AVB-AMG

@Handyman: In another thread, I explained in far more detail, the sequence of the design process for most large-scale commercial building projects, whether they are for a public or private client. I remember you commented on it and indicated that you found it to be informative, so why the regression here? I have to take issue with your statement that it is only the engineers who are grounded in reality, while agreeing that in many cases, the architects do intentionally create design problems that require some creative engineering solutions, which is not a bad thing. Now I have a feeling that your glib post above is just your usual form of exaggeration in an attempt at humor, sometimes funny and others, not so much. The reality of the design process is that it is a collaborative one. While the architect(s) may come up with the initial design concept, they will hire a team of mechanical, electrical and structural engineers to join the project team, along with a number of specialty consultants, (i.e. lighting, landscaping, food service, zoning, etc....). In my experience, the most enjoyable collaborations with engineers has been when we attempt to do something a bit different and they see it as a challenge on how to resolve it. I believe that engineers, and building contractors for that matter, are as creative as the architects in this design and construction process. We all understand that the formal education we received in school was just the beginning of the long learning process and that it takes many years of design and the construction of those designs to realize what ideas really work the best and what should be avoided, learning from both successes and failures. The gray hair factor in the A/E/C industry provides that wisdom based on that experience gained over the years and many projects. I certainly have appreciated the sage counsel and sounding board that the various engineers have provided to me and the entire design team, based on their knowledge of building materials, tolerances, durability, environmental concerns, etc. I have always encouraged and have been grateful for their advice, and creative solutions, including suggesting various options to achieve the desired geometric massing, span length, and the ultimate architectural aesthetic goal. The best engineers don’t say “you can’t do that”, they say “let me work on it and get back to you”. I have much admiration for quite a number of distinguished engineers, going back to historical figures including Leonardo da Vinci, as well as Nikola Tesla, Thomas Edison, Gottlieb Daimler, Louis Roebling, Gustave Eiffel. There have been some very famous modern-day structural engineers who have left their memorable mark on the built environment, including Frei Otto, Pier Luigi Nervi, Fazlur Kahn, Santiago Calatrava, just to name a few. FYI - I have had the pleasure of working on projects with Bill Baker, the structural engineer at SOM who designed the high-rise steel structure of the Burj Khalifa, the world’s tallest man-made building in Dubai. BTW, almost all of the engineers I know and have worked with are politically independent or are Democrats…. AVB-AMG

Philistine

@Mrs. Peel: FYI, my head has not exploded, (yet...), thank you. I think that by later this week, we all will have a much better idea of the lay of the land and where we are headed.... So, it appears that you have undertaken the total transformation of becoming a populist… Did you even take the time to check out the links to the two Federal Courthouses or the YouTube video on the GSA’s Design Excellence Program, that were in my original post….? I think that you prefer classical architecture because you are comfortable with it and the tradition(s) you associate with it. There is nothing wrong with that, but not everyone would agree with you. Do not misunderstand me, I very much appreciate the humanistic proportions and elements of Classical architecture, as well as many fine examples of neo-classical architectural designed buildings in the U.S, both public and private. Also, I believe in preserving our country’s historical buildings that have architectural merit. But more importantly, I am all for architects to be able to choose elements of the classical architectural vocabulary in new, creative ways, but should not be required to limit themselves to just that language. That would be like painting with only one color. Federal buildings should NOT be branded in a way that they all look alike. They are not a fast-food McDonald’s restaurant. There is no one right design that fits all……. FWIW, I do not care for the design of either the San Francisco Federal Building, (designed in 2002-2003), nor the U.S. District Court in Salt Lake City, Utah, (designed in 2001-2012). While they both have some redeeming qualities, the overall exterior architectural image and statement leaves me cold. FYI, not all of us architects are in lockstep when it comes to our aesthetic preferences. It is very easy for all of us to pass judgement on examples of architecture that were designed 40-70 years ago and we have every right to do so. But try to consider what the influences were at that point in time. Most architecture is a result of and a reflection of the fashion influences at that time, some good and some not so much. I think that we can agree that good/successful architectural design will stand the test of time and only some distance in time from when a building was designed and constructed, allows us to recognize that. Some people prefer to just look at the past to decide what they like, whereas others want to take what has worked in the past and if possible, attempt to improve upon it. The most interesting and successful architectural building designs are results of architects who combine their historical knowledge of styles, understanding the nature of materials and structures, proven construction methods, while adding their own inspired creative ideas to solve the challenge of the variables of program function, site, cost budget and schedule, (not to mention their client’s stated preferences). Not all architects produce designs that most of the public considers successful, but to impose stylistic guidelines that would be arbitrated by a political appointed committee, is absurd and could become borderline fascist. Therefore, I am sure that you will not be surprised that I adamantly disagree with your proposed solution of a “committee review of non-architects”, since it just does not really work. I have had the interesting experience of presenting, explaining and discussing architectural schematic designs to public neighborhood groups and listening to their questions and suggested opinions. Aside from answering appropriate questions, there were always some legitimate concerns expressed and always many opinions shared of how they would design the building. This is a valid process that has been established over a long period of time, where it has been realized and accepted that in order for it to work coherently, everyone has a voice, but not everyone has a vote. Architectural design in not a democratic process. What you are essentially advocating for is “Design by committee”, where the public is much more involved in contributing their personal opinions and preferences. Where this has been attempted, it has almost always resulted in chaos, no clear consensus for a unifying plan or vision, leaving everyone disgruntled and dissatisfied and disillusioned. There is a reason for the old proverb: “too many cooks spoil the broth….” and it is also true for the architectural design of buildings, whether for private or public clients. Keep in mind that all Federally funded building projects have multiple people who serve as the “client”. They include a team from the GSA, as well as representatives of the new building's user groups. Therefore, the architect, as the leader of the design team that includes MEP engineers and various specialty consultants, is not designing in a vacuum. Let me leave you with these….. AVB-AMG

