btq96r

  More like a bit absurd at $150-200 MSRP.  Even with the watch, I don't see a market that would sustain a product like this.

Some truth right here. Norton is just one giant advertisement for itself with security as a secondary thought. If I had to wipe a drive, I wouldn't say the antivirus did its job. I use Avast, and while far from the be all, end all, it's kept my systems free of infection all the while I surf sites all over the spectrum.

  That's not a big loss.  He wasn't in control of much outside of the major cities anyway.        He's never been the healthiest guy.  Plush fat living, chain smoked, all those wives.  But people have commented how smart he was and how shrewd he was in foreign affairs.  That's something that hopefully won't be lost in the transition. 

If this transition gets bungled, the whole region will suffer.  Saudi Arabia is the real power in the area and most of the other nations there take their cues from them since they don't have the size to stand on their own.

  The worst for me was Taking Chance.  It was an HBO production, but is probably the most powerful war movie I've ever seen.

  Likewise.  I'd love to be able to leave my carry pistol in the truck when I go on campus.  But this bill does nothing that I can tell for us.       Like an employer, the schools and TBR can set rules for their own property, and enforce it through firing of employees or expulsion if it's a student violating it.  The courts would let it stand if the policy governing such a rule was clear- and it is- to the offender.  Just something you waive as a condition of employment or attendance at a university in our state.

Very limited bill for college students and staff/faculty.   Unless the Tennessee Board of Regents is prohibited from making it a violation of TBR/School policy, there will still be a prohibition, with the penalty of expulsion for students who have a firearm in their vehicle, even if they have a HCP.  The only change that was brought about with the recent vehicle carry law was that they couldn't have you arrested for it if a HCP holder was caught doing it.

  It's not the difference in the size of the glass that separates them, it's the style of the red dot.  They are two completely different styles to shoot with.  Having shot both a good bit, I find the EoTech quicker to get a shot off with.  But brands work just fine when you break it down for what you need.   Also, the physical shape of the optic is pretty different between the two.  Aimpoint is tubular shaped, the EoTech is more or less a square on top of a rectangle. 

I have the book on my reading list and will probably wait for the movie to come out on blu-ray.  It seems like the kind of movie I would want to watch alone and not risk being disrupted in any way by others.  Plus I sometimes find myself allergic to well made war movies, and wouldn't want others to become concerned for me.

  For my money, the order of optics is... 1) EoTech 2) Aimpoint 3) Primary Arms   I prefer EoTech for the large reticule for quick acquisition.  I would however call Aimpoint more durable than an EoTech since I beat the hell out of my M68 (Comp2) on three Iraq deployments and it didn't miss a beat.  Putting my personal EoTech through the same stress wouldn't be on my to do list, but I'm confident it's good to go for HD/range work anytime.   The Aimpoint PRO, is the perfect performance/price compromise piece in my mind, but the Primary Arms gear is where you want to look if you have a budget of <$400.

Now there are Newtown families who lost children suing the school for lax security.    The more we see, the more I think there are some lawyers pulling the strings of people who are still grieving the senseless loss of their children with promises of holding someone accountable.  What a shame.

You changed a bit since we met back in May to make a gun parts transaction. :stare:

  Anytime there is anything to do with George Zimmerman, I hear the Looney Tunes theme in the background.  He deserves his day in court for anything he's charged with, but it's not politics when someone has a track record of asshattery. 

  My comments in manly purple.  I think if this is tacked on, it's just the DA drawing up charges to working the odds for a plea bargain.

  I used a video downloader that I have as an add on in Firefox to pull a copy for myself if anybody wants it.

I like how they put "Weight Management" on the label something that is marketed as a form of candy.  That's knowing your market at it's finest.

  Lol, because George is the trustworthy one in any situation he's involved in.   How this guy can still get a date is incredulous to me.

  In your extreme example, yes, I do.  They shouldn't do it to begin with, but no government agency should restrict free speech.       Here is the law concerning obstructing police, or 'Obstruction of Justice' in formal terms.  Since no force was used against the officers, who still thinks those guys deserved a ride to the station for exercising their 1st Amendment rights?   Title 39  Criminal Offenses   Chapter 16  Offenses Against Administration of Government   Part 6  Obstruction of Justice Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-16-602  (2014) 39-16-602.  Resisting stop, frisk, halt, arrest or search -- Prevention or obstruction of service of legal writ or process.   (a) It is an offense for a person to intentionally prevent or obstruct anyone known to the person to be a law enforcement officer, or anyone acting in a law enforcement officer's presence and at the officer's direction, from effecting a stop, frisk, halt, arrest or search of any person, including the defendant, by using force against the law enforcement officer or another. ( b ) Except as provided in § 39-11-611, it is no defense to prosecution under this section that the stop, frisk, halt, arrest or search was unlawful. (c ) It is an offense for a person to intentionally prevent or obstruct an officer of the state or any other person known to be a civil process server in serving, or attempting to serve or execute, any legal writ or process. (d) A violation of this section is a Class B misdemeanor unless the defendant uses a deadly weapon to resist the stop, frisk, halt, arrest, search or process server, in which event the violation is a Class A misdemeanor. HISTORY: Acts 1989, ch. 591, § 1; 1991, ch. 307, § 1; 1999, ch. 178, § 1.

  My reasons exactly.  I want these rights for everybody, not just those in society I disagree with.  Reminds me of the old quote "I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."       Something to keep in mind with this scenario is "Knowing Your Operational Environment."  It's an overused phrase in the military and an underused one in law enforcement, IMO.  It's in those two cops interest to keep things calm on their side.  If those onlookers are provoked into violence, the two cops are potentially screwed.  They can't be sure they could shoot all the potential attackers (not sure exactly how many there were) before they would be overpowered and possibly worse.  It's in the LEO's interest to keep a situation under control with a minimum of force on their side, and their restraint was as much for that reason as anything else.    The female officer didn't go above an beyond anything, she did her job, and did it well.  The crowd was being watched and handled while her partner dealt with the suspect.  They left the scene with their suspect under cuff in the back of their cruiser without a further incident because they handled it correctly.   If the onlookers went from making verbal threats to engaging the LEO's, the situation is completely different, but this situation didn't get to that.       Instigation isn't interference, and threats require action for a physical response, IMO.  Everything isn't hunkydory as you put it, but the onlookers aren't doing anything that necessitates the use force or arresting them.  They never got between the officers and the suspect nor laid a hand on the officers, or even made an overly aggressive move.  The female officer kept them at a distance between them and her partner.  As I said above, job well done by her.

The only thing I've ever been rated for was my hypertension, at 0%, and quite honestly, it's easier to see a doctor and get my RX filled out of pocket on the open market than through the VA.  Having to rely on them for something complicated would scare me.

  The female officer was backing up her partner, by keeping watch on the group.  I think it's reasonable to expect for a crowd to gather when someone gets arrested, and the officer not making the arrest should be keeping some measure of security.  She did a good job, and so did the officer who was handling the suspect.  Like I said, they got close, but never physically interfered.  Is there any standard of how far away an LEO can control a crowd in a situation like that?  I'd imagine it varies by jurisdiction if such law even exists, which is confusing enough.   Egging on someone to resist isn't a crime, and shouldn't be.  It's was on him to take their advise, he seemed to, which opens a tack on charge because of it.  It's a free speech issue and I want to keep away from government legislation.

  It may drop from 4G to 3G, but yeah, I'd assume so.        Where did they actually interfere?  Was it enough to stick in court, or would a judge most likely throw it out as a nuisance arrest?  The LEO's were going to keep an eye out anyway, good SA demands no less.  The got close sure, but didn't cross the line as they never physically tried to stop the officers from making the arrest.  The only one who interfered with the arrest was the guy who was arrested with his bit of resistance to being put in the car, so the DA can tack that on if he wants.       Facebook comments are the apex of how stupid we truly are.  People hiding behind a keyboard or mobile phone who say things with a lot of bravado, and others get drawn down into the argument at that lowest of levels.  If there is life beyond our planet and they survey us while deciding to make first contact, I'd imagine they would monitor the internet and based on Facebook commenting alone, decide we aren't advanced enough for their attention.

I didn't see a thing wrong in that video from either the officers or the onlookers.  I wouldn't agree with the demeanor or the language used by the crowd, but they have the right to be there, and say what they want to say.  If their actions stepped over the line, there would be a need for consequences, but they didn't.    I get that LEO's have to deal near exclusively with assclowns, but if they didn't know that going in, or can't handle it after doing the job for too long, they are free to quit.  We pay them- that's right we pay them through our taxes- to behave professionally at all times.  The officers in the video didn't demonstrate restraint to me, they did their jobs.  As it should be every time.   Also, the onlookers have the right to film the police officers.  I have a live video streaming app on my phone for that purpose as well that uploads a video as it records, so I can access it later if my mobile happens to have an accident.  You can be damn sure it gets turned on every time I encounter an LEO.  It's for my personal protection, because quite frankly, I feel the need for that insurance, not because I'm for hoping to catch a cop doing the wrong thing.  Thank all the officers who do the wrong thing for destroying my trust in the system.

  Those Nikon mounts I mention earlier in the thread are working fine after learning the complex trick of reversing them. :dropjaw:   They aren't QD, though.  Not sure if that was something you wanted to have.

  Thanks for the info.  Just added those to my cart on Amazon.  Bushnell should just get rid of that ugly cover they ship it with and add those.