millsan1

I do NJ but haven't since October. Same screen name. Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

Super easy transaction. Thanks BLF

Bleh Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

fixed it for ya.

Casos had 2 last week.

That seals it!

mmmm I want to go, but not a USPSA member yet. Does anyone know if I can sign up at the match?

I would guess it is because she has taste. :-p

Valid question. She always busts my chops about being old. I tell her she is sleeping with an old man, but I get to sleep with a hot young chick, so I am ahead of the game.

Good deal. Not the 650, F800ST. Twin. Besides my C14, I also have an R1200GS that needs to get its legs stretched.

I dont even have a 40 cal and I want to buy some. Must... show.... restraint...

My GF is awesome. She is very pretty and 10 years younger than me. She rides motorcycles with me (Yeah, her own. a BMW no less, 15K miles last year) She knows how to pilot a 40 foot boat. She makes a very good salary. She is a nerd, like me, so I can often get answers to my tech problems from her. and the best part, today she joined the ranks of FID and P2P holders in NJ. Even better, she rented a car, so she could drive to Hackettstown to do NICS on her P229 E2. She couldn't wait for tomorrow. Love it!

The idea of this argument from antis is this: If I yell "fire!" in a crowded theater, people could panic, run for the door and someone might get hurt. If I stood up and yelled "pony!", there would not be the same result. So your right to free speech is limited because the use of the word "fire" in this case could reasonably lead to injury. Their argument re: guns is that they could be used in a crime, and are therefor dangerous and therefor need to be banned, regulated, etc. So my comparison stands. If you want to ban guns because someone might do something bad with a gun at some point, then we should ban the word "fire" because someone might cause a panic if they use that word in the wrong place at the wrong time. Clearly, banning the word "fire" is ridiculous. Because it is a word that is used for many other purposes other than causing a panic in a theater. So the argument for banning weapons is equally ridiculous, based on the actions or potential actions of a few.

What I am referring to is that the word "fire" is the bad thing in the example. What antis believe is the bad thing is the gun when a crime happens. They are trying to ban guns, but not the word fire Therefore the comparison is moot, on its face

You mean I won't be getting my shipment? WTF?

Here is an argument I could never hear again and be happy: The Second Amendment is not absolute, like the other Amendments. Even though you have the right to free speech, you can't yell "fire!" in a crowded theater. That is 100% correct! But here is the difference: If you yell "fire" in a crowded theater, you are committing a crime, and should be punished. If you commit a crime with a firearm, you should be punished. The huge difference? No one is trying to outlaw the word "fire" because some criminal shouted it in a theater.

Got the same email Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

Send me that 2k Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

Just teasing. Good transaction. Thanks for being thorough Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

Nice easy transaction. Thanks. You owe me $5. ;-) Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

Just trying to help out my NJ brethren!

Had it in my cart, and gone by the time i registered grrrrrrrr

Please excuse my ignorance. What kind of match is this? I am not up on it.

http://www.midwayusa.com/product/388400/ar-stoner-magazine-ar-15-223-remington-10-round-with-anti-tilt-follower-stainless-steel-black?cm_vc=subv1988459

Taking a life long buddy shooting this week. He has never had a gun, but thinks "I probably need to get one with everything going on" Gonna be fun.