TMF

My wife got into after netflixing the first season, which is odd because she isn't into fantasy/sci-fi or whatever it's considered. But the story is really good and they develop the characters well. Of course, Netflix runs so far behind in stuff we haven't even started the second season yet and I'm wanting to see the dragon chick topless more.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought the M&P was an out-of-the-box shooter, and didn't require any break in period to function normal.  Also, that pistol should eat just about anything you feed it.  The score marks on your brass is an indicator.  If it functions after smoothing it out then you know what it was.  I'd still probably take that barrel to a gunsmith to get a set of educated eyes on that chamber.  Sorry to hear about the FTE issue... I can imagine how frustrating that was.

  A few months back there was a similar story in Detroit where they are seeing a record number of people using firearms to defend themselves as police response times are increasing.  I remember reading comments from a city official referring to it as citizens "taking the law into their own hands."    It's stuff like this that shows me we are incapable of grown up debates or compromise, since the liberals just don't get it.  They simply don't understand the difference between the right to self defense and enforcement of the law.  It wouldn't bother me much since anyone who isn't willing to stand up and defend themselves deserves to be dominated by another human being, but they are trying to limit MY ability to defend myself and my family.  This is the part that makes me so mad to the point I wish very, very horrible things on the gun grabbing liberals.

  I was able to get one to function on my M&P 15-22 after a bit a tweaking.  It didn't run as well as a 5.56, but it ran.  With a Timney drop in trigger I figure it works real well.

  Haha, not always.  I was shown a challenge coin by a waitress in an area we used to go TDY to a lot.  She was very proud to show it off after she determined we were military.  Of course, her challenge coin would have looked very similar to some that I have with the exception I didn't have 3 holes drilled into any of my coins.

Let me know when you find an A-List celebrity that isn't a liberal elitist.  Hollywood directors vet thier up and coming actors.  Not too long ago there was a director that admitted to this process.  You won't get the good roles unless you're part of the progressive crowd.  Folks like Tom Selleck don't exist anymore.    I'm inclined to believe that the Matt Damons and Brad Pitts of the Hollywood crowd never really cared about all this political stuff.  I believe it is all an act to fit in, and is an effective business strategy.  If they were outspoken about conservative issues or weren't outspoken enough about progressive issues they would not progress in Hollywood.  An actor is worth as much as their last role.    Sean Penn isn't an act though.  He is a vile, hateful little commie that needs to take a trip to N. Korea and embrace the lifestyle in that worker's paradise.

Well that delves into the category of national interests. Can we afford to write off our "allies" on the Arabian Peninsula? I would like to say "yes" but our economy runs on oil. Fix that problem and the Middle East will go back to being an irrelevant collection of cavemen fighting over dirt farms, just like they were the first 150 years of American foreign policy. Look at Africa. There all kinds of atrocity and extremism going on there. We could care so little we leave it to the EU. Why? No oil producing allies. I don't expect to know everything there is to know on how our country remains strong, but I do know that if the oil dried up tomorrow our country would be in deep doodoo. If we can correct that problem it will correct all the others. As for your comments Lester regarding the amount of money spent over the past decade, I agree. We could have stayed out of conventional warfare very easily. Afghanistan gets no better the more troops you put there. We owned the warlords from the start. It would have been a lot cheaper to continue to buy them off while using drones and SF to knock out concentrations of bad guys. We could have funded that for less than what we spend on research grants studying the mating habits of field mice.

[quote name="semiautots" post="897458" timestamp="1359312372"][url=http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/congress-the-president-and-war-powers-under-the-constitution/]http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/congress-the-president-and-war-powers-under-the-constitution/[/url]   Here is a good read.  Sometimes, power is taken by the Executive Branch that is not given.  If you read the Founders, they did not intend the President to have the power to unilaterally use military force at his own whim.  This same power is now trying, by Executive Order, to take 2nd Amendment rights.  Unless we push back, the action will be taken.  Congress did not push back against the illegal use of military force by the Executive Branch for over 50 years.  What was illegal has become the norm.    [/quote] Either you need to do some Constitution reading or you don't understand the difference between military action and war. We've literally, not figuratively, have had thousands of low intensity military actions since our country was founded. Only half a dozen were a declared war. Once again, do you disagree with my assessment that in order to believe what you are saying you must also disagree with killing bin Laden, rescuing American hostages abroad, blockading Cuba during the missile crisis, the Barbary war, Granada..... It goes on a thousand more times.

