BigK

I bet you were very proud of her. Glad she did well and is interested. Who could ask for a better shooting partner than the person you're married to? Considering how well that gun is turning out for you, I may give it another try myself.

I hope she did well in her HCP class. I assume she put quite a few rounds down range through or she wouldn't be taking it to the class. Is it safe to assume she's happy with it? Let us know how she did.

I'd lose a lot of faith in my fellow man if I couldn't safely assume that we all agree that we should never lock anyone up unless we're pretty darn sure they're guilty. I give the crafters of our legal system the benefit of the doubt in that I assume they had good intentions. I'd like to think they weighed the consequences to society of making the burden of proof too strict and compared that to the injustice of locking up innocents. I do, however, wish I had a magical statistic machine that could spit out real numbers for anything I asked it. I'd love to know how many guilty actually go free for each rule of law that protects the innocent and how many innocent have been punished for each rule that allowed us to convict the guilty. I can't honestly say exactly what margin of error I'd be willing to accept, but it would be closer to my chances of getting struck by lightning than my chance of getting a cold.

After reading the thread, it seems there as many ways to defend your vote as there are loop-holes in our justice system. Most of us get angry when we hear about some scumbag getting away with a crime because of a technicality. However, that technicality that we hate was built into the system to hopefully keep innocents out of jail. The abundance of these loop-holes speaks to the effort put forth to protect the innocent from being wrongfully convicted. Does it still fail on occasion? Sure it does, but what the OP seems to be really asking is 'what margin of error is acceptable'? Most here seem to me to be saying they are not willing to accept anything short of perfection. I think this kind of absolutist mentality would have lead our country to a much more certain destruction than the imperfections in our current system. Afterall, no perfect system could EVER exist, so the only alternative to ensure NO innocent is EVER convicted is to have no system at all. BTW...thanks Fallguy, this is a very interesting topic.

I painted the sights on 3 of mine. I put some White-Out on first (seems to help) then got the God-awefullest ugly bright orange-red nail polish I could find at Walmart. Worked like a charm. I redo the job about every 6 months or so. I'm confident I'll never use up this bottle of nail polish.

Even if I had been patient and sent it off for repairs, I'd never feel confident enough to bet my life on it. Maybe that makes me superstitious or pig-headed, I don't know, but sometimes you can't get past a gut feeling, ya know? Nothing against the mfg or the model, in fact, I'd bet the problems have been worked out by now. It's probably because I got mine when they first came out. I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if yours runs perfectly. Seems like way more folks had good experiences than bad. I was just unlucky this time.

I thought the TCP handled and shot better than most micro-380's I'd tried. It worked great at first and I had plans to carry it instead of my Kel-Tec. After 4 or 5 mags of FMJ ammo it developed terminal FTE issues. The extractor gouged the brass pretty bad near the rim. It was like it was recoiling too hard for the extractor to catch on the rim. Racking the slide by hand consistently extracted the spent cases, though. That was enough for me. I wasn't going to manually eject enough rounds to break the gun in. I got rid of it. Lots of others on TaurusArmed.net didn't have this issue, maybe I was just unlucky. I hope yours works out and your wife likes it.

I think revolvers are better looking...I think it's the sexy curves. Then there's the "oh crap, I stepped in it now" factor when you can see 5 or 6 gleaming .357 hollow points looking back at you. Still, I prefer a semi auto for EDC. Carrying and changing mags is way easier and more ammo is always comforting no matter how good a shot you are.

My wife thinks the color code system is silly, but at least she listened. My daughter knows it well, she is less complacent about safety. I'll share this story with her, she'll appreciate it.

According to their website, Česká Zbrojovka claims the CZ 75 is in service with "more Governments, Militaries, Police and Security agencies than any other pistol in the world." They couldn't say it if it weren't true, right?

The instructor said, "hey, you just killed a guy with a beer bottle in his hand". I asked him, 'since he's a hippie, it don't count, right'. Besides he was obviously high on something or he wouldn't have pointed a beer bottle at a guy with a gun.

At the last course I took, we had a 'grand finale' drill that included shooting on the move, cover, reloads, and friend or foe targets. They're the kind where the instructor tapes an overlay onto the subject's hands...could be a gun, could be a cell phone. You don't know til you engage and look closely. I shot some poor hippie-looking dude in the face 3 times for pointing a beer bottle at me...EPIC FAIL! I feel your pain bro.

I definitely didn't mean to imply anyone was argumentative at all. I've just always like that phrase ("agree to disagree"), because it's kind of weird when you think about it. Maybe that's just the socially inept geek in me too, LOL. BTW...I'm an IT guy too; Database Admin, to be exact. What kind of IT work do you do?

Rhetorical question...What's the alternative to agreeing to disagree? Arguing until someone gives up? LOL This has been an interesting conversation. I've enjoyed the thread.

I wonder if sometimes they ask for ID for no good reason to buy them enough time to get a better feel for why they got a bad vibe from someone. Like maybe it's an excuse to talk to you to see if something's up. Either way, I dig cops and believe almost all of them are good guys. They have a tough job and I don't want to make it hard on them. So, if showing my ID when they had no good reason to ask for it can diffuse a situation or settle their curiosity, no harm, no foul. I can see how others might feel it's harassment or an invasion of their privacy, especially if it happened a lot. Then I'd start asking myself why do I give cops the creeps.

I don't see what anyone would gain in antagonizing an LEO over something as simple as a request for ID. If you aren't doing anything wrong, what's lost besides a few minutes of your time? You may wind up having a pleasant conversation and making a friend. If you're a jackass and put up a fight over showing some ID, what is there to possibly gain?

