JAB

  This is pretty much what I was getting at but you put it in better, more concise terms.  Thanks for that post.

You can't always judge just by a trailer.  That said, going solely by the trailer, I think it looks like Season 4 has the potential to be better than Seasons 2 & 3 combined.  I can't wait!   Funny thing, Dennis 1209, is that Carl is probably my second favorite character on the show right now (Daryl being the first.)  To my mind, how he acted and what he did and said were exactly right.  Father or not, Rick kept telling Carl how he couldn't be a little kid anymore, how the world they knew was gone, etc. but wouldn't get his head out of his own ass and listen to his own words.   In a post-apocalyptic world, anyone who invades my home with the intent of killing me and mine then does not drop their weapon and stop but holds onto their weapon and continues walking toward me would certainly get shot.  Carl did the right thing in shooting that guy.  In fact, the only fault I could find was that, IMO, he should have shot the guy sooner and not let him continue advancing.  Maybe Herschel won't accept that they can't always cut their enemy any slack and maybe Rick won't let go of being 'officer friendly' and accept that survival sometimes mean not being a nice guy - especially to people who just tried to kill you - but Carl knows from straight up.  Rick needed a bit of a 'wake up call' and Carl did the right thing by issuing a verbal smackdown.  Everything Carl said was true.  Dale did die because Carl didn't shoot that walker when he should have.  Lori and T-Dog did die because Rick didn't kill that inmate when he should have.  Merle did die because Rick didn't kill the Governor when he should have (and so did Andrea, for that matter.)   If Rick wants Carl to act like an adult, to take on the responsibilities of an adult and conduct himself as an adult then he needs to respect Carl's instincts and treat him like an adult.  That means treating him like an adult all the time, not just when it suits Rick, and not start lecturing him like he would a little kid at other times.  What Rick should have said was, "From where Herschel was standing, he didn't think it was necessary to kill that guy.  Are you sure you didn't have a choice?"  Then when Carl answered in the affirmative, Rick should have said, "Well, I wasn't there so I am going to trust your judgement on that.  I'm just glad you all got back safely."  And that should have been the end of it.   Carl is a good guy with a strong, moral foundation.  He isn't a heartless killer - heck, he risked his own life to single-handedly bring Tyreese's group out of the 'tombs'.  He has simply accepted that he can't always be nice, kind or forgiving if he wants to live and see that the people for whom he cares live, as well.  Carl is also not insane.  Fact is, as he seems to be willing to accept the full reality of their situation and not live in a fantasy world where everything is somehow going to be rainbows and unicorns if only everyone is nice to each other, he might one of the more sane members of the group.  Certainly more sane than Rick for the majority of the last season.   Finally, if Rick wants Carl to respect him then he should act like someone who deserves respect, not some half-crazed moonbat who can't decide whether he should crap or whistle Dixie.  There was more than one occasion in Season 3 where Carl was protecting or taking care of Rick and where Carl was acting more like the adult and Rick was acting more like a little kid throwing tantrums so I believe that Carl had earned the right to tell Rick how it really is.  That is the way I see it, anyhow.   One of my favorite lines in the comic comes after Carl goes missing (actually, he stows away in an enemy's truck, all alone, with the intent of killing their leader.)  One character says that she is worried about Carl.  Another character replies that the only people who need to worry about Carl are the ones who cross him.

Basically, in a lot of cases (especially smaller cities with relatively low crime rates), I think what happens is that a LEA manages to get ahold of some cool 'toys'.  Naturally, they want to keep their toys and justify even better toys.  The only way to do that is to show a 'need' for those toys.  As a result, I think they create a 'need' for those toys where such a need does not and really never existed.  For instance, in the case of the article in the OP, four or five uniformed officers wearing standard body armor could have knocked on Mr. Stewart's front door and likely arrested him without incident.  He'd have had to pay a fine and maybe spend a month or so in jail and that would be it - no dead cops, no dead Mr. Stewart, no drama.  But that wouldn't have allowed the department an opportunity to use their 'toys' or the officers to act like they were 'high speed, low drag operators' or something.  Honestly, for the most part, I think 'Special Tactics' cops are pretty 'special', alright.  I view them with just about the same respect as I view the gun shop commando who straps his thigh holster onto his mail-order BDUs and worries about how to tactically enter the local convenient store to pick up his tactical loaf of bread and tactical jug of milk.  IOW, they are a joke.  Unfortunately, in this case, they are a dangerous joke.    To me, they are part and parcel to the small-town cops who claim their jobs are 'high stress' and that they never know if they are going to be going home at the end of the day after working a shift where most of their day is spent taking a nap manning a speed trap on the edge of town.  In other words, a bunch of poser nonsense.

