JAB

Thing is, the skinny, pimple faced kid survived the original outbreak specifically because he was a socially inept loner who didn't have a crowd of friends or close family to become infected and take him out. The character even said so in the movie (which I thought was actually quite a clever take on why some folks might survive.) Further - again, as the character said - he didn't become crippled with grief or depression after the outbreak because he never cared much about most people, anyway. Alone with no friends, no family and no one to take care of him or for him to have to take care of - the outbreak didn't change much, for him. Besides that (much to her surprise) my wife who has in the past refused to watch anything that is even remotely horror based loved Zombieland so much that she has watched the first two episodes of Walking Dead with me and is kind of hooked (enough to have yelled at the television a couple of times when the characters were doing something especially stupid.) Heck, I might even be able to get her to watch a Romero flick, now - which would never have happened without Zombieland. I have said, before, that Return of the Living Dead is probably my favorite. I think it manages to successfully straddle the fence between comedy and horror. Maybe not the best movie ever, and pretty 'dated', but Linnea Quigley's graveyard dance affects me pretty much the same now as the first time I saw it more than 20 years ago. That and I still love the soundtrack (although I have no idea where I have put my old cassette copy.)

Having a firearm in my vehicle would be a violation of my employers rules and, as I work for a private college, probably the law, also. It would be too much of a PITA to be constantly putting something in and taking it out (plus when I go somewhere other than work we are usually in my wife's vehicle.) If that were not the case, though, I've thought that I'd kind of like to keep a break action, single shot shotgun in there. I wouldn't care if the stock was banged up, etc. as long as it was solid so I'd buy a used beater for around $100, throw on a buttcuff shell holder and a box of (mixed) shells with a few buckshot, a few slugs and the rest #4 or #6 field loads and feel okay. I'd probably go with a 12 or 20 gauge but would even be alright with a .410. That should be enough to get me through a very unlikely SHTF situation - help me survive in place, get home or whatever. I like a single because they are so simple and low maintenance that one should go 'bang' even if you forget about it for a year or so behind the seat. As Clint Smith shows in this video, a single barrel can be run pretty quickly and smoothly with practice. I've tried it with a couple of mine and, once I found the right rhythm, could honestly get a rate of fire comparable with what I can do with a pump action. Not ideal but certainly workable enough to make trouble head in another direction. One difference I found in practice is that, unlike the single barrel Smith uses in the video, my single barrels will not go into battery with the hammer back. I have to close the action then thumb the hammer back. Another idea I have had would be for one of those Rossi matched pairs that has a .44 Mag barrel and a .20 gauge barrel - or even one of the 12 gauge/.22WMR or 20 gauge/.22LR models. Heck, one of the .410/22LR models wouldn't even be bad. You sure could carry a lot of ammo in less space with .410/.22LR if that became a factor. Probably have the .410 barrel on it most of the time with rifled slugs in the buttcuff. Oh, and I am also a flashlight freak. In addition to the mini-mag (converted to LED, also with the tail switch conversion) that I carry most of the time, I also have a small, crank operated flashlight (2 LED bulbs - gives more light than you'd think) on my keychain along with a (factory) LED mini-mag and a hand-crank flashlight in my truck.

A pitfall trap with a big, honkin' chipper/shredder at the bottom. Sorry, that was just the first thing that popped into my mind.

The zombie outbreak is an epidemic. Epidemics are problems in more or less settled, more populated societies. So-called 'primitive' peoples living in small, isolated villages don't have epidemics. Why? Because the disease kills off the few individuals who live in that village and then can't spread any further. I understand that Rick was headed to Atlanta in hopes of finding his family. That said, I told my wife during the first episode that a big city is the last place I'd want to go during any kind of disease outbreak because, eventually, an infected individual will get in. Once that happens, the disease will spread like wildfire. My wife's response was, "Ah, you wouldn't go there, anyway. You don't trust the military enough to voluntarily go to a place where they are completely in charge." She knows me too well.

Whenever a company representative makes a statement such as, "We respect the rights of individuals to carry firearms, but," or "We respect our customer's Second Amendment rights, but," it makes me think of someone saying, "I'm not a rascist but I don't like (insert racial slur here)." In other words, I want to say, "Bull****. The only applicable conjuction is "or" as in, "Either you respect the right or you don't." There is no 'but'. To be truthful, the 'We respect the right...but," crap pisses me off a lot more than when a place just posts without the 'qualifying' statement.

