Everything posted by High Exposure
-
WTS 38 Special and 357 Mag Ammo
Dammit! Missed it. Good grab @RUTGERS95
-
PORK ROLL or TAYLOR HAM!?
JOIN, or DIE
-
PORK ROLL or TAYLOR HAM!?
The Iron Cross Pork Roll cut is the only way to do it. That PacMan cut is weak sauce.
-
PORK ROLL or TAYLOR HAM!?
Went with some Case brand Pork Roll today. I haven’t had this brand in ages, but it was all that was available at the store. It was pretty good Question: Do the heretics amongst us call this “Case Taylor Ham”? Or is it finally Pork Roll?
-
PORK ROLL or TAYLOR HAM!?
- NJ In Level 1 Energy Emergency Alert As Of Last Night
Same. Had the panels for just over 8 years now. Halfway to paying them off. Between SRECs and low electric bills, I am very pleased my hippy wife talked me into them. I have generated the equivalent of over $13k (in MWh) over their life span so far.- Dummy scratch
You don’t have to bag it, just put it down flat in between cycling. Never lean a rifle - it will fall - because gravity is a harsh mistress. It will get scratched and you will be sad. No go forth and use your newfound experienced gained knowledge for the powers of awesome. Also, a viable solution.- Dummy scratch
More important than fixing the scratch - what did you learn?- NJ LAWMAKERS ANNOUNCE PLANS TO DESTROY RIGHT TO CARRY
You are right. Apologies. I was just dumbfounded - and I don’t like seeing bad info that someone may follow, especially when it’s something this serious, not be corrected.- NJ LAWMAKERS ANNOUNCE PLANS TO DESTROY RIGHT TO CARRY
Jesus… Deadly force can also stop littering, speeding, jaywalking and shoplifting. Doesn’t mean you are permitted to do it!- NJ LAWMAKERS ANNOUNCE PLANS TO DESTROY RIGHT TO CARRY
You’re right. That is deadly force. If they live, it’s also aggravated assault. If they die, it’s murder. That’s probably universally in the US. You’re out of your mind if you think that whacking someone in the head with a bat is an appropriate response to someone threatening suicide. So what? If my aunt had balls, she would be my uncle. But she doesn’t, so she’s still my aunt (maybe not a great comparison for 2023, but you know what I mean). There is no exemption. You are not permitted to use deadly force to prevent suicide. I have stopped more than a few myself. I am sorry you had to experience that. It’s a lonely, terrible, and hopeless feeling staring at someone ready to jump, swing, stab, or shoot themselves and trying to talk them out of it. But never once have I had the thought - “I know, let’s shoot them!”- NJ LAWMAKERS ANNOUNCE PLANS TO DESTROY RIGHT TO CARRY
Bud, with all respect - you couldn’t be more wrong about what I know. And - I knew you were going to cherry pick this exact instance. First - this incident in Ohio in 1993 has nothing to do with current NJ use of force laws. Second - That sniper had to have special permission from superior officers to take that shot. Third - That was not just to stop a suicidal person. That was a standoff with an armed individual that was pointing a gun at other people as well as himself. He may have also been suicidal, but soon as he points the gun at others he becomes a threat to the public at large. The force employed by the sniper was authorized because it was justified to prevent the danger of serious bodily injury or death to the general public. That’s a completely different situation than a mere suicide. And before you go there - “Suicide by cop” isn’t really suicide. It’s a bad guy threatening violence on others to invoke a known outcome. From the “defenders” point of view, the use of deadly force was to prevent serious injury or death to themself or another, not to stop a suicidal person from completing the act. Just like stopping a “suicide bomber” - from a use of force standpoint, you are not using deadly force to stop someone from successfully completing suicide. You are preventing a deadly attack on the public.- NJ LAWMAKERS ANNOUNCE PLANS TO DESTROY RIGHT TO CARRY
That doesn’t make sense, and frankly it isn’t helpful. You can not use deadly force to prevent suicide. Full stop. There are no “but”s, “technically”s, or “actually”s. You simply can not do it.- NJ LAWMAKERS ANNOUNCE PLANS TO DESTROY RIGHT TO CARRY
Gotcha. I figured it was just an artifact of copy/paste from the document to the forum.- NJ LAWMAKERS ANNOUNCE PLANS TO DESTROY RIGHT TO CARRY
But it can’t. You can not shoot someone in the leg to prevent them from jumping off a cliff. You can tackle them, hold them, grab them, punch or kick them - if you think it will be successful - but you can’t shoot them, stab them, or run them over with your car.- NJ LAWMAKERS ANNOUNCE PLANS TO DESTROY RIGHT TO CARRY
