JAB
-
Posts
4,356 -
Joined
-
Days Won
6 -
Feedback
0%
Content Type
Forums
Events
Store
Articles
Posts posted by JAB
-
-
On 10/12/2017 at 9:06 AM, CZ9MM said:
... a lot of "Pro-2nd Amendment" people are simply the "hunting rifle don't touch my six-shooter, I don't own any of that military type stuff and I think it should be banned variety".
There is a derogatory term for such a person. The term is that the person is a 'Fudd' - as in Elmer Fudd.
Personally, my own 'likes' lean more toward shotguns, lever rifles and revolvers and I don't own an AR or AK variant but I don't want to see things banned even if, like bump stocks, I have no personal interest in owning them.
-
2
-
-
There is a place in Cleveland, TN called Bald Headed Bistro that has elk on the menu. I have wanted to eat there for several years but still haven't. The elk is $42. Which isn't as pricey as the Bison Ribeye at $59. I don't mind paying for a good meal but that is a bit rich for my blood - hence the reason I have never eaten there.
https://baldheadedbistro.com/collections/entrees
There is also a place in Knoxville called Lonesome Dove - I believe it is in the building where Patrick Sullivan's Saloon used to be, in the Old City - that has game on the menu. Again, I haven't eaten there because it is pricey. They have 'courses' and some of the first course stuff doesn't look too pricey but I don't know that they are set up for someone to go there and basically just have appetizers. They do have a section on the menu called 'bar snacks' but nothing that sounds too terribly exciting on there.
http://lonesomedoveknoxville.com/menus/dinner/
As for the venison sandwich, I got kind of excited when I saw it was going to be in all stores. Then I saw the date. I hope to be camping at Citico and going to the '18th Century Trade Faire' at Fort Loudoun on that day - and there isn't an Arby's all that close to the area so I guess I'll miss out again this year.
-
That's great! About the only similar thing I have done - and it isn't really all that similar - is using a 20 gauge with the adjustable choke cranked all the way to the tightest setting to harvest some mistletoe out of a tree. I did use a spent CCI Stinger case to repair an old, double barrel shotgun when one of the barrels wouldn't fire because the hammer wasn't being 'cocked' like it was supposed to be (and it worked.)
-
Like Garufa, I keep thinking that a 110 is something I just plain 'need' because it is considered such a classic. I have my dad's 110 but wouldn't carry it for fear of losing it. I also have a Schrade Old Timer knife that looks almost identical which my sister found for me used (I have always liked the old, pre-Taylor, USA made Schrade knives, in some cases better than even Case pocket knives.) I never carry that Schrade, either - for probably the same reason I haven't talked myself into buying a new 110. To me, the handle is just too big and bulky for such a relatively small blade. Now, when I say 'small', keep in mind that my EDC is a Spyderco Resilience. The blade to handle size ratio is much better than a 110, the handle isn't nearly as bulky in my pocket as a 110 even though the blade is larger than the 110 and I don't need a belt pouch in order to carry it more comfortably. For now, $140 for the factory auto version is a little rich for my blood considering it is still pretty much a 110. However, if the price comes down a little over time I think it just might be the thing that gets me to buy and carry a 110. A knife that, to the casual observer, looks like grandpa's working knife and doesn't have the 'scary tacticool' look of many auto knives but which is, in fact, an auto knife would be pretty cool. Kind of a 'stealth' auto, I guess.
-
2
-
-
15 hours ago, monkeylizard said:
Yep. Even if they don't directly dictate it, they can coerce the states to setup carry the way the Fed wants it done.
.Gov: "What's that Tennessee? You're not going to require annual re-certification with a minimum of 40 hours of training time per year like we asked? OK....how about we withhold $200 million from your Medicare (or roads, or education, or whatever) funding? Oh ... what's that? You DO want to comply with that request? That's a good little boy. Now run along and play in the street some more."
That's exactly how we get fairly uniform seat belt and Interstate highway speed limit laws across all 50 states. This wouldn't be any different.
I don't want F-Troop anywhere near this.
