JAB

  Maybe not the 'bad guy', per se, but this is a real life incident which exemplifies why I likely won't get involved unless I or mine are at risk:   http://www.wftv.com/news/news/officer-cleared-in-fatal-shooting-of-undercover-co/nJmGM/   http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2011-01-25/news/os-ucf-officer-shot-killed-lawsuit-20110125_1_officer-dennis-r-smith-valerie-jenkins-wrongful-death   Apparently, the court found in favor of Orlando and Officer Smith but personally, as a private citizen, I imagine even 'winning' such a lawsuit would pretty much ruin me - not to mention that I wouldn't bet on a private citizen faring nearly so well in a criminal proceeding as did Officer Smith, either.   http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2009-10-01/news/0909300177_1_jenkins-officer-smith-court-documents

  But what if I have a truck and would sometimes have the gun in the truck but would possibly switch the gun over to the Mustang when I drive it?  Could it still be a truck gun even when it isn't in the truck simply because it is in the truck sometimes?  What about folks who don't have a truck but bought the gun from a guy who kept it behind the seat of his truck and, therefore, used it as his truck gun?  Would it still remain a truck gun due to its history and previous use as such?  I think it is important that we clarify these things - especially since I haven't really settled on a 'truck gun', yet, and would hate to choose a gun that refused to ride in a car on occasion.

Personally, as long as I and mine are not involved, I feel that the best way to deal with trouble is to avoid it whenever possible.  Therefore, depending on the situation, there is a good chance that I would not insert myself into the situation.  Think of it this way; if I am 'out and about' then there is a good chance that I will have nothing more than my J-Frame and a reload.  To me, such a firearm is for personal protection and not for voluntarily jumping into a shootout that I could otherwise avoid.  Heck, even if I am carrying something bigger and/or higher capacity it will still be just a handgun.  Cops carry guns (and are paid) to actively engage criminals and protect society.  I carry a gun to protect myself and my friends/family not to engage in otherwise avoidable firefights.   That said, an 'active shooter in the mall' might be different, depending.  One factor is that I rarely would choose to go to the mall on my own so if I am there I am likely with friends or family.  My first inclination, then, would be to get whoever I was with to safety.  If that means attempting to shoot the active shooter then that is what I would do.  If it means taking my group, hitting the nearest exit and leaving all those strangers to fend for themselves then so be it.  [sarcasm] Of course, the point is likely moot as to my knowledge all the malls around here are posted so obviously no bad guys can shoot up the place. [/sarcasm]

This guy doesn't have to wonder. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4g1n8cmwhIY

I am a big fan of the .22 WMR round but somehow never caught the PMR30 'fever'.  My thinking was/is that my 6.5 inch Heritage Rough Rider (mine has been a good one) handles my WMR trail/yard gun needs.  I just keep coming back to the idea that if I need more than five rounds of WMR in a full-sized gun then what I really need is a larger caliber gun.  I wouldn't mind having an eight or nine shot snubbie, though.  That hypothetical shorter barreled, 20 round BUG that Dolomite suggested above sounds pretty cool, too.   All that said, I think the RMR30 (the carbine version) sounds like something I would love to have.    I might have waffled a little on wanting a PMR30 but not while they are still commanding USED prices of $499.  I wouldn't pay any more for a used PMR30 than I'd pay for a used P11 - I just don't want one all that badly.

  Lester, I hope you don't mind that I added numbers so I could address these points 'by their number'.   1. Not true.  In fact, it was only with the invention of printing presses that the spelling of words began to be 'standardized'.  Before that, people spelled more by 'sounds' than by standard spellings.  One good example is the surname of William Shakespeare.  Apparently, even the Bard, himself spelled his last name differently on differing occasions.  In fact, it is my understanding that people often spelled the same word differently even within the body of the same missive, etc.  When spellings were standardized, largely by the folks who were using the aforementioned printing presses, the people doing the 'standardizing' got to choose what the 'standard' spelling would be.  Those folks were likely influenced not only by their own 'tastes' but also by the way certain sounds were constructed in other languages - and so we ended up with words like 'enough' instead of a much more obvious (and sensible, really) spelling such as 'enuf', etc.     2. I print faster than I can write in cursive.  Seriously.  Cursive also causes my hand to cramp more quickly.  For me, there is truly nothing 'good' about cursive writing.

  Without cursive there would still be handwriting in 'print'.  I honestly see no point in 'cursive' writing.

  One thing that I believe people should keep in mind is that English is a living language.  Unlike dead languages (such as Latin, etc.) this means that English is not 'set in stone.'  It is, instead, changeable.  Further, as I believe is the case with most extant languages that are used across large geographic areas, there are dialogues and regional differences.  I doubt that there are many people who, in their daily lives, speak the Queen's English (including the Queen.)  Personally, I love my Southern accent and many of our uniquely Southern phrases and colloquialisms.  They are part of our regional heritage and identity, IMO.  However, there is a difference between using colloquialisms and just plain using the wrong word.   All that said, it annoys me when people use the word 'sweet' as an interjection to indicate positive feelings.  I can handle 'cool' (which is the word I am most often 'guilty' of using) or even the oft overused 'awesome' but for some reason, 'sweet' gets on my nerves. 

  Or shrimp scampi?

  Yeah, I hated it in school when we were taught/required to write in cursive.  I never really got the point.  Printing got our point across just as well, was more clear and easier to read.  I never understood why the 'need' to write in cursive was a big deal.  As soon as there was no longer a requirement to write in cursive I stopped writing in cursive.  In fact, I haven't used cursive as a 'main' form of handwriting for well over 25 years.  I am able to 'print' my signature in a manner that is easily distinctive enough without resorting to a bunch of hooks and loops.  I think there is a reason why the word 'cursive' begins with 'curs[e]'.   This is also coming from a guy who, in college, took notes using a style of calligraphy similar to the Roman font with a bit of Uncial hand and a few of my own, personal 'tweeks'.  I think that part of the reason I became interested in those styles of calligraphy was because they were not 'cursive' - and therefore proved that 'print' handwriting could be every bit as formal and much more pleasant to look at than that darned spider scrawl called cursive.  Yep, I had 500 page, college ruled notebooks full of notes hand-written in calligraphy - but I still hate cursive.

  I don't think that the use of the phrase, "I heard that," is anything new.  My paternal grandfather used that phrase to indicate strong agreement for as long as I can remember right up to his death last year.   He lived most of his life on and around Lookout Mountain (aside from a stint working for the auto manufacturers in Detroit.)  I have always thought of, "I heard that," when used in such a way, as a colloquialism used by Southern old timers.

  Can you imagine if everyone really did have a 'climax control'?  Hell, I might never leave the house!

WARNING:  If you have other .22 rifles that you like shooting, you might not want to get a Henry lever .22.  Sure, they look innocent but often tend to eat up all the ammo and not leave any for your other rifles.   Seriously, they are a lot of fun.

For just general purpose use, as much as I try to shake the idea, I keep coming back to the thought that one of those Rossi matched pairs in .410/.22LR would make a good 'truck gun'.   Even in the unlikely (but possible) event that I need to use it as a 'get home' gun, the need to fight off the Mongol hoardes is not a huge consideration, for me.  Beyond that, such a combo would likely take care of anything that walks, crawls or flies in East Tennessee, excepting black bears and elk, which really aren't high on the list of concerns.   As a break action, single shot gun (with interchangeable barrels), it would keep the manual of arms simple and probably cut down on the potential for mechanical failure.  Both good features in a 'truck gun', I believe.   In the youth configuration, these things are quite small and, I am guessing, very light.  Broken down, they should easily stow in a backpack.  .22 ammo is small and light.  As shotgun shells go, .410 shells are relatively small and light, too, while still giving the ability to choose slugs or shot shells. It would not be a great choice for a fighting gun but for a knock around/general use/short term survival gun it should work pretty well.  Also, as some others have said I wouldn't want something expensive for a 'truck gun'.  At $169 or so brand new (Walmart price) it wouldn't break the bank, either.

  I think that there are some instances where a phrase such as, "I actually caught the ball," make perfect sense.  I take such a phrase to mean that the person's eye/hand coordination are not usually very good, that the person is clumsy or that there is some, other reason to doubt that the person would have the ability to catch the ball.  In other words, it is used to differentiate from the expected outcome, as in, "Despite being all thumbs and stumbling over my own feet - not once but twice - while chasing after it, somehow I actually caught the ball.  Can you believe that?"   From Merriam-Webster online (paying particular attention to definition #2):     ac·tu·al·ly adverb \ˈak-ch(É™-w)É™-lÄ“, -sh(É™-w)É™-lÄ“; ˈaksh-lÄ“, ˈaks-\   Definition of ACTUALLY 1: in act or in fact : really <nominally but not actually independent — Karl Loewenstein> <won't actually arrive for an hour>   2: in point of fact —used to suggest something unexpected <he could actually read the Greek>  

  From the article:         Of course, I can't help imagine that his job is something out of a Loony Tunes cartoon - like maybe working in a munitions factory and testing warheads by hitting them with a hammer.   What I keep coming back to is that if he planned to eat the squirrel, the BB gun alone would probably have done a much better job of killing the squirrel while not destroying the meat.  Honestly, how much would be left of a squirrel if you shot it with a .40 round?

  Huh?  How does a bill that limits what a government agency can do/buy (agencies that, as they are the 'government' already fall under their purview and for whom Congress ostensibly controls the purse strings) equate to a bill limiting what a private individual can purchase with private funds?  Maybe your correlation is spot on but I'm not seeing it.  Explain a little further?     Even if it does not one thing to help the civilian ammo supply/pricing I think that this would be enough to make it a 'good' bill. 

  You are correct about 'depending on how short you go.'  I wasn't thinking about anything short enough to require any 'additional government oversight', though.  Just a pistol-gripped pump with a barrel long enough to meet (at least) the 18.5 inch barrel/26 inch OAL requirement.  A coach gun would still have a much greater 'cool' factor but the pump - especially if I started with a used Mossberg, etc. - would likely be a good bit cheaper to build than trying to buy a coach gun.

If a gun is truly an important, historical piece - say, Wild Bill Hickock's Navy pistols or Wyatt Earp's six-gun then I would also object to doing anything to change them.  However, when you are talking about a still relatively inexpensive, mass produced Russian military rifle I really don't see all that much 'historical significance' to any, individual rifle.  Sure, maybe 100 years from now they will have some historical significance but 100 years from now the guys who are having fun with their Mosins, now, will be dead and won't give a crap.  I don't feel that way about everything - including every firearm - but not everything has to be a 'legacy'.  Some stuff it is okay just to say to heck with it and enjoy.

  Then you have the Mosin's like mine - an 'ex-sniper'.  If you look inside the receiver on mine, you can easily see where the screw-holes that were used to mount the scope have been filled in.  The straight-handled bolt in mine, while it bears the same serial number as the rest of the gun, is way too shiny to be the original.  So, in my case, if I wanted to spend the money to have the screw holes for the scope mount re-drilled/tapped, wanted to spend the money to have the straight bolt bent and then wanted to spend the money to buy a 'correct' scope mount and scope I would actually be putting mine back into its original/pre-re-arsenal condition.  How's that for confusing?   Oh, and speaking of re-arsenaled, when a Mosin is re-arsenaled doesn't that pretty much make it no longer 'original', anyhow?  So, by that measure, if you 'restore' an already re-arsenaled rifle are you really doing anything to the historical value?

I think all the existing and proposed ordinances 'requiring' a firearm of one type or another in every home have their hearts in the right place.  I can't say that I would agree with truly requiring every head of household to buy/own a firearm (even apart from the fact that some are probably felons and cannot, legally, do so.)  I also realize that most of these ordinances are seen as 'unenforceable' and that they will not, in fact, be enforced.  That is why I am not so sure how 'good' a thing they are.  We already have so many convoluted, outdated or unenforced 'laws' - on a Federal, State and Local level - in this country that our law books are a mish-mosh of legalese to the point that the average person can't fully understand them all much less comply with them.  Do we really need more unenforceable, 'feel good' laws?  Isn't the fact that they are largely 'unenforceable, feel good' laws at least part of the reason gun control laws won't do anything to prevent crime?   Instead of basically useless, "Everyone has to own one," laws, I'd rather see:   1.  In areas where local law enforcement are provided with firearms by their departments, pass an ordinance making it mandatory for any departmental firearms which are being phased out/replaced/retired from duty and which are still in sound, working condition must be offered for sale to local residents at a price of no more than $100 before those weapons can be sold or disposed of in any, other manner.  To purchase these items, a local resident would get his/her name on a list.  There would be a deadline for getting on the list.  At the time of the deadline, any local resident whose name is on the list and who has not previously taken advantage of the program will have an opportunity to buy one of the weapons, first, in the order that their names appear on the list  Once all residents who have not previously taken advantage of the program have purchased weapons, any remaining weapons will be sold to residents whose names are on the list and who have previously purchased weapons through the program.  At the end of each of these sales, any remaining firearms could then be sold at fair, market value to a gun dealer or used as 'trade ins' for the new weapons the agency is acquiring.   2.  Pass an ordinance stating that, as a one-time offer (and the resident can choose the purchase on which he/she takes advantage of the offer) when a local resident purchases a firearm at retail price, he/she will be able to deduct the amount of the firearm purchase from his or her property taxes or something similar.   3.  Where possible, pass ordinances establishling training courses - from beginner to advanced - to be taught by qualified local law enforcement officers and open to any and all local residents of age 18 or older.   Those are just a few examples of things I think would be better ways of promoting firearms ownership and/or taking a stand against anti-gun laws.  I am sure there are many other possibilities.

  Yeah, I have no desire, whatsoever, for a Judge handgun but the Circuit Judge (revolver rifle) is something I wouldn't mind having.  I have been fascinated with revolver rifles ever since I saw some in a display of Civil War era weapons at a museum when I was a kid.  in fact, over on the Heritage Rough Rider forum - long before the Circuit Judge came into being - I brought up more than once (in those 'what new products do you think they should make' type threads) that they should do a carbine version of the Rough Rider.   Heck, now that Taurus has acquired Heritage, maybe they will! 

The way I look at things like this is kind of like:   To my knowledge, there is no law against walking into a nice restaurant, standing so that your butt is right on the level with some stranger's face and cutting loose with the biggest, meanest, loudest and foulest fart that has ever been cut loose in the history of pinto beans and deviled eggs.  However, just because it may not technically be illegal - especially if you are 'subtle' enough about it that it isn't obvious whether it was really on purpose or not - doesn't mean it isn't a stupid, childish, moronic thing to do nor should you expect me to support your 'right' to do so.

  That makes sense in some cases, I guess, but that wouldn't explain why all the revolvers (including single actions) they had in stock, before - some of which were in there for months - would suddenly sell out.  It also wouldn't explain why they aren't getting any single actions or other revolvers as trade ins (traditionally, they would usually have at least a couple of single-actions that were used trade ins.)  With the bans/capacity limits that were being discussed, I would have thought people would be trading their old wheelguns and thumb busters on high cap semi-autos, just in case, figuring the revolvers would be around to replace, later, even if legislation did pass.  Instead, it is almost like this has made the single actions and all revolvers more popular.   Also, wouldn't revolvers and semiautos be made on different lines using at least some different equipment?  If the semiauto lines are already running and fully staffed then what benefit would there be to shutting down a revolver line?  Or do they operate like some ammo manufacturers where certain, less popular cartridges are only manufactured on a 'part time' basis on lines that usually run more popular ones?   For that matter, companies like Heritage (which was recently acquired by Taurus but, to my knowledge, remains a separate factory) and a few, other manufacturers of single action revolvers like Pietta, unless I am mistaken, don't even make semiautos.  Heck, some of them only make single action revolvers.  As they don't make semiautos then the 'they are concentrating on making semiautos' explanation doesn't work.   Then there are companies like Rossi (also a Taurus holding or whatever the correct term may be) that make double-action revolvers and a few long guns but no semiautos.  Why would Rossi revolvers become scarce?  You would think that, if anything, Rossi would ramp up revolver production.   I am not just talking about Farnsworth's, either.  Even places like Academy, etc. which normally stock revolvers from companies like Rossi, where semi-auto production shouldn't be an issue, haven't seemed to have as many, lately.

  Mmmm...apples and pork are always a good pairing.  Ever had pork baked with sauerkraut and apples?  Good stuff.