btq96r

I've been skimming the opinion, and so far have found some gems that are as close as poetic as we'll ever see from a court for gun rights.  Here are a few quotes that should make anti-gunners cry: In our view, “the right to possess firearms for protection implies a corresponding right” to possess component parts necessary to make the firearms operable. (This was in reference to the magazine restrictions) The State’s position flows from a hyper-technical, out-of-context parsing of the Supreme Court’s statement in Heller…The proper standard under Heller is whether the prohibited weapons and magazines are “typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes ”as a matter of history and tradition, id. at 625 (emphasis added), not whether the magazines are often actually employed in self-defense incidents. More importantly, it is the government’s burden to establish that a particular weapon or activity falls outside the scope of the Second Amendment right…Contrary to the district court’s conclusion, the fact that handguns, bolt-action and other manually-loaded long guns, and, as noted earlier, a few semi-automatic rifles are still available for self-defense does not mitigate this burden.     That would have been nice, but Maryland's laws were pretty bad, and this ruling did a lot to put them in their place.    While Maryland is the only egregious anti-gun state in the 4th Circuit, this ruling gives other courts a helluva lot of what is known as persuasive authority in legal terms for other courts to draw from.

Seeing the few Bond movies where Pierce Brosnan used a Walther P99 didn't make me go buy one, but it made me look into them.  After doing my homework, I liked what I saw and got the one that I've had for 12 years now.

  The Heller case is refereed nineteen frigging times in the opinion...this is awesome!

I'm still reading and digesting all the info, but this is a good day for gun rights, even if it isn't an outright denial of overreach since they only kicked it back.  It seems the aftereffects of Heller and McDonald are felt in this one.  Some very valid logic was applied, and it's worth special attention that the Chief Judge of the Circuit who wrote the majority opinion was appointed by President Clinton in 1998.     Read the rest of the story here: https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/appeals-court-decision-casts-doubt-on-marylands-assault-weapons-ban/2016/02/04/8a234240-cb59-11e5-88ff-e2d1b4289c2f_story.html   And the full opinion here: http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Published/141945.P.pdf     The politics/law geek inside me is giddy to dive into this one. ;)

USAA lists guns as a specific item to insure under their Valuable Personal Property, saying they'll cover "Legally-owned firearms, scopes, cases and accessories."  I don't have any of my guns, or my optics listed at the moment, but I should probably change that.  The only thing I actually have under the policy are watches, since aside from guns and my truck, I don't own anything that is too expensive for renters insurance to cover.   ETA: Just remembered this thread had an another purpose entirely.    So, this legislator is obviously a bit out there.  But on the whole Vermont is very good for gun rights, and some of the land up there is just awesome.  So, I hope this idea never makes it past the ridicule stage.

It could be an SA fail, it could be a holster fail, and I'd say there is equal chance it could also be the fact that some people, open or concealed carry, aren't going to win a 2-on-1 fight under a lot of circumstances.    I don't think there is anything wrong with open carry as a tactic, and I do so from time to time.  You do need more situational awareness, but not to some massively increased degree than you should already have.  Open carry doesn't mean you shouldn't go into an area or situation you wouldn't otherwise or anything, same for concealed.  Positioning is more important too.  Open carrying anywhere behind 3 or 9 o'clock on the belt isn't prudent, IMO.  Reading that some people open carry in spots where their reach doesn't have much strength to go with it has me scratching my head. 

  That's what rollover prone is for...granted I've only done it at a shooting class and not hunting.  But transferable if within enough distance I'd imagine.

  I'd be interested if they had a plate that recognized service in both Iraq and Afghanistan.  Right now it's either or, but plenty of post 9/11 veterans were deployed to both places.   Agree that the submarine plate is cool.  As it should be, that's an important duty those guys pull.

  It's not paranoia, it's called low-vis, and I practice it as well.

  The money people are paying their HMO's every month would just be routed to taxes and not the monthly bill, so, after that amount, only the rest would be a net loss to someones disposable income.    Also, there are differences in what levels of government can tax in other countries.  I think that only the federal government can tax income in Germany, with the Länder (their equivalent of our state level) having a small add on that gets collected (it amounts to only a few hundred euros difference based on location with this calculator).  Once the federal government is funded, the rest is then divided up on some kind of quota/apportionment system back to the states where they get to decide how to spend it.  Not sure how their VAT (sales tax) works.    Then there are the differences in that the German/UK model is paying for a cradle to grave welfare state.  I'm not advocating for that, just better healthcare since I see it as a public interest.  People should still have to work a job for a living, and if they aren't willing to, screw them.  Either way you're looking at a different system with different taxes and services, so a direct what they pay vs. what we pay comparison is too simplistic, IMO.     Fully agree that an independent 3rd party would be needed to do any kind of CBA for all this.  Finding enough people that can do it, but don't have an agenda would be the hard part.  Both liberal and conservative think tanks would want to stack the deck on that one.

  They weren't as good as BCBS from what the marketplace showed me on comparison.  I may get away from the marketplace next year depending on my employment situation after I finish undergrad work in the fall, we'll see.  Right now a lot of my "everyday stuff" is taken care of since I can see the doctors on campus at student health services for free, and only end up paying for tests, shots, and RX's.  That's helped a lot.   One thing that sucked is my CPA finished my taxes for the year, and I missed getting out of the "Medicare Gap" by only a few thousand, so I wasn't able to get any tax credits for my healthcare plan.

  I'd like to think it was simple ignorance, but I could believe lying too.  The "claim' is showing as pending online, but nothing is in yet.  So, I'll have to check it all when it hits.  Thanks.

  Every system has "rationing" to some effect.  It's either an individual budget choice, an HMO saying what they will or won't cover, or a government doing the same.

