btq96r

Funny, I thought to be a good American, all you had to do was follow our laws.  Guess all that goes out the window when the Islamic boogeyman is involved.

This was already full potato, and we're well on our way to a double potato.  The videos work in Google Chrome, but not Firefox for some reason on my computer.  They're worth watching. http://www.grandforksherald.com/news/education/3994383-video-professors-criticism-rotc-drills-und-campus-draws-internet-ire   I can see how she wouldn't know what was going on.  If I had to memorize the salient details of every mundane email I get from MTSU, I wouldn't have time for anything else...so I can believe she didn't know the ROTC cadets were going to be out there.  I can even understand why she might think that someone carrying guns could be a shooter, or en route to start shooting.  It's not out of the realm of theory to think an active shooter might be wearing camouflage uniforms.  There is even logic in thinking those were cops responding to an incident, since some LEO's think camofauge uniforms are all the rage.    If all she had done was call 911 at that point to report what she saw, the had things explained to her, and false alarm was declared, we'd be cool.  Everything that has happened since then (particularly the letter) is on her.  I'm sure that some people are going overboard in their responses, and that Facebook group is pretty stupid.  Doesn't absolve her actions after having the situation explained to her.

Ha, nice one.  A few years back, US Cav had a set of BDU's with MOLLE/PALS webbing all over so you could just put pouches on your coat and trousers.

  In abstract, I'd consider dealing with assholes a safety concern since assholes can go from verbally disruptive to physically disruptive easily enough.   What I'm talking about stuff like the gay wedding cake incident in the modern day, and the discrimination that occurred before the Civil Rights Act took effect.

If I was in charge of that ROTC detachment, I'd assign two cadets to stand guard in full battle rattle outside her door during office hours.  That way she can feel safe. ;)

  And so do those who would be refused service (not by you, just in abstract).  They help pay for the common defense, roads, and everything else that makes our country a safe and good place to open up shop.   I know I'm not going to change any minds, I'm just glad I live in a country where people can't be denied participation in commerce absent a health or safety reason.            Pfft...my bubble is just fine.  It some others that need popped.

  Every store owner has gotten assistance form the government; the safety of doing business in the Untied States and use of the roads that move their products and/or allow their customers to get from their homes to their doors. 

  I'm surprised they didn't think it was some kind of forgery.  A diplomatic passport is probably something they don't see much at all.

I'm fairly curious to see your final product here, Dolo. Pretty sure it will be worth the wait knowing you. Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk, because I felt that Oh Shoot wanted to know that particular bit of information.

I'm fine with the arena as a private entity declaring their venue off limits to guns.  Private property is private property.  I'm fine with the RNC declaring the convention off limits to guns if their contract with the arena doesn't prohibit that, since the convention is a private event.  That might not be the smartest move politically given their base, but it's not wrong from a legal perspective.  What I'm not fine with is the Secret Service getting to put a gun-free radius around whoever they happen to be providing protective services for.  That's the government infringing on the lawful carrying of arms by those vetted by the individual state, or states in the case of reciprocity.    The Secret Service can give all the pre-packaged statements they want about security, and the event being secure.  They can't guarantee 100% safety, and as a protective services provider, the only ones they have to care about protecting are individuals under their protection.  In other words, out of the thousands of people attending the convention, only a handful will be protected by the Secret Service, who will ultimately have control over pretty much anyone working security for the event.  Everyone else just has to hope things work out for the best.  Not exactly how the idea of individual protection works.

I'm using this belt from Daltech. Working great for me. As a bigger boy this isn't always an easy accessory choice,but I'm quite happy with the purchase. Also blends in well as an everyday belt look wise. https://www.daltechforce.com/gun-belts/stitched-bull-hide-bullbelt%C2%AE

Just over 41k signatures as of my posting.  https://www.change.org/p/quicken-loans-arena-allow-open-carry-of-firearms-at-the-quicken-loans-arena-during-the-rnc-convention-in-july-2   While I think this might be the only thing left that could add to the "must see TV" element if we have a brokered convention, I highly doubt it happens, but still, it's interesting.  I do wonder what they are talking about with Gov. Kasich and "executive authority to override the "gun-free zone" loophole."  Maybe there is a quirk in Ohio law, maybe the person who drafted the petition was talking out of their ass...who knows.

Like Pete, I've met Comms in person...it was actually at an event Pete sponsored for a veterans group.  While he was always quite identifiable as to the right in his politics and adamant about it, he wasn't over that line where disagreeing because disagreeable.  In person he was nothing like he came across online, which isn't uncommon.  Somewhere, he went past the "reasonable" line, and it culminated in this with MacGyver bringing out the ban hammer for the good of the site.  Just a reminder that the TGO Code of Conduct applies to us all.   If you recall, he was getting ready to leave the Army, ETS, not retiring. That's a time which can be full of stress and anxiety as you get closer to the day when a paycheck won't be coming in unless you have follow on employment lined up.  Doubly so for him since he has a family to care for.  So, maybe that led to his venting or letting lose on here.  Who knows.  Still, I wish him and his family the best going forward.     Onto other topics...Zero warning posts for me, but I apparently only have a one star rating as I see it from my user profile.  Guess I'm not a cool kid. :biglol:

To be fair, he probably should have needed a background check...I mean, if being an elected official isn't sketchy enough to warrant one, I don't know what is.

  I was wondering if he got it from our Trading Post as well.  Was thinking here, or off one of those Facebook groups.

