Dudethebagman

Come on now. If we're all paranoid enough to own (multiple) AKs we may as well commit ourselves wholeheartedly to our paranoid fantasies. If nothing else, it's a good excuse to buy toys. Maybe our paranoia will come in handy someday. Good choice on the pickup by the way.

I wouldn't be, but I used to live in your neighborhood and drove an Integra at the time. It was no jeep, but it could bob and weave. Agreed. If you're talking about strictly getting from point A to point B and escaping, some kind of ATV would get you a lot of places nothing else would. How much stuff you're taking along is another factor that'll probably vary with circumstances.

Only if they somehow end up at a shelter. Thats all this mandate pertains to, the Cumberland County Animal Shelter and its a far cry from a law. There's nothing about this that is 'banning' any breed from being owned. Now, by no means do I support this... and I think its pretty appalling myself. But seriously... some of you cry Communist/Socialist subversion plot over the dumbest shit. Its silly. Harumph. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JN99jshaQbY

I actually considered that. But they SUCK in the snow, and they don't really get much better gas mileage than a diesel pickup - 20ish MPG, maybe a little better.

The same thing applies to a truck. 4WD won't get you out of a traffic jam. A car would be better for that scenario, but a motorcycle would be even better. Of course, you lose cargo capacity for maneuverability. There's no free lunch, so I'd take something that does a lot of things marginally well (hence the un-sexy compromise Subaru). Obviously a person's needs depend on their locale. Where I live, there isn't much off-road driving. It's too steep and too forested almost everywhere there aren't already highways and paved roads. If you can't drive on paved roads or Forest servic

My vote is for gas mileage. It doesn't matter how much of a tough guy truck you have if you have nothing to feed it and need to cover some ground. I'd think you'd be stuck with whatever gas you already had or whatever small amount you could obtain. I'd take something that gets 30 MPG over a jacked up Jeep or pickup that gets 10. High ground clearance and 4WD are handy like 1% of the time, but the other 99% of the time front wheel drive will suffice. How often does 6" vs. a foot of ground clearance really make a difference? 4WD just gives you false invincibility and encourages people

The US was engaged in a fair amount of saber-rattling prior to the attack on Pearl Harbor. The Japanese were, in fact, intentionally provoked. Perhaps Japan viewed their attack on Pearl Harbor as a preemptive strike. And as Americans, we all know those are justified to protect the homeland, right? I'm not going to debate the morality of dropping the bombs on them later, and I don't mean to take anything away from the veterans of that war (the last war of necessity?), but historical events aren't as simple as the prevailing narrative we've all been spoon-fed.

I shot at some water filled milk jugs today from about 30 feet away. This was the result: It shed the jacket and penetrated only 3 milk jugs. I shot another round at the remaining jugs, but it yawed and was not recovered. I only recovered the core of the first bullet, and it weighed 82 grains and had an average diameter of roughly .66". If it expands that violently at 30 feet, I'm guessing it'll still expand well enough after it slows down a couple hundred FPS at greater range. It grouped about 3 MOA, but it was getting dark by then and my fingers were pretty cold. I may have

Agreed. I voted no for the exact same reasons. I can see that they could serve a purpose, but should have an expiration date so I don't have to keep seeing "what gun should I buy?" pop up long after the OP made a decision. Everyone has an opinion, and if it's nearly effortless to express, many will keep dragging the poll from the dead without adding anything of substance.

But beef, if I were playing the other side, wouldn't I be playing some sort of "angel's advocate?" So I'll continue to play the devil's advocate. Because the states have police powers to regulate within their borders. And while it's true that the second amendment reserves the people's right to keep and bear arms, the scope of that right has never been interpreted to be absolute or absolutely broad. I mean, we have laws that prohibit felons and the mentally ill from bearing arms. Most people think that's a good thing. Flame on.

My feelings exactly. Just to play devil's advocate - How about states' rights? If state X requires permit holders to take a CCW class AND a firearm safety course, and state Y only requires a 4-hour class, should the federal gubmint be able to force state X to recognize state Y permits despite the lower training standard? This is an odd situation where people who are usually up in arms (heh) about states' rights are suddenly arguing for federal supremacy.

115 or 124 grain 9mm XTP handloads. Or the old fashioned Federal 115 9bp HP store bought. The XTP may not expand as much as some modern rounds, but I'll take moderate expansion and good penetration for when I'm driving.

