Moped

Let's hope that downward spiral continues!!!

Weirdly, I always pay cash for my guns. Can't remember the last time I bought one with a card. I say weirdly, because I pretty much pay for everything else with a bank debit card or a CC. I have no idea why I do that, either.

I can see that trending all over the country. Could eventually lead to a split up of the country. I sure don't think anyone in the other 49 states that gives a rat patooty if California were to secede from the Union. Matter of fact, I wish they'd take most of the Northeast, Washington DC and the City of Chicago with them.

But it took a lot of outside intervention and cost a huge amount of lives. Not sure we want it to go like that,

Yes it is! Not always through legislation, but through social pressure (when they shout down conservatives on campus and other such events and places) and through the media (by choking off the conservative voices out there and subject them to ridicule as MSNBC and CNN do quite often).

That doesn't fit the Liberal agenda.

I will say that Nashville and Memphis are liberal bastions in the State. The new Mayor of Nashville is calling for more gun control. Fortunately, conservative East Tennessee and Rural Middle and West parts of the State offset their power. But I could see that there will be a time when the politics of Nashville will dominate this state. Nashville is one the fastest growing cities in the country, and could very well end up being another Chicago, Denver or New York. There are IT job openings in the Knoxville and Chattanooga area, that you might want to consider. The cost of living in both those cities is much lower than Nashville, where the cost of housing continues to go up at a much faster pace. Urban sprawl is a serious problem there, as well. Lots and lots of growth going on and they are having a hard time keeping up. Knoxville and Chattanooga are also much closer to the mountains.

House Democrat from San Francisco is calling for a total ban on all so called "Assault Weapons". He wants to buy them back at $200 a piece and prosecute anyone that defies the ban and keeps theirs. Here's his opinion piece in USAToday. Ban assault weapons, buy them back, go after resisters: Ex-prosecutor in Congress Eric SwalwellPublished 3:15 a.m. ET May 3, 2018 Ban assault weapons and buy them back. It might cost $15 billion, but we can afford it. Consider it an investment in our most important right, the right to live. (Photo: AP) CONNECTTWEETLINKEDINCOMMENTEMAILMORE Gary Jackson never stood a chance. Gary was 28 and working as a security guard at a taco truck in Oakland, Calif., in 2009 when he saw Dreshawn Lee carrying a sawed-off shotgun and reported it to police. Three months later, Lee took his revenge by shooting and killing Jackson with an AK-47-style semiautomatic assault rifle. I was the prosecutor who persuaded a jury to convict Lee and persuaded a judge to put him away for 65 years to life. But Gary’s autopsy report still haunts me. Trauma surgeons and coroners will tell you the high-velocity bullet fired from a military-style, semiautomatic assault weapon moves almost three times as fast as a 9mm handgun bullet, delivering far more energy. The bullets create cavities through the victim, wrecking a wider swath of tissue, organs and blood vessels. And a low-recoil weapon with a higher-capacity magazine means more of these deadlier bullets can be fired accurately and quickly without reloading. An assault weapon, then, is a hand-held weapon of war, capable of spraying a crowd with more lethal fire in seconds. So Gary didn’t stand much chance. First-graders and teachers in Newtown, Conn., didn’t either. Nor did dancers at the Pulse nightclub in Orlando, nor concert-goers in Las Vegas, nor teenagers at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High in Parkland, Fla., nor the people at the Waffle House outside Nashville. Like so many American mass-shooting victims in recent decades, their doom was all but assured by the murderer’s tool. Nonetheless, we can give ourselves and our children the chance these victims never had. We can finally act to remove weapons designed for war from our streets, once and for all. Reinstating the federal assault weapons ban that was in effect from 1994 to 2004 would prohibit manufacture and sales, but it would not affect weapons already possessed. This would leave millions of assault weapons in our communities for decades to come. Instead, we should ban possession of military-style semiautomatic assault weapons, we should buy back such weapons from all who choose to abide by the law, and we should criminally prosecute any who choose to defy it by keeping their weapons. The ban would not apply to law enforcement agencies or shooting clubs. There's something new and different about the surviving Parkland high schoolers’ demands. They dismiss the moral equivalence we’ve made for far too long regarding the Second Amendment. I've been guilty of it myself, telling constituents and reporters that “we can protect the Second Amendment and protect lives.” The Parkland teens have taught us there is no right more important than every student’s right to come home after class. The right to live is supreme over any other. Our courts haven’t found a constitutional right to have assault weapons, anyway. When the Supreme Court held in 2008 that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm, Justice Antonin Scalia wrote that this right “is not unlimited” and is “not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.” More: Navy vet on Vegas: We need gun laws that make us as safe as our military POLICING THE USA: A look at race, justice, media Since that District of Columbia v. Heller decision, four federal appeals courts have upheld assault weapons bans. Many other firearms are available for self-protection, they found, and the danger that assault weapons pose to society is a legitimate reason for states and localities to ban them. Australia got it right. After a man used military-style weapons to kill 35 people in April 1996, that nation adopted strict new measures and bought back 643,726 newly illegal rifles and shotguns at market value. The cost — an estimated $230 million in U.S. dollars at the time — was funded by a temporary 0.2% tax levy on national health insurance. America won’t get off that cheaply. Gun ownership runs so deep that we don’t even know how many military-style semiautomatic rifles are in U.S. civilian hands. Based on manufacturing figures and other indirect data, there could be 15 million assault weapons out there. If we offer $200 to buy back each weapon — as many local governments have — then it would cost about $3 billion; at $1,000 each, the cost would be about $15 billion. It’s no small sum. But let’s put it in context. The federal government is spending an estimated $4 trillion this year; $15 billion would be 0.375% of that, not that we must spend it all in one year. Meanwhile, the GOP’s tax “reform” — a giveaway to corporations and the rich that threw comparatively meager scraps to working families — is projected to increase the national debt by $1.9 trillion over the next decade. What is it worth to American taxpayers to not see our families, friends and neighbors cut down in a hail of gunfire? Consider this an investment in averting carnage and heartache and loss. When I think of Jackson, I think of all the others who died with wounds like his. I think about my dad and two brothers who put their lives on the line as law enforcement officers. I think about my 11-month-old son, Nelson, and the safe classrooms I want him to learn in. America has a deadly problem, a problem other developed nations have avoided or addressed. Some say we’re already too far gone to take corrective action, but we cannot have a defeatist attitude about this. Fixing our problem requires boldness and will be costly, but the cost of letting it fester will be far higher — for our wallets, and for our souls. Rep. Eric Swalwell, a Democrat from California’s San Francisco Bay area, is co-chair of the House Democratic Steering and Policy Committee, and serves on the House Judiciary Committee and the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. You can read diverse opinions from our Board of Contributors and other writers on the Opinion front page, on Twitter @usatodayopinion and in our daily Opinion newsletter. To respond to a column, submit a comment to letters@usatoday.com. https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2018/05/03/ban-assault-weapons-buy-them-back-prosecute-offenders-column/570590002/?utm_source=feedblitz&utm_medium=FeedBlitzRss&utm_campaign=usatoday-newstopstories

Right now it's this. And this. And best of all... Tedeshi Trucks Band!!!

Looks like the Leftists and Unions are trying to flex their investment muscle to force Sturm Ruger to pull their support for the NRA. Led by Amalgamated Bank and its CEO Keith Mestrich (a well connected Union Activist and Democratic Donor), they are also demanding that Sturm Ruger support several gun control initiatives. "Amalgamated wants the gun maker to publicly endorse universal background checks, funding for government to to crack down on illegal distribution, and funding for government research into gun safety and public health. They also want a commitment to responsible distribution contracts, monitoring of distribution chains and investments in gun safety technology and commercialization." Here is the article in full. Gun safety activists prepare to put their power behind shareholder voting at Sturm Ruger Some groups are threatening to withhold votes for a Sturm Ruger director because they claim her presence on the board makes the gun maker too close to the National Rifle Association. The upcoming shareholder meeting will also be the first test of a shareholder proposal to have gun makers report on the risks to their reputations and finances. Proxy advisory services have recommended shareholders vote in favor of the board members but support the shareholder proposal, which the company's board recommends voting against. Liz Moyer Published 2 Hours Ago Updated 1 Hour Ago CNBC.com https://www.cnbc.com/2018/05/01/gun-safety-activists-prepare-to-put-their-power-behind-shareholder-voting-at-sturm-ruger.html Reuters Then-National Rifle Association First Vice-President Sandra Froman waves to the crowd after making remarks during opening ceremonies of the NRA's national meeting April 15, 2005 in Houston. Next week, activist shareholders will make their first attempt at shaking up the gun industry using their votes instead of just their voices. One big campaign is against an NRA-connected director on the board of Sturm Ruger & Co., one of the nation's largest gun makers. Groups are threatening to withhold their votes for Sandra Froman's renomination as director to the board, where she has been a member since 2015. Froman has been a director of the National Rifle Association for 26 years and was its president from 2005 to 2007. Amalgamated Bank, which describes itself as promoting socially responsible causes, wants Sturm Ruger to agree to a list of demands involving gun safety and sales practices by this Friday or it says it will withhold its vote for Froman. The company, it says, is too closely tied to the NRA. Who makes the AR-15 rifle? 7:01 PM ET Thu, 15 Feb 2018 | 02:19 The relationship between Sturm and the NRA "may inhibit the ability of your company's Board to accurately evaluate the risks the company faces," Amalgamated's CEO, Keith Mestrich, wrote in a letter to the company last month. "The NRA plays a key role in shaping the gun industry's response to calls for gun control measures, opposing even incremental changes and common sense reforms supported by a majority of gun owners." Sturm Ruger's meeting comes just days after the NRA holds its annual meeting this weekend in Dallas, where Vice President Mike Pence is among the scheduled speakers. A Sturm Ruger spokesman didn't return a call for comment. And a request to Froman for comment, made by way of an NRA spokesman, also wasn't returned. Another community group, Majority Action, is organizing retail investors to push big fund companies like BlackRock and Vanguard, Sturm Ruger's biggest shareholders, to assert their voting power. The group organized about six weeks ago, seeing now as a crucial moment for changing the gun industry. "We were looking at how you enable everyday investors to access the levers of power when it comes to holding companies accountable," said James Rucker, its co-founder, who is on the board of directors of the Southern Poverty Law Center. But even before these recent demands, controversy was certain to erupt at Sturm Ruger's meeting, scheduled to take place May 9 at a resort in Arizona thousands of miles from its Connecticut headquarters. The company has a factory in the area. Wednesday's vote will be the first test this year of a proposal by a faith-based shareholder group urging the nation's gun industry to act after recent extreme examples of gun violence. Specifically, that proposal, backed by the Northwest Coalition for Responsible Investment, asks gun makers like Sturm Ruger to prepare a report about the financial and reputational risks associated with their business. The coalition plans to introduce a similar proposal on the proxy of American Outdoor Brands, which typically holds its meetings in the fall. Two major shareholder voting advisory firms, Institutional Shareholder Services and Glass Lewis, have thrown their support behind the coalition's proposal, Sturm Ruger's board, on the other hand, is advising shareholders to vote against it. "We believe that firearms safety is a laudable and appropriate goal," it said in the proxy. "However, we also believe that adequate safety practices and procedures are available." BlackRock said in a note to clients in March that it is time to take action on gun violence, adding it could use its position as a large shareholder to vote against boards and management and back shareholder proposals management doesn't like. But it won't comment about how it plans to vote its 2.8 million shares next week. Several companies connected to the gun industry have changed their policies in recent weeks in response to the upswell of protests after a shooting in a Florida high school in February left 17 people dead. Major retailers such as Walmart and Dick's Sporting Goods put limits on gun sales, and banks like Citigroup said it would restrict gun sales by business partners. Fund managers like BlackRock and State Street said they would start a dialogue with gun makers about what they are doing to promote safety. BlackRock has even rolled out new funds that specifically remove stocks of gun makers and sellers. Amalgamated wants the gun maker to publicly endorse universal background checks, funding for government to to crack down on illegal distribution, and funding for government research into gun safety and public health. They also want a commitment to responsible distribution contracts, monitoring of distribution chains and investments in gun safety technology and commercialization. Froman, 68, is a lawyer and long-time gun industry supporter. The Southern Poverty Law Center found her name in a 2014 member directory of a secretive ultra-conservative group called the Council for National Policy. Tax forms from 2015 and 2016 filed by that organization list her as treasurer. The year she became president of the NRA, the gun lobby won a crucial legal battle in the form of a new law limiting liability claims against gun makers. That same year, a donor program for the NRA launched and, as reported by Bloomberg in 2012, took in nearly $15 million from gun-related companies. Froman has pointed to Smith & Wesson's decision in 2000 to voluntarily comply with certain gun safety measures as its downfall. Grassroots gun supporters forced the company into bankruptcy after it made that "deal with the devil," she has said. "The grass roots is a powerful force that the government can't control and can't fight," she said in a speech in 2011 to a group that supports knife ownership. "Just look at what's happened with the rise of the Tea Party movement. Most of the battles that NRA has won have been won by sheer political power." The NRA is said to be the subject of fresh scrutiny about its ties to a Russian government official recently sanctioned by the U.S. That official, Alexander Torshin, is a lifetime NRA member, CNN reported Friday. One of Torshin's former aides, Maria Butina, the founder of the Russian group "Right to Bear Arms," was hosted by Froman as part of the annual NRA Women's Leadership luncheon in 2014. Butina posted a photo of the two on her blog back then, calling Froman a "legendary woman." Everytown for Gun Safety, a gun safety group that began as an organization founded by former New York major Michael Bloomberg, also details the NRA's connections to Russians, including Torshin and Butina, on its website. The proxy advisory services have advised shareholders to vote in favor of all the of the directors nominated to Sturm Ruger's board, including Froman. ISS did note that Sturm Ruger has a contract with the NRA for some of its promotional and advertising activities and paid the group $800,000 last year. https://www.cnbc.com/2018/05/01/gun-safety-activists-prepare-to-put-their-power-behind-shareholder-voting-at-sturm-ruger.html

