bbk

The morbid fascination with the doomsday-related ideas is... fascinating in itself. Anybody familiar with marketing or the tech firms know how those companies and the government at times are always pushing the Panglossian idea of technology, and how it and it's progress is inevitable. Look at Microsoft, Google, Apple, Amazon, etc. And yet society, though in relatively small amounts (but getting larger), are becoming quite apprehensive while also holding on to this idea that technology is a constant and progressive scape... really is a total back-and-forth, many times amongst the individual. So, while in the end I agree that the networks are just trying to make a dollar by feeding on the fears of the masses; it is that further examination into the subtle that I find wildly interesting because it really exposes so much more that people might not want to quite admit just yet.

Ha, wow, that deserves a +1; and welcome aboard for that matter.

Congrats!

I would consider military training to be included and considered as the trainers are most often certified and/or are subject matter experts. While the training was mandatory and considered a Soldier skill (at least with the Army, but I could imagine there is the equivalent in other branches)-- it still required a significant amount of training time and practice to become proficient [and excel].

I think training creates an appreciation and understanding through application, and that can be instrumental regarding knowledge not just for the individual, but how they project that knowledge to others (and thus enriching the community further through transfer of knowledge, as well as bringing in new members of the community who might have not been previously involved). Of course the important thing here is that the information be legitimate. Simply, there are enough trolls and mall ninjas-- and they must be weeded out. But I do agree with the notion that extensive training isn't required for the regular folk. Safety is safety, and is often learned through appreciation of not just the firearm, but the whole mentality of firearms. However, I do believe strongly that if a person relies on a firearm(s) regarding the safety of them and/or their families (or the community/country/kinsmen), they should extensively train as they are a walking liability (or at least the rounds are). Liability not in the sense that they would make bad decisions, but that they could very well impact me or someone else who might not even be involved in the altercation. Plus, it would just be a good measure to take. Finding out your worth the first time you step into a two-way-range situation never really bodes well for the unprepared.

The Surefire magazines are good to go. Finally ran rounds through my 223 converted saiga, using the Surefire mags, and had no issues. Smooth rifle all around.

Haha, sorry, I agree completely that it is terrible; and I apologize for posting such an abomination to a public space. But at least everyone who hasn't heard it knows how bad it is now. I think my ears are bleeding, and I only listened to about 4 seconds of it.

Heh, the feed lips are probably the weakest point on Pmags, albeit it would still take quite a bit of effort. I have broken them before, and have seen them break in-action, as it was happening. In all cases, it was from the magazines having sat in the cold for extended amounts of time, and then dropped directly on said feed lips (these were also, in my case, roughly used magazines that had been in use for quite some time). From what I heard, and I think it was also brought up on this forum prior, but USMC has stopped issuing PMags. Not sure if it was a technical thing, or a contract thing though. ETA: The magazines I've seen break were mostly FDE as well. Most respected opinions from the community agree that these are more susceptible because they are a weaker polymer compared to the black or OD PMags.

Combat loss (I kid! I don't advocate fraud!)

Along with the reasonings based on availability (to both the hardware and places to utilize them), I think it's also a matter of definition. On this forum specifically, we clump all handguns together under the umbrella term. Whereas with shotguns and rifles they are broken down further into their own respective sections, at least with rifles. To explain further, all types of firearms have their niche following. Since handguns are all clumped together when referred to, it could explain the higher rate of discussion and disclosure. As handgun afficiondos, though niche communities respectively, are often represented as a collective. This is compared to rifle owners who, for example, would never want to be referred to as or be clumped into the same group with others (like the AR vs. AK communities which have laborous, contentious and pointless arguments when comparing). I'm not saying that handgun owners don't feel these contentious feelings, but it is not as apparent or as much of a dividing issue. I'm sure if we took the discussion further both here on the forum and in other environments (like face-to-face discussion), we could, and have from my experience, break the handgun discussion into subtopics such as semi-automatics, revolvers, milsurp, competition, 1911, etc. In that case, I think the discussion in some sub topics would be greater than others, but the division would cause a substantial drop in overall discussion (and is the reason why there are, of course, specialty forums for example). I think it would also either balance out the discussion or even tip the discussion in favor for long guns. All of this of course pertains to this forum specifically, but also the greater discussion of firearms ownership in NJ as a whole.

Yup. There is a reason why I go to SYF for at least a beer a week when classes are in session and I have time to burn between said classes.

