East_TN_Patriot

I purchased a Spike's Tactical Enhanced Lower Parts Kit for a carbine build. Although I like it, I'm not sure I would go with another one in the future because I don't think the difference justifies the cost difference in my opinion. I think if I were going to spend the extra bucks on a LPK, I would just spend a bit more and get a nice Timney trigger or something like that. The trigger that comes with the kit looks cool with the nickle boron finish, but the feel isn't really that much better than other standard triggers. The enhanced trigger guard really isn't that big of a deal to me because I don't expect to need to fire the rifle while wearing heavy gloves, but the spider logo on it is kind of cool. The ambi selector switch is kind of nice, but again, not that big of a deal for me since the likelihood of actually needing it is pretty small. The kit also has anti-creep pins, but I don't recall ever hearing of anyone who ever lost a pin under normal use (or rough use for that matter). The Ergo grip is nice. Overall, I just don't see the cost benefit for my needs, but the quality does appear to be decent. If you need or want all of these features, it's definitely cheaper to go this route than to get them separately. However, in the future, I think I will be more likely to just get a standard lower parts kit, perhaps get a better two-stage trigger, pick out a grip I like, and go with that.

I got into the habit of pushing on my mag a long time ago to make sure it was seated properly. I still do it pretty frequently. I've seen too many people lose their mag while shooting on the range.

It's probably a good thing that I didn't have an archery set or access to ether or black powder as a kid. That is totally something I would have done.

I could buy that argument, except our government has made it clear that the 'war on terror' is not a standard military action, but one that has been carefully and strategically crafted in order to justify ignoring international law and treaties that we have agreed to abide by. Our government says that suspected terrorists are not civilians, but also not military combatants. They have been given this special designation specifically to skirt the law. It's just that sort of manipulation of law and policy that has made the US hated by so many people in this world. Again, I don't feel sorry for these people. A part of me says "good riddance" to them. However, my ethical side requires me to question the legitimacy of our nation's policies on this issue and call out improper actions when they are in violation of law and ethics.

I friggin' hate Wal Mart. Can't stand the place. And I cuss myself all the way to the ammo cabinet and back to the car. The same box of ammo is $20 cheaper at Wal Mart than at Gander Mtn and I can barely find any bulk boxes of ball ammo anywhere else in town at all, much less for a decent price. Ammo is the ONLY thing I will buy at Wal Mart, and as soon as I can get the reloading dies for the last couple of calibers I regularly shoot, I won't buy anything from that place. I find it particularly annoying that you are not allowed to even touch the box of ammo until it is paid for. One time the clerk was unable to comprehend my simple description "I would like to get a box of your Federal .223 in the 100 round bulk pack, please." After telling the guy where it was about half a dozen times, I reached towards the cabinet to point it out. Big mistake. That was met with an abrupt "Don't touch anything!" Um...

It's tough to say what I would have done unless I was there, but if a guy with a 9" blade is running at me, he's going to get shot. A sturdy knife could easily break a glass door, and no officer can test the blade strength before making a decision. I think I would have waited long enough to see whether the door would hold up before dropping the guy, but without being in that exact situation, I can't say for sure. As a former police academy instructor and field training officer, I also know that police training tends to be a bit too overly-cautious and over-emphasizes the use of force, which I suspect may have contributed to the officer not waiting to engage with deadly force. But once again, I was not there and the info we have from the story is enough for me to say it was a good shoot.

