JAB

I hope that the rumors are true. Not because I expect to start buying handguns at Walmart on a regular basis but because I think it would be a good step towards bringing handguns back into the 'mainstream.' I remember when Walmart sold handguns, before, and would be glad to see the largest retailer in the nation once again accept handguns as items that are no more 'taboo' than tennis rackets or hammers. Further, I think such a move would be much more effective in 'desensitizing' the general public to the presence of handguns than any amount of open carry by any number of people could ever achieve. Some people will never change their opinions of handguns as 'evil', etc. but I believe there are those who would be more comfortable around them if they were exposed to them more often - and seeing handguns on display where they go to buy toilet paper and cat litter is certainly a step in that direction. Secondly, I do hope that if Walmart once again sells handguns it might result in more people buying them and, in turn, trading them in or selling them thereby possibly resulting in more opportunities for me to buy used guns - maybe even at better deals. Maybe that is a long shot but it would be nice if things worked out that way.

Just for the sake of clarity, the Heritage Rough Rider .22 revolvers are not imported. Unless I am mistaken, their other 'small bore' Rough Rider (the .32) isn't imported, either. My understanding is that some parts for their big bore revolvers are 'started by' by Pietta in Italy and then 'finished' at the Heritage shop in America where the whole thing is assembled (that is the way it is stated on the Heritage website) while the small bore Rough Riders (the .22 revolvers, at the very least) are entirely made and assembled in America. Therefore, as odd as the safety seems - especially since Heritage still recommends carrying the Rough Rider with the hammer down on an empty chamber - I don't think it has anything to do with import regulations.

The 2A says nothing about concealed carry. In fact, as it is geared more toward preserving the ability of private citizens to band together, as a last option, to repel an over-reaching Federal government, it really says nothing at all about the regular and daily carry of personal arms for self defense, period. Therefore, the carry of personal arms - either open or concealed - and the administration or regulation of such carry is the right of the individual states. This bill, then, gets the Fed's foot in the door of an issue that is better left to the "States or the People." As this bill progresses, if Obama signs it, we must ask ourselves a question. That question is, "Why would a President who is on record as being opposed to firearms carry by private citizens and who has said he would like to do away with concealed carry on a national level sign this bill unless it, somehow, advances his clearly stated goal in the matter?" We all know that he favors the restriction of gun owership, as a whole, and that the aspect of gun rights to which he most strongly objects is carry by private citizens. Does anyone honestly think he will do something to advance that aspect of gun rights unless there is already a 'backdoor' way to use such legislation to fit his own and others' anti gun agenda?

What ever happened to filtered out Sterno? Hell, for that matter what ever happened to just opening a bottle and consuming the beer (or whiskey, scotch, rum, etc.) inside? Heck, you can probably still find some blackberries, etc. for free. Throw them in a glass jar with water and sugar and wait a few days. I'll never understand people who do illegal drugs - especially chemical crap like meth, etc. - when there is cheaper, legal stuff that one can consume to kick one's own ass if so desired.

Back in high school and early college, I worked at the White Store (and then Food City when they bought White Stores out) in Loudon. One Saturday evening I got together with some of my buddies and they told me that they had seen a guy working at a Kroger in Knoxville who looked just like me (poor, ugly bastard.) They said that, at first, they actually thought it was me and almost asked him ("me") when he ("I") had changed jobs. These guys were (and still are, in fact) my closest friends and I had known them for a few years at that point and even they thought this guy was me. They said he even had the same haircut. Remember, this was the early nineties - I had my hair cut like Jason Newsted of Metallica used to have his cut - shoulder length on top and shaved on the sides and in back. Not the most ordinary or common haircut. They said he had a goat-tee, too - just like I had at the time. After that, I had several friends and acquaintances at UT ask if I worked at Kroger. They all thought this guy was me. One day, a few years and a completely different haircut later, the boyfriend of the best friend of the girl I was dating back then was kind of ticked at me. He said he had seen me in a bar on the Cumberland Strip and had tried to talk to me but I just acted like I didn't know him. I told him, honestly, that I had never sat foot in that bar in my life. I don't know if it was the same guy others had mistaken for me but I figure it probably was. I always hoped - and still do - that my doppleganger doesn't do anything that might result in trouble for me.