[quote name="semiautots" post="897451" timestamp="1359311904"]The Constitution is very clear.  You should read it sometimes.[/quote] Okay, I'll play your game. History books, you should read them sometime. Just about every president except for Harrison has deployed troops into combat without approval from congress.

[quote name="semiautots" post="897447" timestamp="1359311365"]Only if you intend to use the military.  Terrorist organizations generally don't have a "country".  If you use logic, if we can use our military to drop bombs on "terrorist organizations" within another sovereign country, then other sovereign countries should be free to do that within our country, too.  Or is it just one way?  We are the world's police force and we will extend our military wherever we want and expect other countries not to do the same? Logic sometimes does not work in our favor.[/quote] Well then we've fought like a thousand little illegal wars then, in your opinion. If that is your opinion then it was illegal to send folks in to get bin Laden. It was illegal to send in Delta to rescue the hostages in Iran. It was illegal to blockade Cuba during the missile crisis. It is illegal when we rescued hostages in Somalia. I could wiki all the military actions that took place without approval from congress. It would be a very, very long list. The President is the commander of our armed forces. He can deploy them as he sees fit. Declaring war is different.

[quote name="mav" post="897433" timestamp="1359310352"]It is my belief that if we, meaning our federal government not the people, hadn't been meddling in middle eastern affairs over the last 5 decades we more than likely wouldn't be in  the sitiuation we are in now and would have most certainly saved a lot of lives and money.[/quote] Maybe, but we can't turn back the hands of time. We can only adopt policies which correct our current state, not policies that correct our past state. We should have killed bin Laden and destroyed his organization when we had the chance. Instead we endured a series of attacks on our military until it culminated with 9/11. We didn't kill him and we got what we got. If we let that happen again we will have our lack of proactive measures to blame.

[quote name="Lumber_Jack" post="897432" timestamp="1359310286"]With everything said. It this is a set screw gas block. You may be able to loosen, straighten and retighten the gas block with minimal effort. May still have to remove the rail[/quote] Yeah, I second this TDR. Get that rail off and see what you're working with.

[quote name="Lumber_Jack" post="897429" timestamp="1359310121"] These low pro gas blocks often use set screws to hold them in place. If that's the case it's an easy fix as long as you have a vise block and some wrenches.[/quote] I hope that is the case. I haven't done a low pro build in 7 years, but the one I did the gas block had a set screw to hold it in place but you still had to drill for a roll pin.

[quote name="semiautots" post="897424" timestamp="1359309721"]Or, the government could legally declare war, as the Constitution states it must.  Which would you prefer?[/quote] We have to declare war on a nation to drop bombs on a terrorist organization? I didn't know that.

[quote name="TripleDigitRide" post="897419" timestamp="1359309224"]This complete upper is brand new and came to me like this. I did some trading with a member here on TGO. I've never had one apart, but it looks like I may have to learn.[/quote] Well I don't want to talk smack about another member, but it looks like they use a metallic object to smack that gas block in place since it's so scratched up. They coulda just used a small piece of wood or something if they were that hard up for proper tools. Based on that observation I'm gonna go out on a limb and assume they did this themselves and did a poor job.... just basing that on the scratches. So I can assume the cant is not correct and either partially or completely obscures the gas port. You can take it shooting and see if it works. If it does great. I can't speak to whether or not the uneven wear will be a serious problem; that's a Dolomite question there. If it doesn't cycle, which I suspect is the case, you're gonna have to re-pin it. I assume it is held to the barrel with one or two roll pins. This is gonna be tricky since the place where you'll need to have the roll pins set will be the same spot on the barrel where it's already drill, just off canter. I'd say that's gunsmith territory to make sure it's done right so it won't wiggle out of place due to the previous drilling. Paging Dolomite...

