carguy3j

Well, I'm pretty sure the Mexican government would object. IF we were to do that, we should pretty much expect to end up conquering/annexing Mexico. I'm sure we COULD do that pretty easily, but then we would be stuck with all of Mexico's problems, and a population which we still don't want but couldn't really call illegal immigrants anymore. In the end, what does Mexico really have to offer us? Perhaps we could build a crap ton of nuclear reactors in one end of the Mexican desert, and store all of our nuclear waste on the other end? I suppose it would be an acceptable trade off, being flooded with a bunch of Mexican refugees, in exchange for solving our NIMBY energy issues. It would be hard for the tree huggers to protest a nuke plant in the middle of nowhere.

C'mon now, you know that's not what he meant. The problem is so many people not reading anything, not being interested in anything more then the briefest, most superficial of sound bites, as opposed to taking the time and effort to acquire real information before reaching a decision or forming an opinion. By the way, I love your avatar. That episode was a rather poignant comment on where we are headed as a country; much like "Idiocracy". No wonder the studio tried to bury that movie! Of course, it probably went right over the heads of the sound-bite loving, low information types..........

That's because he directed his "attack" at the "masters" (AKA, the "dons" of the "Municipal Mafia"), as opposed to us mere peons.

So, what happens if somebody mounts a bayonet ( or just a normal knife) using a Picatinny rail? Do they then declare all rails to be "bayonet lugs", since they COULD be used for that purpose? Of course, I understand that the point behind the law isn't really prevent the use of bayonets, but rather, to ban certain firearms, which happen to mostly have bayonet mounting lugs. Kind of like, you really want to ban fast cars, but instead just make illegal to have more then 4 cylinders and tires wider then 245mm. It would, indirectly, prohibit most "fast" cars, while having the unintended consequence of also de-facto banning many other vehicle not falling within the original intent.

Ok. A.) I see no problem with carrying a holstered handgun, whether openly or concealed, assuming it is legal to do so where you are. B.) Carrying a long gun into a Starbucks, or any other store really, is probably ridiculous, unnecessary, and only done to "make a scene". OK, I guess if you really are on your way to/from actually using that rifle for a legit purpose, then MAYBE. But still, why couldn't you just leave it in the vehicle? I seriously doubt that more then a teeny tiny itsy bitsy minute fraction of people are going to/from the range or hunting while on foot. If you are, then ok, I guess you get a pass for stopping for coffee or a bite to eat while carrying your rifle. C.) Technically, the "anti's" started this, by "boycotting" Starbucks. Yes, the Pro2A people THOUGHT they were doing the right thing by trying to "help" Starbucks make up for lost business. Apparently, they didn't want the help. So be it. If you really, honestly just happen to be carrying a holstered handgun while doing your "regularly scheduled" Starbucks patronage, in the course of your routine activities, then I would say go ahead and continue doing so. However, organized groups continuing to make "events" out of doing so, or these stupid anti-Starbucks "campaigns" that are starting to crop up are only going to quickly make things worse. For now, it continues to be a policy of somewhat mildly opposed ambivalence. I think if EITHER side, but especially the pro-gun side, continue to "push" this much further, it will quickly turn into a "Gun Free Zone", which they could easily do. Then, anyone carrying could be subject to severe legal consequences. I think the best thing to do is let this quietly die down. As I said, continue with your normal routine, be very careful not to get into any gun related arguments/debates/heated conversations on Starbucks property (lest you be declared a "disturbance"), and for Pete's sake, leave the AR's and shotguns in the car! This is a fight "we" DON'T need to pick. "We've" already taken a "win" and turned it into a precarious draw. Withdraw from this battle and live to fight another day, or it will quickly turn into a totally avoidable crushing defeat. Don't get me wrong, Starbucks coffee is over-priced toilet water, and I would never drink it, but it has nothing to do with gun rights. I would still never buy/drink Starbucks if they opened a free gun range in every store.......