To paraphrase what someone in the comments section on the News-Sentinel website posted, what should Walmart have done? Should they have closed and held a memorial service for the would-be cop killer? Okay, I can see closing from the point of view that the employees who were there at the time were probably scared sh...er...witless and should have been allowed to go home.

The cop's actions do sound suspicious. From another viewpoint - not involving the legality of walking around with no ID - I would personally not walk around without ID even if I weren't carrying. When I worked at the library in downtown Knoxville, folks who worked at the businesses around there were constantly coming in with no ID and wanting to check out books. Another guy who worked there and I had a discussion about that, one day, and how strange (and not too bright) it seemed, to us. I mean, what if you are out walking around and get struck by a car (just for one example) and left unconscious, maybe for days, or even killed? It seems it would make it a lot easier to ID you, find out if you have any medical issues or allergies and alert your next of kin if you are carrying that little, thin and essentially weightless ID in your pocket than if you are not. Basically, to me, there is no reason not to carry ID at all times when away from your residence and many reasons for doing so. None of them should involve potentially being harassed by LEO, however.

Now those are exactly the kind of deals that I used to look for in pawn shops. I'm also glad to hear that some folks can get such deals. Instead, I see ragged-out looking single shot shotguns that look like they were pulled from trunk of a rusted-out car in the junk yard for $150 - as in I can buy new ones for less. A few months back, I saw a Ruger 10/22 with a synthetic stock that literally looked like it had been dragged behind a pickup truck on a long, gravel road (was covered in scratches and the stock nicked all over) and then left out in a cow pasture in the rain (actually had a little rust in places) after the synthetic stock got a really bad, DIY 'camo' job. The sticker price was about $10 shy of the price of a NIB 10/22 at Walmart or the LGS. Like I said, not even worth haggling because at those starting prices a 'reasonable' deal just ain't going to happen.

Along those lines I will throw it out that when I was looking at Heritage Rough Riders prior to buying mine (actually, the day I bought mine), I looked at a 3.5 inch barreled, birds head grip model. I wanted one with a 6.5 inch barrel and the birds head grips are only available on the 3.5 and 4.75 inch models. Also, the birds head grips didn't feel just 'right' in my hands. My wife, however - with her smaller, more gracile hands - really liked the way the birds head grips felt better than the 'standard' plow handle grips. I've even considered getting her one of those but when it comes to shooting .22s she likes semiautos better so I haven't, yet. I do have to say that those 3.5 inch birds head models look pretty good, IMO. I'm not sure if any of the other manufacturers mentioned make a birds head grip model or not but if you can find a birds head for her to hold she might like it better.

Yeah, the fact that they are in the cheapo displays is part of the reason I just had to take (and post) a pic. I kind of chuckled when I saw them. Oh, and to get an idea of the full effect, these boxes were sitting on a range of shelves near the Sporting Goods department along with a lot of other things that were obviously part of their 'Christmas inventory' - some of the Christmas trinkets to which you refer. The 'hawk isn't SOG's 'tactical' version. It is smaller and lighter (as the package copy explains.) Still, having no real, practical use for a 'tactical' tomahawk I am considering picking up one of these Fasthawks to play around with as a throwing tomahawk, just for fun. If it is strong and stays sharp, etc. the Fasthawk might be okay for putting in a backpack, etc. but the head on it is so small and the overall package so light that I think I'd go nuts trying to use it to cut wood and the like for camping, as with a hatchet.

These aren't firearms but I was a little surprised to see them for sale at Walmart - especially in these little, cardboard box type displays. I just thought that, combined with the recent addition of the previously mentioned Sig rifles, seeing these at Walmart was a bit unusual. I have to wonder if the expansion of Academy Outdoors into East TN (two in the Chattanooga area and now one in Knoxville) is influencing Wally to stock more of this type of item. That or they've had a sudden attack of tacticool.

