tntnixon

Ironically, Frank Batten Jr. (owner of Landmark  Media, which in turn owns WTVF) was a big Republican contributor both to the Republican Senatorial campaign and to Romney for president (a guy worth $2.5billion donated the exact same amount of money to Romney that I did). From all accounts, Mr. Batten is a very conservative guy. Unfortunately, his television channel's news editorial board has run amok.

I can't seem to able to do this, it tells me only available in stores.

I love that he called an assassination attempt on Fidel Castro a crime. Does that mean that the federal government of the US is a criminal organization because they tried to kill him many times.

I'm a pretty politically and news savvy guy and had never heard it before today. Where the hell have I been?

I was dumb enough to follow trail of money to the VPC which I found out almost entirely comes from The Joyce Foundation which advocates banning of all guns and archery equipment in the US (this is the only group I've ever heard of that was for banning archery equipment). Then I found a notable name of past board members, Barack Hussein Obama. Why in the hell didn't we hear about this during any of the campaigns from either side? It pretty much debunks any claim he may have that he's "a strong supporter of the second amendment" (why do all the people who want even slingshots banned claim to be pro-2A). And BTW, even the VPC can't come up with one instance of a .50 cal being used in the commission of a crime and they spent millions researching the subject. All they could find was a few incidences of a .50 being seized because it was owned by someone who had committed some other crime. Yet, with no evidence, this group was successful in getting the Peoples Republic of Kalifornia to ban all .50 cals. WTF?

AFAIK, a Barrett has never been used in a murder in the US, at least my google skills can't find one. So, What's the point of this investigative piece?

CTD was one of the biggest gougers 4 years ago and I see they're back to their old tricks. They do not buy from the secondary market and reflect a higher price paid. They, instead, buy at regular price hoard it as to create a shortage, then release it as they see fit at greatly inflated prices. This is one company that most true enthusiasts will not buy from because of their tactics. They prey on the uninformed and casual shooters.

One of the best reads in some time.

Did they allow any pro-2A interviews?

According to our friends of the Memphis Commercial Appeal, Mr. Michael Terry born 1941 and residing in Nashville has a handgun carry permit that is due to expire in 2015. From what I can gather, this is likely the "Terry" of "Terry & Gore Lawyers". So, as is typical for liberals, they are willing to keep rights for themselves that they would gladly take away from you.

The only change I would make is one that would actually enumerate the powers of the judiciary as it does for the legislative and executive branches and require that any Constitutional and legislative interpretations be done so with the original intent as the guiding principal.

Interesting from Ruger. Am I the only person who knows that Bill Ruger was a big gun control proponent? He helped get the Brady Bill passed to make a larger market for the mini 14/30 and the 10/22 by being the first person to propose the magazine capacity limits. He was a total douche and I have avoided buying Rugers ever since.

I agree with this statement partially. You see I don't have a different set of rules for different sides of the political spectrum. I actually have a naive view that people should try to do the right thing in all cases, but I'm probably alone in this. This was definitely a top down decision and it was definitely meant to quell Mr. Yeager's speech. The folks who made the decision are very smart people who know the law (DOS Commissioner Bill Gibbons' wife is a federal appeals court judge and he is a former DA) and know that what they did is illegal. However, they also know (unlike regular citizens) there is no penalty or consequence built into the law for this illegal action. So, unlike you and I, they may wantonly violate the law without any fear of personal penalty. I personally find that to be far more dangerous and distasteful than anything Mr. Yeager did. Unlike Mr. Yeager, who somewhat acted out of stupidity, this was a calculated action made by the government itself.

There are a couple members on here who have probably been near that number. To my knowledge, they haven't been charged. To my knowledge, there is no legally defined number. But, as Ayn Rand opined, if you make enough laws so that everybody is a criminal, you can control the population by choosing if, when and on whom you enforce. 

If I remember correctly (correct me if I'm wrong), you are a former LEO. As such, you do remember what the law is as to what is a real threat and what is not? At no time does Yeager say I'm going to kill X person on X street at X time and I'm going to do it no matter what the circumstances are. If he did that, I would support 100% any actions made by law enforcement because that is a real threat. Mr. Yeager described a set of circumstances, that has not occurred, in which he would take some rather distasteful actions. There is no law enforcement officer that I know of that would arrest a man for making such a vague threat and the DOS knows it. They also know that no court would uphold their actions, but they took them anyways. So now Mr. Yeager has to pay money to an attorney  to prove himself worthy of the privilege of holding a handgun carry permit when the people who had it removed knew they were wrong but are trying to prove a point and in the process suppress the ideas that he holds dear. Please tell me that you truly don't believe for one moment that removing this man's handgun carry permit makes the State of Tennessee a safer place to live, because that is the only standard the state has to pull a permit.

True story about myself: In September of 2001, I was so horrified by the tragedy of the Twin Towers going down that I vowed revenge and supported any and all legislation and actions that would potentially prevent any recurrence of the same. I called and emailed my representatives to support The Patriot Act and creation of Department of Homeland Security even though I knew the potential constitutional issues that existed (hell, I'm not an Islamic radical bent on the destruction of the United States, what do I have to worry about). Fast forward 8 years and I read Janet Napolitano's Terrorism Report. She might as well have named me personally (as well as the majority of the members of this forum) as an enemy of the state with what she described as the biggest terrorist threats. I realized right then that when I am willing to deprive others of their rights, I might as well give mine up too. We delude ourselves into thinking that we are unique. We try to separate ourselves from others in ideas and ideals without realizing that, generally speaking, we are an awful lot alike. If I am willing to allow the government to take away your rights for speaking in a way that is different from the way I would speak, at some point there will be nobody left to speak up for me. I disagree with nearly everything that Yeager said, but I'll be damned if I'll support a government that says he can't say it because at some point someone is going to find fault with my own speech.

