leroy
-
Posts
4,616 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
20 -
Feedback
100%
Content Type
Forums
Events
Store
Articles
Posts posted by leroy
-
-
leroy,you do realize that this OP is not about cameras watching you take a **** in your home,right?
It was about a video encouraging people,regular people,non-governmental people being encouraged to report possible terrorist activities.
That does not violate the 4th in any way.
Strickj; ole buddy. As a matter of fact, Yeah, i realize it.
I commented on some reasonable opinions at about post #10 on this thread. I ADDED the British link from the NYTimes. RE: Who is watching the watchers. I don't know about you, but it looks to me like the conversation i was involved in moved from the LAPD thing to the real problem in Britain. RE: George Orwell, 1984 stuff. Refer to post #14. RE: The British Youwatch Program. By the way, them little red things that look like cameras in the graphic are cameras stationed in a residential neighborhood near ole George's house -- yeah, i realize he dont live there anymore -- he's dead..
Mabee i appear a little slow; my tinfoil hat may be a little too tight. My comments RE: the Fourth Amendment are in connection with the British article and public surviellence by the "watchers", who many in this country will quickly endorse. I, like many others (some of them here), think this public surviellence and "rat on your brother" stuff is not good for any free society.
Hope this clears up any misconceptions. I'm old, and my hat may still be a little too tight. I am, by nature, a suspicious man. I'm not senile, childish, or foolish.
LEROY
-
Leeroy, you need to go back and read what you quoted again. The 4th Amendment guarantees you reasonable sovereignty in your HOME. It does not guarantee you those things in public. Our forefathers knew what they were doing, you're just distorting what they endeavored to provide.
.....
I see a lot of people bellyaching about what-if scenarios, and some of these scenarios involve doing something wrong in the first place. It seems there's an easy solution here. Don't do anything illegal.
Daaaaavid:____________
I aint distortin nothin.I aint worried about the red-lite cameras and dogs pooping on the street. I'm worried about the tools used to nab these terrible lawbreakers. The "surveillence" cameras pointed TOWARD the house (and car) whose sole purpose it to allow the "watchers" to watch you. It seems to me that constant watching equals constant search -- search without probable cause. The whole general surviellence camera thing is a rabbit trail that no free people ought to allow their government to go down.
The ole " you aint got nothin to be afraid of from the authorities if you aint doin nothin wrong" line dont work with me or anybody else who has much insight. If you expand that "you aint got nothing to be afraid of .." stuff to it's logical conclusion with your definition; you can put a "watcher" with you constantly; home, person, ect, ect. -- you get the idea. I believe that does, in fact, violate the Fourth Amendment.
The reason that we have a Fourth Amendment is that the British did, in fact, kick in the doors of the colonist houses and did, in fact, randomly search, seize, and intimidate them without benefit of law.
I'll repost the Fourth Amendment for you again:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.Notice that it says: "The right of the people to be secure in their person, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable search...."; you get the idea. It is more than your houses.
It seems to me that your definition of "probable cause" is: "we watch you until you do something wrong" -- that violates the whole "freedom and innocent until proven guilty thing" and does away with probable cause.... Any way you slice the pie, the idea of surviellence cameras and activities such as those described in the NYTimes article in Great Britain should be odious to anyone who loves liberty. This whole surviellence camera thing is kinda like the communism thing -- it sounds good in principle; but it stinks in practice because humanity on the whole is bad and not good. Consequently, there is a great opportunity for them to use tools for the "public good" to persecute their enemies -- political and otherwise. The matter of the fact is that "watchers" do, in fact, abuse the tools handed to them to spank real and imagined enemies; and you aint got to look far to find examples.
I aint trying to start a spitting contest with you; but i don't think for a minute that every proposal made by government, law enforcement, and the "protectors of the masses" is a good idea just because they thought of it -- it aint. I also dont think that everyone in government, law enforcement, and the "protectors of the masses" are all using the tools given them to do wrong; but there are enough instances to be noticeable. My sainted old mom used to tell me regularly --- "If you dont start doing things, you dont need to stop doing them." That's the way i see things with the "watchers" and public surviellence cameras.