A draft of an executive order titled “Making Federal Buildings Beautiful Again” is moving forward towards possible signing by President Donald J. Trump. The proposed document favors Classical Greco-Roman design typologies for federal buildings in Washington, DC and elsewhere throughout the USA. It was initiated by the National Civic Art Society, a Washington, DC based nonprofit. This order would revise the current rules that regulate the design of federal buildings contracted through the General Services Administration (GSA). The GSA is a Federal agency managing the construction, administration, and upkeep of US Government buildings and real estate. The draft executive order would require rewriting the Guiding Principles for Federal Architecture, issued in 1962, to ensure that 'the classical architectural style shall be the preferred and default style' for new and upgraded federal buildings." Not surprisingly, the order is titled: “Making Federal Buildings Beautiful Again”. Any project seeking an exemption from the mandate would need to be approved from a presidential “re-beautification” committee, (i.e. the architecture police). The order seeks to undo the widely admired GSA’s Design Excellence Program, which is a peer review system for selecting qualified architects for federal projects and sometimes uses design competitions as part of this process. This program also utilizes so-called Peer Reviews, where other architects and contractors are brought in to critique the evolving early design, providing useful suggestions, along with the realities of construction. (Note: I have had professional project work experience with the GSA and this program). This is an attempt to create an official style of architecture dictated by Donald Trump and some of his supporters. It seems to have been proposed by some populists who feel resentment towards educated elites and want to impose their views on architectural design on everyone else, (sound familiar…?). Whether or not you are a supporter of President Trump, this action is likely to provoke a much-needed debate about the mandating of style. I do not believe that architects should be restricted in this way and by doing so would be a real disservice to the American public. As an American living in the 21st century and having come of age in the second half of the 20th century, I have my various preferred architectural styles that have evolved over time, that appeal to me for different functions and locations. I think that is true for most of us. As both an undergraduate and graduate student, going on to become a licensed Architect, I have been educated in and have extensive work experience with the history of art and architecture, as well as the fields of M.E.P. engineering, lighting, landscaping, along with the ever-evolving progress of alternative energy sources, and design for sustainability, human comfort and accessibility. I do not have one favorite architectural style. I believe that architects (and engineers), whether individually or collectively as a team, provide a much-needed service of bringing their creative inspiration to a project to accommodate the client’s cost budget, programmatic needs and stated preferences, while also taking into account the specific project site, neighboring buildings, and applicable zoning and building codes. Usually, the most challenging requirement is staying within the client’s budget. Naturally, most folks want features, materials, FF&E that they really cannot afford, so part of the process is showing and educating the client(s) what they can afford and ensuring that they understand that the equation is always between Size, Quality, & Price, with time (schedule) being affected as well. BTW, the draft executive order that I read is using the term "classical" without any capitalization, because it is being used as a catchall term for a grab bag of traditional styles, including Romanesque, Gothic, and Spanish Colonial. It does not refer specifically to Classical architecture - the architecture of ancient Greece and Rome - but basically to anything old and maybe with columns. It is very general and probably would be up for interpretation by the silly style committee/architectural police that Trump wants to create. The National Trust for Historic Preservation, of which I am a member, issued a statement in support of the current federal standards and stated: “We strongly oppose an effort to impose a narrow set of styles for future federal projects based on the architectural tastes of few individuals.” For those of you(us), who still believe in States-rights, do we really want the federal government to impose aesthetic restrictions on what is built? Buildings, like all people, should be regarded and assessed individually, based on whether or not they are successful in their function and context. In an attempt to be objective, I agree that some architects have often sought to impose their own preferred style — a variant of modernism or neo-modernism, on some federal building projects. While I do not care for most examples of the Brutalist and De-Constructivist styles that were popular in the 1960’s through the 1980’s, most architects have now moved on from those styles. I think it is important to note that so-called “Modernism”, encompasses a broad array of styles, including: the Craftsman and Prairie Styles, the International Style, Art Deco, Streamline Moderne, Futurism, Postmodernism, Minimalism, and plenty of other unique creations that defy classification as a "style." Let’s not forget that many people admire the legendary American architect Frank Lloyd Wright and his brilliant architectural designs which remain enduringly popular. Wright’s work evolved over his long prolific career and encompassed several different styles. They range from the low, broad Craftsman lines of his early Prairie Style homes, to the ornamented concrete blocks of the Ennis House, to the daring cantilevers of Fallingwater house, to the spiraling curves of the Guggenheim Museum. Would we want to stifle a creative genius architect like Wright from conceiving a design for a federal building because of some federal mandate to only use the classical design style? For the design of federal buildings, I believe that most of the architects who are ultimately selected by the GSA have the creative talent to conceive and deliver beautiful, enduring, sustainable habitats for all interest groups, including: the client (GSA), the people who work in and visit the building, as well as the general public who views the building. Sure, I agree that some buildings in the Modern architectural style are truly ugly, yet also some are notably beautiful ones that contribute to the architectural interest and diversity of their cities. Let me provide two examples from one of the architectural firms that I worked for in New York City: Kohn Pedersen Fox (KPF). Both are U.S Federal Courthouses, where the client was the GSA and were designed under the Design Excellence Program. As you can see from the links to their photos and descriptions, they are very different in style, based on the requirements at that time, along with site constraints, while serving the same programmatic function: 1. Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse – New York, NY https://www.kpf.com/search?q=+Daniel+Patrick+Moynihan+United+States+Courthouse#daniel-patrick-moynihan-united-states-courthouse-foley-square 2. Robert H. Jackson United States Courthouse – Buffalo, NY https://www.kpf.com/projects/united-states-federal-courthouse-buffalo I believe that these two building examples, one using classical design motifs and the other using more Modern ones, but for very similar program functions, illustrate how architects, using their creative inspiration, can design buildings that are both aesthetically pleasing in different architectural styles, while also meeting the federal client’s program and budget requirements, under the current GSA Design Excellence Program. Therefore, I do not believe that any executive order is necessary, nor desirable, to limit the design approach to future federal buildings to the classical style(s). FYI, for a very good overview on the evolutionary history of the GSA’s Design Excellence Program here is a very interesting and informative video on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TKYPMSSHCdQ AVB-AMG

