Soju

I love this quote. I love it. It starts off with an admittance of them having stupid laws. I am sure it is one that the classic "uhh, I didn't mean that, you are taking it out of context, blahblahblah" response it will get. But it gets better. It was stated because of his OWN lie. So he admits something I am sure he didn't want to, in justification for something that isn't even true to begin with, in order to push an agenda. Good work!

And FFL's are capable of making mistakes....so you can either just trust what somebody says is true, or you can confirm it as such.

Gun control is just another thing/agenda corporate media pushes on the population to condition them so they can slowly continue to take away peoples rights until they have eroded into nonexistence. I disagree. I don't think either of these groups are small in the least.

Not a recommendation but a question. Do you already own any firearms/rifles? If you do, do you own a .22lr? Not intended to replace or takeaway from your purchase of another rifle, but if you don't have a .22, I would suggest looking into getting one in addition maybe. At the very least, don't discount one. IMO, everybody should own a .22. It is cheap to shoot, good to learn on, and fun as heck. I mean, if you are looking for something to come in around the $400 dollar price range, you could get both a .22lr, like a Marlin 795, and a semi-auto center fire rifle like an SKS. Just a thought. If you already have a .22, then you can ignore everything I said.

Legal, illegal, it is irrelevant. There isn't much you can do about it either way.

I've always been a big dog person. I had a Labrador Retriever when I was younger that was the nicest dog in the world. I hated little dogs, well, little yippy dogs that is. With that said, my old roommates girlfriend had a yorkie. As much as we both talked crap about it, she grew on me. Fortunately she wasn't the yippy type, and was quiet for the most part. That dog was dumb as heck but cute and friendly so I can't say too much bad. If I was going to get a smallish dog, it would be a beagle.

Yes, didn't you know your fingerprints go bad after a while. I know my fingerprints personally change every couple weeks, much like my eye and hair color. I was even told that in certainly lighting sometimes I don't even look human.

Because Duck Hunt for NES got old.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Was it hard to immediately buy 6 concealed handguns? How did you even know they were there? How did you see them? Were they not concealed very well?

Which is why I like the M&P's 'loaded chamber indicator', which is nothing more than a small hole if you will, in the top of the slide allowing you to directly see the brass without having to pull the slide back.

How is the loaded chamber indicator suppose to work on the PPQ? Is it just me or is any loaded chamber indicator that isn't completely tactile in function entirely useless? I mean, if it is only meant to be looked at, why wouldn't you just actually look for brass in the chamber? Shouldn't it be more for, as an example, a low light situation where you can't see well you instead feel for it?

I'd say being afraid to trim the extra blank space around the edge of an FID is being more paranoid than being afraid to travel with loaded magazines!

Yep, the media sucks. Like was said, drama sells. Today, unfortunately, most of what you see on mainstream media is pure hogwash. It is so sensationalize and often times just flat out lies, it is ridiculous. Once you see a news story on something you have personal information about, like the OP's example, that is when you truly realize how pathetic it is. Awhile back there was an incident on the news. When the story came on I was thinking, "damn, I was there for that! I already know what happened!". Then they aired the story and I realized I apparently, even though was present at the time, had no idea what happened. The story they portrayed was so absurdly different I couldn't believe it. And this is why the country is going down the drain. Because news agency push an agenda and pass of lies as the truth to get people to think a certain way or support a certain viewpoint....that is false. Pathetic.

Pakistan is too important logistically and geographically to us. Stuff like this is done for the sake of not getting shut out by them entirely.

Though different, for comparison sake, a friend of mine performed the heaviest airdrop ever, if I recall correctly was 77,000 pounds. So you would need to use a chute 2-10 times larger depending on the aircraft... Not the same thing I know, just to put in in perspective. The weight and space it would take up alone would make it impractical. De-icing fluid has no holdover time. It is for the removal of ice only, and does nothing to prevent accumulation. So in a time of active precipitation, unless you were also anti-iced, having to go back is not uncommon. I thin layer of ice can increase drag by 30% and decrease lift by 40%. (well, it varies depending on the aircraft) In other words, you will crash and burn on takeoff if it is not removed! There is absolutely no reason to push a takeoff in precipitation unless you are absolutely sure you are good to go. That is why there are (for us anyways), 2 different checks prior to takeoff to make sure. I'll give you a story. A year or two ago, there was a crew on the hold for takeoff. One of the crew members was doing the final inspection and notice the entire surface of the wings was covered in ice! They taxied back into blocks. It turns out, the de-icing fluid was diluted once, but it was not recorded. So it was again diluted. So where they should have had a 50/50 mixture, instead it was closer to 75% water causing it to freeze over! Had they not done an additional inspection, they probably would have never gotten airborne.