Tonight RTIC wasted no time on jumped on the 2nd Amendment and NRA bandwagon! I've seen their ads on Instagram and Facebook, supporting the 2nd Amendment!!!

Oh, you started it, so now you got to tell it. All three parts please! The Walther PPK and PPK/s were some of the most elegant pistols ever made, along with the old Colt Detective Special and the S&W Model 66 (pick a barrel length) and the old model Browning Hi-Powers. Another beautiful pistol I saw, back in the late 1990's, on a Detective down in Panama City, was a S&W 686 with a 3" barrel and some of those high end rose wood grips with the finger groves. That was a beautiful revolver!!! Right now the only manufacturer that I think makes elegant looking pistols is SIG in some of their higher end smaller pistols like the 238 and 938. The P210 is also a beautiful pistol, but it should be at their price point! I've always heard good things about the Kahr, but never fired one. Some of their finishes looks like something a Chicago pimp would carry back in the 1970's, though! I don't really go into colors. I like matte (FDE, green, grays or blacks), bluing, nickel or stainless. Anything else just looks cheesy or cheap. Grips are something I think can really take a pistol up a notch, aesthetically though! As for 1911 reliability, most manufacturers make their pistols too tight. And that's fine when you are shooting targets and about 50 rounds between cleanings, but if you want a true combat pistol, where you might be shooting 200+ rounds between cleanings, then it needs to rattle a bit. Just my two cents. Won't buy you a damn thing, but you might like hearing it... or not.

The Saudis have signaled that they would like to see a oil price increase. So the price went up.

Wasn't the Model 66 also a Combat Magnum? First time I can remember this pistol was from the TV Show Vegas, starring Robert Urich as Private Detective Dan Tanna. He carried a Model 66 Combat Magnum or it was a nickel Model 19. Sexiest pistol on TV at the time, until Miami Vice came out and Sonny Crocket with his Bren 10/ S&W 645!

Thought I'd look on the CMP website to see what was available. The only M1 carbines they have are being sold at auction. There are two a NPM that has a bid of $1201 and ends in 5 days and a Rockola that is at $1601 and ends in 5 days. They say do to the limited amount of M1 carbines that they are receiving, they are only going to be offered at auction. These babies are only going to up in price and value! BTW, Field Grade Garands start at $650 for Springfields and H&Rs and Service Grade Garands are start at $750 for Springfields and H&Rs. @ to 4 month delivery time. All other grades are sold out, except for M1C and M1Ds. They start at $950 in fair condition and go up. http://thecmp.org/

Too fancy for me. But nice! I like shooters. [emoji5] Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

