LagerHead

  I didn't think you could touch a Benelli for that cheap. Gander mountain has a SuperNova for $499.99.

  Who's we? Got a mouse in your pocket? ;)

As the title states, I am looking to purchase a shotgun. I don't currently own one, but I've shot them, so I'm not a total ignoramus. But I know some of you folks will have insights I don't. Here are my criteria:   Under $1,000. I'd love to stay under $750, but for the right gun I can bend. Multi purpose. Specifically I'd like a gun for turkey hunting, but if it could double as a home defense weapon, that's a bonus. Until I get another shotgun I'd probably shoot a clay or two with it as well. Semi-auto or pump. I'm not interested at this time in over/under, coach guns, or side by side.   Those are my must haves. I'm probably not going to go with wood furniture right now either simply because in the woods it's too hard not to ding up. I hate to hurt something purty. ;)   Right now I'm looking at the Remington 887 Nitro and the Stoeger M3500. I really like the durability aspect of the 887, but the Stoeger is a nice semi auto for a very reasonable price. The 887 has a combo model with a 22" and 28" barrel, which nicely meets the dual purpose need, but the M3500 is supposedly kinda the Benelli lite, if you will. If this is incorrect, please feel free to set me straight.   What say y'all? I'm open to any and all suggestions.   Thanks.

All taxation is theft. The only difference is how much is stolen.

Here's my perfect day:   All government is dissolved.   As a result, people are allowed to live their lives how they see fit, not how their chosen master tells them to. Everyone is able to keep the fruits of their labor instead of giving large portions of it to someone else's sacred cow.   Then end.

I think the take away here is, if you look at the industries where the government is most heavily involved - cars, education, healthcare, housing - you see prices rising much faster than inflation. Where government regulation is relatively light, the opposite is true.

  Well if you look at the industries that are most heavily regulated, i.e. have artificially inflated costs for absolutely no good reason, it would be logical to come that conclusion. But you'd be incorrect. You're looking at a single commodity rather than the overall financial well-being of the average American.   Don Boudreaux did a great piece on this at cafehayek.com. He compared some common goods in the Sears catalog from 1975 with the same items today, or their comparable modern equivalents. You can read the full article here. Here are a few examples of what he found:   – Manual treadmill: 1975 price was $89.99 (or 18.5 hours of work in 1975); 2013 price is $127.99 (or 6.5 hours of work today) – adult athletic shoes: 1975 price was $9.95 (or 2.0 hours); 2013 price is $19.99 (or 1.0 hour) – adult jeans:* 1975 price was $6.99 (or 1.4 hours); 2013 price is $19.99 (or 1.0 hour) – television (19″ color): 1975 price was $294.95 (or 60.6 hours); 2013 price is $129.99 (or 6.6 hours) – 30″ kitchen all-electric range/oven: 1975 price was $159.95 (or 32.8 hours); 2013 price is $369.99 (or 18.6 hours) – frost-free refrigerator/freezer:** 1975 price was $319.95 [for 14.1 cubic feet] (or 65.7 hours); 2013 price is $404.99 [for 14.8 cubic feet] (or 20.4 hours) – “standard size” all-electric washer/dryer combo: 1975 price was $329.90 (or 67.7 hours); 2013 price is $593.98 (or 29.9 hours)   As you can see, you have to work a lot fewer hours to enjoy the same standard of living you did 40 years ago.   Yea, cars are probably more expensive, even adjusted for inflation, but the car you get is a hundred times better than the one you got back then. It has more power, weighs less, gets better mileage, lasts longer, handles better, has better tires, etc. etc. etc. ad nauseum. Plus, as I alluded to earlier, government mandates make them more expensive needlessly. Basically a government mandate says, "You, the consumer, are just not smart enough to know what you need. We will tell you what you need, make you pay extra for it even if you don't want it, then say what an idiot you are when you disagree." That doesn't even begin to take into account the several thousand dollars a car costs before the idea for the new model is even dreamed up due to the outrageous cost of labor associated with most "American" cars.

