monkeylizard

Your buddy's C&R is moot. A C&R grants special exemptions for acquiring firearms but gives none for selling them. Unless you have a C&R, it has to be done like any other intersate transfer via FFL. The only extra step is that the seller has to record the sale in his bound book.

Yeah, there's a reason you don't see cans of Planter's Acorns on the shelf at Kroger.

That's true, but when looking at budget numbers and having to come up with a way to handle the style of wars we fight today, it's conceivable that the Navy will opt for a force mixture of carriers and mini-carriers. We [i]might[/i] have open massive war sometime, but we [i]do[/i] have the smaller theater stuff going on now and in the near future. Full on carriers are sometimes an inefficient method for doing that. Would we be better served to have smaller ships with fewer crew running flight operations for UAVs? Another advantage of a carrier + UAV carrier is that the carrier can continue to have its full complement of manned, heavily armed aircraft without having to cede valuable space for the UAVs. Ideally we'd have a full setup of both, but budgets will dictate otherwise. We'll either lose carriers to UAV carriers, or we'll never develop UAV carriers, instead having carriers perform both roles. I don't know how the $s work out either way. No idea how much it would cost to develop and build a UAV specific carrier vs. another Ford class ship, or the operating costs for either over X years. It just seems that smaller ships with smaller crews would be cheaper, but not if that's supplemental to carriers instead of replacing them.

Glocks [b]are[/b] double action only. Not in the traditional sense of cocking a hammer then releasing that hammer, but the trigger finishes "cocking" the striker and then releases it, so two actions being performed by the trigger. The striker on a Glock is not all the way back by racking the slide. Springfield XDs are, so they're "single action" strikers. Someone will be along shortly to correct me if I'm wrong on that.

And she'll need two also.

Once Jack hit puberty and started growing body hair, he never looked like his twin again.

What OS said. It varies by browser, but Private Browsing (aka Porn Mode) usually means that the history of that browsing session is not stored in the browser's history files, passwords are not stored, and most cookies are not retained. The router used to connect to the internet will still have a site history, but probably wouldn't have anything like IDs or passwords. If you mean could a hacker obtain your login information from your PC if you used Private Browsing, that depends on a few things. It certainly makes it harder. Your browser may be setup to store your passwords for you. If so, those are in the browser's files and are often used even when in Private Browsing so that it can help you login faster. Communications between your browser and a website are generally unencrypted. Anyone able to intercept or listen in on that communication would be able to see what's being passed back and forth, including an ID and password. That's where HTTPS comes in. Instead of a URL beginnnig with http:\\ it will begin with https:\\ . The "S" mmeans "Secure". Most browsers also have a padlock icon that will appear somewhere, like at the end of the address bar or down in the bottom right corner of the browser if https: is in use. Some also color-code the address bar to green. Using http: vs https: can vary across a site as you move from page to page. A main landing page for a site may be unencrypted http: but when you click the "Login" button you are taken to an https: encrypted page. What you don't see is that the main page may very well have an https: option, it just isn't the default option. There are plugins for most browsers (IE, Chrome, Firefox) that will automatically attempt to make all connections using https: and then default back to http: if the page doesn't support https:

[url="http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/cpu-charts-2012/benchmarks-1,140.html"]http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/cpu-charts-2012/benchmarks-1,140.html[/url] Tom's has the best benchmark comparisons on just about everything. Check the charts that most closely match the apps you'll be using. 3DMark11 is a general "overall" kind of measure. You can select a handful of processors and then choose "Compare" from any of the charts and it will switch views to show only those processors across all benchmarks.

[url="http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/dec/3/police-man-shot-ex-wife-as-she-played-organ-church/print/"]http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/dec/3/police-man-shot-ex-wife-as-she-played-organ-church/print/[/url] aaahemmmm..... Again. Yes, I always carry at church.

Yeah, I was talking about the brain scan. The CDC doc showed all of them the MRI scan showing that upon reanimation, only the brain stem was active. The person that was in there before is gone. Andrea knows that and can describe it to the guv and his "doctor". There is no hope of recovering the person. They're gone. It's just an animated corpse now. Dispatch them with extreme prejudice. I don't know why the group didn't tell Hershel that. It may have avoided the showdown in front of the barn. Of course, that would have been less interesting to watch than the showdown, so from an entertainment factor I see why that wasn't in the script.