The second half of my reply to another thread (the part about the underground bunker, etc.)pretty much answers what I would do as far as 'living arrangements.'    http://www.tngunowners.com/forums/topic/67944-what-if-all-of-this-is-for-nothing/#entry1002239   Of course, there would be some nice firearms and boatloads of ammo.  I'd probably even install a remote operated turret gun or two in 'strategic' locations.  Mostly, though, my strategy would be to be secluded/hidden away and secretive enough to make it 'not worth it' for any potential threats to come looking for me.

  No argument there - which is why I am glad Zimmerman was found not guilty.  I'll bet there is a family of four in Florida who is also pretty glad of that, today.

  Carrying a firearm - hell, simply owning one, for that matter - is enough for some people to identify many of us as 'thugs'.  Just keep that in mind the next time you think someone should be found guilty of dressing the wrong way, etc.

In the spirit of keeping things upbeat - If I had a fantasy come to life it would look like this and would constantly say, "Yes, of course. Anything you want, honey!"

You have to wonder if those berries were so healthy because they were getting good 'fertilizer'.

  Yeah, I am pretty sure that you (and others who posted similar comments or 'liked' this one) are intelligent enough to realize that there is a difference between helping crash victims and getting out of your vehicle to follow an individual who A. hasn't done anything illegal and B. is not in a 'restricted area'.  Let's not act like the two are equivalent, okay?   Beyond that, I will only say, "Good job, Zimmerman."

  Perhaps, but voting for the same old same old from either of the big two is also, IMO, throwing your vote away.  Since (as we have already agreed) we are beyond the point that the outcome of elections will really change anything, any vote is more or less a 'throwaway' vote.  As you say, the third parties haven't proven that they can fix anything, either, but then they really haven't been given a chance.  Since the big two have proven, unequivocally, that they are only going to continue to eff things up worse - meaning that voting for the same, old crap means throwing my vote away - then I figure I had might as well vote for the guys who at least haven't already proven that they suck.  Therefore, to my mind, while voting is more or less a waste of time no matter which candidate you are voting for, at least voting for someone who hasn't already proven that they want nothing more than to screw us over seems a little less like throwing my vote away than voting for one of two sides who have both already stabbed us in the back so many times that we should be feeling like pin cushions by this point.   People want to insist that we 'have' to vote for one of the big two and then they wonder why nothing changes.  Correct me if I am wrong but isn't doing the same thing, over and over, while expecting different results one definition of insanity?  Of course, the same could probably be said about bothering to vote, period, but I am just stubborn enough that I will keep doing so.

  I remember seeing on one of the 'survival' shows where the person giving the advice talked about taking off a shirt, etc. and using it to collect water from the dew on the grass when other water sources are scarce/nonexistent.  Get the shirt good and saturated, wring the water out into your mouth then repeat.  Possibly even wring some out into a storage container to drink later if there is enough moisture available.  Seems like he said that you likely wouldn't get enough to survive from that source, alone, but it could be the difference between surviving long enough to find another source of water or not.

Some folks want to act as if McCain is some kind of anomaly within the Republican party but that simply is not the case.  I mean, this guy was chosen as their candidate for President in the next to last election.  That means enough Republicans (or, at least, enough of the Republicans that matter - the ones who really pull the puppet strings) thought he represented everything the party believes and stands for that he was picked as their '#1 guy' less than eight years ago.  Perhaps even more than the Obama vs. Romney nonchoice, the Obama vs. McCain election was proof positive that it really doesn't matter which side of the plug nickel we vote for as the 'differences' between the two major parties really aren't all that different.  McCain is simply confirming that fact, again.

I will eventually have a Ruger Mk of one generation or another.  I like the 'Luger-ish' look.  At one point, I thought about trading my S&W 22A for one but (shooting the S&W side-by-side with a friend's Ruger) I came to realize that I shoot them both pretty much the same, both function just about as reliably and I didn't have to spend any more money to keep the S&W.  I still like the way the Rugers look, though, and will have one at some point.

  Not only that but if you suggest that you might vote for a third party, they get all butt-hurt that you would dare to vote for someone other than the 'big two' and start crying about how you are just wasting your vote, how you might as well be voting for (whichever candidate they don't like - ironically, people from both parties use that tired, old argument) and how all the popular kids are going to laugh at you if you don't go along with the crowd.  What they refuse to see is it doesn't matter if a significant number of people voting for the third party prevents 'their' guy from winning because 'their' guy isn't really any different from the 'other' guy, anyhow.   Funny thing is, those who argue that a third party 'can't win' (which, as you pointed out, is a self-fulfilling prophecy until enough folks stop believing that bullcrap and have the cajones to try voting for someone other than heads or tails) are kind of making the other point I am arguing - that voting is, essentially, useless because neither of the big two are going to make any, significant improvements and any third party candidate who might (or might not) make improvements has no chance of winning.  Once, again, bread and circuses.

Growing up, my family never had a lot of money.  My mom and grandmother canned a lot of food - either things we had grown, jelly from wild berries we picked or things they bought at an inexpensive price from the farmer's market.  As an adult, I have still never had a lot of money.  If I find a good price on something I like/regularly use, I will often 'stock up' on that item or items.  Such things generally get used as a matter of course in my regular life, anyway, but would be 'onhand' if I needed them.  As such, there is no concern about those things 'never' being used.  I also like 'traditional' things (I said in another thread that I am an old soul) so things like canning, etc. simply appeal to me for some reason.  Canning is especially useful when I make chili, soup, etc. because it is often difficult to make a 'small' batch of such things.  So my mindset on canning is often as a good way to preserve leftovers that I'm not going to want to eat within a few days rather than preparing things specifically to can.  A bonus from that is I can have jars of MY chili, soup, etc. sitting in the pantry, ready to grab and take to work for lunch.   Now, I am definitely not prepared for a Mad Max world.  Thing is, there are things like prescription meds that I really can't build a huge supply of, anyhow, and in an apocalyptic world, once the meds I have on hand run out I have no idea how long I would survive, anyhow.  My goal (which I have not yet reached) is to have enough food, water, etc. on hand that I can last at least as long as my supplies of medicine hold out with enough extra to help my neighbors (my mom on one side and my sister and her family on the other) hold out, too.   A more short term goal, however, is to be well enough prepared that I can be more or less 'comfortable' for a week or two without having to leave the house.  See, where I now live is next door to the house we moved to when I was in middle school.  Back then, it wasn't unusual for the power to go out (often in the middle of Winter) for two or three days.  Outages of nearly a week were not unheard of.  During such times, there was often enough snow/ice on the ground that getting out to go to town was not really an option.  Luckily, we had a wood heater that mom could also use for cooking.  We conserved the cool air in the refrigerator by not opening it any more than necessary and would sometimes put the more perishable foodstuff out in the snow to stay cold.  We generally had battery-operated portable radios but would often just read by the light of one of mom's oil/kerosene lamps or play cards for entertainment.   A few decades later, power outages are not as frequent but there was a time last Summer when our power was out for about three days and that was just due to rain/thunderstorms and resultant fallen trees, etc.  Where we live is actually pretty much right on the Loudon/Roane County line but the nearest 'hub' or whatever you call it for our power company is in Decatur.  That is miles and miles of power lines, meaning a lot of outage potential.  It would not surprise me if a major snow event resulted in our power being out for a few days or even a week.  Those are the kinds of things that I really try and prepare for.  That said, since I am preparing, anyhow I figure that it wouldn't require too much more effort or change in mindset to prepare for events of somewhat longer duration.   As others have said, the lessons I didn't learn from the last ammo 'shortage' have been learned from this one.  By that, I mean I was already trying to maintain an on hand supply of at least some types of ammo that I shoot due to not being able to find some ammo types during the last 'shortage'.  I also got set up to reload a couple of revolver calibers.  Once the current shortage ends (when/if it ever really ends) I plan to increase the amount of ammo I keep on hand.  I won't run out and buy it by the caseload, however.  Instead, just like after the last 'shortage', I will buy a box or two at a time until I feel I have enough on hand and then will attempt to maintain the supply by replacing what I shoot.       If I were insane rich would I build an underground bunker?  You're damn right I would!  It would be the mac daddy daddy mac of all underground bunkers.  It would have its own generators (with redundant generators in case the first ones failed.)  It would also be set up for solar in case all of the generators failed or I ran out of fuel, etc.  It wouldn't be some dark, dank hole in the ground, though.  It would have clearly designated living areas, bedrooms, a game room complete with a pool table, pinball machine and a big screen television with surround sound and a video game console complete with a huge collection of games.  There would be guest quarters for friends/family.  I think it goes without saying that it would have a very modern, well lit and well ventilated indoor shooting range.  I'd have an awesome kitchen and a friggin' hydroponics room for growing plants for food.  I'd have a fully stocked, industrial, walk-in freezer stacked with vacuum sealed meats and other frozen goods, a pantry that would put some mom and pop grocery stores to shame and possibly even a (somewhat detached and well ventilated) room to keep a few chickens in - along with food stores for them - so I could have fresh eggs.  My walk-in beer-gerator would be the stuff of legend!    I'd build it in a remote location in the hills in East Tennessee in an area that would only be accessible by pack mules, really kick-ass 4 wheel drive vehicles or a helicopter (with the tree cover allowing only the smallest of choppers to get through.)  There would be a fully stocked pond on the grounds and I would work to cultivate a population of tasty wild animals.  I would also likely try and start a small, private peach orchard, apple orchard and vineyard.  Being insanely rich, meaning I didn't have to hold down a 'normal' job, working on wildlife management for the property as well as the orchards and vineyard would be my main 'employment' - although I would also do volunteer work (probably some kind of animal rescue/assistance.)  The grounds would be completely surrounded by a ten-foot-tall chain link fence topped with razor wire, cameras - the whole nine yards - and I would commission quite possibly the world's largest 'NO SOLICITING' sign to be posted at the front gate.   Thing is, though, that wouldn't just be a place to run and hide when/if things got bad.  That would be my residence.  Supplies would have a pretty good rate of turnover due to the kickass get togethers I would periodically throw for my friends and family.   *SIGH*  I am not insanely rich, however.  Not even close.  That means I will just have to try and shelter in place, eat the food I manage to store and hope a deer with a death wish periodically wanders through the back yard.

