TMF

Well drinking while "out" doesn't immediately imply that folks that do are going to do anything unsafe or are going to be drunk. Back in my bar days it was either walking home to the apartment or getting a cab when we bought a house away from downtown. Even still, when I go out to have a drink socially or when I'm out to dinner, it doesn't mean that I'm going to get intoxicated. I enjoy having a nice big beer with my steak along with potatoes. This is how I've always done it and how I'll always do it until they outlaw beer and red meat (most likely in that order). I think most folks do the same when they go out to dinner. Drinking while out doesn't mean you have to be unsafe any more than carrying a loaded firearm means you are a danger to folks around you. In order to be unsafe you must first apply alcohol and then apply stupidity.

As is with any reality show, the folks portrayed are going to be the cream of the idiot crop. On top of that, since all reality shows are scripted with the scenarios being designed by the producers, those same idiots are going to be even more idiotistic than they are in real life. I'm glad reality shows came a long when they did, because it has saved me a lot of time not watching television since 99% of programming is exactly the same: reality show, cop drama or medical drama. Can't Grey's Anatomy just die already?

I suppose if I ever overheard someone talking such nonsense (haven't heard it yet) I would just mind my own business. However, if someone told me this I would have to let them know they are a flaming idiot. I'm more than willing to put a Simunition barrel in my Beretta and let anyone try as many times as they want to see if I can shoot them before they can get the slide off.... I'm betting I win every time and they quit before we get to round three. Of course, the flip side to this is never holding someone at gun point within arms reach unless they are in the surrender position of facing away, on their knees, hands interlaced behind their head and feet crossed. Anyone can easily take control of that firearm once it becomes a one on one battle. There are plenty of videos out there of gas station clerks disarming would-be robbers for lack of proper weapon control. If you pull a gun on someone and they still have the means to attack you then you'd better be ready to use it. Otheriwse, keep it holstered a take the Jet Li beat down.

Alien racist!!

My days of getting to go out and have some beers are so far behind me that one doesn't have a significant effect on the other.... kids. So when the opportunity comes up to go out with the wife or meet up with some colleagues for a drink I gladly leave it (the gun) at home. A few years back I went unarmed.... a lot!

Around 2005 before the war started. Juarez wasn't really that bad then with the exception of maybe being robbed. There are measures you can take to prevent that though. Had quite a good time there. Of course, the ban on going into Juarez hasn't stopped everyone. Not too long ago a couple of Airmen were shot to death in one of those cartel hits... wrong place wrong time.

I think I can be pissed off about both. I don't think that rationale works to support not having a law or being upset about something. Murder is certainly a bigger deal than someone blaring music at 2 am when my kids are trying to sleep. That doesn't mean that the latter law should be ignored simply because people murder sometimes.

Well I recall a young man (with a HCP) being arrested for walking around wearing a police jacket with a pistol on his belt. I'll have to Google it real quick to check because I don't know what he was charged with. This was sometime last year in middle Tennessee if I remember.... I think at a Wally World. There are 3 living CMOH recipients post-Viet Nam era. I believe there is somewhere in the range of 80 living CMOH recipients, of course they're all much older. Unfortunately the average American gets their knowledge of Military decorations from movies they watch. To you and I it would raise immediate red flags if someone started claiming such feats, however, to the untrained observer they have no reason to believe that someone would like about such things. At least these people can be publicly shamed. The recent outing of the Democrat running for a Congressional seat in Arkansas is getting a proper media pounding. Even the Huffington Post blasted him.

Thank Dolo. Sadly enough the fakes I helped to out were all in the Army at the time. I've never had the opportunity to get one that had never seen service. I almost had one last year. I heard a bunch of second hand stories about a contract mechanic telling all these stories about his black ops when he was a SEAL. I heard enough to know he was full of it. I made an effort to have a run in with this guy but fate intervened. I am, however, always vigilant and easily annoyed with the fakes. EDIT: Here is an awesome link to militarytimes.com which has the "Hall of Stolen Valor." All kinds of great stories on there. One of them who fraudulently claimed he was a Ranger wounded in combat was able to escape a jail sentence, but the Judge put him on house arrest for Veteran's Day and Memorial Day... just great stuff! http://www.militarytimes.com/projects/hallofstolenvalor/

Hmm, I've walked over the bridge in El Paso going into Juarez... didn't want to park in Juarez, ya know? I don't remember there being a US checkpoint to drive through going in. For some reason I thought it was one way and you only went through a checkpoint on the way back. I might be remembering this wrong. Chances are I was really, really drunk.

Like city/county? You'll have to forgive me, I'm ignorant of the process since I have never had the desire of applying. I haven't sold a firearm in over 10 years; I'm irrationally attached to each one that I can't bring myself to sell one even to get something new. A couple of former collegues of mine obtained FFLs so I just assumed the process was pretty simple.

I've claimed 4 frauds outed over the years. Everytime I was amazed at just how brazen these people would be in their description of their exploits. I do my best to educate people about how to pose questions in such a manner as to trip a fraud up when they're spewing their lies. Often times it's after them telling me a story about someone they met who claimed they were this or that, and then carefully disect the story to prove it's BS. It's something that gets under my skin like nothing else. There was actually a guy here a while back that got banned after telling a bunch of BS stories.

