DRM

reasons why I don't like gun shops: 1. Impatient salesmen 2. Salesmen who think everyone who walks in a gun shop is a "gun nut", and forget to talk to people like regular people, not "gun nuts". 3. Goobers (a.k.a. "gun nuts") who hang out in gun shops - they are creepy. 4. Prices not clearly marked Those are the first few I can think of that have kept me from frequenting gun shops. I am also annoyed because I'd love to buy me a 100% Nodak AK lower, and the thought of paying a shop almost half what the lower costs just to receive the item and log it really chaps me. I also realize that part of the problem is me - I'm cheap, and I understand the overhead of a gun shop means they aren't always the best place to go when you are "cheap". Again - that's my problem, not theirs. Who knows, maybe I just haven't found the right place yet.

Personally, I generally despise gun shops. But I guess that's another thread completely

But in that respect - it's no different than getting a "deal" on anything - and IMHO real estate is still (generally) going to get you a far better return than any firearm the average person is going to pick up. But hey - if your wife takes the bait, I'm not gonna tell you to stop fishing with it

I'm with you man... When I see someone take a bunch off the sticker price for this reason or that - my brain doesn't see a deal, it sees him trying to get more off everyone else who doesn't do the special dance. Then again - that might be why I prefer buying used stuff - where haggling is expected

I already have a Loox unit I got last year, but for that price - not bad. Too bad I didn't know about this woot.com knock-off site yesterday when the deal was up

Thanks for the reminder - I need to head back out to the neighbor's place after work tonight and see if there are any left on the vine. I got about 3/4 gallon last picking, would be nice to pick a few more.

Well, at least that is a results based decision. The problem is - it ignores the actual results of the race itself, with the alternate goal being to enact a change in the system. Which might be acceptable for you - but it also might end up with you ignoring a *very* good R or D candidate that matches up better with your shared values - but you pass over *because* they are not a 3rd party. Seems like a risk for a long term payoff that might screw you short term, and never get the long term payoff either.

Sorry, but your re-wording is just not correct. It is not a "never" issue, it is a "this time, this situation, these facts" issue. Me "feeling good" about who I voted for is all warm and fuzzy, but it doesn't help our country - so that means I need to make the decision that gets RESULTS for my view of the future of this country.

We have a culture where a man has so little shame that he will go on a national daytime tv show and reveal to the world that his step-mom is his baby-mamma-to-be, and he's proud enough of that fact that he'll fight his own father over it. Sad? Oh yes.

ok, if that is what you want.... Black or white: Will Baldwin be the incoming POTUS for 2009, yes or no? Why is it silly that I evaluate each and every new election cycle, look at the actual viability of EACH and EVERY candidate - and then vote for the person most likely to get the most shared values into office? if you can explain the flaw in that process - I'm open to suggestions.

You have 3 points here to be addressed. First - you claim my position is emotion based, but clearly it is not. If you still think it is - please explain how. Second - This is not limited to 'liberal media' - The majority of the general public accepts the 2 party system, and therefore they continue to operate under it. But as much as you or I want to have 3 or more choices on the next ballot that could *actually* result in any one of those people having about equal odds of being POTUS - that is simply not going to happen THIS TIME. I know it. You know it. Everyone knows it. Does that mean in 2012 we won't have 3 candidates all with roughly the same odds of being elected? I don't know. but I'll evaluate that situation when it arrives - and as I laid out, adjust my vote accordingly based on the likelyhood of getting actual RESULTS. Again, my problem is that is just not a practical view. For example - my research has shown me that DRM is - amazingly enough - a potential candidate that shares 100% of my shared values. I have also found in my research that DRM would be willing to be POTUS. Based on that alone - and using your guideline of "who I want to have the job" - voting for anyone *but* DRM would be absurd, correct? But in reality - if i write in "DRM" on the ballot every 4 years you and I both know I am "throwing my vote away" (as much as it pains me to say that ) I'm not trying to squash anyone's passion, I'm just being honest. DRM is *not* going to be the next POTUS - so I have to make a RESULTS based decision and vote for the person who (unfortunately) will have less than a 100% shared value rating, but DOES actually have a shot at getting *some* of my shared values into office and get RESULTS. Because at the end of the day - this is STILL all about RESULTS.