[indent=1]I think they have some plastic dummy Marlin .22's at the safe factories. If they can cram 24 of those in, it's a 24 gun safe.[/indent]

Or tag teaming and getting the upper hand on the guv and his goons.

Chris Hardwick on The Talking Dead was funny. "I don't think Mr. Blue Jeans Jacket is going to last very long." or something like that. Then during the "In Memoriam" segment "Not Shane". Classic. I'm wondering why Andrea hasn't said anything about what she learned at the CDC. Obviously the Woodbury-ites are not privy to that information. She sees that they're trying various experiments to see if the Zs can be turned back to human and what else they can learn about them. I don't see how it could serve any purpose for her to keep that information to herself. Being able to cite the CDC would carry a lot of weight and could change the approach the "doctor" guy is taking with his experiments.

[quote name='TMF' timestamp='1354508901' post='854111'] Maggie put a tibia through a man's neck. Hotness. [/quote] Radius and ulna, but that's being pedantic.

I learned to shoot at SRHEC and am thankful for it being there and for the work put in by the volunteers. When it's busy (aka not 40F and raining) I stay out of the RSOs way as much as possible and overlook any "gruff" behavior I might notice. When it's slow (aka it [i]is[/i] 40F and raining) I have always found the RSOs to be nice and I like to shoot the bull with them. They gave me a few tips to change my stance or my grip that resulted in better shooting when I was a n00b.

Mark, I agree. I just meant that we are relying more and more on UAVs. It doesn't make much sense to have a floating city designed to support manned operations be used to supported those unmanned ones. We'll still have carriers, but [i]some[/i] of their mission could be accomplished by smaller ships launching UAVs. Instead of needing 2 carriers in an area, perhaps 1 carrier with 1 UAV carrier could do it, or that same carrier supported by 2 - 5 UAV carriers could cover a much larger area. Instead of having to send one of the big boys to watch over a sem-troublesome spot, we could do it with a UAV mini-carrier. Five regular carriers might be a little low, but perhaps 7 or 8 is reasonable. I wish we could have 20 of them, but money is always a problem. If we can have the force projection we need using more numerous smaller ships, it's something to consider.

The carrier concept isn't but having them stocked full of manned aircraft may be. Carriers to launch drones/UAVs is where we're going. Each new generation of carrier becomes more automated requiring fewer crew. UAVs can be smaller than manned aircraft, allowing future generations to shrink in size. Instead of 10-15 carriers, I could see us with 5 or so of the traditional ones along with 10-15 or so about the size of the current amphib assault ships.

.22 FTW! I always shoot more .22 than anything else. It's cheap fun that doesn't leave you with a rash the next day.

probably makes gin too...

[quote name='midtennchip' timestamp='1354155701' post='852203'] Not sure what the standard is in Texas. [/quote] "He needed killin"

Knox County: http://library.municode.com/index.aspx?clientId=12815 A search for "firearms" in there turns up the parks ban, but that's all. I couldn't find Sevier Co.'s muni code. If the property is in a city's limits, it would fall under their ordinances. If the property is close to the city limits, ask yourself if it would someday be annexed into the city from the county.

[quote name='10-Ring' timestamp='1354122271' post='851964'] Tn does have a wonton waste law. [/quote] I was under the impression it only applied to WMA land. Is that incorrect? Not that I'm condoning it. What the OP described is sickening if it wasn't roadkill.

Some of the guides on Instructables do that kind of funny stuff. There's one where a guy builds a lunchbox out of an old 1980's Nintendo with the help of his trusty sidekick, Sasquatch. [url="http://www.instructables.com/id/Nintendo-Lunchbox/"]http://www.instructables.com/id/Nintendo-Lunchbox/[/url]

If you post up much in the classifieds it will probably increase your profile views. I always check a seller/buyer's profile to see how long they have been a member. I suspect others do the same. I generally trt to avoid being a lead story on the 6:00 news.

Would it be a loophole if MPD is selling them to Steiner Liff who then shreds them? Metro PD isn't doing the detruction themselves and I assume they get money based on the weight of the metal just like anyone else taking stuff to Steiner-Liff.