DevsAdvocate

Yes. If you don't like it, then call to have it repealed or amend it to better suit the advances in technology since 1789... Until then, it shall not be infringed. Things like NICS, NFA, and other gun laws are all infringements of our rights and raise unnecessary barriers to the keeping and bearing our arms as a society.

I'm not gonna get into the intricacies of the financial collapse, but to suggest that mortgage brokers (some of whom willingly pushed crap mortgages and loans on those who did not warrant them) and stock brokers (who did a bang up job repackaging those mortgages regardless of the actual risk of default) were not part of the whole mess, simply rings false. They're just as guilty as the bankers and politicians. There is a drive for profit, and then there is breaking the whole system for everyone and getting away on a golden parachute and gov't bailouts. We had folks who hailed from some of the more 'prestigious' universities in the world working on our financial system and within the gov't, and they dropped the ball big time. The only thing they were smart about was ensuring their assets were protected while the rest of us got screwed. Licensing predates our litigious society and was once voluntarily enforced by those who were in these professions to protect the "legitimacy" of their profession. As I mentioned earlier, just because you're licensed doesn't necessarily guarantee you're any good. While Frank's argument is sound, the process of going about the regulation is wrong. Our right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed... not 'reasonably' infringed. The Constitution was designed to be amended to keep with the times, not to be side-stepped by the actions of the legislature, the president, or the SCOTUS. That's the lazy way to fix things and requires compromises on what are inalienable rights and freedoms. If you don't like the way the 2A was written, then maybe the country needs to sit down and think hard about its rights and decide whether or not to repeal it, or amend it to get with the times. Any other way is simply half-assing it. Great, but why aren't they doing that now eh? If it's such a brilliant business proposition, then we would've seen it already.

As much as I respect the instructors here, people learned to shoot and carry guns before folks like them were around to offer classes on the subject. As much as I encourage people to take formal lessons, it shouldn't be a mandatory requirement, but something folks should do if they want to be more prepared. Kinda like golf lessons. You don't need em to play, but they can help in making the game more fun.

Oh, that's easy... have you driven on the roads in New Jersey lately? Yeah, those requirements for drivers licenses are really keeping the streets safe... As for educational requirements for brokers, we actually have those?? You'd think with all those requirements, they woulda never broken the economy a few years ago... Just because you have educational requirements doesn't mean people leave educated. The only difference for Doctors and Attorneys is that they tend to lose their livelihoods should they miss out on their continuous learning, and then we as a society really don't have to worry about them practicing law or medicine. You of all people know that such training is never 'free'. Who provides the ammo? Who pays the instructors? Sounds to me like another place where bureaucratic inefficiencies can mess it all up and pass the bill to the taxpayer. Training is something for a person to do on their time and dime. Not mandated by a bunch of politicians and police. Also: No. It's not the right of the state to decide what laws they should have. The 2nd Amendment, through the 14th applies to all Gov't, not just the Federal morons. That includes the states and localities. Otherwise we have crap like segregation, suppression of religion, and other gross civil rights violations.

Who cares? Not everyone needs to be a pro IPSC shooter to be able to defend themselves with a gun. Drawing from a holster? Wow... that's real tough to figure out. Firing under stress? I'd imagine a majority of those who CCWed never practiced firing under stress... Don't really see any streets running red with blood due to that though... Mandatory firearms training is stupid. If you buy a gun, you're responsible for whatever you do with it. If you take that responsibility lightly, then you'll end up dead, in jail, or grieving a loss. Not to mention: look at what Chicago is doing with their 'mandatory training requirements'. Sure, you can buy a gun, but only if you make it into a certified training class held in the janitors' closet beneath city hall once every 3 years.

I wouldn't throw the other 43 free states under a bus so that I can get some meager right to carry a gun in NJ. The way this state works, you'll get your right to carry after you submit to an anal probing backround check once every two years and you'd have to wear a dunce cap at all times so that the police can identify you and harass you (this coming from a NJ politicians' pov).

That's a lame argument... you can't cure stupid, nor should you punish responsible folks for the actions of the irresponsible. Not to mention, there isn't an invisible barrier to the world which denies entry to those who carry guns without a CCW permit... They'll just carry anyways. But guess who won't carry? You. Because you're a Mr. Goody-two-shoes law abiding citizen who tries to do everything on the level, but will still be denied a right by folks who think they can make society better by forcing their world-view on everybody else. Morons and criminals will go out there with guns in their waistbands regardless of training requirements and all the laws in the world you can pass...

Alternating rounds in the tube is just silly... in the dark, after just waking up, how are you possibly gonna remember which shell you're on??? Just load it with buckshot, and you're good to go. 2.75" 00, and loaded for as little recoil as possible.

Because $272 in 1975 had the buying power of $1147 today... Which is about what they cost today... give or take $150 and transfer fees/taxes.

They weren't that bad. Just minor shocks.

I got one!!! WOOOOOOOOOOT!!!!! Gonna do a Spartan Run and do the other PA Mudder in April... it's painful, it's miserable, but it's also fun as hell. I did it just to see if I could do it, but now I just want to do it for the fun of it! WOOOT! PS: How are your legs feeling dude? Towards the end I was on the verge having a major lock-up in my calves, especially after the last water course under the floating barrels... ugh. +1 on the electrical shock at the end of the run... I strolled through it cursing up a storm every time I got shocked.

But they did, because even Thompsons and M1 Garands had issues with the salt, sand, and mucky environs of the island hopping campaign. Machine guns are a totally different breed of gun, the Mg42 was designed to have a quick change barrel and fired from an open bolt as well.

Define 'best' and 'affordable'... Because when you do the analyses on the matter you usually end up back at square one: The M-4 / M-16 platform...

Not just the Army, but politicians and lobbyists from the manufacturers. The brass hates dealing with this crap because they know that it isn't going to be the best rifle that wins, but the one manufactured in all 50 states with fat kickbacks to all the lobbyists and politicians involved. I know for one thing: The US Army will want the TDP for the weapon they do choose. Seeing as they don't even own the TDP for the M4/M16... well that's just gonna be a stretch...

Funny thing about those... apparently they don't chrome the barrels...

I remember reading in the newspaper at work that we received a ton of that 'moon dust' from Iraq for testing a few years ago. They supposedly used that to ascertain the next set of improvements for the M-16 and M-4 platform. They also used them the stuff in the most recent carbine competitions between the XM8, 416, and SCAR... Even those had failures due to that dust. As for the whole 'why don't they replace it?' question, the short answer is cost and politics. Colt and FN both have a strong lobby to keep work going to their factories and want their own weapons procured. The other issue the Army faces is: is the cost of changing the weapons platform worth it given the level of improvement? This time around though, IF the Army ever decides to buy a rifle they want, they will want to own the TDP for it. But good luck getting the gun companies to turn that over to the Army... FN will never let them have the SCAR TDP, Remmy will never let them have the ACR TDP, etc... As for the 5.56x45mm... the biggest problem is the use of the M855 over the M193... M855 just punches holes through people even though it was intended at shooting and killing armored Soviet troopers. Not clothed insurgents. Supposedly the M855A1 fixes this... but I doubt it. It's prolly easier to go back to the M193 than use that... The USMC OTOH had it right to go and buy their Mk262 SOST and appear to do well with that. We're stuck with the 5.56mm or 7.62mm whether we like it or not... and your average soldier ain't gonna be standard issued a 7.62mm as their everyday shooter. All in all, I too would like to see the M-4 and M-16 family be replaced... but the headache of doing so is pretty much not worth it given the small number of failures found.

History is history, if you're gonna get into it like the OP did, then he is correct. The M-16 is a soldiers weapon, it's designed to be accurate and to put multiple rounds on target. In the hands of properly trained fighting men and women, it's won quite a few victories, even during it's most problematic days in Vietnam to current operations overseas. As for what you think about the current M-16, that's an opinion... and you know what folks say about those... Fact of the matter is, it's a proven weapons platform that had a troubled past. When properly maintained and equipped, it will shoot anytime and anywhere. Not really. M-16s go from one crop of troops to the next and get a great deal of rounds through them before they ever make it to the battlefield. It's kinda part of the training that combat troops receive in the US military (which is why they tend to do a good job killing insurgents with AKMs). So yeah, I'd say they get a lot more wear than something that sat in some stockpile for 20 years. Right. But who ever shoots that much full-auto from one rifle in a combat situation? Flimsiness doesn't really affect performance all that much, unless you're running them over with pickup trucks... But most mag issues are tied to the spring/follower, not so much the feed lips. Again... all issues solved by improvements in materials. For ex: going from aluminum to steel. Or even polymers. That's fine. But don't simply stop at the M-16 sucked in Vietnam, therefor it sucked in every conflict ever since. Especially when evidence exists to the contrary.

Hindsight is 20/20, but this has no bearing on the reliability of the M-16 platform today. Probably not. Especially given how often nations stockpile them and never use them. Russia buys them by the barrel full and sticks them in bunkers under the Ural mountains. Then there is the whole training issue: many of these nations training programs involve a couple of hundred rounds in basic training, followed by one or two mags a year afterwards. The rifles usually end up in the armory or dropped on the ground when the poor bastard was killed by a US Soldier with an M-16... Doubtful... I'd love to see someone shoot one that often without wearing asbestos gloves. Also, barrels will warp and flex regardless of being dunked in water. Especially if you shoot them till they're read hot. Chrome will flake off within the barrel lining as well and the rifling will just wear out quicker. There is a reason most machine guns have a BII that includes a spare barrel. They also make steel mags for the M-16 too... nothing new there. Steel mags Not to mention the whole host of other platforms which use STANAG magazines and seem to work fine...

Chivers also exonerated the M-16 platform in that book, echoing my sentiments in the above post.

That article is such outdated crap... 1. Yes, there were issues with the original M-16... That's what the Army got when it rushed it into use before it was readied for combat. Even the AK-47 went through a bunch of iterations until arriving at its final configuration as the AKM. The first 'true' M-16 was the M-16A2 variant, and that was damned reliable. 2. US Soldiers shoot their stuff a lot. Given all the training US Soldier get, their weapons tend to be refurbed and used quite often. Old rifles break down... often. Old machine guns break down... often. After while the guns wear themselves to malfunction and failure. It's why the M-16s, M-4s, and M249s have had a boatload of issues in recent conflicts. Soldiers are issued guns that saw a lot of trigger time, and they tend to fail more often. This is a fault of logistics and stockpiling more than anything else. 3. M-16s are not machine guns... they were never designed for sustained full-auto fire and when used in this capacity, will fail. Shoot them long enough in this mode of fire, and two things will happen... your chamber will get so hot that it will cook off rounds on its own, and your gas tube will eventually burst. But this is after a few hundred rounds in immediate succession. We're talking mag dump after mag dump with no breaks between firing. Even an AK will eventually burst into flames and warp it's barrel rendering it pretty much useless. Full auto and burst fire have their usefulness... but are not meant to be used full time. 4. Magazines... probably the biggest source of failure in this weapon system... and a result of weak springs that were made from crappy materials or have simply worn out. Like all wear items, magazines and their subsequent components need to be replaced. Whether it's for an M-16, AKM, 1911, etc. All in all, every-time there is a story on the M-4 and M-16 failing in combat, it's usually due to the above issues, or not substantiated at all. The folks at Picatinny Arsenal do an awesome job keeping up with any of the issues that the system has and working on solutions. Bottom line: when shooting with quality magazines, ammunition, and proper use, this platform will serve its users quite well in almost all combat environments. Heck... BCM even has a rifle out in the wild called "Filthy-14" which has almost 50,000 rounds through it on the original barrel and bolt carrier. Only issues it had were broken bolt lugs at 16k, and worn extractor and action springs. All wear items.

You're gonna need a lot of shovels for that one... lol

What else is new? This state is an embarrassment to the other 43 (Cali, Illinois, NY, Delaware, Mass, RI are embarrassing as well)...

I wonder if we could start a ballot initiative here to get the Assembly to add the 2A to the NJ Constitution...

I would think it's more of: "Look how everyone else voted" I doubt very much that anyone here voted for some gun-grabbing Dem...

Hence my assertion that 'yes, you can use force to defend your home' with the caveat that 'it will cost you'.