@raz-0: FYI - I am not whining. I am just expressing my opinion, just like every other person who posts on NJGF, especially on these sort of thread topics. I guess you don't read newspapers or watch much television, because in the past month there has been an incessant level of coverage, stories, etc on Kobe Bryant. I have not chosen to "engage" in this onslaught of media hype on Bryant's passing, yet have found it to hard to avoid in the main stream media sources I choose to read, listen to and watch, and therefore find it to be quite exasperating. This has really nothing to do with any "moral judgement" and my comments are my opinion, based on my observations, on the state and direction of our current society, which I have been told by a number of others that they agree with me. AVB-AMG

This whole dragged on frenzied, out-of-control, glorification/adulation/idolization silliness has (hopefully), now reached its crazy denouement with the massive memorial for Kobe Bryant at the Staples Center today with approximately 20,000 attendees. Let's hope that this is the end of it.... Yes, the man was a very talented and accomplished professional basketball player who then later in his life helped young kids, but give me, (and all of us), a break! For the past month, Bryant's untimely death has been sensationalized and venerated by the main stream media, the NBA and all sorts of other media personalities who just want to capitalize on his celebrity fame to give themselves more media attention. Many of their weepy platitudes are very superficial, dishonest and self-serving. This media circus just cements what is truly important to more and more Americans... That they are so willing to allow themselves to be so thoroughly enamored, if not consciously seduced by celebrities in our society, whether they are professional sports athletes, TV/Film actors or other high-profile individuals. So very sad! AVB-AMG

@High Exposure: Now that I have put 200+ rounds through my “Frankenstine” modified Glock 17, Gen4, I realize that your point about making too many modifications at once can be problematic in diagnosing separate issues and snags that require tweaking. During my testing the modified gun on the range, I discovered that the Magpul GL Enhanced Magwell really did not work as advertised and would occasionally, (approximately once every five times), prevent a secure set connection of my loaded magazine inside and within the receiver grip. So I just removed the Magwel. Also, it was apparent very early on that the Chambermax TA-1 charging handle was impeding the full sliding back and forth motion of the slide when firing the gun, preventing the slide from returning to its loaded and ready position. I also just removed it and put the original slide cover plate back on. I have now placed a purchase order online for the Vickers Tactical Slide Racker GSR-03, to take its place, which I hope works better and will ultimately make racking the slide easier with the Aimpoint ACRO red dot on top of it. The Aimpoint ACRO P-1 red dot sight is cool and once zeroed, makes accurately aiming at a distance over 10 yards quicker than just using the iron sights, (Trijicon Suppressor Night Sights). It does make the handgun much bulkier than without it. While I am glad that I did this addition, satisfying my curiosity, as well as joining the trend of contingent of gun owners who are jumping on the growing bandwagon of adding a red dot sight to a handgun, it also has been quite a revealing and learning experience. As I stated in an earlier post, my modified Glock is intended to be used as a recreational gun for target practice and not as a basic, dependable firearm for home/personal defense. In my opinion, other than being an added benefit for competition gun events, I think that red dot sights on handguns may be somewhat of a fad or novelty as a new technological accessory. The fact that it requires batteries is just one more thing that needs to be monitored and serviced. From what I have read, I understand that for almost all personal/home defense scenarios, the distance between you and the threat will be less than 15 yards (45 ft). At that distance, along with one’s adrenaline induced awareness/tenseness and accelerated quickness of a required response, I believe that just using the iron sights would be sufficient for aiming. At a closer range, say 10 yards or less, one may not really even use the sights in what presumably would be a very quick reaction time of pointing and shooting at the center of mass of the threatening person. IMHO, the red dot sights make far more sense on a rifle where the target is at a distance of over 25 yards or more. AVB-AMG

