molonlabetn

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, and to state it as long as personal attacks are absent. I think that the common attitude of mistrust towards law-enforcement in general does have some valid basis, albeit exaggerated, but entirely due to documented abuses. I would like to remind everyone that similar harshness is directed towards politicians and liberals in general, but we all know that it is the over-eager minority of any group which makes the others look bad and draws our ire... let us not make the same mistake by driving the wedge between the many upstanding members of law enforcement and ourselves. We're all here for the same reason.

I have replied a number of times, actually. You need to check your spam filters on your e-mail account to make sure that you can recieve them. I am resending now.

Go to the picture you wish to delete, and below it there are a few small icons, click on the Edit Photo icon , and it will take you to a screen which will have a checkbox to select which will delete the photo when you hit Submit.

My caution with that interpretation lies in the specific code pertaining to deadly force by private citizen: Here it makes no distinction of the justification to use or threaten deadly force in order to apprehend a law-breaker except as self defense. It is written in terms of citizen's arrest, but that is exactly how it would be treated if you apprehended a criminal for crimes on one's own property. Besides that, I've always been under the impression that aiming or threatening with a firearm is equal to deadly-force. "Force" in and of itself is less than "Deadly Force", and does not include the use (or threat of use) of weapons: 39-11-106

Aaaargh! Must.... Resist... Urge... To... Merge...!

PackinMama, I don't disagree with you. No possession of mine is worth taking a life over. But, as you even mention yourself, resistance to that theft is perfectly reasonable... my point is that for a weaker or outnumbered person to effectively deter theft, it is only logical for them to be armed... and the truth of it is, is that as soon as you introduce a firearm into the confrontation, that is effectually 'deadly-force', whether or not you shoot, or fire a warning shot. So, the prohibition against the use of 'deadly-force' in order to preserve the security of one's home and belongings is a serious handicap for those who have no other means to do so. And that is all I am arguing.

It's simply a matter of stopping someone from taking what one has worked hard to provide for themselves and their families... People who put up no resistance to being robbed, when it is within their power, effectively deserve to lose what has been taken. That in no way advocates taking a life over property... but it certainly means that it's ridiculous to say that it's only right to have the mentality to not be a victim only in the worst possible scenario. Saying that robbery/theft should not be resisted means that someone else other than yourself is responsible for preserving your way of life... and that is a mentality which I cannot agree with. If I'm not home when stuff is taken, oh well. To see this from a larger perspective... what if vital food/medical/energy/whatever supplies of a country were regularly pirated by outside marauders, leaving the people wanting? Would that country not be justified in protecting what is theirs with force? Or, should the thefts be simply allowed, since the sovereignty of the country, and the wellness of its people aren't worth a war, because there was no direct attack?

Perhaps a statewide resturaunt petition would be in order... at least it would provide guidance as to which resturaunts to boycott.

It would be a good idea if we could coordinate bringing so many guests with the officers of Owl Hollow... would one of their members here mind asking if 6-10 guests came with them? Or, just tell me how to contact them and I'll see if something can be arranged.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Yes, 702 will come up again soon.

I've owned several 'plastic' holsters... some I love, some I hated. For carry though, it's hard to beat leather for the best balance of comfort and concealment.

Bill is not dead yet... they (Jimmy, et al) decided to give it some special attention in a couple weeks, to prolong the misery. It looks pretty bleak at the moment, aside from the chance that the speaker somehow won't make it to the session on 4/2.

^^^^^^^^^^^^ Because Johnson City is infested. Unfortunately, nobody warned me before I attended ETSU... It was interesting.

I don't think they ever did make them... and yes, they are a twin of the SR-9. Methinks that the design was sold to Ruger, perhaps to see how well it would be received, or because they had no intention of producing it (which makes the 3 years worth of ads I've been seeing for this thing seem rather ridiculous). Considering the initial success of the SR9, Kimber would be stupid to not release the KPD now... They look even higher quality, and the sights don't look like as much of a snag-fest as the Ruger's do.

read this: http://www.tngunowners.com/forums/showthread.php?t=8 and this (if the buyer is not a TN resident): http://www.tngunowners.com/forums/showthread.php?t=5 There is no restriction upon the sale of personal firearms to other private citizens. You are not required to perform a background check, etc. But it is illegal to knowingly sell a gun to a minor or felon. So, you husband will have no problems selling his Ruger to another person, as long as he is unaware that they are a minor, felon, or from out of state. Welcome to TGO, and enjoy the SR9.

That's true, but that's also why they are so popular... It's undeniable that they do work well, especailly the ones which do not have marginalized tolerances to fit a larger cartridge than the original design called for. I've been seriously considering a 9mm Glock for a long while, not really to carry it all the time, but it seems to me that they are well suited for utility by folks who will operate it safely. It's hard to justify the purchase with so many other pistols which fill the same role just as well at a lower cost, or with more features, but they are a viable option just the same.

You were told incorrectly. There is no DOT regulation against the carry of weapons in a commercial vehicle. Many companies privately prohibit firearms in the workplace, but there is no law to that effect. Obviously, you are subject to the laws of the state you are in, but I am unaware of any which specifically single out commercial vehicles.

Sure, double-charge a cartridge and you can certainly expect to do damage to any gun, regardless of whether it's frame is polymer, aluminum or steel. The point is that it's demonstrably more common for Glocks to exhibit this failure, in these calibers, not because they are the only pistol which will kB, but because they apparently have a lower threshhold for doing so. Doesn't mean they are bad guns, just means that someone who chooses to use them should be aware that they are more sensetive to their loads than most others.

Either a reloading setup and some components to last a while, or just buy ammo... or, upgrade my carry gun.

The Don Hume 721OT works well... I used one with the XD-SC I had, and a P239, and have no complaints. Expect to it require some time to break in though, they come tight.

Considering the availability of .22lr conversion uppers for the G21, as well... one could certainly put together a workable 3-caliber package for multiple purposes on one frame. (although why one would want to do so instead of buying separate guns is beyond me).

Careful, ya' never know what might give me the urge to merge these threads

Actually, it's a big orange light... The red light is for when somebody posts about Glocks And I'm just going to close this one, there's nothing new in here... and we don't need to end up with a huge thread consisting of a dozen people asking the same question. Thanks for the vote of confidence though

That statement was not an opinion at all... it's a conclusion derived from the marked correlation between these type of events and the product we are discussing, which are obviously not the result of coincidence.

One possible reason to kill one and defer the other is because the one has a chance of passing... Probably not, but here's hoping.