Erich

I love the thought. Wish in application that second bit was true. But today's culture suggests you will be called racist for a truths that someone perceives as hurtful. Question: any truth in stereotypes? or are they just racist mass hysteria?

Ah Mr Dave. it did take you longer than I thought, but I knew you could not resist! I believe you may be playing semantics a bit, but I am noticing a general trend to miss the point and counter with something that is more off point for arguments sake. I'll point out a semantic liberty and twisting it to come back with the liberal media Google response, as well as clarify what the point was in case it was not clear. Up front, this is all about the left's attack on 2A and their solution to the problem of gun violence. It is very clear in the opening of what I said. And how this example has to be ignored as it does not support their case. Specifically more gun laws = less gun violence and only white racists kill people with guns. I see Jim was clear on it, and you appeared to actually agreed. But for some reason you went off about inner city dynamics and Memphis. Dont get me wrong, I love a good debate and invite a dialogue, but I dont understand the tangents simply to be argumentative. The modifier that was missed to twist what I said was "some", in context "some of the harshest gun laws". This means its not stating its the top of the list, but its up there. Now, this seems to be where you took advanatage the hyper lefts defense of recognized laws in Chi town as NOT being among the harshest. All of which is BS as their entire argement is to say that more gun laws solve everything around gun violence. So they have to deny it has more than free states and cities. Reason: does not fit their arguement. And for some reason you are trying to support the lefts defense. While it may have improved over time with court finding they are in violation of the constitution (hey...big red flag that they are harsh right?), having lived in CA until 2018, I know BS gun laws and recognize them. And am amazed you would not think the first couple things that come to mind dont support it. 1.FOID card to buy ammo and guns. CA went to background checks for ammo this year. Yet another retarded law that only works on the law abiding 2.Ban of assault weapons (BS cosmetic definition just like CA) - uhh...how do you think that is OK and not restrictive? 3. Mag capacity limit of 10 - see above Fact is they have more restrictions than the rest of the state, but more gun violence. The only ones that refuse see or recognize that are those that support more gun laws as a solution but this clear example shows otherwise. I did hit on this on the opening, but really? As I know you know, the Left (not me) says the solution to gun violence is more gun laws unless you not been paying attention the last few days. The entire topic is about how this example flies in the face of their argument. As stated, If the lefts answer is more laws, then why aren't they "screaming for even harsher gun laws they feel guarantee will end gun violence". Your above says it not guns, which of course we all know.....then go on about inner city dynamics and socio-economics. Well boo freakin who for Chicago, but what does that have to do with the fact of the lefts anti gun rhetoric and their pat solution of more laws always being the answer?? Hence the title using Optics. as it it does not look good for them. No one is asking why, its irrelevant to proving their solution is not a solution. Point: Throw this at them every time they say the fix is more gun laws and have them explain why they are OK with hundreds of people being gunned down in Chicago and they dont go crying about it like they are right now other cities. Just because its routine for mass killings to happen every weekend there = Horsepoop! Still a valid example to throw at them. Just beause its not white racists = Horsepoop! Still valid Why. Simple, more laws to oppress the law abiding and empower criminals. And the liberals cant handle it. Now Mr Dave, first using liberal ideology that Chicago has open gun laws and now this. You aren't secretly a closet liberal are you?

I'll have a family size all meat pizza with extra cheese.....and a small diet coke...

$200 tax stamp plus any fingerprint card or passport photo fees if you do it yourself

I was just talking to Jim about this. The fear doesnt seem that bad as I noticed that Brownells and a couple others still had drums in stock last night (I was checking to see if the news was causing a 2012 style buy up). But...now OOS Damn media!

WTH Dave, no 50 round drum for your SHTF 308? Or are you just one of those sensible gun owners?

I've never had much interest in a pistol AR since AK pistols exist, but I hate to see the BATF do a 180. These targeted articles really chap my hyde. Its an attempt to further misinform and polarize the unknowledgeable anti-gun crowd under the guise of being informative. Not sure if you guys caught it, but this clown not only is taking a shot at AR pistols and braces, but SBR's by likening them to fully automatic weapons (playing 6 degrees of Kevin Bacon). H e covers that the shooter had a pistol and not a rifle, then transitions to SBR (correctly defining it) trying to allude to their similarity and that the SBR requires a tax stamp. Then this: "The process is similar to legally owning a fully-automatic rifle" Then refers again to the jerk who killed the folks after setting the context, saying "It is unclear if Betts' went through this process, but the firearm he used did have a barrel shorter than 16 inches." He already established it was a pistol and did not need the "process", but is drawing a line for the uninformed that an SBR is just like a full auto, and this pistol used is basically an SBR...which of course means its just like a full auto rifle. This is all done in a pretty sly way, but unfortunately it does work on his target audience and its clear what his entire point was with this article.

How many Chicago TV shows are on now? Sounds like you gents dont miss it The thing is those numbers are just this last weekend....YTD has to really look ugly and dward the "mass shooting" numbers. Throwing NYC in the mix would really be something.

I thought this was an interesting thing to share as we digest the unfortunate events of the weekend and discuss them. We all appreciate the left biased media and politicians get inappropriately energized as they regroup on their anti-gun agenda. They portray these sad events as the new normal and a function of nationalists and an administration that fosters it. Meanwhile, in Chicago, IL, a liberal mega-center, with some of the harshest gun control laws in the US, almost 50 people where shot over the same weekend without the media beating their drum or the rabid democrats crying to save poor Chicago and screaming for even harsher gun laws that feel guarantee will end gun violence. https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/breaking/ct-chicago-weekend-gun-violence-shootings-20190805-rjdbnceupnat7me4z3yjsvfe5y-story.html The national media downplays what is IS actually normal. Only local news. Which is devoid of race information and political affiliation or inferred alignment of the perps. No mention how restrictive gun laws are not working while claiming they are a solution elsewhere. So why or whats different here? Clear daily high volume gun violence. And why is this OK to ignore or at a minimum, not sensationalize to the same degree. 1. Perps are criminals with illegal guns = killing is OK, because only legal guns are the ones they want to put a stop to?? 2. Potentially gang related. So is that make it OK? 3. Cant point at White Nationalists - Poor optics does not fit current claims 4. Cant justify their screams for more gun laws as the use of illegal guns shows that killers don't care about the laws. 5. Liberal officials do nothing to little, with laughable penalties or enforcement, giving criminals little disincentive while going on about the conservatives nationally. The phrase that comes to mind is: Pot meet kettle. What would our friend Beto say as he bashes the administration about his liberal counterparts in Chi town?

Enjoy your retirement and what your new home has to offer.

I dont really have an opinion on Trump, save he pointed the finger in the right place today. But was curious what your basis for this is in action, based mainly on Bump stocks? He had the opportunity today to invoke executive orders that could have been really bad, but did not (yet?). Do that is passing on a golden opportunity if he is a gun grabber, no?

I've got a couple M&P 2.0's. on is 3.6 other is 4.25. They are generally great shooters, the compact came with a very good factory trigger, while the full size was kinda meh in that department. However I put an Apex enhancement kit in it and its very nice now. Almost too light @ 2.5 lbs. Ergonomically these guns are also very nice. The grip texture is a bit aggressive, but I like that. When this things go on sale for $400, its really a no brainer. Great platform. Aftermarket support is not quite a good as it is for the version 1, but still OK. I picked up the ported performance center upper for my 4.25, just take a simple mod to use the older slide on the new frame.

I'm not talking about selective 2019 Googling. I am thinking back to 2012 and what they surfaced about his relationship with his mom and what witnesses had said she had told them before he killed her. His mother knew he had issues outside aspergers and she was afraid of him and what he might do. As I recall witnesses said he had threatened to kill her, and potentially she was going to commit him. I dont recall the order or all of it. I am sure that is googalable / wikiable and I look forward to what you find to also shoot that down and that no one knew (though that is not what the reports where at the time) as its been lost, forgotten, or debunked over the last 7 years

I was thinking FBI or possibly Homeland cyber teams. Direct tap into certain platforms, no more pretending they dont, active searching. Of course, if that public knowledge, seems they would stop posting. Trick may be deciphering an active threat identified by affirmative direct statements of planned action versus a potential that just expressed hatred without action as some could say you are within your rights to speak your mind under 1A. Guess they will sort that out. The thing that always strikes me is many times these killers' parents knew of their mental issues and potential (thinking of Sandy Hook especially). But did nothing. May sound crazy, but would be something to see a duty to report for evaluation and penalties for family that do not. I know...crazy.

