East_TN_Patriot

A couple of things need to be said about the Occupy movement. First, the right is treating this movement much like the left treated the Tea Party movement. It's a bit disingenuous for "Tea Party Television" to do the same thing as left-wing media outlets do by cherry picking people from the movement and portray it as representative of the entire movement. The Tea Party has attracted some very ignorant people, people who don't really understand politics or government, radical right-wing fringe calling for revolution, racists, anti-Semitic people, and others that those who support the Tea Party wish weren't part of it. The same is happening with the Occupy movement. I know people who support the Occupy movement and they are very intelligent rational folks. They just have a different perspective than I do, but they are hardly radical fringe who support Communism or anarchy. In fact, many in the Occupy movement have some of the same complaints that the Tea Party does regarding corruption in government and crony capitalism. Second, Marx was not just a political activist, but was also a social theorist and a historian. He was examining European society as it was going through the growing pains associated with the rapid changes in society associated with shifting from an agrarian society to a free-market industrial society. This transition was not pleasant and the division between the wealthy "bourgeoisie" and the "proletariat" labor class was very stark and dramatic. The conditions for the labor class of Marx's day was nothing like it is today, thus fueling his perspectives on capitalism. He saw it as a system that forced common people to literally sell their very lives to work under terrible conditions to provide a wealthy capitalist with profits that funded a comfortable life while their workers were treated very poorly. Marx's critiques of the corruptive nature of totally unrestricted capitalism are not particularly off-base. In fact, if you like your 40 hour work week, being paid for your overtime, having vacation time, sick leave, etc., you can thank the critical perspectives that Marx's ideas influenced. It is clear that those with the money have the power. In our country, the wealthy corporations and individuals have a tremendous amount of influence over politics, law, and policy. Clearly, they will use this influence to have policies created in their own favor. There is a reason that white-collar crime, corporate misconduct, and similar types of "elite deviance" are punished far less severely and less frequently than "street crime" even though we know that the harm associated with these types of crimes cause far more harm financially and physically than street crime. There is a reason that our country has tried to regulate political donations. During the past 25 years, the gap between the richest and the poorest in society has, in fact, been growing. The richest people in society have been getting richer while the rest of society has not only seen their earnings stagnate, but has actually seen an actual decrease in the standard of living due to cost increases in food, fuel, and other expenditures. The richest made much of their money by exploiting loopholes in the system, loopholes that were made through their influence over the political system coupled with attempts to "regulate" the markets conceived by politicians and bureaucrats. The more complex you make law and policy, the easier it is to locate loopholes and exploit them, especially if you have the money to pay lawyers and accountants to figure out how to do it. When the questionable financial practices finally led to an economic collapse, the rich folks who created the problem got bailed out while the rest of society was left to fend for itself. The "stimulus" money went to the same corporations and financial institutions who cause the problem with no strings attached and no accountability. To this point, nobody has been criminally charged nor have any politicians lost their jobs. Although I don't agree at all with Marx on the political direction he thought was necessary to solve the problems inherent with capitalism, many of his critiques are legitimate. We know that "absolute power corrupts absolutely" and in capitalist society, money equals power. Capitalism is an "ideal" that we strive to achieve, but because it is an imperfect system created and utilized by imperfect people, it has problems. It is a vast improvement over the feudal system that existed previously because people have incentive to achieve and innovate, plus it affords the opportunity for people to change their social position. However, not all of us start off on equal footing, not all of us have the same opportunities as others to maximize our ability to achieve our goals, if you can move up you can also move down, and if there is a top there must be a bottom. This is the source of the frustration many people in our society feel when we look at the way our economic system is working today. Capitalism has been corrupted by collusion between politicians and unethical rich folks at the expense of the rest of us. For capitalism to work properly, it assumes that each individual will make rational informed decisions who freely engage in a transaction that provides mutual benefit for all parties involved. This is simply not a reasonable assumption based on the complex nature of our society and the ability of powerful business interests to shape our "knowledge" through advertising, media, and influences over culture in general. The best we can hope for is to make a reasonably informed decision and hope for the best. If popular interests really had all that much influence over business as Adam Smith and other purists would argue, then products wouldn't be made to break in a short period of time or be made in China. Instead, society generally has a very limited understanding of the economy and business, and their desires have very little influence over bigger economic decisions. Now, to most of us on TGO (based on my impressions of the political leanings of most I have read posts from), the interpretations and proposed solutions put forth by many in the Occupy movement seem radical and bizarre. They believe in their views as strongly as we do about ours, which is why they think we are radical and bizarre. It is a fundamental disagreement on the source of our problems and how to fix these problems. We tend to believe that "a rising tide raises all ships" and they believe that the only real solution is for government to forcefully extract wealth from the haves to give to the have-nots. This is an ideological debate that is not easy to win.

The one I mentioned earlier is the PT 2L. I love that light. I have an aluminum Stinger I carried daily as a street cop for almost 10 years (I bought it after the first SureFire I ever bought took a dump in less than a year). That Stinger has been dropped more times than I can count, rained on during a hurricane, and used long and hard. All I have had to do is replace the batteries twice, and the lamp assembly once. I still use it frequently. Similar story with the full-size Streamlight we were issued. Words just can't express how unimpressed I have been with the quality and durability of SureFire products.

That's more money than I've ever made at any full-time job in my life! When I left policing after 10 years I was only making $32,500 and my first teaching job only paid $39K. Even when I leave grad school, I don't expect to make much more than that. These people are idiots!

You are correct. Due to globalization, it's simply not possible for us to be completely disconnected from the rest of the world. We are so economically reliant on other countries, we would collapse if we were totally isolationist. However, I think that the two are essentially the same for practical purposes. Even during the early 20th century when we were an "isolationist" nation, in reality this meant we were non-interventionist with regards to foreign squabbles.

I've bought a few of those cheaper LED lights, including the Coast. The biggest problem I have seen is overall durability, but I can say the exact same thing for BOTH SureFire lights I have owned (BOTH were complete and total useless junk and their customer service is worse). I found a good deal on a small Streamlight LED that I keep by the bed and it's the brightest light I have ever owned for the size hands down. The quality of it, like all other Streamlight products I have owned, is superb. My understanding is that the lumens produced is only part of the equation when it comes to the light. The other major part is the quality of the reflector and how well it concentrates the light. Of course, the overall quality of the switch, contacts, electronics, etc. are also important. Normally, I say you get what you pay for when it comes to flashlights, but after crapping away so much money of the high-dollar SureFire lights I've bought, I can't say it is 100% true. To be fair, I don't like MagLite products either.

I wouldn't mind having another one of those. I had one many years ago and I sold it for some reason or another. You can't do much better than the SP101 for a snubby that will handle the .357 mag.

Pretty much, except for the crutches and the electric scooter. The courses at ORSA are very similar to what you saw in the video. The folks who shoot the 3 Gun there are a great group of people. You don't have to be an expert shooter to participate, and nobody will insult you if you have some problems. Instead, you're likely to get some great feedback and meet a bunch of people just like you. Unfortunately, I won't be able to shoot this month because I have a bad cold and a broken rifle.

I can't go along with the idea of repealing the Posse Comitatus Act. It's not a matter of not trusting the military, but one of the military and police having very different jobs and rules of engagement. Allowing the military to participate in civilian police work without doing a lot to un-train the military way of doing things is a big risk. When I trained new officers, I had he opportunity to train a couple of former military folks. They were shocked at the restraint the civilian police had to use with regards to force and search & seizure. Like one told me, the military is a whole different ball game. However, I don't see using the military on the border akin to typical police work. That is a very special mission and one that both falls within the powers of the federal government, and within many exceptions to rules of search & seizure defined in case law. I have no issues at all using the military to secure the border and think it should be a regular part of their mission.

The problem with the United States is that we have made ourselves the world's policeman and engage in situations that are done for the purpose of "nation building" or "spreading democracy." The fact of the matter is that not all nations want or can implement a democratic system of government, nor do I believe we have the lawful authority under the Constitution or international law to interfere in the majority of military operations we are part of. Sometimes we just have to let other nations find ways to deal with their own problems and offer political support without sending in troops. Unless we are directly threatened, we need to keep our troops here. On a related note, we must understand that our foreign policy decisions have consequences. This is the point that Ron Paul tries to make, but is usually booed severely for. Take the current threat of terrorism from the Middle East. These terrorists don't hate America because of our culture or government. They hate America because we have sent our military and money into their region and interfered with their society. They believe we are intruders and should leave them to their own path. We helped build Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda by supporting them financially and logistically through the CIA during the revolt against the former Soviet Union in Afghanistan. Bin Laden became infuriated with the USA when we took military action in Kuwait, and was even more infuriated when we didn't leave. We also support Israel. The question is definitely one of whether we think our actions in the Middle East are worth making ourselves a target for terrorism. This is not to say that we "deserved" what happened on 9/11, but that 9/11 probably would have never taken place had we not tried to interfere in Afghanistan back in the 1980s in our project of "nation building" and fighting communism. That region is shaped by literally centuries of history that still influence their culture today. We simply can't expect to send our military into the region and transform that region into a happy and prosperous collections of democratic nations that love us and love Israel within a few months.

I used one for several years while I was a street cop to carry my J frame Smith. I actually used an Uncle Mike's, which is a pretty cheap holster. The reason I used it was that it would easily fit over the boots I wore on duty. The holster served me well for many years. When I was not wearing boots, I typically would carry it in a Gould & Goodrich ankle holster that was patterned after the Galco Ankle Glove. The reason I chose an ankle holster is that it was handy to get to sitting in the patrol car, and I felt it was the most practical way to access the firearm if I needed it in a tense situation if my primary duty gun failed. The issue related to ankle carry is being able to gain quick access to the firearm. You need to wear pants that are easy to pull up over the holster and that have a cuff wide enough to clear the grip. My lightweight polyester uniform pants fit that description. The jeans I wear don't. Also, if you choose that mode of carry, you must practice drawing until you are proficient at dropping to a knee, pulling your pant leg up and accessing the firearm. This also means that you will likely be shooting from the knee, so you need to practice that as well. I prefer pocket carry over ankle carry in most situations.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TP9Tp5_FQYA&feature=player_embedded#!

