bulpup

I know right? I keep wanting to vote some jerk out of office but I can't!

(Edit) how the heck did my comment end up in this thread :/

There is Malware and there is malware adhering to "regulations." If what used to be known as malware can be cleanly removed on demand it is no longer listed as malware. That means that your protection programs can allow the most annoying of bullshit to be installed as long as it can find a clean uninstaller. It is totally up to you to find when it started happening and uninstall anything that came in at that time. One of the worst offenders is downloading what you would think is a legitimate program or extension and accepting whatever else is included in the installer.

Exactly. And it is why I won't be sharing that video. I prefer not put information out there that is based on ignoring one aspect of concern chiefly based on semantics.

I don't know what you would call it, but if a person can do a face to face transfer without a NICS check then when they say "gun show loop hole" they probably meant face to face transfer.

It's an interesting video, but I believe what Arthur is trying to say is that if they merely changed the name "gun show loophole" to "Face To Face Transfer loophole" the descriptor and the issue would be appropriate to each other.

Well, he evaded the woman's traps and was found dead before the storm. Oh well. Thanks for the replies.

I already know that I should start from not a snowballs chance in hell, but my wife's co-worker has seen a feral cat that looks like it had its rear end stuck in a car engine when the owner turned it on. They researched calling animal control to catch it or have them dart it so they can bring it to a vet, but they are certain that animal control has to take it to a shelter to have it put down instead of handing it over to then. So, them knowing me, asked what I could do and my wife, bless her, found this https://daninjectdartguns.com I'd like if anyone knows why I can't get this and dart the poor little guy. I don't think I could get the drug, but what other legalities are there. And if you know of a private company that would do this I'd appreciate it.

Hahaha yes!!!!! You are my new hero

Those in states where this is legal, I am told that the non-hollow point, non-jacketed work best due to the lead deformation. Hollow point don't expand much at all in a .22 short. And the muzzle inside the house is key for making barely any noise at all.

I have heard tell that for less than $100 you could get single shot .22 and load it with some subsonic .22 shorts and take down a squirrel at about 40 feet. Not very loud at all. But still a cat would be much more effective in the long run, and legal.

House cats are still the largest predators of birds. A neutered outdoor cat with a collar and registered would wreak havoc on a pigeon population and the neighbors would think it was cute. http://theoatmeal.com/comics/cats_actually_kill

I only really started trusting the GPS when I noticed it consistently matched the speed those "your speed" radar signs were displaying as I approached. I should also add, I only ever really tried this while going on some really long drives through Kansas and Missouri. Those kind of long-distance wide-open spaces probably give you a lot more accuracy than driving around off the interstate.

For me I found one of the best things I can do when I'm driving in many different states is use my phone GPS function to figure out my miles per hour. I have found in some cars that the GPS shows me going 7 mph faster or slower than what my speedometer says. This has caused me to reevaluate a lot of what I think about while driving on the highway. If I rent a Chrysler 200, for example, I'm almost guaranteed that if I hit the cruise control at 70 mph the GPS shows it as 67 mph. Volkswagen Jetta's on the other hand, will show 72 while the GPS shows 70. Also, I've noticed a huge difference in how reactive the cruise control is in American cars versus foreign. Every Chrysler or Dodge that I have ever rented has a bump in the automatic transmission that slows the acceleration uphill that does not happen on any Japanese car. It has been quite an eye-opening experience being able to rent four cars in a month over two years.

