btq96r

That law was passed in 2011, a year before SCOTUS held the enforcement of Obamacare was constitutional as a tax. It was a PR stunt then, and nothing more five years later. Good luck if you think the state of Tennessee is going to intercede on your behalf against the feds. People can lower their tax withholding as much as they like, the IRS will have your file open and waiting with penalties as allowed by law. Time will catch up sooner or later.

This too shall pass.

That's pretty much the scenario I'd be in when it's new car time. Paying cash would be great, but in the long run, it's probably better for me to leave my money where it is and take on a low interest payment plan.

So, you aren't going to file a tax return?

I can honestly say the car buying experience is the main reason why I've kept my beat up 2002 Ford Ranger for so long, despite having the ability to buy a new, or better used vehicle. It's just not worth dealing with the salesman and the industry practices as a whole to me.

It's probably one of the top reasons. The cost of housing is probably worse. MacGyver is right, the current sales practices aren't sustainable for the economy we have today. I think once the first major manufacturer to cut out the dealership as we know it today, and sell directly to the public, will change automobile sales as we know it.

I know the pay cash option is nice, but too many just don't have enough saved up to do that, and need a reliable vehicle. Plus, if the interest rate is low enough, a car loan isn't that bad, and can help people save up for an emergency, or keep funds flexible for things like moving, or other need money now to make it happen, but it's not an emergency kind of financial events. Congrats on the truck, and thanks for sharing your experience on the board for others to draw from. I can't ever see a scenario where I'll use dealer financing again. For my only car purchase, I was a 20yr old Joe in the Army with only a few years of credit history, so I was kind of stuck for options. Today, with a better understanding of how things work and a credit score over 800, I know I have the leverage. Most likely, I'll use my bank and their car buying service, which would get me a very low rate (provided I have a good job to back it up), so I like that option.

I got the same letter yesterday too, but the 62% is what they submitted to the state, so the actual number will be less...though how less is still up in the air. The final numbers will be a negotiation as much about politics as it is about economics. A 62% spike would have me paying $314 a month vice the $194 I pay now. Still lower than others, and with my per-existing condition, the only way I've ever had insurance outside of the Army, and DBA covering me while I was a contractor overseas. With BCBS, I'd guess their rate increase request is much higher than the others because their premiums were lower across the exchange (at least for me) when people compare plans. With that, they got the most people (myself included) and found that once people had access to healthcare, they started using it and those enrollment numbers became as liability. They're also probably upset that the government hasn't changed course about covering losses. So, they need the massive rate increase to bring them back to where this market is actually at. Politically, Democrats are worried about the timing of the final price roll-outs once the exchanges open for 2017 enrollment, since that happens a week before the election. http://www.politico.com/story/2016/04/obamacare-rate-hikes-a-looming-political-headache-for-democrats-222663

What he said. Prices for AR lowers are as cheap as they'll ever be right now. I honestly think companies like PSA, Primary Arms, and the rest have them so low to boost sales of their other inventory as people build an AR around a cheap lower. I'm tempted to pick one up, and I can't even think of a new full AR anytime soon.

We sell weapons (large and small) to a lot of countries, Middle East ones included. Some aren't controversial, like Kuwait and the UAE, others are iffy like Saudi Arabia (who we use as a go between to get them to Yemen), and then there are the sales to Pakistan, which should make anyone with half a brain wonder aloud about. Since it's a SOCOM solicitation, it leads me to think it's about arming local groups, like the ones fighting in Syria against ISIS and the Assad government. But the timeline would be for much later down the line. It could be for helping to equip a local force for a legitimate government that US Special Operations troops are working with, but I think that would be a secondary effort. Setting aside my reservations about arming any group in that part of the world, it makes sense logistically. We tried getting some of the Afghan and Iraqi armies used to M4s and M16s, but it was a waste since they don't practice marksmanship or weapons maintenance like we do, and they were used to AK's to begin with.

No, I feel the same way. Selling weapons to the Saudi, Kuwaiti, UAE, and even the Kurdish governments is one thing, arming insurgent groups to try and effect what is at best a half thought policy is a mess waiting to happen.

As to the captured portion, my unit had to send them up the chain, where their final disposition was handled somewhere else. I think they were destroyed in caches with controlled detonations as transportation and storage was cost prohibitive at the time.

They should have just taken every AK we confiscated in Iraq and Afghan, and stuck it in a warehouse in Kuwiat. More than enough to get the ball rolling on what they need this for. This is probably a workaround to the import bans that the President set up a few years back after the Russians annexed Crimea. I'm fine with keeping money out of Russian hands by building them in-house...but I'm not thrilled at who they might go to. Historically, arming foreign fighters has been a 10-20yr plan to having those weapons turned on us.

