East_TN_Patriot

I had a G22 that was a LEO trade-in that was worn darn near smooth on many parts of the grip. I stippled the grip and it made a huge difference. Many people look at their carry firearms as tools, not investments, so resale and aesthetics are less important than functionality.

I typically use Tetra Gun Grease. http://www.midwayusa.com/product/133862/tetra-gun-grease-1-oz-tube

Ok, forget I said anything at all. When academics do research that they say supports gun control, people call them communists who are driving policies of those out to get our guns. When you hear about academic research that is the opposite, it's irrelevant. Whatever. Fine. Obama, DHS, FEMA, the UN, and liberals are coming to get you guns and nothing else in the world matters. You feel better? I'm getting very tired of even trying to inform people of anything. You folks are right, I suppose. No sense passing this info along to other gun owners to share and educate those riding he fence. Public opinion doesn't matter, so I guess the reason the AWB was dropped in the Senate was really a diversionary tactic so that Obama can use all the hollow point pistol ammo to wage martial law and start gun confiscations.

Yes, but like I said, when you have five presentations to a room full of 30+ academic types, and not one word is uttered about the need for more gun control, magazine bans, etc., chalk that up as a positive sign. Tack on the suggestion that concealed carry on college campuses may be a viable policy option, and not one person objected verbally, that is a stunner.

I'm flying out tomorrow and this was the only panel on gun violence I saw.  Regardless, I was pleasantly surprised to hear the rational discussion.  One person talked about the media hype surrounding mass shootings and the lousy gun policies politicians try to pass (that one even cited Gary Kleck).  Another discussed the policy implications of trying to control firearms on college campuses and talked about how campuses are some of the softest targets in our society and some of the most difficult to effectively police, thus suggesting that allowing CCW holders to carry would be an easy way to provide some level of security.  Another looked at the factors that influenced whether high school students were willing to report another student for possessing a gun or knife on school property.  The policy implications on that one were stated to be completely based on improving the school environment and specifically excluded the need for broad legislative policy changes related to guns.  And my favorite looked at how media reports of mass shootings influence public fear of being a victim of a mass shooting. Funny thing is that their survey data showed that those who described themselves as Democrats were more likely to have an irrational fear of gun crime and demand more gun control policy.

I just posted the link without comment on my FB page.  I want to see what kind of comments I get.  :stir:

I am attending the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences Annual Meeting in Dallas this week and I attended a panel today on school shootings and public policy.  Of the five papers presented, none suggested that more gun control was needed, and most confirmed what most gun owners already know, which is that the school shootings were not and cannot be prevented through gun control legislation.  I went with data in hand prepared for a fight, and I left in a state of disbelief that there were not people pounding the podium demanding bans of "assault weapons" and high-capacity magazines.  There were a few inaccuracies about exactly what previously adopted gun control laws did (like one statement that the 1994 AWB banned all "semi-automatic weapons" and high-capacity "clips"), but I generally found that their representation of existing gun laws was generally fair and accurate.  I sensed that one presenter was for gun control, but there was no clear statement in their presentation stating such, nor did she make any statements related to other people's research that included the suggestion that we should allow students and faculty with carry permits to possess firearms on college campuses.  Perhaps the tide is turning a little bit for a change.

That's fine, but Beck is talking as if Agenda 21 - a plan for sustainable development - somehow equates to eugenics and martial law. That's a far cry from socialist economic policy. The guy just picks and chooses extremes and then tries to find a way to connect them, many times by constructing details out of thin air. When he was on FoxNews, there were several times I noticed blatant inaccuracies in his alleged sources. I sent an email every time with links to back me up. Never got a reply or saw a retraction. You know he's off the deep end when FoxNews got rid of him.

This is all you need to know: http://www.glennbeck.com/agenda21/ :panic: I can't believe I used to like that guy... :doh:

:bowrofl:

No, no... hollowpoints IMPLODE.  That's why Feinstein wants to ban them.  They are like a little ballistic supernova that creates a mini black hole that sucks the victim into themselves turning them inside out.

