btq96r

  Not really a surprise considering he's from Philadelphia.  He's even still a huge Eagles fan.       So, if you had people listening, or a metric ton of people reading your social media pages, you wouldn't talk out in support of gun rights?  I would.

Link?   Also, it's common enough for articles to use the "also known as" line instead of deferring to a screen name or YouTube handle.

  I'd imagine if a flag officer wants the blocks gone, his version of a SIGO will tell the network administrator to make it happen.

The jackass was looking at porn on his government computer. http://www.navytimes.com/story/military/2016/01/09/navy-strike-group-commander-fired-viewing-porn-work/78512588/

  Less than a month before the voting starts in Iowa and New Hampshire, you want candidates to pass up a chance to get publicity and raise funds off of fear mongering?   No, no, no...Obama has ended the Republic as we know it, and only (INSERT CANDIDATE HERE) can beat Hillary and fix things.

Ugh...a double Picard facepalm for this supposed defender of rights.

  In terms of actual effects on gun topics...pretty much nothing.  It was more of a PR push than anything else.  He's been catching a lot of flak for being so ineffective on guns, so he had to appease the base.  Why our side is so fearful of him, I'll never know.  Hell for all I know, he did it so he can go to the anti-gun crowd and ask them to help fund his future Presidential library.   Look at all the attention he's gotten for anti-gun efforts, both from the liberal and conservative media.  He effectively took control of the entire weeks media cycle, and now he has the State of the Union coming up on Tuesday, so there's another half week for him to push this narrative, and the rest of his final years agenda.  Part of me thinks he wants the Republican candidates on defense, having to play to their base extra hard while hurting them in the general over the issue, and the other part of me thinks this is slight of hand to avoid talking about foreign policy, or hiding something else.

He may be a public figure, but I think Hickok45 wants to be known by the gun community and professionally as Hickok45 for branding if nothing else.  His admitting to having a registered trademark on the name "Hickock45" leads me to that conclusion.    That said, it's like a pro wrestler...you know them by their stage name, but their real names are public info as well these days.  I doubt he goes around correcting people who use his given name in public ("call me Hickok45!").        https://www.everipedia.com/gregkinman3/   I'm wondering if he did this, or some overzealous fans did on his behalf.  Hickock45 doesn't strike me as wanting to branch out beyond YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter...so I could believe he's never even heard of this site. 

  I don't think cold is the right term.  He probably hasn't had a question that unfriendly to his agenda at a public event since the 2008 election. The way I saw it, he wasn't expecting it, and had to improv (not his natural strength) his way out of it.  So, where you see cold, I saw him just trying to get back on topic and not step on his feet doing so.   I'm also wondering how a person like Kimberly was able to ask a question like that.  Either the event wasn't screened in favor of the gun control side like people assumed it would be, or it was done so very poorly...otherwise Kimberly wouldn't even have been in the room let alone allowed to ask a question.

  Is it even still searching when it's still on Page 1 of the sub-forum? 

  I think they are still letting the lawyers tweak the exact wording for it behind the scenes.  The last thing they want is to screw up the implementation, and with as narrowly targeted as this is, it runs that risk.   The biggest thing was for the President to look "bold" on the issue. The lead up, holding that town hall, and on Tuesday, you can expect for him to reiterate it all during the State of the Union, the date everything was backwards planned from.  The effect of this (on all sides, including ours) is much more in the political spin than the actions taken. 

  Being in exact alignment with Rush made me reflexively think about it again...but yeah, I come out to the same conclusion. 

If one pull of the trigger (and I'm including the reset) results in more than one round being fired, how is it still a semi-automatic weapon?   That's not just me asking, that's a federal judge asking in the future.

I mentioned it in another thread, but I thought she stole the show during that event.  If her story and passion about defending her family can't resonate with those indifferent or on the fence with this issue, nothing will.   She's an excellent face to put forward for a gun rights argument.

Well, I disagree with them, obviously...but there are some hot chicks on that list (I'm talking about you Olivia's Munn and Wilde), and some very good entertainers.  So I'll just watch what I want and not care what they may think about my guns.

Taya was good, all the public speaking since her husbands murder has refined her talking style, and helps her come across very nicely.  Firm, yet not in your face about it.   But this woman stole the show in my opinion.  She pretty much left the President with no room to do anything except move on, as he had no real answer.  She had to endure the fear of every woman in America, and now has a family of her own to protect.  Her story is exactly the reason, and her telling it makes a powerful case explaining why people need guns. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/01/08/meet-kimberly-corban-the-pro-gun-rape-survivor-who-challenged-obama-on-cnn/

  Reviews and anything else going in the proper forum would keep future "digital clutter" from accumulating.  If people bumped an existing thread instead of creating a new one for the same subject (as applicable, and it often is), and we'd be all kinds of organized.

They'll have good years, and they'll have lean years, just like any other stock for a company that sticks around.  The price of the stock may double, but what would your dividends have been?  If you're holding onto a stock for a while, that's what you should figure out.

  There isn't an exact science to it, and it's really up to the potential ATF agents that come knocking at your door to make the call on constrictive intent and constructive possession.  Most people do SBR's with the AR, so they can get around it with enough wiggle room if they have different uppers >16" around.  But since you're putting together an MP5 SBR with the pistol you have en route your case is pretty singular, so why not play it safe?  That's what I did with my 10.5" AR upper while I only had one AR lower I was waiting to get a Form 1 approved on.  Getting it back was like getting it again for the 1st time.

  You really sure? https://www.atf.gov/firearms/qa/if-person-has-pistol-and-attachable-shoulder-stock-does-constitute-possession-nfa

You sure you want to have that stock sitting around next to the only firearm it could go onto before your Form 1 comes back with a stamp on it?    I'd find a friend to keep it on the top shelf of their closet for you.  But I'm paranoid about things like that.

Hickok45 may not use Google+, but Google owns YouTube, so... His best bet is to get a couple of industry sponsors and start his own website where he can post videos and written commentary.

Is the window between now and when this rule takes effect the last chance to file with a trust and avoid all this, or does the Form 1 or 4 have to be approved before that date (1 July or thereabouts)?

  I'm glad CZ is making things for the public, but a 16" version of the Scorpion has zero interest for me.  What does all that extra barrel do for a 9mm?  One of the best selling points of the 7" Scorpion pistol is that it makes a great HD/CQB weapon with or without a rifle stock as well.    Though get the carbines out on the market.  Maybe I'll be able to score a 7" Scorpion at a discount by someone looking to upgrade.  Their change can be my gain!

    That's what passes as a "petition" these days?  Good luck getting anyone to take it seriously.