JAB

Wow. Gorgeous knife and case.

I am a 'fan' of the .22 WMR cartridge. That said, I can't really say that shooting my Marlin 925M (.22 WMR bolt rifle) is all that much more exciting from a 'blast and roar', recoil perspective than any of my .22 LR rifles. Mostly, it is just a little louder (which is really more noticeable from my WMR handguns than from the rifle.) I do believe that the WMR would be more effective at longer ranges and/or on medium sized animals (say, coyote sized or so - although I haven't shot any 'live' targets with it, yet) than LR but that really doesn't translate to that much of a difference from behind the rifle. Now, if Kel Tec's RMR-30 (carbine version of their PMR-30) ever gets rolling and I manage to find one of those with a price I am willing to pay then that might change. I'm not really even interested in a PMR-30 but popping off 30 WMR rounds from a carbine without a reload sounds like a lot of fun. I have a Hi Point 9mm carbine. It is fun to shoot and more accurate than such an inexpensive carbine has any right to be. Where I live, there are no streetlights, there are lots of trees and unless the moon is full it can be pretty much pitch black outside at night. I have an HD shotgun with a mounted light but I also put a laser/light combo on my Hi Point in case I have to check out something going 'bump' outside during the wee hours. Mostly, that plus the red dot sight that sits on top of the Hi Point carbine just make it a lot of fun for punching holes in zombie 'head' targets I sometimes print off but I wouldn't hesitate to call on it to defend myself if the need arose. I just wish Hi Point would make some higher capacity mags. I also have a Mosin Nagant 91/30. Now there you are getting into some fun blast and roar. The only problem, for me, is that I mostly shoot in my back yard (or next door with my mom in her back yard or next door on the other side with my brother in law in my sister's back yard.) That being the case, I am usually not shooting at ranges that I consider appropriate for the Mosin. In fact, I usually end up shooting handguns. If I shoot rifles it is usually my .22LR rifles (because they are soooo cheap to shoot.) However, I'd have to say that the Hi Point carbine is pretty fun to shoot at shorter distances, as well. One other thing to consider is, unless you already have a wide range of .22LR action types that just aren't 'doing it' for you, maybe you really just need a different action type. For instance, I think shooting semiauto .22 LR rifles is okay. Nothing real exciting but okay. A year or so back, however, I got ahold of a basic Henry lever action .22 LR and it makes shooting .22 LR a lot more fun, for me. I am decently accurate with it using the open sights, too.

For SD rounds, I believe Hornady has added 9X18 to their Critical Defense line. I think Hornady also offers 9X18 in their XTP line. The XTP ammo is still listed on Hornady's website, anyway, and may have better availability, now. Last year, when I was looking for 9X18 JHP ammo, however, there was none to be found. Personally, I have never seen any Hornady ammo in 9x18 in person. If I do, I will buy a couple of boxes. As it is, I finally gave up last year and asked my LGS about stocking some Silver Bear JHP in 9X18 (he had already been unsuccessful in getting ahold of any of the Hornady XTP and this was before they added 9x18 to the Critical Defense line.) He kept trying until he got a case of Silver Bear in, I bought several boxes and he has since sold the rest of it. That Silver Bear JHP is what I currently carry when I carry the CZ 82. I'd probably feel a little better about stoking it with some flavor of Hornady JHP but have read that the performance of the Silver Bear stuff isn't bad. I don't know how it does for penetration/expansion but I can say that it is quite accurate - as has been the case with any and all ammo I have fired from the CZ 82 to this point.

