Leaderboard

Probably, five shots or less of most anything will probably work in vast majority of defensive scenarios, probably.   - OS

Now, let the prices plummet and the tears of all these people who overspent themselves start a flowing.

The difference I see is force. Government is allowed to use force to compel you do do certain things. I have never been forced to work at a particular place. If a work environment becomes intolerable, I am free to leave.

Got his nice display of 22lr ammo today traded some other ammo for it. Some of it has 1cent TN tax stamps on it. Any way thought it was kind of cool. Makes a neat display. Jason.

A man, or woman, who trains with a revolver and has the skills to use it, is well prepared for all but the most extreme scenerio. The average street crook, break in artist, or just plain old mugger; will not normally be prepared to meet someone who knows how to defend themselves.   If you practice with your weapon of choice, you'll be miles ahead. But don't just shoot a few times and think " I"m ready." Constant practice drawing from concealment, dry firing, trigger control, point shooting, all the drills necessary to hone your skills and keep them sharp.   Basically..."Eternal Vigilance"   Then a man with a revolver will not be undergunned.

The best gun in any situation is the one you have with you when the situation arises.

I believe you have the species correct, however the location of the orifice seems about 180° off...

Looks like the AWB and the "High" Capacity Magazine Ban have both been dropped from the National "Gun Bill" in the Senate!  Now, just to drop the entire thing!  We've made headway atleast!   http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/03/19/feinstein-assault-weapons-ban-reid-senate-bill/2000119/    

That was some good television right there.     "People underestimate Bob."

And he is another Democrat with a "R" next to his name.   Dolomite

The infamous Toyotagater.

Then you could tell everyone that your mag holders are about to be banned and charge twice what they're worth just like the magazines :) Seriously though yours look great.

I don't see how he knows when it's coming in. They don't tell us anymore, or allow us to have the print out of what's coming in. Must be a manager, either way he's an asshole.

  They already do this.  ;)

I won't be fully satisfied until I know it's completely dead, but this is pretty much what I expected and it is good news. I don't think the majority of politicians expected the fierce backlash they've gotten over all this. I'm waiting to see what happens in Colorado. I hope they run everyone who voted for that bill out of office.

The Constitution does not protect you from the actions of "individuals" or "private entities", laws do. Having the right to bear arms is not a guaranteed right on someone else's property. Neither is protection from unreasonable search and seizure. Those can be set as the conditions of being on the property and you can choose to comply or leave. A property owner has no legal or even moral obligation to give anyone the rights as dictated in the Constitution. There is not a single Amendment in the Bill of Rights that a private individual must recognize when someone else is one their property. It is the property owners, not the guest, that choose what they will allow. Allowing a firearm on private property is a choice made by the property owner because it is not guaranteed by the Constitution. Laws dictate how private entities interact with each other, not the Constitution or the Bill of Rights.   The right to defend yourself is a fundemental right but how or what we choose to defend is not guaranteed or dictated by the Constitution. We choose a firearm because it is the most efficient way to protect ourselves.   A private entity can dictate the use of a Nerf gun for defense on their property. They can also dictate that you do not have gun in your car on their property. You can choose to comply or leave the property. If you are an employee that can also mean you will get fired. And this law only enforces that. This law does not guarantee you will not be fired for having a firearm in your car. You can still be fired for having a gun in your car against your boss's wishes.   Like I said before, I am glad those of you who supported this got it passed but it realistically changes nothing with regards to whether you can be fired or not for having a gun in your can. All it is going to do is give employees a false feeling that they cannot be fired for having a gun in their car when, in reality, they can. And when they think they have been wrongly fired, even though they haven't, there will be lawsuits filed costing the taxpayers of this state money.   We don't need more laws, especially when they change nothing. Keeping your mouth shut and the gun out of sight would have been a better option as it won't cost taxpayer money to hear the lawsuits.   If I were an employer I would welcome people to carry firearms but that is my choice as the employer. And likewise another emplyer should have the right to choose to not allow firearms.   How many here think this law protects them from being fired for having a gun in their car?   Dolomite

My 20 + 1 beretta 9 makes my britches sag. One can't go around with saggy britches now can one? I carry a 5 shot snubby. No sag and never think about being under gunned :)

And to think the West was won with six-shooters.  :shrug:

To me it depends.  5 rounds of 9mm or .380 would make me hesitate.  5 rounds of 125 grain JHP .357 magnum does not make me feel undergunned.

