mav

I don't know much about a north/south divide.  The problem we are facing is much deeper than that.  The problem is that the vast majority our citizens have their lives subsidized by an overly large federal government.  They are subsidized either directly through entitlements, or indirectly because their employer/industry relies heavily on government contracts.    If the federal government worked solely within the confines of the constitution and their enumerated powers, you would have a massive amount of people would be unemployed.  How large is the defense/military industrial complex?  How many federal employees would be out of work because they work in an unnecessary government department?  How many people are in the legal profession because of how many stupid laws we have in this country?  How many other businesses exist because the majority of their sales rely on government contracts?  Heck, look at the new shows, political talk radio, and politico-celebrity talking heads who make millions writing political books and having their face on tv.  If the government was smaller and doing only what it is supposed to be doing (including minding it's own business in foreign affairs), they would be out of a job.   There are just too many people that are dependent on a large federal government, and they would resist any change that would shrink it significantly.  Therefore, we are well past the point of no return.  It is just a matter of time when entire system crashes.

  Dave, all of us want more manufacturing jobs back home.  I would love to have  a TV, computer, etc... that was entirely made in the US. If S&W is taking back market share they lost, that is great.  However, I think on this particular case you are reaching.  You are questioning whether Glock falsely stamped their guns "Made in USA" over possible future LE and military contracts.  Come on man.  Do you not think the government has the ability to know whether the Glocks in question were indeed manufactured here?   If what you are speculating is true, it may force Glock to rethink their business model if they want to remain competitive in that particular segment.  Perhaps doing something like expanding the Georgia facilities to be the sole manufacturer for products used in North America. 

  It is an assumption.  I have no direct knowledge, meaning I have seen the equipment, that they are made here.  My question would be, why on Earth would they bother stamping something "Made in USA" if it was not?  A Glock is a Glock and it will sell regardless what is stamped on it.

I have had numerous hours of private lessons on handgun.  I have taken 3 or 4 Suarez rifle and handgun classes under CruelHandLuke (Randy Harris).  I took a break from shooting last year to focus on other things, but I plan on getting back into it this year.   The class I would like to take most is a rifle marksmanship class.  I would love to be taught how to be incredibly accurate with a rifle including long range distances.

Yes, some Glock are made here, not just assembled.  The frame will be stamped "Made in USA" instead of "Made in Austria."  The slide will be stamped "USA" instead of "Austria."  The barrel will be stamped "US" instead of "AT."  As far as internals go, I have no idea.    All my Glocks were made in Austria, which is fine by me.  Not all great things are made in the US, and Glock is a great gun.  Watches would be another example.  Unless you got an older watch or a Kobold, which most people can't afford, chances are it ain't made here.

  http://www.nraila.org/legislation/federal-legislation/2013/1/feinstein's-new-gun-ban-bill-likely-to-be-introduced-january-22.aspx     I figured they would know more than me.

Last I heard it was supposed to be on the 22nd of this month.

  Yeah, I never wear t-shirts.  When I go to the gym I am usually wearing an UA compression shirt.  The nice thing about polos is that you can wear them anywhere, and the logo, whatever it may be, is subtle.   Anyway, I am done crapping all over David's thread.  I am glad he posted it though because I need some new winter shirts.  I am shopping for some rugby shirts and will take them to a local seamstress to see if they can embroider the Gadsen flag, Molon Labe, etc... on them for me.   (edit) - I like the last one as well.

I hope your hiding is not in reference to my post.  There are numerous people, me included, that wouldn't mind paying $50-60 or more, depending on the quality, for a golf shirt that had either the logo in the OP or the TGO logo on the shirt.

Thanks, and same to you.

They are very nice. Just out of curiousity, have you ever thought about doing a polo or knit shirt with a logo? Example: I know they would be a lot more expensive, but not everyone is a t-shirt guy. Not making a request, just asking.

The thing that really rubs me the wrong way is people's belief that they are just taking money from the government.  They are not.  They are trying to extort money from the taxpayers of the state of Connecticut.  What is even worse is that some of those taxpayers lost a child in this shooting.  Pathetic.

  I am certain I was put on some sort of list a long time ago. :tinfoil:

Great article.  Thanks for posting.  I won't mention names, but there are definitely some on here who should read it.

