Omega

I question that page, it shows Elliott as number 1, he hasn't even played yet. There are no dates or sold quantity on the page so who knows how the order is quantified. But either way, I don't see this as a big show of support, more like BLM folks latching on to the press about him.

Ok yes, but it is April 2016 to June 2016. The one you list is probably a spike due to this issue purchased by BLM supporters, won't last.

Doesn't show any dates on my screen.

Doesn't even make the top 25 here: http://www.nflshop.com/pages/Top_Selling_Jerseys

1000 Yards? Highly improbable, we used to dove hunt a pit and we would all get around it, on the thin side it was less than a 100 yards and we would get rained on but never hit with any force. Of course that was just #7 shot in 12 gauge, if someone was using something with a bit more zip I could see it reaching a couple hundred yards but even then I doubt it could do any real damage. Now duck hunters would reach much further, but duck is not in season and still doubt even duck load can reach 1000 yards.

WAG, but an AR extractor pin?

I don't know, Vick got picked up when I thought he didn't have a chance. With the NFL it's all about the money so if they need a QB I think they might sign him.

Well at least it's written well, not much room for misunderstanding the new rule. Last year's rule concerning the private land Hunt week ended up having some bucks taken though it was a doe only season. At least not many citations were given due to the TWRA seeing it was honest mistakes.

Just wait until they learn about casting!

The flag belongs to its people, not the government.

I like it, I think I'll take a crack at it. I have been looking at a few concealed cabinets and concealment products but they were either too expensive for what they were, or just would be out of place.

At the range of an AR, say 300 meters, you are only limited by your eyes. Iron sights can be effectively used if you can see your target. If you plan on using it for reactive targets, say pop-ups, then a red dot or 1-4 scope should do it, if shooting from a bench or other stable platform then any decent 3-9x40 or better will do. I use a gamut of scopes and rarely get any "good glass" ie expensive. A good Vortex, Bushnell, Simmons etc will do just fine and within your budget, I personally think many of the expensive scopes are over rated relying on the name to keep the price up. I can't tell the difference between a $600+ Leupold or a $300 Vortex, Bushnell etc, like a big difference in clarity features etc, least not any that make a hugh difference. A sighting system is only a reference point to me, I rarely use the adjustments in the field after I zero the rifle, only the magnification settings. As long as the magnification setting doesn't change the POA, some do, and the glass is clear and doesn't fog, then it's a good scope. I am not a competitive shooter though, so maybe I'm just blowing smoke here, but I usually hit what I am aiming at.

Should we legalize Marijuana? Yes, I think we should, but that really is not the question now is it? I think the bigger question is should the federal government decide a state issue. The Feds have no business interfering in state law as long as those state laws don't infringe on the rights of it's people. Some of us already see the feds infringing on our Second Ammendment rights by requiring background checks so this just ads to the infringement. IMHO, I think a state law should trump a federal law within that state. If a state doesn't have a law specifically outlawing something or it's federal property then fine but otherwise, no. Now, as far as legalization goes, I don't think it will significantly change anything. Just look at CO, where I am from, they have to deal with this issue and have developed ways to determine if you meet the dui criteria: Marijuana Legalization and Impaired Driving Marijuana affects reaction time, short-term memory, hand-eye coordination, concentration, and perception of time and distance. Getting high and getting behind the wheel of a car will get you arrested for a DUI; this law hasn't changed with the January 2014 legalization of marijuana. As with alcohol, there is an established impairment level in Colorado: five nanograms of active tetrahydrocannabinol (THC)—the active psychoactive component of marijuana—per milliliter of whole blood. CDOT has been working alongside the marijuana industry, and other state and local agencies to develop policies and education efforts to inform marijuana users about the dangers of driving while impaired. See some frequently asked questions about the law and driving. Use the quick links at the left to get more information on the drugged driving campaign in Colorado.

Well yea, anyone's driving privileges can be denied for many things including dead-beat dads which have nothing to do with driving. MJ as most any other drug except maybe PCP, which they say can have affects way after use, wears off. And while a urine test would show MJ use that does not mean impairment. I bet police would be able to tell if impairment exists due to any reason, heck they have to have a reason to pull you over in the first place.

Yes, you can be charged for being impaired even if you have a prescription for said substance. But you don't get denied a drivers license if you use drugs; of course its been awhile and the questionnaire for a DL may of changed but I don't recall them asking. This site gives a good run down on detection times, which for a casual user of marijuana is 1-5 days, the 30 days is for chronic users. http://www.ohsinc.com/info/detection-time-frame/

Oxy stays in your system for sometime as well and its prescribed and abused much as any other drug. The bottom line is that MJ needs to be treated as any other schedule II drug (Schedule I now) and decriminalized. The Feds just don't want to admit they are wrong so they keep it illegal. Personally, I would rather have to deal with potheads than drunks, carrying or not.

I looked in the current rulebook but didn't find any distance listed, but yea I seem to remember there was a clarification last year.

On lowers I don't think the quantities matter. I think someone will quote the particular ATF ruling in a bit, or do a search here, I think its been posted before.

I hunt does, so unless it has spots or I can tell that it is a fawn I will harvest it. Telling a large doe from a medium one is difficult, specially when there is nothing out there to compare them to. As for bucks, yea I'll take a buck, but whether it has spikes or a 10 point rack makes no difference to me. I have shot deer that turned out to have decent racks, though due to the branches in the area I couldn't tell until I went up to them. That is why I don't hunt in areas where it has to have a 15" spread or other measuring guideline, just too much guessing for me. I check all my game online, makes it much easier for me since I like to take the hide and the head off before I take it home. But I don't misrepresent my harvest, even when a spike will keep me from getting another buck, just doesn't make sense to break the law in that way. I would rather end my season early than to do that. But at the same time I don't like the regulations to be written so as to put people in positions that may have them break the law. Just like the bait rule, there is no distance given so you can technically be cited for hunting over bait if your neighbor has a feeding station near your property line which you are not aware of.

I still find it very difficult to classify him as such. Though some of the information he leaked helped bring issues to light, he also released much that was harmful to the US. Of course all he did was confirm the information, many already knew what was going on.

It's law: Public Law 112-95 Section 336 But like you said words matter, so you may have a legit argument due to the fact that it does not state line-of-sight specifically under the hobby portion, only that But it does state line-of-sight for other operators within that law. I too am not going to worry about it since I fly in private property only, but it is good to know what rules/laws you are breaking to keep you from arguing a losing position.

Oh I hear you, I see it the same way as far as it relates to speeding. But as with speeding I do see it as a regulation/law due to the fact they can fine you if you get caught. I don't think that LEO would welcome calling the speed limit a suggestion, so I would guess the FAA won't like that either.

I don't know, that is not how this reads to me: http://dronelife.com/2016/08/25/hobby-fliers-need-to-take-part-107-test/ The FAA's pages seem to point to the fact that if you do not fly line-of-sight you need to be a commercial drone pilot. Even flying under part 107 you need to go through a certification class ($150ish) and have a background check. And while it may not be law, it is a regulation which may cost you some $$ if you break them. I don't own anything beyond hobby level drones so am not going to go through the hassle but it seems even then you may have to fall under part 107 unless you belong to a club. And they also add this: So I guess those guys that got their drone shot down would of had some explaining to do if they stuck around.

I believe you are mistaken, the new drone rules make flying by camera or not within visual range a discriminator between needing a special (expensive) class and license or just being a hobbyist. And I'm not sure shooting a hobby drone falls under the Feds, local law maybe but not the Feds.

Yea, how is that going for you guys? Seems the leftists have taken a page right out of that book, or is it one in the same?