It would seem to me, although having never been in an actual situation, after the sound of the first shot, who's not going to be running in an opposite direction?   1) The guy that fired it.   2) The guy that got hit by it.   I'm probably wrong, but...

go buy a bullet puller.  you need one around when you reload. 

The problem with this is any argument that you can make about video games, you can take out those words and insert "guns" and it sounds almost exactly the same. Instead of saying that video games (or guns) are an ingredient, and trying to make a scapegoat out of one or the other, the blame should fall onto the person doing the crime and that person alone. A person that kills someone with a lawn mower blade doesnt result in lawn mowers getting blamed when the guy watched Slingblade in 1996. It's not a perfect example, but you know what I'm saying.

Yeah I may have made a complete ass of myself, but I would have gotten everyones name, home office and badge number Sent from my SCH-I605 using Tapatalk 2

Obama did say if he had a son he'd look like Trayvon. ;)

As a veteran, I still oppose this bill.  I am against ANY bill that gives one group of citizens privileges that other citizens cannot have.  I do not favor laws that permit retired police officers, judges, or anyone else to carry without a permit unless everyone who can legally possess a firearm can do so as well.  Thus, I do not support a bill which gives certain veterans a privilege that everyone cannot have.   If, as a private citizen, you want to start a fund to pay part or all of the fee for veterans, I'm fine with that and would probably contribute.  But making a law that gives special privileges is a bad idea.

Upcoming MATCH: ZOMBIE MATCH!!! 5(6) stages minimum - Saturday, April 6th, 2013 Round count: 146 pistol rounds minimum Click Here for CoF Description     Looks like a lot of fun!!!!  

Thanks to overwhelming opposition, the wheels are coming off the AWB juggernaut.   http://www.politico.com/story/2013/03/assault-weapon-ban-for-gun-control-loses-steam-89046.html

Right. I believe I read there is no limit to number. HCP should be here in a month or two. Can't wait :)

See what happens when people make assumptions! LOL.   Thanks sirdanny. Much obliged. :up:   Link is now bookmarked and verified.

  Remember, Chris Christie says that NJ gun laws are "about right".

Chuck Norris doesn't shave.  He just orders the beard to get the hell off of his face.

Group reaction to a particularly raunchy Russian borscht fart, I'd say.   - OS

[sharedmedia=core:attachments:5435] so this counts as ammo porn nowadays right?

ghillie suit failz :lol:

Maybe I can get a parts kit and a buffer tube now - 

People need to mind their own business.

Stupid turkeys at my office are always mocking me.... One of these days I am going to bring my bow to work...

  fyp

I have been home with Ava this afternoon while mom has been out and about.. When she got home with the parts to my next project (fixing the oil leak on her truck) she also handed me a bag and said Happy Easter.. I said what is this? She said , just look!! It was two tee-shirts..