  Taurus had planned to make a 28 gauge version of 'The Judge', I believe.  They ended up cancelling that one.  IIRC, it was because the bore would be 'larger' than what the ATF allows for a handgun.  Maybe it also had something to do with there not being a non-shotgun equivalent (meaning the barrel would have no rifling, i.e. a smoothbore handgun which fires fixed ammuntion, which I am pretty sure is an ATF no-no.)  It does seem that Taurus was fairly set on producing that gun and they actually debuted it at a SHOT show a couple of years back.  In fact, what I have read was that the ATF came by the Taurus booth at SHOT, looked over the one they had brought with them and told them that the 28 gauge Raging Judge would be a short barreled shotgun, not a handgun, under ATF rules.   The Circuit Judge version might have gone down in flames, as well, when the handgun version was cancelled.  If you notice, while the 'technical specs' and title at the top of the page list '28 Gauge', the descriptive blurb talks about firing .410 and .45 Colt ammunition.   Personally, the Circuit Judge is the only Judge I'd care anything about owning.  I think I'd go with the .410/.45 version over the 28 gauge version, though.  .410 seems a little more available with greater ammo variety more readily available (in addition to field loads, I have seen .410 slugs and .410 buckshot even at Walmart.)  There is also 'personal defense' ammo made specifically for .410 - I am not sure that is true of 28 gauge.   NOTE:  I was looking around on the 'Net trying to refresh my memory about the 28 gauge Judge.  According to what I found, when Taurus put up a message that it was being cancelled, they did say that a long gun version would be available from Rossi 'at some point'.   http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2011/01/25/big-gun-short-lived-taurus-28-gauge-revolver/   Another NOTE:   I found the 28 gauge listed in a couple of dealer/distributor catalogs.  However, one said that they are 'backordered' and the other states that inclusion in the catalog does not mean that they are in stock.  I have never dealt with either of these businesses and really know nothing about them - I am posting these links for discussion/example purposes only.   http://www.lipseys.com/itemdetail.aspx?itemno=BTSCJ28B   Notice that the description on this site, like the Rossi website, talks about shooting .410 and .45 ammo even though the listing is for the 28 gauge version:   http://www.wholesalehunter.com/product.asp?productid=61664

  Keep in mind that there are some towns where Walmart IS the only place to get ammo in town.  There are other places where Walmart might be the only reasonably priced place to get ammo in town (even when there isn't a 'shortage') because the other places in town that sell ammo are priced 25% or more higher than the Walmart price for the same ammo.  Then there are places where there is nowhere in town to buy ammo and you have to drive into the next town (or further) even to find a Walmart.   I know that the Internet is an option but as someone who doesn't generally buy 'in bulk' I really don't see paying shipping costs on two or three boxes that are so high that I could buy another box of ammo at Walmart for what shipping would cost.  Doesn't really make much economic sense, to me.

I wouldn't pay that price but I will say that I really like the 'automatch' ammo.  Doing side by side comparisons with other 'bulk' ammo I can say that I fully believe that Federal Automatch is more accurate from my semiauto .22LR firearms - both handguns and rifles.  Haven't really done much comparison in my non-semiautos, though.