@High Exposure: Thank you for your sage comments based on your far more and longer experience with Glocks. Your advice to do a more measured and sequential substitution of parts is a very logical and practical approach. But like so many people, I was impatient and did my modifications in two phases, starting about two years after I bought my Glock 17. The first phase was about three years ago when I made the major decision to replace the OEM Glock barrel with the Wilson Combat S.S. Match Barrel and the Tungsten Guide Rod & Spring. It made a noticeable improvement. I have over 500+ rounds with those components and have not experienced any negative issues or failures, so far. BTW, at that same time, I also bought and installed a Pyramid Ultimate Trigger, which required less lbs-force, but proved to be way too finicky, even though I enjoyed it over the OEM Glock trigger. So hence, the decision to replace it in the second round of modifications. I just finished the second round which involved the major substitution of the OEM Glock slide for the ZEV RMR milled slide, the replacement of the Pyramid trigger with the ZEV trigger and adding the weapon light and Aimpoint ACRO red dot sight, along with the other minor additions/substitutions. I am aware of the poor battery life of the ACRO compared to the Trijicon’s, but since I have another Aimpoint red dot sight on my rifle, I appreciate their continued reputation for using high quality of the materials and assembly and durability. So I will definitely take your advice and carry several spare batteries for it in my gun bag. I do agree that the more logical RMR choice would have been the Trijicon SRO, which also has received very good reviews and is a bit less expensive. BTW, yes, I do feel the extended magazine release when I grip the gun, but have not yet had any accidental mag dumps, whereas I found the OEM mag release to be problematic. I checked out online the TangoDown Inc. Vickers Tactical Slide Racker and it does have a much more subtle, maybe even elegant appearance, yet supposedly very effective improved grip when racking the slide. I was interested in finding some sort of aid in racking the slide once a RDS is installed on top of the slide, since my usual left palm over the top of the slide to rack it would not be as easy to accomplish. Yes, the Chambermax TA-1 charging handle is larger than the Vickers, I will see how I like it. I may also try the Vickers, since it is not very expensive, and see which I prefer. I do think that my current configuration may need to be tweaked to allow the gun to work ideally, so am looking forward to some range time with it, then take it apart and see what is wearing and may need some attention. FYI – I have no illusions that my modified Glock should be used as my home/self defense firearm, let alone a gun for CCW. It is intended for enjoyment at either an indoor or outdoor gun range for target practice. Then, maybe also to enter into “who has the ugliest gun” contest, where I think my chances of winning are quite good. Thanks again for sharing your opinion based on your experience. AVB-AMG

@124gr9mm: Thank you. Yes, it will most certainly take some getting use to, but I think after awhile it will grow on me. I think your analogy of the ACRO looking like a toaster is most appropriate. But if all of these modifications make "toast" of the paper target's bullseye, then I will be satisfied... AVB-AMG

@Lakota: I have to agree with you. My modified Glock is not going to win any beauty contest..... AVB-AMG

@Zeke, @carl_g, @124gr9mm, @Lakota , @Bully & @Rob0115: Ok guys, I finally received all of the parts for and have completed the assembly of my "Frankenstein Glock". As I indicated in an earlier post in this thread, I had decided to take my very first handgun, a factory stock Glock 17, Gen4, 9mm and perform a number of modifications. I substituted a number of major and minor OEM Glock parts for upgraded after-market parts, as well as added a couple of major accessories. The trickiest part was finding the RMR adapter plate that is the correct size and configuration to fit on the ZEV slide, since it is different from the Glock RMR milled indentation. This exercise was primarily to see if all of these modifications and additions actually improves the feel, usefulness and most importantly, the accuracy of this handgun, as well as secondarily the shooting experience on the range and possibly even the so-called aesthetics of this handgun. I plan to put several hundred rounds through it over the next several weeks to zero in the red dot sight in correlation to the elevated Trijicon Suppressor Night Sights, as well as to see if anything else needs tweaking. Again, here is a list of the parts and accessories that I substituted or added: ZEV Technologies Z17 Citadel Stripped Slide w/RMR Plate, Black ZEV PKUPPER9 9mm Stainless Steel Parts Kit for ZEV Slide Aimpoint ACRO P-1 Red Dot Sight Trijicon RMR to Aimpoint Acro Red Dot Sight Mount Adapter Plate Trijicon Suppressor Night Sight Set - White Front/Black Rear SureFire X300 Ultra 1000 Lumens Ultra Weapon Light in Black Wilson Combat Stainless Steel Match Barrel ZEV Technologies PRO Flat Face Glock Ultimate Trigger Kit Tungsten Guide Rod & Spring Extended Aluminum Magazine Catch Zev Technologies Titanium Extended Slide Lock Lever Stainless Steel Pin Kit (4) with Titanium Gold Finish Magpul GL Enhanced Magwell Beaver Tail Backstrap Kit Chambermax TA-1 Charging Handle Since you asked for them, I am including a number of photos of the resulting build. The AimPoint ACRO Red Dot sight is big... really big! It looks like a bread box, (yeah, I am that old....), on top of a brick (Glock). I do not think anyone would call it aesthetically attractive.... as if a Glock can ever be considered truly attractive, but what the heck. This has been an exercise in experimentation of sequential improvements in two phases, mostly functional in nature. Let me know what you think.... Thanks AVB-AMG