I am actually in the midst of taking the 'beginner' leather tooling classes at that very Tandy store. We did 'stamping' in the first class (two weeks ago), carving with accent stamping/beveling in the last class (last Saturday) and are supposed to cover dying techniques this coming Saturday. I have done a very, very little stamping, before (did a holster for my NAA mini with a basketweave stamp) but last Saturday was my first carving experience. I'm not real impressed with my own skills in that area, yet but that is to be expected. We are getting pretty good, basic, introductory info - which is about all I am ready for at this point. Pretty good considering the classes are free. One really cool thing is that the guy who is teaching the classes (who also works in the store) told us that if there are any of the stamps, etc. we want to try out that he doesn't already have out on the table then he will let us try those, too. Looking at that last sheath, in particular, I'd say that you are already well beyond those first, beginner classes. For some reason, though, I am thinking I heard something about them offering some more advanced classes, too, but I could be wrong. Thanks for the info. As far as 'just what works for you', I think leather work is really one of those things where you learn the basics then have to pretty much adapt most things to 'what works for you.'

I'm not trying to ruin the argument to vote for Romney - I am simply trying to ascertain whether or not such an argument (beyond Republicans YAY! Democrats BOO!) truly exists or if the supposed existence of such an argument is simply wishful thinking. There is no need to convince me to vote against Obama. I simply remain unconvinced that voting for Romney would be any better. To me, it seems that voting against both of them is the only thing I can, in good conscience, do - assuming that there is a third option who I believe would be a better candidate. Now, I know that some will say that constitutes a vote for Obama or whatever but that is nonsense used to ensure that one of the 'big two' ends up holding the office. In truth, such a choice constitutes a vote for whoever the vote is cast in favor of. Some also say that such an attitude couldn't achieve anything in this election but that is also nonsense. If enough people were to vote for a candidate other than the big two then that candidate could win. The only reason that such a candidate won't win is that too many people play the odds instead of voting for the best person for the job. Yes, I live in reality and realize that people will vote party lines or will vote for one or the other side of the same coin which they have become convinced are the only options - meaning that anyone other than Romney or Obama won't win but won't win is a big difference from can't win. For the record, I haven't decided exactly who I will vote for, yet. It may well turn out - as the election gets closer and platforms are more solidly defined - that all of the alternatives will be just as piss poor as Obama and Romney as candidates. Taking the 'alternatives' platforms as a whole, that is pretty much what happened in the last TN gubernatorial election. If that proves to be the case, come November 4, I just might end up giving my insignificant nod to Romney and subsequently feeling dirty for the next four years. I just wish someone could give me some reason to hope that he will REALLY be better than Obama - and not just because they think so. I believe that is exactly what I am doing by looking at Romney's past track record. Generally, a person's past actions - while not a 100% reliable predictor - are a pretty good indicator of what their future actions will be. Much more reliable, at least, than campaign speeches or saying, "Well, at least he isn't _____."

That is too bad but if certain (many) employers didn't insist on trying to control aspects of employees' lives and property that they should really have no right to control then it would not be necessary.

Thanks. Based on that post, I went ahead and stopped by there yesterday. I picked up two of the knife kits that were on sale - one 'spear point' like the one in this thread and one even larger, tanto style blade. None of the wood they had in stock just 'grabbed' me so I didn't buy any for the scales. I may end up going back to get some wood but also kind of like the idea of making the handles from locally harvested wood and maybe even leaving a little bark on them here and there for both grip texture and effect. We'll see, but I decided to go ahead and buy the kits while I could get them for the sale price. I have never tried my hand at putting together a knife, before, and this seemed like a good opportunity to try my hand at it.

Okay, I can maybe see that. If he listens to the advisers. Hopefully. Still a pretty thin hope, though.

Should be pretty easy. I had a GTi (basically a souped-up Golf) that I bought used. Darn thing was quick and fun to drive but was such a lemon that I only kept it for about a month - and I would have gone broke fixing the stuff that went wrong with it in that month if there hadn't been a 30 day warranty from the car lot. I might not mind having an older 'bug' (as in one of the original ones, not the new bug) but I have no plans to buy any more of the newer KdF products, anyhow - this just gives me one more reason for not buying them. There are alternatives to shipping FedEx, too. Then, again, I have never shipped anything through FedEx so I doubt they will miss my business.