Yep. And for those who think your statement is a 'stretch' let us recall that the federal government, during the Reagan administration, used the threat of withholding federal funding for highways, etc. to force states to raise the legal drinking age to 21 (the guy often supported anti-gun legislation even as far back as when he was Governor of California in the 1960s, granted amnesty to illegal immigrants and supported the use of a threat to withhold federal funding to get the federal government involved in what was supposed to be a state decided issue - tell me, again, why he is considered to be the ultimate conservative Republican instead of a RINO?) This was presented to be a way to stop drunk driving. Of course people between the ages of 18 and 21 were not solely responsible for the drunk driving problem, not everyone between the ages of 18 and 21 who chose to (at the time) legally drink were driving drunk and changing the legal drinking age so that a portion of legal adults could no longer legally purchase alcohol didn't stop the problem but I guess that at least the fedgov could point to it and say that they 'did something'. How did Reagan justify the fedgove usurping the states' rights? Well, he apparently called the problem a 'national tragedy', brought up that it involved transit 'across state borders' and was quoted as saying, "In a case like this, where the problem is so clear cut and the benefits are so clear cut, then I have no misgivings about a judicious use of Federal inducements to encourage the states to get moving, raise the drinking age, and save precious lives."
So, when the fedgov is put into a position where they want to be seen as 'doing something', think how easily another politician could basically repeat the above statement but instead say, ''In a case like this, where the problem is so clear cut and the benefits are so clear cut, then I have no misgivings about a judicious use of Federal inducements to encourage the states to get moving, institute much more stringent requirements to qualify for a carry permit, and save precious lives."
I remembered Congress and the Reagan administration using these strongarm tactics to force states to change state laws. However, I was in middle school at the time so it was good to have a source to ensure I was remembering correctly. That source was: http://www.nytimes.com/1984/06/21/nyregion/reagan-calls-for-drinking-age-of-21.html
-
1
-
-
I have made some pretty good jerky by first marinating and then smoking the meat on my offset smoker (with just about as little heat as I could manage while still getting smoke) for flavor and to begin the preservation/curing/drying process and then finishing it up in the electric dehydrator to get it as dry as I want it. This is the same method as I used for making chipotles several years back when I had a bumper crop of jalapenos (and have also used it for other smoke, dried peppers.) Being that I also sometimes like doing things the really old way, however, I would like (and eventually plan) to try something like the general method used in these, two videos (I am not generally a very successful hunter so mine will probably be made with beef.) I have also seen videos where folks use larger, multi tier versions of the tripod that Mr. Canterbury is using in his video and in some of those they spread some canvas or other, heavy cloth over the tripod to make a 'teepee' type setup that, I imagine, would work much like the setup used in the third video linked. I think the secret is (much like cooking with an offset smoker but probably to an even greater degree) to have coals and smoldering wood to create a lot of smoke while keeping actual flame to a minimum:
-
1
-
-
21 hours ago, john455 said:
It is posts like this that makes me realize just how much more intelligent some of you are than I am, I never thought of it from this prospective
Not smarter, at all. Just more suspicious
. If the fedgov can wriggle its way into something that is a state's issue then the fedgov will, eventually, find a way to use that usurped authority to enforce more unneeded regulation.
-
1
-
-
5 hours ago, scooter said:
Just some food for thought. Actually read the national reciprocity bills in question! They are based on the Commerce Clause, like most gun control laws. According to those national reciprocity bills, the act of carrying a firearm outside your state of residence is considered interstate commerce and can be therefore regulated by the federal government like any other interstate commerce activity. It is essentially the same mechanism that the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 and the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act (LEOSA) use. The key phrase in H.R. 38 is:
"a concealed handgun (other than a machinegun or destructive device) that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce"
The key phrase in S.446 is:
"a concealed handgun (other than a machinegun or destructive device) that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce"
Once passed, this or another administration can easily add restrictions to the point that you could be required to have a federal carry permit when carrying outside your state of residence, even if you visit a state with Constitutional carry, and that the type of firearm you can carry outside of your state of residence is restricted. Also, this federal law would override any state law.[/quote]
I agree.
QuoteThere is a rather simple solution to national reciprocity, sue every state denying a visitor their 2nd Amendment right! After all, you don't lose your 1st or 4th Amendment right when visiting another state. Unfortunately, no one seems to interested in enforcing the 2nd Amendment this way, neither the NRA nor the current administration, despite the fact that this is a basic civil rights law suit. Instead, everyone wants more laws, gun control laws to be specific.