I thought that the GENERAL DISCUSSION part of NJGF was not to include discussion on politics...??? Moderators: This thread topic should be moved to the 1st Amendment Lounge. As a reminder, here is the quote from the mast head of the GENERAL DISCUSSION forum: General Discussion Follow 21 General Discussion Forum for subjects not dealing with firearms. Nothing controversial! Topics should be family and work friendly. PG13. Strictly Enforced. NO Random News Links, NO Politics Bucket 3 Rules & Guidelines This section was created for general discussion of various topics that does not fit any other category on the forum. Please note, the intention of this forum is to give the users a place to discuss non gun related topics within a community of friends, on a civil level. Since people have proven time and time again that they cannot treat others with respect on an online forum, here are some rules. 1. This section is not for the discussion of ANY Politics or Religion.

The television and radio media circus attention after Koby Bryant’s unfortunate death from that helicopter crash, is absolutely ridiculous and over the top! It just goes to show just how much our society has devolved to today and what/who it really values: idol worship of celebrities! These celebrities include professional athletes and film/television actors, pop musicians, etc, some who have used their platform for beneficial causes, while others are just intoxicated by the adulation of the masses and sometimes do not handle all of that attention very well. While Bryant's death was certainly sad, either ignoring or worse yet, the revisionist history about his sexual assault allegation, as well as the sudden glorification of him as a person, placing him on some silly high pedestal, is totally out of control. He was a very talented professional basketball player who also helped kids... all-in-all, better than many folks. But anyone paying attention realizes that the mainstream media just wants to get more clicks, eyeballs and ratings by sensationalizing his death and discussing it ad nauseam. Worse yet are the other celebrities who are blatantly outdoing each other to fawn over Bryant, making any historical contact with him into some important moment in their lives and then tearfully discussing his passing, for their own benefit, (i.e. Ellen Degeneres and Jimmy Fallon, etc.).... Enough already! AVB-AMG

@MartyZ: I have quoted above, the original post starting this thread by @Bully that sets up this thread with his hypothetical wish list question of what handgun would one get. He also arbitrarily set a limit of only one (1) handgun purchase per calendar year, in this case the this year 2020. FYI, some of us do not purchase handguns, rifles or other types of guns on an annual basis and only buy, when possible, what we really want, when we can actually afford it. @Zeke makes a very valid point that in order to become a proficient shooter, it is just as important to purchase ammo and then use it to practice with at a range on a regular basis so that one can improve their knowledge, accuracy and comfort level using each of their firearms. Actually, I am rather envious of your self-imposed limit of purchasing one gun per year, but also like you, I have other additional hobbies and interests that I spend my time and money on throughout the year. FYI - It has been several years since my last firearm purchase and this year, so far, my winter project is to significantly modify my first handgun, a Glock 17, Gen 4, 9mm, turning it into what I am comically referring to as a "Frankenstein Glock". The Nighthawk Custom / Korth Mongoose .357 Magnum revolver that I posted about in this thread has been on my purchase wish list for the past 18+ months, but would be a significant financial investment and therefore may have to wait awhile longer. Like many folks on this forum, satisfying a self-indulgent purchase of a firearm can be easily rationalized, but the actual cost investment factor may be prohibitive, especially when compared to the other expenditure priorities that are necessary in one's life. Maybe eventually....... AVB-AMG

I currently do not own a revolver. If by chance, semi-automatic handguns are ever eventually outlawed for ownership by the general public, I would like to have one, but only one revolver. Since I only want one revolver, I would invest in a very high quality one and it would be chambered in .357 Magnum. My choice would be the Mongoose .357 with a 4” barrel, in black DLC finish, made by the joint-venture of Nighthawk Custom and Korth. As many of you are aware, Nighthawk Custom, located in Berryville, Arkansas, began offering a line of revolvers in 2016. These top-tier revolvers were the result of a collaboration with Korth-Waffen of Lollar, Germany. Since Korth revolvers are known around the world for their unrivaled quality and value, a joint-venture partnership between Nighthawk Custom and Korth made sense to expand into the American marketplace with a top-quality revolver. I had seen and held one at RTSP awhile back, but have never shot one. Does anyone here have one? If so, what are your thoughts about it compared to other high-end revolvers? AVB-AMG