  Don't really care for Glocks - they just don't 'fit' me.  Not really a 1911 guy, either - they are nice and all but I don't own one.  In semiautos, I like DAO or DA/SA but I'm really mostly a revolver guy.   Surely there is something in the above statement that can spark a disagreement?   Of course, we could just argue the relative merits of completely hi-jacking an already hi-jacked thread.

  The scariest part of all of this, to me, may be that you and I appear to be in very nearly 100% agreement on something.  Most of the time when we become involved in discussions of other issues, our thoughts/opinions are directly opposed.   Quick, let's find something to disagree about before I get really freaked out!

  And how much difference did those 'changes' really make?  We are still where we are.  We still have the Patriot Act, Obamacare, are involved in 'military actions' in areas we shouldn't even be in and are hemorrhaging money right and left for things like stopping power blackouts in South Africa.  In other words, same sh**, different politicians.  At least on the Federal level, modern elections are little more than bread and circuses designed to convince the masses that we really have some measure of control by preserving the illusion that who we vote into office makes any, real difference.  I still vote but mostly because I figure, "Why not?" and not because I am under any illusion that it will change anything.

  If it is one or two fringe groups doing the 'taking up of arms' then you are, of course, correct.  If, however, it got to the point that many - even the majority - believed that doing so was 'the right thing to do', especially if they had the backing of at least portions of the military then it would not be a matter of our country being taken by force.  Instead, it would be a matter of taking our country BACK by force.  I do not make the mistake of romanticizing such an event nor am not saying that such a revolution would be a 'good' thing.  I am not, however, convinced that it might not prove to be a 'necessary' thing at some point.   We are at a point where the system is broken.  At this point, attempting to bring about change at the polls is akin to trying to keep the Titanic from sinking by having all the passengers line up with teaspoons and try to bail the water out.  That just results in a lot of effort going in to sinking, anyhow.   As RobertNashville has already said, though, an armed revolution probably won't be necessary.  Instead, the corrupt, over-extended system will simply implode of its own volition.

  Nope - they just came to realize that there was no way they could 'fix' things by going through the 'proper' channels, working within the system, etc. because none of their 'rulers' had no intentions of letting go of any of their power.  They came to realize that 'the system' was weighted against them and that the only way to change things for the better was to start over with a new system.

  Well, there is 'white' and then there is 'white'.  See, all the 'hispanic', 'white', 'arabic' nonsense is just that - nonsense.  Those terms actually refer to comparatively minor difference which really only denote subgroups, not 'races'.  From a skeletal biology/evolutionary standpoint there are actually only three races:   1. Caucasoid.  This includes 'whites', 'arabs', 'hispanics' and, believe it or not, even Australian aboriginals (despite their dark skin.)  Features of a skull that indicate probability of being a caucasoid are the presence of a nasal seal, slight 'overbite' of the incisors with a lack of sub-nasal prognathism.  Largely North African/European in origin.   2. Negroid.  This refers mostly to people who can trace their modern ancestry to South Africa - i.e. 'black' people, African-Americans, etc. (which is another misnomer as all modern humans can trace at least part of their origins to some part of Africa or another so, technically, if going by ancestry we are ALL, ultimately, African-Americans in one way or another.)  Skull features of this racial group generally include the lack of a nasal seal, a comparatively broad nasal aperture and the presence of sub-nasal prognathism.   3. Mongloid.  This group includes most Asians and peoples of Asian ancestry - including Native Americans (which is further proof that Native American ancestors were of Asian stock and crossed a 'land bridge' to North America.)  Features of the skull include flaring zygomatic (cheek) bones, an edge-to-edge bite pattern (meaning the occlusal surfaces of the incisors meet, i.e. the top incisors rest directly on the bottom ones) and 'shovel-shaped' incisors.   Three races.  That is it.  'Hispanic' is an ethnic group, not a race.  So, Zimmerman is a Caucasoid - just like any 'whitey'.    All that said, what the heck all of this has to do with whether or not Zimmerman acted in self defense I am not sure.  Maybe the fact that Martin was black contributed to Zimmerman's suspicion of him and maybe not.  I have said and will always believe that Zimmerman's decision to follow Martin was a bad idea but it really doesn't matter why he decided to do so.  Once Martin attacked him, he acted in self defense.  Ultimately - even though some people (myself included) believe that Zimmerman's decisions contributed to setting up a bad situation - the trial came down to whether or not he ultimately acted in self defense, just as it should have, and Zimmerman was found not guilty, just as he should have been.

  This just gave me a thought.  In the last election, there was a candidate who said he was of the "Rent is Too Damn High" party.  Maybe in the next election we need to see an "Ammo is Too Damn High - and Scarce" party.   As I said, just a thought.