JAB

  Congratulations!  I've really laid off of shooting so as to not deplete my small stash.  I have to say that the next time I find/buy a bulk pack of .22LR then one of the older bulk packs in my stash will probably be emptied pretty quickly.   There is an M&Ms commercial, shown around Christmas time, where the red M&M and the yellow peanut M&M walk in on Santa Claus as he shows up to deliver presents.  Red says, "He does exist," and passes out while Santa says, "They do exist," and also passes out.   The first time I see .22LR back on a retail store shelf at a normal price, I just might miss out on getting any.  Instead, I might say, "They do exist," and pass out - leaving others to buy the ammo before I come to.

  Oh, I respect Grylls' personal badassery, physical strength and abilities.  I just think of him as more of an extreme wilderness adventurer/thrill seeker, not really a 'survivalist' in any way that could practically be adapted by the average person.  I mean, sure, a guy who has trained to parachute into remote areas and conditioned his body against the elements could probably do just fine jumping off of a waterfall into the pool, below, if the fall presented an obstacle to his journey.  I, on the other hand, could expect to break a leg (if not my neck) and die either from the fall or from the hypothermia experienced when my broken leg made it impossible to get out of the cold water.  An ex-special forces thrill seeker probably could cross a deep gorge by going hand-over-hand across a tree limb or something.  I, on the other hand, would be treated to a long fall ending with a sudden 'splat'.  In other words, trying to keep up with him in a survival situation would get me killed.  It would be like me saying to John Rambo, "Hey, let's go hiking, sometime."   Stroud, on the other hand - while undoubtedly 'tougher' than your average person - is not 'superhuman', appears to be genuinely trying to hone survival skills rather than thrill seeking and generally did not take unnecessary risks on his show and cautioned others against doing so.  He certainly wasn't 'timid' about doing what had to be done but was a lot more practical about the risks of injury in a survival situation and realizing that such risks should be avoided when possible.

  I have only been to Memphis once - and that was more than ten years ago, now - but that one time we ate at Rendezvous.  I am pretty picky about barbecue and liked their dry rubbed ribs enough that it started me down the path to doing my own ribs at home with a dry rub rather than 'wet' most of the time.  One of my friends got barbecue pork chops or something like that and I didn't think they were good, at all, so I would say that their menu items are probably 'hit or miss' and would stick with the ribs.. The thing I remember most, however, were the free red beans and rice they were passing out.  Those things were darned good - I'd say every bit as good as the red beans and rice I had in New Orleans.  I even found the Rendezvous recipe for red beans and rice online, once, and have made them a few times with very good results (although I have since lost that recipe.) 

  So, does he, personally, pay for all the rooms, etc. that have to be booked for the Secret Service detail?  Does he pay for the fuel, etc. for the planes that are used?  Are the salaries of those Secret Service personnel coming out of his pocket while he is on vacation and not really acting in his official capacity?  If not, we are paying way too damn much for Barry O and his family to go on vacation.  If so, where is he getting all that money?  Surely we aren't paying him that much.   And, yes, I feel the same about paying for protection, etc. for any politician to go on vacation.  It just seems like Obama is going out of his way to waste as much taxpayer money on living the high life as he possibly can.

  Probably the 'reforms' will take a page from the TSA playbook and will simply mean frequently stopping and frisking non-minority 95 year old great grandmothers on walkers and non-minority three year olds in strollers so that when they stop the people most likely committing the crimes (probable gang-bangers and the like) they will be able to point to the granny stops as evidence that they aren't engaging in 'profiling'.  The practice, however blatantly it violates the Constitution, will continue unabated.  After all, as the anti-privacy rights mantra often says, "If you aren't doing anything wrong and have nothing to hide then why would you object?"  (Yes, I think that idea is total BS.)   Sorry, I am not naive optimistic enough to believe that this will stop the practice.  They will simply broaden the scope of the type of citizen they harass in order to counter claims of discrimination.

  Thanks for the heads up on the .22 Mag ammo.  I'm not really 'hurting' for any, yet, but will buy it if I see it - and always hope to see it when I wander in to Wally.

  I still say that if I were going to be in a survival situation and was allowed to choose one of the 'survival personalities' to be with me it would be Les Stroud.  I think he wouldn't take unnecessary risks or expect everyone to be an ex-special forces wilderness adventurer but, at the same time, I don't think he'd cry and moan over killing an alligator to have something to eat.

  I am not trying to join in the 'pile on The Itis' that seems to be going on.  However, as you did ask, there are actually a couple of very good, reasonable answers to your question.  Those answers are:   1. Because one could use 'downloaded' wadcutters and (if taking a shot on a stationary rabbit, for instance) likely take small game without destroying much of the meat.  Such would not be the case with full-bore .357.  On the other hand, those .357 rounds, from a long enough barrel and within a reasonable range, could also allow one to drop a deer pretty reliably using the same gun.  To me, those two points make .38/.357 more versatile and useful in a survival situation than a rimfire.  In fact, because of the versatility, one could carry a long gun and handgun that were both chambered in .38/.357, forget carrying any rimfire ammo and in so doing free up the space/weight that would have been allocated for rimfire ammor for carrying more .38/.357 ammo.  I have stated that ratshot does not turn your rifle/pistol into a shotgun but tossing four or five ratshot rounds into the mix could further increase utility.   2. Also of concern are noise levels.  Trust me when I say that even a standard pressure (i.e. not downloaded) .38 Special round is a whole lot quieter than a full-on, barn burner .357 Magnum round - and light loaded .38s are even quieter.  That is something to consider not only for possible small-game hunting purposes (as with the earlier post about not scaring all the small game away from the area) but also for self defense.  Chances are that someone who is bugging out won't necessarily be wearing their hearing protection.  While I wouldn't want to shoot .38 Specials at the range a whole lot without protecting my ears, I can say from experience (I tried it without hearing protection when shooting outside, once, just so I would know what to expect in a 'real world' defense scenario) that full-on .357 Magnum rounds out of a handgun make a lot of noise.  As in, the first round I fired hurt my ears and by the third I was actually becoming disoriented.  I am of the belief that a good .38 Special would work just fine for self defense while being easier on the shooter.  Using a rifle chambered in .357 instead of a handgun would probably help but rifle or handgun, given a choice I'd most likely use .38 Special for the majority of applications where it would be sufficient and reserve full-on .357 for situations where the extra 'oomph' would be needed.  That said, the option of using full-on .357 would be of great utility for those situations.   3. One more thing to consider is possible injury while 'on the trail'.  If my strong (right) hand were out of commission, I might have trouble reliably and accurately firing full-on .357 rounds from even a fairly heavy, four inch barreled .357 using a weak-hand only hold.  Standard .38 Special from the same gun in a weak hand hold, while I still probably wouldn't be doing my 'best' shooting, would be a whole lot more doable.

RobertNashville, here is another quote from you.  It is from a different thread but it is 100% unedited and unchanged.  This quote actually gets to the heart of what I was attempting to say when I (yes, somewhat jokingly) 'fixed' your quote, above:       See, I agree with the above quote from you - it probably won't make any difference who wins.  Therefore, saying that voting for a third party is any more 'ineffectual' than voting for the Big Two makes no, real sense to me.  Further, as it isn't going to make any difference which Dempublican or Republicrat candidate wins, I'd as soon vote my conscience and vote for the candidate whose views I think would be the BEST for the country in the unlikely event they could actually bring about some kind of change.  I mean, if it isn't going to make any, real difference anyhow why worry about whether or not your guy could, actually, win?   Truthfully, I guess the most reasonable thing would be to just stop participating in the farce, accept that the whole thing is just a facade and quit voting, period.  Somehow, though, my stubborn nature won't allow me to do that.

Okay, how's this:     You know, RobertNashville, it would have been more accurate to say, "If folks want to vote for the Democrats or Republicans that is fine.  It is when they act like it really makes a difference which side of the plug nickel they vote for, any more than voting for a third party, that it is rather funny."     Better?  Happy, now?

  Yeah, I 'damn well know it' and, I think, so does everyone else who reads the thread so it isn't like you are being falsely represented - especially with the FIFY ('fixed' it for you) tag that I included to indicate that I had, indeed, changed your post.  Sorry if it bothers you.  I would guess, however, that it is no more irritating than constantly being told that my vote for candidate x is actually a vote for candidate y  - and no more dismissive of the original intent.

  And this is the #1 reason that, while I consider myself to be mostly libertarian (small 'l') I am not going to be joining the Libertarian (big 'L') party any time soon.  That said, at least the candidates that the Libertarians have fielded in the last, couple of elections seem to have realized that open borders wouldn't, really work.

  FIFY.

  I remember seeing, back when I had access to cable, an episode of Dual Survival where Lundin was talking about building survival shelters.  The example he was showing was a small shelter built mostly of small limbs, sticks, twigs and leaves.  He went on to say that he lived in a self-built shelter like that for some time (I think it was two years but it might have been longer) when he was in college.  He joked that it saved him a lot of money but made it kind of hard to bring girls over.

  Really?  Never heard of REI but I'll do a 'Net search.   EDIT:  Looked them up.  Seems they have been around a long time.  I'd say that I must have been living under a rock to not have heard of them but I bet people who live under rocks would know all about such a business.  I didn't see a whole lot of 'prepping' type stuff on their website, though (maybe just don't know where to look.)  They also look to be a bit more weighted toward the 'camping' end of things than I was talking about, above.

