Leaderboard

"Been watchin the drift of this thread RE: The causes of the "gang problem". I think most everyone has fixated on what the gangs do and has maybee overlooked what causes them to begin with. It aint suprizing to me that lots of younger folks may not have thought of what i believe is the main problem for the "gang thing" because its been goin on so long. In my view, the gang problem is far more due to the "Matrarical society" in the poor community (....read that absentee dads; one parent family, if a family at all....). The fact is that when the great LBJ declared "War on Poverty"; he inadverdantly declared war on poor workin men. In the early 1900's (....about 1908, i think....); ninety six percent of black families had both parents at home; and they were republicans by the way (...no extra charge for that....) because of the high regard for that greatest republican of 'em all, Abraham Lincon. Today, the out of wedlock figure in the black community is about 80% or so; with the white community not far behind. When ya tell poor women they dont need men and give them money for it ALA the welfare state you get what ya get. This has goin on since the early sixties. Regardless of what any "expert" says; kids (...especially boys...) need a father figure. If there aint one at home; they will find one on the street. VIOLA!!!: The gang thing starts. They need money, they dont know (...or maybee dont care....) about honest work; VIOLA!!! Crime. Someone tries to call them down or invade their turf. The shootin begins. The gang problem used to be "across the track" so no one cared (....except those livin "across the track"....). When you have the legal enterprise that coddles these kids, the "community organizers" who run local government in Chattanooga and other places as well, and the ratty economy we have; the "across the track" thing spreads out. Its spreading in Knoxville and Chattanooga. I'm sure its spreading other places as well. leroy

Money you don't need to spend. It's already awesome.

They want to ban lead bullets because they "poison our wildlife". Seriously? I'm pretty sure that critter is going to die due to that lead bullet piercing it's skull before it dies of "lead poisoning".

Yeah I'm always a bit confused about the gun cleaning accidents. how does one clean a gun with a bullet in the chamber? seems it needs to be out to slide a rod or rope through the gun.

I'm not sure why there is such an uproar over this. He was exercising his 2nd Amendment right and last time I checked, that includes RPGs. If people don't exercise their right to open carry, things will never change. So you think that OC of an RPG would make you a target? Someone show me a single verifiable incident where a law abiding person open carrying an RPG was targeted by a criminal. That's right; you can't. Just look at the military. They don't conceal their rocket launchers. That should tell you something. If the cops had approached me, I would have told them I know my rights, refused a search, and refused to make any other statement without an attorney. I can't believe all you anti open carry folks. You're just as bad as the sheeple out there. Geeze...

The "Terrorist" look like Bluto in a Bridesmaids dress!

i dont shoot very good any more cause i cant see too good so i keep an m16 handy for home protection

Outstanding!! I love to hear of intelligent people making smart decisions.

You would feel better then the guy you shot for sure.

I’m not over complicating or taking anything to the extreme, I’m not the one posting they want to make drugs legal, or why it’s a good idea. (I’m not laughing at you; I hope I’m laughing with you. This discussion has gone on years, and is really moot; no one is going to legalize drugs.) Your boss can do whatever he likes. But if you are injured at work in this state a positive drug test is a presumption that the drugs caused the injury. You have to prove that they didn’t. If you can’t prove that you may be denied benefits. If you go to the hospital with a work related injury; you are going to be drug tested. I have said nowhere in this post that you can’t legalize pot because of anything. Here is what I said about a piss test.... Can a boss fire you because you drink alcohol? Certainly he can. You live in an “Employment at will†state. Your boss doesn’t even have to give a reason if he fires you, unless he’s disputing your unemployment benefits. My own belief on this is that if you want to sit at home at night a burn a bowl that you bought with the money from the job you worked; that is your business. But that is not what is going to happen. Most people I know that have a job and take care of their family, and want to smoke pot do it anyway; so what’s the problem? Most of those types aren’t going to get busted by the cops. They may get burned on a drug screen and lose their jobs, but my point is that will probably happen even if drugs were to be legalized.

the question is, "If an armed concerned citizen had drawn on him would they have been arrested?" Probalby

