JAB

When dry, does the paint have a noticeable 'texture' to it?  Just wondering.  My imagination has been working on the seeds of what I think would be a fun project - a single shot shotgun modified to make a good truck/trunk gun.  I have been thinking I would want a durable, low gloss, low cost and easily touched up finish so that paint sounds like a possible option.

Ha!  Well, there is at least one portrait of Crockett in 'frontier' garb, holding a rifle but even in that one there is no coonskin cap.   Come to think of it, he doesn't look much like John Wayne, either (The Duke played Crockett in the 1960 film, "The Alamo."  His death scene is, to me, one of the most iconic ever in a movie - despite receiving a terrible wound from a Mexican spear,  Wayne's Crockett carries a torch into the room being used by the defenders for a powder magazine, blowing that part of the building up and preventing the Mexican army from seizing the powder reserves.)   Doesn't matter much, to me, as the real Crockett will always have my respect for two reasons:   1. Obviously, his actions in joining other heroes who refused to surrender at the battle of the Alamo 2. His refusal to vote for Andrew Jackson's Indian Removal Act (the Act which resulted in the Trail of Tears.)   In fact, based on a letter excerpted here:   http://www.gilderlehrman.org/history-by-era/jackson-lincoln/resources/davy-crockett-removal-cherokees-1834   his disapproval of the removal of the Cherokee was actually a large part of the impetus for his leaving the United States and going to Texas (which was its own country at the time.)  He apparently felt that a government which could carry out such actions was an indication that the Republic was pretty much over.  It seems he couldn't stand to live under such a government and so he left.

  Elves.  Gotta be elves.   Oh, well, looks like if I do get a Mini 14 I had better look for 'Factory' in the description of any mags I might buy as 'O.E.' apparently doesn't mean, well, O.E.   Thanks, all!

  Aw, man, I also hope that some company isn't doing something sneaky like that.  It would be akin to a band calling themselves 'Free Beer' so that their flyers could read, "Come out to ___ this Friday night for Free Beer!  (Actually, I think there was such a band on the local scene when I was going to U.T.)

  Okay, I'm confused.  I have some interest in maybe finding a Mini at some point so I clicked on the link just to see the mag prices.  On that page, they list 20 and 30 round 'factory' magazines and then they list, at a much cheaper price, 20 and 30 round magazines designated as 'O.E.'  I thought that 'O.E.' meant 'original equipment' and could be basically used interchangeably with 'factory'.  So does 'O.E.' mean something different, here?

  I was thinking along the same lines.  From what I have seen, most gun shops don't price slightly used/as new guns that much lower than their new guns.  As you point out, even the 'used' price will likely be more than the shop has in the gun so there is still profit to be made from the gun and, also as you pointed out, they will still be keeping the profit from the original sale (by offering store credit rather than a cash refund.)   Sounds like a good deal for both the dealer and their potential customers, to me.  If I lived closer to the area such a policy would likely at least get me in the door to browse their merchandise if nothing else.

  I have read about the Fort Pillow 'massacre', before.  Based on what I read, there were accounts from both sides which intimated that the 'massacre' happened when the 'prisoners' in question began fighting, again, just as indicated in the OP.   One, big thing used to try and besmirch Forrest's name is the fact that he was a charter member of the Klu Klux Klan.  Some accounts have him as the founder but that is not likely the truth.  However, he did move into the main, leadership position within a few years.  The thing is, people don't understand that there was, basically, no real law enforcement in many parts of the South in the years following the Civil War and the KKK was formed not as a racist group but as a group of vigilantes intent on combating that lawlessness.  Unfortunately, it appears that the focus of the group rather quickly turned to racism.  Because of that shift Forrest, himself - by right of his leadership position - officially disbanded the KKK for that, very reason (in 1869, I believe.)  Apparently, he felt that by moving into a more racially motivated direction the group had lost its purpose and focus and he no longer wanted to be associated with them.   Forrest is the source of one of my favorite quotes of all time - quite possibly my absolute favorite quote.  Apparently, there was a Captain under his command with whom Forrest did not get along.  The Captain in question put in for transfer to a different command and Forrest blocked it.  The Captain confronted Forrest and the two got into a heated argument.  The Captain ended up shooting Forrest (the bullet lodged in his hip, iirc.)  It is said that Forrest then drew his sabre and used it to kill the Captain, saying (and this is the quote to which I referred), "No damn man kills me and lives!"

