Whisper

Not much of a surprise here. Trump was a gun-banning Democrat before he decided it would be more advantageous to pretend to be a Republican. He sees a chance for personal advantage in banning bump stocks. If he perceives personal advantage in infringing on the RKBA in other ways, he will do it eagerly. But if it's clear more gun-grabbing will cost him, he won't. Our job is to make sure he understands that it will cost him big.

I've decided to start a serious search for a Beretta 1301, but as I look around, the Viper model appears to be consistently priced below the regular 1301 Tactical -- sometimes by several hundred dollars. From what I read, the Viper is a Lipsey's exclusive model, but other than having the ugly camo pattern, are there any differences between it and the regular 1301? I just can't figure out how they can add the camo job and sell it for less than a black version. I'd prefer a black one, but if I can save $300, I can live with the camo. Anyone know? Also, if you have a used one -- any color -- that needs a new home, please drop me a line. Thanks, Whisper

Look for some more reviews. The ones I am seeing are quite positive.

Over the years I've tried and broken most models of sight pushers, sometimes on the first use. Not because I'm that strong, but because most of the sight pushers are just junk that will work on some easy sights but are not about to budge something like sights on an M&P. I've never broken an MGW and have yet to find a pistol sight the MGW won't move. Nothing else is even close in quality or capability. Cheers, Whisper

Or by changing our leadership.

You are right that the $200 tax is a small drop in the bucket, but Omega is right that they will never give it up. This was never intended to provide a source of revenue -- it was intended only to harass gun owners. As long as it performs that function, the authoritarians will protect and preserve it. They don't care about the money. They care about the harassment.

I've noted, I believe on this very forum, that Trump was a gun-banning Democrat before he decided it would be advantageous to pretend to be a Republican. But he actually has no genuine party or political affiliation. He's singularly focused on self-advancement, to the exclusion of all else. This means that he gets some things right and some things wrong, but he doesn't do anything that stems from a coherent political philosophy.

Of course they don't. But it's important that they use this particular piece of legerdemain to eliminate bump stocks without legislation, so that they can use the same tactic for all semiautos in a future presidency.

I doubt that's the reason. They still have the Michonne-Rick baby (sorry, I don't recall his name) to deal with on set. Plus they had to figure out some way to explain Maggie's disappearance since Lauren Cohen got a job doing a network spy comedy. If it flops -- and the idea of a network spy comedy sounds thoroughly dreadful to me -- then Maggie can come back to TWD.

Great class. Tiffany and Aqil are both excellent instructors. I learned a lot and will train with them again. Cheers, Whisper

Regarding Frank Sinatra -- he was actually announced at one point as the star of the film, and there are even "Dirty Harry" movie posters listing Sinatra as the star.

It's on CBS two days before the election. It's designed to stir up anti-gun sentiment in voters. Any factual content will be accidental. Hope this helps, Whisper

I'm in. Hope to see others from TGO there. Cheers, Whisper

The last two episodes have been good, and this coming weekend's "farewell Rick" show will likely draw big viewership, but after that I'll be surprised if ratings don't continue their decline. The TV show and the comics will have diverged pretty far by that point and maybe that will create enough uncertainty about the TV show storyline to keep interest, but I am not optimistic.

On both the left and the right. The psychos aren't all allied on the same side. Keep your eyes open.

Yeah, this is not what most guys mean when they talk about whacking off. At least I don't think it is.

One of my brothers had an EAA revolver. One evening we were dry firing it in his living room and the hammer just broke off. I don't mean the firing pin, I mean the whole hammer. I don't think he even tried to get it repaired. I have fired some Taurus .38 revolvers and they worked OK. Not as good as a Smith or a Ruger, but for someone who can't afford anything better, it would be preferable to being unarmed. Cheers, Whisper

Tons of guns at the Academy Sports in Smyrna.

M274 military mules. The original ATV. I'd love to have one in original paint scheme.

If you like sci fi you should be watching "The Expanse." First two seasons are on Amazon. Be aware there's some action. But also some pretty far-out imagining of what first contact with alien life might be like. One of the stars is Thomas Jane, who played the title role in the original "Punisher" movie and the short film "Dirty Laundry." I liked "The Expanse" TV show so much I read all 13 books in the series.

I was an avid reader of science fiction at this time, and what people may not recall is that the novelization of the film was published before the film was released. I'd just read the book when the movie came to town. Went to the movie with my future ex-wife and a couple of friends, one of whom is now deceased. Time flies.... Cheers, Whisper

I was 20 and had just dropped out of college. Didn't get to bum through Italy, though, so I guess you win.

Is this directed at that troll who was here for a while claiming that the moon landing was fake? I've been reading that "First Man," the new film about the first moon landing, does a good job of showing what a risky and uncertain endeavor that was. Cheers, Whisper

Also -- if you don't mind the hinged trigger (I am fine with mine) you can replace only the sear, which is the modification I made to my original Shield (actually to two of them -- mine and the one my wife now carries). Cheers, Whisper

I have both the original Shield in 9mm and the Shield .45, which has the 2.0 features. I greatly prefer the heavily textured grip of the 2.0 to the grip of the original. The original is not bad, but it's just a little bit too slippery. If it's a gun you plan to keep for a long time, the 2.0 is probably worth the difference in price just for the much better grip texture. (Note -- My wife finds the 2.0 grip too rough for her liking and prefers the original, so my view on the grips is clearly not universally held. Make sure you fire both before you buy so that you can judge for yourself.) The only other difference of any significance between the original and the 2.0 Shields is the trigger -- it's much better in the 2.0. However, if you get the original, you can put an Apex sear in it for $40 and it is a vast improvement. If you can get the original Shield for more than $40 less than the 2.0, and you don't care about the grip texture, then that would be the way to go. That's my opinion, and it's worth every cent you paid for it. Cheers, Whisper