JAB

  I'm not exactly sure what you mean by that.  "Supernatural" isn't on cable, etc.  It is on regular, broadcast television on The CW (generally, what used to be WB.)  In the Knoxville area, for example, it is on Channel 20.   My mom really likes that show and she talked about it so much that she talked me into starting to watch it a couple of seasons ago.  It really is pretty good.  I don't know that I like it quite as much as I like 'Grimm' but I do like it.

  Funny thing but for factory ammo, 16 inches seems to be the 'sweet spot' for .357 and .38.  I am sure a handload could change that, though:   http://ballisticsbytheinch.com/357mag.html   http://ballisticsbytheinch.com/38special.html

  My mom has been sort of infatuated with Taurus' Judge revolvers ever since they came out.  Something about the idea of being able to fire .410 shells and .45 ammo from the same gun apparently just really appeals to her.  What she doesn't like, however, is the price that The Judge has on it so she eventually started mentioning an interest in just about anything so chambered.   One day at my favorite LGS, I saw that they had a used Comanche.  I kind of wanted it for myself but knew that mom wanted it more so I told her about it.  She ended up going to look at it and it came home with her.  You are right, it is a complete hoot to shoot - moreso with the .410 than with the .45, IMO.  In fact, if I had one I would likely buy one box of .45 for it (just in case), put the .45 barrel tip in a drawer so it wouldn't get lost and pretty much only ever shoot .410 from it.  Heck, that thing is so fun to shoot that it has me considering picking up one of those Leinad .45/.410 models one of these days (I think the double barrel version might be interesting.)

Personally, I don't think it looks 'tactical', at all.  Instead, I think it looks classy - likely more classy than it did when new.  My guess (not being familiar with the model) is that this was what I would think of as a utility or maybe a field shotgun even when it was brand new.  To me, that is the cool thing about old, utility and field guns - they aren't anything 'special' in the overall world of firearms and you can get them at reasonable prices, especially if they are 'cosmetically challenged.'  Often, you could just shoot them as-is and not worry about dinging them up because they are already dinged up (with one or two exceptions, that has been my approach with the few that I have.)  Alternately, you can restore them to 'like new' status - but then all you really have is a 'like new' utility firearm.  To me, that works in some cases (depending on the design of the gun, the kind of wood, the figure in the wood and so on) but in other cases it doesn't really do anything exciting and the gun loses the 'character' it got from having seen some real use.  A third option is to do what you have done and do some light resto-modding so that the finished product keeps something of the spirit of the original while at the same time taking on a customized, personal look.  To my eye, what you ended up with looks a lot better than what you started with even if the stock hadn't been broken, etc.  In fact, I'd say you elevated it a bit above the 'utility' class of guns.  In that last pic, the stock almost looks like it was carved from a nice piece of marble or something.  I really like it.   Now for a question:  how did you get that 'webbing' look with the black paint.  Did you just go all 'Jackson Pollock' on it or is there some method to getting nice, even coverage?

I lost the ability to get my favorite 'bought' jerky at the same time I lost the ability to get the best barbecue I ever had (I seriously don't think there are very many barbecue examples out there that are as good as mine but this one blew mine out of the water.)  It was at a little hole in the wall place called Phil's Country Biscuit and Barbecue to Go that was on the highway (can't remember highway number) that runs from Ooltewah to Cleveland (the same highway as Couch's but closer to Cleveland - Couch's barbecue isn't bad but I liked Phil's a whole lot better.)  Seriously, he had some of the best barbecue ever (Phil was obsessive about good barbecue - he had different sauces for his beef and pork and once stopped selling the beef for a time because he couldn't get the exact spices he wanted to make the sauce.)   Anyhow, he also had a set up in the downstairs/basement area of his barbecue place where he made smoked beef jerky.  The barbecue flavor was good as was the spicy but the best might have been a rather unusual flavor that I haven't seen elsewhere.  He called it 'BG' which stood for 'butter garlic'.  That one wasn't super salty and tasted like, well, butter and garlic.  I generally prefer spicy but I think I could have eaten my weight in that butter garlic jerky.  I swear, that man was to smoked meats and spices what J.M. Browning was to firearms.   He closed that restaurant and then, a few months later, opened one in downtown Cleveland but the hours were such that I never seemed to make it by there.  I don't even know if he sold beef jerky at the newer place.  He has since closed that one, too.   I used to eat a lot more jerky but have had to curb my consumption due to a need to watch my sodium intake.  On a road trip a few months back, I tried Duke's brand Steak Strips.  I was craving jerky and got the Duke's product because it had a bit less sodium than other, similar things.  It was a bit different than regular jerky (Dukes sells regular jerky too, I think.)  It was not as thin - almost more like chunks in a way - and was more tender.  I also thought it tasted more like fresh beef than a lot of jerky that I have had.  I really, really liked it but I don't see it around my area, much (I got it at a gas station/convenience store in Kentucky.)

  That was going to be my suggestion.  I have a Victorinox SAK Tinker that is my EDC.  I always carry it but I sometimes also have my Kershaw Crown clipped to my pocket.  There are also times when I carry a neck knife of one kind or another with the SAK and other times when I carry all three.  Then there are times I carry the SAK in my pocket and a small, fixed blade sheath knife on my belt.  I do that because I think of the SAK as more of a mini tool kit that happens to have a blade in it.  The blade works fine for many applications but sometimes a 'dedicated' knife makes a better tool - but I use the other tools on the SAK often enough that I don't want to stop carrying it in favor of only carrying a 'regular' knife.   I feel largely the same about multi-tools.  The blades on them are useful but, again, almost an afterthought and not as convenient as using a 'regular' knife for certain applications.

Another thing to really think about with small revolvers are the grips.  I had a Rossi .357 snubbie that had full grips on it and I could fire full house .357 from it comfortably and repeatedly.  It was a good gun but I wanted a revolver that was small enough to pocket carry (the Rossi .357 is a six shot and more of a 'medium' frame revolver) so I traded it for a S&W 642 Airweight.  In the 642, some .38+P rounds generate enough recoil that a cylinder or two are about all I can do (for perspective, I have a SBH in .44 Magnum that I enjoy shooting.)  Thing is, the 642 has the tiny 'boot' grips that leave the backstrap exposed and are intended to make concealed carry easier but that make recoil more noticeable.  I am confident that full-sized grips - especially of the overmolded type - would tame the recoil a whole lot.  Depending on how she will carry it, having full sized grips might not make that much difference in carrying but will certainly make a difference in recoil management. 

Another worrisome thing is where this took place.  Cobb county, Georgia.  You expect stupid crap like this from head-up-their-ass places like Illinois and the like but Georgia? 

It sounds like those knives were obviously there with the intent of cleaning fish but in this case it is common sense that is getting gutted.  I am coming to believe that the zero tolerance crap is not only intended to condition the nation's youth to pee their pants any time they see anything that could remotely be a weapon but also to discourage things like hunting and fishing.  You'd think that friggin' PETA was running the country.

My H&R 930 is chambered to be able to use .22LR but for whatever reason is more accurate with .22 Shorts.

  There are many indicators that what Malcolm X really did wrong was that he began abandoning his earlier radical/extremist views and hatred of white people and began adopting a less radical ideology that didn't necessarily consider white people to be 'devils' - an opinion which he had previously held.   Of course, there are also many indicators that what Malcolm X really REALLY did wrong was that he began to be too popular.  He was beginning to overshadow Farrakhan and the other Nation of Islam nutjobs in popularity and in the number of people willing to follow him.  He also revealed some scandalous information about the then leader of the Nation of Islam, Elijah Mohammed.  Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam couldn't have that so they stirred up their followers to murder Malcolm X.   I found a link to a story that says Farrakhan actually admitted to Malcolm X's daughter on an episode of 60 Minutes that he now believes his words 'may' have contributed to the murder of Malcolm X.  For a slimy piece of filth like Farrakhan to admit even that much is just about the equivalent of someone else making a full confession, IMO.   http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18560_162-194051.html

Moron.  I will say that, even though I live in a pretty rural area, I have had a visit from Jehova's Witnesses once (stopped them before they even got inside my gate, told them I wasn't interested and they left.)  After another, recent visit from some guys trying to sell books (I was at work but my mom, who is my neighbor, told me about them banging on my front door before going to her house), I posted 'No Trespassing' and 'Beware of Dog' signs on my gate and put a 'No Soliciting' sticker on my front door.  Maybe the guy in this article should have considered going that route, first.   I do know that the JW can be annoying.  When I was a kid, they would routinely wake us up at about 7 am on Saturday mornings knocking on the front door.  Dad was working as a long haul truck driver at the time and often wasn't at home so mom usually dealt with them.  At first, she tried being polite but firm and asking them not to come back - especially that early.  After that, she tried ignoring them - but they would just keep knocking until someone answered.  Finally, she ended up giving them a little 'sermon' of her own (aka cussed them out and told them never to step foot on our property, again) that apparently got through to them as they didn't come back after that.

  I would argue that as soon as sovereign states had their sovereignity over-ridden and became subjugated by force to the Federal government and a tyrannical POTUS was not only willing to but actually did jail people and strip them of property without habeus corpus that freedom in this country - as the Founders intended it to be - became a mere shadow of its former self, anyhow.