Perhaps I'm allowing my personal beliefs that medals for valor awarded by our Military and Congress are of an official nature and, therefore, the wearing of such devices is fraud.. I'm 100% for freedom of speech, but the way I interpret the wearing of valorous awards one didn't earn is not as I lie, I believe it is fraud.

Hahaha, I didn't know they financed that film back in the day. I actually watched the most recent one with Kristen Bell which was a satirical adaptation of the first one. She's hot, funny and likes to partake.... me likey, even if she is a flaming liberal.

Are there any LEOs on here with 10+ years service that are anywhere near this idealistic? zmtd8, if the sentiment you expressed above is really your motivation for entering that field you should go in with your eyes wide open. Law Enforcement is one of those fields that is highly respected, but not just for what they do for the community. Their mortal lives aren't the only thing they stand the potential to sacrifice when they put the uniform on, ya know?

I read this story three times and I still have no idea what's going on. I'm am so glad I'm not an LEO; I would just start pistol whipping folks like this.

Lester, I often try to reflect on some of my life experience in order to determine why things are the way they are. Certainly I believe that meth addicts (like most other addicts) will seek out self destructive behavior no matter what the substance or lifestyle is. There will always be a percentage of the population that is this way in any society, but the fact that this percentage varies from one country or culture to the next is the intriguing part. I think the percentage is directly related to upbringing and what is socially acceptable in the culture/sub-culture, which happens to be a symbiotic relationship, so to speak, as each one provides fuel for the other. For a while I thought it was related to poverty and standard of living, but after spending a lot of time in a country with high unemployment and a low standard of living that had such a limited drug problem (despite the potential for unlimited access) I had to rethink my opinion on it. Of course in this same culture it was socially acceptable to have sex with young boys to the point that the majority of males have endured some form of sexual abuse in their life, only to continue to pass on the ritual when they got older. Societal norms are all in perspective I guess. This is what leads me to believe that laws against these drugs does very little to curb the problem, as is evident with the amount we've spent fighting the war on drugs, and yet have not made much progress; progress being gauged by the estimated number of users and the street value of product (adjusted for inflation). Oh, I'm sure there are those folks that get rolled up by the cops and realize that they are on the wrong path, and change their ways after release, but by and large folks who are in the illegal drug industry tend to remain there in one way or the other. So how does one attack this problem? Well, the logical answer would be to identify what the problem is in the first place and try to get it at its source. I think that is done to a certain extent, however, if we invested a fraction of our money into that which is otherwise spent on the war on drugs I think we would see quantifiable results. Albeit, those results would take years to notice and gather data. The problem is our society wants immediate, quantifiable results. So they don't want to hear projections of what 10-20 years down the road will look like, they want to see pictures of the police making big busts of narcotics and other drugs, even if the reality of the situation is that those busts only make up the tip of the iceberg. I think that we do this to a certain extent already with programs like D.A.R.E, which seeks to educate kids about the dangers of drug since their parents are incapable of doing it. But I remember when I was younger having a police officer come to the school every so often for D.A.R.E. programs, and I remember it being somewhat of a joke amongst my friends. I mean, here is this stranger trying to gain common ground with a bunch of 13 year olds, and yet his uniform and gun are a clear barrier between the reality of his world and mine. We all saw him as kind of a square, especially as he tried to use terms that were currently "hip". It was almost too difficult to watch. Although at that age I already had a great deal of respect for law enforcement, it wasn't really a source of guidance for most other boys my age. I won't say that D.A.R.E. is pointless; I think it's a great program, but it is the parents that have to be involved in providing guidance for their children above all. But we can't beat the parents into doing it. Many of them don't care to talk to their kids and some are drug users themselves. So we have the ad campaigns of the '90s that sought to educate young kids and guilt parents into talking to their kids about drugs. I thought that was a good initiative; not sure why those commercials died down in the last decade, but they have. Without the guarantee that parents will do the right thing, the only other way to combat a generation from going down the rabbit hole of a druggy lifestyle would be to change the social perception of drugs. Unfortunately that would involve using the various forms of media and "role models" of today's youth to vilify drug use to the point that it becomes and unpopular and shameful lifestyle choice. I mean, this same system of media and Hollywood elite have changed the cultural perception of gay relationships in a matter of 15 years. Certainly they could turn drug use on its head... of course, they would have to stop using it themselves, and we all know what a cocaine ride all of our celebrities our on. So back to what I was originally saying, what perpetuates this problem is a society and parenting issue. If those don't get fixed I don't see the problem being any smaller no matter how many laws are passed on it. As long as drug use is a socially acceptable thing then the problem has only the potential to get worse. Unfortunately the only answer our government has to offer is to keep banning stuff to the point that I now have to do as much paperwork to buy a $5 pack of sudafed as I do to buy a gun. I don't like it.

