No, I was correct. You linked to the best thread ever.

Touché

i'd accept a non-assault weapons ban in exchange for CCW.  (half kidding)

 

if its not, or has never been issued to any military in any country, or a clone of one, you can't own it. 

 

m16s, m4s and all variants legal

m14s and all variants legal

92fs, glocks, sigs, all legal

remington 870/mossberg 500 legal.  

scar

m1 garand

1911

etc

 

 

if its not, or has never been issued to any military in any country, or a clone of one, you can't own it. 

 

RPGs, Bazookas and Mortars.  That's my wish list.

RPGs, Bazookas and Mortars. That's my wish list.

I asked a FFL about a few cases of RPGs. Cheaper to get them from the cartels. We should do a group buy, as I think we'll need them in 2016.

Incorrect

http://njgunforums.com/forum/index.php/topic/39120-winchester-white-box-walmart-easton-pa-purchases-lengthy/

Was that the "threw it over the wall" thread?

Was that the "threw it over the wall" thread?

The one and only

RPGs, Bazookas and Mortars.  That's my wish list.

 

whats the next gen RPG type thing where it has the wire and computer connected to it.  thats what i want

Really.... stupidest question ever!!! I guarantee you the guy who has to restock the ATM machines in Newark may prefer to have CCW available to him everyday then an Assault style weapon to take to the range once a month to shoot holes in paper. I get the the whole don't give them an inch logic and I support it honestly... I just thought it might be interesting if anyone would trade philosophical safety an assault weapon provides from a tyrannical government for the actual Safety a CCW will provide you on you way home from work after midnight tonight.

 

This was a hypothetical scenarios I thought was interesting, Not a political call to action to propose to you congressman...

 

-- WORST QUESTION EVER???... NOT EVEN CLOSE!!!...

you are talking about philosophical safety vs actual safety, but we are talking about rights.  that's like asking rosa parks if she would agree to not get her right to vote so she can sit in the front of the bus and drink from the same water fountain as the rest of us.  rights are rights.  there is no compromise.  so we need to fight the AWB, fight furthering it, and fight to get CCW.  

Where do I know that creepy GTFO guy from. Was he in a viral video years ago ?

That's Technoviking!

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PozbCdtvixQ&sns=em

That's Technoviking!

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PozbCdtvixQ&sns=em

I've never been more scared of someone raving in my life

Redacted. 

I agree with the 'no compromise / no negotiate' attitude, but to answer the hypothetical question - yes, in a second. I don't own a sporting rifle or have any desire to, CCW is my number one priority. I agree that there should be no bargaining for something that is our constitutional right and I assume the only point of the hypothetical question is to get a cross section of how people feel.

The issue is not everyone cares about CCW.  I for one could care less, its not even a priority to me. 

Really.... stupidest question ever!!! I guarantee you the guy who has to restock the ATM machines in Newark may prefer to have CCW available to him everyday then an Assault style weapon to take to the range once a month to shoot holes in paper. I get the the whole don't give them an inch logic and I support it honestly... I just thought it might be interesting if anyone would trade philosophical safety an assault weapon provides from a tyrannical government for the actual Safety a CCW will provide you on you way home from work after midnight tonight.
 

I'll do something that hardly any poster ever does: come to the rescue of the OP.

 

Let me rephrase the question: What other gun-related right would you give up for concealed carry in NJ? It doesn't have to be completely quid pro quo, tit for tat, 1:1. Make believe this is a bargaining session. "They" say they'll give you CC. You have to give something of value. What would that be?

 

Luckily we, in this state, have a lot to offer.

I'll do something that hardly any poster ever does: come to the rescue of the OP.

 

Let me rephrase the question: What other gun-related right would you give up for concealed carry in NJ? It doesn't have to be completely quid pro quo, tit for tat, 1:1. Make believe this is a bargaining session. "They" say they'll give you CC. You have to give something of value. What would that be?

 

Luckily we, in this state, have a lot to offer.

I'd give up the bear hunt

I'll do something that hardly any poster ever does: come to the rescue of the OP.

 

Let me rephrase the question: What other gun-related right would you give up for concealed carry in NJ? It doesn't have to be completely quid pro quo, tit for tat, 1:1. Make believe this is a bargaining session. "They" say they'll give you CC. You have to give something of value. What would that be?

 

Luckily we, in this state, have a lot to offer.

I would give up the morally bankrupt legislature.

 

If someone stole your car, what would you be willing to give them to have your car back?

 

Sent from my SCH-I800 using Tapatalk 2

 

 

I'd give up the bear hunt

I'd give up the polar bear hunt

 

No, seriously, I'd probably be willing to give up the 50-round magazine limit

I would give up the morally bankrupt legislature.

 

If someone stole your car, what would you be willing to give them to have your car back?

 

Sent from my SCH-I800 using Tapatalk 2

Don't be too serious. We all know the legislature is fukcing us. It was simply a theoretical question, like what you do when you find $50,000 worth of classic handguns in the attic of a home you just purchased. 

How would you be able to defend our great land with a handgun. You are weakening the 2A argument.

I'd give up the polar bear hunt

 

No, seriously, I'd probably be willing to give up the 50-round magazine limit

Screw that, I loves me BETA dumps

 

(and Surefire mags are cool)

Here's an attempt at a reasoned answer - please remember this is almost midnight on Superbowl Sunday.

 

In England they wanted to take the semi-auto rifles in 1988. The pistol, shotgun and bolt-action folks said "meh". They took the semi-auto rifles. (The "event" that triggered this was the Hungerford shooting where Michael Ryan killed most of his victims with pistols - go figure)

 

In England they wanted to take the pistols in 1998. The shotgun, bolt-action rifle and muzzle loading folks said "meh". They took the pistols. (The event was Thomas Hamilton killed 15 school children in Dunblane with pistols he had obtained without a valid licence - the people who sold the guns were never prosecuted)

 

In England in 2005 they wanted to stop fox hunting. Deer and vermin hunters said "meh". They banned fox hunting.

 

Please, please, please learn from our mistakes. The anti crowd will use divide and conquer to split us from like minded folks. Don't let them.

 

I don't hunt. I don't shoot skeet. I have no interest at all in muzzle loading. I've done bullseye to death and I want more action in my shooting these days. I will defend all the things I don't want to do personally because I have been burned too many times already by indifference.

 

The anti's attitude is typically "I don't understand why anyone would want to do this awful thing. It should be banned." They need to learn that it is none of their business. If they don't have any interest they should butt out and leave it to those who do.

 

They take their ignorance and turn it into oppression. It is time we all stood together and made it plain that no means no.

Very thoughtful post. Thank you.

To the op..in a word NO.

That's Technoviking!

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PozbCdtvixQ&sns=em

 

Just seeing this made my entire day worthwhile...