Simple, maybe, but probably not really possible - and as DaveTN said, even if one had the money, as the Supreme Court has the power to legally (mis)interpret the Constitution, winning would be unlikely, anyhow.
QuotePS: Driver license reciprocity uses an entirely different mechanism, so a comparison to that makes really no sense.
Maybe not but that is exactly the argument many (I would say most) of those who I have heard/read supporting the idea of national reciprocity use. The above is my response to that argument. Bottom line is that if the feds put themselves into a position to dictate to the states that everyone (with a legal permit) can carry everywhere then they will also be in a position, at some point, to dictate the requirements that must be met - both by the carrier and the firearm - or even that no one can carry anywhere, period.
-
On 10/7/2017 at 6:33 AM, ken56 said:
The NRA sees this as a pathway to national reciprocity. They compromise on this and they put the pressure on to get national reciprocity passed. Its the NRA's holy grail at this time as they believe it will open the door to states that refuse 2A rights to non residents. Legislators also know that they can turn it into leverage on other issues.
On 10/7/2017 at 7:14 AM, DaveTN said:Some states will flat out refuse. I don’t think it will pass muster with the SCOTUS unless they are ready to rule anyone has a 2nd amendment right to carry a gun without a permit. Otherwise it’s going to remove carry laws from the states and hand them to the Feds.
As Dave says, the biggest thing national reciprocity would achieve would be to take the right to create carry laws from the states and hand them to the feds. Even worse, it would open the door for Kalifornistan style regulations to be put into place in all states. Many proponents like to point at drivers' licenses and an example of how carry permits ought to work. Those folks don't seem to consider than many of the regulations that apply to automobiles, emissions, etc. that begin on the left coast are often used as models for federal regulation. Why, then, do people believe that firearms related rules would be any different?
https://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/06/30/epa-allows-california-emissions-rules/
It is no stretch to imagine the fed - especially under an anti-gun administration - deciding, "Anyone with a valid carry permit issued by any state can legally carry in any state that has a procedure by which a private citizen can legally carry a firearm. However, in the interest of uniformity the list of 'California legal' firearms will be applied to all privately carried firearms in the country. Henceforth, only firearms on that list will be legal for sale to private individuals and any firearm that does not meet the criteria to be on this list will henceforth be illegal to carry by a private citizen."
That isn't even considering the likelihood that the fed will likely decide that, since a legal permit holder will be allowed to carry in any state, the rules, regulations and requirements for carry should match up to those of the most stringent state so that state isn't being 'forced' to allow those with 'less training' or who have been 'less thoroughly vetted' to carry in their state. National reciprocity is not a boon to gun owners/legal carriers and it certainly isn't worth trading away other rights in order to achieve it.
-
8
-
-
16 hours ago, DaveTN said:
You either have a right under the 2nd amendment to own a fully automatic weapon or you don’t; it’s that simple.
While bump fires may not violate the letter of the law; they violate the intent of the law.
The intent of the 2nd amendment was allow the people to protect themselves against a tyrannical government should the need arise. You would need automatic weapons if that were to happen.
Do I think the SCOTUS will ever rule that, or ease restrictions? Not after 10/01/2017.
You are absolutely, 100% correct, IMO. The 2nd Amendment was intended to protect private ownership of the types of arms needed to resist a potentially tyrannical government. The Founders knew that weapons technology, just like any technology, would change and wrote the 2nd Amendment to cover those future changes. Contrary to statements by antis trying to be clever, no, they weren't talking (specifically) about muskets. They were talking about private weapons of war, whatever form those weapons would take from muzzleloaders to full auto rifles to phase plasma rifles in a 40 watt range. The very weapons our government has illegally and unconstitutionally banned because 'no one needs them' are the type of weapons the 2nd Amendment is supposed to protect. Furthermore, banning bump stocks because 'no one needs them' is just another brick in the wall. If it is about hunting and self defense, a person can deer hunt just fine with a bolt action rifle with a three round magazine or, for that matter, with a single shot, break action rifle or shotgun. A person can defend their home just fine with a pump shotgun, pump or lever rifle or a revolver. Personally, I prefer lever rifles and revolvers over AR style rifles and semiauto pistols anyhow but that doesn't mean I want to see semiautos and standard capacity (or larger) mags banned. Likewise, just because I might not 'want' a bump stock or have any interest in owning a full auto that doesn't mean I believe they should be banned nor that I cannot understand the unconstitutional nature of doing so.