On this topic, I am always intrigued by the total lack of understanding people have about the concept of rights as conceived and understood by our founders and the political philosophers who inspired them. The argument that people who are not US citizens do not have the same rights as we do is a total misinterpretation. The Constitution does not grant rights. It protects them. Our Declaration of Independence (the statement of the political values our country was established on and the Constitution reflects) clearly states "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men..." Note that it says "all men" - not just US citizens. It also says that governments are supposed to SECURE these rights, not grant them solely to US citizens or decide to whom they apply. Our system of government was founded upon John Locke's Enlightenment concept of natural rights, rights that all people possess by being born (hence the statement "endowed by their Creator). ALL PEOPLE have these rights and of all the nations of the world, we should be the ones that lead by example and demonstrate that we actually believe what we say we stand for. When we allow government to pick and choose those who these natural rights apply to based upon an arbitrary label, then none of our rights are safe because people cal always craft justifications to limit them or take them away. Do I feel sorry for the douchebag we killed? Not one bit, but I do question the ethics of our nation choosing to assassinate people instead of making every legitimate effort to capture them. The excuse that the guy was a terrorist is a justification that people have come up with to make it OK to ignore our laws, our national values, and quite possibly international law, which we expect other nations to follow when dealing with our citizens. The government says that they had been tracking Al-Awlaki for three weeks. Seems like plenty of time to snatch the guy up to me. If we really aspire to live up to the values contained in our founding documents, that means we have to follow those ethics in all cases, especially if it is distasteful.

And it's the same argument over and over and over again. Just think, if TGO had it's own sub-forum dedicated to it. It could be non-stop OC arguing 24/7 with nothing new to say about it.

From the story: Wow. There is nothing more I can say except that.

I don't think it's an argument of whether OC can deter criminal behavior. Clearly, the academic research shows that nothing deters a crime quite like the fear that a potential victim is armed. This is why most residential burglaries happen in the daytime; potential burglars know that is when the home will be unoccupied and many note the threat posed by armed home-owners as their main reason for waiting until the target residence is empty. That said, the argument for most is whether the deterrent value of OC is worth the negatives associated with it coming from a society that is not friendly to OC. I also get the argument that attitudes won't change unless people OC and demonstrate that it's no different than carrying a cell phone. However, this argument assumes that people are rational and objective, which they aren't. There are far more negative media stories surrounding OC than positive ones, and that shapes public perception. There are far too many who flaunt their OC to make a political statement, which doesn't help the argument (having a bunch of folks meet up to open carry at a Starbucks isn't any better than environmentalists chaining themselves to trees and does more to alienate people than win them over). The unfortunate stigma in our society is that gun owners are potentially dangerous and those non-LEOs who dare OC are even more dangerous because they have their weapon at the ready and want to intimidate others by making it known. Like I've said over and over here, there is a reason that many police departments discourage or prohibit their LEOs from OC while off-duty. This is that reason. They know the public will flip out and will result in more headaches than it's worth. I will also say that having been a LEO for 10 years, I feel confident in saying that I do not feel as if I am at any particular tactical disadvantage when I carry concealed. Yes, as a uniformed patrol officer I open carried in a duty holster, but it had to be a level 3 security holster, I was clearly identifiable as a police officer, and my job was to actively seek out and engage bad guys, some of whom were more than anxious to kill me. As a private citizen, I am not in that sort of situation, and the low profile is the tactical advantage that I am looking for. Undercover cops don't open carry and tell bad guys that "I am exercising my 2nd amendment rights and feel that as an armed citizen open carry gives me a tactical advantage." They conceal because they know that there is a great tactical advantage to not drawing attention to yourself. The advantage that keeping a low profile gives more than makes up for any slight delay in accessing a concealed firearm, and if you properly conceal and practice with your carry setup, you should be more than able to access that firearm quickly. If you can't, then you probably need to rethink your setup or practice more (just as a cop who OCs needs to practice with their duty holster). I've open carried more in my previous life as a cop than most people do in a lifetime, and I promise there is nothing mystical or magical about it. It's a pain in the butt. Your gun gets dinged up/dirty/wet, everyone looks at it, bad guys try to dream up ways to take it from you, and people want to ask you questions about why you carry, whether you think it makes you a tough guy, or if you've ever shot someone. I've even had people question whether I could carry it on a college campus when I was a grad student taking classes in uniform on-duty. It's just not worth what questionably marginal level of tactical advantage it may give (and I strongly believe there is little to no tactical advantage to it assuming you conceal in a proper and well-thought manner). I wish it was a different world where we could OC if we wanted to, just because we want to, but it ain't that sort of world. I would like to be able to show off my cool pistol in a cool holster so other gun folks could appreciate it just like car aficionados appreciate seeing a nice looking classic Camero or Mustang. I really don't see this happening anytime in the near future as long as we have a mass media that portrays gun ownership in such a negative way and OC activists who decide to walk down a city street with an AK-47 just to make a political point.