@Lakota: I am still waiting to receive some of the parts that I have ordered. Once I have everything, I will take it to the Gunsmith who I have used previously for other firearms-related work and have him do the necessary work. My guess is that I should get it back and can post some pictures of the completed custom job sometime in February. AVB-AMG

@Bully: I definitely plan on keeping the original Glock slide and the Trijicon HD Night Sights that are mounted on it, along with all of the other original Glock parts. But I seriously doubt that I will revert to any of them once all of the noted upgraded parts and accessories have been installed. AVB-AMG

UPDATE: Clearly crossing the line and creating a “Gucci Glock”, or more honestly and realistically a "Frankenstein Glock", I have dived into the deep end for my winter project and have committed to making multiple significant upgrades and additions to my Glock 17, 4th Gen, 9mm handgun. I want to have at least one of my handguns to have an Ruggedized Miniture Reflex (RMR) sight on it and my Glock seems to be the ideal candidate for that modification. Especially since GLOCKS and the Glock platform, lend themselves to be so easily modified. As many of you know and I have discovered, there a quite a few of companies who make after-market components for Glocks that are in many cases, real improvements over the original factory components. I realize that none of this is really necessary. But to me, it is an interesting exercise in attempting to accomplish anywhere from subtle to very noticeable improvements to this handgun’s accuracy and reliability, as well as improving my overall shooting experience with this customized creation. Also, I will admit it….some parts are being substituted primarily for cosmetic and aesthetic purposes, because I like the “look”. Some of the components were purchased and installed several years ago, but most of them are new as of 2020. The following is a list of all of the parts and components and accessories that I have purchased. Once I have received all of the new items, I will have a professional Gunsmith who really specializes in Glocks, perform the installation of all the components, since I want it done accurately: ZEV Technologies Z17 Citadel Stripped Slide w/RMR Plate, Black ZEV PKUPPER9 9mm Stainless Steel Parts Kit for ZEV Slide Aimpoint ACRO P-1 Red Dot Sight, Black Aimpoint Acro Red Dot Sight Mount Adapter Plate, Glock MOS, Black Trijicon Suppressor Night Sight Set - White Front/Black Rear SureFire X300 Ultra 1000 Lumens Ultra Weapon Light in Black Wilson Combat Stainless Steel Match Barrel ZEV Technologies PRO Flat Face Glock Ultimate Trigger Kit Tungsten Guide Rod & Spring Extended Aluminum Magazine Catch Zev Technologies Titanium Extended Slide Lock Lever Stainless Steel Pin Kit (4) with Titanium Gold Finish Magpul GL Enhanced Magwell Beaver Tail Backstrap Kit Chambermax TA-1 Charging Handle Yes, I realize that the cost of what I have already done to my Glock, as well as what I am considering doing to it will significantly exceed the cost of just purchasing a new ZEV OZ9, but since I already have and like my Glock 17, I would rather just do the upgrades. All of this is not economically rational, but a subjective exercise in attempting to obtain small but noticeable improvements to what I already have. As most of you know, a basic Glock 17 costs just around $600. All of these upgraded components and accessories have a total cost of just over $2,000. Some more practical folks may think that I am nuts to do this, but I am certainly enjoying the satisfying process of tweaking this handgun, which happens to be my very first handgun, and am looking forward to the seeing, feeling and shooting the completed result. AVB-AMG

FYI - I saw and had to photograph this sign on the public restroom door, when we visited the Wooden Nickel Pub in Hillsborough, NC for the first time a couple of years ago for lunch. It is now one of our regular stops on our drive down from NJ to visit relatives in Chapel Hill, NC. This whole conundrum was created and became a national issue, when the North Carolina state legislature brought up their controversial public restroom bill banning transgender folks from using a public restroom that is different from their gender at their birth. I think that this pub responded in an elegant and humorous manner. Personally, I could not care less what gender someone thinks they are as long as they do not bother me. As far as I am concerned, there are many more issues that are far more important for all of us to be worried about and motivated to do something to address..... AVB-AMG

