Oh Shoot

  Banning alcohol a second time might be about the only thing over which the populous would revolt.   - OS

  You probably wouldn't feel that way if you or your mate were denied, off top of head,  family health insurance, filing taxes jointly, spousal SS or military or employer pension survival benefits, relief from state/federal estate taxes, military base housing, etcetera ad infinitum.   I mean, do you and your wife "need or have a reason for" any of those things?   - OS

  That was all exactly my point. Once they have a three branches of government, it follows they will have SCOTUS locked up also. Actually, all they need is the next 11.5 years of a Dem prez and Senate for the SCOTUS part,  and of course, the basic balance could actually change almost overnight.   What would one more Sotomayor or Kagan and one less Kennedy or Scalia have done to Heller and McDonald? Well, it would have still been 5-4, but the other way.   - OS

  If you start with the .300 you can work out any bugs and be shooting it exactly as it will be configured while waiting on the stamp,  just without the stock on it, something maybe to consider?   - OS

Well, you know, however absurd the laws in DC are,  he broke them. The travesty of the laws themselves is what allowed the jackboots in the first place.   Sort of like all the pols ranting about this and that not functioning when they shut the gummit down, like, well, duh.   - OS

  They'll ultimately still need SCOTUS to sanction the anti-gun measures they'll enact, though, just like as with the ACA.   - OS

  And Trouble With The Curve, last year.   - OS

Touché!   Roses are red, Violets are blue, I'm schizophrenic, And so am I.   - OS

  To make it harder for all them freed niggras to murder all the white men and rape their wimmen. Seriously.   Originally was an out for an "army or navy pistol", 'cause most all "them" folks couldn't afford them. This law is still on the books in any number of cities around TN. as it was copied from the state law enacted in 1870. It was the ordinance that Kwik took on in Belle Meade; Knoxville has it on the books also.   - OS

  Sometime by one of Hillary's terms, once the court is so far left you won't be able to see it without binocs,  the libs will be nudging gun issues along to them every chance they get.   - OS

  Yeah, he and Colbert are both pretty much equal opportunity satirists. It's just that the far right fringe seems to give them more blatantly irresistible material.   - OS

  That was "Heeeeeere's Johnny".   - OS

  But OMG it will trash your extractor, ruin your barrel, and destroy all your steel targets while also ricocheting for 8 miles!   - OS

  Nonetheless, for purposes of inheritance, taxation/debt, and etc, the various states had to consider the couple to be husband and wife by whatever means they determined. That is legislating marriage, whether a civil license was required for it or not.   War widows were pensioned. But only of course if they were considered married to the deceased.   Wild fact: the last Revolutionary War widow on pension did not die until 1906!   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esther_Sumner_Damon - OS

  To be fair, he never held or ran for a state wide office, only in congressional district. He lost his seat when the Dems out gerrymandered the GOP in redistricting his previous area for the 2012 elections.   - OS

  Everybody keeps saying that, but it's absurd to think it could ever happen. The states have legislated marital status since they were founded, and the US government since the Revolutionary War. What could possibly change it?   - OS

Well, federal law has same "designed to be fired with one hand", but no barreled length specified. But federally, a muzzle device does not count in either barrel length or overall length unless it is permanently attached, and TCA is silent on that specific detail.     Certainly anything is possible, but without direct contradictory TCA reference, federal interpretation would almost certainly prevail. But of course as you say,  worst case only after much hassle and money to defend yourself.   - OS

  It certainly sticks out near it, but my FA still functional, have it on 3 ARs. I guess it does somewhat hinder hitting it as fully with heel of hand instead of just thumb.   'Course, has always seemed to me that if a round won't chamber with reasonable pressure from FA (or just thumb on bolt cutout for uppers without it),  smacking FA as hard as possible is more likely to render the rifle unusable at all rather than fix the situation.   Is the military drill to smack it with heel of hand or what?   - OS

And here's another: http://www.guns.com/2013/10/05/springfield-xd-s-safety-recall-october-update/ with the extra roll pin, which is only visible thing in the fix: - OS

  Monogamous pairing came about from logical survival and practical small societal considerations long before there was any "religion" -- before even the first shaman learned he could keep himself fed without having to risk his life to help kill the mammoth.    At what point ritual "marriage" connected to the supernatural became common is debatable, but it certainly far preceded any religious movement that ever became historically recorded.   - OS

One thing at a time, okay? ;)   However, the fact is that this issue has been and will continue to be decided legally, not religiously. And in that vein I thank Christ I don't have to live under a Christian (or Jewish, or Islamic, or Hindu, or etc etc) government. Maybe Wiccan would be okay, though.  ;) - OS

  Easy? As long as you don't possess a stock or vertical forward grip at same time that have no legal use, you won't mess up.   Btw, TCA defines "handgun" as having 12" barrel or less, so there are federally legal AR pistols that I suppose would not be considered such under TN law if push were to come to shove.   - OS

  Well, that's exactly the way it is now. The JP has to marry you if you quality under the laws of the state, whether the church will or not.   The federal government is clear that it recognizes same sex marriage if the state does, and this won't change now regardless of future party balance in DC.   The battle will continue for a while state by state, over recognizing and/or fully sanctioning same sex unions, but it will eventually be federalized with subsequent SCOTUS decisions if nothing else. Remember, this right now is likely the most conservative SCOTUS we'll see for at least the next 25 years, and I'm fairly certain they'll decide on the "equality under the law" of same sex unions.   No other way around it, since both federal and state governments do give bennies to "married" couples, a LOT of bennies,  and have since the Revolutionary War. Actually, even before the Declaration on state levels.   - OS

  It's reasonable to assume the current one is the most conservative SCOTUS we'll see for the next 25 years. Or more.   Matter of fact, if it doesn't swing lib before BHO leaves office it'll be a miracle, since it only takes one to make a diff. Besides the lottery on which geezer might croak first,  Kennedy might not wait out the rest of Hussein's term, and he surely won't for another Dem presidency after him.   - OS

  You don't understand. Scalia has opined that it may well be reasonable to exclude certain firearm types under 2A.   "Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. [United States v.] Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those â€œin common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons."   So, what weapons would he (and the other justices) decide you don't have a right to keep and carry? What weapons would he decide are dangerous and unusual? We don't know till the rubber hits the road with a case on an individual type weapon, like the case under discussion here, if it works it way up.   - OS