I was thinking that. An "Avtomat Kalashnikov" is a full-auto military firearm, manufactured by the Soviet Union/Russia, and some of its allies. NOT a similarly appearing, but functionally different rifle, made under a different name, for a "civilian" market, and without any full-auto capability. It seems the NJ legislature went to great lengths to carefully spell exactly what they wanted banned by name. Heck, they even took the time to write out the full name. SOOOO.... Let's give them EXACTLY what they asked for, no more,no less. For that matter, they don't say "AK type". They said "Avtomat Kalashnikov Type", so perhaps you own an Awesome Kong Model 47, with semi auto-only FCG, and only 1 other "evil" feature? (Or maybe the "rainbow" wrapped "Anti-Killing '74 Protest Edition" ) That raises an interesting question...... Why is it that all these so-called "mass shootings" seem to involve AR's, but never an AK? They aren't that hard to find, at least in the rest of the country, and they are well known for their reliability. You would think they would make for a good choice, if one were planning to shoot a whole bunch of people, as quickly as possible. I'm not "complaining" about it or anything, obviously; but I am curious as to why/why not.

Hmmm. Admittedly, I am not familiar with the day-to-day life of a soldier. However, if it is as you say, then maybe that is a problem in and of itself. If soldiers are "usually sleeping off a hangover, playing xBox and trying to avoid getting pulled for a detail to move the trucks. ", then maybe we should change the structure of how the military is staffed. I see no reason for the taxpayers to feed, house, clothe, and pay for soldiers to be routinely sitting around. Please don't take it the wrong way. I'm not belittling or devaluing your service. I'm just suggesting that maybe we don't need such a large "standing" force then, if they can't be kept continuously occupied with activities of military value. Perhaps we should shrink the active force, and increase, and revamp the reserves. Come in for your training, on the clock, the go home and live your life, on your dime, as a civilian. When you are needed, you'll be called in, and put back on the clock. This would allow soldiers to have a more normal life, and with all the money "we" would save, we can spend more on training, and increase the pay for actual combat service. Perhaps, in order to keep the bases staffed, a "flex-time" schedule could be implemented. 1 week on duty. 3 weeks of being back to a normal civilian life, or something to that effect. This could give a larger percentage of the population an opportunity to be in the military (which would have benefits of its own), while keeping the costs reasonable. In regards to the other aspects, while I can understand not wanting to have everybody wandering around base with .50cals and such, I see no reason why every soldier shouldn't be allowed to carry a pistol, provided they have qualified to do so. There should also be an on-base counter-terrorism team on stand-by. As I said, I just find it disturbing that US military bases have such a glaring vulnerability. We, the general public, tend to think of such facilities as impenetrable fortresses. Clearly they are not. The only "good" thing about it, is it does appear to increase the likelihood of success of a civilian rebel force being able to take control of a military installation, in the event of an armed revolution. As for the min-armories, I suppose you have a point, as to the logistics. But, there are other options. Rather then manned armories, perhaps a number of locked "caches", in locations known to select personnel. In the event of an emergency, these individuals can gather others, bring them to these "rally points", and access and disperse the weapons as needed. These caches can be locked with bio-metric and electronic key pad locks, with access recorded and electronically transmitted to base command. Each "authorized" individual has their own access codes, and if you do access it, you better have a damn good reason. Rather then full-time staffing, the locations can be checked/inventoried periodically, say once a week. They would be checked with at least 2 people present, with both individuals, and team parings rotated constantly, to prevent any "funny business". Just a thought.

I just REALLY hope that none of the guns were acquired legally. That would be very bad for the 2A. The antis would just eat that up. If, on the other hand, the guns were stolen from the base armory, well that would take the bite out of it. On another note, I think its crazy that the vast majority of soldiers on base are disarmed. They should at least be able to carry a sidearm, with numerous mini-armories staffed 24/7, spread throughout the base, ready to hand out heavier weapons in an emergency. I mean, going back to an earlier thread, where we discussed the possibility of a foreign invasion, what if this was a larger coordinated "attack"? They would be sitting ducks. How can a military base not be prepared to defend itself at all times?

