East_TN_Patriot

Basically, strikj is correct. The only way you can make this work with a basic point and shoot is to get enough light illuminating the scene. Proper exposure requires the correct amount of light to hit the sensor plate in the amount of time the shutter is open. To "freeze" action, you need a fast shutter speed, but that means that the aperture window needs to be open wider to let more light hit the sensor in that shorter amount of time. If you keep the shutter speed fast, but don't open the aperture further to let in more light, you'll end up with an underexposed photo. If you open it wider, then you can use a faster speed. Your point & shoot camera settings do all of this adjustment for you based on the light available. The camera detects the light levels and determines what the best balance of aperture opening and shutter speed will properly expose the sensor. In a darker inside room, the camera automatically opens the aperture and slows the shutter speed, which is just enough to cause your photo to be blurry. I hope that makes sense.

So is the block an easily removable part or is it basically a thing where once a 9mm AR, always a 9mm AR? Can you register an SBR as multi-caliber?

I notice that the Punisher logo is popular with military and gun folks. I see it on hats, patches, and gun parts with the logo etched into them. What am I missing here? Does it represent something in particular? I remember Punisher vaguely from comic books as a kid. What am I missing here?

OK, I have considered a 9mm AR as well. How do the mags work? I assume you need a filler block in the mag well. Is that a removable piece? Are the mags reliable and easy to purchase for a reasonable price?

So far, this discussion has pretty much reinforced what I found while researching the topic yesterday before posting my question here. I originally considered the idea of the SBR in a 5.56 AR for the improved handling properties. Once I looked at the negatives, I started to wonder what the point is. Without sounding too tinfoil hat-like, I wanted to stick with the 5.56 caliber just in case there was a major SHTF scenario because I expect that .223/5.56 ammo would be easier to come by instead of 6.8 SPC or other calibers. My plan is to SBR one receiver and just swap out uppers between the standard 16" M4 upper I currently have on it, the SBR upper, and a rifle length upper. I did see multiple recommendations to purchase a Noveske upper (or at least a Noveske barrel) if I do plan to go less than 12.5" since they perform better than other barrels regarding muzzle velocity (I assume it's the polygonal rifling?). Being realistic, the SHTF scenario is very unlikely and if I had to grab one upper for my AR, I'd probably go with the 16" since it's a good balance between portability and the advantages of barrel length. So, how does the 6.8 SPC round perform out of a shorter barrel? Anyone have experience with it in an SBR? Crap. I guess I might as well just SBR the lower I have and I will have plenty of time to decide what I want to slap on the top of it. Knowing my luck, I'll wait and the feds will either jack up the price or do away with it completely. Now I get to decide whether to bother with the NFA trust route or not...

I did a quick search for a thread on this question, but didn't see one. If it has been addressed before, forgive my failure to locate it. Anyhow, I am considering building an SBR on the 5.56 AR platform. I currently have a 16" carbine and like it, but as I look at the cost associated with going the SBR route I am wondering if it's really worth the investment. From what I can tell, you lose velocity and accuracy, thus making it less effective as a defense weapon except for distances less than 100 yards (of course, I can't imagine needing to engage a human target in a defense situation at a range greater than that). Is there any real advantage to an SBR other than the coolness factor?

Here is a link to a PDF of the actual BJS report. Those stats are located on page 10 of the report. http://bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/ffo98.pdf

I have not personally owned one, but I handled one and considered buying one. A lot of people prefer it to the Henry US Survival Rifle AR7. Although the receiver doesn't fit into the stock like the AR7, it does break down and stores in a bag that will float (or at least it did at one time). The fit and finish seems to be a little better than the AR7 and my impression is that they are less picky about ammo. As far as price, when they were easy to find, they would list in the $250 - $275 range NIB. I would think a nice used one would be $200 - $225. I actually wouldn't mind getting one, but I haven't seen one for sale in a while. Nutnfancy likes his: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32FgaIb66bM

I was working as a cop in Florida when they passed the "stand your ground" law. The media, including the Orlando paper if memory serves me, talked about gun battles in the streets and people killing each other over road rage incidents. Ya know, same old typical BS. Even several of my fellow co-workers were against it. Glad that law served someone well.

Sounds like you made the right decisions to me. Remember, just because you carried the check in your hand doesn't mean you deservedbo be a victim. Maybe the guy will think twice next time before he plans on robbing someone. Now, your decision to go to Wal Mart in the first place? That's a different story completely.

I had a 22A and had no problems with it. There was a recall on some of the older ones, so if you gt abused one, check into that. Mags are a little hard o come by. I sold that pistol to purchase a Ruger MKIII and don't regret that decision.

I have an M1A and an M1 Garand. Both are fantastic rifles. I wish my M1A had a match barrel, but I think the rifle as-is will out-perform me at his point. If you do decide to change hand guards, let me know if you get rid of that one.

That's all I ask out of anyone, including myself. As I read, write, learn, and think, I come to find many things are not what I originally thought them to be. I'm glad you found that info interesting.

The religious argument against gay marriage is a huge problem in my opinion. I would argue strongly that our laws are not based upon a specific religious or moral code, but a collection of moral codes defined by groups who have the ability to sway public and/or legislative support. In fact, many of our foundations of justice and law actually came from cultures that pre-date Christianity. Cesare Beccaria, a political philosopher who was very influential over those who founded the United States, warned about allowing religion to creep too far into political affairs, law, and justice, including oath-taking. John Locke refers to religion regularly, but solely as a foundational concept. Locke acknowledges that God created the Earth and humanity. He endowed humans with natural rights and the ability to reason and ultimately organize into social groups and establish government. He states, "...God hath certainly appointed government to restrain the partiality and violence of men." Not to regulate morality or pursue a particular interpretation of the Bible, but to keep us from doing harm to one another. Rousseau was even more harsh. He said, "But I am deceiving myself in talking about a Christian republic; these terms are mutually exclusive. Christianity preaches only servitude and dependence. Its spirit is too favorable to tyranny for tyranny not to take advantage of it at all times. True Christians are made to be slaves..." Rousseau further states, "The dogmas of civil religion ought to be simple, few in number, precisely worded, without explanations or commentaries. The existence of a powerful, intelligent, beneficent divinity that foresees and provides; the life to come; the happiness of the just; the punishment of the wicked; the sanctity of the social contract and of the laws. These are the positive dogmas. As for the negative dogmas, I am limiting them to just one, namely intolerance... whenever theological intolerance is allowed, it is impossible for it not to have some civil effect; and once it does, the sovereign no longer is sovereign... priests are the true masters..." In short, the philosophy of our American government was not one that suggested that the state has any authority to legislate Christian morality, or the morality of any other religious doctrine. Clearly, it is easier when the vast majority of the society believes in the same religious interpretations and concepts. However, in our society, we have a multitude of views on religion and morality, and our system of government and ideas of freedom, liberty, and equal protection under the law obligate the government in particular to tolerate behaviors and lifestyles that are not directly harmful to others. Every generation has picked a particular aspect of society that they claim is going to lead to the moral decay and downfall of our society. Whether it was doing away with slavery, allowing women to vote, not embracing Christianity, electing a Catholic to the White House, rock and roll music, allowing blacks to vote, birth control pills, inter-racial marriage, showing married couples in the same bed on television, Elvis' dance moves, marijuana, alcohol, or any other number of folk devils identified by people, our society has survived. In today's world, it's homosexuality and gay marriage that is being targeted for intolerance under the warning that it will collapse the foundation of our society. I think that being tolerant and encouraging people to love one another and commit to one another can only help our society. Now as far as the original point of my post is concerned, Santorum is using his own particular views on a private moral issue to undermine our fundamental right to privacy contained in the 4th Amendment. This is exactly what Rousseau was trying to communicate. If Santorum doesn't even think that your private sexual affairs in your own home, even consensual heterosexual relationships, are protected from public intrusion in the name of the "common good" why would anyone think that any other aspect of our private lives isn't at risk? All one has to do is make an argument that whatever is happening behind closed doors is potentially dangerous and the government then has the authority to prohibit, criminalize, regulate, and legislate it out of existence.

Marriage against the State: Toward a New View of Civil Marriage | Jason Kuznicki | Cato Institute: Policy Analysis Here's a link to a video from a Knoxville church who invited a Reverend and professor of theology from Sewanee seminary to speak on what the Bible says and doesn't say about homosexuality.

I was talking with the Tandy store about teaching one in Knoxville, but they changed managers and I haven't brought up with the new one. They usually help put on good classes so that is a good opportunity.

I would go with a Remington 870. It has been the standard issue shotgun for police agencies for decades. It's rugged, easy to field strip and maintain, there are plenty of parts and accessories out there, and they are reliable. Get an 18" barrel for home defense and buy a longer barrel for sport shooting. Some 870 packages have included both barrels. A Mossberg is a close second place choice for me. I've owned both and still own the 870. Load it with 00 buckshot and you are good to go for a defense shotty.

