Leaderboard

  Ask Maggart how that worked for her.  There are absolutely enough of us to put up the money to beat Manchin, we may not get them all, but we can get any one of them, if we get riled up and put our money and our time into the game.   Talking with Sheriff Guy Buck last night, he said if the Feds or the State require registration or confiscation, he will simply deputize the entire adult population of his county. There are not enough of "them" to beat all of us into submission if we stand together.

Usually, congresscritters ignore folks that are not in their district.  I like to spice things up by showing them the error of their ways.   "Senator Manchin, I am in Tennessee, but what you are proposing affects everyone in the country.  So, here's the deal:  If you accept ANY infringement in the Right of the People to keep and Bear arms (including magazine limits, ammo limits, background checks, etc), then I will donate $20 to your opponent in your next Primary.  I know that you believe that you are 'safe' since that won't be until 2018.  But firearms owners have long memories.  And I promise that I will do all I can to ensure that this will not be forgotten.   If you are looking for a way to 'compromise' on the gun issue, consider re-reading the Oath you swore last month to "...support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same..".  The operative part of the Second Amendment is very simple.  "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".  How can you say that restrictions on private citizens are not an infringement?  I submit that ALL Federal Gun Control are infringements.  So, a good compromise would be to repeal the 1994 Brady Act as well as the 1986 Hughes Amendment to the FOPA, instead of the 1968 GCA and 1934 NFA as well.   Sincerely, me"   They really hate that part of "I will donate $20 to your opponent in your next Primary".  But be prepared to follow-up on it.  Otherwise it's meaningless.  As someone from out-of-state, that's about all you can do.

Unfortunately, he hasn't attempted to stab the right person, yet.

http://soldiersystems.net/2013/02/08/larue-tactical-issues-new-sales-policy-for-state-and-local-agencies/       I wish others in the firearms industry would follow suit.  While their statement is couched in not wanting to run afoul of the law, it seems like they're taking a stand.  What's good for the goose is good for the gander!

No more compromises! Firearms enthusaists know what compromise means when it comes to the 2A.  It means we get SCREWED!!! I'm tired of being screwed over by my representatives in Washington.  If ANY of my representatives in either house votes for this, I will do everything in my power to make sure they get sent home the next election!  I don't care who their opponent is!!!

Hard Questions for Anti-Gun Freak Family and Friends Read more: http://clashdaily.com/2013/02/hard-questions-for-anti-gun-freak-family-and-friends/#ixzz2KPvoWrTf 

By the way, have you ever noticed where these polls are conducted? Never do you hear of them happening in the south or real rural areas. And only using a 1000 or 2000 people. As a teacher this is what we call a biased sample and misleading graphs. Go to people who have the most guns and use them, then see what the polls say!

We all need to contact them and thank them for doing this!!!! This is awesome!!!

As of 2008, there were 765,000 sworn Law Enforcement officers (Federal, State, Local) in the US.  Figure that departments buy more guns than one per officer, so 900,000 is probably not too far off the mark.  And figure an average replacement cycle of every three years (very liberal, but why not?).  That's only 300,000 handguns per year as a market for LE. ATF says that there were almost 2.6 million handguns made by licensed manufacturers in the US, with 120,000 of those being exported.  Military contracts for Beretta, Sig, and Colt pistols only amount to about 40,000 pistols per year.   So, over 2.1 MILLION handguns are sold to civilians every year, versus less than 400,000 for Military/LE.   Smith&Wesson went bankrupt after getting civilian gun owners pi$$ed-off in 2000 by making a stupid deal with Clinton.  If you don't think that other manufacturers noticed, you would be wrong.  And Smith&Wesson in particular, has been VERY vocal about not supporting gun control!

  History has shown time and time again that a lightly armed (rifles count) and determined population that refuses to submit is all but impossible to defeat. 

If more did you'd see a whole lotta SWAT guys with boo boo lip. The whole state of California would have to use neutered guns for their LEOs.

  What you must understand is gun owners have nothing to gain in the never ending game of "compromise". We will lose every time.   Giving up one thing for the sake of another is not good.  Eventually you will have nothing.   The way this country works now is just about anyone can make some kind of complaint and somebody else has to give something up to shut them up.  That is not right.