That is a good looking knife.  That 'unknown wood' sure made a nice handle.

  The staff would also need to be patient and not 'freaked out' when dealing with some of the more moonbat extreme members of the 'prepping' community.   One suggestion might be to present the store as a camping/hiking type store with a heavy emphasis on things like long shelf-life foods which could be useful for backpacking, hiking and camping as well as long-term SHTF prep.  I would think there would actually be quite a bit of cross-over between such things - especially with things like back-country hiking and camping - so you probably wouldn't have to stock a lot of 'extraneous' items, just present them in a slightly different manner.  You wouldn't, necessarily, have to stock 'casual camping' stuff like gas grills, huge tents and so on but remain more focused on back-country type stuff.  A benefit of a presenting the store in such a manner would be that:   A. your customer base could include recreational hikers and campers as well as those who wish to be prepared for 'trouble'   B. even though prepping has become a little more 'mainstream', having the hiking/camping element to the store's image might make people who may not feel comfortable about coming into a 'prepping' store feel more at ease about coming into your store.   That would also expand the types of training/classes/seminars you could offer.  Along with 'Prepping 101', it would be reasonable to have classes like "Wild Edibles: Living Off the Land in Tennessee" which could appeal to both groups.  Heck, as someone who considers himself to be 'high interest/low knowledge' in such things, I'd love to see a store here in East Tennessee offering such classes, supplies and help with making decisions on how best to prepare for my situation, etc.  Right now, I have blanked on the name of those classes/groups (I think they are government - maybe FEMA - sponsored) which are intended to help the average citizen be prepared for disaster but getting such a group to meet at your store could be a good thing.   I would think that, if the advertising and customer service were handled well and if you made sure that your store was represented at the right meetings and so on that word about your store being 'prepper friendly' would get out to interested individuals. 

  Sorry but I figure that the best way to make sure ammo will be there when I need it is buy it when I see it (at normal prices, not from profiteers) and can afford it and then put it on the shelf at my house - where it will be when I need it (same goes for reloading supplies in the two calibers I am set up to reload - .38/.357 and .44 - albeit to a lesser degree.)  In fact, buying extra to put on the shelf is what I did during the intervening years between the last ammo shortage and this one - which is why I have ammo, if I need it (and can largely avoid the panic/desperate search for ammo.)  I don't have a huge amount, mind you - and I have certainly not been shooting anywhere near as much for the last, several months as I do during 'normal' times - but at least I have some on hand if needed.  I will agree that, once I feel I have enough of a 'cushion' on a particular caliber I don't continue to buy it just because I see it.  Luckily for me, the only ammo types in which I don't feel I have as much of a cushion as I would like are buckshot and slugs in various gauges.  Since those are more or less still available, I am concentrating on building a cushion of those until things get back to normal.  I am also shooting shotguns more, right now.   As I posted, before, I have no problem with people buying ammo when they see it, even if they aren't shooting it right away, in case they don't see any more for six months.  Buying ammo at a 'normal' price from Walmart to use in one's personal stash is far different from scalpers and profiteers buying to resell, IMO.   I am seeing slightly different ammo situations at different Walmart locations.  I am most often in the Lenoir City store and they usually don't have any handgun ammo, period.  I don't often notice much .223 (I don't own anything chambered for .223 or 5.56 so I don't pay any more than passing attention to those.)  Even in hunting rifle calibers, they usually only have .270, .243, 7mm Mag and 300 Win. Mag.  No 30-30, no 30-06, no .308, etc.   Yesterday I was in the Madisonville location and noticed that they had one 50 round box of (Federal) 9mm, two or three 50 round boxes of (Federal) .380 and one 50 round box of .380 in whatever that 'new' brand they are carrying is called, a couple of different brands of .45acp in 50 round boxes, one or two 100 round boxes of Winchester .45acp and several boxes of TulAmmo .223 along with the ammo I normally see at L.C.   I thought the presence of so much .380 was particularly 'odd' being that, during the last shortage, .380acp was the first to disappear, the last to reappear in normal amounts and the most difficult to find during the entire shortage.  This time, it seems to be one of the few handgun rounds that actually turn up here and there.  I have enough of a 'cushion' on the rounds I use that were available (don't own anything in .45 and actually stopped shooting 9mm and .380 very much even before the shortage) that I didn't buy any.  Honestly, I was hoping they would have some .22WMR in stock - I would have bought my limit on those (I have pretty much given up on finding .22LR for the time being.)

  I loved this part of your post.  You put into words many of the doubts and notions I have but have not, previously, figured out how best to express - as well as the reason my initial optimism about the 'Tea Party' rather quickly petered out.