The last two years I have been on the road 32 weeks out of the year, flying in, renting a car and such. I can say without hesitation that NJ is just about the worst place to drive. This is because of the the sheer number of drivers with contempt for their follow men and women. Sure MA has it share if people doing the OMGWTF!? moves, but the collective bullshit of New Jersey is nearly un-matched. Most states doing 65 to 75 in the left lane is about the maximum you'll ever see anyone do. Here in New Jersey if you're doing 75 in the left lane you're still going to get that guy that needs to pass you 80,90 100. That kind of bullshit doesn't even happen down south, at least not to the minute to minute extent that it does here in New Jersey. The lack of use of turn signals in New Jersey is just plain rude, and it seems everyone has an excuse. It's always shocking say when I come back from Missouri, for instance, and I'm waiting to make a left turn And approaching traffic from the left just simply turns into a parking lot or another street just to my left without a turn signal. All I can think is "Dick! I could've turned if I knew you were going to be making that turn" other states? They're signaling 400 feet out. Or how about in a parking lot? You know you have to look around when you're backing up out of the spot. I know when I'm backing up out of the spot I have to look around. But sometimes you have to move 2 feet before you can see anything. Here you have the guys they see you backing up 2 feet and they practically speed up to go through a parking lot at 25-30 miles an hour honking at you, like oh my god why are you pulling out while I'm driving by? As if it never occurred to them that someone could be pulling out of a spot in a parking lot. They don't even do that crap in Los Angeles. But if there's anything that bugs me more than anything are those people that couldn't square a turn if their lives depended on it. I was in Kentucky and saw this very attractive blonde woman in a black Ford F350 maneuver that beast through some of the smallest roads I have ever seen. Making turns without going into the oncoming traffic lane, not riding the center yellow on a two lane but giving plenty of room for oncoming traffic. Here? Everyone seems to have a problem clipping corners or staying too wide for fear of that curb. It's like no one ever teaches how to be aware of the actual width of your vehicle. Most other places I've been to it seems people would prefer to be "that friendly guy" vs here where everyone is the entitled asshole teaching the other asshole some lesson that no one will ever understand.

No one cares

Very true. I think some states do use that as a gating criteria though.

You miss the point when you say I make assumptions when I ask a question for discussion purposes. The point is to mention to this group where things are headed. The term "behavioral indicators" is the next thing coming down the road. Both sides have embraced the "mental illness" discussion so closely that they have come around and said it is a smokescreen by the other side. You are aware that anti- gunner's are all out there saying the NRA wants to push the mental illness issue right? While some pro gun rights people want nothing to do with it, congress has bill after bill all the while it's is now the focus of an executive order. So, like when I mentioned the mental illness aspect on this forum years ago and watched it rise right to the forefront of the national discussion, I say this: next is "behavioral indicators". Be ready. Btw you you a good point about why are child molesters allowed to be outside of prison at all. I'm going to have to remember that one.

I think it makes more sense to report two DWIs to NICS then it does to report some felonies, but that's a pretty complicated discussion. The author of that piece is fairly even handed and I like how he prefers to talk about findings and try to balance them. I don't think he is pushing an agenda so much as trying to start talking. It's worth keeping on top of what this guy is saying, at the very least because this is the next push from those pushing for more laws. Here's some food for discussion: it seems across the country everybody is OK with having child molesters registered with the towns they live in for the rest of their lives. Why is it OK to mark the child molester for the rest of their lives but not the person who gets two DWIs? Why would one be a perfect indicator of a lifetime pattern versus the other? In other words if it's commonly accepted that some people might not change for one crime couldn't be true for some others?

Not really. A lot of it has to do with managed health care and cost. When my adopted sister had her break in the early eighties she was able to get placed in a treatment facility for a year with my parents' insurance and it helped her considerably. Currently, my sister-in-law is having the exact same problems with her adopted child and not only did it take having the child try to push them down the stairs twice before anyone would take the child for treatment (after knowing for 5 years she needed it) but the child can stay where she is for 4 months before the insurance runs out and they will likely have to sell the house. Abuses you discuss are certainly true, but we find ourselves at a, frankly, embarrassing opposite situation.