Actually, your assumption would be incorrect. I have had numerous situations with town "officials" over zoning/codes/etc.... It has cost me probably a couple thousand dollars in fines, it eventually cost me the house I was renting, and a new situation, elsewhere is now likely to put me out on the street soon. Still, I know I am in the moral right, if not the "legal" one. (The " " are because I consider zoning/property maintenance "codes" to be mostly unconstitutional, and therefor null and void). I did successfully get my prior town to leave me alone for a while, when I made it clear that I was ready and willing to fight them, all the way to the supreme court, to have their an ordinance declared unconstitutional, as well as promising to make it my mission in life to sue the town out of existence, as well as every official and cop that ever participated in the unlawful and immoral enforcement of those un-constitutional "laws", for civil rights violations. I gave them specific examples of how I could prove that my activity/possessions were protected by the first amendment. I must have said something that got their attention, as they left me alone for a while. Eventually, they found some other avenue to come at me again,but not over that one. I think I made it clear that they should move on and find an easier target, and they did for a while. If I'd had a decent job and money, I would still be fighting, and eventually I would have beat them. One day, when I am financially able, I still want to go back and pick that fight again, and finish it. To me, the ultimate victory would be standing in the municipal building parking lot, with a Sheriff seizing police patrol cars and other official vehicles and equipment (except for fire and ambulance) to satisfy a judgement against the town.........to see zoning/code enforcement officials being escorted out of their former place of employment as all the furniture and computers are carried out, the lights shut off, and the doors padlocked. Oh to dream...... Anyway, in the situation you referenced, I would have politely, but firmly asked what the actual ordinance/code says, which spells out the height at which a permit is required. If he can't produce it or it doesn't exist, or it says the 4ft you mentioned, then any "summons" issued would be thrown out. Again, I would have politely, but firmly pointed that out to him, and reminded him that he does not the authority to decide where "he goes" with it. I would immediately send my employees back to finish the job, and ask the inspector to not harass the workers on my job site. I would further point out to him that, without an ordinance to back up his 2-/12ft, he is knowingly abusing his official position, and any further discussion on the matter, any further attempts to shut down this job site on this basis, as well any future improper or "revenge"/"payback" type behavior in the future will constitute harassment, and will be met with a civil suit against him. In the future, I'm sure he'll never do you any favors, but you should be able to ensure that he can't make you do things beyond the letter of the law. Also, in this instance, you fighting back may very well end his routine practice of making this up as he goes. Once he realizes that he could get himself in a lot of trouble, he just might be more careful to stay within the boundaries of the law.

Exactly. I've never seen, on any other site I've ever been on, the level of censorship, thread locking, and post/thread deletion I've seen here. It's crazy. At least half the threads I've been following, even ones I didn't post in, have disappeared or been locked. We're adults. I think we can handle a little heated conversation without our brains exploding. Yes, if it rises to threats, illegal activity, or direct over-the-top personal attacks (and no, "you're a jerk" or "you probably suck at your job", while they may be rude or immature, are not really personal attacks. They are an opinion.) , then that's a different story. Exactly^^^^^ I agree with all of this. More training is good, as long as it is the right kind of training. I remember a saying a music teacher liked to use when I was back in grade school. " Practice does not make perfect. Perfect practice makes perfect." So, simply doing any old training doesn't really mean much. Its how and in what area you train. I also agree, school budgets are out of control. The kids are still getting short changed, and programs cut. I would even me willing to agree that SOME teachers (mainly those early in their careers), are underpaid; some even severely so. The problem is where the money IS going. Just like any other government bureaucracy, there is waste throughout the system, and bloated salaries/benefits at the top. http://www.njspotlight.com/stories/12/0906/1551/ This is ridiculous. According to this article, the Parsippany, NJ school superintendent makes $177K!!!! On the other side of that coin, and getting back to the prior references in the thread, to salary data: http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2010/09/nj_police_salaries_rank_highes.html Gee, I wonder why they aren't offered more training at work? I don't think it is because of the cost of ammo...... There are many, many doctors that actually make far less then this. I, for one, would rather have more doctors then more police. But hey, what the heck; for $120K a year, sign me up. I'll gladly accept whatever risk may come with it. (OK, no thanks on Newark, Camden, Trenton,etc.. But, the average NJ town? Hell yeah.) I'll even happily train on my own dime, at that salary level. Oh, and I promise I will NEVER shoot someones dog, unless it is actually, currently chewing on me.

