JAB

I love the Monarch brand of (steel cased) 9mm Makarov ammo for my CZ (vz) 82.  It shoots well and is as accurate as anything else I have tried.  Too bad Academy wasn't receiving much of it even before the current ammo craze.       I have read that it isn't safe or, at least, good practice to fire .308 in many 7.62X51 rifles.  I don't own either so don't remember the exact details but it had something to do with the chamber dimensions, etc.  I think it was that 7.62X51 brass is often thicker so the chamber may not properly support a .308 round.  It seems like there was some, possible issue with headspacing, too.

  This very point, in fact, goes AGAINST your argument.  These are the people who would love to make rules limiting our firearms ownership.  Heck, if it were up to many of them owning firearms, at all, would be against 'the rules'.   So, do me a favor - when and if a rule forbidding firearms ownership is passed, being as how you wouldn't want to break the rules, just hand your guns over to us horrible, anarchist scoff-laws who don't believe we should blindly follow simply because some jackass made a rule.   For that matter, damn all those reckless, rule breaking Colonists who thought they had a right to go against Great Britain's rules way back in the 1700s.  What the heck were those jerks thinking?   And, yes, I do see the two as equivalent.  Not in scope and scale, of course, but as a point of personal freedom.  This nation was founded by rule breakers whose whole point in starting a new country was to create a society with as few constraints on personal liberty (i.e. 'rules') as possible while still attempting to prevent one person's liberty from infringing on the liberty of another.  Ignoring, breaking or outright rebelling against an overabundance of rules is at the very root and heart of what our nation is supposed to be.  Simply because we have been indoctrinated and programmed to 'always follow the rules because rules are always good' doesn't change that - nor does it mean that the rules are, in fact, always 'good'.

Massad Ayoob is not a handgun demigod.  He is simply a human with an opinion, albeit a very experienced and some would say 'professional' opinion.  I do not always agree with the things he writes (often because he writes as if the laws in his state are universal laws and warns of things causing legal trouble that, under TN law for instance, might not.)  Also, as I previously stated, I do not have kids (and probably never will.)  All that said, I find the thoughts he presented in a now somewhat older article on children and guns to be interesting.  I will also admit that I would tend to grant more weight to his opinion, in this case, than to some others.   http://www.backwoodshome.com/articles2/ayoob68.html

    No, the problem with this country is that there are far too many rules and too many people who think they have the right to make arbitrary rules to dictate the behavior of others because, after all, 'they' know what is right and best for everyone.  The problem isn't that he broke the school rule but the fact that the school has such a rule to begin with.   The more we act like sheep and follow asinine rules simply because 'those are the rules' the more we give up liberty, little bits at a time.  Rules which keep one person from harming another or interfering with the rights of another are one thing.  It may seem like a small thing but rules telling people how they can wear their hair - or choose to style their children's hair - have no place in a free country.

Maybe some folks are on the right track saying that a 5 year old boy doesn't truly 'decide' how his hair is cut and that, ultimately, that is the parents' decision.  I would counter that maybe those folks should look at their own argument before posting it.   I would say you are exactly right - the parents' should, ultimately, make that decision.  NOT teachers.  NOT principals.  NOT the school board.  As long as the child's appearance isn't indecent or his/her grooming unsanitary then it should be none of a school's damn business - not one, little bit - what decisions the parents make about his or her appearance.  If parents want to indulge a child's desires for something so innocent as a haircut then that should also be none of a school's damn business.  None.  Period.  Remember, these are the same types of 'educators' who suspend/expel kids for making gun shapes with their fingers.  They are the same 'educators' who become apoplectic when a child so much as has a picture, drawing or doodle of a gun.  They want to dictate minute aspects of a child's life - not to educate but to indoctrinate.   In fact, I have said for some time and become increasingly more convinced that the #1 problem in this country is that people - individually and in groups, private and public - refuse to mind their own, damned business.  Sure, there are instances when people refuse to 'get involved' when they should but much more prevalent are instances when people should just keep their stupid opinions to themselves and let others make their own decisions.  Then, again, perhaps the phrase 'the pursuit of happiness', once listed right along with 'life' and 'liberty', no longer means anything.   I remember a specific incident when I was in either Kindergarten or the first grade (would have been some time around 1976-77.)  At home, mom always poured a little milk into my bowl of chili or soup to help cool it down.  In fact, she did the same to hers.  Well, I did that at school one day and some of the other students raised an uproar because they thought it was 'gross'.  My teacher then told me that I would be in trouble if I did that, again.  Well, I went home and told my mom.  The next morning she went into school with me and had a discussion with the principal and my teacher - the gist being that was the way we ate our soup, she and my father were paying for my lunch and if I wanted to pour milk into my soup then that is exactly what I would do.  I continued to do so for several years and, after that, was never told that it was not allowed.   I have to wonder how many people who feel that the school was in the right sending this child home also feel that the vet who had "Infidel" tattooed on his arm should have been hassled because of it.  Basically, IMO, it is the same thing.

