Soju

That and gross negligent operation? That wasn't negligent! He probably took great care. It looks like all the vehicles were equally crushed. Two BS charges!

Well as a start, since this actually DID happen, in the US, and recently, we could look at that and see how it turned out. https://www.google.c...iw=1114&bih=687

I actually agree with you..up until you called it a conspiracy that the media only likes to report on US government interests. That is, when it comes to main stream media, not a conspiracy, but rather a fact. I'm sorry I wasn't able to watch the news non-stop from a deployed location that reports the news in Arabic, a language I do not speak or understand. I'll try to get out more.

Called it! Another response of alluding to, and refusing to give ANY example or statement of fact. However at least you acknowledged you were wrong. So I guess there was some progress.

I suppose the Civil Rights protests of people like Martin Luther King that changed laws and allowed for some form of equallity, and let to a holiday named after one of them were all 'idiots, morons, scum-of the-earth people'. I suppose the people in Egypt, Greece, Syria, and Libya that protested causing entire government changes were all "idiots, morons, scum-of the-earth people". What about The Tiananmen Square protesters? Were they all "idiots, morons, scum-of the-earth people" too because they fought for democracy and were suppressed by force? What about the hundreds of thousands who protested in Spain and Mexico? All "idiots, morons, scum-of the-earth people" too I suppose? Again, instead of stating some FACTS like I have asked, you again do nothing more then make attacks. So how about YOU show all these protests that are made up of "idiots, morons, scum-of the-earth people"? But you are right. That is only a few folks. And that is just the few I cared to post about. So keep trying. Keep using an emotional response while refusing to give any sort of facts a thought. I know you will.

Well one has at least some attempt at following some form of legitimate course of action, even if it is something I adamantly disagree with. The other as you said 'flies in the face of' not just the Constitution, but any form of legitimate government or rule. The Constitution allows for things to be changed if people disagree with it. It doesn't allow for rules that violate it to be used in it's place. So if the first is done, though the effect is the same, I don't have much of an option substantiated in their game. The second is a game that I am not even a part of. I can fight against that. With that said, my position is subject to change, and you are right. There in reality wouldn't be much difference in either scenario. I suppose my position only holds merit in theory and belief.

Just as an observation... In contrast to these protests in Spain and Mexico, which had little coverage, and was largely blacked out by the media, did/does the same hold true for Egypt? Greece? Even Syria? Well no. Those had/have MAJOR media coverage. Why? Well because the Egyptian protesters were US supported. The EU had a financial stake in Greece. And the overthrow of the Syrian government and Assad is obviously US backed and supported.

Though I am certainly not suggesting I can always know about everything going on around the world, but I do attempt to pay attention, and probably more so than the majority of the US population. I can say that this is the first I have heard about this. All over the news? Well I'd bet it was on the news, at some point, sure. But it sounds a lot like it wasn't covered much at all. I'm not sure how you can say protests involving tens (hundreds) of thousands of people involves wearing a tin foil hat. And since if it was 'all over the news' wouldn't there be plenty of articles about it? I've been searching, and sure, there are plenty of articles. But none of them are from a single major news media outlet. Not a single one from the first 100. In fact, 9 of the first 10 articles about it were stating how the media wasn't talking about it and trying to black it out! You can continue to attack people because you don't want to believe something, but though it may be difficult, as it is part of human psychology, I would hope you could try and have less of an emotional response.

I think you mean illegal. The law itself would be unlawful. Unless that law was a Constitutional amendment that repeals the 2nd. That would make the possession unlawful. So if the 2nd Amendment was repealed, I would probably give up my guns. Then I'd move out of the country. If any other law was passed that banned guns, I'd imagine what would happen in the country would not be pretty. I know what I would do.

티아라- 러비더비 (좀비 ver.) Haters gonna hate.

Instead of just saying you have 'statistics' and calling people idiots, how about you post said statistics? I can say I have statistics to prove otherwise, but it doesn't mean anything unless I actually post them. Agreed. It certainly doesn't. I can't defend that, and won't. I have as much of a problem with that as anything. There are always people who use valid reasons to protest as an excuse to do stuff like that. And that is sad. I agree again. The people that turn to violence upset me. I hate that there are always people who ruin things for others. With that said, those people need to be dealt with, but it does not mean that everyone protesting is violent or has violent intentions. The portion of your quote I put in bold holds equally true for both the protesters and the police. As it is clear there are always people who use a protest as an excuse to commit crime, it is equally clear that there are police officers who use that as an excuse to use force on non-violent protesters. I didn't make an argument that smashing windows and kicking vehicles was protected under the 1A, so please don't try and make it like I did. I made general statements that preventing people from protesting is unconstitutional, and that attacking people because of their perceived 'class' is an ad hominem logical fallacy that holds no merit. Agreed! I don't always understand that either.

Well no, driving by definition is not a right. It is a privilege. That is why I asked if traveling was a right or privilege. The two are different.

Again, is traveling a right or a privilege? "The use of the highways for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common and fundamental Right of which the public " "The Right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by horse drawn carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city can prohibit or permit at will, but a common Right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Is everyone driving engaged in commerce?

No, considering the class of people protesting doesn't sum it all up. Attacking people over what you perceive to be a negative trait while not even attempting to consider the reason is nothing more than an ad hominem attack, which has been happening a lot here lately. The class of people alone (not that you have any idea what 'class' of people are protesting, like there is even only one 'class' protesting to begin with) has little relevance to the protest. It is funny how you guys try and act as if you stand up for rights and the constitution (like the 2A) and then attack others who do the same (1A, right to protest). Well, not funny, but ironic for sure. I might not agree with their reasons, or even like it, but trying to force people to NOT do it is done in disregard to the Constitution and meant to suppress free speech. Why is it that whenever people protest against police, they are met with police in riot gear, and violence ensues? Don't answer, the question is rhetoric.

