HBecwithFn7

I don't have these personally, but I see a lot of people wearing them..... Howard Leight Sport Electronic Earmuff...

Primary: 9mm (P226 and Shield 9mm). Secondary: .45acp (Para Expert and SW "Pro-Series" SW1911). Tertiary: .22LR (Ruger 22/45 Lite) - only for training my niece/nephew (but my niece uses the 9mm's anyway) Shotgun: 12G #8 target load 2.75"

3rd on the Para Expert full size. I like mine. In fact, I got a $100.00 rebate on it.

And another Update: Took it shooting for the first time after cleaning. It shot everything I gave it, including the Hornady Critical Duty and the AE 147 flat heads. I put 50 rounds through it. Not a problem. But I think I'll have the SIG armorer look at it anyway. It may require a more detailed strip and cleaning of the pin chamber.

Is anyone having trouble viewing this? I keep getting the dreaded "An error has occured.... Please try again later" error. Learn More.

Welcome from Warren County, NJ.

It does. NJSP Form 634 - Certificate of Eligibility

Update: I have taken the cleaned weapon to a local shop where I am currently staying. They are involved with the MAG-40 class I'm about to take. Unfortunately, the SIG armorer wasn't there but will be back before the class starts. The alternate armorer who was there took a quick look and didn't see anything wrong with the pin point or other external mechanisms (hammer, etc.). But he did the "pencil" test (i.e., put a pencil in the barrel, turn it straight up and fire). The pencil did not fully eject, which surprised him. He thinks it might be a dirty/sticky pin chamber. So I will wait until the SIG armorer returns and let him check the pin chamber. Thanks all, I'll keep you posted.

I read this, but was suspicious because it seemed written with an anti-gun spin on it (i.e. to demonstrate why "gun nuts" shouldn't be allowed to OC..... or CC.... or anything)...

Fair enough.... "Nuclear" family, then.

I often smell something like that in the Hazlet/Aberdeen area on the GSP but, otherwise, not much....

If it benefits you more now, then great. I can live without the extra expense right now. At the point when my current TV wears out (which I hope isn't for a good long while), I will re-evaluate the need. I like those "curvy" TV's I'm seeing now. If there's a 4K version of those and the content published is right, that might be the "next" move for me. As for "surrround sound," I need a bigger living area to make it worth while. My living room is only L20'xW15'. I'd like something on the order of a 25'x25' great room to really make it worthwhile. We'll see... maybe someday.

This is what I do. I used to have both setup when I was on Netflix for streaming due to "Dolby Digital +" (which required HDMI), but I dumped Netflix and went back to TOS cable. The problem I'm finding isn't so much the TV.... it's the "content." Nobody puts out content worthy of the gear I have to play it. It's why I'd be holding off of 4K HiDef, or 7.1 surround sound... Not until there's a decent amount of content for it available, and/or the MSM starts to broadcast in those formats. FTR, I have a Vizio 55" 1080p LED-LCD. It serves me well, and will continue to, hopefully. I also have the Onkyo 5.1 AV receiver and surround sound speaker kit.

I would agree, with one exception.... if you still have dependent children (i.e. "under 18"), you're also responsible for them.

Just to be clear, I'm not advocating the taking of one's own life for any other purpose, other than the "diagnosed terminal illness with no hope of recovery" scenario. Even people who have severe physical disabilities (i.e. quadriplegic, etc.), still find ways to survive and be productive. Some of those cases are awe inspiring. As long as there's a fighting chance, I say fight. When it's clear that there isn't said chance, anymore, and that one is only prolonging a very short, defined "inevitable," involving significant pain and suffering, then this option should be available.