  Depending on what changes, I don't think income taxes would have to be doubled, but if there could be a public system that can deliver medical services at an acceptable level, then I think it's at least worth a cost benefit analysis of seeing how much taxes would have to go up.    I'm going to spend over $2,300 in 2016 for an insurance plan that doesn't pick up a dime unless my medical bills accumulate past $5,400.  That's basically to avoid going bankrupt by medical bills if I get hit by a bus.  Any office visits, RX refills, special tests, ect.. are all costing me now in addition to that $5,400.  Plenty of people are paying a lot more, and pooling that money into a public option may yield better results.  So, yeah, I'd say why not look at the pros and cons.   Like I said, Germany has a setup worth studying.  They've had some form of government provided healthcare since Bismarck set up their first system in the 1880s.  I think we can borrow at least a few ideas that make sense from them.  The ACA tried it a bit, but it was still a giant blowjob to the insurance lobby (risk-corridors for insurance companies is the most glaring one). http://www.commonwealthfund.org/topics/international-health-policy/countries/germany http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/04/what-american-healthcare-can-learn-from-germany/360133/   Letting the HMO's, who have a fiduciary duty to shareholders as priority #1 set the stakes hasn't been working very well, IMO.  We need to actively look at ways to find a happy medium between a private for profit industry bleeding us dry and an inefficient government run system that can't do anything right.

  I'm not convinced we have the "best medical system for a large country."  Based on what I read, I like Germany's model (mix of about 75% public and 25% private).  And, as mentioned above, the UK version is pretty good.   I will concede that it's all speculative, and that the US may be too large in population, sub-division (50 states each having a stakeholder claim), and political influence to be any kind of apt comparison.  I just know our system isn't automatically the best.  Maybe we have the best specialists on something like heart surgery or any other complex operation, but day to day routine care....hard for me to think so.   As to the selling vs. deceiving argument, the HMO's and the healthcare industry at large do more than enough deceiving and lobbying on the hill as well.

  It works well enough in the United Kingdom.

  Pretty much my situation, except I have a $5,200 annual deductible across the board in-network, and the co-pay takes it up to $6,400 out of pocket.  But it was the most affordable plan month to month for me.  I'm not mad so much that I have to pay out of pocket for the (relatively) small stuff, it's that I can't get a straight answer from medical offices who are more compartmentalized than the CIA.   And we wonder why so many people are ready to embrace a single payer system and get rid of such a mess. 

  I'm guessing Stones River was pretty crowded on Saturday with it being a Spring like day in January.  I can see a full firing line there being a concussive hell.   Maybe try it on less than perfect Sunday to see if you notice a difference.

  Maybe next time, lead with this ^.  :D

To be sure, it's a copycat industry.  Making it look like current military issue equals sales dollars.  That includes the 1/7 twist that was for tracer rounds, which I'd imagine less than 1% of civilians ever fire from their own rifle.    The problem with the A2's in the military is a lot of them are just old and beat up.  Plus in the era of every sight, scope, or optic you could ask for, the fixed carrying handle is a handicap.  The Marines found a great compromise when the fielded the A4's, but even they have decided to go with M4 carbines as the standard infantry weapon.  Anything you can't hit with an M4 should be taken care of with a 7.62x51 rifle anyway...or an Apache.

The "good weather" was last week.  If this early spring keeps up, I'll have to start cutting the grass again.

Bumping this thread to share my tales of WTF...last Friday was my first experience dealing with the insurance process, and Judas Priest was it a clusterfawk.    At the recommendation of my everyday doctor, I went to see a specialist because apparently having high blood pressure (meds control it) and a good bit of sleep issues isn't good for me.  Seems that my thinking I was good to go with random naps to make up for a 3-4 hour night of sleep in the week, and catching up on weekends would be fine isn't a valid course of action by medical actions.  Thus, it's off to see if I need to be checked for sleep apnea.   Now, I had a feeling I'd be paying for most if not all of the visit, but what kills me is I couldn't get any kind of estimate for what I'm about to be charged.  The lady at the office reception window who checked me in gave me the number of the billing department, and the billing department (not in our state, of course) said they had to wait until they got the codes from the office to put a number on it.  So, with all that, all I let happen was a visit with the doctor, more a consultation than anything else where he asked me some questions, did the standard push tests (does this hurt), yadda, yadda.  So, I'm hopeful that I don't get a huge bill once it goes through everything.  Apparently it's going direct to the insurance company, who will pass on every bit to me, unless it gets to my annual cap which would make me have that stroke I'm trying to avoid.   So, my question is this...is this kind of hidden fee thing common if you need to see specialists like that?  I kept getting the "we don't know what the doctor will do" line, but how can there not be a basic office visit fee if no special equipment comes out or the visit is kept to <30 min?

  Listen to Christie's views on government surveillance, I'd say he's equally, if not more hostile to the 4th Amendment than he is the 2nd.  Because, you know...t€rrori$m i$ €vi£ and mu$t b€ d€f€at€d at a££ ¢o$t$.

Check the local pawn shops with an FFL. Since you aren't taking away from their main storefront business when transferring, they aren't needing to charge what they'd make as profit forba gun sale, or close to it as a transfer fee.

I don't Facebook, but I think I would find buying a gun on there only a step above doing it via Craigslist.  At least with places like TGO's Trading Post, or GunBroker you can look at peer feedback of a buyer/seller.  I'm pretty big on having some kind of verification system involved.   End of the day, their site, their rules as others have said.  I don't think it's a big deal for the gun market so much as a PR feel good for the anti-gun side.   I guess during the next AR scare, people are going to have to sell marked up black guns the old fashioned way.