SgtToadette

Alright. Now you jerks have me addicted to this chest rig building business. Way to go. I've started compiling my ideas on a Pinterest board. So far I'm liking the BFG RACKminus, but after using up 8 MOLLE units on mags, I find the side real estate to be a bit limited for whatever else I might want to throw on. I'll be doing more research and updating my board as I go. Wish me luck!

I'm self-censoring my points so as to prevent this discussion from taking a death spiral like all conversations about religion typically do. If it makes you feel better: Sure.

5.11 Tactical is doing a 30% off promotion for the next 24 hours to celebrate 300k fans on Facebook. Use code: 511FB300 Here's a link to the site: http://www.511tactical.com/

Maybe it won't be published because of the fact that it's hardly a scientific poll?

I guess there really is no true Scotsmen, eh?

Historically speaking of course, the "warrior ethos" and the "christian ethos" have not typically been mutually exclusive.

I was suggesting that the conversion to Christianity had little to do with the outcome, or rather that the Viking integration into society was the more precise explanation. I'm not a religious person by any means and I'll leave it at that. I don't think that change now is necessarily all bad or all good. I think ending the war on marijuana is good. I think increasing secularism is good. I think increasing tolerance of homosexuals is good. I know a lot of board members probably disagree citing "social/moral decay" as if the term has any real meaning.

I would argue that conversion to Christianity is a non sequitur, but that's a whole other conversation in itself.

If society's values didn't change we would still have black people picking cotton in Alabama. Change isn't always bad and it seems like a bunch of people from past generations are complaining about the same things that they always do.

TIL that I'm a horrible person and beyond help. Who knew!

It seems rifle ammunition has started to level off, but handgun ammo is still flying off the shelves. Almost every shop I visit has a limit on handgun ammo, assuming they even have what you're looking for. You can try Surplus City right across the river, they might get some in bulk. I'd be doubtful, though.

So here's a set of hypothetical questions I want to ask each "side" here: For those who oppose the "militarization" of police agencies, assume that in the next couple months a ballot initiative asks residents of your municipality to vote on whether or not you would approve of issuing all patrol officers in your area with level III armor plates and 5.56 rifles. Would you vote to allow it or deny it? Assume cost isn't a factor. For LEOs here, we are hearing a lot of talk about bad apples. So let's assume that one of these bad apples shows up at your department. Let's say that it was found they planted marijuana during a traffic stop in an attempt to get an arrest on someone who was "probably guilty" after they found nothing during a search of the vehicle. Further investigation reveals that although no drugs other than those planted were in the vehicle, the suspect did have a record for possession. The officer had served 10 years in the department. Do you advocate for the termination of this officer? While I typically hate hypothetical questions because real-life context can mean everything, I intend for these questions to get people thinking and, as I stated earlier, for people to be introspective.

I don't what you mean when you say I'm looking at it from an enforcement perspective and not a legislative one, since I cited the relevant legislation. Your last post seems to largely reaffirm what I had said. To review, though: 2C:39-3,e states that possession of a "prohibited weapon" requires with it an explainable lawful purpose. If you do not have one, you are guilty of a crime in the fourth degree. Now if you intend to use any weapon, not just knives, "against [a] person or property of another" (2C:39-4,d) then you are guilty of a crime in the third degree. The damning statute for all knives is 2C:39-5,d, which states that "[a]ny person who knowingly has in his possession any other weapon under circumstances not manifestly appropriate for such lawful uses as it may have is guilty of a crime of the fourth degree." A weapon is defined broadly in 2C:39-1,r. This language is in contrast with 2C:39-3,e which states: "without any explainable lawful purpose". The key words being "under circumstances". So I guess we're getting into semantics, but I see your point and it is certainly defensible. If there's anything that's certain, it's that the law is very vague.

I'll be at Easton with Bob this Sunday. You should come out! There is no judgement in the IDPA community and we are always open to newcomers.