I have a MKIII target Talo Edition. I love it. I replaced the trigger with a Volquartsen MK II trigger kit to do away with the mag safety. The trigger pull with this kit is fantastic. I'm not a big fan of the chamber loaded indicator, but that's a cosmetic issue and one that can be fixed with a metal filler that I have seen sold on the web. My MKIII is very accurate and I love shooting it. Buy a bunch of mags to go with it and you are good to go!

Based on the content of that link you provided, the author basically says "Yes, Santorum said all that, but I don't think it's a big deal and you shouldn't either." I wasn't looking for dirt on Santorum when I found that. I posted the entire Heritage comment in context and there is a link to the original article. He clearly said in two different venues that he thinks the right to privacy is a myth and is not in the "common good." If you are OK with that, then that's your choice. I, on the other hand, find those comments very dangerous. Once that precedent is set, the downward spiral begins.

According to an article from ABC News, in another 2003 interview he said: Do you think you have a right to consensual sex in your own home? Santorum is clear that he doesn't think so. I really am shocked to see this coming from a guy who has gotten so much support from Republicans. And he is calling Ron Paul dangerous and crazy... Rick Santorum in the Hot Seat Again for Gay Marriage Stance - ABC News

During a debate with a friend of mine on the issue of same-sex marriage, I happened across this article written by Rick Santorum for the Heritage Foundation. In it, he makes some comments that I think are absolutely stunning and dangerous. Here is the quote: Clearly, Santorum has no understanding about the significance of the 4th Amendment or doesn't care. He believes that privacy rights are a myth and an obstacle to the "common good." He believes that the right to privacy is damaging to our society and not for the common good. Santorum has no clue about what our society is about. Damn right it's about ME. Our society was founded on the idea of individual rights, freedoms, and liberty. The concept of the "common good" as a foundational principle to a democratic society was that adopted by the French and you see where that got them. His mentality is what got us the Patriot Act, the TSA, and other threats to our privacy. I strongly believe that we have a right to our privacy and to live our lives as we choose to as long as it doesn't directly harm other people. This means we have to tolerate other lifestyles, beliefs, and behaviors we may not necessarily agree with. This is especially the case when these behaviors take place behind closed doors in our own homes. When we see a politician who labels himself as a conservative, but decries the right to privacy as a detriment to the "common good," it is time to be afraid. Link to the original article is here: The Necessity of Marriage

I used to primarily use oil, especially Break Free. Lately, I have switched to grease, either Shooter's Choice or Tetra Gun. The grease seems to stay in place longer than oils do and if you use a thin coating, you don't have the problem with collecting grit and grime as many grease critics suggest.

I would suggest the Sig P239. It's a single-stack 9mm that is larger than a PPS and a bit heavier than a PPS, but still slimmer in profile than a Glock, XD, M&P, or PX4. Although it isn't a polymer frame, it is an aluminum alloy frame so it is still lightweight.

I just got home from visiting my wife's family and found these waiting for me in the mailbox. They are the Hogue Extreme G-10 grips for the Sig P226 in their Black/Gray G-Mascus color and Piranha grip texture. I have had several pairs of Hogue wood grips and rubber grips, but these are the first like this I have gotten. I must say that I am extremely pleased. Although they are listed as "black & gray" they also have a layer of brown in them that actually goes well with the flat dark earth color Serpa holster I have. As I expected coming from Hogue, the fit & finish is fantastic. The Piranha grip texture is like a series of large dimples, and is very comfortable and secure. I also think they look great. In addition to the grip panels, I ordered some of their stainless hex grip screws to compliment the stainless slide on the pistol. Here is my Sig P-226 before: And here it is with the new grips installed: Here is a close-up of the grips: Here is a another close-up of the grips:

You clearly don't have a complete or realistic understanding of US history. Marxism and socialism in various forms has been a part of our federal policies for well over a century. What we fought against was the "Hun" in WWII, Nazis and fascists in WWII, and Communism during the Cold War. The US has seen its fair share of populist movements that incorporated socialist ideas. Our Pledge of Allegiance was written by a socialist. Labor unions were organized by socialist and Marxist groups. Several of our social policies including public education and progressive taxation are reflected in Marx's "Communist Manifesto" and many of our current labor laws were inspired my Marxist criticisms of capitalist society. Whether you agree with any of these philosophies is a matter of discussion, but one can't reconstruct history to suit their own views. Also, the Bible has been used to justify socialist and Marxist policies throughout American history, so one should be cautious in bringing Chrustianity into a political debate.