Thanks to all who worked hard to get this passed!  It will be nice to be able to purchase/carry a knife based on design, purpose and utility rather than making the decision based on an arbitrary length limit.  To be honest, in the past I have been hesitant to carry a knife with a blade length even of a full four inches just to err on the side of caution.  The new law will open the door to a much wider range of useful tools, IMO.

In that first set of pics, even after coming home from the vet, you can see from the look in his eyes that the little fellah' was still in some physical pain and scared as well as wondering, "What did I do to make that person/those people do this to me?"  In the last set of pics, however, the eyes set above that wide open mouth look to be free of pain and confident that the worst is past and good days lie ahead.  Your sister has done a good job.

  Am I counting wrong?  Does the 27th count as it was sent to him that day or did his 'countdown' start on the 28th?  Also, I was under the impression that neither Saturdays nor Sundays counted?  Using what I thought was the criteria, Haslam would have until Thursday April 10 to sign or veto.  I hope I am wrong, though.   EDIT: The legislature website isn't much help in clearing this up.  I went to their 'faqs' section and it only says something like ten days after it reaches the governor's desk.  It doesn't say when the count down starts (on the day the bill is sent or the next, full day), it doesn't say if weekends count or anything else.

Too over the top, for me.  This one is more to my liking:   http://www.williamhenry.com/spearpoint-tmw.html   It still costs nearly twenty times what I would be willing to pay for a pocket knife, though as $50 is about my cut off and that is the high end, for me.

I honestly have not seen all that many folks carrying OC since I started carrying, myself (about five years ago) and started really paying attention.  The last OC I saw was in the Home Depot in Lenoir City.  The fellow in question had a nice looking, stainless (I think) semi-auto pistol of some type in an OWB holster at about 3:30.  The holster also looked nice and appeared to have good retention.  I am thinking it even had a thumb break strap.   Before him, the next to the last person I saw OCing was a guy in the Save-A-Lot in Rockwood.  He was carrying an Uberti (I asked him) single action .45 revolver in an open-top, western style holster.  I'm not sure how well it 'went' with his t-shirt but to each his own.    I don't think either of the above, two gentlemen or anyone else present who didn't know me realized I had my j-frame in my pocket on those, two occasions.  I did not mention it, myself.

      Regardless of where one stands on the openness of homosexuality in our country, there is one, major point at which the analogy completely breaks down.  The simple truth is that Hollywood and other, various media/entertainment outlets support gays coming out of the closet and even go as far as suggesting people be shunned for even privately opposing things like same sex marriage and so on.  Just turn on the television these days and it seems like nearly every show on every network has at least one homosexual character or couple.  Hell, I have seen more openly homosexual characters in one night of watching television than I have known in reality in my entire life - in other words, I think the ratio of homosexuals to heterosexuals has become higher on television, in movies and so on than it even approaches in real life.   On the flip side, those same Hollywood types and media outlets not only don't support our cause but often actually oppose it.  Many of them don't even believe we should be able to own guns much less carry them.  Therefore, while a 'gay pride' parade is likely to receive positive coverage in the media a person openly carrying a firearm is likely to be portrayed as unreasonable, at best.  More likely, that person will be portrayed as a complete loon.  Unfortunately, just like in China and other countries where overt propaganda is used to manipulate public opinion, the public opinion of OC would be manipulated by those media outlets.  I see no way that the major media outlets are going to accept - much less promote - people who carry handguns (OC or CC) as a wrongfully marginalized, oppressed group that is bravely and justly fighting for equal rights and treatment.

  Not that this, specifically, will help you but I did notice that the Wally in Rockwood, TN had some Winchester White Box .380 in the 100 round boxes on the shelf this past Sunday.  Not the best ammo, maybe, but they had a couple of those boxes and the price was somewhere around 36 bucks a box, about where it has been for the past, couple of years.  I guess I am saying, "Keep an eye out," because I think that is a sign that you'll have a chance at finding some.   I needed to stop by the Turkey Creek Walmart on the way home from work yesterday to pick up a few things so I checked out the ammo situation there.  Didn't really notice if they had any .380 but they had a little bit of 9mm, at least.  What they seemed to have a boatload of was .45acp.  They even had some Barnes .44 Magnum HP ammo in 20 round boxes - something I have never seen in any Walmart, ever.

  Interesting.  I guess my sword canes would be legal to carry if I so desired (not saying I would, just that I could.)  As prag said, I am glad to see there are no restrictions but I won't be surprised to hear a report of some dude dressed like Conan the Barbarian roaming around Radnor Lake State Park with a broadsword on his back and a short sword at his waist.   Heck, I guess that, technically, even one of these would be legal for carry:   http://www.coldsteel.com/Product/95BOASK/BOAR_SPEAR.aspx   Talk about one heck of a walking stick!     Some nice looking work.  Too rich for my blood but nice.  I particularly like the "MBB M-19 S".  Can't remember right off hand what that type of blade is called (is isn't really a kukri - there is a name for it but I can't remember at the moment) but I like it.

  Ha!  When I lived on East Fifth in Knoxville, the carports were on an alley that was between and ran parallel to East Fifth and Magnolia.  Sometimes is was difficult to turn off of Olive onto that alley to go home because there were so many hookers standing around, blocking the alley.  I quickly learned, by seeing them, that your average street walker looks nothing like Elisabeth Shue in "Leaving Las Vegas" nor any number of hookers played by Hollywood hotties in any number of vice cop dramas.  The old saying, "I wouldn't **** her with your d***," came to mind.  Heck, I wouldn't have done it if they were paying me.   Then one day I was driving down the street on my way to the bank and noticed a couple of new faces standing at the corner of Olive and East Fifth.  There is a stop sign at that corner, the street isn't very wide and they were standing right at the edge of the sidewalk so I got a good look at them.  They looked exactly like the Hollywood depiction of a street walker or, maybe, something out of a porn flick.  They appeared to be quite attractive (with no herpes sores around their mouths, etc.)  Both wore skin tight, form fitting 'tube' dresses (one black and one red, a 'perfect' hooker pairing) that were cut well above - and I mean well above - their knees, showing off physiques that must have spent a significant amount of time in a gym.  Their hair was bottle-blonde (or wigs) but looked professionally done and teased/styled to within an inch of their lives.  Their shoes looked to be straight out of the 'Strippers 'R Us' catalog.  Their make-up was perfect and they didn't exude the 'desperate for my next fix' aura that most of the pros in that area did.   Well, I went on to the bank and when I came back home a few minutes later I noticed that both of them were gone.  I remember thinking to myself, "Damn, somebody is in for a surprise because those two were either undercover cops or very convincing transvestites.  Had to be one or the other because no, real hookers in this neighborhood ever looked like that."

I know there has to be some 'common sense' self policing but does anyone know if, under the bill (and, hopefully, new law), there is a specific blade length or other criteria where a particular blade will no longer qualify as a 'knife'?  I'm not talking about carrying a two handed broadsword slung on my back while walking around Walmart.  Instead, I am thinking of more practical issues.   For instance, a machete is - technically - a large knife.  Further, I can see why some folks might want to have a machete in their vehicle as part of a get home or bug out kit (myself included.)  Being that there are various lengths and styles of machete blade, I wonder if there is some definite point at which a 'knife' becomes a 'sword' in the eyes of the law.  As with beds and bowls of porridge, I personally think that medium machetes would be preferable for such use as the short ones don't give enough 'reach' and the longest ones don't balance/control as well, for me.  Still, I wonder if even the medium length machetes might be considered 'beyond the pale' by LEO.  Heck, I could see that even some larger Bowie knives might be considered to be 'short swords'.

  I know nothing about racing but even I think this is a perfect analogy.  We no longer have statesmen upon whom we can count for leadership in either the Democrat or Republican parties.  Instead, what we have now in both of the major parties are nothing but politicians.  Politicians are useful tools, at best.  Republican politicians may be slightly more useful tools than Democrats, at least most of the time, but they are all still tools.  The best way to make use of those tools in order to get a job done seems to be to make sure they are pitted against the tools on the other side of the aisle.  Then they are all about 'proving' to the voter that they are on our side.  Give either side a comfortable margin of control (as in a supermajority and the governorship) and they don't feel they have to make any effort to prove anything.  Perhaps even worse, the crap that they might want to pass at the behest of whatever special interests they really serve can be whipped right through without hesitation.   And so you get Republican leadership that bows to the concerns of a few, big business interests and guts a bill that would protect an honest citizen's right to store their own, personal property (a gun) inside their own, personal property (a car) while on company property without fear of reprisal.  Then, you have a Republican governor voicing doubts about having law abiding citizens being legally allowed to carry whatever knife they want (because, let's face it, criminals do so, anyway.)  Finally, you have that same Republican governor speaking out in opposition to law abiding citizens - citizens who have had to submit to background checks and training requirements plus pay fees for a permit to exercise a 'right' - being able to carry a firearm on public property without worrying about whether or not this or that little berg has laws against doing so.  The Republican party makes the claim that they are the friend of the gun owner.  Huh.  With friends like that, who needs Democrats?

  Yeah, he just comes across as too much of a dufus.  Heck, so far he doesn't even seem smart enough to have been a science teacher, to me.  Even in the comics he was portrayed as being smarter than he has been so far in the show.

  As long as it passes, I don't care.  At this point, he has already shown his true colors and has lost my vote.

  Once, again...     So I fail to see how finally being 'rid' of Bredesen in exchange for Haslam helped us.  As I said, I don't care what 'team' they play for nor do I care what kind of campaign promises they spout.  I care about results and the results are that (iirc) Bredesen signed off on 'Castle Doctrine' based laws, didn't block state park carry and got over-ridden on 'guns where alcohol is served' while Haslam has been unsupportive of even removing knife restrictions and has supported opposition to state preemption on park carry all while the Republican leadership gutted and neutered the parking lot bill last year.  Further, there is little chance that a Republican supermajority would over-ride a Republican governor if he vetoes state preemption of park carry or any of the other bills.  So, why am I supposed to believe that we are better off with the Republicans in charge?   As for the Tea Party, it might have had potential as a force for individual rights when it first started.  Now, I fear, it has been infiltrated by the modern Republican (aka Big Business is God, screw everybody else) Party, RINO apologists and 'progressive' Republicans to the point that it really doesn't mean much of anything.   Oh, and there is another reason I think we might have been better of with 'the other guy'.  If we had a Dem as Governor then the Republican supermajority/house and senate leadership would have someone to fight against.  They would want to push things like gun bills so that, if he vetoed them, they could over-ride him.  It would be more political maneuvering and trying to cast him as a lame duck than any, real desire to expand our rights but if the end result were expanded rights then I would be okay with that.  As it is, the senate and house Republicans wouldn't want to rock the boat for a Republican governor so we get table scraps, at best.  I don't think it is ever a good thing when one party controls both of the legislative branches as well as the Governor's office (or the White House and federal legislative branches, for that matter.)

  Yes.  At least then people who truly believe in a more right-leaning position could hopefully be motivated to replace him in the next election.  As it is, we have a left-wing RINO and, because he plays under the Republican name (which is more important to those who think that political elections equal the Superbowl as in actual policies and beliefs don't matter as long as your 'team' wins) there will be no, real impetus to move away from him or his brand of bait and switch, "Talk out of the right side of my mouth but work with my left hand," bull crap.   Besides, I will say, again - we saw more advances in laws regarding self defense and carry rights under a New Jersey Democrat governor (Bredesen) with unapologetically anti-gun Naifeh as Speaker of the House than we have seen under the "good Republican" triumvirate of Haslam, Harwell and Ramsey.  The Republicans rallied support in the last, few elections with the cry of, "Oh, my God!  The other side wants your guns and your only hope is to vote for us!  We will support and expand your rights!"  Well, no two ways about it, they lied.  The three of them even keep saying that they don't even want to deal with any such legislation.

Yep. Thing is, though, I would see it as a chance to 'redeem' the character or at least explain some of her actions. Were I writing it, the show would make clear that Rick and Lori's marriage was already strained near breaking before the dead started feasting on the living but she would still be faithful to Rick and would be very much the devoted wife when he gets shot and is in the hospital, etc. Lori was annoying, at times, but I didn't hate her the way many people did. Remember, she was just an average person, a wife and mom, whose whole life was turned upside down not once but twice within a very short time (Rick getting shot was the first and the zombie apocalypse the second.) In her grief and fear, she turned to someone she thought she could trust (remember, too, that Shane had told her that Rick was certainly dead - she didn't know she was cheating on him) and then what she thought she knew was turned upside down a third time when her 'dead' husband showed up very much alive and she realized that the one person she thought she could trust in that screwed up world (Shane) had lied to her about something pretty damned important and had slept with her knowing that Rick was still alive when they left town and might still be alive. If she had slipped around with Shane after Rick came back then I would have lost all respect for the character but she did not and very pointedly shut Shane down any time he tried to go there. Some folks think she was a queen B because, as they see it, she basically told Rick he was probably going to have to kill Shane (remember that Shane had very nearly raped her while they were at the CDC) and then she got mad at Rick when he did. I didn't see it that way. Instead, to me, it seemed that Lori accepted that Shane was dead and was upset that Rick had (in her view) put Carl in a position where Carl had to shoot zombie Shane.. She knew how Carl felt about Shane and probably feared what having to shoot Shane (even zombie Shane) would do to him. Remember, also, that despite all the crap that Shane had done, Lori still knew that there was at least the possibility that he was the father of her child and, no matter what else he did, he was the guy who got her and her son out and had kept them safe until Rick found them. It would be understandable if she were conflicted by hearing that he had been killed. Remember, as well, that in telling Lori that Shane came back Rick also told her that the living were already infected, that everyone would come back upon death if not dealt with and that Rick had known that for a long time (since the CDC, meaning their entire time on Herschel's farm) and had kept it a secret. That was a lot to dump on someone all at once. "Shane's dead. I killed him and our little boy who kind of idolized him shot him when he came back. Oh, and by the way, we're all already infected which means that if you lose the baby it is going to turn into a zombie inside you and eat its way out. I've known that for a few months but figured I'd just keep it to myself. No reason you should have known that when trying to decide whether you should keep the baby or not at the very beginning." Lori wasn't the only one in the group that was a little pissed about Rick having not told them the truth despite having known it since they fled the CDC. I also think that some folks didn't notice or maybe forgot how Rick was acting toward Lori that whole time. He seemed to have more or less forgiven Shane (who had lied and told Lori he was dead) but was being kind of a douche toward Lori. One minute he would act like he understood and forgave her and then the next minute he acted like he almost couldn't stand the sight of her and blamed her because his best friend lied to her, told her he was dead and took advantage of her and their situation to get her into bed. Sure, Lori wasn't blameless in the whole thing but Rick was just as bad and Shane was really the one who was ultimately at fault. Honestly, unlike some, I pretty much hated Shane even before he went off the deep end because he lied about Rick for sure being dead and manipulated Lori and Carl in an attempt to take over his supposed best friend's family. I do think the Lori character was much more likeable and understandable in the comic. Maybe that is why I didn't despise the television version of her.

  If so, didn't the shrub have eight years to get that rule overturned?  Maybe Bush 2.0 supported the rule or maybe he was just too vacuous to know it existed?    My sympathy to anyone who was hurt or killed in this incident - except for the shooter.

In the article linked in a previous post, Goobernor Haslam talks about 'property rights' and claims that the local officials should have the ability to regulate firearms on property that their local constituents paid for.  Ummm...no.  We aren't talking about private property here.  We are talking about public property and local officials should not have the right to make the same type of decisions they can make on private property.  The Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution says that the government does not have the right to infringe.  Just in case that isn't clear enough, the Tennessee State Constitution goes further in protecting the right not only to own but to bear arms.  Even the specious activities of regulating the carry of arms by state level officials under the 'view to prevent crime' clause doesn't seem to me - a lay person - to grant local officials any right, whatsoever, to do so.   So, no, Goobernor Haslam, local officials should not have the right to limit firearms carry on PUBLIC property.  Instead, they should be required to follow the Constitutions of both the country and the state by not interfering with the right to keep and bear arms that is outlined in both.   God, it makes me sick that I let myself be talked in to voting for that guy by the 'lesser evil' crowd..  I'll write in my dog before I'll vote for him, again.