Smith

Haha, I thought you might like that!

You would be better off selling the M&P and getting a 1911, but you will have to pony up more cash especially if you want a better 1911. However, the RIA, Metor Arms, Etc. aren't bad at all for the price. Keep in mind you are comparing apples and oranges. The M&P is a better gun as far as weight, capacity, takedown, recoil, quick follow ups, etc. The 1911 is going to be more accurate and have a better overall trigger (although the M&P gets close with trigger work). Both have easy to find parts and power ( in SD loads) is statistically even. If you shoot the 1911 better and you don't mind carrying twice the weight and half the rounds of the M&P ... get it. Carry guns are lesson in compramise. Only you can determine what you are willing to trade.

Proof?

If you are going to carry IWB, you can't beat a Crossbreed. I don't carry one but I know a lot of guys who were skeptical of trying to carry a full size 1911 due to weight and size. They come back to the store raving about how comfortable and easy to carry the Crossbreed makes the 1911. It spreads the weight out so it feels a lot lighter, it is tuckable, it stays open for reholstering, and it is comfortable. For pics - crossbreed 1911 - Google Search

Having sold all of them at some point (Uverse the exception) switch when ever your contract experires. You will stay on the peromotional rates and beat them at their own game. IMO, you get more for your money with Dish than Direct. U verse I'm not familiar with. I go to cable in between cycles of the satelite companies just to get better deals.

Haha! Sentra? Really? Just messing with you. At least put a brush guard on it for mowing them down.

Yep, This! ^ Besides all they can do is ask you to leave. If at that point you refuse, you will be charged with trespassing. To enforce the "carrying past a posting" law an officer woul dhave to see you blatantly walk past the sign. There is a reason God gave each one us a brain and not just the police. This is likely what the officer was suggesting to you.

I love Walmart. I'm also from Arkansas and remember stories about my great grandfather opening the 2nd Walmart in Harrison, AR and his stories of his friends the Walton's, so I guess I'm partial. I find it funny how people tout the American Dream until it's too successful! Doesn't mean I like everything they do these days, but come on! How much more American Dream can it get?

Each man will come to a reckoning. He better be sure of how he reckons.

I get what you are saying. I think what I'm saying is give me statistical data to back up the need for tighter or looser restrictions. Cite founding Father statements in regard to 2A interpretation. Cite Suprem court and lesser court rulings on the matter. Agruements from actual "experts" on these issue. I personally don't care what Jane or Jon Doe opines about an issue they can't back up with out the above. If they can? No problem. Or even couch their opinons with the obove to either support or rebuke their opinion as the facts lay them out. Let people respond to opinion with evidence instead of "feelings". Emotions may charge a story, but truth will carry it. Right or wrong a lot of these stories seem to come from a premise that opinion should be the primary motive for shapping laws and regulations. I disagree and believe the Constituition should be a more firm platform on issues that are directly named or structured with that framework.

I think the problem may be with what most of us consider facts. When I say facts I'm referring to empirical data related to the issue at hand. Unless I'm wrong, your presentations of "facts" relates to opinions of different people as being "real" and what they believe to be facts with or without validation. I was under the impression that journalism was about presenting unbiased empirical data in order that the discussion may find a conclusion, not to broaden the "discussion". I can see why you are arguing your stance, but it is going to be a difficult one because no amount of facts will support neutrality. The more "facts" there are the more it will lead to a conclusion or as some will call it ... bias. That is not a bad thing. Of course that doesn't sell as many papers or else the New England Journal of Medicine would be a best seller! Again, we are not going to see eye to eye on this and I can sense your level of frustration rising. Just keep in mind that most of us on this forum seldom agree on most issues. Just do an article on Religion or the GOP candidate on this forum. It will make this issue look like consensus.

Not the best example. You do have to register a vehicle and there is no constitutional right that allows you to own one.

While I think the stores that advocate for private sales checks think it would bring in more revenue for them, I think the long term net gain would be a negative. Most private sales are ways for individuals to free up money in a less desirable gun in order that they can buy more guns. If you cut off or stifle the ability to liquidate used guns at retail prices you ultimately choke off a large source of new gun money for stores. I think the stores who advocate private checks are being near sighted. Of course that isn't the largest issue in regards to limiting private sales but it does seem to be the only practical arguement they could make.

I like Bill Bernstein, but why do the papers seem to have East Side (for pictures), Bufford Tune, and Uselton on speed dial for 2a related opinion and pictures? It's like using Apu down at the Kwik-E-Mart as an expert on mid east oil policy.

While fundamentaly I still disagre with some of the premises of the arguement, you have represented yourself well. Personally I think we've had a good discussion. Keep it up.

Hard to beat for the money and if you de a search you will find they have been tortured and abused and hold up just fine.

Haha, might want to check your "science" and the term "theory". You are also assuming you know my world and life view from one topic. I'm arguing for facts not opinion and scientific theories are an entirely different scholastic endeavor. Kinda like the every reasonable 15th century person knew the earth was flat and that the sun circled the earth. Cause you know, science and all.

You kinda made my point. You seem to be implying that there can be no conclusive answer as long as there is opposition. That somehow if there are enough people who ardently argue and are passionate that the sky is forest green despite the facts then we must give them equal share in the discussion and legitimize their grievance. The old "seriousness of the charge" argument. If the facts can't lead to an answer, what is the point of the question and subsequent discussion?

Rusty, they are here and ready for you! I got to "inspect" them and they are a work of beauty! Very nice guns.

For a quiet guy you speak loudly!

So what was the gun the Israelis were using that they switched from citing amongst other things - desert reliability concerns?

Actually they are nothing alike. As to why they are better? They are newer, and we can't have them!

Absolutely he is doing a good job. The label is not on Brian but the paper he works for IS biased and does not hide that fact. They have been more open since their subscriptions have plummeted over the years but it is what it is. My point is not with Brian but the system and the premise. If the facts advocate for themselves then the facts have been presented. Everything else IS opinion. However, even using the "loophole" terminology in quotes shows you how stacked it is against us. The minority has dictated a word usage that we have to use in the conversation. Kinda like "guns in bars". That's actually counter factual. As to being offended ... hardly offended and I doubt Brian needs coddling either.

Runs ambidextrous, is much smaller without sacrificing barrel length, and is reliable. Nope, it's not an AR

Problem is you ARE presenting from a bias. The use of terms like "gun show loophole" already accepts one sides definition of the discussion. You should know full well that who ever defines the terms defines the discussion. So by allowing the oppositions terms as normality you are being biased whether you realize it or not. It's just lazy to not work past that issue to truly present a level story. Facts are that the issue at hand is not against the law, there is no factual basis to back up the opposition, and in fact the statistics support the pro private sale opinion. A story based on anything other than the facts of the discussion is disingenuous and IS an article of opinion. Not trying to beat you up, but you are correct that an actual factual story would not be published becasue facts tend to be biased. Opinion sways with emotional instability, facts stand regardless. The system is stacked against you and I am glad you are at least making an attempt. Welcome to our side.