The squeaky wheel gets the grease...like 1gewehr said. It's worked for the far left for decades and it finally worked for us. I agree that we should not have to ask for permission to exercise our right to bear arms and I also agree with what Ben Franklin said about giving up freedoms for security. In the meantime, what we do have could be a lot worse, huh?

Friends don't let friends concealed carry with Walmart belts...just saying. Congrats!

Point well taken and well delivered...I would not argue that religion was folded into the IRA doctrine to foment and focus the hate most northern Irish already had for England. There have been converts from America and other places who joined the ranks of the mujahideen, but since it's so few, I'll concede that most Muslim terrorists come from Muslim countries. A lot of these countries would be a shi++y place to grow up and I'd be pissed off, if I grew up there too. However, there are hundreds of millions of them who never decide to become terrorists, despite living in the same region. It's not until they are corrupted by religious zealots that they decide to become martyrs. That's a good one! Thanks for lightening it up. Respectful disagreements/conversations get out of hand without a little levity, so here's one for you... What's the difference between a Muslim and a dead horse? ...it's no fun beating a dead horse

You said you saw no dancing in the streets on 9/11, does that mean a) it didn't happen, you're wrong, or c) it slipped past you? I said I saw no organized condemnation and until you posted this link I hadn't. Glad we got that straightened out. Maybe there are non-Islamic terrorists out there that do evil stuff w/out regard to their religion, but WRT Muslim terrorists, I think most would disagree with your statement. Haven't you heard reports of Muslim parents complaining that their teen was brainwashed by Imams to commit terrorist acts? Don't most terrorists who take credit for bombings specifically point out that they did it to kill infidels in the name of Ala? Maybe not, but perhaps we should give Muslim terrorists the following test: I'd fly a hijacked plane full of infidels into a building full of infidels tomorrow for: A) Ala, Islam, and 72 virgins a Klondike Bar

My bad..." dumb" was a poor word choice on my part, my apologies. "Inappropriate" would have been better. Bad people certainly do bad things and in all fairness to your argument, McVeigh and Kaczynski do prove that. However, any group we attempt to put them into to demonstrate the capability of any group to produce terrorists seems to fail the "in disproportionate numbers" test. I say this, because it seems that the prevailing arguments against this guy's stance is that a group (Muslims) is being targeted for suspicion unfairly. I'm arguing that the sheer volume of extremists in the ranks of Islam is why they are targeted. The notion that we can't call 'em like we sees 'em is what's unfair. A few isolated non-Muslim terrorist examples thrown out there don't dispell the idea that while all Muslims aren't terrorists, the chance of a terrorist being Muslim is disproportionately high. The PC crowd can say this type of stereotyping is wrong all they want, but I say it's part of what's kept many species alive. A deer usually runs away when it hears ANY "human" sound or smells ANY "human" odors without regard to whether the human is a hunter or a PETA member. So, until people start seeing terrorists who are 60 year-old Buddhist monks or 20 yr old Chilean fishermen or 40 yr old PTA moms, the simplest explanation is usually the best explanation.

Key Difference Between "Our" Terrorists And "Theirs" 1. The sheer number of extremists...if the ranks of any other group were as full of radicals as Islam, the argument that there are bad people in all groups would make more sense to me. In reality, there are THOUSANDS (maybe millions) of Bin Ladens out there right now for every McVeigh or Kaczynski. The important question is what is it about this group that produces so many terrorists? 2. McVeigh and Kaczynski are the dumbest examples of non-Muslim terrorists you could have chosen. Kaczynski was an atheist and although raised Catholic and having some core beliefs, McVeigh said science was his religion. Aside from that one is a survivalist the other is a militia sympathizer...not exactly big groups on the scale of Islam. Regardless, maybe survivalists and militia sympathizers are as likely to produce terrorists as Islam, I don't know, but there are so few, who cares? 3. The media treatment of extremists...when Islamic terrorist are referenced in the media, they are often called suicide bombers, freedom fighters, or insurgents. The media almost never calls them what they are: mass murderers, Muslim terrorists, or psychotic killers. The media establishment is too worried about offending the "other" part of the group. so they avoid linking them to Islam. When they reference other terrorists, they call them militants, zealots, gun nuts, or lunatics...often focusing specifically on their beliefs and ideals. 4. The voice of the "other" part of the group...when CNN ran news of the towers falling on 9/11, some Muslims throughout the world were literally dancing in the streets and cheering. I saw NO organized group of them banding together to set the record straight by saying they don't approve. When extremists like Fred Phelps says/does something stupid (maybe a bad example, since it's not violence) the majority of other Baptists are eager to distance themselves and denounce his actions/beliefs. The same thing happened when other religious nuts bombed abortion clinics. Some extremists backed their play, but the VAST majority abhorred their actions and spoke out against them. If the majority of Islam is peaceful and tolerant, where's the loud voice of the non-violent, non-extremists Muslims?

Loved the one that said 'We are Wall Street...'. We get up at 5:00 am and often works til 10:00 pm, we're used to not getting up to pee for extended periods, and we don't take hour long lunch breaks. So, if the protesters get their way, there wouldn't be a Wall Street and we will come looking for a job...maybe yours.

This was the only begging squirrel we saw at the hotel here (Parris Island). I fixed the video links.

My daughter was walking back to our hotel room from the lobby and this squirrel literally jumped onto her shoulder. Cute lil guy, huh? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zmIfu2_cN6g http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=evdMiJc-PtA