I'll say it again: Dont be fooled, the character of the "watchers" matters. The best solution is not to allow the "watchers" the tools to do this stuff with to begin with when there is a great potential for abuse and no mechanism for protecting honest folk, other than the good will of the "watchers". There aint any "checks and balances" for the public surviellence idea. That's why in the old days, you had to go before a judge to obtain that authorization in the first place.
More food for thought.
Kind regards,
LEROY
-
I'd like to see what you guys use for lubricating your Glock. I've been using Breakfree CLP. I've heard of using white lithium grease. Slip 2000 was recommended by a gunsmith, though he said that he doesn't generally worry about it with his own. What are you Glock owners using for your pistols?
SUNTZU:_________
Tetra grease on the slide, CLP (just a drop or two) everywhere else.
For what it's worth. Got a buddy who is a well known gunsmith. Asked him the same question. His reply: They are all good; buy what is on sale at Brownells, Midway, etc. All the synthetic lubes are great.
Kind regards,
LEROY
-
For you lovers of good marksmanship and accurate rifles, here's a cute story I ran across when I was dinking around with the Swiss K-31's. Dunno if it's true or not but it surrounds the Swiss love of good marksmanship and their wonderful army rifles. I think you''ll enjoy it.
There is an old story about a time before WWI when the Kaiser visited Switzerland to try and intimidate the Swiss into being annexed by Germany. As the story goes, the Swiss stood their ground and the Kaiser was hopping mad by the time he got to the train station to go home.
Stationed outside his car was a Swiss Army Honor Guard and as the Kaiser saw the elderly sergeant in charge he blew his stack and angrily blurted out....."Sergeant, der Cherman Army ist tvice the size of der Sviss Army! Vat vill you do ven ve invade you!!??
Nonplussed, the old Swiss sergeant snapped to attention and in a calm, measured voice replied: "Vell, mein herr, in zat case I vould fire my rifle tvice."
The Kaiser stormed onto the train and never invaded Switzerland. And even if it isn't true it's a good story. Have a nice weekend.
Jer
I like it!! It doesnt matter whether it is a "fable" or not. The Swiss were a great people. They had universal conscription and a gun in the hands of every male. It's a great idea -- exactly what the Israeli's do now ---, and in my view, exactly what we should do here in this country. The Swiss weathered two world wars with this philosophy.
The great Admiral Yamamoto (pardon my spelling) counseled his peers in Jappan not to invade the USA. He said that there would be "a rifleman behind every blade of grass". Oh that it was true today.
It is also rumored that Hitler said the same thing about the Swiss in WWII; but i cant find the citation.
Great information.
Keep up the good work.
Kind regards,
LEROY
-
Mike makes a great point here:
This is what the current admin. would love to have happen here. people dependent on the .gov's tit and the .gov encouraging it to happen. yep we will feed you, house you, medicate you and watch you.Nah, could never happen here. :-\
Mikedwood makes a great point here:
They started the camera system in Britain to stop terrorism. Now they use it to fine spitters and people who don't pooper scoop, drop litter or whatever.The fact is that sometimes those things which start with noble goals of the "richeous" (eg -- prevent terrorism, cut down on law breaking, etc etc) become tools for the demigogues among us to punish the citizenry. That is exactly what is going on here. It is exactly why it needs to be opposed. There are plenty of laws that allow for government to look at suspicious things -- too many i think. More tools for "active hunting" or "fishing" for evildoers is not needed.
In my view, it is a clear violation of the Fourth Amendment:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.You simply cannot be secure in your "person" if the government watches you all the time.
There was (and is) another place where this "rat on your brother" and "big brother is watching" idea was tried. It was called Soviet Russia. Worked effectively for 70+ years and was responsible for the extermination of millions. They also tried it in Germany for a time -- they got rid of the jews, the gypsies, and other undesirables too.
Dont be fooled, the character of the "watchers" matters. The best solution is not to allow the "watchers" the tools to do this stuff with to begin with. That's why there is a Fourth Amendment.
Food for thought,
Kind regards,
LEROY
-
My concern with this big brother stuff is who is watching big brother?