  So he could ship every, single black person out of the country and use them to start colonies in South America that would be under U.S. rule.  He was an Imperialist and a tyrant.  He also didn't want blacks and whites interbreeding which was another reason he wanted blacks out of the U.S. and away from the white population.  If he hadn't been assassinated, he likely would have at least made an attempt to go forward with his plan.   In one of the debates between Abraham Lincoln and Stephen Douglas, Lincoln made the following statement:       This can be found on page 283 of a book entitled The Lincoln-Douglas Debates The First Complete, Unexpurgated Text, edited and with an introduction by Harold Holzer.   Do not forget that Lincoln also signed off on one of the largest (if not the largest) mass execution using the largest mass-gallows in United States history.  The people being executed were Native Americans who were accused of crimes resulting from an uprising.  Thing is, the uprising came about because the Mr. Lincoln's Federal Government was not honoring treaties which promised supplies to those Native Americans.  They and their families were literally being starved and some of them decided to do something about it.  According to some sources, some of the Native Americans hanged weren't even present or involved in the 'uprising'.  Further, Lincoln sent that wonderful humanitarian William T. Sherman to deal with the "Indian problem" after the Civil War had ended.   History has spun Lincoln's choice to use slavery as a politically expedient means of justifying his war against sovereign states as some desire to establish racial equality.  His own statements show that he wasn't all that concerned with racial equality and that he, in fact, did not believe that the races were equal in any way.  Other statements - including a letter he wrote to a newpaper in response to an editorial - indicate that he really didn't care whether slavery ended or not, saying that what he did regarding slavery he did to preserve the Union and that if he could preserve the Union by not freeing a single slave then that is what he would do, if he could preserve the Union by freeing all the slaves then that is what he would do and that if he could preserve the union by freeing some slaves and not others then that is what he would do.   The Emancipation Proclamation only 'freed' slaves in states or portions of states that were currently in rebellion.  States or portions of states where slavery was legal and that had either not rebelled or had be re-taken by Union forces were not included in the Proclamation.  As the states that were still in rebellion were under the authority of the CSA and not the USA, Lincoln really had no power in those states.  Therefore, the Emancipation Proclamation in actuality did not free any slaves.  Again, it was a political move.   Many people likely also do not know that one of the first moves that the Confederate government made was to make it illegal to bring any new slaves into Confederate states.  The slaves who were already there were not freed but no new slaves were to be introduced.  I guess we will never know how things would have proceeded from there - if slavery would have eventually died out or not.  Some accounts claim that slavery was being rendered economically unsound by inventions such as the cotton gin, etc. in that it would soon become less of an investment to simply hire a few workers than to own a slave workforce.  Some even claim that slavery on a mass scale would have more or less died out on its own by the mid 1870s, anyhow.  As I said, I don't know if that would have been the case and we will likely never know.   Just a little more history that is not commonly taught in schools.

  From the links provided, I think they look pretty useful and kinda neat - just didn't know what they were.

  Lately, I mostly carry a j-frame revolver.  No safety and a round in all five chambers.  I use a holster.  I am not really worried about shooting myself accidentally with it.   Other guns in my carry rotation are   1. a P3AT (which is DAO and has no external safety) - I carry it in a holster with a round in the chamber and don't have any real concern of accidentally shooting myself with it   2. a CZ (vz) 82 - which has a safety but I carry it hammer down with a round chambered and the safety off.  In that mode, it is DA/SA.  I use a holster and don't worry about shooting myself accidentally with it.   3. a Ruger P95 - the one I sometimes carry is a safety/decocker model but I just use it as a decocker and carry hammer down with a round chambered and the safety off.  In that mode, it is also DA/SA.  Once, again, I use a holster and don't worry about shooting myself accidentally with it.   This works well, for me, because it means that even though the guns are different the 'manual of arms' is pretty much the same for all of them as with the revolver, especially for the long-trigger-pull first shot.  Use of external safeties - which I consider to be extraneous on such handguns - would eliminate that consistency.