The way I see that oft repeated argument: You are at a function and someone is serving up excrement sandwiches. They tell you that you have the choice between mustard or mayonnaise on your sandwich. Fifty other people in the room have already chosen mustard and an equal number have chosen mayonnaise. Each group has already gone to their respective corners to congratulate each other on making the 'right' choice and some members of each group are even going so far as to try to convince you that the crap they are eating is delicious because of their choice of condiment. Knowing it is a long shot but refusing to simply shut up and eat a crap sandwich, and having seen a pack of deli roast beef sitting on a nearby table you decide to say, "I'd like roast beef instead, please," at which point the mayonnaise crowd ridicules you for not stepping up and choosing mayonnaise while the mustard crowd is aghast that you didn't choose mustard. You figure, however, that the only thing you are really giving up is choice of condiment on a guano sandwich - which is a false choice, really - and if you are going to eat a guano sandwich, anyway, it doesn't really matter if it has mayonnaise or mustard. At that point, you might as well take your chances on getting roast beef if only so that you know, in your own mind, that you didn't just go along with either crowd and quietly (or even enthusiastically, in some cases) eat crap. Sure, it probably means being ostracized from both the mayonnaise and mustard crowds but who really wants to hang out with people who blithely line up to eat crapburgers in the first place? That is why I won't be voting for mayonnaise (Romney) or mustard (Obama.) I'll ask for roast beef. After all, if I am going to have to eat a crap sandwich, regardless, neither condiment is going to make the excrement go down any easier so it really doesn't matter to me if I end up with mayonnaise or mustard.

Hold it above the pot and torch it. It will melt where the torch is and they will drop into the pot. That is what I did when I had some huge lead bricks. Dolomite

Know what would stop car thieves? Public executions of car thieves. We would never need to take the keys out of the ignition again!

That's the mistake that everyone advocating "the lesser of two weevils" makes. They assume that every single vote for a third party candidate MUST come from their party. Wrong. Libertarians take a lot of philosophy from both the left and the right. They also discard much from both sides. Therefore a vote for a Libertarian candidate is pretty much equally as likely to pull from Democrats as Republicans. If anything it's a wash.

Lots to say here...starting with "the writer of the linked article probably should stick to photography". There's more misinformation/disinformation in that tome than we get from the White House in a week. How do I know? I was associated with the manufacture and testing of such products for several years in a former life. As far as the vaccine giving you an active case of influenza: aint gonna happen. The procedures utilized to inactivate the influenza virus particles and extract the lipopolysaccharides that make up the actual vaccine have been shown to have the capacity to kill approximately 48 log greater concentrations of virus than are used in manufacture (think 48 zeroes after a "1"). Greater safety margins can't be found anywhere. And the lots of monovalent antigen that result from that inactivation/extraction process are routinely tested for the presence of residual amounts of the chemicals (ie, formaldehyde, ether, etc) used: and the limits for detection of those chemicals is way, way below acceptable exposure levels to those agents (you have far greater exposure to formaldehyde from materials used to make your mattress than from a lifetime's worth of flu vaccinations). What some folks do experience is a heightened immunologic reaction to the vaccine antigens - can give them "flu-like" symptoms that are much milder than those of true influenza. And a hint about true influenza infection: its bad-ass. You feel like you've been hit by every car in a mile-long train. Respiratory symptoms aren't all that great in most - its the systemic phase of the disease that's evil. Joint aches, muscle pains in places you didnt now you had. Higher fever than with most respiratory illnesses, dry non-productive cough, headache that lasts for several days. This disease still kills around 25,000 Americans in an average year...and while pneumonia is indeed the primary fatal sequalae, a pneumonia vaccine is not likely to be effective, because that vaccine is only directed against one type of bacterial pneumonia (Strep pneumoniae), and that is often NOT the causative agent of a fatal pneumonia secondary to influenza. There are many other viral respiratory diseases that are prevalent at the same time of the year as influenzae in North America: parainfluenza, certain adenovirus strains, RSV, rhinovirus, etc. Depending on the exact strain, these may result in symptoms that somewhat mimic influenza, and likely account for a significant proportion of the accounts of illness patient associate with the influenza vaccine. There are no effective vaccines for these other viral agents: handwashing and good hygiene are your best protection. Effectiveness of the vaccine: as noted, the makeup of the vaccine is determined based upon worldwide monitoring of emergent and persistnt strains in populations known to be reasonable predictors of disease in North America (pacific rim in particular). Significant mismatch has not occurred in the past decade, as predictor models and techniques get better...but, we are fighting a living agent and that is always fraught with the possiblity of mutations, etc. That said, cessation of widespread vaccination would be disastrous: what many folks who dont take the vaccine dont realize is that they are the beneficiary of "herd immunity" - a phenomena occuring with infectious disesase prevention wherein widesprad prevention (ie, vaccination) programs prevent the epidemiologic infection rate from reaching a "critical mass" of the populace, and thus widespread transmission is avoided. If you are reasonably healthy and do not live in a confined area with numerous close contacts, such herd immunity may be quite efective. However, in institutions such as prisons, nursing homes, schools, etc, it is necessary to have a much higher vaccination rate in order to keep widespread infection from occurring. Lastly, everybody responds differently immunologically to the vaccine. About 80% of the population responds to the traditional vaccine forumlation (15 micrograms of hemagglutinin per strain represented) by developing protective immunity within 4 weeks or so of vaccination, and lasting about 3-4 months. If you are in poor health, are over 65, or have other health issues that typically depress antibody formation, you may not see sufficient immunity develop, or it may not last as long. No, I'm not a doctor...nor do I derive any financial gain from flu vaccinations. But I have seen this disease kill too many folks that might have been saved if others hadn't bought into misinformation and speculation to stand by and let it go unchallenged.

This is an example of a union working the way a union is supposed to work. The employees are contributing to the success of the business in a way they don't think is reflected in their compensation. The owners disagreed. They underestimated the value provided by the union workers. Once that became clear, changes were made to better reflect the value the employees are adding. Had the new refs done a good job, the league would have been proven right and the old refs would be out. With teachers unions, it's a more nuanced situation. It's not a profit making business so it's hard to say the teachers add unrecognized value to the bottom line and should get a bigger taste of the profits. The refs create a measurable product. Through tape reviews it can be made more or less known if they are making good or bad calls, helping or hindering the flow of the game, and watching out for player safety. The closest we have for measuring most teachers are tests like TCAP. That can be manipulated to reflect poorly on a teacher. You can do parent/student surveys but those are hardly objective. I'm not generally a fan of unions. They do have their place and can still be an effective tool for employee safety and quality of life. The big unions are rarely so magnanimous. There's simply too much pocket lining corruption in them. They generally seem to promote mediocrity. There are good workers in unions. But there are bad ones too.The nflpa does not discourage individual achievement like many unions do. Each player gets their own contracts and pay, but the contract has general rules that the nflpa has made the league include for things like continued medical care, safety, team workouts, etc. To the contrary, the NEA encourages mediocrity. Even bad teachers are hard to dismiss. Good and bad are paid the same. No nflpa member gets to do a poor job and keep his spot on the roster. Comparing the two unions just isn't a like-like setup. ETA: There are many many many good teachers in our schools who work hard despite there being no additional reward. They spend their own time and money on their classrooms to be better at their jobs. It's by their own personal desire to do a job and to do it well that some teachers do this. My point is that the NEA/TEA does nothing to encourage this behavior. Hardworking teachers get paid the same as the teacher who works to the clock. Some people take pride in their work while others don't. That's true in all professions. The NFLPA has found a way to bargain together for common/shared items while rewarding the dilligent and firing the rest. The NEA bargains together while failing to reward the diligent and protecting the rest. I don't begrudge teachers being unionized. Without some form of collective effort, it wouldn't take long before cash-strapped districts started increasing class sizes and extending school days while freezing or even cutting teacher pay. I think unionized teachers should bargain for those shared elements (fixed class size limits, fixed # of instructional days, fixed # of continuing education days, fixed # of hours in a school day, minimum salary, health benefits, etc.) and for a fair evaluation process. Then allow that evaluation process to reward good ones and fire bad ones.

And who says God doesn't watch out for fools and little children? Agreed, stupid and lucky they didn't get shot.

With all due respect to those who have suggested alternate forms of protection (oc spray), I really wasn't soliciting that type of information. OC spray, for the most part, is really only effective if you know before hand that you are about to be attacked. Where as a baton can be deployed effectively at any point during a confrontation as long as you can reach it. I already have baton training but cannot carry one in TN unless i take a training class to recieve certification per TN law. As to the issue of legal action that may be taken against me for the use of a baton in self defense, lets be serious there. Most of us carry a gun right? So we all are, or should, be conscious of the legal ramifications we all may face in deploying any type of force in protecting ourselves.

The aftec extractor is a cool part. I'm not sure I'm enough of a man to wear out the Ed brown extractor you put in my gun . Thanks again, BTW.

Edit* just saw the post above. I think he was referring to Freaknik which has now become the Black College Spring Break, which from 93-96 gained a very bad reputation among residents, due in large part to violence. But, anytime you have a giant party of 250K people, bad things are bound to happen.

lol hes doing 5 MPH on the interstate, darn stoned drivers!

Just remember that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.

The way I would fix the drug problem is cut the head off the snake. That means take out the biggest suppliers and cut the flow. However, these are so called “Non-Violent†offenders because they don’t get their hands dirty with the violence. Let them go? Letting out “Non-violent†offenders sounds like good idea, but think about it. Shoplifters are non-violent offenders. Are you going to say that shoplifters no longer go to jail? Can you imagine the repercussions of that? Any other crimes you would like to do away with jail time for? How about burglary? Burglary is a non-violent offense, unless of course someone catches them in the act and gets killed by the burglar. Non-payment of child support is a non-violent offense and our jails are loaded with them. Let them all go? How about white collar crimes and scams, almost all of it is non-violent. Do they get to go free also?

Just our of curiosity why do you want the front sight pinned? I know that is the most secure way but clamp on types are just as good if you use loctite. I actually prefer clamp on types that way you can center your rear sight then zero the gun with the front sight. Makes for a better looking setup when the rear sight is centered rather than cocked to one side. I have also drilled and tapped the bottom of a standard front sight and installed setscrews. Once tight they will not move. One hole is already there and all you need to do is drill a hole in the bayonet lug then tap it. If you do go to a smith to have the front sight pinned make sure they have the jig. It is impossible to square and drill the front sight without it. I have seen a number of barrels ruined by people who tried to do it without the jig. Dolomite

I had always read that too, but knew that it was not the case. Heck Bill Wilson built his career/company on his reputation of building tight and utterly reliable guns for IPSC in the 80's. (When he was building guns that is) I started to do some research on the subject as far as the mil-spec guns and wrote this for our 1911 social group forum. http://www.tngunowners.com/forums/topic/50777-“jmb-designed-the-1911-to-be-loosesloppy-so-it-was-reliable/#entry792278 The truth as I see it: A "loose" gun can be accurate and reliable or inaccurate and un reliable.....depending A "tight" gun can be accurate and reliable or inaccurate and un reliable........depending

My father was a staunch Republican all the way up until the day he died. Now...he votes Democrat.

Atlanta is a good town. Stay in good areas, like any city and you'll be fine. Get some Varsity chili dogs while you're there. Get your kid a frosted orange. Have fun.

I'm hoping not, but if that plays out there should be a collective facepalm with the repooblicants. Obama, I believe, will turn out to be the most destructive President in modern history. Losing to him should make alarm bells ring loud in that party, to the tune of being out of touch and not respecting those that cast ballots in the best interest of the US.

Wilderness 5 stitch instructor belt is nice, but it's still not as good as a Beltman leather belt, horsehide for mine.

Leagalizing drugs is a mantra of many but as to evidence that it would actually reduce crime or have any positive results at all is dubious to non-existant. Crime and gangs existed before we had any drug laws in this country and crime and gangs would exist if all drug laws were suddenly eliminated...it might reduce crime or some types of crime some but most crime really flows out of a person's general depravity, lack of compassion and lack of moral fiber - those shortcomings don't get fixed just because somehing that was illegal is made legal.