A great and thought provoking question!! The truth is that George Orwell's 1984 is here. It came in the guise of "providing safety for the public", ect. ect. Most folks didn't notice --- some of them are now, however. Check this article out in none other than that socialist rag, the New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/25/world/europe/25surveillance.html?partner=rss&emc=rss
Interesting reading indeed!
Keep up the good work.
Kind regards,
LEROY
-
Amen brother!! Thanks for posting this great peice.
Keep up the good work!!
Kind regards,
LEROY
-
I was talking to my gun store guy about this topic the other day. I asked what I should buy first to get started reloading and suggested maybe I should start with a tumbler. He said cleaning up the brass like that wasn't necessary, unless I wanted it to look "new".
Hex:_________
In my experience, the great help in tumbling brass for cleanup is that it helps keep the reloading dies from getting scratched up. The grit, residue, etc from once fired brass picked up off the ground aggrivates the brass and dies over time.. Grit will embed in the steel of the sizing dies over time and will scratch and aggravate the brass and finally ruin the dies. That being said, brass cleaning is a "nice to have" not a "gotta have". I started out just wiping the brass off and reloading it without tumbling it. I loaded a lot of ammo that way.
Now i use a tumbler regularly because it cleans the brass nicely and gets the grit off. When the tumbling medium gets dirty, i just toss it and start over. I like the looks of tumbled brass. Again, a tumbler is a "nice to have", not a "gotta have" for reloading.
Hope this heips.
Kind regards,
LEROY
-
Jamie:_____________
Some things to think about:
RE: Life is an illusion. We're not really here.
Are we really here? I'm pretty sure at least a couple of religions speculate or hint at the possibility that this "reality" is nothing more than a dream in some sleeping god's mind... And from a physics point of view, all solid matter really isn't anything more than a bunch of interactive energy fields...So you might have a tough time proving that we are indeed really here. I mean, we think, but does that necessarily mean we truly are? ( "I think, therefore I am", is the oft-used quote I'm referring to here. )
If you step into the path of a bus or truck running about 70 mph. It is a certanity (baring a miracle) that you will be gone. That even happens in India, the home of illusion.
RE: Evolution
No proof of evolution? Never studied biology, have you? Or paleontology, or even modern medicine... there's plenty of tangible proof of evolution.Matter of fact, I have. I will concede micro-evolution or adaptation. There are no "transitional species" to prove macro-evolution. Macro - evolution is a theory; not a fact. To say otherwise is dishonest. Even the great humanist Bill Nye, "The Science Guy" says that "stupendous claims require stupendous proof". There aint any.
RE: The ancients were lightweights.
As for the ancients... they were a superstitious people that didn't understand much past the "here and now"...The “here and now” is pretty important. The point seems to be that they were “lightweights” because they were not privy to the “technological advancements” of modern science and the humanist world view. It’s a weak point.
The ancient Greeks gave us the university, philosophy, literature, art, architecture, the beginnings of scientific investigation and the concept of democracy. They conquered the civilized world. Remember a guy by the name of Alexander the Great. He was “great” because he did conquer the world (his tactics are still studied today) and he brought the “Hellenist” civilization(libraries, the university, art, architecture, a universal written language) to those he conquered. Sounds pretty important to me. I wouldn’t dismiss them if I wuz you. If you are white and western European; your ancestors were wearing bearskins and worshipping trees about this time. A fella named Julius Caesar brought some culture to your (and my) ancestors. It just didnt take too well. The Romans famously called our ancestors "Barbarians" -- no culture, no written language, nothing but warring tribesmen. Our culture started writing very late. The Romans, Greeks, Hebrews, and others had been doing it for centuries.
My favorites are the Romans, the real practical guys, and the toughest guys on the block. They are the fathers of our present republican form of government, the legal system, the military (they, too have their tactics studied at the USMA and other places), transportation (Roman roads), water supply (the aqueducts), indoor plumbing, etc, etc. Hardly primitive. They brought a peace to the earth that has not been seen since. It is called the “Pax Roma” – The Roman Peace. It lasted for about 300 years – longer than this country is old. They were hardly “primitive”; they were cynics. A great way to be if you are tough enough -- it just happens to be wrong. They incorporated foreign gods (including God) into their pantheon. The deal was that you could worship any god you wanted to as long as you did what the Romans said; including the worship of the Emperor. That’s why those pesky Jews and Christians got smacked. They would serve Rome; they just wouldn’t bow down and worship the emperor.
