USMCJG

Here you go- GunTech : Picatinny Rails, Weaver Rails, What?s The Difference? - World's Largest Supplier of Firearm Accessories, Gun Parts and Gunsmithing Tools

I'd hit it like this

That sounds like an accurate assessment. I think the bulk of America have lost faith in politicians, if they had any to begin with.

My numbers are taken from the US Treasury Dept.. I am not defending Bush. Bush, and Congress, spent WAY too much money. Obama, and Congress, are spending WAY too much money. I'm not taking political sides in this. If believing that Clinton magically balanced the budget and had a surplus, all while increasing the national debt by over $1.26 trillion, gets you to sleep at night. Then more power to you.

No. We DIDN'T. There are two different kinds of debt- public debt, which is government debt that is owned by the public(treasury bills, savings bonds, etc.- often owned by foreign governments)and intergovernmental holdings, which is money that the government borrows from itself(mostly taken from Social Security). The numbers that are shown to "prove" we had a budget surplus are the public debt numbers, but the money taken from SS is not factored in. Social Security is not a tax, it's supposed to be a sort of retirement account, but the government uses it as though it were a tax to make the numbers look better. It's not just Clinton, for years presidents have taken from Social Security to make the budget deficit seem smaller. Do you remember all of the talk in the 1990's about how SS was going bankrupt? Now you know why. It has become an almost standard practice. We did come within about $18 billion dollars of having a balanced budget in 2000, which is actually a pretty significant accomplishment.You can believe whatever you want, but the numbers don't add up. Between 1993 and 2000 the national debt increased by $1.26 trillion, and it increased by at least $100 billion every year but one(2000).

I have never had that feeling... And I hate you.

It's a good idea. What's the guy in the video's address?

I'm not sure if that is the greatest hole-in-one ever or the worst one. It's got to be the most amazingly lucky one ever though.

+1. Go for it.

I don't think it's legal, even with permission. I believe you are correct. To my knowledge, there are no exceptions to the law.

Sure does. I just hope I look half that good, and am half as mobile, when I'm 119 and dead.

While it's true that Clinton, along with a Republican congress, did reduce the budget deficit during some of his years in office. We never actually had a balanced budget or a budget surplus. The public debt did decrease, but intergovernmental debt(the money the government borrows from itself) increased more than enough to offset the decrease in public debt. And the national debt increased every single year he was in office, the same as it did for every other president since Dwight D. Eisenhower. If we don't find a fiscally responsible president and some fiscally responsible congressmen, then we are doomed. We need some people to make the tough decisions and cut the government fat. ASAP.

You may want to take a look at the S&W Model 41 also.

The Constitution does both. It clearly enumerates the powers of the Federal government giving all other powers to the states. And in a select few very special cases(the Bill of Rights) it specifically spells out what the Federal government cannot do to what the founders considered to be our most important rights, our birthrights. I believe that the first nine amendments in the Bill of Rights are, at least in part, what the Constitution refers to in the Tenth Amendment when it says "...nor prohibited by it to the states...". It is my belief that the Second Amendment was always intended to be incorporated. As for whether or not an officer should be able to temporarily take control of your weapon without RAS or PC, it seems to me that such an act should violate the Second('...to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed...'), Fourth('...against unreasonable searches and seizures...'), and Fifth Amendments('...nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law...'). None of the aforementioned amendments set a time limit on what constitutes an infringement, a seizure, or a deprivation of property. Having said all of that, the law is what it is. Obey it, whether it is Constitutional or not, or be prepared to face the consequences. If you don't like it and want to change it, you get a chance to make a difference every two years.

Somewhere, Martin Van Buren lies in his grave with a huge smile on his face.

+1. And the cameraman in the video wasn't ignorant, he actually knew the law and his rights. The officer was ignorant of the law, but at least he took the time to get clarification.

Fallguy is right. You are incorrect. Most states do not require you to produce your papers when asked, including NC where the video was taped. If you were the officer, you would probably be facing a lawsuit right now. The guy backed down because he called in to find out what the law actually was and left when he was informed that he(the officer) was wrong. Credit to the officer for calling in to find out what the law really was, and to the citizen for already knowing it.

