Sniper

Wait, is that 48 on Sunday?? Can't be... and don't eat yellow snow.

How about 50?

Exactly right. You can apply the "death by a thousand cuts" analogy or the "boiling frog" analogy to this situation. The problem is, most people don't wake up and realize the infringements until AFTER they happen. At that point, it's too late. When was the last time an unconstitutional law was repealed? Sadly, most will just roll over and accept whatever is passed.

Nice recovery!!!!

Is it time for a NJGF group pallet order? Who's got a fork lift?

Ahhh, so what's a few years between friends.

Only a few thousand?

True. Everyone should have learned their lesson after the Sandy Hook shooting.

Murphy promised he would come out with Gun Laws V2.0 It wasn't a matter of "if", just a matter of "when". BOHICA

Note that this ammo ration stuff was the same thing NY tried to stick into their SAFE laws. They wanted to limit you to buying only twice the number of rounds your mags held. That got cut from the final bill, but it doesn't mean these Communist won't try and make something stick again.

It's creeping closer.... They're not even trying to make it look subtle. State Sen. Rob Wagner has submitted SB 501 for the upcoming session. Wagner’s bill would require licensing for gun owners prior to purchase, outlaw firearm magazines capable of holding more than five rounds and limit individual ammunition sales to no more than 20 rounds every 30 days. Besides its restrictions on ammunition and requirements for licensing, SB 501 would also mandate that background checks be delayed for 14-days so that state police can research would-be buyers, fine gun owners who failed to report lost or stolen firearms and require guns be locked up when not in use. There would be no grandfathering of magazines affected by the ban. Senate Bill 501 Sponsored by Senator WAGNER, Representative SALINAS (at the request of Students for Change) (Presession filed.) SUMMARY The following summary is not prepared by the sponsors of the measure and is not a part of the body thereof subject to consideration by the Legislative Assembly. It is an editor’s brief statement of the essential features of the measure as introduced. Requires person to secure permit before purchasing or otherwise receiving firearm. Specifies qualifications for permit and manner of applying for permit. Creates procedures for appealing denial of permit. Punishes receipt of firearm without valid permit by maximum of 364 days’ imprisonment, $6,250 fine, or both. Requires person who owns or possesses firearm to secure firearm with trigger or cable lock or in locked container. Punishes failure to secure firearm by maximum of 30 days’ imprisonment, $1,250 fine, or both. Requires person who owns or possesses firearm to report to law enforcement agency loss or theft of firearm within 24 hours. Punishes failure to report loss or theft by maximum of 30 days’ imprisonment, $1,250 fine, or both. Prohibits possession of magazine with capacity to hold more than five rounds of ammunition. Provides that person in possession of such magazine must sell or otherwise dispose of magazine within 180 days of effective date of Act. Punishes unlawful possession of magazine capable of holding more than five rounds by maximum of 364 days’ imprisonment, $6,250 fine, or both. Requires criminal background check before transfer of ammunition. Restricts ammunition receipt to 20 rounds within 30-day period. Prohibits transfer of firearm by gun dealer or private party until latter of 14 days or Department of State Police has determined that recipient is qualified to receive firearm. https://www.guns.com/news/2019/01/14/oregon-bill-would-cap-magazines-to-5-rds-ration-ammo-to-20-rds-month https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2019R1/Downloads/MeasureDocument/SB501

This is very, very true. The "molding" has to happen between the ages of 2 to 7, if a kid doesn't have a solid footing on what's right and wrong, along with stable moral values, principals and responsibilities at that age, they're subject to outside "molding". This is why I referenced electronic babysitting above. Kids today are NOT getting the teaching at home they need, which leaves them like a sailboat without a sail, open to any breeze that comes along. The socialist school systems are winning, unfortunately...

Ahhh, you should have let me know, I would have loaned you my special tool, I don't need it anymore. It works great for "Attitude" adjustments.

There's no way to adopt enough to make the numbers matter. Your other idea, teach the existing kids, those numbers are a lot larger. But sadly, that won't work either, very few parents "teach" their kids much these days. Either the kid spends time getting indoctrinated at public school during the day, and when they come home, they bury their faces in their electronic gadgets. Playstations, iPads and iPhones are the parents today. Electronic babysitting is the way of the world. The parents can't be bothered to teach their kids, they're too busy updating their own Facebook status. The country is doomed, plan accordingly.

Kinda sounds like word games are being played, when the final outcome can be similar. I was taught, if you point a gun at someone and pull the trigger, assume they're going to die, and you'll have to face that consequence.

But wait, didn't you say this: Was this a game that showed their prior World Championship form? The stats weren't even that close. I know, tough pill to swallow, but facts are facts. Just as a FYI, I wanted the Eagles to win too, but the stats don't lie.

Great Point! The Eagles defense, who also makes some big bucks and are professionals, let the Saints score more points on them (not to mention allowed more total yards, more 1st downs and longer possession). Thanks for pointing that out.

You can't figure it out? Here, this might make it easy for you. One quick point, if, as professionals, they can't complete like half of their pass plays, maybe it's time to go back to pop warner: Eagles completed 18 out of 31 compared to Saints 28 out of 38. The rest of the stats are just as bad. http://www.espn.com/nfl/matchup?gameId=401038958

And playing poorly, for their millions, at that. Well, in his defense, the ball hit him in his weak spot, his hands. Tough spot for a W.R. Can't expect much from him in that case, right? After all, he's only making $52 million over 4 years. That's chump change.... Oh, wait....

I agree... Many times we have to read between the lines, and make determinations, to get to the real story. No offense was ever taken, I'm a big boy and have thick skin, and appreciate opposing view points. I also don't subscribe to the "hive" and "pack" mentality, as some others in this thread do. Unfortunately, some here (not you specifically) can't handle a different point of view on a topic that differs from their own. Sometimes I wonder if they're actually closet Liberals... My feathers have always been tucked in.... You don't want to see when I have to untuck them, it's not a pretty sight, and that's reserved for special occasions. Oh, and it's coffee, not tea.... CAFFEINE RULES!!!!!!!!

Which town? If you tell us, some other members can share their experiences.

Her exact statement, "I'm not here to kill anyone" sounds like she's referencing the actual shooting, not rendering first aid. She also said " I was behind a vehicle… basically just maneuvered around the vehicle as he maneuvered around the other side of it to make sure I was properly concealed and covered,” she added. That sounds like she had some time to plan her shot. Was she aiming low, we'd have to ask her? Her comment makes me think so. If her statement, "I'm not here to kill anyone", was referencing after the fact, I think she would have said something like "then I tried to save him". There's two different issues at play here. Are we not allowed to have our own opinions, after reading an article? You know, that whole 1st Amendment thing? I'd doubt there is anyone in this thread that doesn't celebrate that. We just have different opinions on mindset if you pull a weapon for a defensive reason.

She shot him once, in the thigh, she intentionally tried to "wing" him. He was carrying a AK47. It could have easily went South for her quickly if he decided to turn the AK on her. How many times have we heard instances of a guy, being under the influence of something, taking multiple rounds by a LEO before the threat was finally stopped? Back in the Ferguson incident, it took 6 rounds by the LEO to finally stop Michael Brown. Is shooting to "wing" a good strategy?

How much?