My thought was that those two didn't just start fooling around in a tent encampment in the middle of a zombie apocalypse a week or two after they think her husband - his partner and (supposedly) friend - bought it. Instead, I took it that they were going at it before the z's hit and possibly even before he was shot. To me, as you say, the former would be superfluous. The latter, however, would give the characters and their situations more depth as well as bearing out the fact that living humans, in their own way, can be bigger bastards than the zombies. At least the zombies are just acting on instinct, not knowingly and willingly betraying someone they supposedly care about. I measure how much I am 'engaged' by how much I wish the episode were longer when it comes time for it to end. Despite some less than perfect elements, I have felt that way at the ending of both of the first two episodes. Very, very few television shows leave me feeling that way - so, overall, the show is (so far) a big win, for me. That said, when Rick and the blond chick were keeping an eye out in the department store, even my wife was saying, "They should be hiding behind cover and keeping an eye out rather than just standing there like they are teasing the zombies like, "Nah nah na nah nah! You can't get us! If they'd hide, maybe some of the zombies would forget they are there and go away." Of course, some of the acts of stupidity simply fit in with my view of reality - that people, in general, are stupid. Also, I have to keep in mind that these characters probably haven't spent a lot of time discussing the best course of action to take in case of a zombie outbreak - or thinking about survival in a SHTF situation, in general. They are flying by the seat of their pants. One thing I liked were the rats in the sewer access tunnel. I told my wife, "That is a good sign. There are no animals anywhere on the streets so the fact that there are rats there probably means there are no zombies." Sure enough, when they came to the barrier and saw a zombie on the other side, it was munching on a rat. That is a pretty good detail that I don't think the characters even picked up on, yet.

But the deer population probably brings in more money than populations of the other animals you mentioned. Again, sometimes TN hunting regs seem to be more of a money making venture than a common sense effort to preserve and control populations.

Legal? With my admittedly limited knowledge of the law, I don't see why not. Of course, it is also technically 'legal' to carry a Drako AK-47 pistol on a walk at Radnor Lake State Park but I personally wouldn't do either.

It is also my understanding that the original shop is now closed. It was in Ducktown, TN. iirc. I have never fired a Leinad but I have held/looked at a couple of them. Before seeing one in person and handling it, I thought I really wanted one. They sounded like fun and the price was nice. That changed once I laid hands on one, though. Based just on the way the metal 'felt', I'd almost be afraid to shoot one very much for fear it would blow up. I am not a gun snob, either. This is coming from someone who actually likes Hi-Points and believes they are good firearms for what they are and who admits to owning a Phoenix .25.

Well, the z's had been eating and not just people. In Atlanta, they attacked and ate the horse. Additionally, other than birds (crows, mostly) that could fly away, I don't recall having seen a single dog, cat or other kind of pet either in the city where the protagonist and his family had lived or even in Atlanta. Being that strays would be everywhere unless something had 'happened' to them, my guess is that their former owners or someone else had had them for a snack. In the location where the horse was originally found, there was no indication that any actual zombies had been there (it looked like the occupants of the house had killed themselves before they could become zombies.) My thought was that the z's bodies can somehow still metabolize the flesh they eat for energy - as well as to stop (or at least slow) the decay process. Also I noticed that some of the z's (the one outside the house that the protagonist beat down with a baseball bat, the two in the burned out bus and the one in the tank) seemed to sometimes just sit down and go to sleep or into some sort of suspended animation. Further, the z in the park was obviously weaker when he went back to 'put her out of her misery'. She was either starving, decaying to the point that she couldn't move very well or both. Or maybe the virus had simply just about run its course. Remember, it is this virus that seems to be keeping them going. Maybe it is also supplying the energy they need to help it spread. That plus the fact that even a living human with more metabolic needs than a z can survive for weeks without food made that not a big issue, for me. Well, that and the fact that (as someone mentioned) I was already accepting zombies as 'real'. My problem with the z in the park was that she didn't look at all freshly dead like every other z in the show. In fact, she was not just decayed but also dessicated like a corpse that has been dead for years. There was no indication that the virus returned those who were already dead to life. For those reasons, the leathery skin and near 'mummification' of her corpse made no sense unless she was some kind of 'patient zero' and had been locked away somewhere, as a zombie, for years (maybe in the aforementioned sleep/suspended animation state) until someone let her out.

