GlockSpock

If MagPul were to take the current Henry AR-7 and modernize it, I think it would be amazing. Heck, MagPul could probably release a "stock" that is 100% compatible with the Henry AR-7. Fashion the "buttplate" so that it somehow locks/screws in resulting in a 100% waterproof and floatable package. Add some sort of M.O.L.L.E. webbing feature on the left or right side of the stock so you can literally strap the thing securely to a pack. To be fair, the Henry setup is pretty nice, but it still leaves a bit to be desired in my opinion.

I'd have to say "Scream" is at the top of my list. All four were decent, the first definitely the best. However, I recently watched "Viktor Frankenstein" and "Dracula Untold". Both of those were quite enjoyable. I'm reading Salem's Lot (King) again right now. It's a nice Halloween book.

Enhance.

That is a good point. I guess I was going with the assumption that everyone must pass though a metal detector before entering. I also concede that that is likely not always the case nor would it be foolproof. Your assessment that one of the guys with the guns should probably avoid close proximity with the defendant is a good one.

I understand completely the rules against us carrying in a court of law. I also think it should apply to officers. Between victims, defendants, etc, there are too many people that potentially have too many extreme emotions. It doesn't seem to happen often, but it is a possibility that one of these hot headed people grabs an officer's firearm. Of course, dependent on location, most courtrooms have other officers outside the courtroom. They should be armed. Officers within the courtroom could easily make due with tasers. Tasers generally will ruin someone's day, but generally won't take someone's life. Glad this circumstance was prevented before becoming tragic.

[1] I don't think any of them will. I think some parts, like maybe the magazine release from a Gen 4 will work in a Gen 5. Personally, I'd just consider that none of the spare parts will fit, sell them along with the Gen 3 (if you are selling), and buy spare Gen 5 parts. That way it is 100% the way Glock designed it, no questions asked. Or, stick them with your Gen 3 (marked in a bag to remind future you what they are). [2] Was/is it a barrel for a Gen 3 or Gen 5? I might hold off if I were you. Shoot them Gen 5 quite a bit first. They switched from polygonal rifling to traditional lands and grooves. They now call it a "Marksman Barrel". Unless it is just something that you really, really want, you may find that you don't want/need the Wilson Barrel. Personally, I love my Gen 5. I started on Gen 3, upgraded to Gen 4, and then sold all my Gen 4 stuff recently because I like the Gen 5's.

I saw that pack and immediately thought South African.

That looks extremely interesting. I'd love to shoot one and disassemble it. Not in love with it enough to buy one right now, but I'd love to shoot one.

I sincerely wish that there was a list containing all of the offenses someone could be whooped over legally. Man beats his wife and children? Get a group of guys together and show him how he's wrong:) Man stays at home jobless when he obviously can work while children go hungry? Go inspire him to get a job:) You see where this is going...

I have two conflicting thoughts: 1) If an officer is going to give you a headache over a detail such as that, they probably already have in mind that they are going to give you a headache...period. If it wasn't that, it would probably be something else. 2) Since there is the possibility of what you describe, in my opinion it would probably help simply by avoiding the chance of that happening altogether. In other words, what are you gaining from doing that and what are you potentially risking from doing that. I'm not saying it's illegal, just that it could potentially be a hangup and headache.

Actually, the same guy that sold it to my friend bought it back from my friend. I think he probably bought it for less than he sold it originally, so I'm sure he's super happy.

I figured my Glock makes a good candidate for a nightstand gun. Simplicity of having no safety and no slide to rack. Easy shooter too, it's only 9mm:) Plus has a flashlight and 15 + 1 capacity

I'd be all for that, but keeping it seasoned while being around saltwater environments seems like a nightmare.

It was, I won't deny that. Taptalk was nice, but it was frequently "broken" when the forum software would be updated. For "the fix", we had to wait for Tapatalk to update the plugin that works with the server. They were slow oftentimes. I miss it, but it's possible to get used to using the mobile browser. What I miss most was how it kept up with ALL threads you had participated in. If one of them had a new post, it got bumped to the top. I was probably one of the biggest Taptalk fans out there, I encouraged several different forums to enable it when it first starting coming out. I think they used to offer a really good product, but they've went downhill (and fast) since their glory days. Oh well. I'm not trying to speak for @TGO David himself, as only he knows what is on the roadmap over the next decade, but I wouldn't hold my breath regarding Taptalk support returning. I actually enjoy not having Tapatalk on my phone anymore; It makes it easier to spend less time online.

I'm pretty sure it was designed to be used by astronauts on the moon...

I couldn’t put my finger on a motive, but something seemed afoot here and other threads (and on other forums).

It isn't that it is out of line, it is simply something that I'm curious about.

I'm more curious why someone from Colorado joins a forum based in Tennessee to try to convince their members that we NEVER landed on the moon.

Disbelief that we went to the moon is so 1980’s. Now beliving that the moon doesn’t exist is the cool thing to do.

That is, to an extent, a topic of conversation. But I think the concept of relevance and circumstance are everything here. I even see what you are saying, I think. Consider this difference between an officer approaching an individual whom: A: Is walking around his own property while holding a firearm. Upon being approached by the officer, puts away his firearm while greeting the officer in a friendly manner. B: Is pulled over for a suspected crime. Instead of addressing and answering the officers concerns, chooses to flee while brandishing the firearm. Surely you can see the difference in being armed and being armed. Which one is a logical "significant thread"? I personally believe that anyone not incarcerated over the age of 18 should be able to possess a firearm. That includes people who have committed crimes in the past. That is my opinion, and I suspect many here will disagree with it. But even if something is legal, if I show up to your house, holding a firearm in my hand, and you don't even know who I am, shouldn't that cause you some concern? Wouldn't you consider me a significant threat, since I am literally holding my handgun in my hand for seemingly no valid reason other than showing you I'm armed, or worse? What if when you approach me and confront me about it, instead of saying "Oh, I'm GlockSpock, I brought you this gun to see if you wanted to buy it", I chose to dart off in the other direction towards your neighbors house while waving the gun around while running? Wouldn't you be concerned for your neighbors safety?

My Russian is a little rusty...but: https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=https%3A%2F%2Ftopwar.ru%2F90522-eksperimentalnaya-vintovka-tromix-trimese-16-ssha.html&edit-text=&act=url

I suppose I fall into the camp that recognizes the place to fight officers is the courtroom, not on the streets. You make your absolute best attempt to follow the orders of an officer. Generally, it is always a bad idea to run away from the police while holding a gun. It doesn't matter if it is a "good stop" or a "bad stop", you just do what they say. If they were wrong for pulling you over and arresting you, prove that in the courtroom. Running away from them, while brandishing a firearm, has zero positive outcomes. That's my opinion.

I would have a difficult time, if on a jury, convicting the officer based on the facts I have read up until this point. I was merely arguing the point that @Omega argues that TN vs. Garner does not apply here. I think it does.

I'm pretty sure apprehending him indeed did take place. In my opinion, and I think the opinion of others, this shooting is at minimum on the same topic as TN vs Garner. In my very short opinion, based on the five minutes of knowledge I have regarding this case, it fits the defined clause of "unless "the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others", which makes TN vs Garner relevant in this conversation. Disagree if you want, it really isn't a big deal to me.

Because the alternative outcome to this COULD have been that the cops let the guy get away, and then later he robbed and murdered the officer's Uncle Ben. Or whomever.