I don’t understand the facepalm for this one. Fairly standard use of force language. No. You can not use deadly force to prevent suicide. Nowhere in the quoted text on section A is deadly force mentioned. Merely “force”. There are other types of force that one can use, not just deadly. Physical presence, constructive authority, physical force, mechanical force, or enhanced mechanical force (all of which are considered a lower level of force and deadly) can be used to prevent suicide, if appropriate and applicable. Nowhere in the quotes text of section B is suicide mentioned. It only refers to “harm upon another” - not self. No it doesn’t. That is not what it says. Yes. Any firing of a firearm - even a miss or a “warning shot” (which are expressly forbidden) is considered deadly force. However, scenario you described has absolutely nothing to do with the quoted section of the UoF guideline from a practical standpoint. An individual threatening suicide can become a deadly force threat if they threaten to harm another with serious bodily injury or death and are armed with a weapon, such as a firearm, that is capable of doing so.- Lpvo vs magnified prism
First - not a LVPO. That’s a scope. Second - That optic is SFP. An integral BDC reticle wouldn’t be ideal across that range of magnification as the reticle stays the same size regardless of the magnification. You’ll have to do math in whenever you change magnification in order to fully use the BDC. Yes. BDC reticle dare caliber specific. Some are even barrel length, projectile, and velocity specific.- Lpvo vs magnified prism
Good choice. I love my Trij Accupower 1-4. Great scope for the $. Especially when it’s on sale.- Henry Long Ranger lever action
Isn’t Henry still in Bayonne NJ?- Conceal Carry Gear and Clothes
What? That’s bananas. First, they don’t stick out. Second, who the hell is looking at your upper crotch that hard to see if they can tell if you you are wearing a cobra buckle or not? Nobody cares.- PORK ROLL or TAYLOR HAM!?
So, now that “Taylor Ham” is a real product, created by the Taylor company and is separate and distinct from Pork Roll due to different ingredients…. Where do the “Taylor Hammers” stand now?- NJ LAWMAKERS ANNOUNCE PLANS TO DESTROY RIGHT TO CARRY
Consider yourself corrected.- Clay Shoot, Clinton WMA ** Sunday 6/11/23 **
@Mr.Stu what was the 20g Peel was shooting. I was trying to remember and I couldn’t recall the make or model…- Lpvo vs magnified prism
I like LPVO. Not a fan of magnifiers behind a red dot, or fixed mag optics on ARs. I had an Aimpoint 3x magnifier in a flip to side mount, I ditched it after a year of use. I had a 4x Trijicon ACOG - traded it for a Trijicon SRS red dot sight. I started with a 1-6 Strike Eagle and found I liked the concept, but not that specific optic. I now have three LPVO: • Two Steiner P4Xi 1-4 - each on an AR • One Trijicon Accupower 1-4 on a Ruger American 5.56 boltgun I got each of then on sale and each cost me under $400 without a mount (expect to pay another $100-$200 for a quality mount). If you break out of the $300-$400 optic range (base price, not sale price), you get a better optic for less weight. I found the budget LPVO are nice to dip your toes into the category as you get a lot of value for little cost. It lets you experiment a bit and see what you like. Then, if you find yourself seeing them as a benefit, research what options you want and look for an upgrade. You will get better glass, better eye relief, better focus range, and lighter overall weight, with the higher quality options.- NJ LAWMAKERS ANNOUNCE PLANS TO DESTROY RIGHT TO CARRY
Never said you were. 10000% Thank you. Make no mistake, I do not agree with mandated training as a requirement to exercise a right - but I wish everyone would take their rights seriously and prepare themselves, across the range of all personal rights. Regarding the 2A I wish that, while it should not be required, anyone who does decide to carry a firearm should be self-aware enough to come to the realization that: 1) Carrying a firearm is an enormous social and personal responsibility 2) They are accepting a duty to themselves and others to be an asset to society, not of a liability 3) Their action and related skill/ability will reflect on all who carry guns 4) Your abilities translate to literal “life or death” consequences 5) You will be judged on both your physical abilities as well as your decision making process by the courts, by society, and by your peers - for all time 6) Not aspire to mediocrity and 7) Self-realize the importance to train with their chosen firearm to level of basic proficiency - NJ In Level 1 Energy Emergency Alert As Of Last Night