E4 No More

I agree with this. ITAR is there for a very darned good reason.

I have learned that the difference between the Hummingbird and the J-45 is that the Hummingbird has a brighter tone due to the material that the bridge and nut are made out of, and the squared shoulders makes it a little louder than the J-45's rounded shoulders. That makes me lean towards the J-45 because I like a more mellow tone in a guitar.

I'm not to the point where I can play it to tell a difference, and I live over an hour away from a Guitar Center. Out of curiosity I checked their website and they apparently don't make the J-50 anymore.

I already have a Gibson Les Paul and two Epiphone Les Pauls. I also have two Epiphone hollow-body guitars - one Pro and one Elite. Like I said, we hang them around the house for artwork.

Or get a lifetime and not worry about it ever again.

I have no loyalties to brands but my wife works for Gibson and insists that the only guitars we'll have in this house are either Gibson or Epiphone. So much for getting a Martin or Seagull. As if I don't have enough to do already I am beginning to take up the guitar. I don't like to spend money twice so I'd rather buy a quality guitar now rather than buy a cheap beginner guitar just to set it aside for something better later on down the road. This is a safe strategy for me because even if I don't keep with it I love the beauty of the guitars and hang them in my home for artwork. In searching for the Gibson that might suit my needs without getting into crazy money, (even with an employee discount), I've come up with: Hummingbird Walnut M Hummingbird Studio G-45 Studio G-45 Standard J-45 Walnut M Antique Natural It has been suggested by a tenured Gibson guitar player that my wife knows that the J-45 would be the best choice for me because it's known as a workhorse. So if you have experience with these guitars can you give me some feedback on them, please?

What if you want to stay out of Franklin? Never mind: I looked up their menu.

Gun control isn't the topic that I was addressing, but even with that the military as a whole had to agree to enforce the leader's despicable orders. They, after all, had the guns.

I think they'll parrot what they agree with. There are some people, (Trolls), who just get a kick out of insulting others. But for agreeing with someone goes I use Nazi Germany, Russia, and China as examples. People had to agree with what went on in order to carry out the atrocities.

I've run a tuner in a 2005 Mustang GT and a 2008 Ford GT500. There is definitely a difference. Not only can you tune the engine for higher octane fuels allowing for greater spark advance and thus more horsepower it changes the shift points for an automatic transmission. It also changes the softness of the shift making it more aggressive. I don't know that the gains would be worth the cost for a stock F-150.

The difference is there's no social filter on the Internet for the most part. We have a filter placed on us while on TGO by David, but on other sites not so much. Without the social filter I'd argue that people are saying exactly how they feel because anonymity shields them from backlash.

So you're a voyeur huh?

As far as Walmart goes there is cause and effect. The cause was a Voldemort type of idiot going into a Walmart in Missouri sporting and "Assault" rifle and tactical gear right after a mass shooting at another Walmart in Texas. The effect was Walmart banning crap.

I saw in the article that you posted that there was a cartridge that had the bullet inside the case to make it shorter. It seems that would decrease case volume a lot and thus necessitating a different powder, I suppose. But I can't see how that could be considered a hybrid.

I am loathe to go to any Walmart. So is my wife so this doesn't change much for me; however, I can feel for those whom it does impact.

So how's that a hybrid?

They said 6.8 hybrid. They said it was lighter with less recoil in a high pressure chamber but with greater penetration. I can only think of caseless ammunition which is not a new thing.

I don't recall that the SC has ever heard a machine gun case. I get frustrated with the SC's method of choosing which cases they will hear. Any gun law strikes at the core of the The Bill of Rights yet they let numerous cases go unheard while hearing much lesser cases. Why? I think it's because it's a personal landmine for them. Not that they can lose their jobs but they can be attacked in many other ways.

I pity the fool who tries to break-up with her!

Only gunsmith that I know of is in Greenbriar at Guns & Leather.

You too??? That boating sure is dangerous!

No, they are a different company selling an extremely similar product. The Sig Brace on my MPX was too short for my 6'4" frame so I called Sig to see if they had a way to extend it. They directed me to SB Tactical. The one I got from them extends like a collapsible stock but is a brace. It's several inches longer than the Sig Brace.

I've surpassed it. It's one of the things that I excel at!

Exactly. The big take away is that you're going to get shot so accept it and react. The idea behind the training was to train you to rapidly move through the normal thought processes and into action. Their theory was that during a deadly force incident you went through several stages of thought before action, but many people freeze during the process due to lack of training. IIRC, the first stage is the obvious one of recognizing the threat. The second stage was denial as in "I can't belief this is actually happening." This is where most people freeze and get killed. The third stage was anger, and the forth is drawing and firing. Basically, they were training you that if you see a gun then you draw first and ask questions later. I idea with the cotton was that at close range it hurts enough to register that you've been hit yet you keep on fighting anyway. For me, I channeled the thought that I may die but I'm going to live at least long enough to take the bastard with me. It also had training for other things. They taught you that people in general are adverse to shooting through something. This was demonstrated by accounts were bad guys didn't shoot because the cop stuck his ticket book up between the gun and their bodies, and people who reached around things like glass to shoot. We were taught to fire through the rear window glass.