[quote name="semiautots" post="897398" timestamp="1359308225"]There were actually 2 Americans killed in that drone strike.  The other was a web-site designer that was sympathetic to Islam.   [url=http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/09/30/us-born-terror-boss-anwar-al-awlaki-killed/]http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/09/30/us-born-terror-boss-anwar-al-awlaki-killed/[/url][/quote] Okay, if you go to Pakistan and head up into the hills to have tea with some Taliban guys, the US government will not put air strikes on hold simply because you're an American. They will say "too effing bad, he shouldn't have been there" then tell your family to pound sand. That is how it works. Best way to not get killed in a drone strike is to not stand next to terrorists that are fighting the US.

This war is to address the intangibles. You can't scientifically measure the damage done when a people are attacked and they do nothing, but damage is done and that nation is perceivably weaker for it. We could have saved a lot of money and lives if we simply ignored the attacks of September 11th and went about our lives. Our enemy would have seen that as capitulation and might have even left us alone, for now. But what does that open us up to? What does that do to the morale of the American people, to be attacked and killed without answering back with greater violence? Our society lived in a constant state of fear in the months following September 11th. How would that have changed if we just did nothing at all? Very few people are killed by terrorism when you compare it to other homicides, so why are people so scared of it? That is how terrorism works. It isn't about body counts, it's about using fear to cripple your enemy and demoralize his people. That was America post 9/11. We let the enemy change our way of life. We only started to relax our fears when we started shooting people in the face. We should continue to engage the enemy to maintain our way of life. I'll admit, conventional war is expensive and unnecessary. There were better ways to do this. But you have to admit, had we shown just a little bit of balls in the 90s and taken out bin Laden and AQ when we had the chance we wouldn't have spent the past decade spending American money and American lives. That, sir, is tangible. We forget that and bitch and moan about dropping hellfires in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Yemen, but if we were doing this back in the 90s we wouldn't be there in the first place. A stitch in time saves nine.... blah blah.

Depends on where the gas port is coming out of the barrel. I have a hard time believing the gas port was that misaligned when they drilled it, but who knows. You'll know as soon as you shoot it if it's lined up or not. If it ain't your gun won't cycle. Did you just buy this or have someone put it on for you?

Refresh my memory, who was his son with when he got a hellfire dropped on him? I'll give you a hint, it was known AQAP members. Once again, I don't see how you can argue that we must be engaged in a firefight with the enemy to drop a bomb on them. We bomb enemies all over Afghanistan and Pakistan and we are not at war with either country, which are just killing the folks that are at war with us. If we had done this a little more in the 90s, September 11th never would have happened. How many times do we have to allow these monkeys to carry out attacks on us before we grasp the very basic concept that there are people in this world that wake up everyday and work on plans to attack our country? Why do we think these people should not be killed before they succeed?

[quote name="JayC" post="897336" timestamp="1359302566"]Alwaki was never a member of Al Qaeda, as I explained in the post above.  He was 'at best' a member of AQAP (again the administration has provided no proof of his membership in AQAP).  AQAP wasn't even formed in 2001 when the attacks happened on the WTC and the Pentagon.   AQAP's state goal was to overthrow the Saudi government, and didn't start targeting the United States until AFTER we started bombing them.  And Alwaki's direct ties to helping them carry out those attacks as a stretch at best.   I never said that soldiers could not target valid military targets/enemy combatants and kill civilians in the process, only that it's unlawful to intentionally target civilians.  And our ROE has never allowed that, as it would be a war crime (or at least that is what they taught me) back in the 90's.   And I can provide you the example my instructor at Maxwell provided us, you may target enemy combatants at anytime you can find them, but you may not target non-combatants of the opposing force.  For example an unarmed medic or a medical tent is NOT to be intentionally targeted at anytime on a battlefield, as the intentional targeting would be a war crime.  Chaplains fall under the same exception.  For that reason you'll never see a chaplain in the US military ever touch a weapon while in uniform.     [/quote] AQAP has attempted several attacks against us since they came into being. Their organization is at war with us so we are at war with them. They are absolutely legitimate to target. That is not even in dispute here. Medics and chaplains aside, everyone else is fair game. Whether that enemy is a machine gunner or a cook, it doesn't matter. You can shoot them dead at any time so long as they're not surrendering. You can even shoot wounded enemy so long as you have not secured them yet. So the only thing left to dispute is whether or not Awlaki was a member of that organization. I understand why that is such a hot subject, since the evidence of his membership is sensitive data, and so that information is not shared with the public. I don't know how to reconcile that. I get how that is an issue of precedent, but I'd bet my whole badass gun collection that he was a member. I'm sure he admits to it at some point in his YouTube videos. If not then I would agree that the government should release information which condemns him as a member of a foreign military.

