db1775

Damn straight he's got an American-centric mind. I do too, and I don't see it as an issue. South Korea is just another country that we wasted American lives and dollars saving and defending. Another country with tens of thousands of US troops needlessly in harm's way. I say, let them build whatever they hell they want, with whatever intentions. I don't care about the buildings. Or the country. Or what they think of us, which isn't too positive to begin with. We should follow George Washington's advice and base our international relations on trade, not emotion, and remove every singe servicemember from their soil immediately, whether the buildings are a 9/11 slam or not. I think it is time this country became more Ameri-centric again. Just something I've been wanting to say about our position in Asia for a while, this thread offered the opportunity.

I don't want to start any foodfights here, but if you can suspend any political sensitivities you'll find this activist zombie video so stupid that it is actually entertaining. If I could do it, anyone can. Video is at the bottom of the article. Political Zombies

That's the perfect conversation killer -- I guess using that logic, no group can be commented on, ever. We have to speak in generalities, otherwise no comment can be made at all, except "there's idiots in every group". I've seen both OWS and the Tea Party close up, and I can GENERALLY say that there is a vast difference in motives here. But I guess that before I can definitively say that I'll have to visit every Occupation. And your "see what I did there" moment kind of broke down. The Tea Party certainly wasn't driven by a "Hate the Rich/Banks" sentiment, nor would a Nationalist stand out in that crowd. So in this instance, swapping out OWS for Tea Party doesn't really work.

I think he's just reiterating what he's been saying since the 1980s here, but he's the only one that can say it without being self-conscious and apologetic. I don't agree with the timeline he seems to be setting, but you can't really argue with demographics. The thing I like about Buchanan is his grasp of history. The "decision of 1848" is one that few people bring to any discussion on ILLEGAL immigration. Too damn few Americans understand that illegal immigration of American citizens is how Texas was separated from Mexico in the 1830s and how we tried to undermine the Mexican government in California in the 1840s. I'm not criticizing the tactic -- it was necessary to make us what we are today. But we should be aware that the same methods could easily be used against to us. If you want to see where this country might be headed sooner, because of our economic mismanagement, take a look at these books: James Wesley, Rawley -- Patriots James Wesley, Rawles - Survivors

Excellent video, but that kid is an obvious plant into OWS. He's too well-reasoned and intellectually organized to be in league with those idiots. The general tone of the OWS crowd is one of mindless "Hate the Rich/Banks". This guy has actual, well-articulated reasons. And he's a Nationalist, he gets that America is the "last, best hope". The rest of that group generally doesn't like its own country, at least that's what I've hard from them. Speaking of mindless zombies that will one day overwhelm us, check out the drone-like chanting from Occupy Atlanta: These are the people this discussion should be worried about --mindless, hungry robots who want your stuff because they feel they deserve it.

What they took away/stole was bad enough, but what may be even worse is what they were going to give him -- a Felon tag. For someone who (as reported) never had any run-ins with the law, there's probably nothing worse than going from law-abiding Citizen to convicted felon overnight, especially with little hope of justice in an anti-Constitution state like CA. That alone has to be so overwhelming psychologically. It always strikes me as remarkable that real felons most likely don't feel this same shame, but the people against whom these gun laws are targeted -- the law-abiders -- are driven by respect for the laws that aim to turn them into felons. What absurd times. But hey, at least they dismissed the charges.

That's an excellent point, there is a LOT of trouble stirring right in their backyard. But all that is coming from their own provocations or from their only natural predator -- US. If they had a local rival that could challenge them, then keeping their meager navy close would make sense. You're right, they probably will be conventional here and just keep everything close to home. But any non-ground assets they have are going to be useless in any confrontation with us. And they have a history with operating in South America in the form of sponsoring Hezbollah activity there (and in Mexico) and basing missiles in Venezuela. This would be a natural next step.

Agreed that any Iranian naval presence in this hemisphere is nothing to worry about in a practical sense. Buuuuuttt, and I'm just spitballing here, imagine the propaganda value of a photo of the Iranian flag flying in the Gulf of Mexico or off the coast of Florida. They do have a handful of submarines, destroyers and frigates. In any confrontation with the USN, the Iranian navy would be toast Day 1, so why not get some real value out of them before that? If we can assume that Iran is expecting a US/Israeli attack on their nuclear facilities, which would probably lead to another regional war over there, then having a few ships on hand over here would make more sense than leaving them in the Persian Gulf. At least over here they'd die on the offensive. I think that the last 32 years have shown us that these people have no problem with suicide missions, even an expensive one like this. And in the mean time they get to show the folks over in the ME that they can get in our face. It is a win-win for them, I think.

I'm new at this -- here's the url: http://blog.nj.com/njv_editorial_page/2011/09/national_right-to-carry_recipr.html

Who knew these highly-educated sophisticates would be so judgemental? I've never been classified as a "paranoid gunslinger" before . . . I think I kinda like it. My link

This being NJ, there HAS to be a law regulating carrying a knife in public, right?

Remington 870 Express Savage Axis .30-06 S&W MP 15-22

Thanks guys for all of your help -- it is much appreciated. Krdshrk -- I like that luggage lock solution, but my case only has one zipper pull. Malusa, sorry to parse this so much, but in your opinion does "closed and fastened" include "zippered"? I suppose all of this would be moot if my behicle had a trunk, but I only have a mini-van without a trunk separate from the passenger compartment. In any event, I am probably just better off returning this soft case to avoid the possibility of being harassed. On a related note, as a person new to firearms ownership in NJ, I find it kind of insulting that our state gov't goes far out of its way to deliberately confuse law-abiders to the point of making us worry about the legal equivalents of a zipper.

Hi guys, What is your opinion on what the NJ law says about carrying long guns in a soft case within NJ? The statue says it needs to be in a locked case -- just wondering if that means we must have it in a locked hard case; I'm not aware of a lockable soft case. Apologies if this was covered in another thread, but I could not find one addressing this specific question about the long gun transportation laws. Thanks!