TMF

Very Canadian!

http://news.yahoo.com/google-rejects-white-house-request-pull-mohammad-film-015300781--sector.html Way to go Google. I can't believe that Obama even did this. Instead of giving the Islamic world the finger for attacking one of our most basic rights, he tries to pander to them... the effing ENEMY!

The way I understood it from the OP was that this was a question of protecting property, not punitive measures in response to the actual stealing. Obviously death does not fit the crime, but using deadly force should certainly be an option to protect what's yours as a last resort. At some point in the last century people began believing the myth that police were there to protect you and recover your property, while criminals are good people deep down that can be rehabilitated. Both are myths. Before that they just shot someone who was making off with a stolen horse.

I get all that. The guy I spoke to said that was their store policy due to a requirement the ATF had to document shipments from private sellers differently than if it came from an FFL, which is their justification for not accepting shipments from private sellers. To paraphrase what the guy said: "The only way it would make sense would be to charge people an extraordinary amount to do the transfer and we don't want to do that to people so we simply will not take private shipments." This was at a local gun store that a few of the site members work at. This is why I have to drive 40 minutes to do one, since the other place in town that does transfers will never see a dime of my money.

None of this matters to the folks looking for a handout. At least not yet. It will eventually.

He is a celebrity occupying the President's office. They need to be airing those commercials leading up to the election. I remember seeing the "Rock Star" commercials at the beginning of the year.... need those to come back.

No, you're right. I don't think that was point of the scenario. A kid shoplifting a candy bar is quite different than a grown man making off with my truck that I spent 4 years paying off. I should ABSOLUTELY be able to shoot somebody to prevent them from getting away with that. And your challenge to have someone here prove their "badassness" by shooting a shoplifting kid is just silly. First off, the point of the thread was a notional change of the law. Secondly, you assume that everyone here values life in the same manner that you do. I promise you that I don't.

Probably not, but the circumstances would dictate. The point I was making was stopping a non-violent crime with violence is a non-issue for me. If someone is stealing from me I will stop them, no question. I won't stand idly by and allow things to be taken from me. Generally speaking, criminals don't respond to requests to obey the law, so some wall to wall negotiations should be assumed. If the criminal attempts to fight I should have the right to shoot him until he stops. And no, some of us don't have a moral issue with taking the life of someone who is victimizing our family. Perhaps from your perspective that is either BS tough guy talk, lack of morality or a combination of the two. I can assure you that some folks here, to include myself would not miss a wink if sleep over it. That isn't talk, that is truth.

Exactly. I don't know if that is the owners intent for patrons to read between the lines (stomp stomp stomp) or not, but certainly since he is not the one dictating the use of reloads I don't see them caring. But I don't know if "don't ask don't tell" is the intention here. It would make sense considering the silliness of the insurer's policy, as any reload hot enough to cause excess damage due to velocity would probably blow up the weapon it fired from anyway. Just a thought. I don't reload pistol ammo, but if I did I would probably take it in federal boxes and attempt to gauge the attitude of range operators by eliciting opinions on the policy.

Yes. In fact that is exactly what I plan on doing to one of my uppers next month. I've just been looking around for a good cheapo FF rail to put there.

Yes, this is real easy to do. Just let some oil set on those front sight pins that hold the gas block in place and use a punch to knock 'em out. Make sure you're doing it in the right direction. The only go in/out one way as the pins are tapered. A light tap tap tap will loose it a bit and then it'll pop out with one good smack.

No, but a lot of guys I know will ship through their FFL. I don't know the ATF rules, but a local FFL I tried to use would not take shipment from a private seller (although it is legal) because they said it required additional paperwork and was a pain to track. I don't know how true that statement was; maybe he just didn't want to do it.

Yes, it appears that it was equipment related and not related to the threat of someone injuring themselves on a hot load, but that is just my assumption based on his statement.