I wouldn't keep a fire extinguisher under lock and key because, were it needed in case of an emergency, I'd want to be able to get to it quickly.  The same goes for some of my firearms.  By that, I mean that I don't have loaded guns sitting around everywhere but neither do I treat them like wild animals that have to be kept 'caged'.  I have bedside guns that are more likely to come out at 'the end of the day' than to be put away.   That said, I don't have kids and my mutt, as clever a dog as she is, lacks opposable thumbs.  Therefore, she gets no nachos (for those who remember that commercial) and probably can't shoot me, accidentally or otherwise.

Being that the original post in this thread was posted on December 25, 2012 I have to wonder if the OP found something suitable, yet.  If so, I'd be curious to know what he and his wife ended up getting.   For anyone looking for advice on the same thing in the future, I would say that I really liked the Rossi 461 that I carried for a while.  I traded it toward a S&W 642 but the biggest reason for the trade was I was looking for something that would better allow pocket carry as an option.  I don't doubt that I will own another Rossi revolver one of these days.

  Naw but, around here at least, they don't live very long anymore.  Used to be I could keep 'em alive in a minnow bucket for several days - maybe even a week - if I changed the water out and added ice.  Now half of them will be dead before you even get to the bank and any that are left over will be dead by the next day.   Sorry, couldn't resist.  It is true, though.   I am with you on not paying ridiculous prices.  As you say, I am not shooting as much as I was.  Luckily, due to lessons learned from the last 'shortage' and precautions taken in the last, few years as a direct result of that 'shortage', I don't have to stop shooting entirely nor am I hurting enough to even consider paying ridiculously inflated prices.  I'm not exactly 'rolling' in ammo and if the shortage doesn't quieten down by this summer I may start getting a little nervous but I am okay, for now.  That doesn't mean that, once things return to normal, I will forget which retailers kept prices reasonable (considering that some price inflation is likely unavoidable) and which ones did not.   Also, I do wish that I had stocked up on more .22LR before all this hit.  I mean, I have some but would feel more comfortable if I had more.  I even predicted last Summer that we were going to see an ammo shortage that would include .22LR toward the end of the year (2012) but didn't foresee .22LR disappearing entirely or demanding such ridiculous prices.  I thought I'd still be able to get some at more or less regular prices, just with not as much regularity.  Oh, well, I will just have to consider that a lesson learned once this 'shortage' ends and before the next one starts.

  Keep in mind, though, that it was Bredesen who vetoed the bill to allow permit holders to carry where alcohol is sold.  Bredesen was a Democrat so the Repubs were (IMO) gung ho to override him, kind of using it as a party issue (and got support from some Democrats who probably didn't want to be seen as being on the anti-gun rights bandwagon.)  This time, however, it is a Republican governor with Republicans controlling both houses.  They might not want to over-ride 'their guy'.   That is honestly why I think it is best - as long as we remain stuck with the two party system - when the governor is of one party and the other party has a strong presence in both houses.  Their infighting and trying to one-up each other seemed to have benefitted us as we saw more pro-gun rights bills passed with a Democrat governor and Democrats controlling the House than we have seen since the Republicans took control of everything.  Basically, the idea that the Republicans were/are on 'our side' is an illusion that they like to perpetuate when election time rolls around.   Still, as this isn't an 'evil' pro-gun rights bill and as the big business lords and masters probably have no reason to object maybe Haslam would sign it - if the bill makes it to his desk.  We can hope, anyhow.  It really makes no sense that I (as an HCP holder) can, if I want, legally carry several handguns, have a loaded long gun in my truck but could get in legal trouble for carrying a knife with a blade over four inches long.