From your post we have no idea why the Officers stopped your friend, but yes, they can disarm him and there isn’t anything that stops them from running the numbers. They don’t need probable cause to stop him, only reasonable suspicion. You are asking “Can they do that?” To have any kind of intelligent discussion about that we would have to know the exact circumstances of the stop. If they told him that he couldn’t have a round in the chamber; they were wrong. I don’t want stopped by the cops for anything. Since carrying a gun in Tennessee is a crime unless you are part of our special group; I don’t open carry to gain their attention.

$39.95 & eligible for FREE Super Saver Shipping at Amazon.   http://www.amazon.com/dp/B004YLC5JA/ref=as_li_ss_til?tag=fbhf0912-20&camp=0&creative=0&linkCode=as4&creativeASIN=B004YLC5JA&adid=17C6XYM0XNWKRYSCYW5K

It was Hornady 165gr BTSP Interlock.

No, I said I will inform the officer of my intentions to chamber a round, leaving him two choices: call in for legal advice or arrest me. You can go back and read it. It's still there just like I left it. And no, a LEO can not dictate to you what the law is if there is in fact no law he is referencing. Maybe the officer could tell me not to chamber a round in his presence due to officer safety or some crap, but if he is saying I can't do something because it is against the law when it is not I will defy that officer and inform him of my intentions to defy him, thus forcing his hand. I've done it before in Myrtle Beach when I was younger. A cop threatened to take me to jail over no violation of the law; just throwing his weight around and didnt like it when I said "no". I turned around, put my hands behind my back and told him to go ahead and arrest me. In the end he did not. Lucky for him there was an adult officer nearby who intervened. I have the utmost respect for good LEOs, but I have ZERO tolerance for a bully or dumbass with a badge.

Came across this clip and thought I'd share. http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=ncdXfUAkMUI

The lower's ears are not in spec. They are larger than a standard lower. I have a free float tube that uses the same setup and mine is fine. If you compare the ears to another lower the problem will be obvious. Not sure you will be able to clearance enough to pivot like normal. You might get it just enough to get the BCG out. Dolomite

I hadn't thought about the combo guns. I was just trying to see if people would rather have. I originally thought about a 22 rifle because you could kill small game farther out and still have a large caliber for 50-75 yard shots on medium game. At close ranges and proper placement the 22 rifle could be used on medium deer sized animals. This is not hunting but SHTF survival mode. I see that most people would go with the opposite though. I was also looking at how much more 22 I could carry if the time period got too long.

Hunt on overcast days.  Squirrels (and other animals) see shadows, fear they might be owls, hawks, etc and their survival instinct causes them to hide.

There is NO COMPROMISE on the Constitution nor any of the amendments. If you accept a compromise on the 2nd, then be prepared to compromise the 1st, 4th, 22nd, etc. We are not debating some lame law here, and it really doesn't matter what the polls or the majority of the population thinks. It's not up for negotiation... well, it shouldn't be. I write/call my reps all the time, and my vote for them rests on this issue.

If that old bitch runs and wins the Presidential election I am going to turn in my woman card.

Haven't you heard Baltimore is going bankrupt, and the ravens are fleeing!  They are being quiet trying to find a new home.

I took their statement differently...smartass, giving the finger while maintaining the angelic halo around his head. I loved it.

I am sort of surprised by the reactions here, the guy was a law-abiding citizen, in possession of a legal firearm, at a public rally to express concerns over the continual infringement of "shall not be infringed" & he was arrested, his lawfully owned firearm confiscated by authorities & pro 2nd folks are calling him stupid, retarded, etc? Remember, it doesn't just say "the right to keep" it also specifically states we have the right to "bear arms". It's no mystery why we are loosing the 2nd, the simple fact that we cower from any confrontation when it is infringed upon, blindly obeying any legislation that is passed & mocking anyone who would dare excersize their Constitutional rights as our founding Fathers intended.

It's so nice to be loved.

  Enthusiasm is good, but it ain't the whole game. Besides, it's kinda hard to do as much damage to the Democrats as they're doing to themselves right now.

  It's kinda laughable, 'cause gun owners in general, can't organize a decent pub crawl. But, most elections are won/lost by pretty small margins. Pissing off 10% of the voters is usually more than enough to do you in.   When is sooner or later? An AWB passed in .94, and isn't going to pass this time. Gun ownership is growing. I agree that liberalism is being pumped to our kids, but also realize that those ideals are going to have to prove themselves. They won't.    I'm not saying there won't be an all-out ban someday. Just saying that once they pass a universal background check law, it will prove itself to be as useless as the other gun control laws. We KNOW the goverrnment won't enforce it. It's what they do. Besides, the thug hatcheries aren't getting any smaller either.   Now, I'm going to the range with my cat lady friends. They have a new (to them) G19, and need to know how to shoot it. I'm gonna do what I can to keep the culture alive.

There are many laws I don't expect LE to know. Laws concerning the carrying of firearms is definitely one they should know. That is skill level one type stuff. Any law enforcement officer that does not know the handgun carry laws is derelict in his duties. It isn't as if there is a secret crypt where this information is hidden. When I applied for my permit I found the rules in the TCA and educated myself. A law enforcement officer should be doing the same if he intends to enforce laws pertaining to that. Simply making an "on the spot" law that doesn't exist is a Barney Fief moment, and shows what an unprofessional mouth breather that cop is. If an officer is confused about a law he is free to educate himself at any time (and should since he is supposed to be enforcing the damn law) or he can get on the radio and call an adult to ask what the laws are. There is no room for debate here. You can't enforce laws that don't exist. Saying that there are too many laws for police to know them all I can agree with, but that means they shouldn't be ENFORCING laws that don't exist in the first place. That is the dumbest set of reasoning I've heard in a while. Who the f@$k is talking about conspiracy theories? Are we on the same topic here? And when did I say I would use force? Are you just making assumptions or something? I was talking about two dimwit cops that needed to be corrected on what the laws are. And I'm not kidding when I say this, if a cop said that it is against the law to chamber a round I will absolutely tell him that it is not and that I intend to chamber a round as soon as we are done talking. He will have only two options and that is to either educate himself and eat crow, or arrest me and eat some very serious crow. Either way, you are wrong. Police don't make the laws, so they can not dictate to me new laws or make-believe laws. That is why we have people we elect.... you know, at polls and stuff. What makes them special??? Are you friggin for real man? Their job is to enforce the law! I expect them to have a better understanding of it than "regular folks". For crying out loud you must live in bizarro world. I don't expect to walk into a Subway and explain to the guy behind the counter how to make a turkey club. I don't expect to explain to my doctor how to properly treat or diagnose an illness. I don't expect to have an encounter with a cop and have to explain to him what the laws are.

Add in the huge number of rounds fired from aircraft, both fixed-wing and helicopters, and that goes a long way towards explaining that ratio.   Another factor folks don't think about is that a civilian in their home defending against a home invasion will rarely have reloads on their person.  so, what they have in the firearm, is probably all they will have usable for defense.  As stated above, three attackers will most likely require AT LEAST twelve rounds and leave the defender with an empty gun. With multiple targets, hit ratio declines as the defender is changing targets while shooting.  So my advice would be that three attackers will need more than 16rds, unless the defender is very good or lucky. Most people in a gun fight continue to shoot until all attackers are down or gone, or they run out of ammo.  That applies to civilians AND police.  And LE feels that officers need at least three 15-17rd magazines.  Why are civilians less valuable than LE?

Don't shoot all your 5.56/223 - save enough for the first battle.  After that we'll have captured ammo to shoot.

But you CAN buy suppressors designed for air rifles without a tax stamp.  If you put them on a firearm, it's illegal.  But to further complicate the issue, BATF says that if you CAN put them on a firearm, they require the $200 tax stamp.  People have gone to jail for buying an airgun suppressor without paying that $200 tax.  Even though there is no law saying that it required for an airgun.   No, it's not right or fair.  If you expect the law and/or government to be fair, prepare yourself for a lot of disappointment in life.   http://www.pyramydair.com/article/Airgun_silencers_What_s_the_big_deal_August_2006/32

Stop Dave. You're depressing me.

The wife and I will be there today.

In the photo is looks like the shots were through the back of the women's pickup. And based on where and the shear numbers those women are VERY lucky to be alive.   Dolomite

I have never been asked by anyone. As far as I know, no one has ever noticed, and I prefer it to stay that way.

Either way, the responsible parties need to be accountable. This is absolutely unacceptable.

Another couple Senators are saying that they may "compromise". Making a deal with a snake like Chuck Schumer is like making a deal with the devil. He is a sniveling little weasel. I will say this, if EITHER of our Tennessee Senators sign on to any "compromise" that retricts our right to bear arms they will lose my vote. And I will go out of my way to tell EVERYONE not to vote for them. Compromise is not an option, we have "compromised" enough.

Just for the record, I have liability insurance. That is for me, not for someone else. Now, if someone does something grossly negligent that results in the severe injury or death of myself or a loved one, I do believe I am entitled to compensation from that person. If they happen not to have liability insurance then I will take it out of their bottom line. If they don't have a pot to piss in and I'm squeezing a rock, then oh well. That's life and sometimes things happen that you can't do anything about. If I found myself in that situation I would be pissed at the individual responsible, but the last thing I would think of would be having the government require all of its citizens to carry insurance (in the form of a tax, that's what it would be) in order to exercise a right. Besides, where is the assumption coming from that owning a gun means I intend to use it on another human being? I have lots of guns that will probably never be fired again as long as I own them, on the range or otherwise. My FIL owns one rifle which is locked in basement storage, which he doesn't even have ammo for. Once again, you're projecting your own beliefs and values on to others.

  For the same reason I don't consent to a cop searching through my sock drawer. Because I don't have to and he/she has no good reason to.

My AR15 has a NOS sticker on it. Between that, the astroglide and my 3 wolf moon t-shirt.. i don't see how I could get any more BA.   just sayin....

Most modern guns barely need any oil anyway. Regardless I oil my gun about twice a year whether it needs it or not.

I work every other weekend. But if I'm not scheduled for work, I would definitely be interested in attending.   I already know BrasilNuts..but that wouldn't stop me from going. :pleased:

being seen carrying a gun is cause for stopping someone.  It is illegal to carry in TN.

2 seconds between mags ain't gonna save that many lives....if a demented person decides to practice a week or two before entering the Gun Free Zone of his liking that is. Actually, in the Aurora and Oregon shooting the big mags jammed and proved to be a curse to the shooters and a blessing to the victims. Probably saved more lives than 10 round mags would have.

  He won't neuter mine. I have a BIG pile o' mags :)

    I'm waiting for all the cute young women to realize I am available in limited supply and hard to find at walmart

  I think that the demagnetization approach is the best.  We didn't pay to import them, so we shouldn't have to pay to export them.  Cut off all forms of benefit to them, no jobs, no welfare, no social security, no health care and then they will self-deport.  They walked here, they can walk home.   Many have no intention of becoming Americans.  They work and send the money they make back to Mexico.  Many Super Mercado's off FREE money orders.  Why do you think that is?  I wonder which govt. is subsidizing that, U.S. or Mexico?  Maybe both.

I leave my wife with a G19.  She still has a hard time racking the slide, as she does it the way a girly girl would, so I leave a round chambered.  It is as simple as point and click if she needs to use it.  I figure if she can't solve it in 16 rounds it won't be solved.  I don't see her having to do a combat mag change in a gunfight if she has 16 friggin rounds.  She'll either hit something or make a whole lotta noise.  Either way, you aren't going to find many people who will continue their attack if they are shot or being shot at, just so they can rape or steal.    I always see a lot of people suggest revolvers for women because there isn't a slide to rack or whatever.  It doesn't pass the common sense test for me.  Their revolver will likely only hold 5 rounds.  If they expend them do you think the average woman is going to handle a speed reload on a .38 while someone is trying to kill them?  Not likely.  Why not just give them a firearm with 3 times the capacity so they don't have to screw around with slides and whatnot.   Oh, and before someone chimes in with something about their ability to clear a malfunction let me add this: I own a Glock.  I've put 2k rounds through it of every type of ammo I can think of.  My HD ammo is the good stuff.  I'm confident enough that she won't have a malfunction with it if she has to use it.  If you are that concerned about your spouse clearing a malfunction on a semi auto pistol, then you own the wrong pistol for home defense.  Get a Glock.