-
2
-
-
12 minutes ago, Garufa said:
I hate to say it but freedom loving 2nd amendment supporters are just going to have to suck this one up and let it go. The gains, or more properly termed "lack of defeats", the past decade on the federal level have a cost. Now it's time to pay up.
Don't shoot the messenger, this is just the reality as I see it. This event is not going away like all those in the past.
Oh, I agree. Bump stocks are probably gone - or at least access to them without tax stamps, etc. However, I think our 'advocates' - both in political office and elsewhere - should make it a hard fought loss. Make the other side expend some political capital to earn that legislation rather than having a group that is supposedly on 'our side' say, "Take our rights, please!"
My concern is that someone, somewhere will correctly point out that bump stocks are only one method which can be used to allow semiauto rifles to fire basically like automatic rifles. Heck, I seem to recall recently a sort of robot/cyborg glove that someone could wear which would make their trigger finger move quickly enough to fire at auto rates of speed. For that matter, I have seen videos where Jerry Miculek was firing semiauto pistols at rates close enough to full auto to not make much difference on the receiving end with no mechanical aid, at all. Making the politicians fight over bump stocks will give them something to chew on until some of the initial shock and outcry dies down. Not doing so gives too easy a victory to our enemies and allows them to move past the specific bump stock issue too quickly. Then the idea that, as long as semiauto rifles remain on the market and unregulated, this kind of thing could happen again will take hold (justifiably or not.) Giving up on bump stocks so quickly also allows them to move on to 'high capacity magazines' without breaking stride. If bump stocks are going to be sacrificed then the sacrifice should at least mean something. Wait until giving them up can be presented as 'compromise'. Make the politicians fight for the bump stocks to appease both sides' desire to be seen as 'doing something' rather than giving up the bump stocks easily so that the antis can quickly move on to, "Ban semiautos."
-
2
-
-
So, let me first state that I really don't have any, great desire to own a bump stock. However, I do have a great desire that Americans not lose the right to own such devices and I have a great desire that the organization that presents itself as a group that is supposed to be fighting against the loss of such rights not SUGGEST that those rights be taken away.
Quote“The NRA believes that devices designed to allow semi-automatic rifles to function like fully-automatic rifles should be subject to additional regulations,” the NRA said in a written statement.
Truthfully, I think this is just more political tit for tat. Legislators, especially ostensibly 'pro-gun' Republican legislators may throw gun owners a bone every once in a while so that the NRA can trumpet a victory. Then, when it comes time for the NRA to scratch some politicians' backs, they throw those Republicans a bone by suggesting that taking more freedom away from the gun owning public would be a great idea so that when those Republican legislators do so - thereby giving themselves something they can point to in the next election to show that they 'did something' about mass shootings, etc. they won't lose their NRA 'A' rating because the NRA suggested the stripping of those rights in the first place.
I understand the concept of 'picking your battles'. I also think the NRA rolls over when they should stand and fight, sometimes but understand that this is how they work and that we have to take the good with the bad. What I don't understand is shooting yourself in the foot and/or asking to be allowed to unconditionally surrender before the battle really even starts.
No, I am not an NRA member. However, despite all the little things they have done in the past with which I do not agree I was getting ready to bite the bullet and join. I literally (and by literally I mean literally - some people apparently don't know what the word means these days) looked up how to join the NRA just yesterday and was making plans to do so. It looks like they just saved me forty bucks.
-
1
-
-
You know, CZ, come to think of it - even though I try to avoid calling a 'magazine' a 'clip' - I don't recall ever having heard anyone talk about 'banana magazines'. For that matter, I don't recall ever having heard 'jungle magazines', either. They always seem to be 'banana clips' and 'jungle clips'.
