diablo982

This story just made my day! If Mark Giffords focus was on preventing the mentally ill from acquiring weapons, I could respect that. After all, that is what ultimately lead to his wife's shooting. Its his overstepping by favoring gun restriction for the law abiding citizen which really chaps my behind. He kept using the "we own glocks" line to make him seem like a gun owner in favor of responsible control. That's total b.s. At least choose a frickin side and stick with it. Now he has been exposed as a total hypocrite. Oh and I love the angle about exposing how easy it is to purchase an AR, and he's turning over a legal weapon to the police. It reminds me of the band member from The Who, who was caught with child pornography on his computer. His defense? I was researching how easy it is to find kiddie porn on the internet, and planned on turning it over to the police.

http://www.newser.com/story/163600/new-yorks-tough-gun-law-needs-exemption-for-movies.html "We spend a lot of money in the state bringing movie production here ... so obviously we would want to facilitate that," said Gov. Andrew Cuomo. While movie and TV producers could use fake guns that wouldn't be subject to the new law, Cuomo said the industry wants "certainty." The revised law would allow them to use real weapons without real ammunition. "There's no reason not to make a change like that to give an industry comfort, especially when it's an industry we want to do business in the state," said the governor.

The problem with phasing out 50-70% of the federal government is what part can you live without? Maybe get rid of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting or Agency for International Development? No problem, that's one percent. To get to the real budget drainers, are you willing to reduce the air traffic controllers by 70%? How about getting rid of most of the food inspectors? Health and Safety inspectors too? While I may not have total confidence in government, I have even less confidence in corporations "doing the right thing" and policing themselves. Which brings me back to sequestration. Reducing the budget would not be such a problem if it wasn't universally applied percentage wise to all the agencies. There is no reason we should have to furlough Forest Service firefighters because the Forest Service took a five percent hit, while our aid to Pakistan is only reduced by an equal five percent. If these asshats in Washington could come to an agreement, we could still slash the budget and keep Americans employed.

This topic was covered a few months ago. Having PTSD is not disqualifying for possessing a firearm. Receiving VA disability benefits for a mental disorder, and being so messed up that you can't manage your money is the basis for limiting your rights to own a gun. A fiduciary is seldom appointed in VA claims situations, and a psychiatrist makes the determination the vet is so mentally unstable they wouldn't know what to do with their VA check when it arrived. Do you really want those people to have guns? If they want their gun rights restored, stop getting VA benefits. In the old post, many argued it was unfair to mentally ill vets to have their gun rights stripped. While I acknowledged there was a chance an "innocent" vet might be caught up in a bureaucratic mistake, the risk was worth it. I countered that mentally ill people commit the mass shootings, and that was our greatest threat to gun rights. The Sandy Hook shooting happened a few weeks later.

Once I saw the source of this information was Infowars, it lost my interest. I have yet to see anything from Alex Jones which has even a semblance of unbiased reporting.

I generally agree with you, but I would say the homicide rate has plummeted since peaking in the early 90's. Google homicides in 1991 for Washington, D.C., L.A., and N.Y.C., then do the same for 2011. Gun violence is at a 40 year low, but we somehow think we need to enact new laws to make us even safer. I don't know if all the scumbag killers still incarcerated for their 1990's murder convictions is helping, but it certainly doesn't hurt.

Action is always quicker than reaction. Dorner knew what his next move would be; LEO's did not.

Trying to do some research on this story, and not fining out much. It seems like the Sgt's brother is the source and is asking for money for a "legal defense fund". I'm always suspicious of one-sided stories and a request for money. It would be nice if the reporter would get a statement from the PD or at least get the court papers.

Lots of .308 upfront at the C.S. counter, as well as 45 acp. Not cheap, but i guess reasonable. Most of the boxes were in the mid 30's for the .308. Didn't get a price on the .45 acp though.

DHS and the other federal agencies bought all their ammo at the end of the fiscal year. (Before September 30th.) As stated by others, the shortage started post Sandy Hook. If the feds were trying to buy ammo now, they would be S.O.L. or paying a ridiculous premium.

All gone as of tonight. Plenty of .308 though. Its kept behind the customer service counter.

I'm going to also give props to the Bersa. I collect old Smith revolvers so I am definitely a fan, but my wife's Bersa has been flawless. Pick up the two (or three) and see how they feel in your hand. Don't rule out the Bersa because its not a Smith. While the S&W may have a better finish, they are both quality firearms.

I can't speak for the retired LEO's, however as the law stands now, on-duty cops cannot carry anything more than the 7 round mag. While I feel the whole law is idiotic, I would think on-duty LEO'S would constitute an appropriate exemption.

Lame political posturing. It would be nice if legislators could introduce legislation which could actually pass/make a difference. This guy knows his proposed law is unenforceable due to the supremacy clause, he just wants media attention. I really don't care because he represents Wyoming, but it seems like some of our local politicians are no better.

Sounds like the average gun owner nowadays when Walmart brings ammo out of the stockroom.