Start at page 40. They lay out the case that carrying concealed has never been a key part within the intent of the Second Amendment, and point to laws from pre and post civil war times to support that. https://d3bsvxk93brmko.cloudfront.net/datastore/general/2016/06/09/10-56971 6-9 EB opinion plus webcites.pdf

You all might not like this...but the judges made the right ruling, IMO. The plaintiffs didn't address carry in general, just concealed carry, and because that was the only type of carry argued, that was the only type of carry decided. They also found no historical evidence concealed carry was ever an intent of the 2nd Amendment, and they have a lot of evidence to back it up. From that, they decided that the state has the right to place whatever restrictions on concealed carry they see fit. From reading the opinion and glancing at the dissent, and this is what stuck out. From Judge Fletcher’s Opinion… We do not reach the question whether the Second Amendment protects some ability to carry firearms in public, such as open carry. That question was left open by the Supreme Court in Heller, and we have no need to answer it here. Because Plaintiffs challenge only policies governing concealed carry, we reach only the question whether the Second Amendment protects, in any degree, the ability to carry concealed firearms in public. Based on the overwhelming consensus of historical sources, we conclude that the protection of the Second Amendment- whatever the scope of that protection may be- simply does not extend to the carrying of concealed firearms in public by members of the general public. The Second Amendment may or may not protect, to some degree, the right of a member of the general public to carry firearms in public. But the existence vel non of such a right, and the scope of such a right, are separate from and independent of the question presented here. We hold only that there is no Second Amendment right for members of the general public to carry concealed firearms in public. (pg. 19) On firearm carry in general… If there is such a right, it is only a right to carry a firearm openly. But Plaintiffs do not challenge California’s restrictions on open carry; they challenge only restrictions on concealed carry. (pg. 51) From all that, the court found that any restrictions on concealed carry are legal, as there is no right protecting concealed carry by itself. If the plaintiffs had argued that California law prohibiting open carry by default makes their laws restricting concealed carry illegal, they would have had a new can of worms opened that might have been benefited by Heller and McDonald. But, since they chose to challenge concealed carry alone, they didn't get to make that argument. This part was interesting, since it's the majority of the court saying they didn't factor in one of our favorite arguments, that "carry permit holders are less likely to commit crime" that was submitted through amicus briefs... Nationwide, since May 2007, concealed-carry permit holders have shot and killed at least 17 law enforcement officers and more than 800 private citizens- including 52 suicides. (pg. 54) Finally, the tried and true standard of courts deferring to legislatures, even if they're stupid (e.g.: California)... ...lawmakers are entitled to weight he severity of the risk as well as the likelihood of its occurrence. (pg. 54) So, sorry folks, this is a loss we have to take.

I'd say having a decent web browser scanner is a good part of the layered steps. I use Avast's Browser Security and Web Reputation Plugin for Firefox, and they pop up a warning for me when I reach a sketchy site. Also, using https as much as I can vice http is a tactic I emply as well.

That's an SBR done right. Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk just to give Oh Shoot something to be grumpy about.

I grew up in the city right next to Everett (place in the video). Wouldn't surprise me one bit if the attacker was high on something that helped him close the gap despite getting shot. Good tactics by the officer, and good on the city for releasing the video. This is how close the guy got from a still shown by another camera...

You should still be able to pay cash for it if you go through a bank service. They'll try to package it with a car loan, but I think you can just bypass that and put down 100% as a down payment. Worst case, make sure the loan has a no early payoff penalty and just pay it all off the first month.

@MacGyver Have you checked to see if your bank has some kind of car buying service? Mine has a "build your own car" type of thing where you select the make, model, and all the rest from a menu, then they quote you a price.

Not sure if I've posted this before or not, but this is how America heard that the invasion was happening. https://archive.org/details/Complete_Broadcast_Day_D-Day

Fair enough. I hope they do well, but I'm not joining the NRA just to have another option to shoot indoors. The NRA rubs me the wrong way. But I'm not failing to support the 2nd Amendment. I have a life membership in the Second Amendment Foundation. They're not as glitzy, or political, but they are the ones who led the fight in the McDonald case, which was pretty important for "our 2A rights for the future." Their efforts are court battles, and they are sponsoring a lot of cases across the country.

A tracksuit would be good pedo cover, not so much gray man.

@LawEnforcementSalesTN squared away my SBR for engraving. You can PM him if you need some help with this.

Friggin' beautiful, man. I wish I could draw like that.