Chucktshoes

[quote name="JAB" post="1161750" timestamp="1403530420"]If they just let him go then other people might get it into their heads that citizens of this country have rights?[/quote] And that's something we just can't have. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

Personally, I think he was very smart to slip away and turn himself in after the fact. Considering the subject of the warrant and what they were looking for, I doubt very seriously it started with a polite knock on the door followed by a "sir, can you come out? This is the FBI and we have a warrant to search your property if you would be so kind to open the door." No, they went in with the SWAT team on a dynamic entry. Considering the high mortality rates of the subjects of these types of raids by the murderers in the FBI, I'm not sticking around to get murdered in my own home. At least not if I am planning to live through the encounter. I'll slip away and turn myself in later when it can be done peacefully, and publicly. If I'm sticking around for the initial event it's because I'm not planning on seeing the next sunrise.

[quote name="No_0ne" post="1161570" timestamp="1403475116"]This sounds a lot like a "perpetual motion" system to me ...[/quote] Somebody paid attention in science class.

Saw this on Facebook this evening. The girl who said it makes a very good point. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

Oh please, PLEASE let somebody from EW come here and start defending the place. I love those threads.

Some folks are genuinely offended by it. Some folks are just using the issue as a soapbox to garner a little bit of fame. Some folks take pride in it and some folks just don't give a damn. Regardless of what camp anyone falls into, the government stepping in to cancel the trademarks in an attempt to strong-arm Dan Snyder into changing the name is flat out wrong. To me, that is a far, far bigger issue than the name of a ####ing sports team. 

[quote name="Steelharp" post="1161038" timestamp="1403320181"]Some people just never find their big boy pants. Waaaah. Me? I'm a wop. A dago. Do those terms bother me? Hell, no. I put on my big boy pants decades ago. Get over it.[/quote] This McBeaner agrees with you. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

[quote name="DaveTN" post="1160978" timestamp="1403310495"]Where I was from they sent a letter with a new court date before they issued a warrant for FTA. Do they do that here?[/quote] From lessons learned in my irresponsible youth, I can for a fact say that Shelby County does not. Failure to pay before court date and FTA for a traffic citation automatically equals a bench warrant and a license suspension. If you get picked up on Friday afternoon or later you will also get to spend the entire weekend in jail.

Looks like the feds found bupkis. I'm just happy he didn't exercise the right to defend himself and his property against this act of aggression.   http://www.wtsp.com/story/news/local/hillsboroughcounty/2014/06/19/valrico-agents-fbi-explosives-guns-weapons-search-prepper-doomsday-winters-daughters-glasser-wtsp/10904077/  

A winning formula can last for a long time, but eventually you gotta change or die. Harley actually reminds me of Smith & Wesson a bit. S&W revolvers which built the company, are still top notch and their wonder nines were solid as well. But without the diversification into the polymer pistols and the AR's over recent history, they would be a dying company falling into niche market status. It is time for HD to innovate or get left behind.

Not at all, employers should be completely free to employ or not whomever they wish for whatever reasons they wish. But the next bit of that paragraph that you conveniently ignored already answered your question. Mere possession or use of an item does not necessarily result in an inability to function in life. Just as some folks can drink responsibly, some folks can use other intoxicants responsibly. I am stating that drug possession and other mala prohibita "crimes" aren't really crimes at all and should not result in a felony conviction. Mala prohibita IS mala en se. Putting a gun in someone's face is a choice. While addiction may be a reason someone chooses to do it, it isn't an excuse for the action and does not absolve someone from the consequences of that choice. Now, as far as the big gulp goes, the Bloombergs of the world say that obesity is a public health issue that has costs to society as a whole. Folks who are obese consume more health care. That raises insurance rates. Also, the poor tend to have higher rates of obesity. That means the government picks up their health care costs. In my view, if the government is picking up the tab, that means the government is sticking a gun in lots of folks' faces demanding the money in the form of taxation. So if you want to go down that road, what's worse? An individual putting one gun in one person's face and taking the risk of getting their just due in the form of an armed citizen defending themselves, or a group of people accountable to nearly no one sticking lots of guns in lots of people's faces and killing those who resist? You know my pick. All that to say that once again, you attempt to dodge the question. Justify the prior restraint on the individual's liberty that you advocate. What is the moral basis for denying someone the ability to make choices (even bad ones) for themselves that are not a direct aggression on another human being?

