Soju

It should say, or have some marking on the magnification it is set for. My Buckmaster mildot 6-18x, the mildots are used at 12x magnification. Also, Nikon gives a mildot guide with their mildot scopes...

Certainly don't be less open about it. Be more! Eventually when they see you haven't changed into some psycho and are the same person, who just likes shooting guns, they may change their anti-firearm views slightly. After I started getting into shooting, I got my dad interested in it, and he now has an AR and a .22 pistol. This surprises me only for the fact my mother HATES guns. But now that she has some exposure to them, she is slowly starting to move away from hating them, and only to a simply dislike for them. I do my best to enlighten people on firearms. I've taken a bunch of friends who didn't care much for guns to the range, and there isn't a single one of them who didn't have a good time. And because I am so open about shooting, other friends and coworkers who also like to shoot occasionally, but don't much because of being in NJ, have been asking me more about it so they can. Heck, there are a few people I had no idea even had guns that do. You'd be surprised I think!

Wouldn't surprise me. But like I said, avoid and deflect, which you are doing again. So let me get this straight. According to you 1. The police departments are run by politicians. 2. The police follow the rules. 3. Politicians are responsible for these illegal things that are taken place. So when the police violate the law, because of politicians, they are actually following the law, and should take no responsibility for their actions? Got it. Yep, no agenda! Edited to add the actual quotes where he said those 3 things. 1. 2. 3.

It doesn't, but Jules is a cop and wants to deflect attention from those like in his profession that violate the laws they swore to uphold. He can't be reasoned with, so he avoids, deflects, makes quips and insults others.

No they don't.

What is ironic here, is that if the only reason he was denied happens to be because he didn't fill out a form that isn't required, he could end up getting the permit sooner then most people! I guess I would rather be denied in a timely manner, so that I can receive it after an appeal then play their game and still have to wait an excessive and illegally long amount of time. Maybe it isn't ironic though, merely coincidental.

I haven't yet realized this, but I imagine it will only be a matter of time. And money. Yes, time and a lot of money.

False assumptions often lead to false conclusions.

So being 63359 inches behind is better than not giving them anything and being even? Logic fail. People have...hence the current law suit. If there was a way? Probably most of them. Too bad there isn't a way.

I wish for people like you to have to fill out some sort of form, or go through some sort of other illegal process in every aspect of your life. Need gas for your car? Fill out a form. Buy food at the grocery store? Fill out a form. Go to the movies? Get fingerprinted first. Cross the street? Sign a waiver. After all, it shouldn't be a big deal and there would be no need to complain about it like a crybaby.

+1 Great analogy considering the forum we are on! Also, it is good because it is exactly the same thing (in some states that is). I hope it wouldn't. I would think that it could be thrown out if shown that it was only signed under duress/coercion and that the theft of the money was illegal. But then again, are legal system is designed to protect the state and not individuals, so probably not.

No, but we are talking about quasi legal robbing of an innocent person. Having money is not illegal. So it doesn't matter. As you said, in one scenario, there is nothing illegal, in the other, there is. So they are in fact two quite different things, and your last statement does not apply to scenario two. Kidnapping is illegal. I never said that there shouldn't be questions asked. I said that intentionally giving a hard time and hassling people because you don't like the answer to a question one is under no legal obligation to answer), is the problem. You can't (shouldn't) steal someones money because they don't tell you why they have it. If asked how much money you have on your debit card, on in your account, should they be able to steal it because you don't tell them? So what makes it being cash any different? As stated, sure, he can ask questions. Unless the answer is for something illegal, then there is no right to steal it. Unless the officer has reasonable suspicion that the person is, has, or is going to commit a crime, there is not even any right to detain him past the traffic stop. And absent probable cause, a search and seizure is illegal. That is understood. I understand why questions are asked. I have no problem with that. The only thing I have a problem with is this notion that somehow you have to answer any question an officer asks, and that if you don't or they don't like the answer, it is because you must be a criminal or have something to hide. Could that be the case? Absolutely! But it also could just be something much simpler, that being you don't want to answer because it isn't their concern!

