Soju

What feels good is scaring those people away by going on my balcony and firing my double barrel shotgun off in the air.

1. Yes we (our military) do. 2. The Geneva convention applies to war. 3. FEMA and the other agencies I assume you are referring to are not the military.

Speaking of ostriches... http://njgunforums.com/forum/index.php?/topic/44296-favorite-flightless-bird/

Essentially the same thing was said by the USSC in either Heller or McDonald. I forget which one. But yes. If they do something long enough, then it becomes legal by routine. Which is why government officials break the law so much...

Please ask him if he has banged any staffers recently.

Based on USSC and other court rulings, is it illegal for homeless to own firearms?

So... Yet... And further... So basically, to sum up. 1. The Heller decision has no impact on the NJ statutes in question YET 2. Other courts have said it does apply outside the home. So we will ignore those and INSTEAD 3. Agree with decisions that mirror our own opinions. Yep, selectively chose which decisions and opinions you want admittedly even if they are not relevant while ignoring onces that admittedly may be. Hooray. My favorite is that despite USSC rulings (as grey as they may be) they just elected to go with the "our laws are presumably constitutional" line. Got to love it.

?????

I heard in addition to buying the airsoft guns, they were also buying rubber bands and shoe laces. No wonder the ATF was all up in their business!

This ATF 'expert' tried to put the magazine in backwards and said "with minimal work" they could be converted to a machine gun. Maybe if he knew what he was speaking about it wouldn't be so obvious. Nobody is calling him a moron without reason. A quick look into his history at ATF seems to substantiate this.

Opera...

Anyone with basic reading comprehension skills. I know they used to teach these things in school. Not sure about nowadays though.

The doctrine of nonresistance against arbitrary power, and oppression, is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind.- New Hampshire State Constitution

Temporary loss of freedom and acquittal is more important than temporary freedom and felony convictions?

My my, this thread makes my head hurt. First, the Bill of Rights is a list of rights...you know, since it says that in it. Twice almost. Ever get a grocery list from your spouse, and then not get some of the things on it because you interpreted it differently? Second, both Heller and McDonald were only positive in the sense they weren't completely negative. Other then that, the decisions were a joke. I'm a bit surprised the 'common use' portion wasn't brought up yet (or maybe it was, I may have missed it). But to summarize, they basically said, hey, any past or current infringements and violations are okay, we just can't add any more. Do something wrong and illegal long enough and it becomes legal by virtue of frequency. Yeah, that isn't a hack job ruling... Third, whether or not you or someone "sees the need" for something is not conditional of whether or not that is a right or not. I don't see the need for a lot of things, but why should that be reason enough to prevent those things from happening when they aren't hurting anyone? True colors tend to come out when this is discussed on things people aren't particularly fond of. As it clear, Vlad for example, doesn't believe in the right to keep and bear arms. Fourth, what role does the US Constitution play in regards to our government? Does it regulate? Impose restrictions or regulations? Give power? Take away power?

The double standard that is in place is ridiculous. I shoot somebody in the head while 'horsing around' after 'playfully' grabbing a gun, I go to jail and face criminal charges. That same standard does not apply to those who protect the states assets. The reporting seems pretty ridiculous. Well, either that, or what happened was in fact ridiculous. 1. Live ammunition is supposedly prohibited. Strike one. 2. The incident officer was not even participating in the drill. Strike two. 3. He pointed what I can only imagine he thought was not a real firearm at someone, against policy. Strike three. 4. He was "horsing around". Strike four. I feel for the guy, I really do. But the system is a joke. Violating policy, basic firearm handling and safety, and common sense is more than a mistake.

To answer the question posed in the thread title. Yes. I can out shoot a little girl. Can I out shoot that girl? Probably not...

Of course it is irrelevant. Him murdering people has no relevance to other cops murdering someone in a separate situation.

Yep.

So I got stuck in a waiting room today and they had one of those terrible news channels on. No idea which one, I wasn't watching. Unfortunately I could hear what they were talking about. They were discussing why the media talked so much about Dorner and how it was stupid to give him so much attention. The irony was through the roof.

Hmm... Trivia question: Block off the media. Pump tear gas into building. Deploy a vehicle to knock down walls. Building catches on fire. Let building completely burn. Did I just describe Waco or the cabin Dorner was supposedly in?

Same here. My biggest problem is finding a comfortable, concealable, and usable way to carry spare magazines.

This. There likely isn't any influx of shootings, but there likely is however in influx of reporting and media attention. Also, you may be suffering from recency.

Bingo.