East_TN_Patriot

Looks really nice!  I am currently working on a build and plan to paint the main components in a similar configuration.

  I don't think there is an easy answer to this question, but I am certain it should not be a city ordinance prohibiting guns in city parks that has apparently been superseded by state law. As the Founders said:     I fully understand the frustration people feel towards the government.  I share in that frustration at a very deep level of my core values and personal beliefs.  I am very concerned with the condition of our nation and the seemingly out-of-control power of the federal government.     EDIT:  Sorry, my 2 year old decided it was time for me to play with cars and closed my laptop before I was done with my thought.   As I was saying, I understand the frustration, but all of these self-proclaimed revolutionaries and their groupies need to think long and hard about what they are calling for.  Do we REALLY want a war?  Think about what that means for a minute.  Think about the death and devastation.  Think about what it would mean for the revolutionaries if they lost.  Think about what that would mean for our Constitution and how it is interpreted.  I don't give a crap if only 3 percent of the American population was actively supportive of the Revolutionary War.  This is not 1775 and the US is very different politically, culturally, and demographically.  The chances of a similar revolt being successful in today's world is virtually zero and the outcome would likely be catastrophic politically for those who support libertarian or conservative views.  The absolute last thing we need is a bunch of wanna-be George Washingtons who are ignorant of history and delusional about reality to stir up armed revolution.  I will say it here and I will say it to your face: if you are one of these people, you are NOT a friend of liberty.  You are dangerous and do much more harm than good.   The political system, as imperfect as it may be, is still a viable and legitimate means for addressing issues.  Proof of this lies in the failure of anti-gun politicians to pass legislation at the federal level.  Instead of alienating people through belligerent rhetoric and giving opponents the ammunition they need to win the public debate by living up to their claims that gun owners are dangerous and delusional, harness that passion for educating the public, teaching gun safety classes, etc.  I personally know of one pro-gun organization that is alienating supporters through this sort of inflammatory rhetoric and have spoken to people who are active in the organization who share my concerns.  One member in particular told me of multiple incidents they witnessed where elected officials came to speak with the group and were shouted out of the room for not parroting their absolutist rhetoric or left voluntarily due to the violent tone of the comments made by members.  Mark my words; if this sort of activity becomes more mainstream, there WILL be negative repercussions for gun owners.  

Gen 2 MOE 30 round mags $12.30 each, buy 12 get 1 free plus free shipping.     http://www.botachtactical.com/mapmgen2moe3.html   Similar deals on other PMags.

The smallest boxes will not hold a full-size handgun.  They are only about 3"x5", but there are larger ones available.  I know that many banks do prohibit you from storing firearms in them (I presume it is a liability concern for them).  Also, I have never seen a bank employee watch me access the contents.  Most banks provide a private ante room for you.   If one was considering keeping a firearm in there for an emergency, I would personally find a different method for storing it.  If the bank closes, the power is out, you need access on a weekend, evening, or holiday, etc. you are screwed.  I'd just seal it up in a waterproof container and hide it somewhere like an attic, inside a wall, buried in the yard, or in a hayfield next to a rock fence under an oak tree with a large piece of black volcanic glass on top of it.  

I would say he did lead by example.  He calmly told them he did not need reasonable suspicion to write down tag numbers, which is true.  They argued with him and insulted him in response.  He then continued to do his job without arguing and without engaging in conversation with the people who were trying to bait him into a verbal altercation, which certainly would have been used against him online.  When he didn't bite, they insulted him some more and said that the SCOTUS recently ruled that silence can be used against you, which is not true and is a very disingenuous interpretation of the ruling I assume they are referring to.  Those idiots don't actually care what the officer's answer was or that he was actually within his legal authority to do what he was doing.  The people knew they were violating the law; that was the point of the whole gathering.  When you encounter people like that, the best approach is to not give them any more ammunition to use against you.   We should be glad that the police just showed up and wrote down tag numbers for the purpose of issuing citations, a very reasonable response, rather than storming the place with an armed SWAT team.  I'm not saying I agree with the law, but that is simply not the way to voice disapproval.  