Where did I mention any party? I simply mentioned two people - one of which WILL be the next POTUS. I could care less what party any of them are affiliated with. I am simply looking at the available facts, and choosing my vote based on the likelyhood of getting the *most* shared values into office.

I'm not categorically dismissing anything or anyone - I am making a statement of practical fact based on easily observed data. If that easily observed data showed that there was even the most remote possibility a 3rd party could win - and thereby meet my criteria of getting the most shared values into office - then it would make sense to vote for that person/party. Remember - the goal here is to actually get shared values INTO office. Voting "to prove a point" is an emotion driven concept - and is NOT productive to the end goal. Shoot - even chosing to view it as voting for the person with the least non-shared values (lesser of two evils as some put it) is better than voting "to prove a point" - because at least voting for the person with the least un=shared values is a RESULTS based decision. Now - the only logical "out" here is for you to disagree with the end goal as stated. If you have some other end goal than RESULTS (most shared values in office) - then we can change directions and adjust the discussion accordingly.

Lesser of two evils? I think you have a perception issue. Let's break this down to the basics... Your goal is to get the person into office who shares the most values in common with you, right? That said - It's a simple matter of listing the shared values that each person holds. Say Obama shares 3 values with you (Yeah, I'm being generous). Say McCain shares 7 values with you. And say your random 3rd party candidate shares 42 values with you (again, generous). But you already KNOW that your 3rd candidate will not be elected, right? So even though you have FAR more shared values with that 3rd party, you are NOT meeting your goal of getting the person into office that shares the most values, are you? Clearly - a legitimate chance to get 7 shared values into office is far more in line with your goal than voting for 42 shared values that you know will NOT ever get into office, and even worse - that vote will help get LESS shared values into office than voting for McCain. Like I said - this is about perspective. If you really want the most of your shared values in office - then it makes sense to make practical decisions that really will get the most shared values into office.

Yep... it gave me the same kind of creepy feeling like watching some loner dude give the lusty eye to some 12 year old boy. It just ain't right :D

Watching that was just plain odd. They kind obviously skipped over it for the TV story, but that kind of obsession often has a <ewwwwww> sexual element to it. As in - he really "loves" these bears. Sick, sick, sick.

All I've got room for is short shooting there now, but it's free and available

Maybe one of you Owl Hollow members will take pitty on me and invite me out with you one day. I've never been to a range in my life (always just shot @ the farm), and when I tried to join the OH online message board - evidently you have to be a member to sign up for the message board to ask about becoming a member Anyway, I was wanting to see if it would be a good fit for me and the wife to join up and get some range time in before taking the carry class. So like I said - if one of you OH members wants to take pitty on us, let me know

Awesome! I got my borrowed bending jig in the mail today - so the plan is to bend up a few receivers this weekend.

Wish I had known - I have a spare compliance parts kit (fcg, gas piston, pistol grip) laying around now since I sold my AK47's.

well, I ended up selling 2 of my AK47 kits yesterday, and one of my AK74's... So I will just have one AK74 to build. But I'm gonna go ahead and bend up several flats in both flavors - because I'm sure I'll end up picking up another parts kit sooner or later.

Most safes are "fire rated" for XX time period @ YYY temperature. The fact is - most fires don't really burn all that long @ high temps in a house fire, but some research into what is recommended would be advisable (instead of just buying the cheapest safe you can find).

Still no solid answer from your agent? He/she really should be the one who can answer this for you. Go ahead and get a FULL copy of your policy and start reading, too.

Abominable - I was gonna refer you to somewhere else I remembered someone asking a similar question... then I realized that someone else was probably *you* asking this elsewhere. Am I right?

*This* legislation? Sure - I think it would be shot down quickly... today. But that isn't what I'm predicting... I am predicting that ammo will be the next big target they gun grabbers will go after - because it is not protected by the 2nd, and is an obvious "back door" to get a very similar end result (in their view). Propositions like this get seeded in CA, then stepped down versions start to bloom elsewhere... and it grows... and grows...