  I did a little bit of searching to see if I could dig up that info, but didn't have any luck.  I did read that these contracts, like the ones being the subject of the current hoopla, are authorizations to purchase ammunition and other items that can cover several years.  If that is the case, it may be a little more challenging to find these random requisitions out there.  I know through friends who work for the federal government that they go through massive amounts of ammo for training.  I've never had a need to ask how many they fired so I don't know for sure, but my sense was that thousands of rounds in a year was not uncommon.  One of my friends is a retired firearms instructor and he always talked like they had basically unlimited ammo at their disposal and they made full use of it.  He now teaches the classes for the federal flight deck officer program and talks as if they go through cases of ammo each class and they teach it every couple of months.  His training site is just one of many across the United States.  Like the original article I posted says, it's a matter of scale.  Knoxville Police Department may go through a few thousand rounds per year, but when you compare that to all of the federal agencies and multiply that by five years, it makes much more sense why they are going through so much ammo.  Seriously, we all expect the men and women who we task with protecting us and our interests to be able to shoot and have access to ammo right?   In full disclosure, I also was a little concerned when I first read about these ammo purchases, but I am not a Kool Aid drinker and immediately began to do some research and thinking on the issue instead of simply taking someone else's word for it.  As soon as I saw Alex Jones jump into the mix, I knew it definitely deserved even more diligence and research because that guy is a conspiracy merchant.  He plays off of people's concerns and makes good money doing it even though none of his doomsday predictions ever seem to come true.

  Except the reloading supplies are gone as well and people are selling what they have for the same insane prices.  I saw a set of RCBS .223 dies go on GunBroker for almost $200.  I've been looking for some large rifle primers for a while with no luck.  MidwayUSA finally got some in and they sold out in less than 5 minutes.  Between the time I got the notification, added them to my cart, and went to checkout, they were all sold out.  Fortunately, I found a brick at a local gun shop and that was the LAST one. Powder, primers, and bullets for .223, .308, and 9mm are especially scarce.  I happened to buy several pounds of powder, primers, and bullets for reloading .223 and 9mm a couple of months before this madness started.  If I hadn't, I'd be in really bad shape.

EXACTLY!  Kool Aid consumption is not solely a left-wing activity.  When people are only looking for one explanation, they are going to exercise selective observation and are sure to find exactly what they are looking for even if it's totally absurd or if their few cherry picked "facts" are contradicted by piles of evidence.  If people want to know who is responsible for this ammunition shortage, many can take a look in the mirror and think about their panicked stockpile of ammo piled up in the garage or listed on GunBroker for 3-4 times the retail cost.   This particular topic is interesting to me.  On one hand, gun owners talk about the vital importance of practicing with their firearms, but when the federal law enforcement agencies purchase ammunition to practice with, people flip out and believe a takeover is in the works.  Or let's assume they are preparing for civil unrest and civil unrest did happen.  My strong suspicion is that many people actually have very selective concerns based on who would be carrying out the unrest.  Think for a second and be honest with yourself.  If the Occupy protests had turned into civil unrest or if the LA riots happened again, would you: 1) expect the government to do nothing to stop it, and/or 2) be upset if the government used violence to put down the unrest?  My point here is that I am very skeptical that the Alex Jones crowd is really all that concerned about civil liberties, but is really only concerned about civil liberties for specific groups that fit their own definition of who *should* be protected by the Constitution.   Also, on this "no hesitation" target issue, unless something has changed there is no evidence that the government purchased targets with pregnant women on them.  Based on my reading of the Alex Jones story, the government purchased targets from a company that also happens to sell the "no hesitation" targets people are wringing their hands over.  At no point has anyone been able to confirm whether the government has purchased any of those targets.  This is the kind of "journalism" Alex Jones practices.  He takes one piece of information, finds some other random possibly related piece of information, and makes a huge leap in logic that is ALWAYS grounded in his conspiratorial mindset.  For him, everything is a conspiracy because there simply is no other option in his mind.  

