Leaderboard

Doesn't matter. It is his insurance company that is making that decision for him. I am sure they wanted to allow reloads but unfortunately the insurance is the limiting factor, not the owner's decision. I am sure they did not want start out by limiting their customer base but it is what it is. I would rather have a nice, high tech range in my area that you can't shoot reloads in than to have no range at all. Also, they have been more than accomodating enough to us reloaders IMHO. These gentlemen have made a considerable investment of money, stress and time into starting this range. They are filling a gap and in this day and age of seeing ranges closing every single day it seems I am glad to see one opening for once. And even though I reload everything I shoot I would be glad to go there and buy factory ammo to support them in their endeavor. We, as gun owners (me included), like to complain a lot. Issues big and small we complain about often to no end. Sometimes it is warranted but in this case it is not. Think about this as well, they are supporting this site with their sponsorship. And without sponsors like Nashville Armory this site would likely not be what it is today. So before we go chastising a company, that supports us and the shootign sports, over something small we need to take a look at what they bring to the big picture. And what they bring is far outweighs the issue of being able to shoot reloads. Dolomite

We call them handles in these parts. Part of the manual of arms.

Remember that the word "Soldier" is always capitalized and Marines do NOT like to be referred to as such. Sorry, habit.

A platoon of Marines would have absolutely ended this once it was clear things were getting out of hand. The small US security detail was is flight/protection mode when it got to that point. A platoon of Marines would certainly have changed the mode of operation to regain the initiative once it got to that point. Every good grunt in the Marine Corps is looking for any good reason to use his weapon against his enemy. That is why Marines exist. They know this. Obama does not know this.

Serious question now: do you know how tax deductions work? You know that he isn't getting that money back, right? According to FACT, which would be the undeniable fact of his tax return, He made 13 1/2 million last year, mostly on investments. Although he donated 4 million of that to charity, he only claimed 2.25 million of those donations on his tax return, because claiming the full amount would have lowered his taxable income to the point that he would be paying less than 14% on his overall income. Since he didn't want to screw the government out of their money, he decided not to claim the remaining $1.75 million, which meant that he paid even more taxes than he had to... approx 2 million. So, in summary, Romney made about 13 1/2 million last year, paid the government $2 million and charity $4 milllion. That is almost 50% of his income. Whether it goes to the government or charity, he still didn't keep it, so I ask again, what is the problem other than your own envy? Perhaps your problem is that you feel as if charity shouldn't be tax deductible, and that he still should have paid the government around 4 million rather than the 2 million he paid in. Okay. I'll buy that logic. But if that is your logic then your problem resides in the tax code, which we should all be able to agree needs to be fixed. Last time I checked Romney wasn't running the IRS, so your hate is misplaced. Or maybe you just think that $7 million in take home is still too much for someone that earned $13 million. If you think that, then you have finally had an honest moment with yourself and should be able to see that your problem is your envy of those that make more than you. If that is how you see the world and cast your vote, then you have deep personal problems that only you can solve; not the President, not your employer, not your educational institution... just you. EDIT: I donated about 1% of my income last year. Granted, I have two children and a wife to support, along with a mortgage, umpteen different insurance policies, student loans and home renovations, but if I made twice the income chances are I still wouldn't have donated more than 1%, as I'm sure I would have found other places to put that money. I'm ready to admit that Romney is a better man than I if he is so willing to donate almost $2 million and not even claim it on his return. But then again, money doesn't motivate me to dislike people; I prefer the content of their character. There are plenty of people that don't make squat that wouldn't make their way on the spectrum of decent human beings.

Hello Dolomite Supafly, it's a pleasure to meet you. I have the same issues. It used to make my wife so mad she'd cry. She just shrugs it off now a decade later. She's come to terms with my lunacy. Reminds me of a buddy of mine who was pretty mad about being medicated for a diagnosis of ADD. He used to say the one good thing about ADD is that things never seem to bother you for very long. Get upset about something, give it a minute....wait...what?

THE most significant pistol ever made is the humble Glock 19 I carry everyday. It's here to guard the life of me and my wife. Can't think of a more important handgun than that!

http://www.guns.com/...-ops-11039.html This is why I like dogs better than most people. -Edit Sorry my work wouldn't let me view the video so I couldn't tell it was a joke. However, i still like dogs more than most people.

