monkeylizard

[quote name='FIST' timestamp='1354930118' post='856706'] The reason your allowed to buy in a state your stationed in is becuase you are there due to military service and therefore not punished for it. [/quote] That's pretty much why I figured the lawmakers put that in the definitions. Otherwise AD would get hosed. It just seems odd that they didn't say active duty are residents of both their duty station AND their permanent home of residence.

No, you're correct about loaning. I didn't mean to confuse the issue. scoutfsu, I have no doubt that happens a lot, and why wouldn't it? If the federal law says you use your duty station, LGSs around any post/base/etc would know that and accept a military ID. Then you go home and have your HOR drivers license and permanent address, so why wouldn't the local LGS there sell to you too? Nothing would give an LGS in either location a reason not to do the sale. From reading the 921 definitions though it seems like once you're active duty your HOR state no longer matters and it's all based on the state of your duty station. I suppose it could get even more confused if you reside in a different state than your duty station which is also different that your HOR. Scott AFB for example is in Illinois but pretty close to St. Louis. You could be a TN resident stationed in IL and living in MO. Then there's Ft. Campbell which is in both TN and KY, so which one is your duty station?

If anyone looked at the bathroom here at work they'd think the second picture should be a grenade, not a shotgun. Whoever you are, stand closer. You're not as blessed as you think you are.

[quote name='scoutfsu' timestamp='1354895978' post='856454'] You are also a resident of your state HOR. [/quote] For pretty much all other purposes, I'd agree. But that's not how the definition in sec. 921 reads. It's pretty specific that for the purposes of the chapter (Chapter 44 - Firearms) active duty residence is the PDS state. It makes no mention that I saw for being a dual citizen of sorts. It makes sense. In these rare cases like Robert's, it hurts the active duty person. But without that definition, the man in MO wouldn't be able to buy a handgun at the local gun store or PX. He'd have to come home to TN to do that then carry it back. That's not so bad when it's MO and TN, but would suck if you're from Florida and stationed in Alaska or Hawaii. It reads to me like the lawmakers were trying to help service members out by making their state of residence for firearms purposes equal to their assigned base/post/station/port/camp/craphole so they didn't have to keep changing official residency after every PCS to not run afoul of these laws. Like most well intentioned laws it has unintended side effects. Any lawyers on here know different about dual-state-residency for active duty in regards to federal firearms laws?

[quote name='SonnyCrockett' timestamp='1354882493' post='856352'] We are now a global manufacture thanks to things lie NAFTA and other silly deals [/quote] Only partly. We're a global manufacturer and global economy because communication and transportation are now fast cheap and easy and economies with lower waged workers are building stable infrastructures. It has always been cheaper to build things in Mexico and China. A rural Chinese worker may build a tractor for $0.12 a day, there wasn't any electricty to power a factory, roads/rail/ports/ships to carry the finished tractor to market, and no communication lines to track progress, submit orders, etc. His low wage didn't matter. Now we have communications and transportation and infrastructure allowing manufacturing to move to locations where workers have lower wage demands (lots of various reasons for that and room for a whole board of discussions on the topic). Tariffs are simple ways for a nation to protect an industry from international competition by artificially inflating the cost of certain imported goods. NAFTA and other free trade agreements remove the tariffs making the imported goods reflect their actual cost, which is often lower than domestic production. The flip side is that our exports to member nations likewise don't get artificially inflated in their markets. Certain industries benefit from it and others suffer. Any given FTA is going to benefit some mebers more than others. I think NAFTA hurt us more than it helped, but it didn't make us into a global manuifacturing economy.

[quote name='TheBisch' timestamp='1354888043' post='856380'] Besides, what's wrong with having only 20 Mosins? [/quote] Fixed it for ya

[quote name='Hozzie' timestamp='1354886487' post='856371'] If he has a TN DL then he is a resident of TN. If he is giving it to him while he is in TN, then no issue at all I wouldn't think as long as he is stationed there for the Service. [/quote] Maybe, and maybe not. [url="http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/921"]http://www.law.corne...ode/text/18/921[/url] This is the definitions section preceding the section 922 that OS linked to about loaning. it says [b](b ) For the purposes of this chapter, a member of the Armed Forces on active duty is a resident of the State in which his permanent duty station is located. [/b]

That depends on if you need a good art forger or a good iron forger.

If I ever start an alternative rock band I'm calling it "Boning Leather".

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.