What was folks read on the internet and allowing govt agencies anything they need? Social media and other parts of the web that are less accessible? I think many are of the mind that is a good place to look, but how the heck do you follow that thru to action preserving due process and rights? An extension of patriot act as potential terrorist threat as a workaround?

Did not say they were, as pointed out they are not the same, offering why OP may have gone there as its typically asked. However TN does fingerprinting and background check. Or at least they claim to. They forced me to go do it last year when I got here. under the guise of background check. Not sure if you are talking years ago or it does not meet your definition of what a "real" background check is. Where is anyone saying the issue is not mental illness? Hence all the references whackos, whackadoodles or whatnot. I fear the same, it will be impossible to get folks to submit or approve to any meaningful way to attempt to determine this. The gun buyers themselves will resist from an invasion of privacy standpoint irrespective of it precluding any whackos. In lieu of any teeth being offered for any meaningful way to identify mental problems, all one can do is look at past behavior patterns and public information, which is why that ends up being the misdirected focus. All data can be spun. But you have to use some basis, calling everything meaningless just means one failed to sell it. There are correlations and simple numbers that put scope on it, but right now emotions are high and logic is taking a back seat to political agenda. Not sure if folks saw Neil Tysons comments, folks hate the facts but love their emotions. Surprising since he is very liberal.

Something that would be good is to drill further into that given not all carry are equal. That is to say some come with background checks and interviews by the issuing agency, and others are just at the local DMV with no checks (Georgia). Have you been bad or are you breathing. I think that may have been Bill's thought, but the generalities maybe watered it down. Would love a great way to sort out the whackadoodles. Some heuristics and predictive modeling of consumable data would be a great way to go. But once it identifies someone as a potential threat.....its starts bordering on sci fi movies like Minority Report. With our touch on the legal vs justice system, there are downsides to having something that sounds good on the surface.

Its something how they continue to focus on the gun, but if that is the case, how lucky they got him so fast. The Mayer claimed it was an AK but in 223 which would be better explained by an AR. Probably threw the media if it were a pistol because it does not match the silhouette they like to use. 1. is an easy sell, and been on the table for a while 2. that is the trend, harder sell for due process and ability to be abused 3. wow...what would that test be and identify future behavior. And who pays, what kind of professional adminsters? While we like it as we dont want nutbags to have guns, cant see it 4. so much case law on it. In CA a federal judge shot down the CA mag ban as unconstiutional, though it was stayed pending appeal. And are we granfathering those with or all have to be turned in? All those mags just got lost in boating accidents

You said it there. Absolutely. With a corollary of How much lawyer you can afford = How much truth you can buy I appreciate the experience of wearing a badge and seeing many domestic disputes leads to cynicism and that all parties are guilty or have something to be guilty about. I'll kindly disagree that is always the case. Sometimes, people just suck. But of course...you know that all too well.

Interesting question Bill. Or card carrying members of the NRA? Given the age probably not, but how does that play with the sentiment of the NRA and its members being the problem.

Not true at all for red flag situations, as well as a few others. Accusation is all it takes, you can be "mis-quoated" on top of the what the person reporting it said their perceptions of a statement meant and how it made them feel unsafe. You are assuming folks are not malicious or vindictive and you bring it on yourself. I was involved in a case 3 years ago as witness. Total miscarriage of justice. While the victim (the person who was claimed to make statements they did not) got his firearms back, it cost over 20k on top of damage done to many of the firearms. From what I was told, no recourse to go after the person who falsely accused him or get that back, While this was in CA, I dont think that behavior is relegated to that area or rare. If you are a known gun owner, anyone with a beef can mess with you if they choose. So you have to use more caution and cant speak without your gopro going. Which of course, no one does unless they have reason to believe its about to happen. You only need to see a case in person to know just how little your rights mean in certain situations.

Who says you cant see crazy....

They floated 6 dead were not white, but nothing more specific.

You went there....I alluded.... If that is the case....glad he bought the farm. I'd say its good he did in any case, but some still like to believe these folks are salvageable. So I wont.

That was some odd factoid. They also mention ethnicity, specifically that 6 dead were black. So they are looking at hate crime.