First of all, you are already proving my point (was the muppet beard part really necessary in an adult conversation?). The truth is that I find it very problematic that 2A supporters won't even support a 1A issue from a fellow 2A supporter. It is not about agreement or disagreement with his words or thoughts, it is about a government agency that is intentionally trying to quiet an idea that they do not agree with. Taking this guy's handgun carry permit will not have any effect on the safety of the people of Tennessee, however, it will put fear into Tennesseans to not speak their minds or suffer government sponsored consequences. I always find it ironic how little people really understand the meaning of our Constitution or the reasons that each amendment was put into place. 2A was not enacted so we could engage in hunting or protection against would-be thieves or ruffians, but in order that we might protect ourselves against a government run-amok. 1A was not meant to allow us to say anything to anybody without consequence, however it was designed so that the government could not control our ideas or communication of the same even if very unpopular. That being said, it is perfectly reasonable for any and all of you guys to think he is a douche and call him one. It is also perfectly reasonable to tell all your friends to avoid him at all cost and give his company no business. Actions (including one's speech) have consequences. What I find particularly troubling is that 2A supporters are encouraging and defending the government's punishing of an individual for their speech in order to distance themselves from that individual's ideas. I promise you that if I comb through every word you have said or post you have made, I will find something that someone can call objectionable enough to warrant the removal of your handgun carry permit. I, however, do not believe that any government entity should become part of the "thought police" or use our rights and privileges against us as a weapon should we cross any imaginary boundary. I'm sure that each of us has an idea of a line of demarcation that we will not allow the government to cross with regards to our individual rights. Would you like to have rights or privileges revoked by merely stating what that line is or how you would handle having that line crossed? That is exactly what this man did, no more and no less. He made a hypothetical argument about a hypothetical situation that has yet to occur. Were his ideas radical and different than mine? Yes. Am i willing to call the government's actions in shutting them up justified? HELL NO.

HERE LIES THE SECOND AMENDMENT   DECEMBER 15, 1791-JANUARY 2013 A VICTIM OF SELF INFLICTED WOUNDS  CAUSED BY GUN OWNERS WHO DID     NOT REALIZE THAT THEY WERE     HURTING THEMSELVES BY NOT            STICKING TOGETHER. MAY SHE REST IN PEACE AND GOD                  SAVE US ALL.

All too often the attitude of public servants is "If I'm wrong, the courts will sort it out". Unfortunately, all wrongs are not righted by the courts.

I was always under the impression, and the courts have generally ruled that if/then statements are not considered true threats. I'll give an example: "If anybody touches my daughter, I will kill them." Does this statement constitute a real threat to any individual or pose a true risk to the general public? I think not. Now if I say "I'm gonna kill Jim Jones tonight because he touched my daughter", that is a very different statement and the courts have ruled as such. This man's rant is far more similar to my first example than to my latter. I can't see any court agreeing that his statement is anything other than protected by 1A. I haven't posted on here in quite some time because I realize that, for some reason, gun owners are cannibals and will sacrifice each other for any perceived protection of their own rights. I have generally witnessed this community trying to find fault with every post they see and even the most logical arguments will always find an assortment of detractors. Unfortunately, when we sacrifice other's rights, our own shall be next. We are in a very precarious time not that dissimilar to those our forefathers faced. We are very close to embarking upon a time when rights can and will be revoked by whim of bureaucrats and executive edict. These are not the actions of a representative republic. So I beg of each and every one of you to remember the statement of our founders "If we don't hang together, we'll hang separately." I encourage all to support this guy, even if you don't agree with his rant, because I can assure you that each and every one of you has made some statement, that if looked at by the right set of eyes, could deprive you of your rights or, as some have said, privileges. 

So, I used a cold bluing kit on my Mosin 91/30 barrel today (not my first cold bluing job), and had a strange thing happen. Rather than the usual black/blue finish, I got a dark brown which actually makes the barrel look like it's made of bronze. It's not really ugly, kind of looks pretty in person, just not what I was expecting. This will ultimately be a working gun, so looking strange isn't an issue. What is an issue is that someone told me that the brown pigmant means it's corroding (I'm not sure I believe this). I just want some more opinions before I pay to have it professionally refinished with cerakote (I was also told that the WWII rifles will not take bluing at all do to the metal being used) because my wife won't let me put a rifle ion the oven (go figure). Here are some pics. http://i1050.photobucket.com/albums/s401/tntnixon/C360_2012-03-2111-14-03.jpg http://i1050.photobucket.com/albums/s401/tntnixon/C360_2012-03-2111-14-18.jpg thanks for any info.

Thanks for the advice. I was always under the impression that only a type 07 ffl could restamp. I've looked at all my milsurps. The importers all do a crappy job of serial numbering. What gives?

bluing. It's trying take the machining marks out that I'm worried about. The importer just didn't stamp it very well or in an appropriate place on the rifle.

I'm at the refinishing portion of my Mosin sporter build. All of a sudden it occurred to me, I may lose my importer serial number accidently during the refinishing process (it is very lightly imprinted). How do I remedy this? Who is gonna be my new cell mate in the federal pokey? Inquiring minds want to know.

I have always said "It says a lot about someone when the people who know them best refuse to help them." Generally people who beg from total strangers have already alienated and or lost all their friends and family through bad behavior.