RE: American primitive civilizations.
And there is plenty of evidence of that, if you'll take the time to study some of the more ancient cultures that still have ties to today, such as the American Indians.I think it is interesting that all ancient cultures are "worshipers of a god or group of gods" no matter where you go. There are no athiest or humanist primitive cultures. Pascal appears to be right. RE: "The God shaped hole in the heart of mankind"; no matter how primitive.
In practical terms ---in some cases (some, not all) noble but Stone aged children. No lasting culture. Originally whupped by the blasphemous Spaniards and robbed in God’s name – a genuine tragedy. A heinous crime against them and God. Another sad story is our country’s treatment and subduing of the American Indians. I think it is interesting that this was done in the 1870 and later. Just about the time that Darwinism was in vogue. As you know, Darwin was the father of evolution. He was also the unwitting father of "Social Darwinism". I do not believe that it is a concidence that "Social Darwinism" spawned the concept in modern man to spank and subdue the "primitive". Even though you can make a case that some of this was done by a nominally "Christian Culture", you can't get around the fact that Jesus did not teach it. The fact is that the impetus came from Darwinian thought.
RE: Bad guys presuming to involk God's favor while doing bad things.
Ever hear of the Crusades, Leroy? Or maybe the Spanish Inquisition? Talk about "kill those who disagree with you"... sheesh!Or how 'bout the Salem Witch trials? You know, BBQing people at the stake because of your religious beliefs...
My point here is that "Kill those who disagree with you. What a concept!!" is a shoe that more often than not fits both feet; religious as well as non-religious.
Check this in post #56:
Caveman: "Christians" have been killing people in the name of god since the beginning of man.Leroy -- Response: I will agree that folks calling themselves "Christians" have been doing just that. The truth is that Jesus didn't teach that.
See post # 63:
RE: The problem of "killing our brothers, unpunished wrongs, etc. We are made in Gods image, but fallen. Bad people do bad things. They even appropriate Gods name in doing them --- imagine that!!!. Someone lying -- im shocked!!!....
I will agree that folks calling themselves "Christians" have been doing just that. The truth is that Jesus didn't teach that.
The fact is that the Twentieth Century has been the greatest period of killing in the history of the world. I don't believe that all of that killing has been done by quote "Christians". Quite the contrary. All the quote "Christian" killings in the history of the world pale in comparison to what the Russians did to their own people. About 60 million. The Communists don't believe in god (or God). It is a weak arguement to proclaim that quote "Christians" do all the killing.
RE: Pascal's wager.
...Im aware of Pascal's Wager... Unfortunately, it only works in very simplistic terms, and in absolutes. Meaning it's a yes or no proposition as to whether god exists or not.The fact is that this is, indeed, a very simplistic question. The ANSWER to the question, however of paramount importance if there is a god (or God) who is a lawgiver and judge of mankind. Blaise Pascal was a genius mathmatician and philosopher. Those are pretty heavy credentials. Genius has a way of boiling the complicated down into terms that are understandable to the rest of us (the 99.9 % of the rest of us who are not geniuses).
RE: Absolutes. There are absolutes. In math 2 + 2 is always 4. Casual observation of the physical sciencies teach that there are many wrong ways and few right ways. Pascal's "simplicity" is fully warranted here.
RE: Responsibility for one's on actions.
I listen, and evaluate for myself though. I don't take the information as the truth just because that's what someone else says, or because "that's the way it's always been".After all, when it comes right down to it, it is MY ass that's on the line with whatever I choose to believe or ignore, not the person's who is passing along the information, no?
You (me, and we all) are, indeed, individually responsible for our own actions.
Recap from post # 63:
RE: Dont have the answers. I understand. My council is to keep looking and look honestly.Finally, dont beat people up who say that they have the answers. Examine honestly what they believe and why they believe it.
