Warbird

Well, of course. But the charge would be the first hassle regardless of the outcome. We all know a grand jury will give a prosecutor nearly any charge he seeks. It is not always, but nearly always so. Then to be tried and wieghed by that jury. My point is that initially the prosecutor, and we know how anti-gun and charge happy some of them are, would decide he thinks you had to know you sold guns to somebody who had bad intentions in mind. It is already illegal to receive a weapon with the intention of selling to another who they know cannot buy one on their own, usually due to a criminal past.

Scary definition. Who is to be the arbiter of "knowing or reasonable cause to believe"? Any little old prosecutor, anywhere. If they believe this definition to be true, then shouldn't they currently be calling for more hearings into the ATF and Justice Department's current scandal? They seem to fit that exactly.

I suspect he will have many organizations out there lining up on his side, The Federalists Society being just one. The ramifications of that case could be enormous. I wish him well in his endeavor.

You are incorrect with that statement. They are still affiliated with the NRA. That said state based groups and a national group do not always see eye to eye on everything either. Kansas State rifle association in 08 endorsed a republican candidate in a primary, when the NRA would not. There are many instances of this. That's jut the way it works. Yeah the NRA is worthless and hasn't done anything for your gun rights in Tennessee or anyplace else. Yeah the NRA had nothing to do with all of the other previous court victories. Just because they do not get involved with something you think they should does not justify calling them worthless. My guess based on reading a lot of your posts is that you love to sit on the side and criticize, yet you never enter yourself in the arena. You like to armchair quarterback. Then again as you say that is your opinion. The NRA like any other group has its negatives, I know them all too well. Better I wager than anyone you personally know. But calling them worthless is an absurdity.

I don't think Bachman is anything less than very bright. She understands very complex fiscal issues and she made her living as a tax law attorney. What she lacks is understanding in, is that the national stage is very different than the congressional district stage. She isn't only talking to Iowans or Minnesotans. It truly is something most people running for national office run into and some handle it better than others. This is her first foray into the pit of terror. It is a great example also of why so few times in history congressmen have had any luck in getting a presidential nomination. She also has a very loyal dedicated staff of of people. However, most of them have never played on the national stage either. They will get better at it as will other candidates and staffs. Bush had an exemplary staff of seasoned people, but he was different. The Clinton folks made huge gaffes along the way, but by the election were quite seasoned and very good at looking ahead before speaking or acting on their ideas. Believe me, it is not an easy game, this presidential politics business. This is why politicians are so well scripted. This is why they don't speak outside of the box. People always say what they want from a politician is to be given the truth and lay their cards on the table. However, it is proven time and again that that is not what the American people want to hear.

There are a few soldiers at Ft. Campbell who have a project to take recovering soldiers on or near the base on hunting ad fishing trips. It's a very worthy cause and a good way for a sportsman to help some soldiers. I met them several months ago, but I will have to search around for their card.

Several of the republican candidates have been advised by a number of consultants that their base is most concerned with the economy, the economy and the economy and not social evangelical right issues. They need to focus on new ways to grow the economy and encourage entrepreneurship, jobs growth. Plenty of polling and survey work went into that strategy and it isn't based on a hunch. But these candidates will do what they will do. This isn't 2004 and the base is simply not focused on gay marriage and the like. The only social type issue which may get attention in this next election, is the 2nd amendment if Obama indeed does try something in that arena. If you consider the 2nd amendment a social issue, which I do in a sense, though a non-moral religious type social issue. If the ATF scandal heats up a bit more it could also move that forward some. Some of these groups like the one above for this pledge have far less weight than some might them credit for, even in Iowa. I am not against signing of all surveys, but wide spread one like this are a trap to avoid. Way too unfocused and too many bases to peel off to bother with that one.

The fastest way to increase revenue is with tax increases. The best way to increase revenue over the long term is to lower taxes, especially on those who start businesses, those who pay the highest portion of taxes at present(leaving them less to invest in business and employees) and on corporations. We have one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world. The threat of new taxes is one of the largest reasons for the lack of new hiring. The Kennedy tax cuts raised revenue substantially, but were spent by congress on huge new 'Great Society" programs and Vietnam. The Reagan tax cuts, quadrupled the Fed gov revenue even faster than expected, only to be spent and then some by a congress consumed with spending. The Bush tax cuts again increased revenue, but again was spent by a drunken congress. One factor often overlooked in the Bush tax cuts was that much was made of the 3% reduction on the wealthiest Americans. A few hundred thousand Americans effected. 3%. However the biggest impact of the cuts on Americans was the millions taken off of the income tax roles altogether when they were cut from 15% to 0% overnight, begun by Clinton in his first 2 years. Not only that but they continued the program which gave money to those who had not put in anything. This was nothing but income redistribution. It's impact on economic spending was slight, but in the end did nothing for investment in new business, expansion of business or new development. So increased revenue does no good at all without controlled spending. Unlike with our personal bank accounts and income from salaries, macro economics does work in the same cause and effect manner. Lowering tax rates has the long term effect of increased government revenue. That is what we should be talking about now and every day. Instead we are talking about holding the line while others are saying we need to raise taxes. Even Keynes himself, the father of the economic theories rampant in much of government and econ schools across the country, said the worst possible thing to do in a recessionary period is to raise taxes.

It would require a constitutional amendment to do that. The USSC ruled many years ago that SSI and the so-called lock-box was not constitutional. They said if the US Government wished to run such a program it would have to come from general funds, not by any sort of savings and investment of such. So the congress kept the program alive despite the ruling. A congressman was recently criticized for calling SSI a ponzi scheme, but in reality that is exactly what it is. Like happened with Madoff the scheme is nearing its critical mass point. A government run Ponzi scheme and I see no future end to the program. Now the argument could have been made that the government simply not use those funds and allow them to ride. But we all know there was no way that is realistically possible. It's a good example of what happens when the government runs outside the parameters of what they were designed to do.

People have survived shots directly to the surgical zone in nearly every caliber/cartridge imaginable. However a well placed shot to those areas has the highest probability of stopping an assailant. It is better to shoot someone with a well placed 9mm than a poorly placed 12g or even rifle round. There is no sure thing and it is a lot harder to hit an assailant with anything under stress than they think. Plenty of people assume they will be just fine if they can hit paper. Add in stress and it becomes a different story. Add in stress and a moving target, or you are moving and it gets harder. Add in stress, a moving target and shoot at something that is truly human sized and it is much harder than that. A B27 is flat, when you add in the true factor of a curved target and that target zone gets really small. If you are truly to be proficient, you have to realize these things and attempt to simulate them. That is one of the reasons I have always liked Louie Awerbuck's courses. He has targets that are human shapes, move and he can simulate stress effectively. That is some humbling training right there. There are plenty of people killed every year by major pistol cartridges. Do yourself a favor and pick a cartridge you like and spend the rest on ammo and a variety of quality training. There are numerous places to get good training in every area of the country. Some of the best schools are even here in this area. Quality training teaches you the above and how to prepare yourself mentally. Mindset and tactics are the most important aspects. Skill with your weapon and proficiency are the next most important aspect. You will revert only to the level which you are proficient when the stress hits. You will not rise to the occasion. Your choice of gun and caliber are the least important given you use quality dependable equipment. And that isn't hard to find in this day and age.

Mav you can make your own surgical triangle target with a regular B27 target and some masking tape. The surgical triangle is what is referred to as the kill shot zone, or the most likely to stop them in their tracks shot. The bottom wide part of the triangle would along the bottom of the lungs , past the heart, and then the point of the triangle would be around the adams apple of the throat. I practice these shots most often, as in a threat situation that is where I want to hit my opponent. You will do under stress what you practice. No matter what you do in training remember that is what you will do when the stress is on. Where is the 10 ring on a B27 target? It would be a gut shot. Likely to be a horribly painful wound, but often does not stop them in their tracks. so shoot for the area most likely to stop the threat immediately. Include brain shot in there as well. If in rapid fire you can keep your grouping fist sized, you will be doing well. Get the groupings right, then work on the speed. Of course if at all possible it should be practiced with the complete motion, including your draw.

A good grouping to shoot for is a fist sized group from 3 to 10 yards with increasing speed. I do not practice shooting into rings. I practice shooting in the surgical triangle. The only time I deviate from that is moving from body to head and dot drills. For longer range shooting I will try and hit 2 shots in rapid sccession into a paperplate sized area from 25 yards. I have developed arthtritis in my hands and am too shaky to spend too much time at those longer ranges. I was a bullseye shooter quite a few years ago. The more often you practice the better you will become, IF you have the grip, stance and trigger control down. After you have achieved success in groupings then try and artificially induce stress to be more proficient under negative situations.

Louie Awerbuck does a training school in the Pigeon Forge/Sevierville area every year. You won't ever have a better class than a Awerbuck, Yavapai course. There are a few about as good, but none better.

She was found not guilty as Mike said. This is very different from being innocent. It is the standard of a criminal trial and the burden is entirely upon the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of the accused. I am even on a day like this thankful fro the legal system we have in place. It has warmed my heart reading many of the responses here, on this a very sad day remembering a little girl who's life was taken, that emotion and feeling less importance in a courtroom and deliberation room, than do facts. There are no winners here. As a father I do not understand the terrible evil that some must have to kill children. I also know that the burden of proof must be very high and as another put it from age old saying, that better many guilty men go free, than one innocent man be convicted. Based on what I saw and what I know of the judges instructions I think the jury probably got this case right. I also do not think Casey Anthony is innocent. We likely never know what happened here. For those who believe in a an afterlife, I think you can wish for justice at one point given no great heart rendering change comes to the guilty person(s). However if the devout are right, then God's capacity for forgiveness is certainly bigger than most humans. Me included.

It isn't like it is a collectible. I hope it gets shot. I won't effect the value much if at all if it gets shot. I imagine shooting it much w/o cocking serrations would be much fun though. I don't even like the ultra slick finishes on the slides even with serrations. Then again I guess most folks don't have them built for defense carry.

Divorces do seem to be the most divisive and oftentimes it can easily be said there are no winners. Everyone feels like they got shafted even if they got most of what they asked for as a solution. When my wife was in the private practice of law she refused divorces and would not handle them. She did on occasion handle child custody issues. She was mainly a civil trial attorney. Custody issues can be pretty nasty as well. She is a good attorney who knows her business. And... she can shoot accurately to a thousand yards, so I am pretty much hosed. I can't get out of line, she can out lawyer me every day or shoot me before I can get out of range if I run. She never had a client pull a gun on her or an adversary do so either, but she did have threats. She was nearly always prepared, unless she was just coming out of court, which is where a number of lawyers have been shot. If it had been especially contentious one of the LEO's would usually walk her to her car, where they knew she would be armed from there. Many people have crazy ideas of every lawyer being crooked and making a ton of money. Some are and some do, but most work very hard to make a living. It costs a lot of money to be an attorney in private practice and clients can drive you nuts. The most demanding ones also seem to be the ones who don't pay. Naturally the ones you hear about most are the worst ones and they can certainly give all of them a bad name. But we also have a lot that are standing up for our rights and our freedoms.

I'm a fan of the Ruger SA's. I have a pair of Bisley Vaquero's in 45LC and always enjoy shooting them. In fact I just did today.

I would personally own an AR without a shell deflector and dust cover. But for my purposes it is pretty much a necessity. I have also found the shell deflector quite handy as I shoot 90% of the time left handed. The forward assist I could live with or without, as I only use it after a load check, never to force a shell into battery. I think the OP wisely made his decision after taking advice, and weighing that input against his needs.

What he said.

Yes the CZ is not refined, but it is durable and accurate. It may be somewhat heavy, but my experience has been that I like heavier. The Remington 798 is not a 70o action, but a mauser action. It is also not refined, but it is a good rifle.

Maybe for the purposes of enjoying good hunting stories. Capstick was an anomaly however, in selection of DG firearms uses. He often used smaller caliber rounds, like 270 to kill elephants. He was an extremely good shot and had nerves of steel. Fortunately African countries don't allow hunters to use such rifles in order to do what he did. More hunters would die if they tried to recreate his exploits. There are a fe who could, most would fail. There are plenty of good sources for rifle advice. I think a 375 would be a good choice. There are a couple of inexpensive, but good rifles out there in that cartridge. One is the CZ as I mentioned before. The other is the Remington 798. One of my co-workers found a 798 earlier this year in 375 for less than $500. He hasn't taken it to Africa yet, but he did dispatch a large American Buffalo with it just after getting it. Have fun finding the rifle you want.

Well if he does go to Africa and kills one of these animals he may indeed eat a bit of it while there. However, he will not be bringing it back to the states with him. The standard practice is to give the meat away to feed local populations who cannot, by law or lack of tools, kill for their own meat. It is ver much appreciated by the people.

For African style big game you would be best served with a big bore, long cartridged rifle. You can find old CZ's in 375 H&H, minimum, or better yet 416 Remington. The 458 is an even better round for rhino and elephant, but many have been taken with the 416. In most African nations the 375 is the minimum allowed on dangerous game. It is a great cartridge for large plains game, but a bit too much on smaller plains game. It is sufficient on most cats as well. The 416 Remington is very nice for most dangerous game and I actually find its push recoil to be easier to control and less punishing than the 375. If you really want a African style you won't buy the 45-70 or 50-90. The double rifle is always nice, but price is usually steep. As stated above though the classic Mauser action guns, such as the CZ ,and also the old Winchester Model 70 are great bolts. For cost though the CZ is a great gun, with less of a price tag than the Winchester. The 45-70 is legal in most African nations for large plains game, but not for dangerous game.

For what kind of big game?

Correct the mags for the 357 Sig and the 40 are the same. The 357 Sig is basically a 40 cal at its cartridge base. The pressure difference is higher in the 357 Sig. Some people even use the 40 mags with their 40-9 conversion. They will usually work, but wouldn't use it for SD. If people want to use a 9mm G barrel in the 40 go for it. For the money, I will buy the conversion. Small changes make a difference in engineering and there are differences here. Enough said. Again just because some people have had no problems doesn't mean it is a smart thing to do. This isn't simply about marketing here.