Precisely. I think we do ourselves a disservice by feeling the need to relegate our passion to a more private area of our lives. I'm not going out and telling every passerby that I own guns, but if someone asks a question about what I do on weekends I give them an honest answer. It reminds me of a quote from one of the most prolific articles on the subject of gun rights: "I’ve often wondered about this over the years. Is it because my side of the debate is actually loony? I don’t think so; at least, I think I’m pretty normal. Sure, we’ve got some oddballs we all wish would go away, just like any group does. But all the pro-gun people I know are normal people too — people so normal that nobody knows they’re gun people until they’re told. In fact, there are so many gun owners that if we are all crazy like some suggest, the daily crime rate in America would look more like our crime rate for the entire decade combined, and CNN would actually have something to report on other than the latest gossip."

If your sex life is just as sensitive as your gun ownership then I can't help but have a differing opinion.

The entire reason why you bring your child to the pediatrician is for their well-being, so I don't get your point. Their job is to care and I can't help that find it strange that it is assumed that the mere asking about firearms automatically makes the doctor anti-gun. I also find it strange that you're comparing child pornography to gun ownership. The question is just about as personal as the doctor touching your junk. I'm sure they care far less than you do.

Thank you! I would be attaching the sling to a PWS Mk116 mod 1 which has QD point around the castle nut area (if it had one) and at the base of the hand-guard before the mounting areas. Here's a picture: That should work out nicely. I'll take a look at the two options you threw out.

So what are you saying in the context of the discussion here? I'm open to using other sling options if it can be well reasoned. I'm not necessarily committed to the idea of a single point sling, however I see a lot of beating around the bush rather than actual discussion of the subject. Please feel free to speak frankly.

Attach it to the "castle nut" on my AR and maybe take a couple carbine classes with it.

It is my interpretation that GRIZ has the correct interpretation. So you cited 2C:39-5, which states: "Any person who knowingly has in his possession any other weapon under circumstances not manifestly appropriate for such lawful uses as it may have is guilty of a crime of the fourth degree." This begs the question, what's a considered a weapon according to 2C? To find out you need to go to the beginning of Chapter 39, which is conveniently titled "Definitions". Skim through a bit and you'll find 2C:39-1,r, which defines a weapon as: "...anything readily capable of lethal use or of inflicting serious bodily injury. The term includes, but is not limited to, all (1) firearms, even though not loaded or lacking a clip or other component to render them immediately operable; (2) components which can be readily assembled into a weapon; (3) gravity knives, switchblade knives, daggers, dirks, stilettos, or other dangerous knives, billies, blackjacks, bludgeons, metal knuckles, sandclubs, slingshots, cesti or similar leather bands studded with metal filings or razor blades imbedded in wood; and (4) stun guns; and any weapon or other device which projects, releases, or emits tear gas or any other substance intended to produce temporary physical discomfort or permanent injury through being vaporized or otherwise dispensed in the air." So when you're looking at 2C:39-5, know that it is referring back to 2C:39-1. Obviously it's all very vague, but the general consensus seems to be that any knife being carried should also carry with it a legitimate and appropriate reason from its possessor as to why they have it. If confronted, you're free to state to the officer that your reason is "for everyday lawful cutting tasks that would be manifestly appropriate for this knife", but you're free to have your own, less lawyer-esque reason. Nowhere does it state in 39-5 that the only weapons the statute refers to are the prohibited weapons defined by 39-3.

It's a fair question that a lot of people here seem to be taking very personally. A pediatrician's job is to diagnose potential problems to a child's well-being. The question isn't being logged into some kind of government database so they can confiscate your guns. It's a standard question just like asking about a pool, or chemicals, or stairs, or anything else that can be potentially abused by a young child. I'm sure almost everyone here is responsible with their use of firearms and stores them in a secure manner. Not everyone is that way and I would consider it a good practice to promote firearm safety. I think it's a sad state of affairs when many are embarrassed or scared to be asked about whether they own a firearm in a private conversation. You don't have to answer, nor are you obligated to answer truthfully. It's for the doctor's use in trying to make sure that your child is living in a safe atmosphere. Nothing more. Now, if the pediatrician starts lecturing you about how it's wrong to own a firearm or something similar, then that's definitely crossing the professional line and you're free to be as rude as your heart desires.

For the moment simplicity. As I develop preferences, probably capability,