I have been interested in hearing more about those since I saw an article about them a year or so back. Unless I am mistaken, the designer is the same as the designer for the Mateba Unica auto-revolver, although this one is not an auto-revolver. A guy on the Kel Tec forum (KTOG) had a chance to rent one at a range recently and he posted a bit of a range report. One of the more significant things he mentioned is that the external 'hammer' is not a hammer, at all. It is simply a cocking lever to allow the revolver to be fired in single-action mode. He said that after the 'hammer' is pulled back to cock the revolver, it simply falls back into its normal, resting position. He also said that the hammer doesn't move when firing DA - apparently, there is some sort of striker firing mechanism. As far as being in gun stores, I have seen exactly one for sale but can't remember if it was at an LGS or a gun show. I'm thinking it was at the gun show at the Knoxville Expo Center. Also, as I said, a guy on the Kel Tec forum rented one at his range (actually, he said they were offering rental of it for free with the purchase of a box of ammo) so there are some out there. I think the price on them is running somewhere around $600 to $800.

I'd rather see a bill that will do, basically, the same thing but worded a little differently. Rather than coming from the angle of 'employers must allow firearms in cars in their parking lots', which will be argued against based on 'property owners' rights', I'd like to see a bill that would make the interior of our vehicles the legal equivalent of our homes. In other words, the interior of our vehicle is our private property and, by state law, we have sole authority to determine what is in there regardless of where the vehicle is parked. This way, there shouldn't need to be different bills for school parking lots, etc. Worded correctly, such a law could also make it legal to have a loaded firearm in one's vehicle without the need for a permit, which some other states already allow.

Also, it is said that one of the main incidents that lead to the development of the .40 in the first place was the FBI shootout in Miami. After two agents were killed and others wounded in a gun battle with two bank robbers, the FBI decided that they needed 'more gun' than the 9mm pistols they had been using. The thing is, though, what cartridge seems to have ended the battle? 10mm? Nope. .45acp? Nope. .40 S&W? Nope - it hadn't been developed yet. So, maybe a higher capacity magazine played a role in stopping the BGs? Again, nope. In reality, the fight was ended when one of the agents fired six .38 Special +P rounds from a .357 and actually managed to hit the bank robbers in effective areas. The agents didn't need 'more gun'. They needed more hits on vital areas of their targets.

The problem, I believe, is that hunting and fishing in TN are often viewed more from the standpoint of how to sustain a money-making venture rather than how to best manage and sustain wildlife populations.

I didn't see/hear him sing the National Anthem. I have discovered in the last few years, though, that I like much of his music - especially the music he has done that aren't really 'radio popular' type songs. Several years ago, back in the '90s, I got tickets to a two-day concert at the World's Fair park in Knoxville. They had three or four stages, including the stage in what was the American pavilion back during the fair. Most of the acts I wanted to see (Koko Taylor, Clarence 'Gatemouth' Brown, Junior Brown, the V-Roys and Robert Earl Keen) appeared on that stage. At one point during Robert Earl Keen's time on stage, this tall, lanky kind of odd-looking dude with funky hair came in, kind of nodded and said, "Hello," to me and sat down right behind me. I remember thinking, "Who does this dude think he is? Lyle Lovette?" About that time, Keen started talking about how he had written the next song with a good friend of his. He went on to say that he wanted to welcome that friend, Lyle Lovett, to the stage to perform that song with him - and with that the tall, lanky, odd-looking dude with funky hair who was sitting behind me got up and made his way to the stage to sing the "Front Porch Song" with Keen. I have always thought it was pretty cool that he just came in and sat down in the audience like that.

Once, again: Coyote are listed under 'small game' on the TWRA website. I am not a lawyer but notice that there is no indication that hunting licenses, seasons, or other such hunting regulations apply. There is mention of a required permit for destroying big game. It would seem, however, that even such a permit is not needed to destroy small game such as coyote. What it does say is that, "The owner of lands may destroy any wild animals, wild birds, or wild fowl when such wild animals, wild birds, or wild fowl are destroying property upon such lands." If, for instance, coyotes are killing your goats (therefore destroying your property) at night then it would seem logical that this would allow you to destroy the coyotes "when...such wild animals...are destroying property", i.e. at night.

I don't know. I mean, I can see where you are coming from but, at the same time, I think that all the hunting regulations, hunting seasons, etc, (and, yes, I know why they are necessary) kind of make everything artificial, anyhow. After all, in a more 'natural' setup, if a man needs meat he could shoot a deer, turkey, pig, rabbit, squirrel or whatever - any time and anywhere it was legal for him to hunt - and he could darned well use his superior intelligence to realize that putting food out would help his chances of getting meat. What is so non-sporting about using our superior intelligence to help in hunting? To me, using our superior intelligence to outsmart game that is faster, stronger and has senses more keen than our own isn't cheating and is very natural. Superior intelligence is pretty much how our ancestors survived. Of course, that is coming from someone whose purpose in hunting is to get meat, not to put a head on the wall - someone who is, admittedly, a pretty inexperience (although I have been hunting, off and on, since I was a teen) and unsuccessful hunter. Probably because I do follow all the rules that the TWRA and others come up with. The problem, of course, is that some people are incapable of self-limiting. They wouldn't be satisfied with a couple of deer to fill their freezer and would want to blast as many as they could draw to their bait just for the 'sport' of it (and I would agree with you that such actions are not 'sport', nor do I believe they are ethical, etc.) Just another example of the bad seeds ruining it for everyone. I do have to wonder, though, why TWRA doesn't allow hunting feral pigs over bait like some other states do. I mean, on the one hand they talk about how they want hunters to kill as many of these invasive pests as possible then on the other hand, unless I am mistaken, they require the same licenses - and following the same regulations - as required for hunting deer.

Since when? Is that new? It used to be 'any centerfire handgun with a minimum of a four inch barrel'. Edit: From the 'Legal Equipment' section of the TWRA website, under the heading, "Deer, Bear, Boar, Elk and Feral Hog Hunting": http://www.state.tn.us/twra/huntweapons.html

Like others, I liked it. Like others, I wondered why there was a safety on what I thought was a Glock (although, not being a big fan of Glocks or similar pistols, I thought maybe it was not a Glock but some other make of which I was unaware - one that had a safety.) Like others, I wondered why he didn't syphon fuel from one of the many cars. I did have a few, other nit-picky (and one not so nit-picky) moments, though: One day he leaves the hospital, too weak to walk steadily yet a day or two later he is hale and hearty enough to jump onto a horse and ride while carrying what had to be close to 100 pounds (or more) in long guns on his back. The biggest thing, though - the thing I don't consider nit-picky - is why the heck was he still alive in the first place? The zombies in this series are smart enough to open doors, etc. so why would they leave a pretty decent meal just lying helpless and alone in a coma? Of course, maybe whoever locked the zombies up got there before the zombies could get him (wouldn't make much sense, though, considering that the z's had obviously gotten other people all over the hospital). If that were the case, though, why would he have just been abandoned? If the folks fighting the zombies thought he was already dead, you would think he would have ended up with the other bodies outside with a bullet in his head. Heh, yeah, because if he had a semiauto under the tank with him then he could have reduced that hoard of several thousand zombies by as many as nine more. If it didn't jam from being fired from an odd position at kind of an odd angle, that is.

I use a Dickies leather belt that I bought at Walmart. It is one of the style that has double 'tines' with two rows of holes. Being gluteally challenged (as in I don't have much of a butt) those type belts seem to hold my pants up better, in general. When I bought it, I did the 'test' where you pinch the edges of the belt toward each other to make sure the leather is stiff enough to not collapse. This one was and holds my carry guns in place just fine. This type does, eventually, soften a bit with wear and I find I need to buy a new one once a year or so. I think they run in the neighborhood of ten or twelve bucks.