Same here. I bought a couple of firearms from them in the past, but I will no longer do business with them. Part of the reason is the TGO rant. The other part is based on personal experiences in their shop. My wife ordered a gun for me for Christmas last year and placed it almost 2 months in advance. She was told the gun was in stock, put money down, and never heard anything else from them for quite some time. As the holiday drew near, she started to call them about it. The manager told her that the gun was on backorder and they weren't sure when it would be arriving. In other words, they told her it was in stock, took the money, found it was not in stock, but never bothered to call her and let her know. Well, then started the phone calls back and forth. At some point in all of this, someone was lying through their teeth, either Benelli or Frontier (or both), but the guy at Frontier was NOT forthcoming or proactive about keeping us informed in any way. First the gun was on it's way, then it wasn't. She was going to cancel the order and get it from another shop, but they said it had been shipped, but days later with no word from Frontier, we'd call back and be told it wasn't shipped yet. This went on well into February (for a gun my wife was told would arrive in early November). When the gun finally did arrive, we both went to the shop to pick it up. While we were there, I was discussing the situation with the manager and the owner walked up, butted into the conversation without so much of an "excuse me for a second, sir" and started talking with the manager about an unrelated issue. After a couple of minutes, he walked off. That just reinforced the perception that the guy is an arrogant gold-plated jerk. The outcome? My wife - who is not a gun person at all - has made it very clear she will never buy me another gun as a gift because of her experience with the employees there. I asked for a gun for my birthday and her response was a clear, "I already told you I am NEVER buying another gun." She wasn't kidding and now holds gun salesmen in the same category as used car salesmen. When I go to a gun shop, she waits in the car. Thanks a million Frontier. Shortly after that, I was shopping around for a gun that I was kind of in a hurry to get and called to get a price. The salesman said he was busy and would have to call me back (understandable). I never got a call. I called again the next morning. Same story, then no call back. Called a third time later that afternoon, talked to the co-owner. She was not particularly pleasant on the phone, said they were busy and she'd have to call me back. I said OK, knowing full well I would never get that call. I didn't. So, now all of my gun shopping is done at other local shops, especially since the mood at CCA has seemed to improve over the past year or so (and at one point I swore I would never shop there again). As far as the original question, my suspicion is that they are over-extended after building the new shop and can't afford the inventory. I can't remember for the life of me where I saw or heard this (it may have actually been one of the retracted comments from the TGO bashing party he threw in the previously mentioned rant), but a comment was made that the economy took the dump around the same time as he made the capital outlay for the new facility and he was in tough financial shape. I bet the new CCA range over there will further put a dent in their business as well, especially if it turns out to be as nice as they claim it will be. This will be a battle of customer service and with the long-term track records of both Frontier Firearms and CCA, it should be an interesting battle.

