Im Neero

Oh yea, and anything in .357 sig

I was gonna say Desert Eagle in .50, but papabear beat me to it. I'm gonna go with the pocket auto calibers instead. They don't do anything that a J-Frame in a real caliber can't do better.

I just like pump guns. I don't have a good way to store a loaded shotgun that is accesible right now though, so if it comes down to it the .45 is the HD weapon right now. Well that and a couple of very large dogs.

Tijuana.

We're in Tennessee, isn't "cuz he needed shootin" a legitimate defense? If not I think I should rethink my legal strategy.

Let's not forget one thing. We may never have to use them, as a matter of fact, we probably won't have to. But we're all members of a gun forum. We like guns. I think they're neat. It's a hobby, just like my nephew carries his nintendo DS everywhere. It just so happens to be a hobby that comes in really useful if someone decides that I look like food.

I've been doing a lot of thinking and have decided that when I get a progressive press, it will be a Dillon. My question is this: Do you guys recommend the square deal or the 550? I have a single stage press and don't mind using it for rifles, so I am not too bothered by the fact that the square deal only does pistol. Are there any other major differences between the two?

Frank, thanks for the post. You answered every question I have and some that I didn't even know that I had. Just out of curiosity, roughly what would the gunsmithing cost on having a double barrel cut down?

Yea, I've been wondering about that. I've seen AOWs that are legal, and I've also seen revolvers chambered in .410, so I'm not really sure why it would be illegal, but it still doesn't seem quite alright.

That's a good idea carrying the 642 weak hand Todd. It makes a lot of sense. Thanks for the responses everyone.

Good responses Racer. Anyone else?

Thanks.

I recently purchased a Smith&Wesson model 642 revolver for pocket carry, and sometimes carry it as a BUG to my 1911. I plan on taking the BUG course at Rangemaster next time they offer it, but until then I have a few questions about this type of carry. First, when is it appropriate to use the second gun instead of just reloading the 1911? I assume that any time there is a malfunction on the 1911 it would be faster to use the 642, but what if the 1911 just runs out of bullets? My second question is when it is appropriate to use the 642, what do you do with the 1911 when you switch? Do you take the time to reholster or just drop it somewhere, leaving a potentially useable weapon just lying around? I know that the answer is probably "it depends on the situation" and I know at least one person is likely to respond with the "you never fire more than three shots in an encounter and if it is a situation where you run out of bullets you're probably dead" but I figured I'd ask anyways to see what you guys think.

Yea, I was wondering about the MTAC. Anyone else got any input about this gun: holster suggestions, ammo suggestions, known problems, etc . . . ?

So my brother purchased his first handgun yesterday. I tried my hardest not to influence his opinion and let him get something he wanted, so I was proud when he made the right choice and went with a full sized M&P in .40. He didn't even look at any 1911s, but I'll get him there eventually My question is: Does anyone have any recomendations for carry holsters for this weapon? I suggested a CTAC to him, but I've never carried anything but a single stack 1911 in one, so I don't know if it will work as well with the M&P. Does anyone have any experience with this combination?

Funny, I was doing that very same thing just a few minutes ago.

I'm sorry then, I missed the memo. Before I make any more responses perhaps you could clue me on on exactly what it is we are discussing?

By the way, I do not believe that there is a single state in our country that has a legitimate reason for seccession, nor is there one that could achieve such a goal.

Ah, I see to the heart of the issue now. You thought I was arguing for secession. I was merely arguing that just because no one could cite a gauranteed constitutional protection of the right that means nothing for your case. The fact that there is no mechanism for secession mentioned in the constitution doesn't mean that it's not allowed, however this... does. As I said, the burden of proof is on one that wants to disallow a right, and Nate has provided evidence to support the lack of that right. Let's take this out of the legal realm now. Does a state have the philosophical right to secede provided it has the means to do so forcefully? Are the reasons for that secession even relevant? Discuss.

I was pleasantly surprised to see no mention of the ATF in this thread given the title. That looks like a blast! Shooting stuff that's not made of paper is both fun and educational!

Translation: you're right I have no case at all but I can't admit it. Thanks, Rabbi.

I forgot to cite the ninth amendment as well: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." That further proves that just because a right is not gauranteed by the Constitution that it is not necessarily prohibited. All that means is that it is not an issue addressed in the Constitution.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved for the States respectively, or to the people. Our legal system requires there to be a law against something before it is illegal. Just because something isn't implicitly legal makes no difference, as long as there is no law against it. In addition to this fact, right is not determined by government. I would argue that the original colonies had every right to declare independance from England, but at the time England didn't recognize that right. That makes no difference on way or the other. As for the mechanism for a state to withdraw? Unless they could get the rest of the country to agree, war. If you can win a war, you can withdraw, just as the south could have if they had won the war. Outside of that I suppose a constitutional amendment granting sovereignty to a state would work. Remember, the Constitution does not serve to limit any rights that are not implicitly mentioned in the text of the constitution. If the Supreme Court rules that no state has the right to secede then that carries weight, but still not equal weight as the text of the constitution. It is much easier for the Supreme Court to overturn the ruling of a previous court than it is amend the Constitution. If you want to prove that something is illegal, the burden of proof is on you. It's the same issue as open carry, it is neither allowed nor prohibited by Tennessee law, therefore it is considered legal until the state proves otherwise. So I ask you, Rabbi, for a citation that will convince me that states don't have the right to secede. The legal right, that is, I do not care to get into a philosophical debate, my mind is made up on that one and that opinion is irrelevant to this discussion.

I have been looking in vain for someone that sells double barrel 12-gauge pistols like Mel Gibson has in Mad Max. Does anyone know where one can be found?

Yea, I'm thinking about running for mayor text term. I'm going to legally change my name to "Not Willie." I think I'll stand a chance.