Mark@Sea

Yup. Picked up my first one at a funshow in Knoxville for $375.

Walkers are horse pistols. I mean big. They were issued with saddle holsters. Something like this might work, though...

Sent you a PM.

I'm not the leather artiste some here are, but I think I'm getting better....

Lost credibility with me - nowhere on the list is a firearm.

Always a hoot to shoot. I lean toward the .36's, I've found them to be more accurate. Probably just needed to adjust my loads, but now .36 is all I have for cap n ball. Fine looking pistols.

SandowBob, come on down! And by the way, according to federal law these cap and ball pistols are not firearms. You can mail order one, all you need is an address. Cabelas is currently running a sale on the Pietta 1858, the Police .36 caliber is $229.

The ends justify the means? You really believe that?

Use a lube that isn't petroleum based, and your cleanup will be quicker and easier. I prefer the Colts, a buddy prefers the Remingtons, these days there seems to be little difference between Uberti and Pietta - both are quality firearms - other than how they finish their wood. I'm working on a shoulder holster for one now, as a matter of fact. Not entirely according to Hoyle, but a good way to tote these hoglegs.

3 miles away, 2.5 hour stop. Absolutely no probable cause, no reasonable suspicion. Line 'em up, hand 'em pink slips, and let 'em know that no way does qualified immunity cover this, bud.

Janice Roberts of Boston, MA The best purpose the lawsuit serves is to get this creature the exposure it needs. In a righteous world, she'd have to make all her purchases online, the majority of her tenants would leave, she couldn't get her car, her cat, or her colon serviced. Short of branding a P on her forehead, this lawsuit is the next best thing to identifying this pariah.

What bank robber? They found no money, just a guy with a couple of guns in his car.

It is referred to as a "duress phrase" in some circles.

I'm contrarian, I guess. I've had a few rugers. I'll stick with my woodsman.

I've got a couple of '97's I'm very fond of. One still has a long barrel, and I agonized over cutting it down. Finally decided to leave it original length - the other is a trench gun. Both are as smooth or smoother than an Ithaca 37, and it just doesn't get any better than that.

Getting out of your car in public isn't a crime either...

If getting out of your vehicle is "instigating", why do we issue cruisers to cops? They must instigate a whole bunch of violence that wouldn't happen if they just drove on by. Ultimately, it comes down to who started fighting. Physical evidence - not eyewitnesses, not phone records, not feeeeelings, plainly indicates that Martin started the fight. Physical evidence indicates that Zimmerman was losing, and in fact didn't land a punch of any consequence. Physical evidence indicates that Martin had Zimmerman pinned, and Zimmerman could reasonably say he was in fear for his life at the time he shot Martin. Some folks decided who was guilty a month or so ago, and piffling things like facts won't interfere with their opinion.

I'd like to see more people engage their noggin and think beyond the sound bites... Most of us are still letting the media and the politicians frame the debate... witness the big hooraw over NC banning gay marriage, and how it is the fault of the Tea Party, or republicans, or rednecks - ignoring the facts that A) NC is full of 'progressives' More than half the other states (including that bastion of liberalism California) have done the same and C) Our economic ship is sinking and we're arguing over what the band should play at dinner.

Again, and for the last time, RP is running on the Republican ticket. Not third party. So, if he gets the nomination, a vote for RP will be a vote for RP. I'd like to be able to vote for someone (RP), instead of against someone - if Mitt gets the nomination, I'll be voting against Obama, not for someone who reflects my desires for smaller government, sane budgets, or respect for rights.

Say, guys, while you're busy picking out tunes for the band, I've kind of noticed the water is rising. Demographicly, the number one group standing against homosexual marriage are blacks. Not noted as a terribly conservative group. The state that just passed a 'defense of marriage' amendment? North Carolina. Not usually seen as a hotbed of republicans. Neither is California... let us ignore these insignificant facts and pin the blame on conservative Christians. But really, this is important? I mean, compared to the economy, unemployment, imploding state budgets, impending hyperinflation and the death of the dollar, a DOJ that is selectively enforcing, ignoring or making up laws as it sees fit, the TSA/DHS morphing into something that in a bad light is beginning to look like the east german stasi, a president determined to destroy capitalism, a democratic caucus that is openly communist, a drive to subjugate US sovereignity to the UN...

Because the Indiana state supreme court decided citizens had no right to resist illegal entry/searches. The law is a backlash. The Indiana sheriff who announced he would use this decision to conduct sweep searches of entire neighborhoods (warrants and probable cause be damned) was a posterboy for the effort to get this passed.

You're absolutely right. The three most important things RP would accomplish would be to rescind a whole bunch of executive orders, get rid of a bunch of 'czars', and veto most every new law Congress passes. "Constitutional? No? Well, thanks for playing anyway." That wouldn't be useful, right? Voting for the guy that can get the most new laws passed makes as much sense as saying Mitt is a conservative candidate.

Delegates are chosen locally. The thing is, the complaints that RP supporters won't vote for Mitt if the RNC craps on them by denying RP delegates entry to the convention smells too much of the guy that sits down with a cardshark because he really needs the money. Desperation doesn't change a thing - you're still gonna lose your arse.

Perot ran as an independent. Last I checked, RP is running as a Republican. The shenanigans the GOP is pulling to keep him out of the race have me pretty angry - but you know, there is a (slim) chance he will get the nomination. Really slim, considering the GOP is now threatening to bar entire state delegations that are pledged to him, but a chance. So "a vote for Paul" wouldn't be a vote for Obama - because when it gets down to it, there will be one republican candidate on the ballot. The only thing that would keep me from voting for that candidate would be more blatant action by the GOP to keep RP out of the nominations process. Thinking that the majority of republican voters are dumb enough to nominate the guy that authored the legislation on which Obamacare is based, the guy that signed one of the most (if not the most) restrictive state-level gun bans in the country when the Clinton ban expired; well, thats' one thing. Discovering we don't really get a choice - that is another.