To me, the reason I think of a revolver as 'more reliable' is because no one ever talks about how you have to be careful not to limpwrist one, how one gets jammed with empty brass due to firing it at an odd angle or how a revolver went out of battery at the worst, possible moment. From a self defense point of view, I'm not that worried what might happen at the range after 1000 rounds, etc. If I am in a gun battle where I have to fire 500 to 1000 consecutive rounds from my carry weapon then I'm pretty screwed, anyhow, because I'm not going to have 500 to 1000 rounds on me. That is why, with a carry gun, I'm more concerned about getting that second (and third, if needed) shot off if the first fails to stop an assailant and I am shooting one-handed at contact distance and an odd angle while trying to keep from getting stabbed. I am also more concerned about the effort required to get past a 'bad' round in such a situation (having to ask my would-be murderer to hang on just a sec while I do a tap/rack or mag change vs. simply pulling the trigger, again.) Yes, all firearms are machines and any machine can break down. In the previously mentioned scenarios, however, I have more faith that a revolver will get off the five or six shots that seems more likely to be needed in an SD shooting situation. Of course, that is largely a personal thing as in why I generally prefer revolvers, not a universal statement that revolvers are simply 'better'. That doesn't mean I don't like semiautos. I do and I carry them, sometimes. It just means if I am carrying a semiauto as primary I will probably have a revolver, even if it is just an NAA mini, as a get-off-me BUG just in case.

Well, based on looking inside the receiver on mine and seeing that there used to be two holes there that were filled in when it was 'rearsinaled' or whatever the correct term is (filled holes which are not even slightly visible from the outside), mine appears to be an ex-sniper. Therefore, if I ever decide to mount a scope on it, I will probably go to the trouble/expense of getting all the required parts, having those holes re-tapped, having the (shiny, new) bolt handle properly bent and putting it back 'right'. Trouble is that would cost more than I paid for the rifle. In fact, I could probably find a used, serviceable bolt action hunting rifle in .308 or 30-06 - already set up for a scope - and be in a comparable power class using ammo I can buy at Walmart for less than such a 'restoration' would cost. For that reason as much as anything, I doubt there will ever be a scope on my Mosin-Nagant.

Thanks to Dolomite for posting - it is an interesting thing to see. For a price point around $150 (which, I am sure, would mean a major $$$ loss for the company) it might be a cool thing to have. As it is, I'd be more interested in one of the Rossi youth, single shot .22/.410 combos that Wally sells for around a hundred and forty bucks. Of course, I don't do any serious, back-country hiking so I don't have the same load weight concerns as someone who does.

My advice would be, if you can, to price compare anything you find at a pawn shop with prices (new and used) at other local dealers. For me, in my area, I have yet to find anything even remotely approaching a 'deal' on a gun in a pawnshop. In fact, most of the stuff I have seen has either been total junk or, sometimes, would still be priced too high at half the price they are asking (or both.) A good, general example would be the Rohm .38 Special I saw in a pawn shop last year. Pretty rough cosmetically. I don't remember the exact 'sticker price' was but I recall that it was two hundred and change, closer to three hundred than two. Not that I wanted it, anyhow (although I might have bought it for $50 just to mess around with) but just to give an example of the kind of prices I see at pawn shops in my area. With prices as such, I don't even bother haggling. I know some other folks in other parts of the state/country have found good deals on pawn shop firearms but I have yet to find anything that I couldn't find better, and a better price, at my LGS - to the point that I don't even bother looking in pawn shops all that much, anymore.

I noticed the other day that the Wally in Lenoir City had both of the previously mentioned Sig rifles. Even more cool (to me - as a guy who isn't all that interested in AR-type guns) is that they also have a Circuit Judge. One of those would be the the only Judge I'd be interested in - no interest in the handgun version. Not that I'm going to pay nearly $500 for a Circuit Judge (may not be a bad price but I simply don't want one that badly) but if Walmart is selling them then maybe the price will start to drop - or at least some used ones may begin showing up in the LGS as folks who buy them at Walmart decide that isn't really what they wanted trade them in. I'd still rather deal with my LGS for the most part. On some things, though - especially if Walmart would bring back handguns and also bring back layaway on firearms (the layaway option being one of many things I like about dealing with my favorite LGS) - then there is a good chance I'd buy at least one or two there. Besides, anything that gets more guns out there in the hands of honest citizens - especially things that (potentially) will put more used guns on the market so that my cheap ass might get a deal on a used one at the LGS - is a good thing. I remember when I was a kid - all those moons ago when Walmart still dealt in handguns - I was always fascinated by the black powder revolver 'kits' that they sold. I used to just stand at the counter and stare at the box with the picture of what the finished project would (should) look like and daydream about them.

I wanted one of the Ranger models when I first heard they were coming. I thought it might be faster/easier to load than my take-the-cylinder-out model. When they actually came out, however, NAA decided to make them a 'limited production' item which drove the price up to more than I was willing to pay for a mini revolver. My understanding is that the production run has ended, already. The Rangers are out of stock at Bud's but the 'last price' is listed at $450. There are two listed on Gun Broker - the current bid for the first is $1,385.00. The current bid on the second is $850.00. I like my mini a whole lot. I imagine I'd really like a top break version - but not nearly that much. I got my WMR only, 1 5/8 inch barrel 'standard' model used for $160. I added the oversized grips later and still have under $200 in it. If I were going to get another, I'd probably go for the black widow just for the two inch barrel and better sights.

The Dickies belts that I have seen at my local WalMart locations lately are a bit 'flimsy'. The ones I get at the Dickies store are stiffer, sturdier and seem better made. They pass the 'squeeze' test like BenderBendingRodriguez was talking about (that is how I check belts, too.) I like the ones with a double-row of holes and two 'tines' in the buckle. This is the type of belt I wear pretty much every day - even at work where I can't carry. They cost something like twelve bucks at the Dickies outlet where I get them (blue roof mall in Sevierville.) I've been wearing the one I currently have on pretty much every day for about a year and a half or so. With my lighter carry guns (642, P3AT) it still works well. It is just about getting to the point when I probably need to consider a newer, non broken-in one if I am carrying something a little heavier like my Ruger P95 or my CZ82. I like playing around with leather projects and am considering putting together a 'reinforced' belt for carry (probably just a double layer of leather.) As long as these Dickies belts are available and relatively inexpensive, however, it is a little hard to get motivated to do it.

Well, then, howdy neighbor and person who, if he hadn't moved, could have been a neighbor.

NAA had a project going a few years back to develop a .32 mini revolver. That project has pretty much fallen by the wayside. Sandy Chisholm - the company president - gave this update on the project in his 'Sandy's Soapbox' page on NAA's company website. As you can see, this update was from February 2007 so it has apparently been a while since that project went on 'hiatus'. As for a Derringer sized handgun, I wouldn't mind having one of the old double-action High Standard ones in WMR. Other than that, I'll take my NAA mini any day over a two-shooter. Not only does it hold more rounds but I also believe it to be of better quality and more safe to load and carry than most of the comparably priced two-shooters I have seen. I don't consider mine to be a 'primary' carry in any way although it is sometimes the only gun I have on me when sitting around watching TV at home. I do like it as a little backup with recoil low enough that I have confidence in my ability to shoot it weak-handed even if I were shooting from an awkward position, injured, etc. Also, just like dats82, I like to carry shotshells as the first one or two up during the summer months. This lets me be prepared in case I have to defend against a venomous snake (I don't go hunting them but I'm not getting bitten, either) without sacrificing SD rounds in my primary. I made a leather pocket holster for mine that holds ten extra rounds (the strip of leather on the front of the holster is to reinforce an area where I got a little overly zealous in punching stitch holes in leather that is lighter than what I usually use) I was concerned that the oversized grips would negatively impact the ability to conceal the NAA but have found that it still hides just as well in a pocket. The oversized, rubber grips really aid in controlling the little beastie.

I liked last night's episode. It felt like there was a little more 'going on' and less 'waiting around'. That said, no way in heck I'd ask to stay (permanently) in a place where I wasn't going to be 'allowed' to carry. And if I were lowering someone into a well to get a noose around a walker's neck, I'd have the rope tied off to a horse - not a group of people the majority of whom are injured or weak from donating blood. I was glad to see that it looks like T-Dog will be getting a little more character development. That said, based on the preview from next week's episode (shown during the premiere of "Hell on Wheels") if they kill Daryl off I just might quit watching the show. I certainly won't be as diligent about watching it, anyway. On a side note, it looks like "Hell on Wheels' has a lot of potential, too.

This thread has made me realize that I don't currently have one that I am holding out for. Sure, there are guns I'd like to have but for some time my 'one of these days' handgun was a Super Blackhawk in .44 Magnum. I bought one of those earlier this year and haven't really identified anything else to take its place as an 'I'll own one, some day' handgun - which I consider as different from the few 'I'd like to haves' that are on my wish list. I also consider that different from my 'it would be cool to have one but I'll never be able to afford it' guns - such as a real Luger.