I don't believe that at all. What you're saying is that anyone that believes in any religion will allow that to influence their policy. Are you saying this is an affliction that only strikes Presidents, or would you apply it to all religious folks in any profession? Let me give you an example of what I'm talking about. When I was in the Army I had a commander who was Catholic. I am not Catholic, but I always understood that there is no such thing as varying degrees of Catholics. There is the Pope. The Pope is the HFMIC as I understood. However, after years of being surrounded by Catholics I discovered that there, indeed, are varying degrees of Catholics. This commander was not one of them. He was strict to the core. Keep in mind that the military has its own set of laws, many are rules dictating ones morality that are punishable under the UCMJ. One of them is adultry. Servicemembers still have their careers ruined over charges of adultry. I've seen it happen a few times, and there was recently a very high-profile case regarding an officer charged with adultry. So, as it happens we are deployed within the US for a few weeks and one of our married guys starts nailing some local chick. There was no attempt to hide this from the commander. The officer in question counsels the Soldier regarding the relationship and advises him that he is obligated to take action against the Soldier's offenses but does not believe that it is appropriate that the military should dictate an individuals private life or personal morality. So, he tells the Soldier to not speak of such transgressions in his presence as to not create a conflict of interest with the commander. Did this officer believe the Soldier was morally wrong? Yes. Was this officer in a position to use the law to not only enforce his own beliefs, but the beliefs of the US Military? Yes. Did this officer put his career at risk by ignoring these offenses and going so far as to inform the Soldier to conceal further offenses? Yes. So based on this scenario, we have a deeply religious person who has taken a professional risk to cover the immoral actions of one of his subordinates because he does not feel as if it would be appropriate to have personal life choices impact a man's career. Am I to assume that if this deeply religious officer was to run for President he would suddenly decide that all policies in the future should include consideration into his religious beliefs? Do you see why I have a hard time believing that? Perhaps it is the exception and not the rule, but it shouldn't matter. I'm giving Romney the benefit of the doubt since I haven't seen anything to suggest otherwise, and he has spoken very intelligently in regards to keeping a separation between his religious views and policy. In fact, back when I was on the Cain Train, I remember watching Romney on Poose Morgan and that exact issue was addressed. Although I did not vote for Mitt in the primary, I was very impressed with his responses and believed him. Once again, you can believe this is political correctness run amok, but I know who I am and I know that is not what it is. I don't care if a person is Catholic, Baptist, Sunni, Shia, atheist, agnostic or prays to the flying spaghetti monster. I really don't. What matters is how much of those personal beliefs will affect their policy. I believe that an atheist who cannot separate the two could be far more dangerous to personal liberties than religious man with a little too much zeal.

You can choose to look at it as name calling, but when you get down to the issue you are saying that a man is not qualified for a job based on his religious beliefs. To me there is a very simple definition for that. You presuppose in your theory that because of his faith it will ABSOLUTELY influence policy. Is this just your assessment of Romney as a man or all Mormans? It really has to be one or the other based on your statement. If it is the former then I am all ears to hear evidence of that. Really, I would, and that is not sarcasm. When a candidate starts mentioning religion in respect to policy it is one of those things I hone in on to beat the candidate up, since that is a clear violation of the separation between church and state. If you don't have any evidence of that then I would have to assume it is the latter. If so you are presupposing that someone who is Morman lacks the ability to separate professional decisions from religion. That is a pretty ignorant line of thinking, but understandable if you don't know any Mormans. I do. Not to say that I don't have similar feelings about their religion, but I have not seen anything with the few Mormans I've known over the years that suggests their faith influenced them professionally in any way.

I think what he is saying is that additional insurance is required by the lender for those items and the insurer will not provide that coverage if reloads were allowed. So, it appears to me the options are as follows: 1: Accumulate a few million dollars to avoid having to go through a lender. Sounds easy enough, right? 2: Choose not to worry about the insurance, which would negate the lending contract, which puts you back at option #1. 3: Just say "no reloads" and allow people to bring their own "factory" loaded ammo and shoot away. 4: Choose to open a fabric store as opposed to a gunshop/range because gun owners and shooter will bitch and whine about everything because they feel like they're being picked on and the world is against them.

Got it, just pointing out that there wasn't an actual detail of servicemembers there. While contractors are Americans, our politicians owe the members of our Armed Forces much more because Servicemembers are obligated, whereas contractors aren't.

It wouldn't matter if we got 100% of our oil from Canada. OPEC can still control the market price of a barrel, unless Canada doesn't take advantage of the market and subsidizes their oil to us, which is not likely. Unless we're getting it domesticaly, we are subject to what the market says a barrel of oil is worth. If the oil producing nations of the Islamic world decided they want to twist our elbow into our ear, then we are screwed. This is why we have an interest there. If that changes it will be a very good thing. Even if we stopped getting oil directly from the middle east, we still would be getting it through a third party that likely got it from that region. As much as we have hit Iran with sancitons, there is a good chance that many of us have filled our trucks with fuel derrived from the dirty Persians in the past year. So, no matter what, the mid East still depends on American gluttony to survive. If we were removed from the equation they would fade into global insignificance again, even with China and Russia buying from them.

I was in the middle of mentally agreeing with your statement when I realized that I have never been pulled over in the state of Tennessee or have I received a traffic camera ticket. Been here 10 years and never an issue. Perhaps that is why I don't care about people or cameras enforcing the laws. I'm trying real hard to come up with a reason why traffic cameras violate a person's rights by issuing a ticket based on video evidence, but then again, WalMart presses charges against shoplifters all the time based on video evidence from their cameras, and their stores have hundreds of them.

As far as I can tell there were no Marines killed or even at the consulate in Benghazi. The Marines in Egypt just stayed inside and locked the doors while the animals took down the American flag and violated our sovereignty.EDIT: I see now that they're listing two of the deceased as US Marines killed by SAF in the annex after the first building was torched with the Ambassador inside. DOUBLE EDIT: Nevermind, ABC is now reporting my initial assumption that it was two contractors killed in the subsequent firefight, both former SEALs. Doesn't appear as if any Marines were there, and is likely there weren't.

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.

That has nothing to do with race. It has everything to do with a consistently leftist government elected in those cities and states. The fact that there are a lot of minorities there means nothing. The same could be said of many other cities with a large population of black Americans: Atlanta, Memphis, Birmingham, Jacksonville and so on. All these cities allow their citizens to carry a firearm if they meet the legal requirements. The fact is, in the areas you speak of the government doesn't want ANY of its citizens to be armed, regardless of skin color. The only part I agree on is that the elitists are the only ones allowed to carry a firearm, or have an armed personal security detail. Sorry, I won't support any cause that continues to support the myth that because I'm white I receive some sort of preferential treatment. I've worked hard to get to where I am, and it was without help from anyone.

Yes and yes. The only time religion should matter is when the candidate makes clear their intention to govern based on that religion. I don't care if the President is a Muslim, it would only matter if Islam is what dictated his policy. It is for the same reason I think it's rediculous that an atheist will never be President. That should have nothing to do with the job. I have yet to see how religion can be a qualifier or disqualifier when it comes to electing someone. I don't know any other words to describe it other than closed-minded and bigoted. Romney is a Mormon. I have my opinions on Mormonism, but I don't see that having an influence on my vote for him. If he were a raving whacko Mormon who defined his office by his religion and not his policies, then it would be different.

Eh, if a jury wants to throw a law abiding citizen like myself into the slammer for beating the piss out of some thieving punk, so be it. I'm a man and I won't have my things taken from me with the expectation that it is someone else's responsibility to recover them.

Ya, none of that is my responsibility or my problem. This isn't about judging someone it is about protecting what is yours. Property may be meaningless in comparison to life, but MY property and money is what I use to support and protect my family, therefore, that property is elevated to a higher status than the person trying to steal it at the time it is being stolen.