[quote name="1gewehr" post="897315" timestamp="1359301064"]The CZ52 is an excellent design but has some eccentricities.   [/quote] Any gun that fires when you do anything other than pull the trigger is the antithesis of excellent design. I know of no modern firearm that does this. Any company that manufactured it would be liable for damages if the firearm injured or killed someone because of a design flaw.

[quote name="Chucktshoes" post="897156" timestamp="1359268725"] As far as AQ being a foreign military, which affiliate of AQ are we talking about? AQAP? AQ in Iraq? Al Shabaab? Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb? Which country do they represent? I don't wholly disagree with your position. However, above any political or military goal, I value the civil liberties of American citizens. I was a vocal critic of the Patriot Act from the beginning and I find the thought that the President can order that an American citizen be specifically and directly targeted for death most especially odious. To kill an American engaged in combat against American forces on the field of battle (like Lindh would have been if he had died) is one thing. To target an American citizen with a drone strike in a country in which we do not have troops and have not declared war against is another matter entirely.[/quote] This is the logical line in determining if he was a legitimate military target: 1. Is Al Qaeda (AP) a foreign military? I believe yes. We could lay out all the things that make something a military, and AQ would meet those criteria. Not having a central government means nothing. Our military has fought countless of military organizations throughout its history which didn't have a legitimate country or government to answer to. I don't see how things are any different now than what they used to be in terms of what we determine is a military organization. 2. Was Awlaki a member of that organization? Yes. This makes him just as legitimate to target as any other member of that organization. We could drop a hellfire on the chia boy and the guy doing maintenance on their vehicles and they would both be legitimate targets. I don't see how anyone could debate that a soldier in a military we are at war with MUST be shooting at us to kill him. That is not true, has never been true and never will be true. 3. Are we at at with Al Qaeda? Yes. Refer to my earlier posts on what is an act of war. Not only have they declared war on us, they attacked us on our soil. Separating the different Al Qaeda affiliated groups as being autonomous is like saying we could have fought the Germans in WWII and left the Italians alone. There is still still communication and structure between the various Al Qaeda affiliated groups. Therefore we must fight them all. I also value civil liberties, but I don't think civil liberties come into play when an American joins a military we are fighting. We are fighting AQAP. Just because we aren't deploying several brigades to occupy another country doesn't mean squat. We are still fighting that military there and they continue to try and attack us on our own soil. There have been plenty of foiled plots that have come out of AQAP since September 11th.

Al Qaeda meets all the criteria of a foreign military. If blowing up the two biggest buildings in New York and flying a missile into our defense headquarters aren't acts of war, I don't know what is. As for not presently shooting at Americans or being armed, so what? I've shot an unarmed guy before. Totally legit shoot too. I could have shot him if he was taking a dump. I don't understand why folks think you can only shoot militants if they are actively engaged in a gunfight. That isn't how war works folks.

[quote name="gregintenn" post="897294" timestamp="1359299166"]Me either. I was being sarcastic. The decocking lever on a CZ 52 performs the same function as the trigger.[/quote] Well maybe exceptions can be made for Soviet era clunkers, but no modern gun company could manufacture and sell a firearm which fired when engaging a safety feature. They would be sued out of existence. At a minimum, they would recall all firearms which had such a design flaw.

[quote name="gregintenn" post="897277" timestamp="1359297378"]You are more than welcome to point my CZ 52 at your foot and depress the decocker if you have that much faith in decockers. It hasn't been screwed with, and has been fired very little.[/quote] As a general rule I don't point guns at myself or other people.