Capbyrd

Cut off the hair and take off the makeup and that's a man.

I don't understand the heart eyes. That's not an attractive woman. Unless you are into men, then I would understand being attracted to her.

The price difference was because one was milled for a dot or something. The base model is 299 and prices go up with options. That was announced at SHOT 2019 when they first announced this pistol.

I'm dumb. That's not the bolt handle we see on the left side. It's the PU scope mount. I forgot that mount looked funny.

Those are female Soviet Snipers, WWII era. I didn't think they made any left handed Mosins but all of the pictures I can find of the female Soviet uniform shows medals on left breast which matches these ladies. I really don't know.

You misunderstood my post.

I believe that Colin Furze has the best option for this. It's not finished yet but his underground bunker is done. He's working on the tunnel from his house to his workshop right now. Once that is done, he will finish from the workshop to the bunker.

You should not test what kind of pictures that man will send out. He's more comfortable sharing his body with people than anyone should be.

Again, and this is the only reason that I am arguing with you, you don't have to prove any type of fear. You just have to convey a "reasonable belief." Fear is not the right word. I don't fear death. It's inevitable.

So, I'm basing my statement on the second part of the slide above. "The law presumes a reasonable belief..." It doesn't say "the law presumes that the homeowner has a reasonable belief." The law presumes. But the code definitely reads differently. Doesn't matter. Either way, you are covered. The important part is you don't have to prove fear, but rather a reasonable belief. You don't have to be scared to have a reasonable belief.

This. This is a high profile case and the investigators know that the people involved aren't flight risks. They are going to take their time and make sure that they get this right.

That's awesome Link. Congrats to you and your son!

I wish I hadn't sold mine.

No. The law presumes that they were there to do you harm. It makes no presumption about your state of mind. If someone breaks into your house, with you inside, they intend harm. “But Cap, they didn’t know you were inside.” Well it ain’t hard to find out. Knock on the door. Ring the doorbell. The law presumes that they have entered with intent to cause death or serious bodily injury or to rape you. Your mindset at that point is irrelevant.

Cause overhaulin’ wasn’t trying to force you to feel something. It was more, this is what we’re doing, how we’re doing it, and who we are doing it with and for, and we’ll have some fun along the way.

"In" this dude. That had to be uncomfortable. And why were they lookin inside a 75 year old man? Something seems off...

Meh. I've been a car guy for a long time. I watched a ton of episodes of Overhaulin' and Garage Squad. Seeing it happen for real is a lot cooler than a commercial meant to sell some cars.

"Because I wanted it" is my favorite reason to buy something. I don't really care about other people's opinion at that point. I made up my mind and I'm good with my choice. But I didn't waive the right to tease folks about their stuff or to be teased about my stuff. At least in friendly discourse.

Just because the OP is gone doesn't mean that the information isn't useful for others.

You remember when MAC tested the VP9 and it stopped working when it got wet? Pepperidge Farm remembers.

No it is not. This isn't something like a potential traffic ticket. This is concerning a felony that could land you in prison for 20 years. If you want to take chances with that kind of thing, fine. But do not recommend it to someone else, especially a young man asking for advice on how to stay on the right side of the law. This isn't about what law should be. This is about what the current law is and how to avoid running afoul.

No it's not.

But then he'd have to own an HK.

Odd. I thought the place was awful. I didn't hit the range while I was there but the retail shop was not great.

The problem with this argument is that they didn't meet the probable cause requirement according to any attorney at trial, or the attorneys that I was watching comment on the case. If the probable cause requirement was met, they likely could have been acquitted. But it wasn't met.