I prefer to differentiate the terms 'magazine' and 'clip' most of the time and can see that misuse would be a pet peeve of gun people. That said, let's be realistic. Clips, magazines - they both refer to devices intended to hold ammunition so that multiple rounds of said ammunition can be loaded into a firearm at once.
Further, under the definition of 'clip', the online version of the Merriam-Webster dictionary (a pretty well recognized dictionary and, I suppose, authority on what words 'mean' in the English language) includes this:
QuoteDefinition of clip
2 :a device to hold cartridges for charging the magazines of some rifles; also :a magazine from which ammunition is fed into the chamber of a firearm
So, at least in common usage, when referring to a device from which ammunition is fed into a firearm, the terms are interchangeable. As CZ said, whether we like it or not.
-
1
-
-
7 minutes ago, Ronald_55 said:
It would have been "wise" to not threaten the officer and then just go on your way after getting a ticket.....But better for everyone he did not think that way
Heck, it would have been 'wise' not to friggin' speed when you have illegally altered firearms in the vehicle. That is what gets me - if the dude had the sense to exercise a bit of caution and travel at the speed limit he wouldn't have been stopped in the first place. I know we all exceed the speed limit from time to time but a good, general rule of thumb is if you have something in your vehicle that could get you some federal prison time you should probably try every way possible to avoid interacting with the po-po.
-
2
-
-
If the legislation had any chance at all of passing that chance went away with the events in Vegas. I agree that the Repocrats are no more on our side than the Dempublicans but in a parallel universe where the GOP really is on the side of gun owners this would still probably be the best move. Better to shelve it for now - when it has no hope of passing - and possibly bring it back around later than to open the floor to the mewling and haranguing from the antis using Vegas for their own political purposes.
-
On 10/2/2017 at 1:36 PM, Urse said:
I agree 100%. The Tac14/Shockwaves are cool and all but for home defense I would want a stock. If you ever have to use it for self defense you will be under duress and just as Clint Smith shows in the video it is very easy to punch yourself in the face with the gun. Even though it is a shotgun you still have to aim. Of course this can be remedied somewhat with training.
I stick to the notion that as a shotgun really only has a single point of reference, the bead (unless you have one with rifle style sights), you do not aim a shotgun. You point a shotgun using the bead as if you were using only a front sight (just as with 'point shooting' a handgun or rifle.) I have a PGO on one of my shotguns and, with the use of a single point sling, I can easily point it just as well as if I shouldered it. I do so by pushing out against the gun which puts tension on the sling and 'locks' the shotgun in place. I raise the shotgun just to my line of sight - just high enough that I can place the bead on the target. It is quite comfortable, pretty sturdy and for me is actually more 'natural' (as in I tend to do it without thinking much about it) than trying to 'shoulder' a firearm that doesn't have a buttstock. To each his or her own, however, and that method might not work for everyone.
My late mother had fibromyalgia and had gotten to the point that holding a 12 gauge up to her shoulder for any amount of time was difficult for her and the recoil was pretty painful. She was able to shoot my PGO shotgun 'from the hip' and - at home defense distances - hit the target she was aiming for every, single time right from the very first time she tried it. She also said that she didn't have any fatigue when doing so and that there was zero pain involved There is a lot to be said for 'body indexing'.
All that said, my main, go to, bedside HD shotgun has a buttstock. I would not, however, hesitate to grab the PGO if it happened to be more 'handy'.
-
Man, those are nice looking revolvers! I don't have a revolver in .45 Colt. In fact, as I don't have anything in .45acp, the only thing I have in .45 at all is a Comanche I recently inherited from my mom (single shot, break action .410/.45 Colt pistol.) I would kind of like to have a Circuit Judge as I have been fascinated with revolver carbines ever since I learned that they existed (after a trip to a museum as a kid.) Thing is, I already have a SBH, a Taurus Tracker and a Marlin (pre-safety) lever in .44 Magnum and, as I don't seem to be able to find the time to reload much these days, those are my 'expensive ammo' guns (at least what I consider expensive.) Maybe one day when/if I have more time to reload the .45 Colt will be on my list.
-
15 hours ago, No_0ne said:
Not caring for strawberry is downright un-american, and shows a lack of appreciation for the finer things in life ...
and Cracker Barrel is my all-time favorite restaurant while traveling ...
