Soju

So if the police get together and talk of committing a crime, and then one of them does, it isn't a crime for the other, but if they are civilians, it is? Is this what you are saying or am I misinterpreting what you actually mean, because that is how it reads. If true, that would be entirely effed up. So in my examples before, if they were drug related, potentially could be crimes? That seems jacked up too. Why is it that drug crimes often seem to be of such great interest, and carry such high punishments when they can often be the pettiest of crimes? That I don't get either.

Well that makes sense then.

Out of curiosity, when you say (in reference to posts like SSlav and Vlad but not directed at anyone in particular) " I prefer these mags over these mags" besides one or the other not functioning, is there any reason to prefer one over the other? Do you just like the way one looks or how they feel, or is it just random without any real reason? I have seen people say in the past that while they had never had any issues with how some magazine worked, they liked some other type better. I don't completely know why though.

You would be surprised. For many many people, it would be very easy to miss by, in this guys case, a few feet to the side, from that distance. 1. Not everybody shoots as much as most people posting on a gun forum. I have personally witnessed people shooting at paper full sized silhouette targets at 7 feet, while stationary, and miss completely, repeatedly. 2. Shooting at moving targets while you are moving is vastly more difficult then shooting at the range. Add a stressful situation to it, and missing isn't difficult. There are gun fights all the time where many rounds are fired and nobody gets hit, or the bystanders, etc. You are delusional if you think it is like shooting at the range, or in a video game, where you always hit what you want and where you want. He may very well have been shooting at the other guy. He might have shot at the kid he did hit. I don't know. But this specific incident isn't the issue with your statement.

As I don't know the laws relating to this, could...or rather, would you be charged if for instance a) You are talking with a 'friend' who mentions stealing something from someone while you two are drinking, you, not being serious, nor thinking he is serious, suggest he should do it because that person is a dirt bag. He ends up actually doing with it and tells the cops you said he should. You were joking, and assumed he was too. b) A 'friend' mentions he is thinking about committing some crime. You tell him that is a bad idea, but whatever do what you want. He does commit it, and tells the cops you knew he was planning on it. c) A 'friend' mentions in passing something about committing some crime. You don't really pay much attention to it as you don't realize he is being serious. He commits said crime.

Tip of the iceberg...

While I would be all for constitutional carry, I am just fine with the way NH (currently, though a bill is at the senate now) does things. Open carry is legal, and concealed carry requires a license. Only thing needed to receive it is $10 dollars and the ability to write/type. Basically, if you apply, you will receive it within 2 weeks. Valid for 5 years. So really, any shall issue state that doesn't require extraneous training is fine with me. And as stated, your description for PA is off, but I voted for it anyways, because it is about the same as NH.

Interesting to hear that not only did the accomplice get charged with his murder, but so did two others who "helped plan" the robbery. So a 16-year-old dies and it appears 4 people are charged with his murder. I haven't heard of a law like that before, but it makes sense. I only wish it would have had the impact I think it was trying to have, in deterring people from things like, trying to rob a pharmacy at gunpoint. The pharmacist's actions were fine...until he came back in, walked by the kid, got another gun, walked up to him, and shot him dead. That is why he was convicted, and rightfully so. It is unfortunate though, only because had the place not been robbed, who knows, maybe this guy never does anything else wrong in the rest of his life. I really don't know what he was thinking. That doesn't really matter though now.

No no no. Correction. Driving is a privilege, and carry a firearm is suppose to be a right. But obviously in NJ, that is not the case. They are compared for good reason, and the comparison does have merit. Since you have to be licensed to drive, and in NJ and other states, you have to be licensed to carry, they might as well be on the same parallels. Should they be? That is an entirely different story. So you will probably continue to see this as a comparison. You are asking the wrong person!

If you don't have a valid LTCF or carry license from another state with reciprocity, then yes. If you do have a license to carry, then you can carry on your person, either openly or concealed, while in a vehicle.

Again, I agree with everything you are saying. It is a pretty terrible idea IMO. What I am saying, is to look at it from the other perspective, and considering the whole ridiculous idea was brought up, not by me, but from someone who has an opposite opinion, then apparently (to answer your first question), yes! You really need to ignore your own opinion on this one, and therefore logic as well, to view it from the other direction. I know it may be hard to see, but I am not arguing with you!

Fair enough. Indeed the photo quality doesn't help. I didn't mean to sound like I thought it was terrible, I just personally don't like the look, but you are quite correct. Function is probably just a wee bit higher then looks when it comes to firearms! What I meant by the rails, and where I am still a bit confused, is the rail on the bottom of the hand guard. Are all the rails on the hand guard permanently attached? It just looks like the bottom rail is an extra piece, and since there is nothing attached to it, seems entirely excessive and hindrance as a place to hold the rifle on...

I agree completely. It is a pretty ridiculous idea right? Absolutely! But at the same time, what do you think is more realistic? People accepting people open carrying when they wear a badge or people just being able to carry willy nilly? Now I am asking for you to look at it from a, shall we call it liberal...anti gun point of view. Of course the whole idea is stupid, but if everyone had the same opinions as us this wouldn't even be an issue. However it is, and there has to be some accommodation as silly as it may be. That is the whole point I am trying to make. BTW, would be against it too! Just refer to my signature further if need be. My bad, I thought I had a signature with this quote in it: It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it. – Aristotle

What is up with the magazine, brown on the mag well, piece on the stock near where it connects to the receiver, and all the stuff going on with the rails? I'm sorry, but this looks like you found a bunch of random parts in the dump and pieced them together into a rifle. I like all configurations of AR's usually, but just don't like this one. Maybe it is just the picture though. I'm not sure. I'm assuming that stock also looks like it doesn't match because of the reflection from the flash when you took the picture? Because that isn't helping my opinion.