Technically Blue Moon is a Coors company, though Coors hasn't forced them to brew to the Coors standards or in their house. I hope it stays this way as I too am a big Blue Moon fan (and hopefully will make a stop at their place when I stop by later this week). I've done the tour at the Coors brewery in Golden, and it was a bit of a treat. On another occasion, I've also stopped by Pottsville for a different perspective on beers, and that was a neat experience to see a smaller brewery. In both cases, amazing fresh beer. And in the case of Coors, I'll admit that I've always noticed the difference drinking Coors in the Denver area compared to other parts of the country... far more manageable in that area. Must be the water

Regarding firearms, I want to really focus on pistols this year. I have always been a rifle-first fighter, but I really want to broaden my skillsets. I need to research this more before I make any specific goals though. Physically, I want to maintain and improve upon what I've been doing for the past half year. Already dropped over 60 pounds since last June, but I want to lose another 15-20. I am able to run 5-6 miles on a decent 6-7 minute pace (I've never been a runner), but I want to strengthen back up. I've always been a swimmer, and even when I was in the military I never really lifted-- so lifting is not really my thing. Instead I want to continue hitting the heavy bag and maintaining my obsessive core workouts; but get more serious about doing push-ups and utilizing my pull up bar. (Yea, if you couldn't tell, I hate gyms.) I also need to remember to continue eating right, and not filling myself with garbage.

I didn't mind the SW 5906 after I finally got some trigger time. Good weight, and the pistol felt comfortable and natural without too much thinking. And now that I finally own one, I can vouch for Glocks. Only discrepancy is that I own a 19 and not too familiar with 17's. I have owned an XD for a few years, and I learned that I wasn't a fan of the taller axis over bore-- but that isn't a negative, just a personal opinion.

I wasn't being insulting, I just said it was a ridiculous notion. I never said anybody was wrong, as being 'wrong' and being 'ridiculous' are, admittedly, personal opinions. And, as I've always said, personal opinions are never wrong. If you feel offended, I apologize as that wasn't my intention. Now the reason why I feel it is ridiculous is because people fling these notions and ideas around without necessarily considering a larger scope. To simply put on blinders and go in one direction can result in people missing other options, being mislead easily, and, most importantly, creating an opinion without the larger facts in mind. Maybe it is my own personal philosophy, but not thinking through every last detail and coming to a conclusion drives me nuts. I've detailed my solution at least twice in previous posts in this thread. However, since you asked, I will oblige. The basis of the solution is that the community must make the change, and not external forces. This does not necessarily apply to just the gangbangers and thugs, though they are key to the change. The real change must be made by the vast majority of residents who are hardworking and honest individuals who are just in a bad social environment. This applies to the mothers and fathers, daughters and sons-- as well as the first responders and politicians. Gangbangers and thugs are not necessarily the problem, but are consequences of the larger issue. The larger issue is the acceptance of this degrading behavior and the lack of wanting to do more. This is a fault of not just the individuals, but a systemic issue as well. This is the reason why the problem is larger then just a mother and father being fed up and standing up for their families. It is the reason why first responders and politicians must be willing to also take part. First responders in the sense that their application must be at the community level, and not necessarily as just enforcers. To reach out and be a part of the community instead of taking positions of authority help bridge the gap between authoritarians and the application of force (when necessary) and the understanding of why such things are necessary. The politicians play a role because they must truly represent the change itself that is required and not just be a puppet-head or push things for self-glory. Politicians, IMO, are the weak-link in this whole solution because without their contributions, the rest easily falls short. And this is because politicians do not necessarily hold the most power ("power" in the anthropological/sociological term-- which, arguably, lies with the people, regardless of political machinations), but they hold the most exposure. When things come together, the solution is a community that doesn't necessarily love and respect each other in a collective/hippie way, but have respect and an understanding of what is the greater stake. While the big picture is the point and requires the assertion of the different levels, much of it boils down to the individuals. As Edmund Burke said, "All that's necessary for the forces of evil to win in the world is for enough good men to do nothing." This is not a far-fethced solution because this does not require a perfect world. This solution requires an understanding that neighbors can in fact be neighbors, and not necessarily bad people. This is not an idealized notion because, again, I'm not saying that people need to love each other. I'm simply saying that people should respect each other. As a person who does not innately trust or really like people, I don't find anybody relatively distasteful. Even for my greatest enemies (as defined), I of course wanted to destroy them, but I do hold a certain level of respect as well. So, "respect" and "liking" are two different concepts. As for the necessary application of force, agreed, it must be so-- and I've said that before in previous posts. There must always be a necessary application of force by the authorities, but not as a solution, but as a reminder of "order." The application of force by the authorities in an authortative manner results in ill-will towards the authorities, and degrades the trust between the authorities and the masses. This is digressive to the overall goal. This application is not a manner of justice and order, but reflections of personal needs for satisfaction-- whether that is from insecurities or just bad people (this being the broad term). The application of force as a means of "order" is different because it reminds people that authorities are not authortative, but are in place to maintain a sense of order... or I should say a sense of "not chaos." The idea of order is idealized, agreed, and, like most ideals and beliefs, cannot be ever truly fulfilled (every religion and belief is based off a notion that is perfect-- which humans are incapable of as we are, innately, imperfect creatures. This is not a negative aspect, as this "imperfectness" is a result of our ability to be self-aware and "philosophize"... which is an aspect that makes us unique as a species). However, "not chaos" makes sense because chaos itself is an every day occurence. Chaos is when things are simply not as they should be in a negative manner, in which innovation creates no solution. So, by authorities maintaining the levels of chaos, they are doing what is not asked of them, but required of them (or they have no role to fill). This is the necessary application of force. By throwing force into the mix as the answer, what occurs is that there is a power struggle that increases exponentially until one is completely obliterated, which, in many cases, is beyond our imaginations. Bring a gun, the other side brings a bigger one. Bring the troops, the other sides bring ways of combating troops. Mass detentions, the other side finds ways of destroying the other's will to fight. Shock and awe as a response to that, and the entrenched, even decimated, create illusions and delusions for others to fight in their passing. Etc, etc, etc. Sounds familiar, sure, but it is not just applied to wars, but to the fabric of social evolution [in regards to conflict]. This is not to say that this is a possibility for Camden, but one cannot dismiss the notion either. Also, the application of force as a solution maintains the one idea of fear. Fear of course being a very strong emotion with very irrational responses, as apparent in the wake of 9/11. People often dismiss fear as long as it is not at their doorstep. [/sarcasm on] Wiretaps? Black bagged? Torture? Gitmo? Who cares because we have not been targeted by such things. So, as long as it isn't happening to us or in our backyard, who cares? In fact, do it!!!!! [/sarcasm off] What occurs is that we allow these things to occur, but when these horrors enter our realm of understanding, they become a reality. They become more then just an afterthought, but something truly tangible. Now, again, these are not literal examples of what could occur. These are examples of fear, and how fear is a product of our known realities. The application of force as a solution and this notion of fear intertwine because we don't see or come to understand the notion of fear as long as the force is not being applied to us. We do not know how we react, whether we are talking about the emotional/psychological, or outwardly. As I previously said, humans tend to do very irrational things when in fear, and these results can be detrimental to the self, to the community, or to both (often both). So, while the application of force as a solution is scary in itself, what is more worrisome is the reaction to this application of force as a solution through fear. And what occurs is the above, and then the continuing cycle of destruction. This cycle of destruction via fear can morph into an acceptance of the violence ("violence" in the anthropological term, which is not necessarily physical, but violence in any matter, whether verbal, psychological, culturally, etc). This acceptance of violence can result in a varied response, whether it is being able to make jokes about said violence; discussing it freely without understanding the repercussions; and even becoming a slave to said violence. This is the issue that I see currently in communities like Camden; but also around the world in places like Syria, Afghanistan, pre-OIF Iraq, parts of eastern Europe during the Balkan Wars (and around that time)... and even in America with the treatment towards many minority groups. Now, I understand that there will always be violence amongst people, as that is human nature (I will stand behind this argument for the rest of my life). However, if enough of both sides of the violence want a solution, isn't that enough to say "enough"? I see this to be the case in places like Camden. So, yes, this is a long-winded answer, but it is what was asked. I'm sure I could go on and on about this, but there is only so much reading people will do. Also, I'm not trying to sway anybody or say that what I think is right. As I said from the beginning, this is my opinion, and it can be right or wrong, that is up to the individual to decide. With that said, I do not want anybody to read this and be like *LIGHTBULB* and accept what I've said as true. Again, this is my opinion, and it is great if people can read this and maybe start to understand that there are more perspectives than just one or two. As in most things I do in life for others, I would rather open people's minds to the possibilities, and let them walk the path via their own agency.

Plainsboro, which sits pretty much in the middle of the middle. Takes as long to get to NYC as it does to Philly, whether by car or train. Same goes for getting to the shore or getting to PA (depending on the traffic). Sports fans are pretty much drawn straight down the middle. Get both Philly and NY TV channels, and even the job dispersion is pretty much spread between the two (though slightly more commute to NYC).

This is ridiculous because who and how will "criminal" be defined moving forward into the future? With the current attitude already in NJ, gun owners could potentially be thrown into said environment along with the rapists and murderers... same could be applied to bloggers who the government could shut down and would not want to be silenced, and joe-schmo who illegally downloaded thousands of songs but was otherwise a model citizen. These crazy notions of how criminals should be treated and the issues with places like Camden should be considered make me realize how sad and far from a solution we actually are. Oh well.

Haha, seriously, thanks Vic for saying that-- I was going to say the same exact thing. You displace the people who cause trouble, and it's not like the problem goes magically away. Look at the rise of crime after Katrina in the other cities where displaced residents went. The solution is reaching out to the community, and not necessarily stomping them with every opportunity. Yes, I agree with the principle that there have been to be levels of enforcement, however, that's just band-aiding a festering wound (and cutting it out, for the reasons above, makes no sense). Like in OIF/OEF/GWOT, the "hearts and minds" approach is the answer, IMO. Reaching out to the communtiy and individuals is the key, though not easy and would take quite a bit of time. However, a shift in ideals from the core is what would drive people to demand a better place to live-- and actively participate in making it so. It's not a big kumbaya-- not what I'm saying. I'm saying that it requires a shift in ideals from the inside, and not some external force. Is it possible? Yes. It has happened repeatedly throughout the world... just a matter of application meeting theory (and with our politicians, it's no surprise it seems unfeasible).

Ugh, Triumph's. Every time I go, it's nuts to butts, and that atmosphere drives me crazy. Of course it could have just been bad timing, every time

Welcome aboard, neighbor

Posse Comitatus and Insurrection Act have no bearing with NG as they only apply to active duty components. These are applicable by executive order, meaning any barred component can be allowed to perform duties within US borders if given explicit permission via EO's. In a sense, PC and Insurrection have no real bearing except that it exists for the sake of existing, but is otherwise a nuisance. In this case though, I don't see it as realistic, or useful. The issue is not with the rate of crimes, but with the lack of outreach to those who are committing crimes. Sure, muscling the problem can solve a very small amount of temporary issues, but it will not solve squat in the long run. There is a reason why "hearts and minds" was pushed so hard in OIF and OEF-- only reason why US forces ever found any type of victory in those regions.

Modified magazines, regardless of the type (polymer or metal), tend to have a tighter fit compared to the stock-magazines. This is often times because of the respective procedure that the producer uses when putting the modified magazines together to only accept 15 rounds max. Stock/non-pinned magazines can have some extra play to them (the good type), and are easier to seat even if the magazine is filled to capacity and the bolt is forward. So, to answer your questions, I would say that since we, NJ residents, are limited to 15 round magazines, and the only available type are modified magazines-- the tight fit should be expected (and honestly, it's not a bad thing as I'd rather have a tight fit compared to a loose fit in which that 16th round might be able to be squeezed in). And secondly, Uncle Sam taught me to download a round or two regardless of the magazine or firearm it's being used for-- but most notably with the AR-pattern rifles. So, I have a bias response to that question anyway. Ultimately, as the end user, you will have more then one magazine on hand anyway-- whether it's at the range, competition, or in the home. Maxing it at 15 vs. having multiple magazines; I'll take multiple magazines, even if they're only loaded for like 10, because magazines can tend to fail... and that one magazine with 15 crammed rounds isn't of much benefit, nor is the rifle, if it isn't working as intended.

Sorry I couldn't make it last night. I got caught in the office until pretty late, and pretty much drove home and zonked out. Sounds like y'all had a good time, so, I'm glad to hear.

I think it would be the first assumption, Paul, but I don't know if it holds up in the end. As you know from your own experience, crimes committed fall under two 'umbrellas,' generally speaking: crimes of opportunity and crimes of innovation. Opportunity: If someone leaves their garage door open, and has a number of valuables in the open for the grabbing, there is a probability it will be swiped. Innovation: On the other hand, if someone outwardly displays the fact that they possess valuables, including firearms, an individual or individuals can devise a plan/innovate and be on the offensive-- which in the rules of combat, or really two opposing sides meeting (like in sports for example), dictates the tempo and direction of the fight. As I brought up in an earlier post, my former unit actually put out orders, not just a suggestion, that we weren't to outwardly display our affiliation to the military. This included military-themed license plates, bumper stickers, keeping military apparel in the POV, etc., as there had been a series of burglaries that targeted troops specifically because the assumption is that we kept firearms in our off-duty POVs. Sure we were based near a major city, but we were also in a very gun-friendly state. I respect those who wish to outwardly display their passion and affiliation-- actually I commend it because it is necessary that there be a loud representation of the enslaved minority in this state. However, I'm going to stay a hard target because while it is unfair to compare how much it is that we have as individuals to lose [if we were targeted by "innovators], I do not want to be in any position to not be able to live to my full potential and/or provide for those in my life. But that's just me. ETA: I think what would be interesting in this specific discussion is the real numbers of where illegal guns come from. Are they more from straw purchases, and/or illegally brought in from other areas [given they were bought legally]; or from thefts from homes, whether in this state or other states [or other countries].

*Split these posts from the .308 Battle Rifle Pic thread to avoid clutter in the other thread*