Hozzie

They are getting hammered and rightly so.  Cowards even took down their facebook page.

I just had a very good phone conversation with Rep. Lamberth who is sponsoring the House bill to close public access to the HCP records.  He called me after I sent an email to Lt. Gov Ramsey voicing my disapproval of him opposing the sealing of the records. I copied Sen. Lamberth as well as my local Senator and Representative.  I was very impressed.  He was very open with what he would like to get done with the bill and it was very refreshing to speak with a Representative so in lockstep with where my personal opinions are on the matter. I will not go into everything that we talked about, but he did ask for everyone to write their representatives and senators asking for support of this bill.  He said the bill is not posted yet, but will be soon.  I can tell you that he wants 100% privacy with this information and that it would only be available to law enforcement or through a court order for legitimate reasons.  I hope he gets support from the rest of the legislature on this. He said all of our letters really make a difference, so keep them coming.  

I don't get the argument where some things still need to be open.  To whom?  Law enforcement can already search and find this information out.  Who else needs access to this information. If you are part of a trial and it is pertinent, sure, law enforcement should be able to give the status, but to say that we should allow for a one time check from any request is not acceptable to me.  Where is my right to privacy in all of this.  All this does is allow an easy opening for employers and others to do an at will search which I don't think is right.  If they have a warrant for it, or if it is part of normal law enforcement duties, ok, but Jim Bob calling to see if I have a permit is not acceptable.   I guess one more letter has to be sent. 

It's sad, but I think her children will be better off.  She was one crazy woman. I think she probably killed her BF and knew what was coming.  

I specifically was looking for some decent subsonic to use with a suppressor.  The Aguila 38gr HP subsonics have very good reviews and the price was still fair.   I guess it just depends what you need.  You can have all of the high power stuff you want.  Leave the good stuff for me  :pleased: .

who knows for how long.... I got 4 bricks ordered.

Check Dave Ramsey's site for an endorsed tax attorney in your area.  They all offer a free or low cost consultation. I went through a similar process in Nashville to try and determine if it was worth it for me to go on my own.  It sounds like our situations are similar except that my employment involved work solely for a foreign company which added even more taxes.  Even though my gross would have been fairly high (200k -250k), it did not make financial sense to do it.  In the end, my take home pay may have been less by the time I did everything including incorporating, hiring attorney's, tax accountants, etc.  It may work out for you, but for the little gain I would have seen and the extra risk I would have taken on, it wasn't worth it to me.

Let's be honest.  If a company wants to fire you for a gun, they will, but they aren't going to come out and say that.  They can fire you for any or no reason at all already.  Making a law that says they can't fire you for keeping a gun in your car isn't going to stop them from firing you if they want to.  I am of the opinion that if you are good at your job, no one is going to even think about firing you.  If you're being an imbecile and talk about having a gun in your car, you get what you get.  No one needs to know you have a gun in your car or otherwise.  No one needs to know you have a collection of guns at home. This is better than nothing.  At least you don't have to worry about where you are at every single point while having a gun in your car. I suspect there are already plenty of people carrying and the mass firing's haven't started yet.  

I agree with 2.ooohh above, it isn't about being scared to legally carry, it's about the hassle of having to deal with the aftermath of someone either breaking in or just being scared of their own shadow and calling police.  It really depends where you are at, but I wouldn't be driving around Nashville with my shotgun in my back window.  Not that you can't, but there is a time and place for everything.  

Yes, if you are a life member, they are offering the upgrade to Endowment for $250.

Go spend $15 on a case and put it in your trunk.  You are just inviting issues by putting it on the floorboard for someone to see.  That is unless you will be in the car 100% of the time.  Or at minimum, put a blanket over it.

  I don't really have a problem with that but I won't hold it against him for proposing it as I think it is a good idea.  We complain a lot about not showing any leadership and in this case, I will give credit where credit is due.  How it gets implemented I don't really care.  That's not one of my hot button topics.

I will give Obama credit on one thing and that is his call for better preperation for work right out of high school.  There is no reason we can't work with colleges and private business to provide better education opportunities in high school.  Not everyone will take advantage of them, but I think that concept is pretty hard to argue with.