Well, the police are correct; law enforcement does not need any reasonable suspicion to write down license plate numbers or run them.  The police can run your tags whenever they want as long as it is for official police business (not for personal use).  In this case, it was clearly police business because the were responding to a situation where a group of people were openly violating the law by carrying in a park, which was prohibited by local laws.  If you decide to engage in civil disobedience, don't cry like little wusses when the police show up to enforce the law.   I am also very irritated with the response and ignorance of the people filming the officers.  I will never understand the mentality of people (regardless of political affiliation) that think they are going to score points or attract supporters who do ignorant crap like this.  They show up, intentionally violate the law, and then verbally abuse the police who show up to investigate the crimes by calling them Nazis.  What a bunch of douchebags!  Frankly, I hope a bunch of them did get citations.  I also hope that we never see this sort of pure ignorance in our state!   The fact that the Glenn Beck machine presents this as a legitimate response is just one more reason I am no longer a fan and glad to see he has become largely irrelevant.   These morons also fail to realize that most beat cops are fully supportive of Second Amendment rights in this country.  It's mostly the big city police chiefs and sheriffs that are anti-gun.  Nothing good comes from alienating supporters, which is something many pro-gun groups need to learn. Gun owners are proving more and more to be their own worst enemy.  :mad: EDIT: Holy  :censored: !  I made the mistake of going back and reading the comments on the Blaze website.  Good friggin' grief!  If those comments reflect even a substantial portion of gun owners...

Right, I get all of that, but again, what's his point?  Is there really anyone out there who thinks otherwise?  Is this a dig at martial arts knife "fighters" who the author believes do not grasp the brutal violence associated with being involved in a battle to the death between knife-wielding individuals?  Maybe I am just being too much of a curmudgeon, but it reads as if the author is trying to stroke his own ego by pounding his chest while proclaiming "I AM READY TO ENGAGE IN BLOODY COMBAT!"  I also agree with you; always bring a gun to a knife fight.  :up:

Just my two cents, but if I end up needing to use a knife for self defense, I don't think it's going to take much mental preparation to get the "ferocity" needed to try and protect myself.  If it's down to using my knife, things have gotten really really really really bad and it's literally a very dire life or death situation.  I think that this article over-estimates the knife fighting skills of your typical street thug.  In the real world the chances of being engaged in a "knife fight" are essentially zero.  In 10 years of policing, I don't recall ever arresting a single person that had a blade on them that was going to be used for knife fighting.  If a thug did approach me with a knife, I'd be very confident that they have no more knife fighting skill than I do, so even minimal thought and effort put into learning how to fight with a blade will give you the edge in just about any situation you may find yourself in.  All that said, I'm not really sure what the author's point is.

In many jurisdictions, this is the case.  The issue is not so much an officer safety one, but one of liability.  If a LEO changes a tire and does it wrong, the city/county is responsible.  Back in my law enforcement days, I happened to be in the radio room one morning and answered the non-emergency line.  A guy on the line asked us to come and change his tire and I told him we couldn't do that.  When he got a little snide, I explained that if I came and changed his tire and either stripped the lug nuts or didn't tighten them enough, his wheel came off in traffic, and he was injured in a crash, we would likely be sued.  To that he said, "Yup, you're right.  I probably would."   When you consider that something as simple as changing a tire can cause damage to the vehicle (such as the wheel falling off, the lugs getting stripped, the jack slipping, the car being jacked up incorrectly, etc.), the fact that cops aren't officially trained on how to change tires, and that law enforcement agencies aren't insured for damage caused by faulty auto repairs, most agencies have gotten away from these sorts of activities.  Same goes for unlocking cars since using the slim-jim or j-hook can damage the lock mechanism, damage the wiring, damage the window mechanism, damage the window seals, scratch the car's finish, or break the window, departments have stopped doing it or require the caller to sign a waiver of liability form.   Instead, officers generally do a "motorist assist" where they call a wrecker company, car unlocking company, or one of the highway assistance vehicles that cruise the highways.