Of those burglars, thieves and armed robbers, how many of them were locked out of the legitimate job market due to convictions for possession? Can you begin to guess at that number? Many folks can do the illicit drug of their choice on a recreational basis and maintain themselves as a productive member of society just as many people can drink alcohol and not end up on skid row hustling for spare change in front of Walgreens. The difference between the two is that if someone is a drunk they don't get thrown in jail on felony possession charges for having a 40 in a paper bag.   That aside, I am still waiting for an explanation on how it is morally justified to tell someone what they can or cannot choose to personally ingest into their own body. I seem to remember lots of folks getting all up in arms about Bloomberg attempting to ban big gulps. 

Yes because treating a health issue as a law enforcement issue has been sooooo effective thus far. :lol: give me a ####in break. :lol: :lol: :lol:   I have still yet to see how anyone can make a cogent moral case for exercising prior restraint on an individual's liberty because of what they "might" do at some point to abuse it. "Drugs are bad and will ruin your life, so if I catch you with them I will arrest you, throw you in jail, and ruin your life," has never made a damn lick of sense to me. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

Well, ain't this a whole new wrinkle.   http://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/drug-war-blowback-vegas-murderers-were-police-informants/        

I like it. Good on Harley Davidson for not just sitting on their asses and churning out the exact same thing year after year. I'd like to see this actually show up in showrooms.

I recall reading about the addition at one point in an article that had the basic gist of your last post in that it was a question that the law doesn't address and that the ATF was basically making law by asking it. I very well may be mistaken, but I don't think so and am trying to track it down. I can't seem to find any scanned versions of the 4473 that predate the internet era. I believe the time frame for the addition of 11a was sometime during the Reagan administration.

I'm trying to track down what year it was that it was added, but question 11a was not always on the form. It was a later addition by the ATF. 

I recently left walgreens after seven years with them as an assistant manager. I too was subject to and understood their no firearms policy. I carried every single day. I understood that were I to ever need to use my gun that I would be looking for a new job. I was ok with that as hopefully, I would still be alive to look for one. For those of you saying you won't go back to shop at Walgreens anymore, good. Not because of this, but because it is a terrible, terrible dishonest and unethical company that treats its people worse than any group of evil bastards I have ever had the displeasure of working for. There are plenty of reasons not to shop there. They are a terrible company run by terrible people. If one day they made the national news because somebody snapped and went full in postal at corporate headquarters I would understand and wonder what took so long.

Haha, well it is the Doodie Project after all. It isn't for everyone, that's for sure. 

http://doodieproject.invisionzone.com/index.php?%2Ftopic%2F1758-huge-uspsa-cheating-scandal%2Fpage-6 Halfway down the page, post 112 lays out the details.   It appears that Paul Hendrix is involved in some activities that can possibly have a serious impact on all of the individually timed shooting sports. This might just be a really big deal.

I wish him success in his future endeavors.

The course of the day's events may necessitate that I shoot somebody. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

[quote name="Dustbuster" post="1159335" timestamp="1402861614"]Do yourself a favor though keep it out of plain sight to avoid being drawn down on during a traffic stop or accident. I just hope Voldemort or the like don start riding around looking to test this :-/ Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 2 of course it ate my spelling.[/quote] Oh, he will. Of that I have no doubt whatsoever. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

Is there any way to do something about that?  :rofl:  :rofl:  :rofl:   (I have much lower impulse control than you do broox.)