@10X & @JackDaWack: I agree with the sentiments you both expressed in your posts above. FYI - below is a link to an article in today’s NY Times that provides yet another very good example of what happens when a community, society, country have been misled and form a mistrust of vaccines that then leads to a resurgence of a deadly disease, in this case measles. AVB-AMG The article is titled: ‘Why My Baby?’: How Measles Robbed Samoa of Its Young by Isabella Kwai Dec. 20, 2019 https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/19/world/asia/samoa-measles.html Here is a brief synopsis of that article: Measles is one of the most contagious diseases known to humans. One person with it can infect 12 - 18 others. Doctors can treat only the symptoms: fever, cough and a rash. Deaths in babies occur from complications like pneumonia. And for those who survive, measles can leave a lasting mark, including the possibility of weakened immune systems and neurological complications later in life. The measles epidemic example in this article is Samoa, the independent nation that is part of the island chain that includes American Samoa, with a population of 200,000. In 2013, 90% of infants in Samoa, around the age of one year old, were receiving the Measles-Mumps-Rubella (MMR) vaccine. But the rate gradually declined over the 5 following years, bottoming out at about 30% in 2018. Over these years, many Samoan’s would also go to and trust traditional healers instead, buying into fears of vaccine validity promoted by the anti-vaccine proponents. Also, many families failed to realize how serious measles can be. In 2018, the country’s faith in vaccination was shaken after two infants who had received the vaccine died, a tragedy that was later attributed to a medical mistake. Nurses had inadvertently mixed a muscle relaxant into the vaccine instead of sterile water. After the incident, it was understandable how many parents feared losing their child. As a result of the public outcry, the Samoan government recalled the vaccine nationwide, suspending its measles immunization program for 9 months as it conducted an investigation. In hindsight, the World Health Organization (WHO) said the decision helped create “a pool of susceptible children under the age of 5 years who are now the most affected” in the current epidemic. This measles epidemic began when a person with measles traveled to Samoa from New Zealand, which was struggling with its own measles outbreak. The government announced that there was a suspected case of measles on Oct. 9, then officially announced the outbreak on Oct.16th. In November, as the death toll reached 15, it declared a state of emergency, shuttering schools and barring children from public gatherings and extended the emergency through Dec. 29th. So far in 2019, at least 5,400 cases of measles have been reported in Samoa and 77 people have died, including young children and babies. In early December, the Samoan government took dramatic measures to control the disease’s spread after initial delays in the response to the outbreak. They declared a 2-day “medical holiday, to carry out a nationwide vaccination push, aided by global groups like the World Health Organization and UNICEF. The result so far, is that Samoa has achieved a 95% vaccination rate, which is considered to be a level for effective protection from the spread of the disease. The Samoan Parliament is set to consider legislation that would make vaccinations compulsory to enter school. In summation, the Samoans had a legitimate fear of the vaccine because of an error. Because of the need to fix the mistake and re-establish public trust in vaccinations, the Samoan govt. miscalculated how urgent it was to catch up on the vaccines. They didn't see measles coming. They also failed to move quickly enough when the outbreak first began. They also under estimated their risk which is higher than other peoples, since they are an indigenous people with no natural historical immunity, which is why measles infection spread like wildfire through their communities.

@remixer Merry Christmas to all of you......especially to you remixer. While I know it is not your faith, I found the perfect Christmas gift for you to wear while doing your "trigger test", as well as to all of the holiday parties that you have been invited to: AVB-AMG

At the risk of becoming a “Gucci Glock”, I am seriously considering making some significant upgrades to my Glock 17, 4th Gen, 9mm handgun to improve its accuracy and reliability and improve its overall shooting experience. Specifically, purchasing and installing/substituting the following components on the gun: ZEV Technologies Z17 Citadel Stripped Slide with RMR Plate ZEV Technologies PRO Flat Face Glock Ultimate Trigger Kit Aimpoint ACRO P-1 Red Dot Sight SureFire X300U-B Ultra High Output 1000 Lumen LED Weapon Light Several years ago, I did a number of upgrades to this Glock that included purchasing and installing: Wilson Combat Match Grade Stainless Steel Barrel Trijicon HD Night Sights Tungsten Guide Rod from The Glock Store Extended Magazine Release from The Glock Store Beavertail Grip from The Glock Store Yes, I realize that the cost of what I have already done to my Glock, as well as what I am considering doing to it will significantly exceed the cost of just purchasing a new ZEV OZ9, but since I already have and like my Glock 17, I would rather just do the upgrades. It is not economically rational, but a subjective exercise in attempting to obtain small but noticeable improvements to what I already have. Do you think I am nuts to do this or can you empathize with this urge to tweak, even if it does not make financial sense? AVB-AMG

@remixer: I am afraid that your thinking, based on your quoted statements above, is not logical, nor correct, since it still ignores what most likely will subsequently occur after a so-called self-defense shooting in one’s home. It does not matter if you believe that the gun owner should or should not be charged with committing a crime in the act of self-defense. Even if someone, in this hypothetical case, a gun owner who uses their gun in self-defense, somehow miraculously is not charged with a crime, (highly doubtful!), or if they were and they were found “not guilty”, they could still be sued in Civil Court. The surviving family of the deceased “robber” could bring a “wrongful death” civil lawsuit or in some states a “survival action” civil lawsuit against the gun owner, even if there was no criminal charge brough against them. In that suit, the Plaintiff, (surviving family), could even sue for punitive damages. Even if the burden of proof is on the Plaintiff, to show that the Defendant (gun owner), was negligent in causing the deceased’s death, there will still be a trial in civil court, where the gun owner will have to participate. So, the issue still remains that the gun owner will have to fork out mega-bucks to pay for their legal defense. That is why there still remains a real need for Gun liability insurance to pay for this legal bill. BTW, my stated definition of “Right or Rights” transcends political party beliefs and preferences and is based on historical precedence and acceptance. The nuance I have been describing is between human vs. Constitutional rights. I recognize that human rights transcend citizenship and reflect a much broader value system pertaining to social, economic and cultural rights in how people relate to each other. I also understand that rights stated in the U.S. Constitution are mainly civil, legal and political rights, dictating how our government relates to people. AVB-AMG

