Kelemvor

Maybe he was sleepwalking...

+1

I know some ammo has corrosive primers, especially Soviet surplus junk.

So now I know, target=ball=fmj.

LOL. I like this.

This is good to know. Sticky perhaps?

I'm surprised that nobody has about the epic quote: "A 50 cal bullet could just fly past their head, and the compression could actually take a person's head off."

Just went to a gun store (that shall remain unnamed because the owners are so friendly) to pick up some 9x19mm. I ask them what they have and they tell me they have some Hornady Critical Defense and some Independence "target ammo". I'm not the most savvy, but I immediately think, "okay, either I can get defense loads or some match grade stuff...but wait, why is that ammo in that crappy looking box with a generic name 'target ammo'?" So I ask them, "Target ammo? Is it frangible or something?" (surely it couldn't be some crazy nice match ammo.) In return I receive blank stares from everyone in the store. "Frangible?" They all start repeating to themselves. "Yeah, like, it explodes when it hits the target. You know, it turns into dust, it's like a door breaching round..." I attempt to explain. "No, that's the Hornady Critical Defense, it literally explodes when it hits you," the owner says. At this point I give up and ask how much the target is and they tell me it's like $12 (expensive, I checked when I got home). So it's "plinking" ammo. Why didn't he say so in the first place? I pay for it and weep softly inside. I want so badly to do business with these people, but every conversation I have with them causes me to lose more faith. P.S. I was going to buy 200rds of federal .223 from them, but they were going to charge $100, so I went to Wally World instead and paid $90. They make me do these things. Whew. I feel a little better.

This is a guide that the guy that did the "So you wanna buy an AR-15, huh?" thread put together. He seems to be pretty knowledgeable. I'd check this out: AK-47/74 rifles from around the world... - Police Forums & Law Enforcement Forums @ Officer.com

Running shoes. Seriously, the baton thing sounds like a good idea. However, I would think that if the BG has a gun, you don't bring a baton to a gunfight, and if they have anything other than a gun, you're better off just running away.

Good Ol' Patriot Act.

Not quite the same, but there is no doubt in my mind that I'd kill someone for sodomizing my wife.

I guess it really is something we have to leave to the jury and judges (even though there are some really crap judges out there). I would agree that the legislators are ill equipped to handle this. The thing they are trying to tackle is bigger than hate crimes. It is an attempt to legislate upon the perceived villainy of a crime, which is very slippery. Remember, though, differentiating between crimes of the same end is not that radical. I could shoot a guy and steal his car and be a murderer (which I would never ever do), but I would be a murderer still if I catch a man in bed with my wife and beat him to death (which might happen if I were ever put in the situation). In my opinion, I would deserve to die for the first situation, but the second is different, I do not think such an action makes one a menace to society. Thoughts?

I'm sorry you are misconstruing my logic as a snack food, but I believe you are missing my point. In case 1, you have a kid painting something that may be annoying, possibly ugly, but more or less just a picture, versus the same kid painting a highly offensive racial slur that you will definitely have to get removed post haste. In case 2, you have a guy slugging you because you said his team sucked or whatever (which likely could have been avoided) versus a dude slugging you because of your color (which could not be avoided). I am in no way saying that murderers should be treated differently based on motive, per se. They should hang with the same rope. But in the lesser crimes, certain permutations of said crimes merit different punishment from others.

Well that's where you have to ask, does the judicial system work...to which I answer, absolutely not. Currently, I have to kill someone that breaks into my house instead of incapacitating them, because they can sue me for injury even though they were committing a crime. We have about a million violent offenders in state prisons in the U.S. many of whom are muderers, who we spend approximately $70,000/per inmate, to maintain rather than sending them to their rightful graves. We arrest and imprison individuals for numerous victimless crimes, but wealthy politicians and corporate executives have nothing to fear when they swindle honest Americans out of millions of hard earned dollars.

Lol. Now, I think the difficulty lies in the point that there can be crimes that are identical in the eyes of the current law, but culturally/socially can be completely different in magnitude. Let describe some situations so you all can see what collinp2 is trying to get at as far as I can tell. Case 1: A.) You own a building in town and a kid spray paints some generic graffiti like a name or something on the side of it. Vandalism charge. B.) You own a building in town and a black kid spray paints "Stupid inbred rednecks"(pretty racist and offensive, assuming most of you are white southerners) on the side of it. Same vandalism charge. Case 2: A.) You're in a long line at Wal-mart and a guy starts making small talk, you get in an argument about rival sports teams and bad words leads to the guy punching you in the jaw. Assault charge. B.) You walk out of Wal-mart (which just so happens to be in a primarily Hispanic neighborhood) and a Hispanic individual sucker punches you in the head and calls you a "puto gringo" when you are on the ground. Same assault charge. Logic would suggest that there are disparities between the A and B's of each case, but the law has no way of recognizing this. The important question that must be posed is, "Is our legal system capable of properly justifying the disparity, or should we leave it in the hands of the judge and jury?"

My first ride, 1988 GMC Jimmy Sierra Classic

Kinda what I was wondering was...well...why are all the people there so unfriendly. I buy something nearly every time I go there and I've experimented being even more friendly and polite than I normally am and still no change. Like, when I get my receipt and say, "K, have a nice day." I'll get a, "Uh, huh," or "Yup." Not to mention the general hostile tone they seem to have. Am I missing something?

I've been browsing around these forums for about 3-4 months now and I have yet to even see mention of this place. They are right down the road from me on 21st Ave. and I was wondering if there were any opinions on this place.

PISTONS

Woohoo, just added myself!

Agreed. It's bad enough when they make a mess of the laws that don't interfere with your constitutional rights.

Who shoots a guy in the foot?

"Don't get any ideas," she says...

A thing to remember is, most GLBT argue that their alternate lifestyle is a genetic predisposition and not a choice. Back to the freedom stuff, so, if it's my business, true freedom would mean that the gov't couldn't tell me what to do, so long as it doesn't violate other people's freedoms? Then I could tell a guy that I was interviewing, "Get out of here, I'm not gonna hire a black man." I could tell my cute secretary, "You should get some shorter skirts, and some lower cut blouses." I could tell my IT guy, "One of the guys in the shop told me that you're a queer, if that's true, I'm gonna need you to clean your desk out by 5." I could tell my shop workers, "We've got a big order to complete, boys, next week you're gonna be working five 12 hour shifts. No lunch breaks, and no, I can't pay you overtime." I could fire my welder because he broke his arm playing basketball. Do you see where this is going? These laws are important. Nobody likes a big fat government, but some law is necessary.