Ummm...perhaps you missed the part where I said: In other words, your 'belief' is no more a set in stone fact than mine. It is a difference in opinion, which is okay. The world won't end just because you and I don't agree on this issue. Heck, I'd even go so far as to say that whether Nedson or Floppy or even a long-shot, one in a million independent wins will have little to no impact on whether or not the world, the United States or even Tennessee are here come next election time. You will be just fine if I don't agree with you just as I will be just fine if you don't agree with me. As neither of us is going to accept the view held by the other, there is really no sense in arguing. Hell, arguing doesn't really accomplish much, anyhow. Debate, on the other hand, is a good thing. To this point, we have been debating (or at least I thought that we were.) However, to continue the discussion would probably mean ending up in a useless, senseless argument in which we both would simply be chasing our tails. That would be a waste of time and good will. Have a nice weekend.

Again, your belief - and you should vote according to your beliefs (of course, you do not require my permission to do so.) I do not share that belief and will vote according to my beliefs. The belief that 'if you aren't going to vote for tweedle-dee or tweedle-dum then there is no reason to vote' is also not a belief I share. Further, I do not believe that voting one's conscience is 'vanity' and I honestly doubt that our Founders would have shared that belief, either. Anyhow, I have explained my side and those on the opposite have explained theirs. I will not accept your view. Neither am I likely to convince you to accept mine. I am just glad that we live in a country where (at least for now) we can still discuss such things. I am also thankful that we have the ability to vote for alternate candidates - not just choose between two government endorsed candidates or show up to vote for the only 'candidate' on the ballot every few years. To me, the ability to choose to vote for an independent or other 'alternate' candidate - along with actually excercising that option when I truly believe he or she is the best person for the job - is part of what separates us from countries that hold elections in name only with voters being told which candidate their individual 'choice' will be. In the end, that might be all it means but, for me, that is enough.

This is my layman's understanding of the whole thing. As always, I might be wrong but here goes: After the initial sale, it is a bit more difficult for the ATF to track a firearm. That is because, with the serial number, the manufacturer can tell the ATF which store the new firearm was shipped to and law enforcement can go to that store and go through the paper records to find who bought the gun originally. If the gun is subsequently sold or traded, even through an FFL with a TICS check and everything (unless the original buyer or someone else who knows is still alive, can be located and tells them the store to which they sold/traded it) authorities might or might not be able to track subsequent events where the firearm changed hands. That is why I generally (but not always) prefer to purchase firearms from an FFL (a little extra insurance that it wasn't stolen somewhere along the line) and absolutely will not sell a firearm that I originally purchased from an FFL in a FTF transaction. I might trust the person to whom I sell the firearm but that doesn't mean I will know or trust the person he or she sells it to, later - or the person that buyer sells it to and so on. I want there to at least be some kind of record that I sold or traded the firearm in case something like that happens (unless I am mistaken, isn't the make/model/serial number of a trade listed on the paperwork for the firearm for which you are trading?) If a firearm I sell goes through multiple, subesquent owners and is maybe even stolen (and possibly not even reported as such) at some point, later, I don't want to have the cops, FBI or whoever coming to me ten years after I sell it and saying, "This gun was used in a murder and there is no record of anyone but you ever having owned it." Paranoid? Maybe - but, as with carrying a firearm, I prefer the term, "Cautious."

My preference would depend on the environment where it would be carried, etc. I like the looks of a blue finish better on a revolver, in general. Also, for a carry firearm for use in normal, everyday conditions - as I carry OWB - I think that blued hides better (for me) than a shinier, stainless finish. I do think that the kind of 'dark', matte finish (I guess it is some sort of stainless) that I have seen on some Ruger SP101s looks really good and would probably hide fine since it really isn't very shiny, My Taurus 66 is stainless but it isn't extremely shiny - a bit more of a 'matte' look. I wanted stainless for it, though, because I bought it partly to carry when I am trout fishing - which sometimes involves wading. I don't plan on 'dunking' it but I wanted something that would resist moisture a little better than a blued finish.

BTW, I meant to say that I think that the two of us (me with 'Nedson' and you with 'Floppy' - which I think is great) have come up with the perfect nicknames for the two candidates. Just goes to show what average Americans can achieve when they work together. We should all refer to them with these nicknames for the rest of the campaign and continue to use the nickname to refer to whichever one ends up as governor (probably Haslam) for the entirety of his time in office. Honestly, wouldn't it be great if the nickname caught on and were used in the popular media?