[quote name='TMF' timestamp='1355019574' post='857056'] AFAIK, there is not a prerequisite for a psych eval to appoint a fiduciary. If I get into a car wreck tomorrow and slip into a coma the VA would still have to pay benefits and would have to appoint my wife. They would then forward that information to the FBI and I would never be able to purchase from an FFL again. Great idea. [/quote] If you are in a coma, are you really going to be purchasing a handgun? If and when you regain your senses, get VA to make you your own payee; problem solved. I understand your concern that innocent people may be caught up in VA red tape, but I honestly believe the number will be few if any. I'm more concerned with the seriously mentally ill obtaining weapons and using them in mass shootings.Nothing furthers the anti-gun movement like the Colorado theater rampage.

[quote name='TMF' timestamp='1355019070' post='857054'] A, 2. It literally happens almost everyday here. [/quote] As I posted originally, A.2 uses the word "imminent." Saying, "If you come onto my property, I'm going to kill you." Is a conditional threat, and definitely not imminent. No prosecutor is going to take that case, and I doubt you would find a magistrate in this state who would issue a warrant. (Although some magistrates never cease to amaze me.)

[quote name='TMF' timestamp='1355002309' post='856969'] It most certainly is not. This isn't being decided by a court or even doctors. It is because a veterans life is opened to more scrutiny due to receiving benefits. It is. It okay to have additional restrictions for veterans. [/quote] Actually, the VA doctor who does the psych evaluation makes the determination if the Vet is capable of managing his/her financial affairs. Its written at the end of their report. Again, almost every Vet, even those with mental health issues, are deemed capable of managing their own money, i.e. VA benefits.

39-13-101. Assault. (a) A person commits assault who: (1) Intentionally, knowingly or recklessly causes bodily injury to another; (2) Intentionally or knowingly causes another to reasonably fear imminent bodily injury; or (3) Intentionally or knowingly causes physical contact with another and a reasonable person would regard the contact as extremely offensive or provocative. Show me where in the TN assault statute is says its a crime to use words only? I don't like the statute either but it doesn't make it "not true." I only brought this up because a previous poster said he received death threats and the police told him there was nothing they could do. Outside of harassment by telephone, I think unfortunately the officers were right.

A simple "death threat" is not a crime under TN law. It is only an assault under TN law if the threat of bodily harm is imminent. Basically you would have to be charging at, swinging at the victim for it to apply. ( Or some other sort of immediate threat of violence, like brandishing a gun.) Just saying "I'm going to kill you" is free speech unless it rises to the level of one of the harassment laws. Back to the original post, very few Vets are appointed a fiduciary. If you are appointed one, something is seriously wrong. All examples I am aware of are for people with serious mental health issues. Personally, I don't want someone suffering from paranoid, homocidal thoughts possessing a firearm. If the Vet still wants to purchase a firearm, they can always decline the VA benefits.

[quote name='Mike.357' timestamp='1354343642' post='853284'] drawn into that it is a threat. I dunno, I guess I don't get it. The website the OP linked too sort of made me wonder WTF, how do reasonable people buy into this. I can't go off the deep end with you guys. Gotta stop reading these types of threads. I can't go through life thinking everyone is out to get me, even if I am paranoid. and to add, I think some here see tyranny in the Salvation Army. I think this quote sums it up nicely [color=#000000][font=Arial, sans-serif][size=3]Nucky: Obviously I offended you in some way but since you're a man who can find an insult in a bouquet of roses, I'm not sure quite how.[/size][/font][/color] [/quote] I don't know why I open these threads either. I guess I find humor in how people can be suckered into reading obviously biased news articles and accept them as fact. Drawing comparisons to Hitler Youth with the 18-24 year-olds? As posted before, never-mind the fact that 90% of our military enlistees fall within this age group. A paid standing army? They are all volunteers. Then the obligatory photos of scary military vehicles, which have nothing to do with the Citizen Corps. Also a reference to the DHS ammo purchase controversy which has been debunked over and over since first posted by Infowars a few months ago. Maybe I won't find it so funny when these paranoid types start shooting letter carriers delivering Christmas packages this season, under the belief they are really government agents attempting a home invasion.

If your Uncles property is heavily wooded, and most shots are within 100-150 yards, I'd look for a .30-.30 lever action, maybe something like a Marlin 336. You should be able to find a used one in that price range.

With my job, I get to travel the state dealing with the bottom rung of society. For the longest time I felt Tellico Plains and Cooker Creek were the most remote, backwoods areas in TN. Cellphone coverage dies as you get within 10 miles, and the best retail store anywhere nearby is a Dollar General. All that changed a couple of weeks ago when I had the pleasure of visiting Altamont in Grundy County. The Sheriff's Office is a single wide trailer, and all their cars were surplus Army trucks. We had to stop by the Sheriff's Office so they could point us to the trailer we were looking for. Seems its so backwoods out there, you get to make up your own road name to your house. Its not on any map, you just get to name it yourself. And as for the people we were looking for, they made Honey Boo Boo look sophisticated.

+1 on the OC spray. Having seen batons deployed in real life situations, I'm not a big fan. If you strike in the approved areas, i.e. arms and legs, it tends to piss people off. The effective strikes are to the head area, but you open yourself up to lawsuits, and maybe serious criminal charges depending on how much damage you do. I find OC spray near idiot-proof (don't point it in your face, or walk thru the cloud you sprayed) and highly effective. And if you make a mistake, its highly unlikely to inflict serious damage.

You might not get a response. This is a thread from nine months ago which was resurrected today.