USMCJG

I remember Win ME and I'd say when strickj compared it to a Hi-Point he was either being unfair to Hi-Point, or overly kind to Windows.

So you are saying that Win 95 is the best of the bunch?I'm still using XP Pro too. I do want to check out Windows 7 though.

Why get an SKS when the M1903 worked? Seriously.

Gunslingers is a decent shop and I like the people that work there. But I'm going to have a hard time forgiving them for when they were charging $50/1,000 for SR primers.

It didn't look like luck to me. It looked like a good, old-fashioned ass whoopin'.

Yeah. What he said.

Nice!

THIS Crompton has been on vacation since week 1. Honestly, watching Crompton play the way he did today kinda made me mad. He is the biggest difference, along with WR play, between Tennessee being 3-3 and being 5-1 or 6-0.:mad::mad: As you can see by my smilies, I am conflicted. GO VOLS!

Thanks Glockmeister and OhShoot. Sorry for the temporary hijack, and now back to your regularly scheduled programming.

Okay, thanks for the explanation. While you are in a question answering mood, I have a bit of an off topic question. I drive a crew cab pickup truck. When I go to the range(I don't have an HCP by the way)I keep the guns in the back seat, unloaded, in a hard gun case. I keep my ammunition and magazines(unloaded) in the front seat in my range bag. I have always wondered if this is good enough in the eyes of the law. I am not comfortable with leaving either my ammunition or my firearms in the open bed of the truck. So my question is, is this an acceptable way to transport my firearms and ammunition to the range as far as the law is concerned? Thanks.

If you are an HCP holder and have a gun in the car or are not an HCP holder and have a gun in the car because you are on the way to the range, going hunting, etc., do LEOs have free reign to toss your car without a warrant?

It seems that we have branched off in to a discussion of Affirmative Action(AA). This is another case of good intentions with unexpected consequences. AA is just another government program intended to reduce racism/sexism that actually expands it. Let's say you own a business that has a position open and you interview three people for the position. One is a white male, one is a black male, and the other is a white female. In this hypothetical situation the white male is by far the most qualified, the white female is the second most qualified, and the black male is the least qualified. As a business owner, you would think that you should be able to hire the most qualified person for the job, but you have government mandated quotas that say you can't do that. So you are forced to hire one of the two less qualified individuals. Let's say that the business owner needs another person of color and hires the black male. In the governments mission to decrease racism and increase equality in the workplace, they may have just created three new racists. The white male, who knows that he was the most qualified but didn't get the job. The white female, who knows that she was more qualified than the person who got the job. And the business owner, who had to pass up an extremely qualified individual in order to fill a government mandated quota. It's easy to see from this hypothetical example how good intentions could have bad consequences. And this doesn't even take in to account the fact that AA is itself sexist and racist by it's very definition. It is sexist against males and racist against whites . It is also unfair to tell a free man who owns his own business how many of what kind of individuals he must hire. Affirmative Action, like Hate Crime laws, unintentionally(or perhaps intentionally?) serves to extend racism, sexism, and other isms rather than to eliminate them. JMO Cliff

I was thinking the same thing.

Yes. Yes it does.

I understand what you are saying. But if instead of painting it on a building what if someone held up a sign with their name on it? What if instead of the sign saying their name it said "go home fags"? Both would be legal and one would hurt some people. By giving the person who tagged the building with the phrase "go home fag" a much harsher penalty than the one who just tagged the building with his name, you are saying that homosexuals are different than other people and deserve different treatment. To me, this is exactly the opposite of what we should be striving for as a civilization.But if we are going to have hate crime laws then they HAVE to be equally enforced. We have seen many, many cases where racially motivated white on black crime has resulted in hate crime charges. We have also seen many, many cases where racially motivated black on white crime has not resulted in hate crime charges. Both types of cases are racially motivated. But the legal system has consistently decided that motivation is not really important, it's the race, religion, sexual orientation of the victim that matters. I have a major problem with a justice system that assigns different values to different people, regardless of which way that system swings.

The reason I have never supported any "Hate Crime" legislation is because it differentiates people of different races, religious affiliations, sexual orientation, etc.. I thought the ultimate goal was that all people would be equal, regardless of sexual, racial, or religious differences. How can we expect the general public to accept that all people are equal when they are clearly not equal in the eyes of the law. As you mentioned, there are several different charges they may be brought against someone based on circumstances. I see no problem with that system and don't know why it shouldn't apply to every victim and defendant. I would be in favor of stiffer penalties for violent crimes, with more time served instead of all these premature paroles. But I don't want sentencing based on various cultural and ethnic differences.Here is a good video from South Park that pretty much sums up my feelings on the subject: The "Free Eric Cartman Now" Committee - Clips - South Park Studios (You'll probably have to sit through a commercial to see it)

Just another way to divide rather than unite.

If you'd bet on how long it would take between his first post and pulling the race card, you'd have won easily. That pathetic maneuver only took one page.

You might want to take your own advice on this.

Hilarious!

Used diapers?

Very cool video. The music wasn't so bad, it does get old after a while though.

I agree, but I'm not absolutely sure of the rules on this either. I have worked in the construction industry for a long time, mostly commercial, and have dealt with inspectors on a near daily basis, again mostly commercial, and I have never heard of them having the ability to come into a private residence uninvited. Businesses yes, but not private residences. I know a guy that used to be a building inspector. I'll see if I can get ahold of him tomorrow and ask him about this.

You could just tell in that CNN video that they were completely stunned that "The One" failed. Oh, and Chicago is a crap city. I've been there quite a bit, including living there briefly, and you'd have to pay me handsomely(which is why I went there in the first place) to ever get me to go back.

No , it isn't. That doesn't mean that this is not accepted and done regularly, but it is completely unconstitutional. They CAN take away your rights whenever and wherever they want. They can't do it legally or Constitutionally, but they can, and do, do it with stunning regularity and complete disregard for the Constitution and the People. Actually, neither the city of Chicago, nor the feds, "have jack to say about this". The Constitution speaks very clearly to this matter in the Second Amendment. The Supreme Court does have the legal right to rule on this though, since the inalienable rights of United States citizens are being abridged, and there is only one decision that they could possibly legally make. The Bill of Rights is not subject to the states or the feds. They are both Constitutionally restricted from tampering with them, short of a Constitutional Convention to rewrite them. The feds do not have the legal right to "take over law enforcement in the city of Chicago", they are Constitutionally restricted from doing this. Just as the city of Chicago is Constitutionally restricted from infringing on the Second Amendment rights of it's citizens. Times do change in 200 years, but that doesn't give any government entity the right to suspend or abridge the Constitution. This is why the founding fathers allowed for the possibility of changing the Constitution.Thankfully, they had the foresight to make sure that it would not be a trivial process, subject to the whim of the "rulers of the day", but would require the consent of a large majority of the United States and its citizens to accomplish.