I am looking at the Huntertown Arms as well.  They have a complete warranty even on the baffles as long as you aren't doing something stupid.  I would like to get the SS as well just to not have to worry about it  Plus, with SS I can throw the baffles in my ultrasonic cleaner without worry.  Can't do that with the Aluminum.  It's either that or the SS Sparrow, but the Sparrow is about $200 more and from everything I have read, I don't see much extra advantage.  

A little lengthy, but this was my letter.  The formatting got all messed up when I pasted it in, but that doesn't really matter here.     ....................................................................... February 10th, 2013 Senator Ted Cruz Senator Bob Corker Senator Lamar Alexander Representative Marsha Blackburn   Dear Senator Cruz,   As the Senior Senator on the U.S. Senate Judiciary Subcommittee, I am writing you today as a law abiding citizen, gun owner, and handgun carry permit holder regarding the upcoming session on “Proposals to Reduce Gun Violence: Protecting Our Communities While Respecting the Second Amendment.”  The purpose of my letter is to expound upon my reasoning and unyielding support for every legally eligible American citizen, to not only own a firearm, but to do so without legislated prejudice or limitations.  As a follow up to previous correspondence to my State Representative and Senators, I have copied them on this letter as well in expectation they will also support no limitations on my 2nd Amendment rights. While the tragedies of the past year are no doubt at the forefront of these discussions, I believe that it is important to not let these events be the blinding light by which law-abiding citizens are further denigrated by our own government as persons no better than criminals, incapable of making their own decision as to what is best for them and their families.  For some, that may very well mean deciding not to own firearms or to only own firearms with limited capability.  However, their right to make that decision should not limit my right to provide myself and my family with what I determine to be the best products currently available which to me include the AR-15 platform and high capacity magazines. I believe that most Americans agree that the 2nd Amendment unequivocally provides all legally eligible citizens the right to keep and bear arms.  This session is not about the right to keep and bear arms for protection, hunting, or other sporting activities.  This session is about placing illogical restrictions and limits that have not proven to reduce violence, gun or otherwise at anytime in history.  In fact, the only result of such proposed limits is a greater burden on law-abiding citizens to not be able to protect themselves to the best of their ability. It is clear to me that all of the proposed legislation being discussed in not at all about “saving lives” or “reducing violence”, but rather is about the false perception that somehow more laws equals increased “safety”.  I would sincerely ask each representative why it is only now and only by limiting firearms and accessories that they believe our country will be safer or that it will reduce violence?  Many will say the Newtown tragedy crossed a line.  Really, what about every child that has died at the hands of alcohol, mental illness, or family disputes in the last year?  Where is the cry for change for these tragedies?  Or does it only matter if it is 20 children who are murdered by a mentally deficient person with a gun?   The hypocrisy of some of our leaders is deafening. I, along with all other law abiding gun owners I know, am 100% for reducing violence, but we believe doing so should be done with logic and reason, not emotion and ignorance.  Logic and reason, i.e. facts, tells us that an AR-15 rifle has no more inherent accuracy or lethality that any other firearm of the same caliber with similar features.  It is emotion and ignorance, i.e. lack of knowledge, that allows one to believe that any external accessory makes a firearm more accurate and therefore, more lethal.   For many of us, the AR-15 firearm is desirable due to the fact that we can utilize one platform for many purposes.  With the bang up job our government has done to create jobs and improve the lives of Americans, it should not come as a surprise that everyone is having to do more with less (please read the sarcasm). While I have been fortunate in my life and have not had to resort to deadly force for preservation of my own or another’s life, I fully support and defend my individual right to bear arms without legislated limitations.  I do not believe that any of the measures being considered will reduce the occurrence of violence, gun or otherwise, and in fact only further proves that many do not care about fixing the underlying problem, but rather about diverting blame to law abiding citizens.  I fully believe and support the notion that our forefathers provided the 2nd Amendment without limitations specifically to ensure the government could on infringe upon the rights of citizens, no matter the reason.  In closing, I would just like say that I believe living in a free society comes with some inherent risk and a lot of personal responsibility.  Bad things happen every day to thousands and thousands of people.  Whether it is the family killed by a drunk driver, a baby killed by a mentally unstable parent, animals being abused by ignorant owners, or individuals deciding to end their own lives, tragedies happen every day in a free society.  What do all of these things have in common; personal irresponsibility and/or the mental inability to make rational decisions.  Either way, these are the problems that we should be finding solutions to.  With the decline of overall values in society in general, we need to emphatically and without delay hold those responsible accountable for their actions, not punish those who are not.  Likewise, those which are incapable of rational mental judgment must be given alternatives for support.   Taking away my rights as a gun owner is not the answer to these societal problems.  I implore you and Congress to work on solving the underlying problems and not limit the rights of every law-abiding citizen of their constitutionally protected freedoms.  Best Regards,  

