Soju

Quoting for truth. I was going to say, just read the dissenting judge's opinion. As has been compared with both firearms and religion in this thread, you can compare it with absolutely anything, and the result is the same....control. It only takes small steps over time to amount to totalitarianism in the end.

Nothing is trivial. Just like the old saying goes, you give them an inch, they will take a mile. Granted they have already took miles, but it is the principle behind it. No battle against tyranny should go unfought.

If I posted how I feel about this I would probably be labeled a "domestic terrorist" or some other BS. Just another step towards totalitarianism.

True. This is a huge issue though, and I hope people understand the actual magnitude of it.

Though I don't see it that way, even if I did, look at his numbers, awards, and SB's. He IS that great!

http://www.gpo.gov/f...12hr1540enr.pdf

I wouldn't have guessed that, which is quite depressing considering it looks like a rusted version of the crash axes we keep on my aircraft. Massive fail on my part. Even more of a fail because I was playing around with one the other day...

Exactly. And that is how they get you. Just like the NDAA you mentioned. "Oh, that provision on detaining citizens without trial, attorney, or due process, yeah, we won't use that, so you are good. Don't worry." And people believe that. "Oh, I know I am not a terrorist, so what do I, or any other non-terrorist have to worry about?" And the cycle continues. If Barry ends up being given a second term as POTUS, and you support that, or vote that way, please do me a favor, and burn any and every copy of the Constitution you come across. And if you are tech savvy, please also do what you can to destroy it in the technological world as well. Thank you. Regards, A real American.

Another judge making up his own stuff as he (or she) goes. Go figure. Judging based on his on opinion outside of law, is illegal. He should have recused himself for a blatant conflict of interest, or should have been asked to recuse himself by the plaintiff. The only way to win is to beat them at their own game. Unfortunately the odds are stacked against you.

Shhhhh, how dare you utter words of reason and logic in a NJ gun laws thread!

In time....

Not basically, it is a corporation. Not just in theory, or operation, but legally speaking as well. There is always a reason the government does something some way. The problem is, too many people think that way, is "for the good of the people". It is almost never that reason. That is the point that needs to come to light. The problem? That is what the government does NOT want to happen. Which is why they try and criminalize those that point this out, or shut them out of the media (RP), or do whatever they can to discredit those people. And that, makes me sick.

Good point. Now you have me second guessing myself. Just goes to point out the absolutely asinine laws in NJ. In almost any other state this wouldn't even have merit as a discussion, nevertheless be something even thought of as illegal. I was going to say how your example is a different situation (as it is), but the fact I can't distinguish it based on the statues, well, it speaks for itself. I have one thought, either way. But that word gets censored on this forum.

I agree. What I don't agree with is a transfer where the possession of the firearm originally, is legal, and then, by statue, the possession of the firearm after the transfer, is legal, somehow being an illegal transfer. That **** doesn't make sense. But then again, this is NJ, the laws rarely do.

Though I agree with your interpretation, herein lies the problem. What you are saying, you must also apply yourself. Why are you saying it is legal based on what part of the law but ignoring the other statue that says the transfer is illegal? I mean, you yourself said "All of the LAW have equal value.". No need to respond though. The question is rhetoric and I am just playing devil's advocate. It is food for thought however.

A bat, club, lamp, knife, fists and feet, shovel, pitch fork, sword, staff, sais, nunchakus, etc.

While I am not arguing with your explanation of the statues, as I am inclined to agree, I am arguing with the logic behind it. As I said before, in other threads, how can the transfer be illegal if the possession is legal on both ends? Statueally (yes, I did just make that word up), it is illegal, but as a matter of actuality, I don't see how it is. I mean, think about it. The only time anything other then reading the words in the statues, that anything illegal is going on, is a period of limbo. Some period of time after (for example) the husband transfers the firearm to his wife, but before the wife receives the firearm from him. Talk about some wacky laws that have no actual translation to reality!

Using a red herring doesn't win a debate. And the debate is about the legality. If you would look, there are statues that are seemingly conflicting. Some (like yourself), are saying it is an illegal transfer. Others (like myself), are saying it is not illegal. So no matter how many times you repeat yourself, it doesn't magically make the debate over. But you know what, I'll play anyways. I'll go along with it being as easy as getting everybody in the entire state of NJ a gun. Oh wait, this is NJ, and in order to buy a gun you need an FPID, and for a handgun another permit as well. So what do you do in the time between trying to get a gun and actually having one. Say this fictional wife applies for a FPID, and while she is waiting to receive it, her home is broken into? What say you know? You mean even your convoluted argument is flawed further? Weird...

Yeah, what mikelets456 said. +1000 It isn't that we don't expect our bosses or employers or others we know to not know what we say. Or that we don't think we should get in trouble at work for something we said online. It is that the government is using things people say online to profile them and potentially classify them as some sort of terrorist, or an excuse or reason to monitor all communication from said individual. There is a vast difference. In fact, your example and comparison is something that is totally different.

What can or should be the case is irrelevant. I should be able to carry legally in NJ. I can carry in NJ. But how would those opinions help anyone who gets caught doing so? How would the opinion someones wife should have had her own gun help the wife who uses her husbands to defend herself in a break in situation? The answer? It doesn't help at all. So yes, that is the reality of the situation and discussion at hand in this thread.

Best day of the week: Tomorrow Best feeling: Blumpkins Best music genre: 80's electro Best actor: Dolph Lundgren Best binary symbol: 0 or 1

Monitoring secretly. Spying. Call it what you want. It is all the same. Exactly. "The road to hell is paved with good intentions" (though whether they are good intentions or not has yet to be seen)

Now this I agree with! The only thing I don't quite agree with is I feel it is quite the opposite actually. They pander to lobbyists and the bankers that are running the government from the background. They don't pander to the idiots, they count on the idiots going along with what they say...

Spelling aside, as in, separate from, in spite of, away from consideration. Why you keep bringing it up is beside me. If you really don't think a multi trillion dollar war of decades isn't going to be taught in history classes, then I have no further comment other than, really? The Patriot Act, for example, was in direct response to 9/11 and the "War on Terror". The NDAA was also as a result of the "War on Terror". Both are unconstitutional. Heck, this thread was started because of what is also unconstitutional acts that our government is doing. I could go on. Were WMD's or 9/11 the actual reasons? Of course not. You would have to be ignorant to think they were. Now, they were the reasons given by government, but we all know they always tell the truth... Was oil a reason? You bet your a**! But in the name of trade and the US military supporting the world trade economy? Laughable really. No it wasn't/isn't. In fact, who (beside yourself) is even claiming that? I am not sure how you drew this conclusion from my comment. But to comment with some relevance, the DHS is admitting they are spying on the population. They are admitting it! So what I think is entirely meaningless. To the extend to which, I have no idea. And I didn't say I did either.

Says a government employee no less....