I would suggest that in this case, it is the individual who wants to live in a way that is not consistent with community standards that has the obligation find a place where their lifestyle will not interfere with others, not expect everyone else to bend and tolerate their crappy habits.  If you want to trash your property, then move out in the middle of nowhere and trash your property to your heart's content.  People who live in a community with an HOA do so by their own choice.  They are informed of the community's requirements and agree to them when they purchase their property.  People who choose to purchase property within the limits of a municipality are obligated to abide by the codes and ordinances of that city, which are available to the public.  When we purchased our current home, we did not want to live in a community with an HOA.  We ended up compromising on a neighborhood that had minimal regulations that we thought were pretty reasonable and if we decide we don't want to follow them, we can either request a variance through the HOA or we can move.  I am content knowing that I live in a neighborhood where I don't have to worry about getting a new neighbor who will turn their front yard into a junk car lot and their backyard into a chicken and goat farm like happened where I lived before.  I respect another person's right to raise livestock on their property, but I also believe I have the right to choose to live in a neighborhood that collectively agrees to not allow raising livestock in a residential neighborhood.     I wonder if these same "property rights" arguments would be voiced if your neighbor was the one with the crappy looking yard bringing down your property values, attracting varmints like snakes and rodents, and being a general eye sore every time you walk out of your door.  Do we have the right to play loud rap music until 4 in the morning?  I know of several people on TGO who were very vocally opposed to the property rights of those who wanted to build a mosque in central TN a few months ago.  

I would highly suggest any mid-size frame handgun for your needs.  They are large enough for the shooter to achieve better accuracy than from a very small handgun, have capacity only slightly less than that of a full-size handgun, and are small enough to carry especially if it is an occasional thing.   High quality mid-size handguns I would personally suggest include the Sig P229, Sig P228, the H&K USP Compact, the Walther PPQ, the Glock 19 or 23, the M&P compact, XD compact, or a 1911 compact.  Similar size quality handguns can be obtained from other manufacturers Ruger, Taurus, Tanfoglio/EAA, and others.  Again, the mid-size compact handguns (not sub-compact) are an excellent compromise.   I keep a full-size Sig P226 as my primary home-defense handgun, a compact Walther PPS as my primary carry gun.  If I were to get one pistol to replace the two, I would personally go with the Sig P228 or P229.  I've tried to love the Glock, but just can't do it, even though it is a very well-made and reliable handgun.  

This isn't about progressives, it's about statists.  Clearly, many times these two groups are one-in-the-same, but it's certainly not an absolute.  Both major parties are focused on using the power of the federal government to push their own agendas.  This is why I gave up on the Republican Party several years ago.

If you still have problems with it after changing springs and using a new mag, I'd guess the problem may be with the barrel and the polish job that your OP suggests has been done. Perhaps they did so much work that they changed the ramp angle? Also, I know some of the early Sig P6 pistols had a ramp design that was not hollow point friendly, but I'm pretty certain no such problem exists with the P229. I've fired thousands of rounds through Sig pistols and my old police department issued P229 pistols and I've never seen that problem unless it was a magazine problem. As far as pointers on how to detail strip the slide, this guy did a 6 part series in disassembling his P226 and the P229 is pretty much the same process. http://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=relmfu&v=PnwQJItG1Vo

Well, I would disagree. I recall several articles discussing this issue, and I am virtually certain at least one was written by Ayoob stressing the importance of keeping defensive weapons as close to factory spec as possible for that particular make and model due to cases where these alterations were presented as evidence against someone in a defensive shooting. I am confident this is one ofmthe reasons most law enforcement agencies do not allow duty weapons to be modified internally. I also know for absolute certainty that it is common practice for the majority of crime labs to look over any weapon submitted to them to see if it was altered from the factory specs. I personally would rather not have to explain why I modified my weapon from factory spec and hope that a jury of potentially gun-ignorant people would consider it proof that I was itching to kill someone with my modified "weapon of war". EDIT: here is a commentary that gets to my point and references Mr. Ayoob: http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2011/02/travis-leibold/why-farago-and-you-shouldnt-modify-his-self-defense-guns-trigger/ EDIT 2: Here is another article that discusses the same issue: http://www.armedcitizensnetwork.org/choosing-self-defense-guns

  You can stay away from most stuff Walmart sells since 98 percent of their stuff is cheap junk.   To the OP's original question, I picked one up from Gander Mountain for about 20 bucks and it has held up well, but I have not used it a whole lot.  I don't recall the brand, but it has a heavy blade.

