TMF

No it wouldn't. Why does everyone believe that if they've had some kind of medical training or work in the health care field they are somehow obligated to provide immediate care for someone that was posing a deadly threat? If you shoot call 911 as soon as you reasonably can based on the situation.... problem solved, problem staying solved.

There is a reason business and industry from the North is moving South, and it ain't because of the warm weather.

I've been looking at these for a while but I hear it's impossible to get a hold of one.

I am VERY interested to see how that goes. Please let us know.

The list is longer than what you provided and is more complex that simply "doing away" with one or the other. Things don't have to always be done to the extreme; they could just be done smartly.

The Government can't create jobs but they sure can make policies to prevent private sector growth.

$800 for a plastic 1911? I don't see that "flying off the shelves" when you can get a very nice 1911 for that money.

Eh, it depends on what you're threat is. Criminals are opportunists and prey on the weak. If they observe you as a hard target they will most likely look for an easier one. On the other hand, if someone is bent on going after you specifically, then it's best not to keep your defense plans so overt. I don't think that it can be definitively argued that what the enemy does or doesn't know is the best defensive strategy; the circumstances will dictate. I would say the best is a combination of the two. For example, Russia was well aware of our nuclear cababilities during the cold war. It wasn't as if we were hiding our nuclear arsenal from them. However, that doesn't mean we let them know where our subs are parked. The deterrent is there along with a back up plan if that deterrent happens to fail.

The receiver is the part that requires an FFL. If you don't want to deal with the FFL you can have him ship all parts (bolt/trigger assy/stock/barrel/mag tube) minus the receiver directly to you and he can keep the receiver. I don't own one so I don't know how hard it would be for him to take off the barrel and the mag tube, but it might just be easier to have it complete rifle shipped to an FFL if you can find one at a reasonable cost.

Severing the femoral doesn't always end up in instant death. She was probably circling the drain by the time first responders showed up to stop the bleeding. Even in a hospital environment with all that technology and smart doctors, some people just can't bounce back after that much trauma/blood loss. This isn't uncommon at all.

Let's be honest, both are silly in consideration of self-defense. Like most toys, this is about coolness factor.

Something is missing from the story. I can't imagine that any officer would shoot a 15 year old unless he had a good reason. Article said that police had been dispatched to the home 10 times in the past two years and they had used stun guns before.

To address the scenario of repurposing mil/leo ammo stockpiles, I don't think it's as much the idea of battlefield recovery. In that scenario those stockpiles will be controlled by someone, and will be bartering material just like anything else. If, for example, if an organized group were to seize the ammo supply point on Ft. Campbell they couldn't use all that stuff in 1,000 years of revolution. That is something that people will use for currency and such. In that event it will be the most available ammo on the market, and the cheapest.

My uncle had his house broken into a few years ago and several of his firearms were stolen (the ones that didn't have room in the safe). He claimed it through his homeowners insurance with no problem.

Yes, but I don't get paid to represent the People.

I haven't seen anyone question him chasing the guy. Even THP has repeatedly said that they support his actions pursuing the criminal. It's what happened afterward that has him in this situation.

Well, the last comment made it in because his stance on gays (as he puts it) is a religious belief. I get that the numbers support the theory that dude on dude gay sex carries with it a higher risk of contracting HIV, but that is a lifestyle choice. An elected official shouldn't be spouting off against free Americans who make that lifestyle choice. He is a moron.

I guess that is something to figure out as somebody is using a gas powered saw to cut through your front door. I imagine that is a profound experience in the middle of the night... can't say that I'd have the ability for calculated thought at that point.

Sorry, suggesting that a gay airline pilot banged a chimp and that it is "virtually impossible" to spread HIV during heterosexual intercourse are not based in fact and are the ramblings of someone who is purposefully ignorant. Both are untrue. If someone is going to feel so strongly about something (gays) they should at least get their facts straight. The reasons HIV spread so quickly through the gay community has more to do with common sense than conspiracy. Without wanting to go into the mechanics of it, HIV is more easily contracted through man/man gay sex than through vaginal sex. Of course, if the lady is into Greek than it's just as easy to spread to a woman. Secondly, the gay community was still small/concentrated and umm... in the closet when HIV started being spread around so rapidly. The sexual habits of male homosexuals during that time were very loose and contributed to the spread exponentially within the gay community. Since gay men usually only have sex with other gay men it makes sense that the male gay community bore most brunt and still do to this day. HIV spread so specifically through the gay community at first for the same reasons that some retirement communities in Florida have off-the-charts VD reporting. I remember hearing of an outbreak of syphillus back in the '90s where only old folks in the retirement trailerpark were gettting infected. Is that because God hates them for being deviants?

Well the officer is being villified because of his supposed wrongful actions. I don't think it's possible for anyone outside of the investigation to determine with a degree of certainty that he did something wrong, but if he did it was really, really wrong and unbecoming. With that said, the 20 year old that decided to run from him has already been served a self-inflicted punishment and left his parents a BBQ'd corpse. I don't think anyone here believes that he wasn't do something worthy of being chased and thrown in jail. His parents should be looking at what a poor job they did raising him instead of pointing fingers at the officer... he woulda been dead either way.

Awww, c'mon... just havin' fun. The guy clearly has strong opinions on the subject but hasn't made the effort to educate himself on the facts... he's a moron and should be the subject of ridicule. That argument is totally gay.

With the rear sight down you won't even notice the front sight post; it'll be there but you won't notice it and it won't get in the way of your FOV, especially when you shoot with both eyes open, which is how you should be when reflexive firing. If you're set on getting an Eotech I wouldn't go through all the trouble on replacing the gas block with a flip down or building a new upper, unless you were planning on doing it anyway.

From using the Eotechs before the POI shouldn't change based on your sight picture, so having the same cheek weld each time doesn't matter.... in theory. I've never tried it out to distance that I can remember. I didn't care for Eotechs much and always used a Cmore. When looking through the back of the Eotech it will appear that the reticle is moving as you move your head, but that is due to your eye changing position in relation to what's on the other side of the sight.... that may be what you're seeing as you move your head around. If you really want to test that theory put the rifle in a gun vise and aim it at an object, then move around behind it to see if the point of aim changes.

I've actually felt that way a long time ago, but I've come to believe that it actually keeps me pretty safe. Criminals are opportunists and will go after the weakest prey they can see. Those of us that carry ourselves a certain way (like meat-eaters) I think are a big turn off for those types. Not to say that it doesn't draw attention depending where you go, but I've felt pretty safe in some pretty bad areas due to how I carry myself. I think it only makes us targets for other meat-eaters with something to prove.

Battle of Blair Mountain - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia This one came to mind when I read your post. I guess nowadays seeing something like this would be pretty far-fetched. With the checks and balances we have, along with 24hr media coverage and YouTube, it would be difficult for local governments to get away with such overt acts of corruption/murder/intimidation. Not to say it couldn't happen, but it would take place after some catastrophic event (natural disaster/economy collapse). An armed revolt requires the people to be willing to put their lives and livelihood on the line, which is unlikely with the standard of living we enjoy. If that were to suddenly end then people would be more apt to defend their rights in the oldest fashion of doing so. This happens all the time in countries around the world that don't enjoy the freedoms and standard of living that we do. Just about every third world country there is an armed resistance that government forces are in regular battle with. I use Iraq often as an example simply because of my first hand knowledge. I recall during the reconciliation of Sunni rejectionists (during the surge) there being a surprising level of forgiveness from local government organizations (and US military) to those that they were fighting only weeks/months earlier. There was total amnesty with the exception of those that participated in deliberate attacks against civilians.