  Largely, yes - and I am not ashamed of it.  However, perhaps not in the way you imply.  The way I have it figured, any candidate that is in favor of expanding firearms freedoms (not paying lip service then, at best, maintaining the status quo) has shown himself or herself to be in favor of expanding the personal liberty of American citizens, in general.  They have said, "I trust the average citizen, even so far as trusting them with tools of deadly potential, and believe that those citizens should be less fettered in their private lives and choices by governmental regulations."  This is opposed to politicians who support further limitations on firearms freedoms, oppose expanding firearms freedoms or, at best, say, "I don't want to deal with any gun issues this session."  The reason being that the latter are either saying, "The average citizen needs the government to regulate them even if they have committed no criminal act and have behaved responsibly," or (in the case of those that 'don't want to deal with gun issues') are saying that personal freedoms aren't all that important an issue to be wasting their time on.   So, yeah, the first thing I look at is a candidate's HISTORY on gun control (not his BS lip service "well, I shoved that down people's throats as governor of my state but wouldn't want it for the entire country" lies.)    After Second Amendment issues, I look at the candidate's history on abortion (probably unlike many on this forum, I don't think it is any of my business to tell a woman she can't have an abortion and will, when possible, avoid supporting politicians who believe that it is.)  Again, I view a politician's desire to outlaw abortion as another indicator that they are not supportive of individual liberty.   Thirdly (and this view probably largely separates me from many capital 'L' Libertarians), I look at their stance on illegal immigration.  Yes, we are a nation of immigrants - and I don't think any reasonable person is saying that we should stop all immigration - but illegal aliens are foreign invaders and, by the very nature of how they came here, illegal.  We shouldn't allow some misplaced sense of guilt that our country isn't a third-world craphole to advance the idea of 'levelling the playing field' by allowing illegals to overrun our country, ruin our economy and turn our country into a third-world craphole just like the one from which they came.  Instead of amnesty, they should get a one-way ticket back to their country of origin.  No exceptions - I don't care if they have an anchor baby or if they were brought here as a five year old and are now in high school.  Maybe that doesn't jibe with the 'ideal' of some Libertarian philosophy.  However, in order to maintain a country, that country must have borders and those borders must be enforced.  I guess, for me, it comes down to pragmatism and practicality over pure philosophy.   There may be other factors I will look at but those are the big three, for me.  I am really not sure where McCain truly stands on abortion but I am certain (judging by his actions, not his words) that his is an anti-gun, pro-amnesty for illegals POS.  I am not really sure where Romney stands on illegal immigration.  I think he would go whichever way the wind blows on abortion and, judging by his past actions (not BS 'but I'm really pro-gun rights' lip service) I would no more vote for him than I would for the other anti-gun politician he was running against.

Yes. This. Exactly.

  Yeah, because the Republicans in the TN House, Senate and Governor's office have proven to be soooo supportive of our firearms rights since gaining control.  Heck, the way they have completely let us down on firearms rights issues after blaming the Democrats for a lack of progress in that area for so long was pretty much the final straw in my deciding that they aren't any different from the Dems.  Think about it - we saw more progress under Bredesen and Naifeh (castle doctrine laws, stand your ground laws, etc.) than we have since the Republicans got more control.  Much like professional wrestling, I think a lot of their 'conflicts' are staged to get the fans (voters) fired up for the next pay per view event (aka 'election) while, in reality, they are patting each other on the back in the dressing room and laughing at how gullible we all are.

  And you saying that my vote for candidate x is a vote for candidate y doesn't make such an illogical argument 'so', either.  Funny thing is, I have had Demuplicans tell me that my vote for a third party is a 'defacto' vote for the Republicrats and Republicrats tell me that my vote for a third party is a 'defacto' vote for the Dempublicans.  Cool - I guess that means by voting third party I am actually voting twice!  Or maybe it just means that worn out, old meme is nonsense.   What many refuse to grasp is that some of us haven't wanted the recent Republican candidates to win any more than we have wanted the recent Democrats to win.  If we accepted the argument that the liberal progressive from Arizona named McCain or the liberal progressive from Massachusetts name Romney would really do a better job than the liberal progressive from Kenya named Obama then the argument might hold water.  However, once you get past the platitudes and campaign lies, some of us truly don't see them as being, functionally, all that different.  So, telling us that we have to vote for Romney/McCain/a mentally deficient aardvark because, 'at least he isn't the Democrat' is akin to telling us we should choose to be eaten alive by sharks because that would be vastly preferable to being eaten alive by piranha.  It is a false choice and, as I see the one as no better than the other, I'll choose to at least try to grab for the life raft, even if there is pretty much no chance of getting aboard.

    I think you missed the part where I also said:     That second part is just as important as the first.

  And IMHO that argument is a bunch of hogwash.  I voted and it was not for Obama.  All that 'defacto' mumbo-jumbo is just a line of bull that the BIg Two use to try to keep people 'in line' and voting for one or the other side of the plug nickel.