I wouldn't be surprised if a good lawyer gets him found 'not guilty' by emphasizing how he is oppressed by a cruel society because he is gay.  The PC crowd will be willing to overlook illegal and improper use of a firearm as long as such usage was perpetrated by one of their 'protected' groups.  After all, it couldn't have been his fault - instead, it is the fault of lax gun laws allowing him to purchase and own the evil, terrible firearm in the first place.

Being prepared for a 'zombie apocalypse' can yield benefits that are two fold.   1.  As others have said, if you are prepared for a 'zombie apocalypse' then you will be ready for just about any SHTF event.  Calling your preparations 'zombie' related allows one to remain PC while preparing a plan, if necessary, for defending themselves/group and supplies from any threat (which, in a SHTF event, could be your neighbors or anyone else who might be trying to take the supplies that you/your group need to survive.)   2.  What I haven't seen anyone else mention is that by preparing for a 'zombie apocalypse' instead of, say, civil unrest, a hurricane or the like you can help insulate yourself against the initial shock and horror that you might otherwise experience when the dead really do rise and start eating brains. :)

I haven't been reloading long but I have been using Accurate #5 for .38 Special/.38 +P.  I have Accurate #7 to use for .44 Magnum (just finally found a bullet I want to try this last Friday so I haven't loaded any of those, yet.)  There is load data for .357 using either of the two.  Those are about the only calibers I am likely to reload - at least any time soon - so I am pretty happy with those choices.   I'm not really interested in experimenting with components, etc. (other than trying different bullets until I find one or two I like the best.)  I just want to come up with a load or two for each that I like and stick with those.

Some folks believe that jacking prices to ridiculous levels is 'just capitalism'.  Well, maybe in one sense but I don't believe it is very 'good' capitalism.  To me, a 'good' business owner practicing 'good' capitalism - regardless of what they sell - is going to take into account customer relationships, customer loyalty, return business, word of mouth advertising and the like - especially a small, 'mom and pop' type business.  Raising prices a reasonable amount in the current market is one thing but after a certain point it gets ridiculous.   Sure, jacking prices into the stratosphere might make them a healthy profit in the short term - largely from panic buyers, new gun owners (who don't know any better) or people who are so desperate to find a box of ammo somewhere, anywhere that they will pay whatever price these profiteers are asking.  Thing is, eventually supplies return to normal, the hoarders will have all they will ever shoot, the new shooters will have either gone into a routine of rarely shooting, will have sold their gun or will have the experience to know better.  In other words, their 'crisis' sales will have dried up and those of us who remember such things will remember their actions and avoid their shops.  At that time, these same profiteers will be whining about how people should shop local and how the mean ol' Internet is putting them out of business.

Well, so much for, "You can't outdraw someone who already has their gun in hand."  This guy outdrew TWO people who already had SHOTGUNS in hand.  Sounds like he got hits on them both and neither he nor anyone else was hurt.  It also sounds like the business owner is supporting him.  Works for me.   I also like that, according to the reporter, the police said that the driver, "...had no choice but to fight back."   ETA: I went looking for more info and found the 'original' story.  Although I was and am glad to see the story, just FYI for everyone, it looks like this incident happened in July of 2012 (the story was from July 17, 2012), not sometime in the last, few days or weeks.   http://www.10tv.com/content/stories/2012/07/17/columbus-pizza-delivery-driver-shoots-at-would-be-robbers.html

Yep. I generally reply, "Oh, so 'Freedom of the Press' only applies to newspapers and then only to those that are printed on hand-set printing presses. It does not protect such uses of television, radio or the Internet nor does it protect newspapers that are formatted on computers and then printed via any type of automated or electronic means. So, Freedom of Speech only applies to things said in person, perhaps on a 'stump' in the town square or at a local meeting - it does not apply to any electronically reproduced speech such as radio, television, the Internet nor does it apply to words spoken through an microphone/speaker, PA system or so on. Of course 'Freedom of Religion' refers only to those religions and/or denominations that were in existence when the Constitution was drafted and signed. Okay, then, if those things are all true then I guess it makes perfect sense that the Second Amendment only applies to muskets."

