raz-0

You so vastly don't understand the issue it is amazing. One, the president can sign a treaty all he wants. It does not give it the force of law within the United states. It has to be ratified by the senate. To be ratified by the senate, they need a 2/3 majority. If there were a 2/3 majority for eliminating the 2nd amendment, they would simply vote to eliminate the second amendment. The only way that you could even possibly imagine a treaty making the difference between getting 2/3 and not getting 2/3 is if it gives us something exceptionally desirable. NATO has no small arms treaty proposed. They do have commentary on how existing NATO programs facilitate the proposed goals of the porposed UN treaty. The UN had to break all the initial rules on creating a draft to even get past the first step of the process (i.e. having a ratified draft to vote on). That suffered the same fate over the summer as the draft committee suffered for years, which is that the large arms exporting nations said no, and it can't pass without them. After Obama's re-election, the US signed off on a motion to try to ratify the draft again. This is basically a vote to start the whole process which has gone nowhere for YEARS over again. No version proposed to date lines anyone's pockets or expands their authority or influence in any way that makes this magically attractive to US politicians.

I know tons of people who found this very upsetting, and very few of them cried over it. None of them cried so bad that they looked like they were working on a case of pinkeye. Either he has some bad allergies, or he finds the vick's vapor rub exceptionally irritating.

Constant contact link doesn't work, and what's the bill number? Or is this yet more crap pointing to old, long dead bills.

it's #2 bracketed by petitions to let several states secede, to impeach Obama, and to recount the vote.

The Clark tube is like 60 bucks, but involves glue. The ap custom handguard is like $125. Very nice, I have two.

High shelf vs. low shelf. As for the upper, it can't be machined to prevent use of an m16 bcg without inventing a new kind of carrier.

Not really, NJ is right to work, and gun owner is not a protected class. He won't get out of paying unemployment for him, but he could fire him without legal repercussions for most any reason.

Already happens for felons in some capacity. I know someone who got delayed a lot because his ex wife had a felony conviction.

For every new and improved fool proof device, there's a new and improved fool. Were I a crazy psycho making a plan around your technology, I'd have a field day. A few 5 gallon cans of gas, one unloaded gun, and some matches. With a 5 to 10 minute response time, you just have a bunch of swat guys showing up with body armor and machine guns to a fire. Go back and look a school killings. In the old days arson was #1, and explosives #2. This is not a strictly modern phenomenon.

I think not much will happen, honestly. We have a deadlocked congress, and we have highly polarized parties that are looking at popular vote margins significantly smaller than the number of gun owners out there. Our biggest threat is a GOP who feels it is a lame duck, doesn't want to change to stop alienating the middle, and puts up no opposition in the hopes the dems do pass something so they can say vote GOP, look what they did. The question is will the dems risk a very attractive electoral college position to fight the fight at the federal level, or just make noise at the state level. If something IS going to happen, I think it will be tied up in the acquisition of the firearms. Proposing an AWB won't really work if the gun in quesiton was a NJ compliant semi-auto. Proposing a semi auto ban won't work wihtout chanign the composition of SCOTUS, because semi-autos are in common use. You can attack CCW laws, but what's the connection if the shooter didn't ahve a CCW or conceal his weapons? What I can see as a possibility are a number of things. In general, under the guise of the current system doesn't do enough to detect psychos. NICS v2 perhaps with a much higher probability of being delayed to be safe, or even denied due to lack of data, and probably including much more data to enable a delay or denial. All that coupled with much more mandatory and consistent reporting of component data from the state level, possibly with federal funding for the collection of said data, and no option to bypass or intercept NICS. Also possibly putting a hold on you and rolling BATFE units for a knock and question if you hit certain purchasing flags. Mandating serialization of more portions of the firearm, and requiring them to be FFL transferred. Like barrels and magazines. I don't know that you would even need legislation to do this. COmbine it with the above, and you could flag and roll out units to ask questions politely to see if you are a psycho because you bought too many magazines too close together. Much like many opther things, threaten to withold funds from states that do not mandate training to purchase a firearm. Require a certification of the training, and require a trainer signoff for the individual to make it past the nics check. Make certification for training require that the instructor be informed they are not to certify anyone who seems off. All the above have the advantage of combining public outrage at the moment with throwing free money at various groups and individuals. In the case of a face to face transfer: The federal government deciding to fight the fight that a face to face transfer is interstate commerce because without safeguards to ensure the purchaser is clean on NICS, it could be a fraudulent purchase or a straw purchase that will cross state lines. They could try to prohibit it completely, or simply open up NICS to private sales, and make it a federal offense if a weapon is traced back to you as the owner, and you don't have a NICS verified transfer on record, or have record of a case number for the report of a stolen firearm. Maybe something like 5-10 years in jail with hte usual federal mandatory minimum of 85% of the sentence. The latter scenario, I don't see groups like the NRA weighing in heavily enough to do more than shape the legislation a bit. All of the above of course will not do anything consistently or reliably, but will look like you are doing something and will inconvenience gun owners, thus theoretically discouraging the act of gun ownership.