You guys keep misreading/misquoting what I have posted. No, I did not say that I think Romney wouldn't do any better with SCOTUS. What I said is that I have seen no evidence that he WOULD. There is a difference. See, I believe you guys are simply assuming that Romney will be better than Obama. Truthfully, I think some are simply assuming that because he is a Republican he would be better. Maybe he would - I don't know. However, I have seen no evidence - based on his track record - which leads me to believe that he would. Remember, this is a track record of signing off on state gun bans, apparently supporting anti-gun legislation and backing/pushing through state run healthcare. In 2004, (amid a certain amount of fanfare, it seems) he signed into law a permanent ban on so-called 'assault weapons' in Massachusetts. In support of that law, he has been quoted as saying, "These guns are not made for recreation or self-defense. They are instruments of destruction with the sole purpose of hunting down and killing people." Also, if what I can find is correct, the ban including some handguns and some semi-auto firearms. There is every indication that he was more than happy to sign the legislation. That, alone, is enough to qualify him as 'evil' in my book. Hmmm...perhaps I am not the one who is uniformed, after all. Or maybe I'm just not wearing the 'he must be great because he is a Republican and our only alternative to Obama' blinders. So, I ask again - based on his track record and not based on BS from his current campaign speeches - what evidence is there to support a claim that Romney's choices for SCOTUS would be any better - at least on firearms related issues - than Obama's? Honestly, it seems to me that Romney, whose previous actions show support for gun control, would have every reason to nominate anti-gun Justices. That way he wouldn't have to try and buck his Republican masters by supporting new gun control measures. In that way, rather than trying to get more anti-gun legislation passed or being seen to support such legislation, he could simply count on the Justices he puts into place to water down, weaken and gut existing gun rights protections from the bench - a tactic I believe he would share with Obama when it comes to choosing SCOTUS nominees. Even if I am wrong in thinking he would purposefully choose anti-gun nominees his track record certainly indicates that a pro-gun stance would not be an important factor for Romney in making his nominations for SCOTUS.

Man, I sure am glad that the speakers of the state Senate and House, along with the current Governor, are Republicans seeing as how Republicans are so staunch in their support of gun rights. Good thing we finally got rid of that pro-gun legislation blocking elitist Naifeh as Speaker, huh? We can already see how much difference that is going to make.

Well, thanks for telling me that my point of view is worthless while yours is unimpeachable. You know, until that comment I disagreed with you but respected you. Respectful disagreement is one thing but, frankly, that is the type of, "I am right and you are wrong so just shut up," comment I would expect out of a liberal anti-gunner. Due to that comment, I have now lost any respect I previously had for you. Enjoy voting for the (supposedly) lesser of two evils. Despite your wishes, I will vote - and I will vote however I please.

Nice work! I am just trying to get into some tooling techniques. I really like the results (although not so much my results - yet) that carving can give. If you don't mind my asking, what kind of beveler did you use around the carving? I like the way (at least from what I can tell from the pic) that you got a smooth look over such a relatively large 'negative' space.

Just FYI, Academy has 9mm Makarov FMJ ammo in their Monarch line. Last I bought there was a couple of months back but then it was right around $10 for a box of fifty. It is steel cased ammo but has worked well and is pretty accurate from my 82. Every time I see a CZ 82 with wood grips I am tempted to order some for mine. The finish on mine is not perfect but is actually in really good shape - at least good enough that I don't feel the need to have it refinished. Some nice, wood grips could really go a long way to making it look nicer, though. There is a guy on another forum to which I belong who had his CZ 82 refinished in hard chrome and then put wood grips on it. He posted pics of it on the forum. Talk about turning a serviceable, milsurp pistol into a thing of beauty!

Did I say that Obama would make good nominations to the Supreme Court? Did I say he had done so in the past? C'mon, OhShoot, you know full well that I did not. What I did say is that I don't see any reason to believe that Romney wouldn't nominate liberal Rinos who would be every bit as bad as Sotomayor and Kagan. That was my point. In other words, if Obama Vanilla really is the nation's only hope then the situation is already pretty much hopeless.

If this bill were to pass then you could not tell them that they were forbidden from having a firearm inside their car when the car is parked in your parking lot. You could either tell them they can't park in your lot, period or allow them to park in your lot and accept that they might have a firearm secured, out of sight, in their vehicle. Further, you could still legally tell them that if they choose to store their firearm (private property) inside their car (private property) then it has to stay secured and out of sight inside their vehicle while their vehicle is on your property. You can tell them that they are not allowed to carry the firearm on their person while on your property - these bills do not change that. The way I see it, as long as THEIR gun is in THEIR car it is none of your business as their property is contained inside the boundaries of their property. In other words, to my mind your property rights do not apply within the boundaries/confines of their property. That is what the bill does from a practical standpoint although I don't think that is how it is worded (would be a lot simpler if it were, I believe.) Once the gun leaves the car, however, it is no longer contained inside their property and your property rights - including the right to prohibit the firearm - then apply. Of course, if that irresponsible employee has just decided that today is 'the day' then it really doesn't matter how many laws/rules prohibit him from having a firearm. Strangely enough, people who have decided to commit murder don't seem to really care that it is against 'the rules' for them to have a firearm in a particular location. To me, this whole issue simply underlines the sorry state of relationships between employee and employer in our day and age. First, it seems that many employers are more concerned about a perceived, slight 'infringement' of (non-existent, IMO) property rights than about whether or not their employees can be adequately equipped for self defense on their journey to and from work. Secondly, it shows that some employers seem to think that the term 'employee' equals 'slave' - the employer wants to run the employee's entire life, control parts of the employee's life even when he or she isn't at work, hold dominion over the employee's own, private property and strip the employee of his or her rights while he or she is at work (or, in some cases, even when he or she isn't at work.) Of course, the same employer wants to reserve the right to kick said employee to the curb as soon as 'the bottom line' indicates that such a move is best. There is no loyalty by most employers to their employees any more yet so many employers whine about the lack of employee loyalty - as if they expect employees to be loyal to companies who treat employees as cogs in a wheel, not human beings with both natural and Constitutional rights of their own.

Hmm, I did not know that.

I have a 642 and love it for carry. Now you just need a 'full-sized' wheelgun so you can see how much fun they really can be. I have semiautos that I carry and even like but if for some reason I were told I had to either get rid of all my semiautos or all my wheelguns (shudders at the thought), I wouldn't even have to hesitate - the semiautos would be gone.

That analogy is one of the best explanations of the situation I have seen - except that the 'biker' in that analogy likely had no reason to fear death or serious, bodily injury from the guy insulting his mom. A lone teenager being followed by a stranger who first followed in his vehicle then got out to follow on foot just might reasonably have such a fear.

Do you really trust that a liberal New England politician who likely has a poster of Ted Kennedy on the wall in his basement wouldn't like to take away our firearms rights? Heck, even Lord High God Almighty Reagan didn't really support gun rights. In fact, he was governor of California when that state's history of strict anti-gun legislation got rolling - with his full support. He also spoke out in support of the Brady campaign. If you can't trust Reagan to really be in favor of gun rights do you really think we could trust Romney? I don't. If you really want to see how much 'support' the Republican party gives to firearms rights beyond paying lip service just take a look at the legislature and the governor of our state. The guy who likes to trumpet his part in bringing legalized, private carry (with the requirement of fees and a permit, of course) to the state is currently objecting to legislation to allow employees to be armed on their way to and from work. The 'Republican' Speaker of the House, Harwell, is coming across - to me - as being about as anti-gun as they come. Finally, the current 'Republican' governor was a member of Bloomberg's Mayors Against Illegal Guns until he realized it could cost him the governorship. My fear is that the only difference between Obama's stance on firearm's rights and Romney's stance on firearms rights is that Obama has been clear about his opposition. Romney strikes me as a trojan horse.