  Spots, you are right on. Low prices help the economy, not hurt it. And low prices very rarely lead directly to job loss unless the low price is the result of government price fixing schemes that artificially deflate them.   This idea that deflation leads to a down economy is just pure bunk. One only needs to look at the consumer electronics industry to see it. Almost every one of us, regardless of our income level can afford a pretty nice TV these days. That is not to mention the miracles of modern technology we all carry in our pockets everywhere we go - our smartphones - and the computers, laptops, tablets, and other things that many of us have. These things, and indeed even their rough equivalents, were only available to the upper income brackets just twenty years ago.   On the average, we each have to work less for the same level of comfort when compared to 40 years ago. This is a good thing, not a bad thing. As a result of lower prices, even when adjusted for inflation, the average American today enjoys a standard of living unobtainable by even the wealthiest royalty 100 years ago.   Long live low prices.   Yes, even in your industry. And mine.

  My views on government and laws aside, the stated reason for the laws is almost never that actual one.   If selling venison were made legal, people would farm deer just like they do other animals. How horrible would that be? You'd be able to walk into Publix and grab a pack of back straps to grill up tonight. Horror of horrors. ;)

  Imagine if every muldoon (actually not sure what the heck a muldoon is ;) ) was allowed to just carry guns around in public. You'd have all manner of stupid people out there disregarding safety rules, shooting people over parking spots, getting drunk and shooting up the place like it's the wild west.   They'd be vigilantes, we'd have shooting related accidents, kill anyone that crossed them, even for minor offences - every swinging Richard is suddenly a self proclaimed law enforcement officer.   Kinda funny how we blast the "what if" arguments to hell when they're encroaching on our sacred cow, but then turn around and use them ourselves, isn't it? ;)

  I sit corrected. We have officially found the first law in world history that criminals obey. ;)

Kinda like the beaver, which is legal to sell?

In the same way that gun control is about reducing crime?

The guy with whom you were arguing apparently doesn't understand how the government's protectionist, competition-limiting regulations work if he was in doubt. Gotta protect those big meat companies from us little guys, after all.

  How do you know it was .357 Sig?

Spooooooky!

You all need help. :D

Well that's strike three as far as I'm concerned. Too bad, too, because I live less than ten minutes from there. I might use their range to zero my AR if they ever actually open it, but I doubt they'll ever see a purchase from me unless they figure something out. The problem is, I'm a firm believer that attitude reflects leadership and if the rumor is true that they just had a big turnover in staff, then I can guess where the problem must lie, which means it isn't likely to change any time soon.   Man, that really sucks, too. I was looking forward to having a truly local gun shop.

I've been giving this some thought. Here is what I believe would very likely happen if something like this were passed and upheld by the Supreme Court:   Tor would become the browser of choice for gun owners who choose not to comply. A market, if it doesn't already exist on the dark web, would form for the purposes of buying and selling guns without the government interference. You can already get everything else under the sun there, so I see no reason guns would be any different. The potential downside is that you run the risk of unintentionally selling to a cop, but I think there could easily be a reputation based system to take care of that for the most part. Not to mention, I believe a lot of cops would actually be on our side on this issue. Of course nothing is 100% foolproof, but that is no different than anything today.

  I'm pretty sure that's the problem everyone sees with it, but I'm optimistic that even if this became law, which I doubt, that the level of civil disobedience would be similar to that of prohibition. Kinda hard to create a registry when nobody's selling guns any more.

Very interesting drill.

  This is neither uniquely American or anything even close to a recent phenomenon. Sex is what drives men, so marketers are going to use it. When men stop wanting sex, they will stop using it. ;)

That is hilarious.

First, I don't think the President has this power. Second, assuming he did, I don't think 80 million gun owners are going to comply. Just look at what happened in Washington. That would likely happen on a national scale.

I got my first two deer this season. Tonight had my first homemade venison dish: Philly cheesesteak sandwiches. Yum!