JAB

I call dibs on the black powder shotgun. I have been told (by someone who has worked there for years) that every, single Cracker Barrel has an old (antique) long gun of some type hanging over the fireplace or somewhere else in the restaurant. One in particular that I am thinking of has a nice, solid looking, muzzle-loader SxS shotgun. Non functional? Maybe but it isn't like making it functional would be all that complex. I am thinking that a few hand tools, likely also hanging somewhere on the wall or from the ceiling, would be sufficient to accomplish the task. It would probably be a lot easier than trying to build a good one from scratch. I have plenty of firearms, of course but in a long term or TEOTWAWKI event I think that eventually having a muzzle loading shotgun could come in very handy. If caps are unavailable if nothing else maybe it could be converted to a matchlock setup or similar.

I turn my gas grill off the same way. Of course, since I set up a sort of 'pioneer kitchen' in the yard I generally do my outdoor cooking/grilling over wood. I think the cylinder for my gas grill has been empty for about two years, now. I need to get it filled or exchange it just because gas grill cooking is so convenient. I have to replace the grids before I can use it again, anyhow.

I see this as the basis for a commercial for one or another brand/make of pickup truck: (Scene of an SUV moving along leisurely on a country road) If you are going for a nice drive in the country an SUV will do but if you really want to haul stuff... (cut to scene of a pickup hauling lots of things in the bed) ...get a truck.

Does it have to be a 9mm? If he is comfortable with a .380 that may or may not work then a good .380 that would work would certainly be an upgrade. Going to .380 would also open up more options for guns that are easy to conceal, etc. Also, off topic, where is this 'Harvey's' of which so many of you speak?

Yes, it will. I can tell you, however, that Hornady Critical Defense does slightly better out of my 6.5 inch Heritage. The Gold Dot is certainly no slouch. In my unscientific gallon water jug test Gold Dot kind of over expanded a little out of the Heritage - in other words the petals bent back far enough that it reduced in size, again, after expanding but still does well. Out of the longer barrel the Gold Dot dumped a lot of energy early and very impressively split the first jug in line. The Gold Dots kick the crap out of the performance of the Hornady out of my 1 5/8 inch barreled NAA mini revolver, however. The Hornady was actually very disappointing out of the NAA - not much expansion and seemed to barely get into the third jug. The Gold Dot out of the NAA looked almost identical to the picture of the expanded round on the box, went through three gallon jugs, poked a hole in the face of a fourth, rebounded and was found in the third. It wouldn't be my first choice but I honestly would not in any way feel 'unarmed' even against a two-legged critter with a reliable handgun loaded with those Gold Dots.

Beautiful gun. I don't have a Ruger Single Six but I do have a much less expensive Heritage Rough Rider .22 combo. A single action .22 is a heck of a lot of fun and a .22WMR from a 6.5 inch barrel can quickly and humanely dispatch a nuisance possum.

Sounds like a good way to get their 'new' locations wrecked when a few hundred people who thought they had reservations show up to find that they are being screwed over by crooked owners/management.

I can just see some of the people who are paying for hotel rooms and buying eclipse viewing event tickets wanting their money back - as if the hotel management and event organizers control the weather. If it rains I just hope there isn't some huge traffic incident like a multi-car pile up or something as a bunch of ticked off, disappointed people who aren't familiar with the roads all try to leave the area at once.

Honestly, I think it was kind of insane that they were planning to have classes. Think of this: Just 'next door' in Sweetwater they are predicting tens of thousands of visitors. Hotels there have apparently been booked up for about a year, from what I have been told. Loudon is closing the freaking bridge - the only way to get into town from the highway (as in not using the Interstate) so people can stand and watch the eclipse there. The eclipse event at Fort Loudoun State Park (yeah, it is spelled differently) is sold out. Sweetwater, Loudon - these are very small, rural towns. The streets are not designed to take this kind of traffic load. Trying to get kids to and from school that day would be an absolute nightmare because of traffic, etc. Kids trying to wait to catch the bus would probably create a dangerous situation for the kids. It is going to be chaos. I think it is only sensible to close the schools - not because everyone needs to be out to see a 2.5 minute eclipse but because of the massive cluster**** that will ensue when that many people who aren't from the area and have no clue where they are going try to pack into a few, small towns and then start freaking out because a tree or hill or tree on a hill is blocking them from having the absolute, perfectly unobstructed view of the eclipse and so try to start moving around to see it better.. No need adding to the insanity with buses, cars, etc. bringing kids to and from school. Besides, this way if several hundred Elementary School students wind up being blind on the 22nd it will be on the parents/guardians/etc. and not the schools. EDIT: I checked out of curiosity and the message on the Loudon County Schools website basically echoes what I was saying, above:

Yep. And my second. First was a Savage/Stevens .410 single. I got it for Christmas from my parents when I was about 14 or so. Second was a 12 gauge single made by a company in Brazil whose name escapes me, right now - CTE or something like that? Third gun was a Titan .25 I got as a present from my mom on my 18th birthday. It was stolen from her house at some point (not a break in robbery - she kept it 'where she could get to it' and I think a visiting relative found and pocketed it.) So that was my first handgun and I don't still have it. I bought one just like it at a gun show a couple of years back, though, just for memories and because I honestly like shooting the little dude. Don't shoot it much, though, because .25acp ammo is so danged expensive.

I actually haven't had too many interactions with police while armed but in the one or two instances I did - which didn't have anything to do with me being detained for any reason, I've said something like, "I have a permit to carry and a .38 in my pocket." That was to avoid simply blurting out, "I have a gun." The one or two times this has happened, the response has been, "As long as it stays there it's not a problem." That was actually why I made the comment along those lines to begin with. In fact, I guess since the interaction wasn't because of any wrongdoing or suspected wrongdoing on my part, I've never even been asked to see the permit, just if I have one. Those are the 'good officers' who are reasonable and who, sadly, get lumped in with those who probably have no business being in law enforcement in the first place. One of the best interactions was with the then Sheriff of a small town near where I live (Vonore). This was a few years ago so I don't know if he is still Sheriff or not. I was at Farnsworth's. He had just come out and was heading toward his vehicle. I had just gotten out of my vehicle to go inside when he stopped me in the parking lot. Although I generally don't fully open carry (usually at least 'casually concealed) at that, particular time, I was carrying a Rossi snubnosed .357 OWB with no cover garment. This was before car carry was legal and I was also in public - in the parking lot - at the time so he could have asked if I had a permit. Instead he said, "I see you're carrying. Going in there to the range?" I told him that I was. Then he said, "Good. I like to see people not only carrying but also practicing in case they need to use it. I've got to bust your balls, a little, though [I specifically remember him saying "bust your balls" because I thought it was great.] You have your gun but where is your light? I have to harp on my guys all the time that if you are carrying a gun you should be carrying a light so you will be able to see your target if you are in the dark." I then said, "I believe the same thing and I carry a light even when I am not carrying a gun," and showed him both the pocket flashlight I was carrying and the backup Photon on my keychain at that time. He responded that he was impressed, told me to have a nice day and we both went about our business. I don't know much about him but I have to say that if I lived in Vonore, barring any really good reason to the contrary, he would have had my vote in the next election.

The 'poorly paid' argument honestly holds little water, for me. If I don't like the salary I am making and don't like my job do you know what I should do? Look for another job. Officers have the same option - no one is forcing them to remain in law enforcement. Further, they had to know that the job would be hard and they wouldn't get rich doing it when they signed up. Would I want to do it? Nope - and that is why I don't. Now, I understand that one might not be able to find a new job immediately and I understand that the bills have to be paid so one might be 'stuck' for a while but I do get tired of hearing how 'awful' and 'low paying' the job is - especially when it is used for justification for an officer or officers doing anything from being jerks to outright abusing a citizen's rights right up to strapping someone to a restraint chair and torturing them. If the job is that awful and low paying then one should look for another job that one likes better and stop giving good cops a bad name.

Personally, I believe that once a citizen provides proof that he or she is legally carrying then, without strong probable cause, at the very least, an officer should have no more right to disarm the citizen than the citizen has to request that the officer leave his or her firearm in the patrol car. As a citizen, I don't know the person who is approaching me and just because he or she is wearing a uniform doesn't mean I won't end up 'accidentally' shot. My life and my right to feel safe and secure in my life is every bit as important as an officer's so as long as I haven't given the officer probable cause to suspect I will do him/her harm then if I have to disarm for our conversation then the officer should have to disarm, as well. Luckily, instead of disarming a legally armed citizen I think/hope most officers would reasonably say, "Well, you leave yours in your holster, I will leave mine in my holster and we won't have a problem."

I always think along the same lines whenever someone points out that the majority of cops aren't like this. Sure, maybe only 10% are corrupt or just outright bad cops (although I think the number is probably a little higher) but what percentage of the ostensibly 'good' cops look the other way when crap like this happens? What percentage of the 'good' cops - as you say - circle the wagons and try to defend their behavior just because they are 'a brother in blue'? As Chucktshoes alluded earlier, what percentage is more interested in loyalty to their profession than in actually upholding the law even if it means 'ratting out' and condemning the behavior of other officers? And if the 'good cops' know that these 'bad cops' are engaging in such abuses of power and they don't say anything then are they truly 'good cops'? Honestly, I would say, "No, they aren't." Now, do I believe that all cops know beyond a shadow of a doubt that other cops are abusing power, etc. and yet say nothing? No. Do I believe that there truly are 'good cops'? Yes, absolutely. However, I think the kneejerk reaction by other cops and by some members of the public to automatically defend the cops no matter what is a dangerous trend that is not good for our society or, honestly, for those truly good cops that do exist. One, major problem is that pointing out these things or any, other failure on the part of law enforcement is often met with claims of 'cop bashing' or complete and utter B.S. such as, "Well, you wouldn't want to do it," rather than being taken as honest criticism of behavior that is not up to the standard to which officers of the law should be held.

I think that is exactly what happened with the so-called 'guns in bars' bill/law. Bredesen vetoed it and the legislature over-rode his veto. When we had a Democrat governor and a Democrat Speaker of the House the Republicans in the legislature - as well as some Democrats - had something to prove. They wanted to convince gun owners that they were on our side so that we would help give them control of the state government and they have been double-crossing and bait-and-switching us ever since. I think we need to get back to a balance in which, while there are still enough 'pro gun' representatives and senators or at least enough that want us to believe they are 'pro gun' to pass good legislation, those ostensibly 'pro gun' members of the legislature have to actually work to prove it. Give them a governor they have to fight instead of one that says, "Don't send me any real, strong pro gun rights bills," to which they respond, "Whatever you say, Lord Haslam." Even worse in the last, few years was the situation where a pro gun rights bill is gutted because UPS or FedEx doesn't like it and they get their bought and paid for puppet - who was supposedly 100% behind gun rights and carry rights - to gut the bill.

If she gets the nomination this should be novel. I haven't voted for a Democrat in a while but I think I'd rather give them a chance than vote for Harwell and essentially give the Haslam regime another term. I have seriously come to the conclusion that the only way to break the cycle wherein our current Republican-dominated state government lies to us, blows smoke up our butts and constantly double-crosses us is to vote some Democrats in for a term or two so that we can later replace them with true firearms right supporters. Hell, for that matter there are probably some Democrats who are, in a practical sense, more pro gun rights than Harwell or Haslam (or Ramsey.)

Keep in mind some older folks don't trust banks all that much. Could have been the majority of his social security check or something. What concerns me is that he basically said that he shot to kill. Oh, it doesn't bother me that he did just that he came right out and said it - I hope that doesn't cause problems for him, later. It also seems to me like the authorities could pressure the woman who was part of the setup into revealing the identity of the other person. I wonder if this isn't a case where she could potentially face murder charges because she was part of a crime in which someone was killed. That possibility should get her talking!

I wondered about motion activated sprinklers, myself, but dismissed making that suggestion based on the fact that geese are 'waterfowl'. I wonder if the sprinklers would bother them or if it would just provide them with a nice shower.

Nothing, of course. The problem is that I don't for one second believe that national reciprocity would benefit us, in the long run and maybe not even in the short term.

Pet alligators? I wonder if there is a way to rig up a digital clip of a really loud, air horn type sound - or maybe a random variety of sounds - to automatically play a couple of times during the day. Do it through a bluetooth link with some of those outdoor bluetooth speakers (the ones disguised to look like rocks, etc.) placed around the area they mostly frequent and see if that would kind of keep them scared away. Or maybe if there were some way to have a loud siren on a timer to activate for a few seconds a couple of times a day. If you could do some kind of loud noise on a timer with some kind of flashing lights that would operate simultaneously I wonder if that would be effective. Now, I just have the idea - I have no clue how or even if it could be implemented.

