btq96r

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

Just put down some duckets for one of each. Thanks.

I think once they realize how much money in range fees they stand to lose by making it NRA only, they'll change their mind. If they were serious about providing incentive for people to join gun rights organizations, they'd open it up to GOA, SAF, SCC, and other groups that do good work for gun rights.

I think rifles as seen today would still be offered, with cans as an add on item much like you can get a handguard or muzzle break. Also offered would be the factory suppressed option, but I don't think non-suppressed guns would go extinct.

Complying with a registration law wouldn't be unpalatable to the point of civil disobedience to me. Confiscation is a different story, and one I hope we never have to hear. That said, I'm sure those who would want both are constantly evaluating the risk/reward of implementing their wishes.

I'm in the "not worried about registration leading to confiscation" camp. I'm also in the "it's BS that SBR's and silencers/suppressors are on the NFA list" camp.

My UPS store in Murfreesboro on S. Rutherford Blvd is the same way. They wouldn't even let me ship some AR magazines, instead telling me I needed to take it to the service center. I think they just don't want the liability that a "sue em' all" lawyer might bring, or to dwell into an area of the law they aren't comfortable with. Considering these are franchised small businesses with limited time and resources, I can respect that.

Been wearing this offering from Daltech Force. Holding up very well for IWB and OWB carry, and looks good as everyday wear as well. https://www.daltechforce.com/gun-belts/stitched-bull-hide-bullbelt%C2%AE

I'd say the difference in lying is how it effects others directly. Goes back to the your rights end at the infringement of mine kind of thinking. Either way, the protections afforded to the press are for the best, even when the play hopscotch with integrity in their reporting. Either way, this is a problem because the majority of people are dumb enough to believe whatever they see/hear/read without exercising independent thought. Or they have a formed opinion that won't let them accept an argument countering it. It is what it is.

I don't agree. Also, left out of your lying to LEO example is that it's legal, and accepted practice for them to lie to suspects, which is questionable at best. So all around, lying is widely protected legally, with specific circumstances that are debatable. I think that's a good thing for better or worse when you think of how creating a law that would make lying open to prosecution could be abused by those "interpreting" speech. That's not something I want on the table with the direction we're headed politically.

Just got done listening to it...very close as far as I "scored" it. I think the lawyer for the pro-gun side failed to make the case that assault weapons are popular enough to be warranted the same protections as handguns under Heller. He stumbled a bit, and I think he pushed the "lawful purposes" line a bit too much. He was looking to add it as often as he could, even when it didn't seem to fit to the topic. There were obviously some of the judges out to discredit his argument out of an anti-gun, or pro-legislature mindset, but that was to be expected. The attorney for Maryland was checked pretty hard on a lot of issues. Of particular note was how assault weapons can be banned under the justification of public safety because they are prolific in mass shootings, but handguns, which account for 94% of murders overall can't be banned after Heller. Also mentioned during the defense time was the recent SCOTUS case on stun guns, which I found interesting. In all, I think this one will be close. I couldn't make out more than a half dozen voices, so that's a lot of judges that sit quietly listening. Cross your fingers folks...if Maryland's AWB can be ruled unconstitutional, any AWB can be.

The media is a business, and a business needs a customer base. You need to look at each individual outlet through that prism instead of the "they need to be fair" line of thought.

My condolences to his friends and family.

Here's the audio from the En Banc hearing from earlier this month if anyone is interested. I'm going to give it a listen sometime this weekend. Very cool for the court to make it available online. http://coop.ca4.uscourts.gov/OAarchive/mp3/14-1945-20160511.mp3 From what the trends of the other En Banc cases seems to be, we can expect an opinion in 4-7 months (probably varies for recesses during the year).

I've got a few people I knew that were lost in Iraq and Afghanistan that I'll be remembering as part of my Memorial Day. This day is for them, and all the others through the centuries that lost their lives for something bigger than themselves. It's also for all the gold star families. The burdens they've been forced to carry cannot be understated. So many stories of families having to move on from such a tragedy, it can give a grown man an allergy attack.