This is a good way to get yourself killed if you tried this to protect yourself from a gunshot. Body armor is not just about catching the round; that's the easy part. The challenge is to absorb and distribute the energy of the round enough to minimize blunt force trauma when it strikes the body. Body armor makers do a tremendous amount of testing to minimize what they call "back face signature," which is basically the amount of energy transferred into the body from the round caught in the vest. If not enough energy is absorbed or distributed across the ballistic panel, the blunt force can destroy internal organs and kill you. This is why ceramic panels are worn over soft ballistic panels. The ceramic catches the round, the ballistic fabric panel absorbs and redistributes the energy to limit back face signature. Think about a major league fastball. Hitting the padded catcher's mitt is quite different than hitting a hard bat or the battery's helmet. The other part of the discussion that is missing, but important is kenetic energy. The amount of energy put into the round is concentrated into a very small point. The same energy is imparted on the shooter, but the firearm is designed to absorb much of the energy.

Because numerous studies have found that registries have caused offenders to "disappear" thus keeping them from being monitored. It also requires them to meet a multitude of requirements related to residency as it relates to sex offender "buffer zones" and residence restrictions (an even bigger issue) that makes it very difficult for an offender to stay in compliance. Criminal justice agencies that are already stretched thin are required to dedicate personnel and resources to maintaining the registry, providing it to the public, monitoring offenders, and prosecuting those that are not in compliance. All that for a policy that has not been shown to have any positive impact on sex offenses. To put it simply, sex offender registries and buffer zones are no different than gun registries and gun free zones.

Old t-shirts for me too. Cut some up for patches and the rest are used for rags.

Why all the support for a gun offender registry???  What exactly is such a registry supposed to accomplish except create another meaningless government program that needs to be funded.  Add on that the sex offender registries have caused more harm than good.  Yet another thing that boggles my mind.

OK, now this is an argument I can respect and the type I normally expect fom you. I still disagree on many points, but it is well stated.

  Um... WHAT???

I was getting ready to grab one, but some reviews said the stitching is weak and will tear very easily.

    Then that is a different argument entirely. However, as a sociologist who specializes in criminology (including terrorism), I study the culture of the Middle East and discuss it in detail in classes I teach.  I agree that the way many women are treated in certain parts of the Middle East is evil.  However, I believe you are being unfair and inaccurate to call the entire culture evil.  Rather, it is a portion of the population that has been able to take control and force their particular view of Wahabi Islam on the population.  Your characterization is basically the same as calling all people in the United States evil because a certain segment of the Southern population owned slaves (and justified it using the Christian scriptures).         Really?  The assumption is yours.  Please recall the statement from the school district:   It would seem that the burden of proof is on you to prove otherwise.  As also reported in the story, the teacher allegedly "told the students that she did not necessarily agree with the lessons - but she was required to teach the material."  So on one hand, she is saying this, but on the other, she is forcing kids to succumb to anti-American propaganda at risk of being ridiculed? Further, asking for volunteers and telling a kid to do something are two completely different things.   Now whether you agree with the method or not is another discussion entirely, but people creating their own facts based on pure speculation and a commentary from a biased news outlet that is notorious for it's anti-Islamic rhetoric is simply inappropriate.  I also believe that the people who support this particular exercise should also be open to it being applied to all groups, including African slaves assuming it was an appropriate part of the material being taught.  Frankly, I think many young people, including black Americans, would be well served by an exercise that reminds them what sort of treatment their ancestors were subjected to in this country.  