Well, I would guess that it does do what it claims; in that it will prevent solvents,etc.. from getting all over the place. I could actually see this being useful if the only place you have, to clean your guns, is some place where the potential spillage of dirty solvents is very undesirable, such as on your dining room table. Alternatively, you could replace the oil filter with a plug/cap. This would allow you to fill and "soak" the barrel, to remove stubborn deposits. So, yes I think there is a "legitimate" use for it. If the legality/illegality of it is based on your intent, then I think they would have a very hard time making a case against you, as long as you're not stupid about it. Having oil filters with bullet holes in the end sitting in your garbage can would be really dumb. Telling anyone, even jokingly, that you could use it a suppressor, would also be stupid. Using it as "intended", to trap solvents, in view of a witness or two, on a couple of occasions, would help to establish that your demonstrated intent is not to use it as a suppressor mount. Now, when the SHTF, or the zombie's start attacking, then who cares about the NFA, GCA, ATF, NJSP, ABC or XYZ. None of that will matter, and then you can salvage a cheap suppressor from hundreds, if not thousands of abandoned auto parts store, or even Wal-Marts. As for blocking the sites, there are different shapes/sizes of oil filters. There are also thread adapters that could adapt this things threads to fit a skinnier filter. Also, while I see it easily obstructing the iron sights, wouldn't a scope,mounted on rail, sit above it?

Yes, that's kinda how it works. You know, how "you guys" can use various twists and turns of the law to establish "gang activity" or RICO violations. When a number of people choose to associate themselves in an organized "group", for a common purpose,then they tend to all bear some level of responsibility for all of the actions attributed to that group. When that "large group" has a demonstrated habit of closing ranks and routinely, and rather aggressively, defending virtually ANY one of its members against "outside" criticism, for nearly any action, its clear that that group WANTS to be viewed/held out to be a united, cohesive group. Its clear that, as a whole, that group DESIRES to publicly portray a "one-for-all, all-for-one" mentality. If you want to share the "glory", then be prepared to share the blame. If you don't want to be held accountable/viewed negatively for the actions of other cops, then the "Blue Wall" has to crumble. "Police" your own better. If the good guys want to be seen as such, they need to be more proactive against the bad seeds. Don't defend their actions by way of claiming it is "cop hating". If a plumber beats someone up, does the plumber's union run to the internet/TV to defend their "brother"? No. Do other plumbers try to deflect criticism of another, by calling it plumber hating? Of course not. That would be ridiculous. Exactly. See Above. In fact, when you are willing to call out the mistakes of those others, as well as admit your own, it can only improve your own credibility. We all make mistakes. Trying to hide them, cover them up, deny them, or defend them with emotional or irrational arguments only make it worse. + a google (the number) Well, really it would be better to not be inappropriately assaulted by any means, whether Taser or gun shot. Yes, of course the Taser would GENERALLY be the less lethal option, unless it gave somebody a heart attack. I think if all cops had Tasers, knowing that it is viewed as "less lethal" would lead to them being more willing to use force in more situations. That's a bad thing. I think you would see a massive increase in the number of tasings, in increasingly less "dangerous" situations. It would become a far-to-easy go-to "solution". The better fix would be increased training, emphasizing patience, being less aggressive in order to de-escalate the situation, and a fundamental shift in the "officer safety is first"mentality. It is not. It comes in about 3rd on the list. 1st priority is respecting the rights of all citizens. 2nd, if possible to do without violating number 1, is to protect the safety of citizens. 3rd, IF it can be done in a manner that does not violate 1 AND 2, is to worry about officer safety. Sorry if you don't like that, but that is what it is supposed to be. If not, then what do we need cops for? Yes, that would make your job both more difficult and more dangerous. So be it. That's the job. That's what you should have signed up. If "you guys" want to be viewed as "heroes" who are willing to sacrifice yourselves for us, then act like it. Its not about the single grand gesture in a moment of crisis, its about how you act and treat us on a daily, routine basis. That is what the public will judge you on. Credit where it is due. Yes, everything you said above ^^^^^^ is correct.(well, maybe the "large group" thing comes with an *- see my prior comments up top) But you have a history of aggressively "supporting" other cops, even when it is clear that "public" opinion is largely the opposite, to the point of characterizing people who don't agree as "cop haters", instead of objectively debating the merits of a particular situation. You appear to have a particularly acrimonious history with "ShawnMoore"., Both of these factors shedding more light on his response at 12:16pm, to which your above reply was most likely directed.

