TrickyNicky

Dang. I'll give ya $30.00 for the shotgun. ;)

I would like to have one, too bad all my gun money is going into AR builds lately. Good price though, maybe I'll send the link out to some family members as a subtle gift idea for Christmas.

From what I remember, though its been awhile, the custom ammo manufactures who make "Ruger only" loads recommend the Blackhawk or GP100. I think the SP101 could handle a fair amount of the super hot loads, but the Blackhawk can have a pretty steady diet long term from what I understand. Like you though I don't hand load so not too much of an issue for me, plus I've just got the Blackhawk and GP in centerfire anyway.

I don't know if there is a real written policy or not, I've seen signs to the effect in some of our national forests in Ca though.

I could be wrong but I think for it to qualify for LACY it would have to be an international purchase, no? Guess you'll tell me after your research. :) <EDIT> you may be right Dave, 30 seconds of google shows that its only certain amendments that focus on importation. Seems trafficking charges may apply after all.

I got a Mora for my secret Santa recipient as part of his gift package last year. I'll tell ya, I was damn tempted to keep it for myself! They seem like great knives all the way around at a fantastic price.

Wish I could like that twice.

It was worth a watch just to see the dumb cow eyes on T Swift. :rofl:

I may have to pick up one for my latest build. And another for the TGO build.

Seems cool to me. A lot of people hate on the polymer lowers claiming they are weak or not up to military style standards. I love mine, most likely will buy more (already have 3) but would consider one of these hybrids as well.

I almost don't care. I'm just glad the right idea is finally publicly coming to the table.

Any updates?

Holy sh*t, and they'll probably be able to use the ACA to do it.

    I think TMF summed it up better than I could, I also think there's a possibility of us seeing some of common vernacular of the time as well. Either way the practice of the whole thing seems fairly straight forward to me, may as well call them undeniable rights, or just unalienable rights for that matter, any way you slice it, that's the whole idea.

Nothing too exciting. In fact pretty tame for a thread deletion.

Everyone qualifies. They are natural rights. No need to subscribe to any one religious philosophy or even any at all. Some believe their creator to be God, others believe in a combination of actions and reactions, mutations and evolvements. Maybe both are right and God set the evolutionary ball rolling, who knows? Either way its got nothing to do with my rights as an American.

PSA. Either keep checking in and get a complete upper minus BCG and charging handle, or grab a blem upper and start barrel shopping (and handguard, and gas block, and sights etc.).

It strikes me as funny that were you to change the word drug to the word gun in that sentence, you'd more than likely have 100% agreement. Personally I say deregulate the whole lot. If the government wants to stay involved they can continue to schedule them however they want and make it a crime to sell or give them to minors without approval from a doctor. From there if a state wants to have further regulations that's their business.

I agree with everything said about the principal, I am going to hold judgment on the Facebook posting as we still haven't got any idea as to the context of the post. If be willing to bet that many facebookers here have done or said things on there that amount to the same thing, maybe just without pictures. Plus it's few along Facebook, why shouldn't she share if she wants to? It's not her responsibility to try to foresee if some people may or may not be offended or even scared by her posts. I mean come on, she was BANNED from a PUBLIC school that she not only helps pay for but one that serves a public she has stood up and served through her military service. Still seems like the stupidity is pretty much one sided to me.

That's right TDR, there's no putting the cat back in the bag. :)

I don't get the question, how was she stupid? The principal is clearly a little mamby pamby, but from I got out of the story, the lady in question was barred for posting a picture on Facebook. Posting a picture, on Facebook. Really?! Maybe I wouldn't do it but I'd call it a bit reckless at best. Plus for all we know she blurred her address out, in which case it's really no big deal. Had she been going on campus armed or making obscene/threatening remarks, then whatever but in this case it seems shady. There's also no mention whatsoever as the context of the post, just reference to some other mundane posts. Keep in mind she was banned from a PUBLIC school because of a post involving having a carry permit on the Internet and the stupidity seems pretty one sided to me. Plus she is asking for a public apology? As appossed to a financial law suit? The school board should dismiss the principal and start puckering up and kissing her butt.

Way cool IMO.

Yes. Yes it does. Much, much worse...

Now posts have to rhyme?! You sure got us in a pickle...

Bah, you men lack vision! How is one to divise a better mousetrap if he's to locked up by "conventional wisdom" to follow his dreams? I support this young pioneer.