My guess is that you have a magazine problem, but it could be a recoil spring problem.  I have never heard of a problem like that on a P229 unless there was a magazine problem, but it is wise to change out the springs on a pistol of that vintage, especially if it has a high round count (or unknown round count).  I personally wouldn't get anything except the factory springs, especially since they are cheap and pretty easy to find.  Top Gun Supply, Brownells, MidwayUSA, and Sig Sauer all sell them.    If you are curious about my preference for factory springs, it is simple.  Any firearm that I intend to use for personal defense is kept as close to factory original specs as possible.  One of the first things that happens in a defensive shooting is that your firearm is collected by the police as evidence and submitted to the crime lab to have it looked over.  Part of that is to determine how the firearm functions in comparison to factory original specs.  If you shoot someone and the lab comes back with a report saying you put lighter springs or anything beyond factory spec parts into your firearm, a lawyer (either an anti-gun prosecutor or one representing the person shot in a civil suit) can claim you did some careless work on your gun and/or clearly "wanted" to kill someone because the factory gun "wasn't good enough" for you.  I know the likelihood of that happening are very slim, but I figure why take any chances.  Besides, I generally have a preference for OEM parts in my guns and vehicles when it comes to those that specifically relate to the proper function of the machine.

  I actually agree with you.  I had one and other than the historical value, was not all that impressed.  I sold it.

http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=jJSYBoI2si0&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DjJSYBoI2si0

I bought two bulk packs today for $20 each, so the "going rate" is not 17 cents per round except for folks taking advantage of the less-informed gun owners out there. Since this crap has started, I've bought about 2000 rounds of .22LR a box or two here and there all at the standard prices and at stores in East Tennessee.

I have heard this argument many many times. I first heard it back in the anti-gun 1990s. The argument was that an anti-gun prosecutor would argue that factory ammo wasn't "good enough" for you and you had to make your own extra-deadly ammunition, which is proof you wanted to kill someone. A similar argument could be used against you in a civil suit. I don't recall any specific cases where this argument was used successfully, but I'm virtually certain even Massad Ayoob discussed it. As a result, I don't take any chances by carrying reloads for defensive carry. I even stick with Gold Dot so I can argue that was the duty ammo my former police department issued, thus I wasn't seeking some exotic super-deadly ammo to fuel my bloodlust or some similar idiotic claim a lawyer could use against me, a a sensationalist media would report as factual, and a jury of people ignorant about firearms would believe.

Organ Donation: Don't Let These Myths Confuse You  

Exactly.  Nothing says "I'm taking the moral high ground" quite like intentionally changing your driving behavior in a way that you know will aggravate the person you think is driving inappropriately.  Just move the heck out of the way.  

Thomas Malthus predicted that the human population would eventually surpass the ability of humans to support the population with agricultural output.  This has evolved into the idea that the Earth has a limited "carrying capacity" to support life, and at some point human population would rise to such a level that there would be a "Malthusian catastrophe" that would result in the deaths of millions of people through famine, environmental collapse, disease, social collapse, or some related calamity.  So far, human technology and innovation has been able to stay ahead of this tipping point, but I think it's inevitable before we have some sort of event that will wipe out a large part of the human population, likely through disease or lack of water.  I don't think that human "stupidity" in a casual sense is sufficient to kill off enough people to make a difference.  Even in nations that are not inundated with regulations and lawyers still see their populations grow.     http://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Malthusian_catastrophe.html

  Right... because DHS has an interest in .22LR... Sure...

He's definitely no friend to 2nd Amendment supporters.  He and I had quite the email exchange during the guns in parks debate when he was Knoxville mayor.  His stance was basically (paraphrased of course) "I know that there is no evidence that permit holders aren't a threat, but they don't need to have guns in places where kids play."