btq96r

The bayonets being transferred were a joke.  Even troops overseas don't carry them anymore. No reason whatsoever for a police force to have them.  Using an M79 is a legit way to deploy tear gas, but so is just tossing it.

  Bingo.  The exact balance between the two is still in debate, but no legitimate polling group relies on land lines alone anymore.       I know that the campaigns (Sanders & Clinton) are paying consulting groups for polling already, so it might have been one of those.  If that's the case, they are probably looking at some initial numbers within the Super Tuesday states so they can make the decision about which ones to try and be competitive in, and the accompanying media & staff budget.  I know the primary seems like forever away, but for the ones who have to allocate funding to run operations for it, that time is already here.

  Because the defense spending bill is the perfect place to tuck this into.  The defense budget is some of the most politicized legislation in Washington with everything that it touches, and it's a "must pass" every year, because DoD has to have an operating budget to cover the day to day operations at home and abroad.    So, while transferring surplus pistols to the CMP for resale is something the President, or the DoJ wouldn't like to swallow, it's not worth a veto of the total spending bill in practical or political terms.  The cost amounts to a rounding error in a roughly $500 billion budget that has way too many other top priorities, and it's hard to argue that this is "keeping guns away from criminals" with the controls that CMP uses administers the program, not to mention that the 1911 can only hold less than 10 rounds as they like to tote so frequently.

  Probably the most practical option.  Even easier to enforce if the intro section can be added to post counts.       I think it's the 2nd and 3rd order effects that has David where he is in contemplating this step.  In addition to the demands on his personal time, every benefactor subscription helps pay for this site, which enables those interested in the community aspect of TGO take away some practical benefits from.  So, when someone pulls the stunt of trying to get their benefactor fees back, they hurt us all in some way.   I'd place more value on protecting the site for all members by keeping the operating costs spread out than making it convenient for those looking to buy or sell quickly.

  Those were all over spending issues, related to either sequestration, or members of the authorization and appropriations committees/subcommittees funding projects in their districts the Defense Department didn't ask for, or wanted cut.  This year the threat is over Republicans wanting to beef up defense spending by putting what is estimated to be an extra $38 billion into the overseas contingency operations fund as a workaround to budget caps currently in place from sequestration.  The Obama administration isn't willing to move away from sequestration until defense and non-defense spending caps are altered in unison.   I doubt the 1911 transfer to the CMP is even a factor in the negotiations unless some district will see a financial bump from it.

  Post the email they have tied to their profile, and you have a much better way to protect against the unscrupulous.

It's a sad state of affairs that you have to deal with this, David.  Proves gun owners can have their asshat's just like any other group.  If anyone is slimy enough to pull a trick like disputing the charges when they go through all the steps to buy a benefactor membership, they deserve to be called out for it. There is no excuse with the rules laid out very clearly in the stickies, and a dose of internet vigilante justice would seem to be called for.   I'd recommending an update the sites user agreement to make it clear that's what will happen if they try to screw the site so the offenders will think twice about retaining an ambulance chaser to sue TGO over it.

  How much do you need an OWB to retain past basic body movements?  Standing, sitting, kneeling, squatting...it's not like you'll be upside down or anything.  You mention OC, but when I use the OWB, I'm still carrying concealed, just with a loose shirt or a coat over it.

  I actually like Alien Gear's OWB better than the IWB; I have the retention on mine OWB set pretty good.  Play around with the bag of parts they sent with the OWB, find the right size plastic gap thingie (technical term) and tighten the shell to the back until you get the retention the way you like.. 

  Yes, but that's because I keep it at the 3 o'clock instead of at 4-5 like most IWB's.  If I had it at zero cant at 4-5, I'm sure it wouldn't be as easy, but I also wouldn't rule out being able to get a good grip and a fast enough draw.  Of course, that would required about a hundred iterations with a snapcap in the magazine to test out.   The reason I keep it at 3 o'clock is that I find that if I slide it back, it prints...probably since my belly is taking up most of the real estate under my shirt these days. :D

  I have an Alien Gear IWB 2.0 and I wear it at the 3 o'clock position with as close to a zero cant as I can get using the method 1madss describes.  It has the body layer go all the way up the length of the slide, so the back of the slide and rear sights aren't rubbing against the body.  I'm not a skinny boy, so my love handles would let me know if things were uncomfortable. I also make sure I have pants that are the right size for the IWB to fit inside as well, and that is probably the difference between comfort and annoyance.