They are secretly tracking all IP addresses that visit that page to compile a secret list of gun owners.

That is a link to the new "We the People"website Obummer started up to make it look like his administration actually cares about what the American people want. They say that if you can get 5,000 signatures in 30 days, the administration will officially look at the proposal and "issue an official response." Petition the White House with We the People | The White House I think "wwws." is a designation that it is a secure website kind of like the "https" designation.

I was raised by my grandparents after my biological parents chose not to be responsible adults. I started working when I was a kid by mowing lawns, delivering newspapers, shoveling snow, and doing odd jobs. I got my first job at age 16 working at McDonald's for spending money, gas money, and car insurance. I worked my way through college and grad school usually working more than one job and overtime when I could get it. I try hard to live within my means and have never asked for a bailout or a handout. I am one of the 53%.

Although I have never actually owned one and used to be a die-hard critic of them, based on numerous comments I have read over the years I would say that Hi-Point makes the best guns in their price range. I have seen "torture tests" and multiple videos on the web and it seems that their guns hold up extremely well. If it breaks, send it back and they will fix or replace it. In fact, the only thing that kept me from getting one of their carbine rifles is the single-stack magazine (I ended up getting a Kel Tec Sub 2000 instead).

That is exactly right. We can't expect to agree with ANY candidate 100% of the time. I much prefer one who gives us what they believe in a clear and consistent manner, so at least I know what they stand for and can actively work against things I don't agree with instead of trying to guess.

What. The. Hell. That guy is one of the luckiest people alive. What an idiot.

I added strickj, vontar, and jcj. I am rkeetoncrim at gmail.

I have an M1A and recently got a GI wood stock from Fred's. I have seen a lot about people getting a Hawk's dummy selector, but it appears that there is quite a wait for them. He makes them from GI selector parts, and I found a source online that sells an unissued selector parts kit for half the price of a Hawk's kit. Does anyone know how to make/install a dummy selector using that parts kit? Here is a link to the kit I am talking about: US M14 Select Fire Control Group [PMISC008] - $29.95 : Military Gun Supply, SSAR-15, Parts Kits, Surplus Guns, And More!

That, and 999 upside down is 666! Does that mean Herman Cain is really the anti-Christ???

The original transcript of the entire interview can be found here: RealClearPolitics - Interview with Presidential Candidate Herman Cain The part in question is exactly as portrayed: After that, Blitzer moves on to another topic. Here is where we run head-to-head with the issue of states' rights. Either we say that each state has the right to determine policy in that state or we say that the federal government has the authority to dictate to the states how to apply and interpret the law and the Constitution. The US Constitution originally did not apply or extend the Bill of Rights to the states, but allowed the states to create policy instead. After the passage of the 14th Amendment and the application of that amendment through case law, we have seen how the line between state sovereignty and federal authority is blurred. We have a lot of people on the right talking about "states' rights" until it's dealing with a policy they don't like - such as gun control - and then they want the federal government to apply the US Constitution. In other words, it's incompatible to use the states' rights argument, but then use the US Constitution to force state governments to bend to your demands. Cain appears to be either 1) a hard-core states' rights guy, 2) one of those who fall into the same trap I mentioned above, or 3) wasn't able to further clarify his stance because Wolf Blitzer moved on to another topic without asking him to explain his gun-control stance further.

The police department I used to work for did ammo tests one time to see which brand was the best overall duty round. We fired .40 S&W out of our duty pistol, a Sig P229, through various materials and into ballistic gelatin. The short version of this story is that all of the hollow-point ammo we tried tended to clog and fail to fully expand when fired through heavy clothing, drywall, and especially plywood. 185 grain Speer Gold Dot did performed the best in our tests and that's what our department stuck with (if memory serves me correctly, Hyrda-Shok did the worst). However, when hollow-point ammo clogs, it performs like JHP ammo for all practical purposes, so it's not like you lose all ballistic performance and accuracy. Like others have said, all you lose is expansion.

Nope. They won't price match on this. See their policies:

That is the worst thing one could do. Aggressive dogs commonly view such behavior as a challenge and may respond accordingly. When faced with an aggressive dog, best thing you can do is NOT look them in the eye, and try to back away slowly. Fast movements arouse a dog's prey drive. Also, as best I can tell, state law does not say anything about shooting a vicious animal, so if that is the case, it would be left up to individual city and county governments. In my experience, laws and ordinances generally allow you to discharge a firearm to protect yourself from a vicious animal. Best to contact the local law enforcement and see what the laws are in your area.

I had a feeling that was going to happen when he resigned suddenly. It will be interesting to see what direction Apple goes in without him.