  I think the point is that if they - even unknowingly - poked a Hep C positive kid (or a kid with any other, potentially blood born disease) and then poked a non Hep C kid, there could then potentially be another Hep C positive kid just because some dumbass thought it was a good idea to poke people with needles.  Wouldn't it suck to be, say, all lined up to be the class Valedictorian who had never been in any trouble, refrained from sexual activity and did not do drugs only to end up with a terminal illness because some crap-for-brains moron thought it was funny to poke people with a needle?   As to 'what-if', well, many of us carry firearms.  In all likelihood, we will never need them - but what if we do?  Not dealing with some of the 'what ifs' of life can have serious consequences.   Of course, as Keal G Seo pointed out, we probably didn't know as much about STDs and the like when I was in high school back in the late 1980s.  AIDS was 'new' and was considered a disease for gays, intravenous drug users and people unlucky enough to have gotten it from blood transfusions.  Hepatitis in its various forms was seemingly not as common as it is, today.  Our biggest worry along those lines was mono.   I specifically remember one of the 'hoods' (the name we used to refer to the generally delinquent element in our school) sitting behind me in class one day and thinking it was funny to poke me with a thorn.  There were bushes in front of the school that had extremely sharp thorns that were an inch or so long and pretty sturdy.  I was very much a 'good kid' so I tried not to start trouble, asking him quietly several times to stop.  Well, at a certain point I happened to move when he went to poke me in the elbow and the thorn actually stuck about half an inch into my arm.  How was it handled?  I looked him in the eye as I calmly pulled the thorn out and, with a stream of blood running down my arm, said, "Poke me with one of these, again, and I will shove it up your ass.  Just one more time.  Try it and see."  I absolutely meant what I said and, although I purposefully said it in a calm (if a bit growling) voice, I said it loud enough for the teacher to hear.  The teacher just carried on teaching class without saying a word to me.  The guy never pulled that crap on me or anyone else, again, and in fact never sat behind me in class, again.

  I do not wish to sound disrespectful to you or your beliefs.  It is just that, as someone who adopts a much more Deist viewpoint (no, Deists were NOT simply another faction of Christianity - where that falsehood got started I will never know), I believe that the Creator is just that - the Creator.  He (It, if you want to get technical as I do not believe the Creator has a physical body and, therefore, has no gender) Created the Universe, set it in motion and doesn't waste Its time dickering around with something that It got right in the first place.  Just as It didn't protect the passengers on that church bus who were killed in the accident on I-40 yesterday and just as It doesn't protect the people who are killed in Its own houses of worship during church shootings and just as It does not protect the hundreds - even thousands - of innocents, including Its own believers who are subjected to brutality on a daily basis, It is not protecting Israel.  Devoting resources that our country needs to the support of another country, including Israel, just because of some myth that was conceived thousands of years ago by the benefactors of that, very myth - the so-called 'chosen' people, themselves, is one of the very best arguments for not allowing religious beliefs to dictate national policy that I have ever heard.

Whew...didn't know exactly what a 'shemagh' was.  So glad to find that it wasn't a mis-spelling of 'shemale'.   Okay, so what does it say about me that I clicked on the link, anyhow?

  That is actually why I am hoping he can afford a couple of barracuda lawyers to go after the gang in a civil suit.  Maybe a successful suit would not only punish the wrongdoers but also win back a measure of 'how things are supposed to be' for the victim and his family.

That is one bad mamma-jamma.  Looks like something from a Frank Miller comic (which is not a bad thing.)

  A lowly pleb who can afford a fairly expensive vehicle.  Hopefully, that also means he can afford attorneys that are good enough that he can file a civil suit and end up having even more money plus owning a whole fleet of slightly used crotch rockets which formerly belonged to a bunch of asshats who thought they had the right to close public roads so they could shoot video of their stupid stunts.

You know, on the one hand I understand that we shouldn't abandon our allies.  On the other hand, however, when I say, "Let the Middle East work out their own problems," I am including Israel in that blanket statement.  With the current situation our country is in, I don't believe we are in a position to devote much in the way of resources to any other country - and that includes Israel.

Thanks again, guys.  I'll likely be taking both of you up on those kind offers at some point in the future.

  Okay, if the case it too 'weak' (I don't see how the case could be weak when one of the a-holes involved caught the whole thing on camera) then simply hold them while deciding whether or not to press charges.  By 'hold' them I mean put them in general population on Rikers Island and maybe one of the guards could let it 'slip' that they were, among other things, endangering and terrorizing a two year old little girl.    As for the one who is paralyzed, I have no f'ing pity.  He was not an 'innocent bystander' (as I saw his aunt claim in one article.)  He was stopped ON THE INTERSTATE as part of a group that was boxing the Range Rover in to prevent the driver and his family from escaping the mob.  If he had not been doing so, he would not have been run over.  Then the aunt tried to make it about money and lifestyle by saying that the guy driving a Range Rover and living a luxurious lifestyle can get away with running over people just because they ride bikes and have tattoos.  No, dumbass, the Range Rover driver can get away with running over people because those people were posing a threat to his life and the lives of his family.  My only hope is that the paralyzed biker lives a long, miserable life so he can serve as an example to others who would engage in such behavior.   Hell, I even saw an interview with the scumbag's wife on the television news where she was claiming that he was stopped and getting off his bike to 'help' the Range Rover driver.  She went on to say that the driver just panicked 'for some reason' (claimed she wasn't sure why) but now her husband was in the hospital.  Waaah.  What a bunch of bull crap.