Kind regards,
LEROY
-
You're working under the assumption that we were, or had to be, PUT here. --- We are here. Being here is not an illusion. How did we get here is the big question. Who put us here? Why are we here? I'ts a question that was asked by the ancients. The founders of philosophy.
LEROY
Now, I'm not claiming we weren't, but I can also see where we didn't have to be "put" or created, and simply evolved on our own, along with everything else on the planet. But then, evolution doesn't fit in very well with most any religion, does it?
RE: Evolution. "We pulled ourselves up from the primorial slime" -- so the biological evolutionists say. No proof. Others say that we are "cosmic travellers." No proof. At the minimum, it takes just as much faith to believe these theories as to believe the "God" theory.
LEROY
Can't have things working out by themselves without there being anyone/thing in charge and directing them, can we?
Could be. Marx said that "religion is the opiate of the people". He didnt believe in God. His disciple, Lenin later conquered the russians and started the extermination of about 60 million people. Now there's a great humanitarian for you. How about that for "closed mindedness". Kill those who disagree with you. What a concept!!LEROY
And for what it's worth, it's that very close-mindedness that all religions demonstrate that got me started asking questions to begin with, a very long time ago. You might want to rethink that "closed mindedness" stuff. You could be an unwitting victim. There aint nothin wrong with asking questions. There is plenty wrong with having preconceived notions going into that "question asking" exercise -- you generally get the wrong answer. Food for thought.
LEROY
Anyway, there are several credible theories as to how we got here ( or how life ever got started at all, for that matter ). All have just as much chance of being true or false as the rest, I think.
J.
Jamie:__________
Check this link out. Philosophy and the proof of God's existence by Roger Jones
Check this one out too: Pascal's Wager (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
I invite you to read about Pascal. He was far more brilliant than most people.
Hope this heips.
Kind regards,
LEROY
-
Originally Posted by leroy
The question is now whether there is a "God" -- there is.
Prove it.You can't, any more than anyone else can prove there isn't. ...
They simply can't deal with honestly admitting that they just don't know.
Sorry, but none of us have the answers as to whether or not there even is a god ( or God ), and we're not very likely to get those answers until we die. And maybe not even then.
But that won't stop humans from arguing, fighting, and killing over it, for as long as we exist, I think... Hell, that's what we've been doing for all of human history.
Personally, I don't have any trouble admitting that I just don't know the answer to the whole "god" thing, and don't understand why everyone else does.
J.
Jamie:__________
RE: Proof of God. Look around at the creation, How did we get here? Who put us here? What are our responsibilities to the 'God" and well as to others? All foundational questions of philosophy. Why are we even interested in these things. We are made in the image of God and share some of His attributes. We think create, etc. I invite you to judge for yourself.
RE: Dont have the answers. I understand. My council is to keep looking and look honestly.
RE: The problem of "killing our brothers, unpunished wrongs, etc. We are made in Gods image, but fallen. Bad people do bad things. They even appropriate Gods name in doing them --- imagine that!!!. Someone lying -- im shocked!!!.
Finally, dont beat people up who say that they have the answers. Examine honestly what they believe and why they believe it.
Kind regards,
LEROY
-
Blue:_________
Guys, I have a question. I have been looking for the right 1911 ( preferably a Colt ) at the right price for a long time. I 've considered 1991"s and even other manufacturers but really want a good old fashioned Series 70 1911 in blue. My question is how does 38 super compare ballisticaly to 45 acp...any thoughts ?
Go here and search the data. It pretty well tells the story.
Kind regards,
LEROY
-
1 John 4
1Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.
"Religious" to be used as a term to define a belief is very misleading...I am religious about many things...coffee in the morning...the gas station I go to....where I shop...even checking the forum...."Religion" is more of a pattern of behavior rather than a spiritual conviction. As far as spiritual....well, there are many "spirits"...to say that one is spiritual, that may be true...but to determine whether or not they are of God is a different story. My convictions are not based upon my beliefs, but God's teachings and the leadership of HIS SPIRIT...to discern whether or not they are of God is based upon prayer, study, and medition in his word. To say that one is a Christian means to be Christ-Like...and there are many that label themselves as Christians that are no more Christ-Like than my bassett....and I agree with many that state that there are Christians with a holier than thou attitude...being saved and a Christian, or a Child of God, makes me no better than anyone else...only better off!