I've had a couple of these now. The first one was the PoA version, which I restocked with an ATI stock for aesthetic reasons. Found it favored the Hi-Point mags and hated the Pro-Mag 15 rounders. So I traded around and for a couple more regular 10 rounders. It was a fun little rifle to play around with. Later on, I sold it to purchase something else (don't really remember what), but I never forgot how much fun it was at the range. Fast forward to three years ago, and still remembered that little rifle and saw one come up on MeWe, with the TS stock and a cheap red dot. So I bought it. Came with one Hi-point 10 rounder and one Pro-Mag 15 rounder. I bought it for $225. Shoots great with 115gr ball and the 10 rounder mag. Keeps them in the center of a 5" disc at 75 yards. Still doesn't like the Pro-mag. Threw the Pro-Mag in the back of the safe and went and bought two more Hi-Point mags. Problem solved! Still a fun little range/truck gun! Much easier to take down and clean with the clips if one is so inclined. I know several on here, that just spray the receiver down with some gun oil and hardly ever clean them. I at least like to every other range session. Might consider buying a Redball mag or two. They are ugly as sin, but so is the Hi-Point, so maybe I will. Or I might just by a couple of more Hi-Points. That would give me 5 mags for it. Don't know yet. It's not real high on the priority list at the moment. Got other things to think about first. But I definitly recommend a 995TS for a first time 9mm carbine, if you just want to test the waters and see if something like that it right for you. You can buy 3 of them for what you'd buy a Ruger for. EDIT: I had another one in Lay-A-way at Harveys in Knoxville that I had won on Auction, but I let it go for a .357 Revolver on Friday. Had a hankering.

OK, I'm old, but not that old! My first S&W was a .357 Model 13, that I paid $250 for. Later on a bought a Model 10 that was Police Trade in from TDOC. Great shooting pistol! Got it for $149+tax and BGC. Later it was stolen. That was back in 1993 ( I thank). Had some other S&Ws, but those two were my favs. But you are right, some of their pistols have gone out of sight. You won't find a 686 for less than 7 or 8 bills new. They are getting to be collector pieces like the Colt Revolvers. Where S&W is doing it right with revolvers, though, is with the J-frame snubbies. They are still able to keep the price point low and are still a viable option. Yes you can get a Rossi or a Taurus about $50 to $100 cheaper, but at that price point, I would go ahead and pay the difference and get the S&W. But I just couldn't justify the difference ($200-$300) for a shooter grade larger pistol like I was wanting, this time around. I think I will continue to look for a nice S&W or Ruger to come my way, but for now the itch has been scratched... or will be when I get it out of lay-a-way.

Actually went a bit different route. Put a Taurus 627 Tracker 4" in lay-a-way at Harvey's yesterday. I know I'm taking a bit of a chance on the Taurus, but recently I've had two of the PT111 G2 and both have been excellent pistols. I saw the Tracker and checked it out. Really nice smooth trigger and it felt good in the hand. Looked at a couple of S&Ws and Rugers and they were very nice too, but just looking, I could tell that there was a $200 or $300 difference in the three. So I went this the Taurus. This is more of a fun/farm gun anyway. Doubt I will carry it much.

Haven't seen an Astra in years! Those were the Comanche and Super Comanche I believe. Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

I've had two 2" SP101s over the years and both were great revolvers. I think I paid $325 for one and $350 for the other one. One was a .38 and the other, a .357. I also had a S&W 19 with the 2&3/4" barrel. I like the Rugers better. I also had a S&W 13 4" that I traded for the first of two Mini 14s. Should have kept the .357. The latest one was a used Ruger Security 6 in 6". Another great pistol, but that 6" barrel was just too long. Traded it for a Winchester 30/30. Again, should have kept the .357.

Stopped at Crossroad Guns in Fountain City and looked at a Ruger SP101 with a 3" barrel. Nice pistol, but priced more than I wanted to pay at $549. Also looked at a Taurus 66 with a 4" barrel. I wasn't every impressed with the lockup on that one though. Jimbo100 turned me on to a Dan Wesson, that I may go look at though! That's a nice looking S&W 65 in the Classifieds, but I'm not looking to drive to Middle Tennessee.

Well... Bye.

How good a revolver is a EAA Windicator?

Been getting a hankering for another revolver of late. I currently only own one Ruger single action in .357. Yesterday day I stopped at two LGS and attempted to checkout some offerings in .357mag. First of all, I am not looking for something for canceled carry. I really want at least a 3" barrel and and 6 shots in either blue or stainless. And I'd like it to be under $500. It seems all that's available are snubbies. All the full sized versions looked like they were rode hard and put up wet AND they wanted a premium for them. Are there any full sized revolvers, at a decent price being made anymore?