Hey! I still like apple pie, love barbecue and good chili (just about any variant) so I'm not completely un-American. I just don't care for strawberry. To be truthful, I even like fresh strawberries from time to time like in a good strawberry shortcake, a no-bake strawberry pie or a British style strawberry trifle. I just don't like strawberry jelly/jam much and really don't like strawberry 'flavored' stuff.
Besides, it is kind of odd to say, "...finer things..." and "...Cracker Barrel..." in the same breath.
-
1
-
-
Good luck, Bersaguy! There are several quotes from Mark Twain about smoking. I think one of the best and most clever - which is about how difficult it is to stop smoking and not go back - is:
"Giving up smoking is the easiest thing in the world. I know because I've done it thousands of times."
-
1
-
-
4 hours ago, bersaguy said:Why would any company give one of their food products the name "Death Wish" In the first place? There is no way I would buy that stuff unless I did actually have a death wish which I don't................JMHO
I don't drink much coffee (I like coffee but coffee doesn't like me) but I imagine it is kind of like Denis Leary said about smokers. He was talking about how a surgeon general's warning wasn't going to make a bit of difference to real smokers (such as himself.) He said something along the lines of, "You could come out with a brand of cigarettes in a black pack with a skull and crossbones and call them Tumors and people would be lining up around the block to get the things."
-
1
-
-
18 hours ago, Slappy said:
Unfortunately I don't think my Great Dane will fall for this. He HATES baths, and a 150lb dog that thinks he's about to die if he gets a bath is not fun to deal with. The goober loves swimming. I don't get it.
Wow. That sounds like it could require drastic measures - like securing your pup for a safe ride in the back of a pickup and going through the car wash or something.
-
1
-
-
My dog doesn't like getting baths. At all. She does, however, have a desire to please me that leads to her generally obeying what I tell her whether she really wants to do something or not. She is also very smart and understands a lot of what I say to her conversationally (never formally trained her with many 'commands' and rarely have to use 'command voice'.) If I call her to the bathroom and tell her to get in the tub she will. She will then proceed to look at me as if she is the most pitiful creature in the world the whole time I am giving her a bath and drying her off. When I tell her that it is okay to get out of the tub she leaps out and runs as if escaping a marauding lion - but she cooperates while she is getting a bath. Yeah, she is usually a really, really good dog.
-
1
-
-
3 hours ago, monkeylizard said:
That kind of thing could land you in a federal pen for years! After all, it is obviously a HAND gun (
) but it is attached to a device that allows you to support it with your shoulder. Further, this weapon uses technology which allows it to be fired with very little to no noise (and we all know a gun that doesn't have the potential to cause hearing damage to the user is much, much more deadly.) I hope you have all of your papers, registrations and tax stamps in order or the ATF will be coming for you!
-
2
-
2
-
-
Wow. I think I almost drooled a little. I love that.
-
1
-
. If the fedgov can wriggle its way into something that is a state's issue then the fedgov will, eventually, find a way to use that usurped authority to enforce more unneeded regulation.
) but it is attached to a device that allows you to support it with your shoulder. Further, this weapon uses technology which allows it to be fired with very little to no noise (and we all know a gun that doesn't have the potential to cause hearing damage to the user is much, much more deadly.) I hope you have all of your papers, registrations and tax stamps in order or the ATF will be coming for you!
Drone with Block Video
in General Chat
Posted
On the other hand, imagine the destructive capability of a few drones outfitted with ballistic capabilities and piloted by a small group of terrorists or other evildoers flying over a large, outdoor festival or other, such event. They could strike from above, move quickly from one part of the crowd/festival to another and do a lot of damage, both directly and through the chaos created when people trying to flee don't know which way to go. The drones could be equipped with explosive charges so that when the ammo runs out they could be crashed into the crowd and detonated or, perhaps worse, detonated at head-height among the crowd. Even worse, they could be equipped with cameras so that the terrorists/evildoers don't even need to make themselves all that visible. Carry out the attack, explode the drones, smash and ditch the controller and walk away. Greatly reduce the chance that they would even be caught - at least not until having carried out several, such attacks. Yeah, not at all a pleasant thought.