Maks answer is exactly correct. Anyone can carry in the state of PA, no permits required, including NJ residents. As also noted, you do need a valid PA LTCF or a permit from another state that has reciprocity with PA to openly carry a firearm in Philadelphia. Regarding the wearing some sort of badge to signify you can carry that is being discussed, my opinion. It seems silly, petty, even stupid, but you know what, there are tons of things that are silly, petty, and pretty stupid, but we sometimes have to have because people in general are morons, ignorant, and close minded. So if having to wear some sort of badge (much like police officers BTW) so that it signifies you can carry is something that will prevent incidents like this, I'm all for it. Make the penalty the same as it would be for impersonating a police officer or federal employee. It might as well have the same implications. Should this be a requirement? Hell no. Because it is silly, petty, and stupid. But such is the world we live in. Catering to those who "want to feel safe". Total BS mind you, but that is the truth. "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." Benjamin Franklin

You should simply treat them as any other type of ammunition and just follow the proper transportation laws. There is no real practical difference in terms of the law when carrying JHP vs. other ammo...I mean there are, but they don't apply unless you are a criminal since you don't have a carry permit. I do not believe soft points or frangibles fall under hollow points or dum dum rounds, but I could certainly be wrong. In fact, as soft points are designed to expand they could be. But as you said, if you just transport them from your house to the range and vice versa you will be fine.

Well, I'd cut them some slack on the failure to use the proper LTCF term...as long as they know what it is referring to. I'd be more concerned with the other stuff you pointed out, particularly the fact they issued a directive that said, for all intents and purposes, that is is okay to violate the 4th amendment. But who can remember all of them right? I mean that one is number four! There are three others before it to remember! Oh wait... I think one of those before it has something to do with firearms...no, never mind. Just something about So forget that.

So he is an attention seeker with behavioral issues which probably stemmed from some sort of home issue. It sucks you/your son have to deal with it, but that is really what you have to do. Deal with it. If he is not an actual threat, then suck it up. This is the unfortunate world we live in now.

I can guarantee you are wrong, and with evidence too. Why don't you take a look at the states that have no permits required to carry? The states that all it takes is to walk into a shop, by a gun and some ammo, walk out of the store, load up and strap it to your hip? I'm up here in NH, have walked around with a gun on my hip everytime I've left my house, bought a handgun in about 15 minutes at the shop. And guess what? I haven't shot anybody yet. And guess what else? I wouldn't even be above the age you think people need to be (based on your other post). Imagine that. Funny thing right? You should be done, because your posts are absurd, unfounded, biased beyond belief, and ignorant.

How many 18 year olds do you know? Just because you weren't mature enough to have a BB gun at 18 doesn't mean others aren't. I know people in the 30-40 year old range I wouldn't trust with a gun. You know what that means? It means age restrictions or requirements are moot. You can't regulate individuals with age restrictions after a certain point. And considering 18 is the age people are considered adults, any further restrictions are ridiculous. So you keep saying (about the original topic with the OCer in Philly) that because none of were there we don't know how everything went down, and then you come up with this? Now you are just making things up. You have no idea that the cashier being armed wouldn't have changed anything. How do you know the cashier wouldn't have shot the robber instead? Oh that's right, you don't. Ignorance is bliss.

The Eotech Opmod is probably a lower 1/3 cowitness sight. So it will not line up, or cowitness with your iron sights. What it will do instead, is sit slightly higher above your iron sights.

Well the US has Army Green Berets training with Columbian special forces in Columbia right now...so maybe it has less to do with them being born in a conflicted area and more to do with the fact they they might have some sort of training already...but I could be way off.

As I have said before, it is the officers JOB to know the laws he is trying to enforce. Of course you can't know every law, but then you don't just go around trying to enforce things on a whim when you don't know what you are enforcing. So right away the officer is wrong. Forget for a second that he is a police officer, or a government employee, or anything. And look at it from the simple standpoint of someone doing their job they are supposed to be trained to do. He failed in this very simple task. Plain and simple. He failed to do his job in almost every capacity. So you haven't, and then you give a completely different and irrelevant scenario (a specific crime has been committed where the officers are around having been called, AND no gun is present) as justification for you reasoning? Well that reasoning holds no water, because it isn't rational, because it is irrelevant. That is called a red herring my friend. You can make all the justifications in the world but none of them will change the fact that the officers had no reason to stop him or detain him, and even less to threaten him. Period. And they did so either because they were abusing their power, or because they didn't know the laws.

So the Night Stalkers and DEVGRU huh? Makes sense to me.

That is the problem...err, messed up part with laws, any laws. Everyone relies on other people to properly uphold them, and you get someone on a bad day, someone with an agenda, someone who doesn't like that particular law, and if they are in that position of authority, like a police officer, judge, attorney general, state prosecutor, jury, etc... well, who knows how it will end. I wish we had some sort of super computer that could listen to the cases, legislative proposals, facts, or whatever, and make an unbiased decision based off of the law where there is no other influences or personal opinions involved. That would be a sweet justice system.