I see a lot about the Go Pro HD's for things like that if you want to mount it to something.  There are all kinds of different options.   http://www.amazon.com/GoPro-CHDMH-001-HD-Motorsports-Hero/dp/B002VA57XC

I am of the opinion that if you don't make a big deal of it, most others won't make a big deal of it.  If someone does and as long as your company doesn't have a policy against it, I would just simply respond I am doing nothing illegal and leave it at that.  I think typically we make it worse on ourselves by trying to justify why we carry to someone who will never understand.  Don't get sucked in.

If someone asks, I would tell them.  Nothing wrong with them realizing you are carrying and aren't scary.  Just make sure you are in a legal place to carry and not somewhere you shouldn't be.  I think skirting the question looks more suspicious than just being up front.

I wouldn't like that either.  I would have demanded my info back.  What store was it?  I think it is valid that if that is their policy, everyone should know who it is.  That's not the way to treat people.  They should also respond and say why they do this just to look at a gun.   

I really believe the House of Reps won't let an awb happen, but I do think bafte may make a sudden reversal on those types of stocks. Magazines are a crap shoot and background checks are almost certain in my opinion.

You make my point exactly. Excuses in my opinion. We don't have to agree, I just don't think any reasonable person buys that explanation nor would make the conclusion that an ar-15 with a slide fire stock is no more dangerous than one without.

He supported it a couple of days ago but wanted to remove the stipulation on securing the borders first. Rubio said if Obama tried that they would not let any of it pass. Big surprise from Obama I know.

I don't think the proposed bill is that bad.  There is no amnesty that I could tell.  They must pay back taxes, not have a criminal record, the borders must be secured, and they have to go through the immigration process.  I don't consider that amnesty.  We'll see what the final version is, but if you think we can gather all of them up and ship them back, I think your kidding yourself.     I don't want illegals here either, but I am for practical solutions.  The big question will be how will they determine what taxes one must pay and what will be the compromise on securing the border.  I suspect we all think they will screw that up, but it's a start.  If this proposal doesn't get worked out I am afraid Obama will try to do something on his own.  That would be worse. 

I have a different opinion of this.  Everyone trying to justify that these stocks aren't the same as full auto, etc, look just as ignorant in my opinion as the democrats trying to say that a foregrip makes a gun more accurate.  I don't care if it is easy to use, or hard to use, or hard to hit what you are aiming at, etc.  To any reasonable person, a slidefire stock does allow the gun to fire at or almost at full auto speeds.  Yes, I know the physics of it and you can say "technically" it's not full auto. That's just excuses that don't help our credibility.  Aiming or not, a fully auto (including a slidefire stocked) gun will hit more things, that's a fact.    Let's be clear, I am not against them and don't think they are the problem, but lets stop making excuses as to why they are not full auto and wouldn't create more damage.  We need to keep in mind that "perception is reality" in the real world, even if we know there are technicalities that don't make it true.     If we expect the other side to bring any reason into the discussion, we should do the same ourselves.  It is not unreasonable in my opinion to equate the use of a slidefire stock with a fully auto rifle.  The average person will not discern a difference.  I am a gun nut and I would consider it full auto for all purposes and intents.

Agreed there is always one guy who has to show his "power".  I would have probably went back with a lawyer friend to explain I wasn't breaking the law.  Not in a threatening way, but maybe he would have a different attitude with the next guy that walks in.  I hate people that think they are the law and can make up their own rules.