  I see the pros and cons to both sides, but ultimately, I come down in favor of lifetime appointments.  Imagine how combative things would be if justices at all levels of the judiciary needed to be nominated, or re-nominated, and confirmed on a cyclic basis?  Plus with one party holding the oval office for 8-12 years, the entire judiciary could become stacked one way or the other, and I want neither.   For what it's worth, here's what Alexander Hamilton (and presumably James Madison & John Jay) thought about this issue... http://thomas.loc.gov/home/histdox/fed_78.html

  That was the design from the start...that the court could never be influenced by the backroom nature of politics by virtue of their lifetime appointments.  Justice Scalia made some comment about it a while back in an interview when the press asked him about the public pressure the President was trying to rally for one of the big cases (ACA or gay marriage, can't remember which).  He just shrugged it off and said that's why Justices are appointed for life.

Some photogenic dogs!  Welcome to TGO.

  Keep an eye out for advertising material.  Two of the ones offering the class here in Murfreesboro have cards and flyers all over town.   Also, you know...Google could help.  Just remember to search for handgun carry permit instead of concealed carry permit since the terminology is different in TN, and it's up to you if you want to conceal or open carry if you have a permit.

  For my taste, I look at if the trade addresses one of my needs.  I might be willing to part with a better player than I get if it's going to fill a big gap in my roster.  I'm having this issue in my other league with Carson Palmer...I drafted him as a backup and he's on fire, but I'm not benching Aaron Rodgers anytime soon.  I'd be willing to part with him if I was offered a better TE than I have now, but nobody in that league is interested.    I usually decline trades that I won't take with either a straight denial or a counter offer instead of ignoring it so the other person can go back to the drawing board with their trades.  Can't blame a guy for trying if they're trying to get one over on me.

Colion Noir is usually spot on for my money.  He's also great at reaching a younger and more diverse crowd, which can only help grow support for guns.    Colion also knows how to use social media to its potential which I think is the way forward for the message.  Take Facebook for example...Jerry Miculek has more "Likes" on his page at 473,803 vs. Colion's 277,005, but Colion's Facebook page has 70,343 "People Talking About This" to Jerry's 6,403.  Big key to getting people to view his videos and into the cause.

How much time/lumber do you have to make this happen?  You can go simple with a few barricades (which are great), or build a mock-up to simulate a room and hallway so you can get used to moving and firing in confined spaces.

Could have saved yourself the pain from the rest of your steps by doing the search right the first time. ;)

  What's wrong with bumping an old thread?  I find it useful to revisit old opinions when talking about something.

  Investigators are paid to use their brains, not a decision matrix.  Patterns show themselves when you analyze enough data properly.  There doesn't need to be a fixed quantity over a fixed time span to determine something like this.

If the gun shop was negligent in following the law with regards to background checks and straw purchases, by all means, crucify them.  But why was this established in a civil case and not a criminal one first?

Safelite is awesome if you're in a pinch and don't have much time to schedule around, but if you want to help out a local business, those small glass shops sometimes live and die by the auto glass repairs they do.  I know the one I worked for as a kid was very dependent on that type of work.  They may even came to your location as well.

  Huh?

  How would this be "absolutely horrible for gun owners" if SCOTUS upholds the lower courts decision?  If they don't take the case, the lower courts decisions would still stand, and nothing would change.    If it gets put on the docket at SCOTUS, this case is either going to be a huge victory, or an oh-well-we-tried moment for gun rights.  If we lose, the bans already in place from the usual suspects stay and everything is the same as it was before.  But if we win, dependent on the ruling, it could strike down any AWB in the country and prevent others from being enacted.    Now, it's not a given that the court will take this case.  I would put the odds at 50/50.  One thing that makes me think we have a decent chance if the court wants this case is that they would be looking to review something that has already been upheld at the district and appeals level.  Take this point: A federal district judge upheld the law, and so did a federal appeals court panel by a 2-1 vote.   That's how they did it with Heller, and again in McDonald.  Both times, the circuit courts and the appeals courts had ruled against gun owners, but SCOTUS took the case anyway, and we got two huge wins.   Contrast that with the gay marriage case where they specifically waited for a conflict form appeals courts before taking the case, almost because they had to, and I like our chances in this can't really lose more than we have even if we lose scenario.