Not when you (as in I) believe the argument to be just as overblown and ridiculous as it sounds. Not that another four years of Obama would be good for the country - just that four years of Romney wouldn't be good, either - and the sky is likely to stay firmly in place no matter who wins. Hell, we survived eight years of a spoiled little rich fraternity brat turned cowboy running ruining the country so I figure somehow we will survive four more years of the community organizer in chief if it comes down to that - just as we would likely survive four years of a liberal, New England RINO whose last name might as well be Kennedy as POTUS. You are probably right. As for myself, I am not a Dempublican nor a Repocrat. When it comes right down to it and the end effect on the 'little guy', I really see very little difference between the two parties (which move closer and closer to being one big, bloated party every year) and have grown to detest them both. One side wants to rob the regular joe to give money to the welfare class. The other side wants to rob the regular joe so that the very wealthy can remain very wealthy. One side wants to pass laws telling us what things in society we must accept while the other side wants to pass laws to regulate our morality. One side wants to legislate what we think and the other side wants to regulate our bodies. Either way, regular folks (like me) are screwed. At the very least I will not give my consent - however insignificant - to either of them. I will vote my conscience, not play the odds.

Really? Can you honestly be certain that a liberal RINO will not nominate other liberal RINOs to the Supreme Court? A majority of liberals on the Supreme Court is a majority of liberals on the Supreme Court regardless of whether those liberals are Dems or RINOS. In other words, the one thing that folks are citing as the 'biggest difference' between a Romney presidency and a second Obama term might end up not making any real, practical difference, at all. That is what I find scary about the whole thing.

I also refuse not to vote. However, I further refuse to vote for a crappy candidate simply because if I don't the sky will fall and Obama will win. I will vote for whichever candidate I truly believe would be the best for the job. Whether or not several million other people or only ten other people will vote for that candidate matters not to me. I am not playing the odds at the track on which dog can win the race. I am voting for the person I believe to be the best hire for the job of POTUS. I believe that the biggest reason an independent 'can't' win is because too many people are playing the odds and the big two parties have everyone snowed into being too scared to vote for the person they believe to be the best candidate because voters are too worried about the 'other guy' winning. The whole 'an independent can't win' thing becomes a self fulfilling prophecy fueled by the fears implanted in people's minds but the Repocrat-Dempublican party, which is exactly what they want. At the risk of ranging into the realm of the melodramatic, think of how much would be different if George Washington and his contemporaries had looked around and said, "England has too many soldiers, too much money and too many resources. Even though remaining subjects of the crown is not really our best option we will do so because there is no way that a few, loosely united colonies can win a war against them."

As others have said, my car is my personal, private property. My gun is my personal, private property. As a business owner or even employer, you have every right to tell me to get my car off of your property. You should not, however, legally be able to control what legally owned, private property (gun, knife, fishing lure or hammer) I can store inside my legally owned, private property (car) regardless of where my legally owned private property (car) is parked. Now, if you want to make a rule that I can't drive or park my car on your property you have the right to do so and these bills would not change that. If you want to make a rule that I cannot remove my gun, knife, fishing lure or hammer from the confines of my private property (car) while my car is on your property then you have the right to do so and these bills would not change that. I do NOT, however, believe that you or anyone else should have the right to infringe on MY private property rights by telling me that I can't, as someone else put it, store my private property inside my private property. Again, as someone previously stated, real estate is not the only type of private property and real estate property rights are not the only kind of private property rights. This bill does not force any personal beliefs on others. This bill simply prohibits employers and business owners (who seem to think that THEIR private property rights are the only ones that matter) from infringing on the private property rights of their employees and others. Personally, I think the bills should be broadened to simply say that an employer's/business owner's business has no right to question, search or prohibit what is stored inside a private vehicle - with no, specific mention of firearms - but the bills are what they are.

Sorry to anyone who thinks it looks good but here is my take on the 'zombie slayer' LCP - from my response to a comment about it on another forum: The 'Zombie Slayer' near the muzzle looks like someone wrote it on there with fingernail polish, freehand, using the brush that came in the bottle. If I were in the market for an LCP they'd have to give me a discount big enough to make it worth cleaning that nonsense off of the slide before I'd buy one of those. I guess I am not their target market, however. Besides, I already own a copy of the Zombie Survival Guide. I bought it shortly after it hit shelves.