Interesting article... Instead of the image of the white male father dressed in flannel taking his son off to the woods for the traditional deer hunt, the new image of gun ownership is much broader and more diverse. The members of the 2.0 gun culture are more likely to own an AR15 with a suppressor than a Winchester Model 70. And, you can rest assured that a new gen gun owner is likely to be carrying a Glock or KelTec when you run into them at the local coffee shop. http://www.humanevents.com/2012/09/21/the-new-gun-culture/

This is the biggest reason we reconciled. Hurting my family was the most painful thing I have ever been through. My daughter loves both of her parents, and the idea of forcing her to be with one or the other was torture. I feel bad for all parties involved, without knowing the whole story.

None of those people in the interviews are going to vote. Not that it matters, since it is New York. The advantage our system has is that people too lazy to educate themselves on the candidates and understand the issues are usually too lazy to vote. It amazes me they have no problem finding people like this. I don't think I've ever met anyone this stupid, but they have them lined up.

All you can do is call the Police. These types of cases are hard for everyone concerned. As a cop I had to look at all the circumstances involved. A court order defines what the cops can or can’t do. Rarely could we do anything as they were family court matters. Too often the responses of one of the parents turn the case into a criminal matter that has nothing to do with the child. You can talk to the cops and see what they tell you, but unless the Father is drunk or unable to care for the child; there isn’t a lot they can do. These battles are fought by the attorneys in a courtroom. When the parents can’t agree and it comes to that, there usually are no winners, only losers; including the child. Mike says there is Tennessee law that says the Mother has custody. If that is true they may go get the child back. But I don’t know how the cops can stop a Father from seeing his child without a court order. Be interesting to see what they tell you.

I guess I'm still version 1.0.

that's what folks said when he was elected the first time. No election is the end of the world.

Any of the precision weaponry from the movie "Shooter" with Marky Mark. The part where he makes a first round hit on a can of baked beans from 1600 m away, whilst shooting across a canyon with at least 15 knot winds of varying directions and values which could not possibly be determined and/or calculated.... yeah, I was ready to give up there. I ended up holding out until the "sentry" sniper system. That's where I gave up and decided Hollywood just didn't put the effort I was hoping into this one.

I see your leg gun, and raise you the crotch gun.

I just wish I could believe that there aren't as many dumb one's on the Republican side, but I don't believe that. Yes, they will know Obama is black, but I suspect they wouldn't give much better answers on a lot of the other questions. I don't think we want to get in a pissing contest of who has the dumber bottom voter pool. I could easily find enough to make a 15 minute video to stereotype our side too. It is funny (and sad) to listen to though.

Win or loose, never trust TN Vols to cover the spread.

Even considering the source, I'd have to opine that...Yes, that many people in this country are that stupid.

Am I the only lucky one today that had success? I got a doe early this morning so I grabbed my .22 and went back to the woods after squirrel and found none.

I wonder what George Washington's or Thomas Jefferson's reaction would have been if some British Soldiers had come onto their estate and tried to arrest them for the crime of "allowing their children to play outside".

More proof that we need a poll test

I saw a joke video. Did I miss something? Sent from my DROID BIONIC using Tapatalk 2

Guess that is like a giant "rob me, I don't have guns" sign.

Obama love is blind and unconditional

What kind of revolver? Metal type? That can make a big difference on whether they want to tackle it or not. Dolomite

It's nothing sensational. I'm certain that every first term president makes these preparations. After all there is a fifty percent chance that he will lose. I don't think that he will lose. There are still some freedoms that he hadn't taken and lots of country left to be destroyed.

An indictment against everyone? Seriously? That's some pretty filthy lawyering on the part of the State.

I feel your pain. I'll be in my spare room in the house at my fly tying bench and get up and walk out to the shop for something, stop in the doorway of the shop, then wonder why I even walked out there. Won't remember why until I go back to my bench. Very, very aggravating! I can sit here on TGO at 10:00 at night, and try to remember what I cooked for supper or even if I ate at all. Not good! Dave S

Chick-fil-A wronged by media again http://www.americant...edia_again.html CHICK-FIL-A PRESIDENT DAN CATHY: WE HAVE MADE NO ‘CONCESSIONS’ TO SAME-SEX MARRIAGE SUPPORTERS http://www.theblaze....e-sex-marriage/ Chick-fil-A: We Made No Concessions http://radio.foxnews.com/toddstarnes/top-stories/chick-fil-a-we-made-no-concessions.html

I'm willing to bet that Marines WITH LOADED WEAPONS could've held off the attack and more just fine.

+1. Any bank and insurance company will strive to write a policy to minimize risk of loss. It doesn't have to make sense to the consumers and the owners/investors are at their mercy in order to obtain the proper permits to open or stay open.

Well he donated 33% of his earned income last year to charity, which is more than I can say. I'm not going to hate a man because he makes more money than me, nor am I going to judge every business decision that resulted in screwing someone over. In the business world it happens; a lot. Business is not charity, nor does it need to be. This is why places like California and Michigan are bankrupt. I just have a hard time believing that it isn't envy when folks bring up how much he earns. I don't think it matters at all. Every politician with a seat in DC is wealthy and out of touch with the middle class. How silly to focus in Romney as if this is something new; it isn't.

So, I'm envious because I don't want a rich guy taking care of other rich guys? What does it say about me when I say the same about the poor? Maybe, just MAYBE, i want someone to look out for the interests of us middle class "poverty stricken sub-250k" folks instead of pandering and lining the pockets of the rich and poor.

I carry chambered, no safety My reasoning is if a threat comes at me very close. From what i have considered/practiced I would attempt to hold them off or push them back with my left arm and draw with my right (or in extreme situation my left although it aint easy.) But one thing is for sure I can't conceive how i'd operate the slide with one hand and the other tied up in a fight. I wonder if i could draw at all. Fighting them off would be #1 and if i could get one step back it'd be ideal but if i could hold them off enough to draw to a weapon retention position just below my armpit close to my body i'd be ok (Oh yeah, it feels dangerous to shoot from here because its so close to your chest but to me it seems like a very realistic scenario in a bad situation, so i practice it. I think in a real fight there's a good chance you may shoot yourself in the left hand or forearm, but hey you're alive if you also neutralize the threat)

Is there any other way to carry it?

I had always thought the gun Hitler used was in a private collection. Not sure. I just thought I saw it on a show a year or two back.

No it isn't. You're implying that using deadly force is punitive, and done after passing judgement. It isn't. It's about protecting what is yours. If you weren't able to protect your home using violence (as you point out that theft is non-violent) then you should open your doors to me and standby while I take your valuables while you wait on the police. If you are willing to stand there and allow that to happen without intervening you aren't some kind of moral example, you would just be a fool or a coward. I choose to be neither. What is mine belongs to me and my family. I don't care if it's my truck, or my kid's toy truck. It doesn't matter. I won't allow it to happen so long as I have the ability to stop it.

I don't see how one can absolutely separate a candidate from his religion, or claim that it wouldn't influence his decision making. There are various "laws" that one is to adhere to by professing any of the world's mainstream faiths. Many of those are in conflict with existing or proposed US laws. A man will have to choose which master to best serve in many cases, not to mention his own interpretation of both the laws of man and of his god. The degree with which he's able to do that determines your above criterion. Maybe we're not debating the correct issue. Perhaps I agree with you more than it seems. The difference being that I don't believe certain pols will, or even can, completely separate the best interests of the country from the dictates of their religion. Depends both on the pol and the religion. It's seems to me that BHO isn't a devout anything (no, I don't believe he's a closet Muslim either), and if truth be known, is probably closer to my agnostic preference than any prez in recent history. Of course, his socialistic and rigid statist (to put it mildly) national and world view override any pluses which that might otherwise provide. Folks like Perry, Bachmann, and Santorum made it clear that their religion influences at least some of their political policy, and by your own criteria would not be bigotry to reject them on that basis.. I feel it's safe to say that any devout religious adherent is not immune to the same. And no Mormon is other than devout; by virtue of its outre creed, it allows fewer shades of gray than most. Quite difficult to nibble at Mormonism, it's pretty much an all or none discipline. I'd posit that it approaches Islam in its rigidity of structure and purpose. Of course, it's likely that many if not most in the USA (certainly most here on TGO) would argue that the national and religious ethos are to a great extent one and the same -- as long as the religious part is Christianity. And many don't count Mormons as Christians in the first place, so on that basis measured by your definition, I suppose "bigotry" is well represented indeed. However, one thing's irrefutable -- discrimination on any basis at all in the voting booth is unenforceable. - OS

Middletennesseepreppers.com is a local site.