I'd say the whole root of the problem - the reason so many folks are 'concerned' - is that the government is NOT us.  Hasn't been for quite some time.  The idea that we, the voting public, choose the government is an illusion.  Instead, we are given two (usually equally poor) candidates and lead to believe that our choice of one piss-poor candidate is any better than the other simply because he or she has an R or a D by their name.  Sadly, the reality is that neither of those candidates would have gotten so far as to be a choice without first being vetted by the real powers - the corporations and power brokers who really run the government and who couldn't care less about us, our wants or our needs.  No, the government is not 'us' and there is no fixing this at the ballot box.  We cannot vote in someone 'better' because someone 'better' will never get the backing of the major parties and the American voters don't have the cajones to vote for a candidate without that backing because they will continue to believe the BS that doing so is 'wasting their vote'.

Because I often end up heading to various destinations when I go out for groceries, to restaurants and etc. I have a 'circuit' of a few, different Walmart locations that I hit, generally getting to all of them at least once a month.  That circuit includes the stores at Lenoir City, Madisonville, Athens, and Rockwood.  I also sometimes get to the one in Maryville, the one in Clinton and the one in Halls.  In the last, few months the shelves where the bulk packs of 12 gauge field loads belong have been empty nearly every time I have visited one or the other of those locations.  I have also noticed that they usually don't seem to have much in the way of 12 gauge buckshot or slugs.  Some of the more expensive field or 'target' loads are generally available (although not always) and they usually have some turkey loads but that is about it.  Even the 20 gauge stuff has been hit or miss, at times.

While I largely agree with what Dolomite said, I remember the 08-09 shortage a little differently.  I think I paid closer attention to that shortage than this one because I was much less prepared than I was this time around.   In the 08-09 shortage, at first and for several months, it was mostly .380 ammo that was next to impossible to find.  I think that was largely due to the popularity of the LCP and P3AT in a time when a lot of folks - some who had never even owned firearms, before - were buying carry guns.  During that shortage, Cheaper than Dirt had Blazer .380 (aluminum cased, not even Blazer Brass) FMJ priced somewhere around $60 for a box of 50.  That is why many of us would not deal with CTD even after prices returned to 'normal' and will not to this day.  Heck, at Benton Shooters Supply they were splitting up 100 round value packs of Remington UMC .380 ammo and selling them for over $30 for a tray of 50 (about the same price as the entire 100 round pack cost at Walmart, if you could catch them in stock.)   Before long, though, my attempts to find reasonably priced 9mm Luger ammo were often fruitless (and not just at Walmart but also at sporting goods/gun stores.)  Eventually, the only handgun ammo that was consistently available at Wally was .32acp and .25 acp - then the .32 started disappearing.  I ended up buying a Phoenix .25 just to have something to shoot.  Before all was said and done, though, even the .25 ammo started drying up (and not just at Walmart but also at several other retailers I checked.)  I also bought a CZ (more appropriately, vz) 82 because 9mm Makarov ammo was still pretty readily available.   I have noticed some significant differences this time, however.  One is that during the last shortage, it was mostly certain calibers of handgun ammo that became hard to find (and maybe .223 - I don't know because I don't own anything so chambered.)  Most rifle and shotgun ammo was readily available throughout - even 12 gauge buckshot and slugs.  For whatever reason, I had some difficulty finding .22WMR ammo for a while, toward the end of that shortage but .22LR in the smaller boxes remained mostly available and even bulk packs, while sometimes sporadically available, didn't seem to dry up completely as they have this time.  Also, ammo for various calibers dried up one or two at a time while some (.38 Special, for instance) were at least hit or miss.  This time, everything, rifle, handgun, revolver, rimfire, shotgun - even the bulk packs of 12 gauge field loads at Wally - seems to have disappeared all at once.   I do think a lot of this is probably stockpiling/prepping/hoarding but I also think that profiteering is a factor, as well.  I believe that because of the sudden disappearance of less popular ammo right along with the more popular stuff.  For instance, I'm not even seeing much in the way of .410 buckshot or slugs on the shelves these days.  Sure, there isn't as much of that around even during normal times and, sure, guns like the Judge and the Governor have probably increased demand for defensive .410 ammo but honestly, who stockpiles thousands of rounds of .410 buckshot or slugs for personal/emergency use?  To me, that sounds more like 'buy everything and resell at ridiculous prices', to me.  The same goes for .25acp and .32acp supplies having dried up so suddenly and completely.  Yes, I know that ammo manufacturers don't make as much of that ammo but are there really folks hoarding umpteen thousand rounds of .25acp?  It is hard to imagine that being the case - especially as that ammo disappeared right alongside 9mm, etc. and not after other, 'better' options had dried up.     Not necessarily.  There were purchase limits put in place last time.  Mostly, I remember Walmart having limits but believe that some, other places did, as well.  IIRC, those limits remained in place until the 'shortage' was well and truly over, shelves were at least almost completely restocked and people were no longer coming in to buy their limit and bringing their friends and family members with them to do the same.  I don't recall the lifting of those limits having any real impact, at all, on the continued availability of ammo.   What I do remember is that on the heels of the last shortage, ammo prices went up pretty much across the board.  9mm range ammo went up a dollar or two a box of 50, as did some others, while some things (like .38 Special range ammo) went up as much as three or four dollars for a box of 50 (that was a big part of what finally pushed me to start reloading for .38/.357.)

Fixed that for you.

  Is there?  I must have misheard when the news casters talked about it because I swear I thought they said the legislation would ban new, high cap mags and require existing ones to be registered.  In other words, the registration thing IS the grandfather clause.

  I don't own either - but would probably lean toward the mini just because it fits my 'tastes' better.  I liked your post, though, because that is the way I look at potential SHTF scenarios, in general.

That was true of the one in Sweetwater (well, the shotgun ammo, anyhow) until recently.  The last time I was in there, however (a couple of weeks ago) they had none and it was very obvious that they no longer had any shelf space set aside for it.  They had also gotten rid of the checkout counter that used to be in their sporting goods area.

It is really kind of telling that I thought last week's episode (season premiere) of Revolution was at least as good as - maybe better than - this week's episode (season finale) of The Walking Dead.   I'm not giving up hope, yet, but I am getting closer.  I have no problem with character development and interpersonal conflicts among characters.  In fact, I think that is what sets this show apart from your run of the mill zombie movie that couldn't sustain being a television show.  That said, there is a balance to maintain.  After all, the show is called "The Walking Dead" and zombies are still the central 'hook'.  Also, even the character development and interpersonal conflicts can be done without turning the whole thing into a soap opera.  I'm tuning in to watch "The Walking Dead", not "Days of Our Undeaths."

The problem there is that Carl is right.  In fact, I don't think Carl went far enough in his response to Rick.  Back at the farm, Rick had a talk with Carl and, basically, told him that his childhood was over.  He said that he was sorry it had to be that way but that Carl was going to have to put the little kid stuff behind him.  Well, he did and he did a very good job of it.  Last night, I was hoping he was going to say that to Rick and point out that Rick was going to have take his own advice and put the old life behind him because the Officer Friendly crap of being wishy-washy and giving known enemies the benefit of the doubt keeps getting good people - their people - killed.  I was also hoping he would point out that Rick was all set to turn Michonne - one of their own people - over to the Governor to be tortured and killed but that he was now all upset over Carl doing what needed done to a known, armed enemy who had come to kill them - which is a pretty hypocritical attitude, really.  I was actually cheering for Carl when he pointed out that Rick's letting that one inmate go instead of killing him when he had the chance (and should have) resulted in Lori (and T-Dog, although Carl didn't mention him) dying - not to mention Carl having to shoot his own mother in the head - and then pointed out that Merle would still be alive if Rick had quietly killed the Governor when he had him alone in a room (which would also have meant that Milton and Andrea would have lived.)  I love how he ended his response to Rick with something along the lines of, "...now go kill him before he kills any more of us."  If anything, Carl needs to take the belt to Rick because Carl is acting more like an adult making hard choices and living with them while Rick is acting more like a little kid who is whining because he can't deal with the way things are.   I also agree that Carl was right to shoot the Woodbury guy.  Like others, I don't think he was going to drop the shotgun.  He was hesitating too much, moving too close to Carl and obviously (to me, anyhow) sizing up how he could probably take out one kid and an old man before they could get him.  Besides, once someone comes to your 'house' with a shotgun looking to kill you, your entire [surviving] family and every friend you have left in the world what do you do with them even if you let them surrender?  There are no authorities to turn them over to, no way to have a trial or to safely keep him around.  What the heck were they supposed to do?  Just let him go to come back later?  Take him back to the prison, lock him in a cell and waste valuable resources keeping him in food and water?  Let him walk around loose in the prison where you have kids and even a baby, meaning you would either have to keep an eye on him 24/7 or take a chance on him hurting or killing them if you ever let your guard down?  Or maybe he would just scope out the whole place then eventually sneak away, leaving a 'back door' open for the Governor to sneak back in later (when Carl shot the guy, they didn't know that the Gov had murdered all his people.)   By making what I think was the right call, Carl avoided another Randall-like situation.  He avoided the group being in conflict for days because they "couldn't" keep him locked up, "couldn't" kill him and "couldn't" let him go.  What do we do with the guy who tried to kill us and who we can't trust?  Bang.  Problem solved.   Honestly, overall I think the scene with Carl was the high point of a pretty poor episode.  I mean, sure some 'significant' things happened but overall this had the feel of another 'filler' episode, not a season friggin' finale.    Unlike some, I wasn't 'ready' for Andrea to die.  If that was in the cards, however, they could have made it a little more of a 'big deal'.  As it was, her death was kind of lame.  I mean, she fought off that walker in the RV with a screwdriver way back when, before she was nearly as hardened and skilled at killing them.  Just a week or two ago she ran through a countryside full of the things armed only with a small pocket knife and killed a few walkers on the way.  By the time Milton reanimated, Andrea had a hand free - I expected she would be able to stab one handle from the pliers through an eye and drop the Milton walker fairly easily but, instead, it bit her.  Like I said, kind of lame.   Once she was bitten, I was hoping they would at least set things up so she could take out the governor and maybe even be instrumental in bringing the Woodbury survivors and Rick's group together as her final, living act (well, before shooting herself, that is.)  Instead, the three amigos (gov and his two henchmen) ride off into the sunset and Andrea goes out in a fairly inglorious manner.  Pretty anticlimactic, really - especially for a season finale.   Now they are setting things up to drag the prison story arch out even more and possibly have the governor around, later.  Personally, I was looking forward to the season finale when those, two things could finally be put to rest - and they didn't resolve either of them.  I realize that life doesn't fit neatly into 'seasons' but this is a television show.  It should, at least to some extent (especially when the way things are going gets boring.)