I thought this was an interesting read.   http://theweek.com/article/index/241434/the-assault-weapons-ban-a-case-study-in-the-politics-of-frivolity   The Senate Judiciary Committee last week approved a measure that would reinstitute the assault weapons ban. Big news, right? The bill will now head to the entire Senate for a vote... unless of course Republicans filibuster... but nevertheless, this is big, right? Wrong.   The New York Times story detailing the measure's passage described the bill as "almost certain to fail if brought before the entire Senate." It "has almost zero chance of even receiving a hearing in the House." Nor should it be since all available evidence suggests that an assault weapons ban would have a negligible impact on safety. Of course, that point is one of substance, and nothing about the debate over the proposed AWB has anything to do with whether it will or will not work. Everything about the proposed renewal of the AWB is theatrics and serves as yet another example of the triumph of style at the expense of substance in our national politics.   Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) is a very bright woman and a very good politician. When she proposed the new AWB, she knew there was a zero percent chance that it would become law. But she also knew that the people who voted for her are, by and large, anti-gun. More importantly, as the author of the original Brady Bill, Sen. Feinstein is widely viewed as the darling of the anti-gun movement and its allies. By proposing the AWB, Sen. Feinstein can tell all of the donors who care about the gun issue that she fought for the most aggressive legislation possible, and that she will keep fighting — which will lead to more donations.   Feinstein is not the only senator loving every second of coverage of the Senate's consideration of a bill that will literally never even get a vote in the House of Representatives. The most vocal members of the right are also loving it. Take Ted Cruz, for example. By now, you have probably seen the "heated" exchange between Feinstein and the fiery junior senator from Texas, in which Cruz lectures Feinstein about the Second Amendment and Feinstein snaps back that she is not a sixth grader. Well, that was gold, for both of the senators. Cruz is basically just the opposite of Feinstein in that he was elected and funded by people who love firearms and hate the Assault Weapons Ban with a visceral passion. So every time that clip of the two senators played on television, the people who donated (or might now donate) to Cruz's campaign to fight for guns cheered him for taking on the California liberal who they believe intends to eliminate all of their Constitutional rights. Feinstein's supporters applauded her for standing up to the gun-toting punk from Texas who does not care about the victims of Newtown or about the safety of Americans.   So everyone wins, right? Wrong.   The biggest loser is the American people. Political symbolism has value, but there are too many problems that Congress might actually have the capacity to solve for our leaders to be spending all of their time focused on proposals both sides know will never make it to the president's desk. That applies to House Republicans (stop repealing ObamaCare, it's a waste of time) and Senate Democrats (stop wasting time on gun control measures you know will not pass). Our leaders must get out of the habit of wasting taxpayer resources drafting, amending, debating, and voting on legislation that has no chance of becoming law. Solve the problems you can, and save the individual wish lists for public speeches and your Maddow/Hannity appearances.  

If you acidentally discharge the primer while you're seating it, the powder charge is gonna add to the excitement. Get you one of those plastic hammer pullers. You need one anyway

  What about the 10 year old kids that are not as mentally stable as you were?  There are hundreds of thousands of kids in this country that have severe emotional or mental issues. Violent issues. You can read about them just about every day in the news. Adam Lanza is a prime example of this. No one is saying it will automatically happen to everyone that plays these violent games.

That's fine, but Beck is talking as if Agenda 21 - a plan for sustainable development - somehow equates to eugenics and martial law. That's a far cry from socialist economic policy. The guy just picks and chooses extremes and then tries to find a way to connect them, many times by constructing details out of thin air. When he was on FoxNews, there were several times I noticed blatant inaccuracies in his alleged sources. I sent an email every time with links to back me up. Never got a reply or saw a retraction. You know he's off the deep end when FoxNews got rid of him.

See if you can find some old 1899 Savages while up there.

it is seriously losing my interest.  If not for DVR I would have given up on it by now.   They need to go back to the formula they had in season 1.  Let's see some survival stuff.

Well considering that this is a gun forum from a class3 friendly state I'd be shocked if any one was against the idea. The laws are unconstitutional at best and tyrannical at worst. The idea that FA weapons or sir pressed weapons are somehow more dangerous than any other is IMO laughable.

Awesome shoot! The weather really did turn out perfect and we got in all 7 stages. Tish and I got to score and I even got a chance to run the clock! I had one strong stage, stage 5. Two steel targets at distance, then a shoot and advance vertically up the field shooting 14 rounds. With no targets obscured, it was really an exercise in cover and 'shoot and move.' The simplicity worked for me as did my two reloads and I almost went under twenty seconds (I did see the fasted time was just over 10!) Stage 2 is where I took it the worst, with 12 potential targets and some moving stuff... I didn't even SEE one of the targets from the window... TOTAL mental laps. Had a great squad though, thanks to Robert for keeping it running smoothly and our squad mates for ALL pitching in. Michael and Chip thanks for the garment hook up and of course MCTS for another well run match. We'll see you all at the next one!

  They couldn't make us buy something either, but they did. Couldn't ban guns because of 2A, but they did.   - OS

I think lawsuits will pop up every time someone gets fired now. The plaintiff will claim they were fired for having a gun in their car. This is going to cost the taxpayers of Tennessee millions of dollars in litigation.   It was fine before and now that this has passed it changes nothing. A worker will still be fired for having a gun in their car the only difference is now the employer won't say that is why they were fired.   Problem was people couldn't keep their mouth shut about having a gun in their car. And if they think they can now openly say they have a gun in their car, when they couldn't before, without ramifications they are probably going to to have a big surprize.   I am glad you guys got what you wanted but I don't see how it improved it from what it was before.   Dolomite