Amen brother. What a truth.
Kind regards,
LEROY
-
I disagree with most of your dissertation, but I had to comment on these particular parts.
"Christians" have been killing people in the name of god since the beginning of man.
This thread was intended to ask what YOUR beliefs are, not to give derogatory assesments of others beliefs. If you want to get into a bashing match about others beliefs start a new thread and will gladly give you a run for your money.
Caveman:_________
I will agree that folks calling themselves "Christians" have been doing just that. The truth is that Jesus didn't teach that.
RE: Beliefs. Those are my beliefs. The fact that you view them as derogatory is a problem for you; not me. If you are offended, im sorry; but i believe them to be true. Casual observation will prove them; take a look around.
I, like you, am not obligated to give equal value and equal reverence to all beliefs. All beliefs are not equal. I fully reserve the right to proclaim them just as you do your beliefs. I added to the discussion. I didn't start it.
No one here will make you believe anything you do not prefer to believe.
You might take a look and decide for yourself if you are an agent of the "thought police". If what i said isnt true, it wont hurt you at all. You may be offended, but that's a choice you make -- me, God, or anyone else didnt force it on you.
I aint interested in starting a spitting contest with you. I am interested in you and others comming to the light of the truth. That is a decision that you have to make. No one else can make it for you.
I aint much on being intimidated by words, pronouncements, and boasts of intellectual superiority.
Kind regards,
LEROY
-
The argument against God "If there were a God He would not allow such and such evil thing." This is to presume that you understand everything perfectly, and that you are qualified to sit in judgment on God. It's also to ask that God force everyone to do only good, and take away freedom and personal responsibility. That won't work. Also, it is to blame God for the evil, instead of the actual evil people doing their evil deeds. It's a shallow argument against the existence of God.
Amen brother!! Great wisdom.
The question is now whether there is a "God" -- there is. The question is "do you know Him?".
The great battle upon this earth today is the battle of Humanism which postulates that "man is the measure of all things" ;Theism which postulates that there is a god -- and that some "enlightened one" (Mohammed, Budda, Confucious, Charles Tas Russel, Mary Baker Eddy, Jim Jones, David Koresh, Charles Manson -- ect, etc) know who he is and has received a revelation from him; and the God of the Universe who has been taking a beating lately at the hands of the foolish.
The Humanists are busy making fools of their selves by pretending to be good and failing. They have almost destroyed our education enterprise, government, and legal enterprise -- many believe their darkened lies. The the theists are busy striking and killing their brothers in the name of a "god" -- the great example is militant islam is busy destroying much of the horn of africa and indonesia -- they are spreading their message with the sword and subduing many.
Christianity (the real one) stands in contrast to these two systems in that it teaches that God came to earth, lived a sinless life, died for the sins of the world, and is now sitting at the right hand of God, and will come again to judge all mankind. It also teaches the truth that we cannot be good enough, moral enough, etc etc to meet God's perfect standard. That is why He chose to send His Son to die for the sins of the world (everybody -- you, me, them...). It's a free gift-- you cant earn it --- you have to accept it. The fact is that Christians arent better than others -- they are sinners too; and they fail from time to time -- they are simply forgiven. From that thankfulness comes a desire to serve Him and follow His laws -- from that desire flows ethics, morals, concern for your neighbor, ect,ect.
I have been a keen observer of humanity for a long time now. I can tell you emphatically and without reservation that mankind is bad and not good. Unredeemed humanity is depraved and incabable of doing the right thing ---again, people are bad and not good. Take a look around. We are blessed to live in a country where we have religious toleration (for the time being). No one will make you go to church here (or keep you from going like the soviets did, or make you go to one the government picks out like the muslum countries do). The fact is -- you are a free citizen in this country due to its Judeo-Christian foundations -- you may deny it or think it isnt so -- but the facts remain. You have hospitals, schools, and philantrophy due principally to Judeo-Christian influence in western civilization. Do not believe for a minute that good things come from bad people --- they dont. Do not be deceived, what is good in this country and in the world is from the God of the Universe, not the tennants of Humanism or Theism.
Thus endeth the dissertation.
Kind regards.
LEROY
-
How do you suppose Obama and Pelosi forced him to do this? We need some in depth research here. After all The Gov is a Republican and we all know that they wouldn't do anything that wasn't Constitutional. Let's connect this to the national Democrats.
Pure speculation on my part---they probably threatened to have Maria publically spank him --- remember, she is a "Kennedy Demorat" -- They may have also threatened to have Hillary hold him while it all happened. . What a weenie!! I had such high hopes for the "governator" -- looks like he is just another weenie, henpecked mommas boy --- how sad!!! Go on back home to Austria and get behind your mommie's skirttail.
Keep up the good work.
Kind regrds,
LEROY
-
Anyone tried pocket carry (RH) with one of these A Holsters and a Glock 26? I wear jeans about 99% of the time, and currently carry my Kel-Tec P-11 in a Blackhawk Size 3 soft holster. It has all the problems mentioned. I realize my G26 is fatter than my KT P-11. Any report appreciated...especially pics.
Why do they call it common sense, when it's so uncommon? TN Sen. Fred Thompson
I carry a baby glock in a left hand pocket AHolster either in my front pocket or hip pocket for dungarees. It will also carry comfortably in my dress khakis for "sunday go to meeting use" in the front pocket. It works great!!
Hope this helps.
Kind regards,
LEROY
-
Thanks David. The AHolsters are great. I think they are the best of the pocket designs for the baby glocks and the j frame smiths.
Keep up the good work.
Kind regards,
LEROY
-
Guys, I have a question. I have been looking for the right 1911 ( preferably a Colt ) at the right price for a long time. I 've considered 1991"s and even other manufacturers but really want a good old fashioned Series 70 1911 in blue. My question is how does 38 super compare ballisticaly to 45 acp...any thoughts ?
Blue:_________
I am old enough to have both 45 cal 1911's and the old colt 38 super 1911's --- early vintage series 70's. The great bane of the OLD 38 super was headspace which caused accuracy problems. A 45 ACP headspaces on the case mouth. The old 38 super headspaces on a tiny case rim. What happens is that the chamber tolerances get a little sloppy and the rim is too small for the round to reliably catch the rim recess in the barrel of the super. That causes eratic headspacing (the round will drop off this rim and into the barrel a little way) and poor accuracy results. Whenever this happens, accuracy is terrible. The only gun in our gun locker that i can outshoot is a series 70 38 super.
That being said, there is a way to fix this problem. The way we hillbilly yahoos used to fix this problem (which i dont recommend) was to seat the bullets out where they just touched the lands of the barrel -- that fixed the headspace problem -- the pistol would shoot like a house afire -- deadly accurate. The problem was that it was hard on brass. The old supers did not have a fully supported chamber (thats the reason for ramped barrels -- look at the glocks and newer ramped 1911's). That unsupported area allowed the brass to bulge and it would usually rupture on about the second reload. As you can see, that's a bad idea. But all this was done when we were young and ignorant -- it all seemed to be ok at the time. Thankfully, times have changed.
Several aftermarket barrel makers, Barsto being the first of them, make barrels that fixed the head space problem by using a case mouth headspace arrangement similar to the 45 acp. The barrel cost is from about $200 up, depending on vendor. That one change turns the 38 super into a great and accurate pistol. I like the 38 super, but it needs to be handloaded to bring out its true potential. Recoil is milder than the 45 because the bullets are lighter.
There are those who will tell you that the 38 super is a rimless 357 magnum. It aint -- one look at any good reloading manual will reveal that a 38 super is a little more powerful than a plus + 38 special or a 9 mm luger. They will not do what is 357 sig will do. The 38 super is a great choice for a low recoiling round in a 1911 type pistol. It is fun to shoot.
I know that there are practical pistol shooters who will find fault with this post; but they shoot modified pistols with ramped barrels and hotrod the super. That is a whole different ball game from shooting a stock 38 super 1911.