Well, even coming here and selling 5 guns per month adds up to 70 guns per year. It's hard for anyone to classify that as a recreational hobby. If I worked for the ATF I would say selling 70 guns per year is a business when you consider the value of the merchandise. If you figure that an average sale price of a firearm on TGO is somewhere in the range of $400, that means an individual would be moving around $30,000 in merchandise in a calendar year. Sounds like a side business to me and an FFL would be required. Hell, even if that was someone's hobby (buying, selling, trading for no profit) and they took it to that extreme, it sounds like it would be relatively cheap to apply and go through the process of an FFL if you have upwards of 30 grand tied up in merchandise. Even Leonard's poor a$$ has one. I dunno, just a thought.

I guess the in depth documentary "Reefer Madness" was all true.

It has been a crime to impersonate members of Federal organizations for a long, long time. Why is this suddenly an issue that soley relates to official Military decorations and badges? Why can't I go walking around wearing a TBI jacket and OC my pistol? I would get arrested for impersonating an officer, right? That's a crime. So where is my freedom of speech there? It's one thing to tell a chick in a bar that you're a SpecialForcesSEALreconDeltaHaloScubaNinja with 16 Medals of Honor in an attempt to bang her, but that's not what these guys are doing. These clowns are publicly making claims in an attempt to benefit monetarily or through services rendered. It's fraud. Look at this POS from American Idol claiming all this garbage about being wounded and winning whatever BS awards. You think that wasn't considered when picking him for this show? He was a malingering peice of human trash that left Astan shortly after he got there because his ear had an owey. There is a common thread between all these oxygen thieves, they are trying to get money off the backs of real heroes and destroying the validity of the highest honors our nation can bestow on an individual. But once again, it's cool to have a law against impersonating a member of the Red Cross (been a law for 60 years) and yet when some malingering schmedlap decides to don a MOH for the purpose of defrauding the community and taking advantage of people's patriotism and support for our troops, suddenly our rights are in jeopardy.

It's fraud, not freedom of speech. Every story I've seen where folks have been charged for stolen valor have been benefiting monetarily for their fraudulent representation of a hero. Last time I checked it was illegal to impersonate a member of the Military by donning an official uniform with the intent to impersonate: http://corpuslegalis...-health-service I'm personally aware of an individual prosecuted under this law in addition to other offenses long before Stolen Valor came along. Hell it's against federal law to impersonate a member of the Red Cross: http://corpuslegalis...tle18/red-cross Funny how these laws have been around for 50 years and no one cares, now suddenly that sh*theads who are trying to make a dime off the sacrifices of REAL MEN are suddenly victims and are having their 1st Amenment rights trampled on.... hooey! EDIT: And just to illustrate how often this happens, here is a recent case (May 2012) of some POS in KY who is facing charges for impersonating an Army Officer under Title 18 USC Section 702.... Stolen Valor is Section 704. But hey, Stolen Valor is SUDDENLY a problem with the 1st Amendment. Hooey. http://www.wpsdlocal6.com/news/local/Man-charged-with-impersonating-a-military-officer-150804705.html

Clarksville banned 'em this year. Probably a wise choice.

Dems play their games and the Reps play theirs. I have no issue with the initiative of the program; it was an audacious plan that sought to gain intelligence. However, it was exucuted so incredibly poorly. It seems like they got to the 75% solution and said eff-it. So then they lose track of guns since they didn't have a good method to track them from the start, and a Border Patrol agent gets shot with one of the weapons from the program. Okay, I'm willing to accept that. There is collateral damage all the time in operations such as this. As tragic as his death is, the emotional "there's blood on your hands" pleas are over the top on the Reps side. Where I have a problem is that the benefit was supposed to outweigh the costs, but since this program was executed so poorly, it simply better armed the cartels and resulted in untold numbers of dead (on the Mexican side) without any benefit. Someone should answer for this incompetence, and that someone is not only stonewalling any sort of responsibility in the matter, but he's actively trying to hide evidence. If this was anyone in an echelon lower than Holder they'd be looking at some pretty hefty jail time (in addition to losing their job) if that were the case. Then the part that is just salt on the wound is the Dems initially using the death of this Border Patrol agent to justify their opposition to gun shows! That's like the DEA handing out crack in every poor neighborhood in America, then turning around to make crack-related arrests to justify their annual budget! It's absolute madness. Edit: Just responding specifically to your last sentence, based on what my feelings are above it doesn't matter whether or not anything comes of this in regard to Holder being fired/jailed. Sometimes it's worth doing things out of principle. The second and third order effects of this will be favorable to the Reps. They have Holder and Obama backed into an indefensible position on this subject, so even the slicky Dems are going to have a hard time figuring out how to justify withholding of evidence and Obama's use of executive privilage. Maybe if this was October 2012 it wouldn't matter to the Dems, but it's not. They got the rest of the summer to look forward to, getting hammered about this all the way.

Couldn't see the pics since the site requires one to be a member to view. Was curious to see the setup. Is there a tentative date for the next one?

Well I would figure that any site that has firearms classifieds is on the ATF "radar", so to speak. But I think it's a matter of whether or not someone is generating income. I see lots of people trade, buy and then sell, but without profit. If there is no profit being made I don't see the ATF caring. I would think this site is difficult to turn a profit on since folks here seem to know the value of stuff, and the overpriced items that smell of profit turning normally don't sell.