GlockSpock

That's good, because I hit Enhance and realized what the uniforms of those other six guys say.

Small arms ammunition, including ammunition not exceeding .75 caliber and shotgun shells of any gauge, may be carried in the same hard-sided case as the firearm.

https://www.govdeals.com/index.cfm?fa=Main.Item&itemid=16348&acctid=1055 It's in Cleveland...someone should buy this.

It's been a long time since I've been there, but it is indeed an awesome place. Love the Ka-Bars, I've been meaning to pick one up basically just like the top one. The bottom one is...big!

Ah...they'll probably just pay Benchmade to destroy all of it. I kid...I kid!

I wondered on what basis could the rioters be protesting. It seems it is obvious to anyone honest with themselves that it was a justified shooting. I now believe that perhaps part of the controversy is what allegedly happened afterwards. https://www.theroot.com/protesters-and-police-clash-in-memphis-after-officer-in-1835485012 police shot some man and left him for dead and didn’t get him in the ambulance just left him in the grass I don't know if this is true. If they did effectively and purposely let him bleed out, that is wrong. I have no idea if they did. But in a shooting where the suspect is downed and then disarmed, assuming there are no other apparent threats, I have the personal belief that law enforcement should do anything in their reasonable power to get the suspect as much medical attention needed as quickly as possible. Yes, he did use his vehicle as a weapon and yes, he did theoretically jump out of his vehicle with the intent to go armed. But, as soon as he was downed and the scene was declared safe, EMS should have been there. Again, I don't know how true that is regarding this situation. It may have little, if any, relevance.

Makes sense. I guess I just didn't realize they would have the ability to investigate a Federal incident such as this. I guess they can do whatever though as long as politics aren't directly involved.

Curious. How is TBI investing a US Marshall shooting?

I'm on board with everything you just said In all seriousness, my only thought was that there are indeed Pro Gun Democrats and history shows there are plenty of anti gun Republicans.

But only on the front in really, really small print.

And to be fair, the Gun Owners Protection Act did offer some good things, but the Hughes Amendment was dirty politics. Reagan could have sent it back and demanded that the Hughes Amendment be removed but didn’t.

Hughes Amendment. Signed by Reagan. Wasn’t a point to or against you, but rather the “Republicans are the only ones that protect the 2nd Amendment” people.

My bad. 1986. But my point still stands.

Who was president during 1988?

No. But the obnoxious FIRES WITHOUT MAGAZINE on the side is.

Ok. Did any of you know that the STR-9 FIRES WITHOUT MAGAZINE?

True to that specific instance. I was referring to politicians as a whole, not judges or even Supreme Court Judges in particular. You're not wrong, but they aren't doing it so oh well. I think they are too afraid of rocking the boat or causing everyone to get in a tizzy fit.

At this point, only money and the threat of not being elected again would cause any political to take a Pro 2nd Amendment stance seriously. In my opinion, it's just a talking point for most of them. I too wish things could inch that direction instead of slide the other, but we have what we have.

Merged with my existing thread, @E4 No More. Kept your title and location. Yeah, disappointing but it really doesn't surprise me in the least. If they were going to give Kansas and thus all other states the right to nullify existing federal firearm laws, that would be one of the biggest gun wins the country has seen since the Bill of Rights.

Yeah...the nine of us are a pretty tight group. We'll stand up for your rights even if you don't ours And I think you nailed it. Every single time a "groundbreaking" shooting happens, as long as there is something to point a finger at other than Evil itself (then it was bump stocks, now it seems to be suppressors, at some point it will simply be detachable magazines and semi-automatic functions), it seems Trump is easily persuadable to join anti-gun batter. Seems like a weak president that cannot simply say "Bump stocks were approved under the Obama administration. We will honor that decision. If you don't like it change the law via legislation, but just know I will not sign any bill containing anti-gun material while in office". Again, Republican House and Congress, all he had to do was say "not now, you can try when you're in office". He isn't afraid of saying stupid things regarding anything else (pornstars, Russia, Wikileaks, etc). Why couldn't he just hold strong regarding that? If he had done that, he would have gained my support for 2020. Instead, he single handedly abandoned the one issue I care most about. HE DIDN'T HAVE TO DO ANYTHING BUT STILL HE DID SOMETHING. It would not surprise me in the least if he encouraged Congress, right now, to put together an anti suppressor bill. Again, I'll reinforce, we DID NOT HAVE TO PLAY THE BUMP STOCK OR AR HEAT, YOU PICK ONE BUT NOT BOTH GAME.

My Wife had them at 18 or 19 when we were dating. Sucks. I feel for you but have no advice.

You are likely 99.9% correct regarding Trump in 2020. It'll be him vs. someone very, very anti-gun. But that doesn't mean the fine folks here at TGO will be spared from hearing me complain about Trump's fallacies. So...no votes were for sale? I guess that's a fact. But surely, surely the "monstrous" NRA that the left seems to be so afraid of could have met with Trump? Surely, surely Wayne could have met with Trump, stated that the NRA supported all gun rights, and that if he pushed the anti gun/anti bump stock agenda, they'd have to lower their support rating of him and write critical articles of him. They could have simply suggested that doing so would cause him to lose the support of some gun owners, which would translate to less votes. What did they do instead? https://home.nra.org/joint-statement And that...is the single reason I refuse to give a dime or even a penny to the worthless, filthy organization known as the NRA. But hey, it's their priority to reverse the Hughes Amendment.

Another tangent coming from me as well. I love this comment, and it inspired me to make the following statement. I love TGO and all of its contributing, fruitful members. I myself and not like some people, let me define "some people" in that regard, can argue all day long with my best friend and not get mad. Some people: Refers to some people I've met over my lifetime. Friends, family, coworkers, etc. "Those guys" that everyone knows at least one of. So. I'm not like "some people" in the sense that I can disagree 100% with someone on basically anything and/or everything. I can still consider that person a good friend. I don't have to agree with someone somewhat or mostly in order to identify or find friendship with them. With many people (such as perhaps members here at TGO), I can find myself in a wonderful debate. I can disagree with someone 100%. As long as that person does not take personal offense as to who I am, I'm perfectly fine in finding friendship with that person. Anti-gun people, vegetarians, pro or anti LGBTQ people, global warming supports or planet coolers, democrats and/or liberals, I can generally call any of them my friend if they personally do not hate me for who I am. I am who I am, but if you respect me I can generally find room to respect you. A lot of what a person believes is shaped by their experiences. In different experiences, it may be possible that I'd hold vastly different values. For an example, if my mother was shot by a drunk guy wearing an NRA shirt, I may not be a gun supporter. I enjoy a good debate. It can be very beneficial. I enjoy debating issues for the fact that it keeps me open minded. It makes me defend my own opinions. Some people (again, read definition of "some people" shown above) only like hanging out with people that are like minded. I have the opinion that doing so is fine, but these people run the danger of confirmation bias and perhaps not challenging their opinions enough. Therefore sometimes I enjoy surrounding myself with people that hold different opinions. My thoughts on general topics in life? Test what you believe. Debate. Defend what you believe. Be open to the possibility that you could, at any point in time, be wrong about something.