I clean them after every time I shoot them as soon as get back. The only exception is if I don't have time too, at which point I clean them as soon as able. I enjoy doing so. It probably isn't necessary, but it doesn't bother me. I can sit down and watch TV and drink some beer while doing so.

Would never work.

Great post. I do however feel I need to comment on one thing (what I have quoted above). I feel this is the reason why so many people are against firearms (amongst other things.) I am glad you said it however. I mean, you stated yourself, you don't know why you think that. There is nothing wrong with think that, but at the same time it doesn't mean you are correct either. And this is why there is such debate on the subject. Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

Thank you for the post. This is the first time anyone has attempted to give any actual legal precedent on the issue despite my many requests. With that I will say it only adds more confusion. At first I thought it was clear, in that your interpretation that you must be the owner or hold proprietary interest to be true. But a couple points of confusion. After it states that, it adds, that in that case (State v. Valentine), they found that in addition, they did not find that his possession of the firearm to in conjunction with the business. It confuses me for a couple of reasons. 1. The statue does not say that it has to be for any specific reason, rather the possession there is either legal, or it isn't. 2. I am unclear if the firearm was even his to begin with, as they mention that he lied, and changed his story with how he came into possession of it. Secondly, they mention case law from a previous case, which states, "since a small business man can defend his premises by armed force, the owner should be permitted to delegate this power to the one he leaves in charge of the premises. Cf. dictum in State v. Bloom," So this would seem to imply, that a small business owner could in fact delegate to an employee, and therefore that employee would almost be acting as an agent of the owner, and be able to legally possess a firearm there. 1. This seems to be contrary to the ruling in Valentine. 2. It does not specifically address the issue, or to say, the issues for the rulings are different. Man this is confusing. Having read some other cases from other states, as well as what you just posted, I am now inclined to agree with you. As it turns out, there was a Connecticut case in which this exact issue was addressed. As far as I understand, the CT statues are, or were, worded almost the same as the NJ statues are now. They ruled specifically, that "his place of business" only applied to a business owned, or with proprietary interest held within. Ones "place of employment" was not the same, and did not qualify as an exempted location. Though this is not binding case law for NJ, I would assume NJ would rule the same, and it is really the best we have. With all that being said, I would now have to agree, that "his place of business" does indeed refer only to a place where you are an owner of sorts.

I didn't say I have a problem flying, I mean, I fly for a living. If I didn't know what I know now, or didn't have access to the information I do, I wouldn't even think about it. But after a handful of IFE's and a few HATR's, things change a bit... Things are black and white why aircraft fly. Sure. But aircraft don't fly themselves (entirely). They don't control themselves (entirely), and they certainly don't work on and fix, repair, or maintain themselves. It is the people element that makes me nervous. There are hundreds of examples of aircraft that are perfectly capable of still flying, crashing due to human error.

See, here is the problem. I know at least I, was operating under the impression you knew of your rights. If you are going to be offering information and telling an officer on a traffic stop you have firearms, and then allow him to search your vehicle, then we can't help you. Me, on the other hand, know my rights, and am not going to willingly giving them up for no reason. I don't understand why you would do this? The scenario should be more like I'm driving to the range and get pull over for............ let's say a broken tail light. Officer asks for my normal stuff and asks me how I'm doing. I hand him my license, registration, and insurance. He asks me where I am going. I ask him if he needs anything else. He says hold on, I'll be right back. He goes to his car and does whatever. He comes back and issues me a warning/citation/nothing, and gives me my information back and bids me a good day. Nowhere does the fact I have firearms in my vehicle come up, because it is irrelevant. But if you want to talk yourself into possible trouble just to be nice, go for it.

I certainly agree with you vlad, but I will say, even though I disagree with other peoples reason to not carry loaded magazines, or not open carry where they legally can, I wouldn't go as far to say it is paranoid, or without merit. Though not with this loaded magazine thing (that I know of) there are plenty of instances of other things, that people have been harassed, arrested, and prosecuted over even when they were right. With that said, personally, I don't give in, and don't for the reasons you said.

Terrible. If you don't get a little bit nervous everytime you fly, there is something wrong with you.

After reading through this thread, and this_is_nascar last post about the Eagles game, I think I can make a comparison. This 'loaded magazines' vs. 'unloaded magazines' while traveling debate is much the same as 'open carry' vs 'not open carrying'. People are afraid to open carry because of the potential to be hassled. Just like people are afraid to travel with loaded magazines because of a potential to be hassled. It really has nothing to do with breaking the law as much as it is not wanting to run into someone who is ignorant of the law. That is all. Not much more to it IMO.