JAB

  We are talking about all the, "I'll grab my bug out bag, head for 'the country' and roam around living off the land," folks.

  If they just let him go then other people might get it into their heads that citizens of this country have rights?

  Spots and I briefly talked about that same point in another thread several months ago.  Several others were saying how they planned to grab a bag and head into the country so I said that my plan was to go home, grab a shotgun and tell all these folks who planned to run to the country to get the hell out of my yard.

  I love it.  Made me think of this, possible response:   "I'm not sure.  I mean, I'm not particularly fond of guns but the voices keep telling me I should carry one."   Or even:   "The neighbor's dog told me to."

It is not a new idea but I still like something along the lines of, "I don't have any special fear of fire but that doesn't mean owning fire extinguishers is a bad idea..  I don't fear flat tires but that doesn't mean I don't carry a spare.  I am not afraid of the dark but I carry a flashlight.  Likewise, I don't have any, specific fear of being the victim of violence but that doesn't mean carrying a gun, just in case, doesn't make sense.  You wouldn't ask such a stupid question about fire extinguishers, spare tires or flashlights so why would you ask such a stupid question about my gun?"   Or, in the interest of DaddyO's desire just to cut them off, maybe something along the lines of, "I'm not particularly afraid but if a threat does arise then asking it dumbass questions about things that are none of your business won't stop it."   Yeah, I know that probably doesn't do much to 'educate' but I figure that any stranger who comes up and asks me such a loaded question isn't looking to learn anything.  They are looking to be a smartass and so should expect me to respond in kind.       Yes, yes and YES.  Most adults have the same option as I as far as getting a carry permit and carrying a handgun.  If they choose not to exercise that option then far be it from me to second-guess them.  I haven't met a stranger, yet, who I think is worth risking my own life and safety to protect.   I once had an anti ask something along the lines of, "In a mass shooting, how would you be helping matters by starting to shoot back across a restaurant and killing more people in the crossfire?"  My response was, "Such a thing isn't a concern because if I were across the building then I'd be getting my family/friends and getting the heck out.  The rest of you folks are on your own - and I'll bet you would suddenly wish you had a gun."

The article said they feds were carrying out shovels and weapons - no mention of having found the explosive devices that supposedly justified the search.  Will have to wait for more details but this is sounding a lot like a fishing expedition.  Sure, the guy ran but he obviously doesn't trust the government and he might have run for that simple reason.  That doesn't automatically mean he was doing anything illegal.

  I think he is an overstuffed tyrant with too much money for everyone else's good.     From the linked article:   And that, right there - aside from views on firearms rights - is yet another fundamental difference in this guy's philosophy and mine.  Personally, I believe that 'cities' - at least overly large (and, as a result, very corrupt) cities are the cause of most of mankind's problems, not the solution.  Localized government is one thing but when you have one or two cities - like New York City in New York, Chicago in Illinois and even Nashville and Memphis in Tennessee - that attempt to hi-jack or succeed in hi-jacking an entire state and push their city's agenda, fomented by that city's often corrupt government, on everyone who lives in that state then there is a problem.

  And to me that is the real problem.  To mention "Blazing Saddles", again - as well as other Mel Brooks movies like Spaceballs (another of the funniest movies ever made) - sure some of the gags and comedy in those was silly, vulgar or crass but you could tell that a lot of intelligent thought went into that silliness and some consideration went into the vulgarity and crassness.  In other words, those things were included on purpose for a particular comedic effect, not just thrown in because they were expected.  There was a scene in "Blazing Saddles" where a bunch of cowboys are sitting around a campfire eating beans and farting.  That was funny - not just because of the farts but because it played on the stereotype you always saw in Westerns where guys on the trail are constantly eating beans.  We all know what beans do to you but no movie that I know of had made that connection, before.  In that case, then, the farts weren't just thrown in there to have a fart joke/scene but actually served to further the parody of Westerns by acknowledging the results of eating all those beans.  I mean, the way many of the old Westerns would have it cowboys on the trail lived on beans and not much more.  If that were the case, they probably produced more methane than the cows they were herding and Brooks was pointing that out.   The same idea is true of most of Monty Python's comedy - those guys had to be geniuses to come up with some of the silly things they came up with and to carry them off in such a funny way.  Many of today's movies have silliness and vulgarity for the sake of silliness and vulgarity rather than as a part of truly satirical comedy.  I think that is why I thought the show Beavis and Butthead was really funny and always hated South Park - the former was comedy making fun of a couple of teenage losers while the latter was just an excuse to create a character that was, literally, an animated piece of feces.

  Many KFC restaurants are franchises and that appears to be the case, here - meaning that the person who owns your local KFC might have nothing to do with the KFC which treated the little girl so terribly beyond the name brand.  Boycotting a store owned by a different franchise owner would be like deciding to hate all brunettes because a brunette cheated on you in high school or hating Fords because a guy driving a Ford ran over your dog when you were a kid.  Makes no sense, whatsoever.  If I lived near the location in question then I would definitely boycott that location and any other locations owned by the same franchisee. 

  Maybe follow up by listening to some Lenny Bruce - maybe even find his animated short about the 'masked man'.  That is a Long Ranger parody in which the masked man has certain plans for Tonto. (Masked Man: "I've heard about it, read some exposes and I want to try it.  See how bad it really is.")  That isn't all it is about but that is pretty much how the short ends - with the masked man and Tonto riding off into the sunset holding hands.  It is on YouTube.  It is funny as all get out but I won't post the link, here.  Bruce died in 1966 so he was definitely part of the 'old days' being discussed, here.   Speaking of comedians, ever hear any of Redd Foxx's non Sanford and Son stuff?  Ever catch a broadcast of Richard Pryor Live on the Sunset Strip (from 1982)?   Personally, I think that the funniest movie of all time is "Blazing Saddles".  There is some 'language' and plenty of innuendo in that movie - and it came out in 1974.  Ever seen "The Kentucky Fried Movie" from 1977?  Another very funny movie (actually, kind of a movie made up of various skits) and loaded with such things.  The first time I saw the 'Danger Seekers' skit from that movie was one of the only times in my life I have literally laughed until I cried (and the odd thing is that I don't know that anyone would get away with that skit, today.)   "Monty Python's Flying Circus", which ran from 1969 until 1974 - as well as the movies from the same folks - had loads of innuendo and sexual situations.  They also represented some of the funniest comedy ever made, IMO.   You want to talk sexual innuendo?  Listen to some old blues - and I mean some of the really old stuff.  There was a song by a singer named Komomo Arnold that came out back in the 1930s in which he was asking the Lord to send him a woman - and then he says something along the lines of, "Lord if you can't send me no woman : please send me some sissy man."   http://www.elyrics.net/read/k/kokomo-arnold-lyrics/sissy-man-blues-lyrics.html   Point is, this stuff ain't nothing new.  There were bawdy songs played and sung in the 'dance halls' of the Old West that went for the 'cheap laugh'.  There were tawdry stories and plays with a humorous intent in Elizabethan England, during Shakespeare's time and before (some of Chaucer's "Canterbury Tales" fit that description.)  The very words 'debauchery' and 'bacchanalian' come from rites performed in celebration of one of the gods of Ancient Rome.   I wouldn't doubt that the paintings on the walls of the caves at Lascaux depicted sexual situations.  Heck, if we could literally translate some of that stuff we'd probably find some course language in there, too.

To me, words are just that - words.  To me, a word can no more be offensive than a gun can commit a crime.  Just like firearms are inanimate objects, words are just words and 'offensive' or not lies in the use.  Is the word 'fork' offensive"?  No?  Then why do people get so bent out of shape over another four letter word that begins with 'f' and ends with 'k'?   The fact is that people use such language in real life.  We don't live in Mayberry (thank God) so any movie that is for adults and is intended to portray anything approaching real speech is likely to have some 'swear' words.  Now, I will agree that throwing in such words simply for their own sake can indicate a weakness of ability on the part of the writers.   Another fact is that sex and sexual situations are a part of real life so why should it be such a shock that such situations would show up in movies?  Again, if the movie is a one-trick pony that relies solely on such situations and that type of humor then that probably indicates weak writers.       But I wish I could.  With a ball bat until it just finally went away, already.  I am so sick of that show that just hearing the opening whistle tune turns my stomach (no, I don't still watch it on purpose but it still seems like I can't escape it.)

  Okay, in the interest of not writing a 'novel, I will just say that if you foresee a SHTF situation where you are running around, living off the land and what you can scavenge and only able to carry what is in your backpack - and you really think you would survive long enough doing so that you would have time to wear out a modern firearm - then that is your perspective so whatever.  Me, I'm staying near my home, sleeping in my bed and keeping all my 'stuff' close at hand.  If I have to leave then I'll pile my 'stuff' in the camping trailer and take it with me.  I have no illusions that I would survive very long trying to do the John Rambo thing and I think that most people who indulge in such fantasies are fooling themselves.

The first Puleo's in the area opened near the Strawberry Plains exit back when I was still the branch manager of the Carter branch library.  I went there a few times - the first time it was great.  When we went back a few months later, it was not very good and the service was bad.  Gave them another chance a couple months after that and saw no improvement so swore off of Puleo's for a long time.  Eventually, they opened the locations in Maryville (Alcoa?) and Knoxville.  I have been to those a couple of times each and had good experiences.  I haven't been back to the original one (haven't worked in that area for several years.)   Yeah, their shrimp and grits are pretty darned good.  Not the best I have ever had but darned good.

  My great aunt and uncle (grandmother's brother and his wife) used to have something like that over their commode.  Theirs read, "We aim to please.  You aim too, please."

I didn't really pay much attention to when my forms came because I went and renewed in person.  Luckily for me, the Rockwood, TN location isn't too far a drive from where I live and they still handle HCPs (many satellite offices/driver's testing centers - including the one in West Knoxville where I originally applied for my HCP, although in its old location, no longer do anything with HCPs - which seems pretty stupid, to me as I figure since HCPs are a 'service' the Dept, of Safety provides then all of their offices should handle those just like they do drivers licenses.)  It is a small office and there were only two or three other customers in there the day I went to renew.  They were actually calling my number to be served before I got the limited amount of paperwork for renewal filled out.  The nice lady at the counter even went as far as to fold my renewal receipt in some, specific way so that it had a 'pouch' on the front then she stuck my old HCP in that pouch.  That way if I hit the expiration date on my old one before the new one arrived I would still be covered and would have the receipt right there with my old HCP.   When it came time to renew my mom's HCP, she got forms in the mail but I took her to the DMV to renew that way.  The office was more crowded that day and they were having computer trouble so we had a bit of a wait but it still wasn't bad - and my mom also walked out with a receipt showing that her permit was good until the new one arrived.

  Yep.  When a fellah I knew live-trapped a coon that was getting in his garden and tearing things up he called the TWRA to ask what to do with it.  The officer to whom he spoke informed him that it is, indeed, illegal to transport wildlife.  It has to do with potentially spreading diseases from one area to another - plus any area you might take the critter to likely already has a population of such critters which won't exactly welcome the newcomer with open arms.  The officer also said that they can't come out to pick up every nuisance animal in the state to relocate them.  His suggestion was - as the thing was damaging property - just to go ahead and shoot it and be done with it.

  The one that was on the ground, trying to get into the coop froze for a second or two and then ran and headed up a tree next to the coop when I turned the flashlight on it from across the yard  It was scootin' up that tree - about fifteen feet up - when it had a fatal encounter with some lead shot.   The other one had already climbed a different tree with the carcass of my last, remaining hen (last year.)  It had killed the hen the night before but something had spooked it before it ate her so I left the carcass in there, figuring it would come back for it and that I would check regularly to see if I could catch it.  Sure enough, it came back and got the carcass.  In fact, that carcass was the reason I was able to find it.  When I shined the light into the trees, that coon froze but since the hen was a white leghorn it stuck out like a sore thumb.  Once I spotted those feathers, it wasn't hard to find the pair of glowing eyes next to it.  I guess in a way that means the hen managed to get a little 'payback' from beyond the dead.   So, to answer your question, so far it has been 50/50 as to whether or not the coons ran when I hit them with the flashlight.

When coons get after my chickens, as long as I am smart enough to pay attention to what she is trying to 'tell' me, my dog will wake me up to let me know that there is something out there that doesn't belong.  I have to be smart enough to heed her warnings, though, rather than just saying, "It's 2AM.  You don't need to go out in the middle of the night - go back to sleep."   I have a single shot 20 gauge loaded with #5 shot and a flashlight clamped to the barrel for just those occasions as I don't really want/need to cut loose on a raccoon in that situation with the 00 Buckshot I keep in my HD shotgun.  Both chicken killing coons I took out last year were dealt with using #5 from a 20 gauge (one from an old Sears bolt action and the other from the aforementioned single.)  Even the one I blasted from almost all the way across the yard as it tried to run up a tree beside the coop fell with one shot and was dead in less than a minute after hitting the ground.  I call that a clean kill.   A couple of the hens I got this year were killed not long after I got them.  I think I figured out where the varmint got in and closed it up, though, because (knock on wood) nothing has bothered the remaining hens, since.   I am also considering something else that others might want to think about, as well.  I recently bought a solar-powered security light at Harbor Freight.  They had two models of the type I bought - a sixty LED one that ran near $40 and a 36 LED version that was on sale for around $20.  I went with the cheaper 36 LED version and, while it certainly isn't super bright, am impressed with the amount of light that it delivers.  Living in a rural area where there are no street lights, etc. I just wanted something that would give a little light in a part of my yard that I frequently walk through at night but where wiring in a conventional light would be a PITA.  This solar light has a motion sensor and was easy to install on one of my fence posts.  I am now considering picking up a couple to place around the perimeter of my yard and - this is the part that makes this apropos to this thread - maybe putting one or two in areas where any critters trying to get into the chicken coop at night will be likely to trigger the motion detector and turn the light on.  I'm wondering if that light wouldn't be enough to spook any such critter and send it on its way.  Being that the chickens don't seem to move much once they roost I don't think they would set it off very often - not that I would really know if they did but I am not sure how quickly the solar charged battery would drain if they were constantly triggering it at night.  Wouldn't do much good having the lights mounted if the battery was dead before any threatening critters made their move.  Having never raised quail, I don't know if they move around a lot at night or not.   As far as live traps, where I used to live I caught coons sniffing around my chicken coop there in live traps baited with hot dogs.  I liked using the hot dogs because I could use a piece of wire coat hanger to run through them and secure them in the trap so that the coon had to be good and committed to getting the bait.  I started doing that after a couple of times using other bait when I found the trap sprung the next morning with the bait gone but no critter trapped inside it.

Glad you found your knife!   I periodically lose whatever knife I happen to be carrying.  Sometimes I find them, sometimes I never find them.  That is the reason I will not buy a $100 knife - because if I bought it I'd want to carry it (and why buy it if I wasn't ever going to carry it) and if I carried it I would lose it.  I'm not criticizing anyone else's decisions, just stating my own.  It would annoy me enough to lose the Victorinox Trekker I have in my pocket right now and I paid less than $40 for it at SMKW. 

  I am also in my 40s and see where you are coming from but do not think I would react that way.  Not so much from a fear of dying but more that, with my luck, I wouldn't be killed but would take a bullet to the spine and be paralyzed for the rest of my life or one to a lung and end up pulling an O2 tank around with me for the next, few decades.  If I am going to get shot, anyhow, I'd much rather it be while going for a firearm of my own and returning fire.  Sort of in the spirit of my favorite Nathan Bedford Forrest quote (and one of my favorite quotes, period), "No damn man kills me and lives."   That said, I just have to chuckle at this older gentleman's response.

  I think it depends on what you foresee your particular situation being.  If you live in an urban area and for you SHTF would look at least somewhat like L.A. after the Rodney King verdict then, yeah, a single action revolver probably isn't the best choice.  If you live in a rural area where the gun's use will be weighted more toward hunting then a SA revolver might be just fine.  Of course, in the spirit of having more than one firearm chambered for your 'chosen' caliber you could have a big, sturdy Blackhawk with a longer barrel for hunting and a SP101 for SD (which would allow you the option of concealing more easily if the need arises.)  Heck, nothing wrong with carrying the Blackhawk with the SP101 or LCR as a BUG/New York reload.   There was a show on one of the cable 'sportsman' type channels a few years back that discussed a class one of the major training facilities did that focused on SD with a single action revolver.  The idea was that - while not for everyone - the guys who already practice a lot with SA revolvers for things like cowboy action shooting, hunting and the like are probably more familiar with their SA revolvers than any other handgun.  The class, then, focused on taking that familiarity and adding concepts that would help if using such a revolver for SD.  One of the things they showed had to do with the problem of slow reloads that you mentioned.  It was demonstrated that, by using a speed strip rather than reloading loose ammo, the reloading process could be sped up a bit.  Still not as fast as a break top revolver or a revolver with a swing out cylinder and certainly not as fast as a mag change in a semiauto but their method did seem to speed things up a good bit.  IIRC, they first cleared all the empties.  Then, using a speed strip, they were actually able to reload two chambers at a time.  Reload two, advance to the next two empties, reload them, advance to the last two and reload them (if not leaving the hammer down on an empty chamber - which is not necessary with modern Blackhawks.)

  I would propose that the very reason to think about/discuss such things now is so that one could be prepared for the eventualities you site, just in case, so that those eventualities would not create a problem.  In this instance, there would be at least two factors to consider in 'being prepared'.  First, you mentioned what we have running out.  Well, if one makes an effort to keep plenty of ammo in his or her chosen flavor 'on hand' before SHTF and supplies become an issue then running out becomes less likely.  Secondly, it is likely a good idea to have more than one firearm chambered in the 'chosen' caliber - or at least similar chamberings.  In other words, if one decides that .38/.357 is the way to go then one might have two or three handguns chambered in .38 Special/.38 +P - maybe even in different 'styles' as in having a J-frame sized revolver along with a medium framed .38 - and one or two larger, heavier revolvers in .357 Magnum then stock up mostly on the less expensive .38 ammo (which any of the handguns can fire) supplemented with enough of a stash in .357 to handle 'heavier' work.  Even better if one can further supplement with the components to reload both .38 and .357.  The same preparations would work if one decided that 9mm were the way to go.  In either case,  the former preparation (stocking up) lessens the chance of running out of ammo while the latter means that if one gun craps out you simply pick up one of the others and carry on.  If the designs of the various firearms in question are similar enough then eventually, the 'dead soldiers' could be scavenged for parts to keep one or two of them running.   Of course neither guns nor ammo are free so for most of us this would mean slowly building an ammo stash and a 'stable' of like-chambered firearms over the course of a couple of years and then maintaining those supplies.  It also, at least in my case, means that the bulk of the ammo stash will likely be less expensive (but serviceable) FMJ loads, wadcutters and the like supplemented by a few boxes of 'premium' hunting and SD rounds.  While not necessarily ideal, sort of in the spirit of what you mentioned about sticks and bones, etc. in a long term SHTF event those FMJ loads, wadcutters and the like would become hunting and SD rounds.   Personally, I'd choose the .357/.38 route.  To me, the ammo versatility factor as well as the power of full-on .357 would trump any capacity concerns.  That is likely because I don't foresee myself being in a Mad Max situation in SHTF where I am fighting off Mongol hordes or something.  Instead, I foresee the likelihood of subsistence hunting coupled with the possible need to defend against other individuals or small groups.  If, instead, I find myself up against a large group of roving marauders then I don't see that a high capacity firearm would make much difference.  If I have to go up against a group of 20 armed and determined attackers (for instance) then I'll be dead before I can get off more than a handful of shots, anyway.   As I have said, before, I believe that the only guns/ammo you can absolutely count on having in a SHTF situation are the ones you have in your possession before the SHTF situation occurs.  You can't count on being able to find/scavenge ammo or anything else.  That is why the idea of what ammo would be more available to scavenge in such a situation is not even a consideration, for me.  What ammo I am likely to be able to find to stock up on now, sure, but not what ammo I might be able to scavenge because I believe that the idea that one will be running around scavenging ammo is a fallacy, anyhow.  As someone above alluded, I also don't see a SHTF situation going on long enough at a true 'crisis' level that an individual is going to wear out a firearm and burn through hundreds of rounds of ammo before things are at least somewhat under control.  As mentioned, that is more an Apocalypse/TEOTWAWKI scenario than a SHTF scenario.

  I really hate to hear that.  For what little comfort it may provide, know that you, your family and especially your mother are in my thoughts.

I feel like I am starting to sound like a broken record on your threads but here it goes, again...   Looks great!

  Looking closely, I see you are right - those are rubber hunting boots.  I honest-to-goodness thought that the tan, upper part was his feet - I thought the doofus was wearing Crocs.  Not that the duck boots make him look any more sensible.