228

I agree with this statement and again point out the problems associated with open carry. I've said here many times before that given the current social attitudes, OC is a bad idea. Even when I was a LEO, most agencies I am familiar with required their officers to conceal their duty weapon when in plain clothes just for this reason. I understand the tactical reasons one may prefer to carry concealed, but the reality of the majority of shootings is that open carry wouldn't give you much of a tactical advantage if any at all. Police open carry in uniform because they are actively seeking out and engaging bad guys with the intent of arresting them. Private citizens are not in that position and the likelihood any of us will ever actually need to use our firearm in self-defense is very small. I wish our world was more accepting of open carry, but it isn't and no amount of foot stomping and gnashing of teeth will fix that. I wish people possessed more common sense and a more realistic perception of gun carry. They don't and with the media representations of gun ownership and incidents like this, they aren't apt to change their views anytime soon. When those with carry permits question the logic and need for open carry, how can anyone else think that those who think carrying a firearm for self-defense would see it as a wise decision? Also, on the "perceived threat" point, with our overly litigious society anything that is deemed even remotely irresponsible is met with a lawsuit and calls for people's jobs. Had this officer not done anything and an armed person entered the school, we'd be sitting here talking about how stupid and irresponsible people were for not taking the threat posed by an armed person walking near a school as a seriously as they should. Monday morning quarterbacking is easy for us to do, and with the alarmist mentality of people in our society, I understand why they did what they did (especially when I believe that open carry is generally a really unwise idea - just because you can doesn't mean you should).

Murder has been going down like that virtually every year since the early 1970s. To chalk the rise in urban homicide rates to not allowing law-abiding citizens to carry firearms is a big leap. Criminologists know that urban areas experience high levels of violent crime due to the extreme poverty that drives the culture where violence is more likely to occur. In other words, the issue isn't the availability of guns in society to deter crime. There are plenty of guns in these cities as we already know. The issue is why these people choose to use a gun in a crime and who the victims are. The first question is the tough one and something that literally dozens of theories have tried to answer with no clear winner. The latter question is much easier to answer. The victims of violent crime is more likely to be people of the same age, race, sex, and geographical location. Crime statistics are clear: most violent crimes, including homicide, are committed by young black males who live in low-income parts of urban areas. The victims are just like them: young, black, male, and poor. This demographic doesn't explain all violent crime, but covers a significant portion of it. For me, the question is one of how we can improve the conditions within our urban areas to make crime less viable and change the cultural values that legitimize violence.

Not exactly. I am a former NCIC operator so I can speak to how the system works (unless it has changed in the 4 years since I left law enforcement). NCIC is only a searchable database. The only time a serial number is "registered" in NCIC is when an authorized law enforcement agency enters an item of property into the database as stolen. There must be a police report with a case number associated with that entry; police agencies can't just randomly enter info into the database. The entering agency is responsible for that entry and must keep the stolen property report active as long as the item is entered into NCIC. Most property, including firearms, must be confirmed annually. If you don't keep the report active, the firearm will be removed from NCIC. Police departments are supposed to try and make contact with the victim to see if the property is still missing/stolen. The entering agency must confirm or purge these old entries from NCIC if the victim does not respond to requests or cannot be located. Once this happens, there is no immediately searchable record remaining in the system. All of that said, there is also a permanent record of all NCIC inquiries and entries. If a LEO runs a serial number, tag number, name, etc. there is a record of it. In fact, NCIC sends auditors out to terminal agencies to confirm that the inquiries and entries are being done for legitimate police business. If a firearm serial number and info has ever been run through NCIC, there will be a record of it somewhere. Getting that recovered would likely be a very difficult task due to the massive amount of time it would take to research a specific random inquiry, but it is possible.

I had one. It was total junk. I went through three lamp assemblies in less than 6 months of very light use. I tried contacting Surefire multiple times about the problem and I have yet to get a reply (been waiting about a year now since the first attempt and about 3 months since my last attempt). I finally threw it in the trash. The lamps cost as much as the light and based on my experience, you'll be spending much more than the light is worth. Get a Streamlight. Super durable, fantastic customer service, and a good price for the quality you get.

I am about to finish my PhD in criminology, I am a former LEO, a former police firearms instructor, and a carry permit holder, yet I can't be trusted to carry my firearm or even secure it in my vehicle while parked on campus. As a commuter, I am basically required to travel from school to home disarmed. What's worse is that efforts to allow faculty and staff with permits to carry was defeated very soundly, primarily due to resistance from faculty on campus and campus police chiefs who started that standard alarmist BS about not being able to tell the good guys from the bad guys. One professor at UT had a sign on his office door that said "An armed campus is a hostile work environment." I wanted to ask them exactly why he was so concerned that his fellow faculty members are so psychologically unstable that they would suddenly go on a shooting rampage, but I digressed.

Did he have a "concealed weapon permit" badge clipped on his belt to go with it?

Well, I make custom leather holsters as a side business, and I am very confident in saying that the reason I don't make holsters to fit the Hi Point is not a statement about the quality of the pistol, but the reality that people who purchase a $100 pistol are very unlikely to pay nearly that much for a holster. People who are either that budget-conscious or low on funds simply aren't going to drop $50 or more for a holster. I'm basically ambivalent about Hi Point pistols, but my overall impression of them is that they are surprisingly decent pistols for the money. I wouldn't buy one myself, but if it's a truck/toolbox/boat gun, you can't go wrong with one.

^^^This. As a former cop and a college professor, I strongly advocate those words. Unfortunately, on the latter point, simply exercising your 5th Amendment rights will virtually guarantee your arrest, because too many cops (and people in general) equate that to guilt. What is missing in this discussion is the simple point that we have to have it in the first place. It's a real problem that there are so many LEOs out there who we know will treat us like criminals just because we have chosen to exercise our 2nd Amendment rights and if we say or do the wrong thing, we will potentially end up in jail, the hospital, or the morgue if we say the wrong thing. I still believe that the majority of LEOs are the kind discussed by the OP, but there are still far too many of the Canton, Ohio type out there running the roads with no direct supervision and protected by the profession (it's amazing how many cops will defend obviously inappropriate, unethical, and illegal behavior even if they don't agree with it). I wish I had a simple answer to this, but there isn't one except that good citizens have to keep calling out these bad apples and staying on it until they are dealt with. Just as in society, the cultural changes within the profession that need to take place are slow and difficult to make happen.

This is essentially true. I spend a lot of time around intellectuals and the vast majority of them are far left progressive liberals or outright socialists. They actually view the world very differently than people on the right. When you try to engage them in a conversation, you are literally approaching the discussion from a totally different perspective where the problems and solutions are defined drastically differently. That is why we are reaching a point in politics where there is a lot of anger and frustration boiling up. It's impossible to reach a consensus when the debate is framed so differently by opposing sides.

You don't wrap the loops around your head. You wrap them around your belt.

That is called armed robbery. Plain and simple. 39-13-401. Robbery. (a) Robbery is the intentional or knowing theft of property from the person of another by violence or putting the person in fear. ( Robbery is a Class C felony. 39-13-402. Aggravated robbery. (a) Aggravated robbery is robbery as defined in § 39-13-401: (1) Accomplished with a deadly weapon or by display of any article used or fashioned to lead the victim to reasonably believe it to be a deadly weapon; or (2) Where the victim suffers serious bodily injury. ( Aggravated robbery is a Class B felony. If someone approaches you "asking" for money and brandishes a weapon to "encourage" you to be generous, that is a felony. I will take all necessary actions to protect myself and my family. If that includes presenting my firearm, so be it.

Why? Because I am right? Glock fanatics talk like their handguns are the end-all be-all of firearms perfection, yet they almost always alter them in some manner or form that includes the grip, trigger, barrel, or even frame. Now they even make aluminum or stainless steel frames (with a 1911 grip angle no less). Sorry if you don't like the truth, but the Glock fanatics out there are thoroughly lacking in perspective on many occasions. One can't have it both ways. Either the Glock is firearms perfection, or it isn't and you take it for what it is: a firearm that has its strengths and its weaknesses, one that suits some and not others.

If the Glock is so perfect, why do folks consistently sand, grind, stipple, and reshape the grip, swap out barrels, replace parts, add decal grips, slip-on grips, etc. Just sayin'... Glocks have their place. So do 1911's. I have one of each. I like them both. For my money, I'd rather have a nice 1911 over a Glock in .45 any day primarily due to the size difference. The full-size Glock .45 pistols feel like you are holding a 2x4.