Soju

If I were to be asked at a traffic stop, I would simply hand the officer the required documents, DL, insurance card, registration, and ask if he needed anything else. If I'm asked again, I again would ask if he had everything or if I forgot something. I'd try not to be too blunt, as that could come off confrontational, but I wouldn't give up any information I don't need to. Under no circumstance does it benefit you to tell more than you need to, as much as they might insist otherwise. People often don't realize the intent of the 5th Amendment. You are extremely more likely to talk yourself into an arrest than talk yourself out of one, or even a ticket. Don't push it.

Fox, MSNBC, and CNN are equally as terrible and full of crap. The difference is the agenda. There is no room for truth unless it coincides with their agenda. The statement about "lies lies lies" is completely true, and holds true for almost all main stream media. Just look at all the polls they show where they either leave out Ron Paul, or use a poll based on like 54 people. Remember the incident where people in Arizona were open carrying at a rally, and they showed a man carrying an AR and said he was a white supremacist...except he was actually black. Or not too long ago where they were showing riots in 'Moscow' yet the footage was from Greece. Or where various reports will get called out on something they said, only to deny it to the death, when they are on film saying otherwise...numerous times (Bill O'Reilly is a good example of a compulsive liar). How about their very own staged events, where they pretend they have reporters somewhere in the Middle East being shot at or bombed, when it turns out they are in studio or a hotel set or something. I hate to sound like a conspiracy theorist, but what about the video where a reporter is reporting the collaspe of WTC 7 when the building is still standing and is visible in the background. I could go on. Just do a quick search on youtube with the names of media outlets and the word lies and you will get tons of videos.

Which is why I quoted and said what I did. Correct.

You mean that it isn't just one side or the other...but both! Gasp! No way! Who doesn't love the 2 party system. It has twice as many options as communism!!

Oh, well that makes sense then. Your original post was not clear. I apologize.

Well aren't you being picky, as if that isn't enough!

I understand, and again, am not saying you are wrong. I do however object on you quantifying it as 95% without any source, and then saying it is a well known stat. That is what I take issue with. Now if you were to simply say, it is generally more dangerous, or not usually in your best interested, that is different. Personally, I'd rather try and fight my way out of a situation rather then submit to an abduction/kidnapping. I agree, I have often heard that kidnapping type things don't often have favorable results, but to claim something like only 5% survival rate without substantiating it seems a bit of an exaggeration. Thanks for taking the time to try and look it up. This also leads me to another question. Assuming your odds are better off trying to do something instead of being taken to a secondary location, why does Law Enforcement in general, tell people to comply with the perpetrators? That seems like terrible advice if your assertion is true? I want to make it clear I am not questioning you, nor directing it to you specifically, but to the forum in general.

Are the oil companies screwing us? Well...let us take a look at it for a few minutes shall we. The US is the largest fossil fuel consumer on the planet. The oil companies control this commodity. As such, they control the price. Despite creating a massive oil spill in the Gulf, resulting in an environmental disaster, they still profited. In addition, they decided to claim the land near the spill for themselves, deeming it unsafe for the people who owned it, and lived there, kicking them out. Again, benefiting at your expense for their mistake. They also have a large stake in the government. Because they have so much money, they can lobby their way into political positions, either via a proxy (someone who they pay to act on their behalf, or in other words, the traditional way of lobbying), or those in control of the companies can run themselves, so they can do exactly what benefits them the most. See former VPOTUS Cheney for example. So instead of having elected officials work for the people, they work for the oil companies, and other corporations of course. They benefit from offshore, overseas, and foreign oil more than they do from the oil we have within the US. So instead of working in the US, increasing national jobs, decreasing foreign dependence, and eliminating wars, they do the opposite, and profiteer from such things as Iraq, and the Gulf Oil spill, as examples. Again, because they in part, control Washington. So yes, we are getting screwed.

The statement that we should celebrate and honor celebrities who abuse drugs? Or the statement that the rich are more important than our Law Enforcement and Military members who gave their lives for the state and country? I can't agree with that statement he was trying to make.

Being from NH, this saddens me, but does not surprise me at all. NH has some very corrupt and power hungry prosecutors and judges and the police force is generally instructed to simply make arrests rather than be allowed to use their own judgment. It is unfortunate. NH RSA 627:4 II. A person is justified in using deadly force upon another person when he reasonably believes that such other person: (b) Is likely to use any unlawful force against a person present while committing or attempting to commit a burglary; II-a. A person who responds to a threat which would be considered by a reasonable person as likely to cause serious bodily injury or death to the person or to another by displaying a firearm or other means of self-defense with the intent to warn away the person making the threat shall not have committed a criminal act. However... III. A person is not justified in using deadly force on another to defend himself or herself or a third person from deadly force by the other if he or she knows that he or she and the third person can, with complete safety: (a) Retreat from the encounter, except that he or she is not required to retreat if he or she is within his or her dwelling, its curtilage, or anywhere he or she has a right to be, and was not the initial aggressor Too bad SB88 didn't pass. Oh wait..it did pass, only to be vetoed by the anti-liberty Governor Lynch... http://www.governor.nh.gov/media/news/2011/071311-sb88.htm Fortunately....his veto was overturned! http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2011/SB0088.html So he must have said he wasn't threatened, because otherwise his actions would be legal.

Well it is not well known to me...which is why I asked. If it is so well known you should have no problem backing up your claim. When I looked it up, I didn't find much, and what I did find was unverified, however it showed a 83%-52% difference from yours. That leads me to believe your claim is just as made up as the ones I read online. Saying something is "well known" does not verify it, as many "well known" facts are incorrect and stem from misinformation and misconceptions.

@GovChristie What is the longest amount of time you can talk before you have to take a snack break? #jerseycomeback

Not that I am saying you are wrong, but would you mind citing a reference for this? Exactly, which is why both have advantages and disadvantages. Those are things you must consider, along with all the other factors.

As mentioned above, the very first thing you should do is download and use ANY other web browser. Chrome, Firefox, or even Opera. The next thing you should do is never use IE again. You will find them faster, less cluttered, have a better interface, easier to use, more secure, and still have more options than IE. If only Opera would fix some of its compatibility issues, that would make me happy.

On a somewhat related note, and by that I mean related only due to fact we are talking about movies, and Australian ones at that, why is it that every Australian film I see are depressing and sad as fugg? I recently saw 'The Square' and 'Animal Kingdom' and both films, while very good, were terribly depressing. Are all Aussie movies like this?

The way I see it, there are certain advantages and disadvantages to both. The environment you are in, what you are doing, and other personal factors need to be weighed in determining what is best for you. Personally, I generally believe that carrying concealed is the better option. However I can see where one would rather open carry. Like most things, I am against RESTRICTIONS, so wouldn't want somebody to be forced to conceal if they would rather open carry, and visa versa. In many of the places around here, where people can carry, I feel the advantages of concealing far out way the advantages of open carry. However where I am from, in rural New Hampshire, open carrying has just about as much benefit as concealing, and the disadvantages are almost negligible. Of course, one should never discount information and examples, such as the ones posted in this thread, nor should they use them as the sole basis for their decision. All factors need to be looked at. To do otherwise is, to put it frankly, stupid and ignorant.

That couldn't be further from the truth. It has nothing to do with thinking all police abuse their powers, and everything to do with the ones who don't! If you look at it the other way, and assume that police ALWAYS act correctly, how do you hold the ones accountable who in fact, do not? There are tons of examples of filming police with positive outcomes, where the officers acted correctly. There are tons of examples where filming the police served to defend them against unjust accusations. But there are also examples that showed the police acting incorrectly or illegally. Filming serves to protect EVERYONE involved. The only reason you wouldn't want to be filmed is if you knew you were doing something wrong. That is not exclusive to police. That seems like a fairly wise decision. You have every right to protect yourself against lies and made up accusations as anyone else and I'd encourage you to do so. It certainly goes both ways. That reminds me of one of those court shows, in which a police officer was suing because of false complaints against him. He had recordings to back up what happened, and it showed that the person he was suing was mad because he wrote her a ticket and her bribe didn't work.

Kudos to them. That is how these sort of interactions are suppose to work. What I like even more, is that they let you know they were going to inform the person who complained that you guys were not doing anything wrong. Anybody can make a complaint about someone, but it doesn't mean they should have, so investigate the complainer also, especially when it is confirmed that nothing illegal is taking place!

I thought everybody knew that the biggest reason for the Civil War was to prevent the vampire takeover. Why do you think so many people died compared to other wars. Those vampires were everywhere. Abe might not have been the best guy, but he had firm believes on what to do about vampires. It is about time we got a good historically based movie based on that era/time period.

No need to just believe it, that is indeed the case. In fact, that was the case before, but that doesn't stop people from getting arrested for it. See my numerous examples above.

They way I see it, Fox news was way better than CNN and MSNBC, at least they even had his show to start with!

Here are other reasons why you probably shouldn't open carry... Harassment.

Qik Qik.com, they have an app for the iPhone and I think maybe even android. US 1st Circuit Appeals Court. Glik v. Cunniffe http://www.ca1.uscou...ON=10-1764P.01A There is no expectation of privacy in a public space. In a number of states people have been arrested under state wiretapping laws for filming police, due to the audio recording portion of the statues. However to my knowledge, none were convicted, as there is no expectation of privacy in a public place.

Entirely necessary. If something goes down, and it is your word vs. the police's word, people are going to believe the police. You have to have something to hold everyone accountable for. Unfortunately people who do things they shouldn't, don't like being recorded. There have been numerous incidents where people have been arrested for recording, assaulted for recording, had their camera taken/destroyed/footage erased. I have a program that uploads footage live to the Internet should something happen, and my phone/camera taken from me. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ASQPZ-cIpiw http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7D7zdX6JNr8&feature=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=at1q3lIpK3c http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rpeGUTfNspc&feature=related But not just police, but court officials as well. Watch 1:30-1:50.

The old Model 60 held more than 15 rounds. The current model is labeled .22lr only and holds 14 rounds, making it legal. At one point Marlin made a plunger tube for the old version that restricted the number of rounds to comply with NJ requirements.