In my opinion, if you have a cowitnessing setup you can skimp somewhat on the RDS itself. While you can't leave it on all the time like an Aimpoint, or the thing MIGHT crap out on you if abused, you're still left with irons when you don't have a dot. Sure, I'd like an Aimpoint (for the battery life if nothing else) but $400+ to replace my cheap but steadfast Bushnell just isn't a high enough priority right now. I have guns that need to be fed and other bills to pay. Or you could save your money for an Aimpoint rather than eventually replacing whatever you can afford now (which is wha

I L'ed OL. That second video is ridiculous. OMG, when I slam a mag against my flabby leg just so, a single round could fall out. You'd think that if you drop anything on the ground, you'd want to make sure it's okay to use before using it. OMG, I dropped the mag, then picked it up UPSIDE DOWN and tried to put it in the rifle without looking at it first. Fatal flaw!

How so?

You're correct that prosecution for seditious conspiracy or treason would require a more explicit incitement to action. I never said the man should be prosecuted for those offenses. However, just because he hasn't met the statutory requirements for committing a crime doesn't mean his speech is protected. I do think his choice of analogies and declaring them "the enemy" have undeniable (or at least rationally undeniable) connotations, as I explained above. If he was just analogizing a hypothetical relationship of opposites (Netanyahu and Hitler), he wouldn't have needed to explain that

That's quite plausible. But in my opinion, if an emergency vehicle is going to speed while responding to a call, you should at least have your lights going. Otherwise, it looks to everyone else on the road that you just think you're above the law and are putting everyone around you in danger. If you're driving like a bat out of hell, you should really let other people on the road know you're there and run both lights and sirens. If it's not an emergency that warrants lights and/or sirens, but you want to get there somewhat quickly, just use your opticom and do the speed limit. The

Don't think I'm dreaming. If a comp mostly counteracts muzzle rise without providing much braking, it's possible that some of that energy that would have been transferred to raising the muzzle is directed rearward into your shoulder instead. But again, it could be psychological because of the increased blast and noise felt. Regardless, I don't think it made me any faster 'cause I couldn't keep my eyes open. That was just my honest experience, YMMV. I admit that your 308 video was impressive, but that is a different gun. That depends. If the rotational axis (buttstock and shou

So you're not going to leave your house, and you're going to become a cannibal? Can I ask............does whoever you live with, know of your plan? lol Meh. She doesn't have enough meat on her to bother dressing her out. Something like this would make a better roast: I take my cues about the apocalypse from movies like "Deliverance" and "Ravenous." A lot of people seem to think they'll drive their monster trucks long distances from the cities out to the boonies, feast on roast elk and wild berries, and generally live out some fantasy of how the indians lived. I alread

True, but shooting in a place you're not supposed to is a lot less sneaky than dumping trash in a place you're not supposed to.

I'm not even worried about it. If the apocalypse ever happens, I'm bugging in. I'm also going to immediately use it as an excuse to do something I've always wanted to do: become a cannibal. I'll have plenty to eat.

Wow. I don't advocate beating people while they're down, but WTF did those women expect when they cussed him out, slapped him, and climbed over the counter? That he was just a lowly food service employee who was there for their abuse? That he wouldn't snap and take things too far? Guy apparently valued his dignity more than his job at McDonald's. Apparently he valued it more than his freedom, too.

While I personally prefer a longer barrel (because mine is my only 308), you do make an appealing argument with the pictures of your very sexy looking rifle.

True, but you're going to go out of your way to get revenge anyway. You might as well not risk going to jail or escalating the situation any more. Why not make them look like the dicks they are in small claims court and also get your money back? It'd be a hassle for them, and you'd get paid. They'd also probably self-righteously tell their friends and family about the ordeal, then have to explain that they lost because they're dicks.

An analogy is a comparison by definition. If he wanted to analogize something to suggest polar opposites, he could have used "oil and water" - things that actually are polar opposites. But he chose to use a politically charged comparison that also had a "fascist" implication, and I don't believe that was an accident. Um, yes professor....I know what an analogy is. And I know that it is a kind of comparison. You are just confused about what is being compared. He is comparing the relationship between one pair of people compared to the relationship of another separate pair of people. N