Yes, they are supposed to have reason to believe they are in fear for their safety. It's obvious that this officer thinks any law abiding citizen with a firearm is a threat to his safety. It's completely discretionary and entirely up to the particular officer. I think it would have been best to not take your weapon in the first place, but if he felt it was necessary I agree that putting it on top of your car may not have been ideal. The only thing you can really do is call the PD and tell them about your concerns. Be polite and let them know that you would prefer that your firearm was not left in plain view of the public if it must be taken away for the officers safety. Perhaps they will talk to the officer who pulled you over and he will handle it differently the next time.

But you can't just selectively remember history either, you have to remember it all. Like the 1979 swine flu "outbreak" that created a panic and led to a vaccine that was released without being fully tested by the FDA and drug companies(by order of the government) and killed more people than the flu did and also caused thousands and thousands of cases of Guillain-Barre syndrome.As for the vaccine needing to be hurried along, it is already available and on the market. It's just in somewhat short supply. What has to be remembered is that so far the swine flu is no more virulent, or deadly, than the common seasonal flu. According to Dr. Marc Lipsitch, an expert in infectious diseases at Harvard University(from this Reuters article- Swine flu death rate similar to seasonal flu: expert | Health | Reuters ), the mortality rate for swine flu is between .007 and .045%. Hardly an "alarming rate". It's about the same as the seasonal flu, if not lower.

I've done it, but I work in construction. Assuming you are self contracting here are a few things to remember- 1) Make a budget and keep to it. Usually someone will buy a house plan and immediately enlarge it by 5-10%. And that's just at the beginning of construction. It gets out of hand quickly from there. 2) Find trustworthy subcontractors. Ask friends, neighbors, etc. who have had work done if they would recommend people. 3) Make a realistic schedule and let your subs know well in advance when you will need them on the job. 4) It is always a good idea to have contracts with your subs when doing major projects, especially if you are not a contractor. If you have truly quality subs this isn't an issue. 5) Hire a good contractor. I know I said I was assuming you were self contracting, but it is always easier with a truly good contractor. He will know things that you will not and he will know good subs to do the work. You can still be really involved in the process and get exactly what you want without a LOT of headaches. 6) Don't be afraid to ask questions. 7) Be cool. Everybody likes working for cool people.

I keep wanting to check out the Gun Depot, but I'm broke. When I get some money I'm definitely going to check them out though.

100% incorrect. Wrong again. Constitutional rights and state laws ALWAYS trump departmental protocol. At least from an actual legal standpoint. Not saying LEOs can't or haven't gotten away with serious infractions against the Constitution and state laws. Wrong yet again. I could actually site many cases and even show you videos where calls have been received about a "man with gun" and nothing has happened other than a friendly discussion. Those officers actually knew the law in their jurisdictions though, and didn't just make it up as they went along. I have yet to see a video where someone legally carrying a handgun was taken to the ground and handcuffed for not breaking the law. Of course the fact that they were being videotaped is probably why. People, LEOs included, are less likely to break the law on video. You don't lose any rights when in the presence of a law enforcement officer. A LEO can determine the threat within the confines of the law in his/her jurisdiction. He can't LEGALLY violate a persons Constitutional rights. Thanks for sticking up for our gun rights. But the Bill of Rights has more than one amendment. I support them all. How many cases did you lose to an actual lawyer? I will grant you that we get closer and closer every day to living in a police state post 9/11. But why would I need to contact a legislature to change the laws that don't need changing, even if a few LEOS are willing to break them? That's like the people who think another gun law will stop crime when we already have 20,000 on the books that are broken on a daily basis.

I-40 to I-240 to I-26 to I-81, isn't really too far out of the way. You're still making westward progress most of the time, except for the hour+ you are going basically due north on I-26 to I-81. But it sure ain't no 30 minute detour. I'd say it's about a 1-1.5 hour longer trip for sure. But with the extra traffic load on I-26 and I-81 maybe even more.

You are wasting your time. He has been told at least a dozen times that the laws are different here than they are there, and exactly what those differences are. We have some pretty conflicted people here who apparently hate socialism AND individual liberty, all at the same time. I just hope he isn't a LEO. Don't taze me bro.

That's a very good point PapaB.