JKGlock17, you just gave me an idea that I think could have worked.  Instead of Shane getting killed off, what if he had left when he first said he was going to - maybe took Andrea with him.  The two of them run into Michonne (who joins up with them after saving their hides in some particularly cool and butt-kicking way) and from there the show takes two, different paths.  Unlike the Andrea/Woodbury and the prison storylines, there would be no need to necessarily 'recombine' them.  Let Rick and his group settle at the prison while Shane and his group stay on the move (wasn't there some military base that Shane wanted to head toward?)  That way, it is sort of the best of both worlds - the conflicts that the settled group face as well as conflicts faced by a migratory group.   I wouldn't do any of this flip/flopping back and forth in the same episode, though.  In fact, I probably wouldn't even flip back and forth that much from one episode to the other.  Instead, I'd do at least three or four episodes focusing on one before switching to the other.  In fact, it might be interesting to do the entire first half of the season focusing on Shane's group and the last half focusing on Rick's group (or vice versa.)  Alternately, they could divide the first half of the season into two parts with one focusing on Shane and the other on Rick then do the same with the second half.  To me, staying with one group for multiple episodes would give better continuity than flip-flopping back and forth within the same episode or doing alternating episodes.   Something like that would allow for different storylines, showing different takes on the outbreak and how to survive it, while also keeping one part of the story from dragging out for too long.  Almost like having two shows in one!   It might be interesting to let things go on like that for a while and then, in the final season, have the two storylines converge.  It could be by that point that Rick and Shane are each the leader of a fairly large and capable group of survivors - and the plot driver for the last season could be a clash between those, two groups (maybe Shane has decided that Lori had his daughter and he wants to take his daughter back from Rick.)  I might even end the show's run with Rick and Shane having killed each other, most of the two groups being wiped out, their bases of operation destroyed and Carl (as a young man) leading the combined survivors of both groups as they once again take to the road.   Heck, for that matter have Tyreese and his group join up with Rick's group at the end of this season and then spend the majority of next season telling Tyreese's back story, right from the beginning of the outbreak or at least beginning after they left the 'bunker' their survivalist neighbor had set up (almost like a chance to 'revisit' the kind of action and drama we saw in the first season with folks who weren't yet 'jaded' to the presence of walkers and the whole survival process.  It would also be a chance to kill off a lot of 'main' characters (the ones originally in Tyreese's group) before they run into Rick and co.