As a counter, there is also a movement in the world of psychiatry that psychopathy (sociopathy isn't really a current term and clinically is the same as psychopathy) is under-diagnosed, especially in children. That it is a spectrum disorder, and that the field of mental health, having not focused on this, has only really bothered with diagnosis in patients who have already acted out severely or are otherwise severely noticeably impaired. Part of the dust up in the current examination of this issue is that the go to tool for diagnosis has been a clinical inventory, and the younger the kid, the higher they score on the inventory because they have not yet been socialized and had the brian development for certian critical portions of said socialization. Which loops back to the issue in that most people go form scoring high on the psychopathy scale to low on it because of what amounts to training and/or therapy (i.e. parenting and socialization), and that by developing tools to spot categorizable youth, you can then potentially intervene in cases where "training" is deficient for the individual. As for points on arguing the issue. 1) about 50% of incidents end with the shooter dead before police are on scene. That means they get to shoot as many people as they want. The average is 14.3 people. 2) the average deaths with intervention on scene by private individuals is 2.3. 2.6 if they are unarmed, 1.7 if they are armed. (http://dailyanarchist.com/2012/07/31/auditing-shooting-rampage-statistics/ for full discussion of methodology). 3) There are things like the happy land murders. One pissed off boyfriend, one can of gasoline, and a match, 87 dead. Far more than any mass shooting event. If you go an look back at mass homicides, they exist, the farther back you go when guns were more expensive and less functional, the more they involved arson and explosives. 4) it is still incredibly rare, there are just a LOT of people, and more every day, and only 365 days in a year still. The 24-7 news cycle condenses the news of 7 billion people. 5) BY the most conservative statistics, there are about 80,000 defensive uses of fire arms per year (FBI stats), lets say you do ban guns, and it would have saved 20 kids, are 20 kids worth 80,000 other lives? 6) You are seeing more people run amok in countries with strict gun control or outright bans. In nearly every instance, which there are a mess of, the demographic of the victims skews very young because knife attacks against a multiple physical equals are not likely to go well. So you get your ban, but the net result is to still do nothing about people messed up in the head who lash out violently against less well armed opponents by surprize, and if experience to date is representative, you simply focus the risk form them on those 10 and under. 7) this guy went after his parents. HE was stuck living at home with them at 24. Perhaps the real issue is the current state of the economy and the increasing gap in wealth that means someone like this either has to stick with a pathological parental relationship very long term, or leave and face a life of poverty and debt. You can ban all you want. It's not really proposing a solution, it's just shuffling the problem around.

Their A2 style, or their space gun style? The space gun one looks a lot like the sabre defense gill brakes which is generally regarded as one of those too much noise for not enough performance types. It also looks a bit like the arrendondo brake without the top jets. As far as compensator feedback, I wouldn't trust a lot of it. A huge chunk of it falls into the same category of "I put this bolt on exhaust and air filter on my car and it must make at least 40 horse power because it feels so much faster", i.e. "I believe it is awesome because I wanted to believe that before I even ordered it and refuse to let reality interfere because I don't have the experience to judge or will never admit to having made a pointless purchase." Then you hit the people who are well informed, and at that point you have to deal with people declaring brand X, model Y to be the most awesome comp ever and are really just arguing minor differences that boil down to personal preference and individual ergonomics. Then of course all of the above are complicated by the question of what ammo were you shooting through it. I have a smith comp on one gun. It basically does nothing wiht most ammo. With m193, it actually shoves the muzzle down a bit in hot weather and works nice in chilly weather.

There were a whole mess of them under clinton.

Everyone wants to blame parenting. Perhaps we have just wound up the stress to the point more of them break. Lets see, you don't go to college, you hake like $8 an hour and the basic 2BR apartment, a spouse or equivalent and a kid type of setup requires a hell of a lot more than that. Yo do go to college, and you have $60k of debt that you can't escape and make maybe $20/hr if you are lucky. With your debt payments, you aren't living much differently than the kid who didn't go to college. For either of them, they are one moderate car repair, moving violation, doctors visit with a throat culture and a script away from finances breaking down unless your roommates or parents are willing to cover you. Situations like that are what make the 50 plus male say I've had enough of this and punch their own ticket. At 20 something you aren't feeling old, and I could see anger being more attractive to a greater percentage than despair.

Why will this one be different than the last umpteen school shootings?

SImplest math I can come up with is this. When you are done, how long will it take you to turn a box of parts into a very nice gun? From the gunsmiths I have talked to and dealt with, the margin between the box of parts and the completed gun is $1000-2000 (that's 1911/2011 pistols and bolt action rifles mostly. AR-15 clones and polymer guns are much less). Out of that comes all pay, tools, tooling, utilities, rent, taxes, licensing, etc. The reason why you don't see higher incomes is that throughput limits profitability. Although I have seen different ways to get there, the fastest I have seen works out to about 2 guns a week with reasonable attention paid to the business side of things, and that is for a smith who is a good machinist, has lots of experience, and makes use of email and fast shipping to schedule people efficiently. 1.5 is probably closer to the average for someone doing it well on both the smithing ans business sides of the equation and keeping wait lists to a reasonable length. That's actual building BTW, not time spent waiting in line for your turn to get work done. To get that higher means you need to hire staff... and pay them. There are some good quality, not so famous smiths probably making 40-50k a year in a part of the country where that goes a hell of a lot farther than here, and with their work and their hobby overlapping, it makes for a decent living, but is a lot of work and you aren't starting out there, and who pays you to get good at it?