Anyone who talks about the UN as an potential force for confiscation has never seen a UN force in the field.

This is what's got me...http://thewellnessdigest.com/adductor-pollicis-muscle-thumb-pad-and-thumb-pain. I went and got the thumb stabilizer they recommended today since it wasn't that much and I'll be wearing it, hoping it helps in conjunction with some OTC NSAIDs. I'm hoping it's better in a week or so.

No real progress for me, and I've hit a small snag in my efforts. I think I strained something in my hand, because any type of effort involving my left thumb is very limited and a bit painful. it's keeping me from pretty much any kind of strength training, which I use in my workouts a motivation, and for the extra burn since I lift after doing cardio. I've been taking NSAID's and will have to see the doc if it doesn't clear up before too long.

When I was a team leader, controlling rate of fire during battle drills was probably one of the most hectic things I had to do. One time during STX lanes, my squad leader was our evaluator, and if a guy ran out of ammo, all he would let him do was just lay there and make bounding movements instead of pretending they were still contributing to the fight. A few contact drills into the exercise, there were only two of us with any ammo left and we got the point. After that we took a pause and had a chat about the need to be more judicious with our rate of fire. Fully concur on the points you raise about full auto. It makes more sense than a three round burst as an option on a rifle, but it's still something not worth using under what I would call 95% of circumstances. If accurate auto fire from a rifle was as simple as moving the selector and letting er' rip, then the bad guys would have put a lot more rounds on target, because their rate of fire discipline was just atrocious.

Again, courts defer to legislatures unless they're out of bounds. Their concept of increased danger would win, unless they are in violation of a specific law that can can be shown by a plaintiff. Kind of like how some cities are ignoring the guns in parks law and we all know that's bull when you read the law. Not sure on where the cases are on that, yet. It wouldn't be right for a court to look at empirical data and use that to overrule elected officials when they are technically within the bounds of the law as it stands.

Everest can kill meat eaters just as easily, it doesn't discriminate. Give them credit for trying though, not an easy thing.

He's got a ton of stuff like that. His apartment looked like a gun museum the last time I was there.

That's because such facts are irrelevant to these cases. It's all about whether or not a government is within the bounds of its authority in passing and enforcing the law as written. Maybe in our state, the wording of our Constitution having "with a view to prevent crime" in the wording it can stick, but courts have historically deferred to legislatures as to something like "a view" being up to them. The place to inject the facts and statistics you mention is in the legislative fights, but even there, they do little good. Most legislatures are just playing their part from a script, with the committee hearings and votes being for show. The TN General Assembly is a great example of this.

Ditto. I'm not up on the tumblr brands, so unless Yeti or Orca offer some kind of amazing benefit that will be apparent for this thing to sit in my drink console or be by water sipper at home, the cost markup wouldn't be worth it.

Planning for taxes is pretty simple; set aside a bit more than what you estimate you'll owe in a worst case scenario as it comes in. I was my own business for a while myself (sub-contractor on DoD contracts) and I had to handle my money using big boy rules. I was never caught unprepared when my accountant gave me the damage report once he went over all my 1099s and expense spreadsheets. You're mixing in business taxes, which are separate from capital gains tax. I'm talking as an individual filer. Not sure if you have a S-Corp or LLC set up, but for this discussion, you and your business are not the same entity tax wise. If you're taking disbursements from your business as a supplement to your income once the books are even, sorry, it's tax time. I'd be more sympathetic in a discussion at allowing business revenue to be taxed less if its put back into the business, but once it hits an individual as income (regular or bonus), or investment returns, it needs to be taxed. Equal protection isn't a tax issue, as taxes aren't punitive (legally anyway). I don't believe that someone who is successful should be punished, but I do think they can be assessed at a higher rate and we'll all be better for it.