I understand what you guys are saying but it is not exactly relevant to the links posted. Access to mental health care is actually very hard to come by and in the stated case I would be hard pressed to see how it is a smokescreen. On the other link, it states that it would be better to be concerned with those that have multiple violent misdemeanors than felonies. A parent with a kid that is suicidal but can't get any help and a guy that beats his girlfriend regularly are not the same as being asked if you are depressed in a doctor's office. If it makes you feel any better, the antis I know say the NRA is propagating the smokescreen of a mental health crisis in the USA.

Came across this in a group I belong to in regards to "Reactive Attachment Disorder", a pattern of behavior found in adopted children. I belong to the group because of experience with my adopted sister. Heartbreaking stuff. This is a quote I lifted from the group so to keep the poster anonymous. I post it here because I don't want to open another thread about mental illness, but I would like to point out the very real issue of how hard it is to get the proper mental health care in this country. and I wish more gun owners could see the awfulness of it and how it relates to current affairs. "My rad [Reactive Attachment Dissorder...bulpup] may die today. He got even yesterday by eating. Glucose is so high he went into dka [Diabetic Ketoacidosis...bp] and is now insulin resistance. Sent him to school because the emt for the hospital works at school. Safer there than here. I can't afford multiple 5 day trips five hours from home to treat the dka but no one will admit him for the psych issue which is the cause of the dka. Taking him to the local er means I stabilize the dka in an er setting unless he needs the big hospital. Still not treating the rad issue or preventing the damage. The mental health crisis line knows me. His therapist office knows me by voice. His insurance knows me. Cps [Child Protective Services] is so lost at this point they freaking avoid me. I'm at a loss. He's killing himself and no one will do anything. They won't stop him from putting himself in harms way because he's using his medical condition. If he slit his wrists they would commit him to prevent that because after the fact is too late and yet once he's in dka it's to late but they wait for him to do it and treat. I have calls into everybody again but in all honesty nothing will happen. My rad may die. If not today then at some point he will push to far just like slitting his wrists or popping pills."

"In that millisecond, it was an instant regret" From "I Jumped Off the Golden Gate Bridge"

I don't know what postings you speak of (I have been out of the loop) but some places use an email address as a user name. Additionally, most forum software asks you to confirm you are you by sending you an email and having you click a link.

Years ago I warned that the next issue for gun rights was the introduction of the mental health argument. Now this has found a mainstream acceptance with gun rights supporters and anti-gunners spouting off mental health problems whenever a mass shooting makes the headlines. Six years ago few people made the connection, now many have heard about the issue. However things have changed. It has been said often enough that, it appears to me, the anti's have decided that if they agree with the NRA and Pro-gunners, that there is a mental illness relationship, that they must find fault to make it clear they do NOT agree. In my circles, I am seeing more and more anti's posting stories titled "it's Not About Mental Illness". As it turns out, there has been much more research on this since it has made it's way into the national consciousness. I am linking to this article because the man interviewed is one of the few doing the research, not a commentator. Some of what he says is going to piss you off, most of it you will find very interesting. I am not going to say this is something I can agree with or disagree with. I am going to say that it outlines the next push from anti-gun people and you will do well by being familiar with these latest findings. This is no flash in the pan report, this is the next thing coming. One can fully expect that anti-gunners will cherry pick from findings such as these, so it is up to you to know all of the findings and not a few pieces. A few key points that I take away from the article: When we talk about a mass shooting and mental illness, we are talking about "a-mass-shooting-and-mental-illness." We are NOT talking about suicide or violent crime. So yes, the national consciousness is raised when a mass shooting occurs, but ideas about how to stop that - we need realize that it won't stop those bent on suicide or violent people. It is a completely separate discussion. Researchers are pointing out that a history of violent misdemeanors and substance abuse is more in line with the kind of violence that takes more lives per year than mass shootings. Most suicides are "the impulsive action of a young person who's intoxicated" Blocking a person from obtaining a gun because of a past institutionalization works, but isn't going reduce deaths by guns much because, see point number one. http://www.propublica.org/article/myth-vs-fact-violence-and-mental-health#update