All said, all done, if you can find a super that headspaces on the case mouth with a fully ramped barrel; you will find an accurate, reliable auto pistol. If you find and old Colt; you will find a great old pistol that needs a new barrel to be as accurate and reliable as it should be.
Hope this helps.
Kind regards,
LEROY
-
Dear folks:____________
Thanks to all of you who took the time to provide your thoughts on Para products. It looks like now all i need to do is to get to work on finding the best deal i can on a GI.
Thanks again.
Kind regards,
LEROY
-
How large is the pistol compartment. Will it hold a Glcok 23 or similar size?
Warbird:_________
If its a "Fat Boy" it will hold a 4 inch n frame smith or a 5 inch 1911. The smaller one wont.
Hope this helps.
Kind regards,
LEROY
-
I'm still not positive that pictures are covered under the 1st.
I know that I cant take my camera anywhere I want,and take pics....and I've tried...
If someone can provide the source to say it is,I'll gladly change my mind on the whole thing!
Check this link out: USATODAY.com - New digital camera? Know how, where you can use it
When my son was younger we spent lots of time on public property taking railfan pictures. The old rules were " if you can see it, you can take a picture of it." some LE and RR personnel didnt like it; but they couldnt do anything about it. As far as the railroad thing was concerned, when you got on their property (thats private property), you were tresspassing -- they didnt like that and would prosecute you for it -- thats another issue. You have no right to tresspass on someone elses property and do anything; including taking pictures.
That being said, there are places where you cant take pictures. They are usually inside the gates of a company that does proprietary things (or simply has a "no picture taking" policy -- real "intellectual property"), concerts (alledged "intellectual property" -- hehehe), other places where you pay for the priveledge of entry and has a "no picture taking policy".
RE: Sensitive areas, dams, power houses, nuclear power plants, defense facilities, etc.
Since 9/11 there are many who will tell you that you cant take pictures of certain things from public property. I'm not sure that they can legally do anything but try to intimidate you as long as you are on public property. I worked for a company (a large utility) that would immediately investigate any "suspicious" picture taking. They sent the security guys out and asked bunches of questions.
Hope this helps.
Kind regrds,
LEROY
-
Dear fellow pistol affectionados:
I have been watching and reading about the PARA stuff for quite a while. I really like the looks of the new Para mil spec type 1911, and you cant beat the price. The problem to me seems to be that opinions are sharply divided concerning the quality and reliability of PARA products. Please school me concerning your experiences with them if you would. What do you like about them? What do you not like about them? What goes wrong with them? How do they shoot? ect, ect.
Thanks in advance.
Kind regards,
LEROY
-
Walther PPS out of the ones listed.
but...
+3 for the Glock 26...
I like the PPS for "sunday go to meeting" carry in khakis and dress pants --- thin and a bit lighter. The only down side is the price -- i think they are expensive for what they are -- simply put, a plastic pistol. If you can live with the thickness, any of the baby Glocks are great.
After all the studying and opinion gathering; the best solution is most likely exactly what HEX said:
Just get a Glock 26 and be done with it.
Probably the best advice based on cost, size, capacity, and firepower.
Kind regards,
LEROY
First AR build
in Long Guns
Posted
OR:________
Recently been thru this and decided to use a stripped lower, build it myself; and have someone else build the upper the way we wanted it. The reason i wanted to do the lower was to see for myself exactly how all the trigger parts, buffer, spring, ect went together. I also did bunches of looking and ordered the exact parts i wanted to go into the lower plus the exact stock that i wanted.
That having been said, the advice of several other posters here is applicable. First, it probably aint going to save any money when you start picking and choosing parts. It will give you what you want though. To me, that ability to get what i wanted was the most important thing.
FiftysixFordGuy makes a great point here:
If you do what he recommends, you can get what you like and learn a little about how they work in the process. There are several members of this forum that helped me greatly when i was looking at this stuff for myself -- they are all good guys and a great resource and help.
I would also take a look at AR15.com and Brownells AR Builder page. Building the lower aint a big deal if you spend a dollar or two on the tools to do it with and pay attention.
Have fun!!
Kind regards,
LEROY