BRaptor

Would it help if I said "believe" or "understood" or "thought" rather than "feel?" Regardless, my point was that I FEEL the sensationalism of the video taints the validity of the point or argument that the "journalist" is attempting to make.

Nice quote-torturing, there. Not only is it a mis-quote, but it was taken out of context. He didn't say I don't care about the Constitution. He was saying that he wasn't concerned about the Const. on this bill. That has its own connotations and can be interpreted different ways (one of which is close to how he was quoted). But come on. Reality is bad enough, there's no need to make things up. He actually said: "I don't worry about the Constitution ON THIS..." Does it mean he wanted to pass this legislation so badly that he doesn't care if it's unconstintutional, or Does it mean that he feels that it is so clearly within Congress' powers to make this legislation that he's not worried about the bill being unconstitutional? *Flame suit on*

Sounds like a real "balanced" and unbiased book. :roll:

Amanda Lepore (the photo on the right) looks like a clown.

Could only find a Pelosi model for you. http://www.fadtoys.com/political/nancy- ... ehead.html

Can we add years or make more years ineligible for parole because he has no trigger discipline? :naughty:

Yeah, that's a classic sniper's saying. It's still good, though.

I'm down, again. I'll post my phone number on Monday, March 29 so people can get hold of someone inside if they show up late.

I threw a njgunforums target downrange, but I don't think anyone noticed. I did find out that the dark center of the njgunforum targets do not contrast well with the dark rubber backstop at BH, so I couldn't tell where my shots went. Perhaps next time I'll post my phone number so late-comers can text/call and meet up with the group.

I didn't catch sight of any NJGF shirts. I didn't look that hard, though. It was for the best, anyway. Wifey was nervous about shooting for the first time. I'm just happy I finally got her out to shoot. She's a good shot, too! Next meet is March 30, right? I'll be there and won't be late.

Was that Ray in lane 3 tonight? We were right next to someone with an AR (we were in lane 4). I was getting my wife through her very first shots. We got there late (around 7:30). Next time we won't be late!

How did I not see this thread until today?!?!?! I'm up for tomorrow at 7pm at the BH. I don't have anything interesting, just my S&W 686 (.357 Mag).

We're trying to put something coordinated together. Check this thread: viewtopic.php?f=38&t=5228

Did you even read the webpages that explained this e-mail before posting this?!?! It's false, a lie. It's based on an old bill (that was introduced during the BUSH YEARS!!!) that died before it even made it to committee vote. Has/had nothing to do with BHO's "master plan." :roll: Extreme righties are grabbing at straws and making things up when reality is bad enough. It's sad, really.

A couple years ago I wronte Gary Needleman a letter regarding a brief question I had. His reply came within a week of me sending the letter. He appeared to really know his stuff. It also appears (from a Yahoo search) that he's done some work with Nappan. He has his own firm. Here is an address I found for them. It's from 2006, though. NEEDLEMAN AND PISANO Montville Professional Building 161 Route 202, P.O. Box 187 Montville, New Jersey 07045 (973) 334-4422 I would strongly consider writing any attorney you decite to contact a letter rather than calling. 1) It lets them read your issues without having to write them down. 2) It's respectful of their time, they can address the letter when they choose instead of feeling pressured to return a call. 3) Many times it gets a faster response, because it's a piece of paper on their desk and not a scribbled note about a message they received. Good Luck!

As far as "probable cause," I think it's best not to challenge or question an officer on probable cause directly at the scene, you're likely not going to get an intellectual or congenial conversation started about the finer points of Amend. IV at that time and could find yourself "in contempt of officer" (which is not a crime, but can bring about physical pain). As for any search/seizure, I would deviate from Nappan in one sense; I would not ask why the officer is asking to search or why he's asking me to step out of my car. The default answer to any officer request is: "if you are asking my permission (or if you are asking me to voluntarily step out of my car), my answer is 'no.' If you are giving me an order, then I will comply, officer." It may be best to use this quote with every order/request the officer presents to you. In my mind (I'm not a lawyer), this establishes a very clear delineation that you are not consenting and you can later challenge in court, also, you are also not obstructing or resisting. On a much happier note, I'm glad the officers were professional and courteous.