I'm far more upset that even with a permit I can't carry into buildings I help pay for at least the maintenance of through tax dollars than I am at having to pay what isn't a horrible fee for that permit.    I get it, to some the principle of the cost of a permit is BS in the first place, and it certainly is when you know full well that the program is being billed to the public well above the cost to administrate it.   However, I don't disagree with the permit process itself, nor the qualifications and restrictions we have in place, as I'm not opposed to a standard that establishes who is in "the militia" as we would define it today.  But having the government tell me that even though I meet the standard established, I'm still not allowed to carry into buildings owned by the public, and that LEO's or other government security are allowed to do so so they (the government) can be protected is a particular insult in my eyes.   So, I'm in favor of non-restrictive over Constitutional Carry.

Seems the Army Chief of Staff is getting frustrated with the process. http://taskandpurpose.com/army-chief-eyeing-glock-pistol-services-next-sidearm/?utm_content=buffera13f1&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter&utm_campaign=tp-buffer Side note: Wish I could buy a Glock 19 that cheap. Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk, because I felt that Oh Shoot wanted to know that particular bit of information.

  If it can be proven that his mindset was one of disregard for life, which led to him escalating the conflict, or at least failing to deescalate it if he had that ability during this encounter, than what he has on his weapon, and any other forms of personal expression (which the dust cover wording represent) are valid, IMO.  Also, whatever departmental procedure is on the books for the situation will come into play as well, if he didn't follow it, that will be used against him as well.  Everything combined has to be taken into account to determine if it's a reasonable use of lethal force or not.   If it wasn't, that wouldn't be murder 1, or even 2 as the law defines it, but rather manslaughter (unless AZ is different).  It wouldn't be the first time a DA charged someone with murder to make a plea bargain to manslaughter more attractive, or get a conviction from a jury on a lesser charge.  But that's a separate issue altogether.

I saw this on another site and was shaking my head.  While I don't think it's an indication that the officer was enthusiastic about killing people (not by itself anyway), I do think it shows a lack of judgement and maturity on his part...so much so I'd question if he has the judgement and maturity to be a police officer in the first place.  If I'm the one prosecuting him, it's a line I'd pursue for the charges at hand.    Also, there is a failure of management in allowing something like that to be on a weapon used for official purposes.  I don't care if it was incompetence, apathy, or approval, on the part of the officers supervisory chain, any reason is unacceptable.

Damn, that's pretty.  The tungsten looks great, and I'm normally opposed to any finish other than evil black rifle.   What kind of muzzle break/compensator is on there?

  Just because I'm being critical in looking at the shooters actions, doesn't mean I'm defending the thief.  I also don't think this lady committed a crime.  I don't know the exact details of FL law, but in TN, I doubt she'd be charged based on what we know so far.  As to the kid, he's dead, so there isn't much to go over on his side of this.   If you're in the house, and the trouble comes to you, scan your lane and fire when ready.  Hell, if you walk in the front door after running errands and see people who came in through the back window or something, same advise.  But I'm wary if a person just decides to "Team America" it once they get a text message from their security company or any other situation where they know there is trouble.  There are just a lot of ways I can see this going wrong in a hurry.   ETA: This would probably be a good time for Chip or one of our resident lawyers to give us their input.

  Again, if you wouldn't do it without a gun, why would you do it with a gun?  Carrying a gun is to protect your life, not give you courage you wouldn't otherwise have.    And you can what if it all you want, the police came in this case.

The thing I want to know is exactly at what point, and where did she see the kid, and what exactly transpired (the 2nd part will be incomplete without more witnesses, probably).  Since the alarm alert came to her, and the police were on the way, she probably should have waited for the police to handle things, or at least clear the home to let her know it was empty.  When a 50something female decides to check things out, she all but put herself into a situation where her only option for self defense is lethal.  While I agree she has the right to defend her life, I would submit that she is culpable for putting herself into a situation she may well didn't have to be in.   In the big picture, what I'm worried about is people stretching "stand your ground" into some vigilante version of "movement to contact."  Basically, if you wouldn't do something without a gun, why would you think it's okay to do so with a gun?  Aside from the obvious issues of untrained, non-LEO personnel putting themselves into those kinds of situations, it's a fast way for those indifferent, or on the fence about gun rights to think the liberal side of things is the more relevant argument.       "Confrontation" is a wide spectrum.  Assuming it escalated to the point of life endangerment is assuming a lot.       I wasn't making a judgement, just pointing out there are inconsistencies against a clear case for self-defense that I could see.  As noted above, there is are a few things I'm wondering about just where the confrontation was for starters.

Iron sites or a red dot, it takes the same fundamentals of a proper position, breath control, and trigger squeeze to shoot well enough with either...so learning all that good boring stuff is more import than how much high speed-low drag gear you can put on the gun.

All this I said the last time we discussed this still applies: http://www.tngunowners.com/forums/topic/89164-military-handgun-contract/?p=1285002   I'll also add, that no matter how high-speed or supposed low maintenance a handgun is, unless it has proper maintenance from the user and the armorer, it's going to crap out eventually.  And sorry to pull back the curtain too far, but most unit armorers aren't some gunsmith in waiting, they're just someone who got picked to go to armorer school, and trust me when I say that it's usually not a stud from a line platoon that are picked for this duty.       You have to account for the fact that big Army is ordering for the Reserves and National Guard as well, so that's slightly over a million authorized personnel in uniform.  Plus, as TrickyNicky pointed out, that's the total number of guns produced over the life of the contract.  The military will just hold onto any extras and replace broken/damaged ones as needed.