I've actually been wondering about that. I've seen the ATF letter that states that a mini-gun is a machine gun, but a Gatling gun, or modern replica, is not. However, they sort-of stop there. Is the Gatling a semi-auto? I don't think it is. Of course, my knowledge is limited. Nothing happens "automatically" in a Gatling, including the loading/chambering of the next round. Everything is dependent on the hand crank continuing to be cranked. To me, it seems it would more appropriately classified as a sort-of bolt-action gun. Its just that the "bolt" is worked by the crank, instead of directly by hand. There are/were different caliber Gatlings, so I guess anything over .50 would be a "destructive device"? But, for .50 and under, assuming it was NOT classified as a semi-auto, then why would a "capacity limit" apply? There is no mag/capacity limit on bolt-action guns in NJ.

Can anybody answer this? ^^^^^^^^

^^^^This is what is wrong with the world. People caving in like this. First of all, "codes", as a mandatory "requirement" are a bunch of crap. However, that is a different argument. Assuming that you agree with "codes", and there enforcement (which I don't- but not important here), then if you are truly certain that you build it to code, then you stick to your guns. The inspector has no right to make it up as he sees fit. If he "harasses" you on other things because of it, you report him/fight him on that too. When you just "give-in", or "go-along-to-get-along", you not only surrender your own rights, but you are then an accomplice in that inspector's later trampling of other's rights. When you acquiesce, or give a bully what they want, they keep coming back for more, and it encourages them to do it to others as well. When you stand up to a bully, even if it means taking a punch, you can stop that bully in their tracks. Too many people are, selfishly, only concerned with the immediate consequences for them,without considering the bigger picture or just the plain "right and wrongness" of things. This is why gun rights are under attack. Too many people are not personally concerned with owning a gun, so they just don't care. It doesn't effect them,or so they think. People who say "you can't fight city hall" should be ashamed of themselves. It is disrespectful of themselves, their fellow citizens, and everything this country is SUPPOSED to be.

On that note, why is anyone even asking the NJSP FIU? Why not just request an opinion letter straight from the attorney general? That would then dictate what the NJSP HAVE to do. ie, doesn't matter if the NJSP THINK you do need the FPID. If the AG says you don't, the NJSP are bound by that. Right? Not just in the matter being discussed here, but in life in general. This is a huge problem. No one is willing to stand up, for fear of being noticed and getting knocked down by "the man" It is crippling society and mankind's further progress. Think of all the great inventions; things we all absolutely depend on today, in one form or another. Now, imagine trying to invent those things today. You absolutely could not do so; certainly not in virtually all of this country. Try flying an experimental aircraft on a public beach (or a private one for that matter). Report back after the FAA has finished reaming you a new butt hole. Try developing a new form of electricity, or innovating some new means of refining fossil fuels. You'll be dead and buried before you finish filling out the paperwork for a permit to apply for permission to begin the process of seeking approval of an environmental survey, which will be used to approve or deny your application to request authorization to seek an evaluation to determine the feasibility of the possibility of determining the acceptability of the color of the asphalt in your proposed driveway, assuming your even allowed to have one, as the paving may kill a rare ant species. That''s about ten more forms right there. Where is the next John Browning, Samuel Colt, or the Smith and Wesson guys? Probably in federal prison, for having the audacity to explore an idea in their basement. We are regulating and legislating ourselves to death. Its insane. The only way it will stop, is when people start standing up for themselves, and in turn everyone else. Enough of the "go-along-to-get-along" crap.