Is traveling a right? Serious question. Second question. Can we stop with the ad hominem attacks? Also serious.

Did I not say something about coming up with a crazy scenario? Oh! Yep, I sure did! Just checking. Thank you for pointing that out though.

It's easy to get 'backlogged' if you aren't doing anything with them when you get them! I wish I could just not do parts of my job and use the excuse that I am 'backlogged' as a reason not to do it...

The problem is that FOPA clearly defines interstate travel. This 3 state thing is simply made up. There is no 'erring' on the side of caution. It is simply a position based off of ignorance that IGNORES the law. Period. I quoted what interstate travel means. Where is this 'you have to pass through another state' thing at? So If I travel to PA through DE first it is legal? I can only carry in states that do not border NJ? Silly enough? That is their position. That position is silly. Well, more ignorant than silly.

I know the OP's question sounds silly, but it really isn't. Of course one can always come up with some crazy scenario, but a car crash isn't far fetched. You are on your way to/from range, and get in a serious car crash. You have a pistol in your vehicles trunk. You are injured and taken to the hospital. Your car is wrecked, and you are unable to retrieve your stuff yourself because of your injury. When your stuff is being collected, the pistol is found. As whoever is collecting the items is not the owner of the pistol, are they allowed to have it? Is it really so simple that depending on where in NJ you are, that it just gets returned to you? I could imagine it being confiscated, and possibly have criminal charges come from it. They may not be substantiated, but it could happen. You might not get charged, say your wife was getting the stuff. Maybe she gets charged? Not likely, but it could happen.

Of the Feds authorizing illegal sales.

Screw that. If someone can name a single law, from ANY state, where that law specifically applies even if you are no longer in that state, and you can be charged with violating it, I will concede. I doubt anyone can. So why would NJ firearms transportation law be the only one of it's kind? Well as I said before, the answer is simple. It wouldn't, because that is were federal laws apply. And fortunately, there are federal firearms transportation laws that we all know. FOPA. I implore anyone to tell me how FOPA does NOT apply, not using their own made up logic, but substantiating it in federal law. That would mean you would have to prove that these do not apply. Any takers? I have posted this numerous times, and although many people continue to say it doesn't apply, no one has even attempted to touch the above quotes...or in other words, the actual law.

It could only be trespassing under a couple of conditions. 1. If he was asked to leave by someone authorized to make that call (business owner, manager in charge at the time, etc), and then refused to do so. 2. He was not allowed to be there to begin with (on private property, a closed business, just as examples) If it is one of those, then that can become a criminal matter. As you noted, it was a business open to the public, so he could not be trespassing as from what I read, he was not asked to leave by theater staff. That is why he was not arrested for trespassing. Because he wasn't. What he was arrested for, was apparently violating a city ordnance on possession of a dangerous weapon. "It shall be unlawful for any person to knowingly possess on or about the person or within such person's immediate reach any dangerous weapon." What is interesting here is, the term "dangerous weapon" is defined to mean "any artificial knuckles, bow, crossbow, machine gun, short rifle, or shotgun, knife, nunchaku, spikes, throwing star, as defined in this subsection, or other weapon, device, instrument, material or substance, whether animate or inanimate, which, in the manner it is used, is intended to produce bodily injury." Not included is a pistol, as that is included in the very next definition, for firearm. "Firearm means any handgun, automatic, revolver, pistol, rifle, shotgun, or other instrument or device capable of or intended to be capable of discharging bullets, cartridges or other explosive charges, excluding gas guns, as defined in Section 38-239(a)." What this seems to mean, is that they are not applying the proper ordinance. He, by definition, was not possessing a statutorily defined 'dangerous weapon'. He was possessing, by definition, a firearm, which is separate. Furthermore, if he was possessing a 'dangerous weapon', why would they have a specific ordinance on concealed firearms, and open carrying of a firearm? Well, they wouldn't. Here is what the city says about open carrying, which he was not charged with (according to the article). "Sec. 38-241. - Prohibition on the open carrying of firearms. The City of Thornton hereby prohibits the open carrying of a firearm, as defined in Section 38-237 of the Code, in any city building or in or upon any city property including but not limited to parks, open spaces or trails that exist within the City of Thornton and that have a sign posted at the entrance to any city building or city property informing persons that the open carrying of firearms is prohibited in such building or area." Was the theater a 'city building'? Did that theater have a sign posted prohibiting the open carry of a firearm? Looks like not even that applies.

Your limit is not the length of your buffer, but the length of the stock itself. When in the fully closed position does not the stock go all the way to the castle nut? I must not understand your issue.

I wasn't debating that it doesn't work. I'm sure it has it's merits. I was stating I don't agree with it in practice, because of the profiling that happens. You then told me that it is not profiling, and that "They don't just randomly grab people and search". I proved that false. Instead of admitting that it does happen while still saying you support it (a position I disagree with but understand), you used various logical fallacies to discount my evidence. If you weren't debating you should not have bothered responding. As I said, I can understand why people are okay with it. I am positive that it (stop and frisk, profiling) has worked. I am saying I value peoples civil liberties more then a few extra criminals getting arrested because either police are not allowed to, or don't care to do actual police work. I am also aware you do not care about anyones civil liberties. That is too bad. It is a cop out that violates innocent peoples rights as a result. I reject that.

I should have figured you would cherry pick and use your standard 'No true Scotsman' fallacy, and ignore any and all evidence to the contrary. If videos of it actually happening, a federal judges ruling, audio of police telling their guys to do it, and actual police officers saying it happens isn't evidence, then nothing is. But as usual, you always ignore evidence that is contrary to your belief. So might as well just keep moving the goalposts. I'd never notice....