There were shots in that scene from cameras with viewpoints from both 'behind' and 'in front of' Shane and Otis. You could see the truck in shots that were taken from 'behind' them. They were at least as close to the truck as the walkers were to them. They looked to be maybe fifty yards at most from the truck when Shane shot Otis, maybe even closer than that. Also, as I said before and as you also pointed out in your post, Shane spent more time shooting Otis, getting the pack from him and trying to get away from Otis' grip on his hair than it would have taken for both of them to get to the truck - especially since Shane wouldn't have been trying to carry both packs by himself. Even so, Shane was still halfway to the truck - even limping and carrying both packs - before the walkers got to Otis. Killing Otis wasn't survival, it was cold-blooded murder. Worse yet, Shane was too much of a coward to kill Otis outright and instead left him for the walkers to finish (just as he had left Rick in the hospital.) My take is that Shane did not murder Otis because he was afraid they wouldn't be able to save Carl. I don't even think he murdered Otis to save himself because he thought the walkers were going to catch them. I think he did it for one of two 'reasons' (or maybe a combination of the two) : 1. Truth be told, Otis carried Shane's ass (literally and figuratively) through the whole thing; drawing off the walkers so Shane could get away, shooting the walkers that had Shane cornered and as good as bitten, half-carrying Shane back to the truck and refusing to give up on him. Otis kept them both going when Shane was ready to give up, quit and accept that they weren't going to make it. The truth is, Shane was just about as much a hindrance as a help. By murdering Otis, however, Shane got to return as Carl's sole 'savior' and look like the hero. Shane murdered Otis because he was ashamed for anyone to know how weak he is when it comes right down to it. He murdered Otis so he could be the hero and get back in Laurie's good graces. 2. Shane wants to leave the group. Shane also wants a ready-made family to take over just as he tried to take over Rick's family. He probably knows that the group won't be able to stay at the farm but he also knows that Otis fills a needed role at the farm and does things (such as hunting) that Herschel is too old to do. With Otis gone, Shane has a chance to 'volunteer' to stay and take his place. Once, again, he double-crosses someone who has only done right by him in an attempt to step into that other man's role. This time he was just a little more 'proactive' than he was with Rick. Either way, Shane's murder of Otis had nothing to do with his immediate survival nor with saving Carl.

Thing is, they were within sight of the truck when Shane knee-capped Otis. It took Shane longer to shoot Otis, get the pack Otis was carrying away from him and fight free of Otis' grip on his hair than it would have taken for both of them just to run on to the truck, get in and leave. Further, Shane hurt his leg jumping/falling from the window and would have already been Zombie Chow if Otis hadn't insisted on not leaving him and hadn't half carried him back to the truck. For that matter, it was Otis' willingness to draw all the zombies away by getting them to chase him that allowed Shane to get out the window in the first place. Therefore, he didn't do what he did to save Carl or even to save himself. Shane murdered Otis for no justifiable reason, at all. Shane started the series as a character who had already betrayed his supposed best friend. He told Rick's wife that Rick was dead even though he was alive when Shane left him lying unconscious in the hospital after making no effort to get him out. He then went on to almost immediately start banging Rick's wife (probably taking advantage of her compromised emotional state immediately following the news that her husband was dead and the world having gone to hell) and trying to take over Rick's family as his own. His actions in the first couple of episodes of this season - up until the end of the second episode - had led me to believe he might actually be redeemable as a character despite all of that. Then he murders a man who had just saved his life not once but several times in the space of one night. Not only murders him but actually feeds him to the zombies and does so only after that same man has carried Shane's ass back to within sight of their escape vehicle. Shane is slime. The sooner he assumes room temperature, the better.

I live on Steekee Road. Sometimes, when we tell people our address, they look askance and say (sounding genuinely confused), "You live on Stinky Road?" Sometimes folks will chuckle and say, "Hah, Stinky Road?!" Obviously that has nothing to do with race or anything else - it just strikes people as funny. So, is there a good, strong reason to believe that the officer's humor was related to a racial slur or did the name of the road simply strike him as amusing? I wasn't there so obviously I don't know. Real racism is reprehensible. Looking for racism where maybe it doesn't exist is just as bad.