@Morganfreeman actually, I don't...this is the internet...you can live wherever you want and can spell...

@Morganfreeman Depends on where...parts are lovely and wealthy and full of interesting people; parts are not...just like any state...depends on your world view...half empty, or half full...the shore is great and so is some of the food...as neighbors, they have helped PA with managing the medical marijuana debacle in our own state...have you been?

@Morganfreeman So you speak about a state without having ever been? They do have a higher tax rate but they don't have local taxes...they are comparable to taxes in PA...and I bet in Ohio as well...their education system is better, too.they rank #2 in the country.....and they have ocean front...that generates lots of revenue for the state. I like New Jersey...Atlantic City is fun.

@Morganfreeman The pay is way higher to match...I have lots of family there...yes, the property taxes are high but many who work there just swing over to PA...the roads are not terrible, I was just on them yesterday...but they are tolled...I think you speak from hearsay and not facts...but whatever...it is probably not for you...

@Morganfreeman You validated your reasons...I get that...but it is not everyone's experience. Thank you for sharing your point of view.

They only dropped it by 5 rounds...from 15 to 10...I think 5 rounds is a compromise to save 5 lives in a mass shooting...anyone who can't kill an intruder with 10 rounds doesn't need to own a gun...You would have thought they took away all the legos...and that 15 round limit has been since 1990...

200 round belt fed is better.

@Veteran229 I agree that the slow eroding of rights is insidious and often overlooked. But, I also feel that other rights and circumstances, such as the right for kids to feel safe in schools, etc. compel us to make compromises and seek a balance. As society evolves(, and some of us are evolving and not devolving), we have to upgrade our laws and stay current with the times.

For people on both sides of the controversy to dig in their heels and not budge doesn't fit societal and cultural changes...it only serves to make individualism paramount...I believe in individual rights but only to the extent that those individuals can also live in a society that relies on the collective whole to maintain order and a semblance of human decency.

@Veteran229 How does one live peacefully in the world without a collective? Since the dawning of man, people saw more benefits grouping together than facing the world alone.

If you choose to live among people, an evolving society seeks to better the lives of everyone, which is the individual as well as the group.

What would happen if individuals decided that a red light meant nothing? How would people survive in a modern world without basic constructs of laws that might impede individual "rights" but serves them just as well...

I think your view is selfish and not sustainable unless you live away from others...and even then, even you will have to rely on others for a collective food supply, energy supply, etc. It permeates society for a reason...obtaining the balance is the tricky part.

@Veteran229 I think the semantics are getting in the way...within our collective society (meaning a group comprising more than one), laws are set up to benefit the whole. Individuals within the group still have a say and still have a choice, but it is the choice of the group that strives to benefit the majority. Yes, perhaps that individual whose choice did not match may be put out, but by choosing to be in the group, that choice supersedes his individual ones...choice is there, just not necessarily the one he wants.

You analogy is not solid for the same reason...individuals can choose to be part of a church...by choosing to do so, they accept the collective ideas, dogma, etc. of the group. They can choose to walk way. Even those who individually agree what morality is belong to a group of those same like minded people.

I challenge you to find any individual who is not a member of several groups, including the one called humanity.

@Veteran229 "How do I know this? Step 1 of military training. weed out individuals"

I think you are conflating issues with this statement...the military is a specialized group that relies on the members to be conformists in order to operate. Which is why a lot of people aren't meant to be in that group. Surely you can see the benefit of that type of conformity to benefit all of the rank and file. Having individuals not following orders would be chaotic at its worse.

You are equating and surmising that all group behavior is detrimental...it is not.

@Veteran229 I know we are agreeing on basic points and just going about it in different ways...we just have to agree that applying certain analogies don't mesh cleanly with the gun control issue.

Using this type of analogy, how is following the dogma of the NRA any less insidious than that of gun control freaks? I think they are the different sides of the same coin...mindlessly following the rules similar to that handed out by religion...

@Veteran229 You are incorrect...as a gun owner myself, I am very aware of my rights and do not feel threatened by modifications that would attempt (I say that word because I am sure it won't make a big difference, but A for effort) to help society as a whole. I think the narrative spewed by the NRA, of which I am no longer a member, is to use this as the talking point when it is such a minor one held by a minority of the gun control group.

The NRA has changed its focus from education and safety to commercialism. I have seen it evolve into the same kind of hateful rhetoric under the guise that it is trying to secure "our rights"...that is bullshit...they are trying to secure my money.

@Veteran229 I agree...this is not an issue that will be resolved through the internet discussion, news media, etc. By voting for those who represent our individual views, we take a chance that others with similar views will do the same.

So it brings us back to the laws that were upheld in New Jersey...obviously, people voted in those who best represented them to make the change from 15 rounds to 10, did they not? If they made it a law, it meant enough felt that is what they wanted. So how is that eroding individual rights when you yourself are supporting change to be made by laws? Are you then saying that you also discount states rights to enact a law fitting what their constituents want by holding them to the federal constitution? You can't support both...

@Veteran229 agree...I am not a proponent of getting rid of the electoral system for the reason you mentioned...I think we are going to see a lot of focus on big cities vs rural in the future, especially since it seems that big cities tend to promote more culturally diverse and therefore divisive thinking...I think that divide is what got us into this mess...and I know I am one who ignored the plight of those in more conservative rural areas in favor of more liberal city areas..if this past election taught me anything, it was to be cognizant of that...I will not be caught asleep at the wheel again...and want to work on addressing the issues for all

Anyone who does not agree with you is a "troll", I assume. Also, if you were a little smarter, you would realize that "abdicating" means surrendering position or power. The word you likely wanted, was "advocating". Beer for breakfast again?

@dahermit Don't you ammosexuals had abdicated your power to whatever nra desires? ...THANK YOU FOR ADMITTING WHAT WE SUSPECTED OF YOU. NOTHING LIKE YOUR OWN WORDS.

I totally agree with you.