Is it possible to request a duplicate, at the same time you get the original, for the purpose of storing one in a safe place, while keeping one in your wallet? Or will "they"not do that? What if you "lost" the original, shortly after getting it? How long does it take to issue a duplicate, and does it "void" the original card, like a lost or stolen credit card?

Depending on how bad you want to keep them, and how much risk you are willing to take, there are "options". You'll never be able to shoot them, or even look at them, as long as you're in NY,but you'll still have them for when you move again. Fully disassemble them, spread parts for any one gun across a couple of different containers. Pack/lube/seal everything up for long term storage. Put the parts in lead lined heavy duty boxes/containers. Make sure the boxes have multiple heavy duty locking options, preferably things the police could not remove or defeat without destroying them. Be sure the boxes give no indication of contents. Never tell anyone what is in them. Keep said box well hidden, in your basement/attic/etc.. Don't get into any other legal "trouble", which might give them cause to search or get a warrant to open the box(es). "They" can't open the box without probable cause, even if they knew you had a mystery box of some kind. With multiple heavy duty locks, no "plain sight" screw job. With the lead lining, no sneaky non-destructive peeking (via a "secret" warrant or search when you aren't home), via x-ray. A substantial layer of thermal insulation should also thwart any attempt to identify the contents via thermal imaging. Whether or not it is worth all the effort depends on a.) How much you value the guns you would have to give up, and whether or not you would want to eventually pass them down to someone., and b.) Do you plan on moving out of NY state later, so as to be able to enjoy them again in the future? If you forsee spending many years there, it may not serve much purpose to keep them.

You might want to give some serious thought to seeking medical attention, including an x-ray. The bone at the tip of your finger, called the "tuft", is fairly delicate. I've seen plenty of them broken. An untreated broken bone can easily lead to an infection; and that can get bad quick.

What about cameras located downrange, linked to monitors at the line? Cameras good enough to tell you where you hit are pretty cheap these days. You only need to partially bury them, in a 3-sided mini-pillbox, instead of a huge pit-type structure large enough to house humans. It may even be substantially cheaper then having to dig/build a "pit" safe enough for people. Sure, the occasional camera may be sacrificed to a stray .50BMG, but they are cheap enough to replace. You could do something where members get one free camera/pillbox replacement per year, after that, you shoot it, you buy it. If they really wanted to get fancy, link all the camera feeds to big screen "spectator" monitors too. It would be great for competitions.

^^^^^ Agreed As far as him violating any oath related to Top Secret clearances, just as a soldier is not required to follow unlawful orders, he can not be compelled to observe an oath to maintain the secrecy of ongoing crimes. Anything he MAY have revealed to the Russians or Chinese a.) may have been something he had to do for his own safety, and b.) would never have happened if our government didn't feel the need to run him off under threat of serious charges, or maybe even a "mysterious" death. O'Bummer should grant him an immediate preemptive pardon, as well as a public guarantee of his safety and freedom upon his return. Maybe even give him a high ranking job as an "auditor" of sorts, to keep an eye on various agencies and make sure they are following the law. Or just let him go back to a normal life, if he so chooses.

I guess I misunderstood your intent. Basically this is the same thing I was trying to say. Still, your tactic could backfire. What if they are anti-abortion as well, and respond with a "Sounds good. I'll take that deal"?

Aahhh, but "they" will surely argue, and with some degree of truth, that revealing which judges are "gun-friendly" will jeopardize their safety, what with all the angry non-violent anti-gun people around (apparently including some who wish for children to be murdered, to prove their point). Or, they could argue that they don't want "gun nutz" knowing which judges are against them, lest they, and their independently sentient evil black rifles, go on a judge killing spree. Not only that, "outing" which judges are "on our side" could cause them to get into trouble, or at least make their lives very difficult, or even ruin their careers. I'm just saying, there maybe unintended consequences, some detrimental to the "cause".

Couldn't you just "destroy" the external threads, such that nothing will screw onto it? Its not hard to "mess up" threads to the point of being nothing more then decorative grooves. A dremel would quickly grind those down. Alternatively, weld a metal ring around the threads. It won't be truly bearing any sort of load, so fairly thin sheet metal, and a few quick "plug" welds and bam, no more threads.