  First, I did state clearly that the very context I was speaking of was related to sexism and intolerance:     Second, if you notice, only one kid is wearing an actual burqa (maybe a second if you count the one of the far right as a burqa as well, however it is actually called a niqab).  Is it not possible this could be an exercise in demonstrating how many women in the Middle East are being reduced and degraded?  What better way for someone to really understand what women there face than to give them a little bit of first hand experience?  I see this as no different than the classes where high school kids wear a vest to simulate pregnancy or Jane Elliot's "blue eyes/brown eyes" experiment back in the 1960s.   Third, I am sure nobody has bothered to pay attention to what is written on the board behind the kids.  It clearly says:   When taken in as part of the situation, the intent of demonstrating the variety of dress is obvious.  It seems very obvious that the teacher is trying to show how different world religions have multiple variations, and in the Islamic faith, different groups adopt different types of dress in accordance to their beliefs.  It is the Wahabi faction, a strain of Sunni Islam, that believes in wearing of the burqa.     Also, just because the teacher brings the garments to class, how does that automatically translate into forcing kids to wear it and/or indoctrination as someone else says?  If I bring a police duty belt and body armor to class and ask if anyone wants to try it on, is that forcing someone to do it?  If the teacher brought in a set of military gear including a helmet and gave kids an opportunity to try them on, is that forcing them and indoctrination (keep in mind that many believe the US military policies on gays and women in combat are intolerant and oppressive).  Frankly, I think your comparison of this activity to dressing up a kid like a fictional character on Star Wars is a bit absurd, however after what I see cheerleaders wear these days, I don't guess it would be all that big of a deal.  Regardless, if these kids were wearing different types of traditional Jewish attire, or garments typically worn by Catholics versus Puritans, there would be no "outrage" expressed at all.  If this was an exercise exploring the dress of any other culture on earth besides Islamic culture, there would be no attention paid to it, and that to me is very telling.

Well, I guess I'll be the lone dissenter and take on the collective rage of everyone else.    First, we don't actually know what was taught in that classroom and it's far too easy to take the word of a pissed off parent who wasn't there and may be extremely intolerant of any exposure to other religions and cultures.  It's not like it would be the first time when someone would exercise selective judgement and over-emphasize specific details in order to reflect their pre-existing worldview.  Second, I have no problem with this exercise as long as it is taught in the proper context, and by that, I mean that they should show that for many in the Middle East, the social norms are considered sexist and intolerant.  However, allowing students to voluntarily wear another culture's dress is not an issue to me at all.  I also have no problem with them discussing the Islamic faith as long as it is taught in the proper context, which is to acknowledge that there are many variations of the Islamic faith and the Wahhabi perspective that has gained influence in the Middle East is quite intolerant of other religious and cultural ideas. I would hope that my children would be taught the importance of being tolerant and open to other ideas and cultures. Third, I strongly disagree that blaming US foreign policy for the rise of Wahhabism in the Middle East is "rewriting history,"  Rather, not acknowledging how the influence of western Europe and the United States has directly contributed to the rise of the Wahhabi faction and the Muslim Brotherhood is simply inaccurate and an act of collective denial.  The West has dominated Middle Eastern politics and economics since WWI, and our desire for cheap oil led to decades of policy where we ignored human rights violations in the region committed by the ruling elites.  The people there largely resent western influence, and have been subjected to the influence of Wahhabi Islam, which has been taught in schools and churches and written into their legal code.  In that region, the population definitely sees the Muslim Brotherhood as freedom fighters because they are trying to break free from the influence of western society.  I don't see this as a good thing, because the underlying philosophy of that movement is intolerance rather than democracy.  Whether we like it or not, the US foreign policy is partly to blame for what we are dealing with in the Middle East. And finally, there's this:   OK, and?  We live in a country that is dominated by Christianity.  If they didn't talk "in-depth" about Islam during that class, where exactly would they get any sort of outside perspective on the religion?  Why is it a bad thing to discuss other religions in the world, especially when we have so many people who believe that terrorism and our nation's security is the result of religion-based conflict?  This statement smacks of pure closed-mindedness and is exactly what education is supposed to combat.

  :bowrofl: :bowrofl: :bowrofl: