Soju

Because that isn't reality. Not everyone has a firearm. So that is not a solution to the situation/question. It renders it moot because it is irrelevant. A solution to a situation has to be, you know, applicable. Bad guy breaks into house. Wife uses husbands gun to defender herself. Is it legal? That is the situation. Saying "she should have just had her own gun" is a meaningless comment.

I feel there is something lost in translation here. There is a difference between 1. The law. 2. What you could or would be arrested for or prosecuted on. 3. What one feels comfortable doing aside from the law. 4. A misinterpretation of the law. Vlad, what you are saying, is the law, and what any practical, non-biased, person, without an agenda would reason. What Shane is saying, that even with that being the law, it does NOT mean you couldn't be prosecuted otherwise. That happens ALL THE TIME. The point being, know the law, know what can happen regardless of the law, and then act according to YOUR own best interest, separate from the law. Because in the end, it often boils down to something else completely separate from the law but I digress The point actually is, that laws don't matter, only the enforcement of laws as perceived by those in positions of power.

1. I didn't question your spelling. 2. You're knowledge of Israel IS relevant if you are making a point about what you think is, or would be happening there. How could it not be relevant? If I made a point about a building collapsing because of adding another opening and then said my knowledge of construction wasn't relevant would that make sense? Of course it wouldn't. Using examples only work if you have a working knowledge of the example you are using! You can't just make stuff up. I asked specifically so I wasn't assuming you were just making stuff up, for example...no where did I say you must be an absolute expert, by contrast. 3. At what point was I trying to berate or demean you? 4. To your question "what part do I disagree with", well, you threw a lot out there, saying a) they are small wars b) they are insignificant historically c) they were for trade d) the US military keeps trade open to the world So I am not sure where you want to start Small as in how? Lasting over a decade, costing trillions of dollars, costing tens-hundreds of thousands of lives (based of various estimates including coalition and civilian casualties). Small like that? Insignificant how? Reshaping the Middle East, leading the enactment of unconstitutional legislation, leading to record spending, record debt, inflation, and economic downfall. Insignificant like that? Started because of trade? As opposed to claims of WMDs, 9/11, terrorists (Al Qaeda, Taliban, etc), political gain, monetary gain, based on recommendations of lobbyists, and lies. But it was for trade? You are losing me here. Oil is a trade good. So you are saying it we went to Afghanistan and Iraq to steal oil then? Well now I am starting to see where you are coming from. Odd way of saying it... mikelets456, +1000

What thread are we in? My head hurts.

axeman, If you believe some of the things you said, then I'm sorry, but you are seriously misguided. To be clear though, I mean these things: Yes, I am sure those were the reasons....oh wait, you are telling me those aren't even the reasons the government is saying? Oh, that is strange. Spelling aside, what do you actually know about Israel? This is not a rhetoric question, but a sincere one. I am curious to what you know about Israel, because I would prefer not to make an incorrect assumption. Thinking we are better off is nothing more than a state of mind and holds no weight in regards to reality outside of your own mind. It is akin to me thinking you are a one armed Korean midget prostitute.

This is old news. They have admitted to already doing this nearly a decade ago. They (government) is already working on restricting the internet and blocking all sites other than the ones they approve in "emergencies", so they can spoon feed you only the information they want you to know about and nothing more. Gun owners have already been classified by DHS as potential terrorists. But don't worry guys. It isn't like they can just lock you up somewhere and throw away the key without giving you a trial and an attorney. There are things like the 6th and 14th Amendments to protect you. Oh wait...

Yes, my favorite one is the bill that bans, well, almost everything they sell at arts and crafts stores, and tons of things sold at normal hardware stores. What genius wrote that one? I can see it now. "Monday morning police conducted a raid of the local elementary school, where they had received reports of a potential crime ring in the 2nd grade classroom. Police seized dozens of firearm disguising materials and arrested thirteen 7-year-olds and two adults said to be their teachers. Pictures have been released of the evidence recovered"

That is a tough thing to find out after the fact. My first time in Brussels, I went from a few beers in (or so I thought) to waking up in my hotel room unable to recall how I got there, or when I threw up all over my bed...

It seems my thoughts have already been stated by others in much more detail than I am willing to go into. But I'll say it anyways. Camden lays off a bunch of police, and crime goes up, because there are less guys with guns. Solution? Send in the National Guard, because they have guns. But of course letting the general population have guns would be bad? Seems like an easy solution if you take out the politically and financially based agenda...

You are right, it doesn't just come up here. A while back I was talking with a coworker who had a bit of a scare with someone potentially trying to break in one night, and thought the same thing. I had to explain to her that it wasn't true (talking about retreating that is).

I only hate it because the tune is so damn catchy.

If it didn't affirm that, then that is one jacked up statue...being that is says "the actor is not obliged to retreat from his dwelling"! BTW, where did this "must retreat until you no longer can" thing even come from?

If there is one thing I would NOT do with it, it would be turn it in to the police. Now I would actually imagine that is probably the "proper" thing to do, I would pass. There are just to many examples of people getting in trouble for doing the right thing. You don't want to be the guy who runs into the wrong cop on the wrong day or the wrong district with the wrong prosecutor. I am more inclined to go with the destroying the serial numbered piece of the firearm option.

Where is that thread on this discussion specifically, where there was quite a debate on the temporary transfer vs. nothing to prevent from carry any gun in your home thing. I'd post, but my opinion was clear in that thread. Let me dig it up... Found it. http://njgunforums.com/forum/index.php?/topic/28889-spouse-hold-gun-in-house/

Not sure what you mean by end result of a debate on this forum, when there are other things that actually hold water, like statues and case law. Let us take a look at the statue for a second. Ok, so you cannot use force, if these 2 things are present. Them being you either provoked the other person so you could use force, or that person is claiming the right to something AND you know you can avoid force by letting them take it or retreating. So, to say that you must retreat if able, isn't necessarily true. In fact, it is only true if that person it asserting a claim of right to one of, what you would call, your possession. Somebody who has broken into your house with the intent to rob you does not qualify. And you have no obligation to retreat. Your ex taking your microwave because she claims it is hers, would qualify, and you can't shoot her if you know just letting her take it will avoid physical force, for example. This reasserts what was stated above. It also defines some things. As it says, YOU HAVE NO LEGAL DUTY to abstain from ANY lawful action. As it says specifically before, you should also be able to infer that staying in your own home would be a lawful action, so you have no legal duty to do otherwise. Now we get even further. Basically it says 1. You can use deadly force to protect yourself or others, against force by the intruder. It further says you don't even have live there. If you are over a friends house, you have the same right to protect yourself or others, as the home owner. 2. You can use deadly force if the incident occurs suddenly and unexpectedly and you feel someone in the home is threatened. 3. You can use deadly force if the incident occurs suddenly and unexpectedly and you demanded the intruder disarm, surrender, or withdraw, and they refused. So the only time you are obligated to retreat is in a scenario that is NOT a home invasion. It would in most situations, be a situation involving someone you know. And even then you can still use force if you are threatened and don't think you can retreat safely. Furthermore, you can use deadly force in a home invasion scenario or break and enter in some cases even if you or others are not threatened. Now unless there is another statue, there is nothing in the above that prevents civil action against you in a justified incident. So that is another story. I see there was a 2008 bill that prevented this, but I am unclear if that ever passed.

I haven't, but like I said, when you get to a certain point, you don't care how crappy it tastes. To expand, that is because you either a) don't remember what you are drinking b)literally cannot taste what you are drinking, or c) are so far gone you don't even care.

Go back some other time and find somebody who knows what they are talking about.

Though I have and enjoy shooting both, I have more rifles than pistols, and I like shooting rifles significantly more. Now I am not sure if the OP's observation is in fact correct, but I also noticed the same thing. It seems like there are more posts about people buying new pistols than there are about long guns. That certainly doesn't mean that people are buying more handguns, but it seems that way.

I usually have a decent quantity of Yuengling in the fridge being that it is regional, cheap, and significantly better than stuff like the above mentioned Bud Coors Miller. When I was in college I drank Keystone Light. 12 bucks for a 30? Yep, I'll take it. I'm a big fan of Belgian whites and witbiers in general. I've been liking Sam Adams Blackberry Witbier recently. I probably drink the most when I am traveling, and since I am in Germany regularly (60x in the last 3 1/2 years), lots of witbiers. Much better than pilsners IMO.

The fact that this is being debated should tell you enough about NJ gun laws to realize at least one thing. Right or wrong, don't get caught..

Though lots have already said, since the question was asked, I'll add to the consensus. Build the lower yourself, and buy a complete upper. 1. It is easy. As said, all you need are some punches, a hammer/mallet, and depending on your stock, a stock wrench. 2. I find it interesting and enjoy it, so it isn't like it is a hassle. 3. It allows you to be familiar with all the parts and pieces, and gives you a good understand of how it functions. So if you have some sort of issue, or something breaks (or you break something!) you know what it is, where it goes, and how to fix it. 4. You can chose exactly what stock, grip, lower, trigger, etc, that you want.

There was a 1973 case that Dan and vlad posted a while back, though even that is not explicitly clear. State of NJ v. Valentine http://174.123.24.24...1985&SizeDisp=7 Other relevant threads. http://njgunforums.c...ce-of-business/ http://njgunforums.c...rrying-at-work/

Read the article again. It said Budweiser fell to number 3 and is the first time in nearly two decades that Anheuser Busch hasn't controlled the top two. Either way, light beers such as Coors Light and Bud Light have a market, and it is huge. That is for a cheap, easy drinking beer, that will eventually get you drunk when you drink in large quantities. When you get to a certain point when drinking, you don't care how crappy the beer tastes...

I'm embarrassed that happened in my hometown.