  Yes, I am using this as nothing more than a theoretical exercise.  There are some that believe there is never any justification to use force of arms to reinstitute a new form of government.  Some also believe that the SCOTUS is the final arbiter of what is and what is not constitutional.  They are wrong on both counts.   On the latter, it is the states who are supposed to be the final arbiters on what is constitutional.  I cannot find any mentioning of judicial review granted to the supreme court in Article III.  If there were, that would mean that the federal government, which the states created, could make up their own rules at the expense of the states and people.    On the former, there is indeed a time when taking up arms is certainly justifiable.  Granted, there are some who want to do it if their taxes are increased.  I am pretty moderate when it comes to talk of armed resistance.  I view it only as the last resort of a free people wanting to ensure their freedoms.  I guess in some people's eyes, that makes me un-American.  Oh well, there is nothing I can do about that.

  Sir, that is well said.   The biggest problem I had with some of the earlier arguments is that armed resistance is not a legitimate course of action, and those that engage in such are nothing more than terrorists.  I think that is a pant load, and shows a severe lack of understanding of the founding of this country.   That said, I in no way advocate the use of violence against the government.   As I stated earlier, I do not believe we are nowhere near to that point.  I did mention that gun (meaning all guns) confiscation would certainly be a justifiable reason in engage in such action.  Yes, there are politicians that would like to do that very thing, Bloomberg for example.  Disarming the populace is denying individuals the right to defend themselves which I believe is paramount in the principles of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.    I do not see this happening, so I am not really concerned about it.  However, if it did happen, the use of armed resistance is certainly legitimate and a justifiable course of action. 

I'm not too worried about it anymore.  I just don't see it happening in this congress.  I see absolutely no way that it makes it through the house.  When the first bill was introduced in 94, it barely made it through and that was with Democrats having a very strong majority of everything.   I think the biggest item for this legislative session will be immigration.  I believe the prez and Democrats will do everything they can to pass a comprehensive immigration bill (a.k.a. amnesty) to ensure that in 2014 they can regain the house and increase their majority in the senate.  If that happens, then I will get worried.  My only hope is that house Republicans won't be so stupid (even though I know they will be) that they try to pander to the pro-illegal immigrant crowd in the hopes of gaining their vote.  It ain't gonna happen; they will not get their votes.   By the way, organized armed resistance does not equal terrorists.  Only by a lack of understanding the true intent of the 2nd would someone make that statement.  Free people have the right to defend themselves, by force of arms if necessary. This includes an individual defending themselves against a government that has overstepped it constitutional limitations.  However, the only type of scenario that I can think of in which that type of action would be justified by would a complete disregard of the 2nd in conjunction with gun confiscation.   Anyway, as Mike stated, we aren't even remotely close to a situation in which that type of rhetoric should be discussed.  I am more concerned about the fiscal stability of the country than I am of being disarmed.

Yeah AR, I am in agreement.  I was frantic initially, but the more I think about it, I don't think a ban is going to happen.  I don't see how it could possibly make it through the congress.  If by some chance I am wrong, the voters could always try to push their state legislators to nullify any such law or executive order.

I thought it was a great speech.  I even liked the very small mentioning of pop culture degrading society because I believe it is true.  The only problem is that is what people want, and since we have the 1st, there is nothing that can be nor should be, at least by government, done about it. 

I forgot to mention this.  In bubble markets I think the auction is best approach.  Utilizing the auction, you are not gouging.  You have offered a product for sale and are allowing the current market to dictate what your item is worth.  I don't use auctions, nor do I really sell much stuff, but that is what I think about it.

People may not like it, but they won't argue about it too much because it is capitalism.  It is your stuff, do with it what you wish.

  That is correct Robert, and that is what I was inferring.

  Not to be argumentative, but I often hear phrases like that being espoused and I sometimes think it is a little odd.  In this case it seems to me that if one is a taxpayer and they paid for those roads that it would their right to use them, not a privilege.   As far as the OP goes, seems a little far-fetched to me.  I didn't know officers had the equipment nor the know-how to draw blood samples.  I did get a kick out of the article when it said you would be asked for your papers. Papiere, bitte! ;)  I don't have any papers, just my dl, hcp, and insurance card.

Yawn.  We all knew this was coming, and he will be confirmed without a doubt.

Go with a Glock 19.  I just bought my third Glock this past Saturday at Shooter's Depot, which is local for you.  When I purchased mine, they had four in house.   I am not a Glock fanboy, but they make great handguns.  The reason I chose a G19 over similar products is the availability of aftermarket parts and the ease of customizing.  Normally, I complain about the ergonomics of Glocks, but for some reason or another the G19 fits my hand just right.