I have said many times that a Federal Government with the power to tell some states that they must allow handgun carry simultaneously gains the ability to tell all states that they cannot allow anyone to legally carry. No, thanks. Also, again, for those who want to bring up driver's licenses think about where many of the federal emissions controls on motor vehicles originated and where the impetus for more/stricter EPA regulations usually come from. Yep, Kalifornistan. Do you really want a National Concealed Carry system with regulations and requirements that originate on the left coast? I certainly do not. This really is an issue best left to the states. Further, even if national reciprocity were in place would any of you actually dare to try and carry in New York or California? Keep in mind that, just as with operating a motor vehicle, you would be responsible for knowing and obeying all the rules and regulations for firearm carry that are in place in those states and cities - and you can bet that those states and cities would place such onerous regulations on carry that nearly anything one did would be grounds for arrest and forfeiture of the firearm. In other words, a TN permit holder might be theoretically legal to carry in New York but it would still be so troublesome and have so many potential legal pitfalls (which could impact the ability to have a carry permit, period) that it would be practically impossible. I'll pass on that. Our current system may be flawed but expecting the federal government to make something 'better' is kind of like expecting Leatherface from the Texas Chainsaw Massacre movies to perform precision surgery - it isn't going to happen and, IMO, we should really all know better.

I only make holsters and sheaths for myself or to give to family or friends and I often leave the leather its natural color because I like the way it looks as it wears and darkens. That said, I have dyed a few things - even using cheap Kiwi liquid shoe/leather dye, sometimes, when I just want black - and have only ever seen the dye gouge and/or peel on one occasion and that was because the dye in question was pretty much designed to do that. It was an 'antique' black finish/dye. It cracked and even peeled a little, when dry, but that was because it was supposed to mimic the finish on old, worn leather (in this case a holster I was experimenting with for my Heritage Rough Rider.) In this case, I almost wonder if the maker had already treated the leather with its final treatment product before applying the dye and then tried to dye the holster black afterward. Some type of oil and or wax based leather conditioning/preserving product might keep the leather from absorbing the dye properly, I think.

If I am at home and there are strangers on my property as was the case in the OP, depending on the situation (with countless factors figuring into the specifics of my response) - particularly if I feel there is a credible possibility of a 'threat' - the other party will probably be too busy looking at the pump shotgun in my hands to worry about whether or not I am 'brandishing' the side arm in my holster. However, I live in the country on a dead end road and this is my back yard: I also know from recent experience (with mom's house burning down and me getting injured in the fire) that it takes emergency personnel and authorities 30 to 45 minutes to get to my house once 911 is called. So, to me, that old Public Enemy rap "911 Is a Joke" makes sense. I can't depend on the cops or an ambulance showing up until the situation is over and resolved, one way or another, so I am not going to take chances out of concern that I might 'frighten' someone who is on my property and who doesn't belong there in the first place. I'll still call 911 when appropriate, of course, but have to realize that I am essentially on my own and act accordingly.

I think you would also have to be careful not to do - at least figuratively - what the characters in the show/comic did literally. By that, I mean you would have to be careful to avoid making your 'sanctuary' also become your 'prison'. Think about it - one of the best places they found to live in the show was a prison - a place that most people who are in prisons in our world want to get out of. I mean, safety is important but if you are basically 'imprisoned' inside your safe cocoon how long will it take before people start going stir crazy and you start having unrest in the group that has the potential to eventually become as dangerous as the zombies outside? For that reason, I think a setup more like Woodbury or, even better, Alexandria would be better. Security is important to survival but so is morale and the mental well-being of you and your fellow survivors - especially in a world where even individuals who were very well-balanced from a mental standpoint before the outbreak are likely hanging onto sanity by their fingernails, especially those who are able to survive the first, couple of years and get through the things they might have to do in order to survive.

The Walking Dead does not refer to the reanimated corpses. Instead, the survivors are 'the walking dead'. That reinforces that, at its best, the show (and especially the comic) is NOT a show/comic about reanimated corpses. It is a show/comic about the survivors and their story of survival in a world filled with reanimated corpses. I think that is part of the reason people who tune in expecting - and want to insist - that it is supposed to be 'a show about zombies' are often disappointed - because they are wrong. The zombies are simply a plot device. It could be aliens or mutant, malicious chihuahuas (but I am glad it is zombies.) Although the main characters refer to the reanimated corpses as 'walkers', the actual term 'the walking dead' is only used once or twice in the show or comic and to the best of my knowledge/recollection the only time that term is used in the comic or the show is when it is used to refer to the survivors, as in this scene: