and 2)RPG's are not an arm that falls under the previous amendment and can be regulated as seen fit. We don't need RPG's to fight the government, we we might, but we can get those in the course of battle instead of having them stocked up in our basements already

I'm with you 100%, just like arguing and playing devils advocate . I personally would love to see an Amendment to the Constitution that adds enforcement to the Constitution. I would also like it to say that what it says is what it means! And yes I know that would mean the 2nd Amendment would mean everything from sling shots to RPG's would be legal for citizens to own, but honestly if that were the case and the only way to stop or regulate it would be an Amendment to the Constitution do you really think that all the states couldn't come together with an Amendment that said RPG's for personal use are not okay?

I personally would like to see the 1st Amendment altered as well as the 2nd. I think it should be clarified as an Amendment that the 1st Amendment does not cover certain things such as threats to others lives. I would also like to see the 2nd Amendment updated to be clear that it applies to all citizens (and legal residents) 100% and cement the Shall Not Be Infringed with wording that in no way could be "interpreted." So, I do not support the 1st or 2nd Amendment UNCONDITIONALLY does that mean I am not fit for public office?