Doh!!

Yep, that is what he should have done. Played by the rules of those who break the law because they have authority. That is the right thing! You do not. You are a liar. Your very post (heck the same sentence!) proves this. yet in the same sentence... and even before

Personally, whatever happens to someone while they are committing a violent crime...sorry, but I have a hard time feeling bad for them. What type of message does it say to criminals, when people who protect themselves and others from crime also get arrested? It says you have a better chance of someone not doing such for fear of arrest, so my chances of being a successful criminal are higher.

No, but hassling people for no justifiable reason other than that they can, is. And the job of peace officers is to maintain the peace. Sure they can ask questions. That is their right. But detaining someone, or intentionally making it a pain for someone, because they don't like the answer, or don't get an answer, is an abuse of authority, and it is done as such, under the color of law. It is upsetting that you may think this is okay. I hope I misread that. It is close to a double edged sword, but I would rather a criminal go free than in innocent person be jailed...but that is just me. Lots of people would rather the opposite, and I think that is a shame.

It's not an evasive answer, it IS the answer to the question, because it is none of your damn business. So you are in fact, "being a dick". Not a stupid comment, but a disgusting response by you. The fact that you feel special because you have perceived authority and it should allow you to get the answer to any question you want is a problem. You want to know why you and Jules receive flack for some of your posts? Well there is why. If something is legal, it is legal, it it doesn't matter what the heck the reason is, it isn't any of your business. Your lack of respect for others is why people don't respect you in these matters.

What it requires to maintain those...yes, it is a LOT!

Your idea hinges on the very thing you are arguing. Compliance of the law. What makes you think filing a lawsuit saying "this law says you have to follow that law...which you aren't following" will matter. When they don't follow that one too should another lawsuit be filed for not following the law that says they have to follow the law that they aren't following?

I'd say there is a better chance that it doesn't matter what anyone besides the AG himself has to say about it, nothing will change, and they will continue to go on breaking their own laws for whatever reasons they feel like. Accountability=zero.

So I suppose in the mean time you can go and buy a gun while you wait right? No, you can't. You are being denied your right. Even if you feel that is temporary so it is okay, it still exists. The fact you feel it is okay to be delayed is not even justified by NJ law itself! So even if I feel the whole permit/FPID system is bad, that much is irrelevant. The fact is, there is a system, and it is NOT BEING FOLLOWED. They are breaking the law, and you can make as many excuses as you want to the reason. Does it mean I am okay if I drive without a license because I didn't have time to get it renewed. What about take food without paying for it because I was busy and didn't have time to make any money. I could go on and on, but you are just making an excuse that doesn't pass on the most basic of legal scales...not that they are followed anyways. So why aren't those that don't follow the law (for whatever excuse), charged? There is some clear hypocrisy here. Unless my excuses for not following the law allow me to commit crimes and not be charged, or make it okay, any excuse is just that, an excuse...bs.

OK, here is the deal. The court ruled that simply having 'child porn' in your computers memory cache alone is not enough for a conviction. The person must have been intentionally downloading it. Think of it this way. You get a computer virus, and this stuff pops up. Even though you immediately close out, it is still saved, unknowingly to you, on your computers memory. Are you guilty of a crime? Before, yes you were. This ruling says that isn't enough. How many of you know for certain that there is nothing like this on your computer now? I bet most of you cannot answer that questions definitively.

Since your numbers were not just gunfire, mine aren't either, but rather hostile activity in general. 2006- 918 2007- 1019 2008- 469 2009- 466 2010- 559 2011- 472 2012- 111 Oops, not what you were expecting...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M0nTc1vMyiA&feature=related Well I can only add 10 at a time, but I'd need at least another 18 posts for all the videos, most of them being of people being arrested for filming, or people being attacked by police. Ironic that a number of these are almost exactly like Jules scenario 3 to my hypothetical...but that was just an illustration right?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VPRrHYn3TiU http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LbQUltNOqo8&feature=related