I wouldn't call a terminal illness/condition "arbitrary." You now know your death is eminent. You know there is no hope for recovery or improvement (per your MD consults). You also know (or reasonably suspect) that the last few days/weeks, etc. will be full of pain and suffering, if not loss of consciousness or incapacitation. Yes, we are taught to value life. But we're also taught to value "quality of life." And when what's left of one's life is a living Hell, why require them to suffer through it? It is that person's life, not ours. We should allow that person, who has been in control of their life for all that time, under these circumstances, at least one last act of control... to control how/when it ends, before they irrevocably lose control, and are made to suffer that living Hell. I said "6 mos. or less" because that's what I'm used to, statistically, in re: people being formally diagnosed with a terminal illness with no chance of recovery. But it could be any length of time. I guess the real question should be, "how much time before one becomes bedridden, incapacitated incoherent, or unconscious, and can no longer live a reasonable quality of life or make decisions for one's self?" It should be permitted just before that point, and with enough time to get one's affairs in order. How do you keep the State out of anything? If they're going to get into it, they're going "all in." Best way possible I would think is to try and set up a "self-policing" sort of thing, and demonstrate that it can work without govt. intervention. IDK. But anything other than the patient themselves obtaining the prescription, purchasing and receiving the drugs, and self-ingesting them, would seem to be much more on the "homicide" spectrum of things. Everything should be witnessed by an atty. with no family ties to ensure there is no foul play. If they're old enough to think/communicate clearly, and to understand all that's going on, then they're old enough to make a decision for themselves. Of course, when those wishes conflict with parents' wishes is when we have issues. I guess that means involving more doctors and lawyers and, perhaps, the courts. I know.... I know... "the State." But at least it's the justice system and not the "legislative/regulatory." If the child isn't old enough to understand, then it's going to be the parents vs. the doctors/hospital staff. I'd have to lean towards the parents in that case, but I can see the hospital (or some other relative/friend) attempting to have a "child advocate" appointed by the courts. Messy.... I doubt the state would ever permit that, unless the person actually is suffering from a terminal illness as described. Look at all the sanitary precautions they take at an execution (sterile needles, alcohol swabs, etc.). Look at the "suicide watches" they have for the condemned beforehand. One cannot "cheat the State." The "termination of life" in that context, has to be done per the law. I wouldn't consider severe depression an "authorized" terminal illness. I'm talking about things that affect the body physically and will result in "natural, physiological" death. Yes, severe depression is treatable, and, by itself, would not result in a "physiological" death, unless someone could, somehow, manipulate a chemical imbalance in the brain. But then again, to manipulate the brain's chemistry for that purpose is to commit suicide anyway. That said, "neurological" disorders (Alzheimer's, etc). might be a bit problematic, as the person can linger for quite some time without physical pain and suffering, but not be able to make decisions for themselves. Unfortunately, what's done is done. One makes the best risk/benefit calculation at the time. Is the amount of suffering/incapacitation the patient would endure worth the wait for this cure? I would think that if the patient is truly terminal and on very short time, that cure won't be quick enough. Otherwise, I'd think the doctors etc. would know about it, already, in time to factor it in.

It should *never* be a financial decision from any perspective, even the patient. It should be strictly a matter of the patient's quality of life and the avoidance of end stage suffering and incapacitation. And only after a confirmed diagnosis of a terminal illness with life expectancy of 6mos. or less.

Sometimes, when it's a friend (that I know is armed at home), I'll pull up in the driveway and then call on my cell to let them know I'm there, rather than just go up to the door.

I now can. I have completed the southbound journey and was most pleasantly surprised. For the MD segment, the speed limits are 65mph at both ends, but drops to 60mph in the middle. I'd say 65mph for the first & last 2-3 miles. The journey itself was really great. No major construction, not too many trucks (although it was a weekend), and not too bad from a hill perspective. I made pretty good gas mileage. No fixed ALPRs on the MD segment. Although, oddly, I did see quite a few cameras (not certain if they were ALPR) in Virginia. They could have been regular traffic cams, but not the "dome" style. They looked like ALPRs. I would recommend this route to all. Take it on a weekend first, just to be sure. I'll see how things go on my way back (will be a wed./thrs), but I hope it won't be all that bad. We'll see.

If the 16th, then I'm out.... I'll still be in FL.

If you start promptly at 9am, you (hopefully) would be done by noon.

As long as participation isn't "mandatory..."

I was thinking it would necessitate training either way.... 1) To train to be ready to take the safety off safely when drawing, or 2) Learn to draw it safely all the time (i.e. in condition "zero") and leave the safety always off. At least with a DA/SA (like the P226), there is a difference in trigger pull.

I agree with most here, and with the article writer. It's a choice one would have to discuss with their loved ones, of course. Some of them might not be ready to "let go." One has to stand firm and tell them... "my life... my choice." I agree it should be for confirmed "terminal illnesses," but should be the patient's final decision (in consultation with their doctors) and action (i.e. the "pills" can't be administered by any means other than "self-intake..."), but I also believe it should be permitted well in advance of the patient becoming "incapacitated" and not being able to do it themselves. If they wait too long, then too bad. No one else should be allowed to administer on behalf of the patient. But the "bureaucracy" should also not be permitted to delay the process either, thus preventing the patient from doing this. In a world when people fight hard for the right to be in "control of one's life/person," it's totally unfair to deny the person the right to be "in control" of when it ends, and be made to suffer all the way to that end. Interesting that there are now 5 states that permit this. At the time I watched that "How to Die in Oregon" video, it was only Oregon and Washington State, and you had to be "primary domiciled" there for some time before they permitted it.

I used to have access to several family houses like that, but I would always announce myself upon entering, and they would respond in kind. Not that it would have mattered much, as none of them are/were gun owners...