@remixer (as well as @silverado427 & @ChrisJM981): If only it were that simple...... Even if a Federal law were to be passed that would do what you say it would, in all likelihood, they would not be "immune from civil lawsuits". In the U.S. legal system, there would still have to be a trial by either a Judge or Jury to determine whether or not the inevitable charged crime was in fact committed or not. During that trial the gun owner who used their gun inside their home and caused either injury or death to another person, would still have to prove that they did in fact use their gun in self-defense in the process of attempting to prevent a criminal act. Therefore, the point that I have made several times now is still valid, which is that the gun owner will still have to spend a large amount of their money to pay for lawyers to represent them in that court case, providing their legal defense. The cost of those legal services would be covered by my envisioned Gun liability insurance, described earlier. With your thinking, it appears that you are really advocating that the U.S. legal system, derived from historical precedent, now abandon its long accepted sacred principal of the maxim that "a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty....", where the prosecution must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the crime(s) that have been charged are true. Is that the case....??? AVB-AMG P.S. - See my earlier post on explaining and defining what is a "right", where I have answered most of your other questions noted in your previous post.

To expand further on whether or not healthcare is a “Right” we need to know what exactly is a “Right”….. I pulled out some of my old college philosophy textbooks for context and precedent and re-discovered that historically, Rights, in their proper philosophical context, pertained to freedom of action, not to material goods or services. They were believed to exist because of our rational nature as human beings, which is guided by certain human rights principles that affirm and prioritize the inherent worth and dignity of all human beings. When we say that something is a “right”, it describes a relationship between individuals and also requires us to consider what are our obligations to each other, as well as the government’s obligations to its citizens. Basically, a “right” is a moral principle defining and sanctioning a person’s freedom of action in a social context. We all know the phrase, “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness”, from our Declaration of Independence, referring to the unalienable rights given to all humans by their creator and which our government must protect. IMHO, I interpret that phrase to specifically mean the following: The right to life means one has the moral right to their own life, which I believe includes the right to access fresh air, clean water and food, but not to have it provided to you. The right to liberty means one has the moral right to act by their own judgement and make their own choices in life. The right to property means one has the moral right to go out in the world, earn and acquire property, and have a moral claim on the use and control of that property. (It doesn’t mean a right to be given property from others). The right to the “pursuit of happiness” means one has the moral right to pursue their chosen purpose and fulfillment in life. Other freedoms, like speech and religion, all derive from the right to life. While there are many different rights, they all have one thing in common; they impose no obligation or burden on anyone. The right to free speech simply means no one may use force to prevent that action. The right to practice religious beliefs means no one may forcibly prevent others from worshiping. I believe that not only is healthcare both a need and consumer good, but that in this day and age, all U.S. citizens should also have the “right” to have access to healthcare. This right should not be confused or construed to mean that unlimited healthcare goods and services should be provided to everyone. Over the past decade we all have certainly participated in the debate as to how to best provide healthcare to our citizens, whether or not it is the U.S. for-profit system where you get what you pay for, or a state-run universal system paid for via taxes. I do not agree with the early 20th Century philosophical movement of Social Darwinism and the subsequent Medical Darwinism, (survival of the healthier, or wealthier, fittest), that was used to justify both the horrific Armenian genocide, as well as the Holocaust. It contributed, or at least encouraged the acceptance of the concept of healthcare as a privilege available only to those with the financial means to afford it. Yet I realize that even if healthcare is a right, we have to accept that there has to be some acceptable baselines established. We need to accept that no one has a right to make poor decisions regarding their health and then expect others to bear the costs to treat the results. Also, realistically, we have to acknowledge that our resources are limited, and therefore choices have to be made as to what is covered and to what extent, (level of care and maximum cost expenditure). The challenging task of our democratic society is to define those limits, providing a morally minimum level of healthcare services, as well as not letting an unregulated free market ration access to those rights through price. Cynically, I also know that in our country, we have basically legislated and created a "right" to healthcare by forcing our hospitals to care for any patient who appears on their property, (@Zeke, say thank you Ronald Reagan....), whether or not that patient can or ever will pay for the services provided to them. In essence, we are all paying for the healthcare of everyone who doesn't pay. Our current U.S. health insurance quagmire just makes all of this worse. When insurance companies work out deals with Doctors and Hospitals to pay only a fraction of their bills, that drives up the rates for everyone, especially the uninsured or underinsured who are expected to pay the full price. Recognizing the good intentions of, (yes I said it again @Mrs. Peel….), yet also the glaring failures of the ACA, I believe that we need to institute a so-called, low-level universal plan with hard cutoffs. This plan would cover ER visits, preventive care, dental care and basic healthcare needs. Beyond that, the private insurance coverage would kick in, where each of us will have decided for ourselves just what "extras" we want to pay for. Beyond the basic universal care, if you aren't covered or can't pay, then no treatment will be given. I know that sound very harsh, but it lets everyone make their own decisions about their health, while still providing the “right” to a base level of healthcare. AVB-AMG