I call BS even after the CNN video. To date, most of the published research is about projecting video onto a garment's surface. Lets pretend they are way more super awesome than all those researchers and go to the pics and their claims. 1) They claim it is passive, no power source required. 2) Every concept image and explanation of potential use they give is not a uniform, but essentially an invisibility sheet. OK, so given that, you can imagine that as long as you present it as roughly a 2d object occupying a plane or topology that does not fold back on itself, the transmission of the right light to the right viewer can be worked out by the angle of incidence of the viewer to the sheet. The transmission we will assume is done by some light transporting fiber or something. Fine, nothing that ostensibly requires magic. But it is passive, no computing. Please explain to me two things. First, if the hidden object (we'll call it a soldier) is illuminated, how are soldier photons different than say wall photons. How do the photons bouncing off the wall behind the soldier get through the soldier to be transmitted through the fabric. How does the soldier photons get edited out. Second, if it is bending all the light around the soldier, how is the soldier not engulfed in absolute darkness? Given a sheet format, and some very fancy optical material with lots of hard to imagine, but not magical attributes, I can come up with ideas about how you can edit out the soldier passively provided that your sheet is really close to 2d, planar, extends well beyond the perimeter of the soldier, and has the soldier positioned relatively close to the sheet, and the sheet and soldier is not too close to objects behind the soldier. The only passive way I see doing a sheet that only shows you some of what is on the other side of the sheet is to effectively omit everything at a specific distance from the sheet. This can be done with optics, much like your front sight post on an AR isn't visible in a magnifying optic. And it's no secret that optics don't need to be spherical or aspherical transparent elements. There are tons of research papers on this from people researching digital imaging. Maybe you could do it passively if your camouflage was like running around in a big hunk of sonotube. I still can't think of any way to do it in a useful manner without it getting unworkably complicated very, very rapidly.

That's not how rights work under our system of law. Most all rights have some point where you exercising your rights starts to infringe on another exercising their rights. Part of the government's job is to deal with issues that arise when that occurs. The first amendment is curtailed when it's exercise could be harmful to many. You do not have the right to say what you want however you want, wherever you want without repercussions. In general, you go to court and figure out where that middle ground is that preserves the rights of all parties. Even an afternoon of training firing a few boxes of ammo is much better than nothing. Requiring 2 weeks of a high end course every year with an expenditure of thousands of rounds of ammo is out of the reach of a lot of people and very likely into the realm of diminishing returns. And driving is not a privilege. I'm pretty sure that you cna successfully argue the constitution grants yo the right to freely move about the nation as you see fit. I'm even more certain that you can argue it grants you the right to freedom of personal mobility as required to engage in run of the mill living. Most places in the nation, that means you need the ability to drive at least some times. They want to argue it is a privilege, they should build effective and copious mass transit.

It's basic physics. Comps work by two basic methods. Shoving a lot of gas against a baffle, and gas jetting. You have two forces to counteract, rearward movement of the gun, and muzzle rise (a large chunk of muzzle rise comes form rearward motion of the gun combined with a person operating it). With the baffle approach, the gasses and noise head out either backwards, perpendicular, or somewhere in between. With jetting, noth go in the direction of the jet, so usually up and/or sides. If your comp doesn't sound loud to the sides, behind, and above you, it's probably not very effective. If it isn't shoving enough gas in those directions to create noticeable noise and pressure, it probably isn't very effective. Of course, you can make a ton of noise and not work very well, like the mini Y comp.

You don't have to have the music up very loud to drown out emergency vehicles that aren't practically right on top of you. Many cars today have good sound isolation. I've been in some that make it hard to hear sirens until they are pretty close with nothing turned on but the HVAC. You turn up the music to mild listening levels, and the list of vehicles that happens in is quite big.

I believe this is the first year like this. We've had some serious capacity issues.

Not really. For NJ to be forced to shall issue, it would require a fairly strong handed ruling by SCOTUS. Much like DC, there will be limits to what they can pull. It will be a right, and if they effectively negate it, they wind up right back in court with a really bad case. If shall issue were made mandatory as part of the 2a, NJ will have to be dragged kicking and screaming, but they will still be dragged.

The first is speculation about what might be possible some day plus special effects. The thermal camo is real and so not what this company is claiming. I call bs on the claim of passive optical stealth because you would have to reroute photons around you in a manner that is aware of all observers.

If you have guns that are picky between those two mags, that gun has problems that need fixing.

Yup, and some brakes act as the sacrificial baffle in the suppressor.