124gr9mm

Decision, decisions... If you keep the M&P for home defense then I'd say get a CZ or Tanfoglio/Witness for competition. You can find them reasonably priced (non-pimped) and have something "different". If you keep the M&P for competition you could get a Glock (gasp) or Sig, or HK, etc, etc for home defense. Either way...you'd be getting a new gun

As for the new pistol you should ABSOLUTELY buy, what kind of competition shooting do you do? Buying the same pistol again would work...but that's not really as fun.

I picked the TLR-3 for my Glock 17. Like you, I thought the TLR-1 was too bulky. TLR-3 seems just right to me:

Check out the classes offered by Gun for Hire. They seem to have a great mix of pistol, rifle, adn shotgun courses for all skill levels: https://gunforhire.com/academy/ Their instructors are current or former LEO/Military with lots of training experience.

Same. I was there on Saturday with 2 of my kids and there was plenty of space between shooters.

Precedent setting. The more cuts they can add at time like this the more it bleeds into "normal" life.

Oh stop. It's not like you're a long standing member of the forum who's having trouble finding some rare part for a gun. You're like a noob who opened the door to a new club and asked if anyone knows where to get toilet paper. You're asking your question a few weeks too late. Like JackDaWack said, it's going to take a long time for things to catch up. If you have friends who shoot ask them if they have a box or two to spare, otherwise take it as a lesson learned and be sure to have some on hand for next time.

Ya think?

Yeah, I think the pendulum will swing back and we'll see some cheap AR's and AK's. Might have to wait until after the election as people tend to get nervous and drive prices up a bit.

Not sure you're giving a fair representation of .308 velocity. Rifleshooter.com did a test several years ago where they shot rounds from a barrel that they incrementally chopped from 28" to 16.5" and recorded velocities. While the drop from 28" to 16.5" was significant, only the heaviest bullet (180 gr) dropped below 2400 fps. I think "most" people use 147/150 grain bullets in their semi-auto's, so the results for those might be considered more typical. Not sure that it would fall into your "sub optimal" category for OP's purposes. 308 Winchester Barrel length in inches versus Muzzle velocity in feet-per-second (ft/sec) Rifleshooter.com Barrel length Winchester 147 FMJ IMI Samson 7.62 150 FMJ Federal 168 Gold Medal Winchester 180 PP 28 2965 2823 2706 2632 27 2962 2800 2697 2607 26 2955 2801 2673 2597 25 2917 2769 2659 2585 24 2909 2766 2635 2553 23 2877 2744 2618 2553 22 2837 2718 2597 2527 21 2807 2683 2580 2507 20 2804 2679 2565 2478 19 2757 2634 2532 2441 18 2739 2595 2523 2411 17 2707 2577 2481 2401 16.5 2682 2561 2466 2373 AVG velocity loss fps/inch 24.6 22.8 20.9 22.5 Interesting read for anyone interested in this stuff: https://rifleshooter.com/2014/12/308-winchester-7-62x51mm-nato-barrel-length-versus-velocity-28-to-16-5/

I think it's fine. I'm a fan of the .308 caliber. Look like it will be point and shoot up to 200 yards.

Agree. I've had a few friends who think they're "gun guys" (they have a pistol in the house that's been fired once, but they have no ammo) ask me how they can 'stock up" on ammo "just in case", but my more liberal friends are still hunkered down and confident that the police will protect them.

Agree. Judge needs censure of some kind. Glad the appellate judge got it right. I'll retreat to my home. Beyond that there is no retreat...

Not sure what typical time would be, but they're likely on the back-burner right now.

Sounds like a great plan, particularly if you were considering a membership anyway. I don't think anyone is offering discounts on it at this point. Make sure to share some pictures and give us a range report when you get it.

In my opinion/experience the "local" gun shops in this area very over-priced. Ottomanelli's, Reloaderz, RTSP, etc, etc. I get that they're operating in an expensive area, but you'll never see a good deal from them My general rule for purchasing over the last several years is to check Bud's gun shop and see what it would cost to order from them. So as of today the Sig would be $900 (with free shipping) + $15 NICS + $25 transfer (from the guy in Lincoln Park I always use) which brings me to $940. (You have to call Bud's and make sure they'll sell it at the same price with 10 round magazines) I then connect with the vendors here to see what they've got on hand and what it would cost if they had to order for me. If they're in the ballpark (for me that's about $60) I'd go with them. I don't mind driving an hour or two to avoid mail-order. If you don't care about price then pick a shop you're most comfortable with and stick with them. They may eventually give you some kind of discount/special handling for being a regular.

Respectfully, the bites/attacks from little shit dogs are meaningless. The disproportionate number of reports of pitbull attacks are because of the nature of the "breed' and their design. They're fighting dogs. They're designed and bred to fight/kill. Little shit dogs and shepherds are not. Added to that is the fact that many/most pitbull owners treat their dogs the same way they would treat a cute little poodle or lab. "Damien never shows aggression to anyone in the family and he's the most loyal/trusting/couch potato dog in the world". THey never see it coming...

Looks VERY cool!!! Wouldn't be my first choice for home defense, but to each their own. Enjoy!

This. I would presume that the charges will be dropped. I can't imagine a prosecutor actually moving forward with this.

And then when you die it gets taxed again with your estate...

I appreciate the point from the AG. It may be difficult for them to prosecute these scumbags because of the way the evidence is collected/presented. It could also lead to a well-intentioned person doing something illegal themselves and getting jammed up while trying to do something good. That said, I have no problem with the guy simply doing what he's doing and outing these scumbags. The light of day is like poison to these vermin.

Looks like the Social Security administration has seen the video and rebuts the facts presented: https://www.ssa.gov/history/InternetMyths2.html Q1. Which political party took Social Security from the independent trust fund and put it into the general fund so that Congress could spend it? A1: There has never been any change in the way the Social Security program is financed or the way that Social Security payroll taxes are used by the federal government. The Social Security Trust Fund was created in 1939 as part of the Amendments enacted in that year. From its inception, the Trust Fund has always worked the same way. The Social Security Trust Fund has never been "put into the general fund of the government." Most likely this question comes from a confusion between the financing of the Social Security program and the way the Social Security Trust Fund is treated in federal budget accounting. Starting in 1969 (due to action by the Johnson Administration in 1968) the transactions to the Trust Fund were included in what is known as the "unified budget." This means that every function of the federal government is included in a single budget. This is sometimes described by saying that the Social Security Trust Funds are "on-budget." This budget treatment of the Social Security Trust Fund continued until 1990 when the Trust Funds were again taken "off-budget." This means only that they are shown as a separate account in the federal budget. But whether the Trust Funds are "on-budget" or "off-budget" is primarily a question of accounting practices--it has no effect on the actual operations of the Trust Fund itself. Q2: Which political party eliminated the income tax deduction for Social Security (FICA) withholding? A2: There was never any provision of law making the Social Security taxes paid by employees deductible for income tax purposes. In fact, the 1935 law expressly forbid this idea, in Section 803 of Title VIII. (The text of Title VIII. can be found elsewhere on our website.) Q3. Which political party started taxing Social Security annuities? A3. The taxation of Social Security began in 1984 following passage of a set of Amendments in 1983, which were signed into law by President Reagan in April 1983. These amendments passed the Congress in 1983 on an overwhelmingly bi-partisan vote. The basic rule put in place was that up to 50% of Social Security benefits could be added to taxable income, if the taxpayer's total income exceeded certain thresholds. The taxation of benefits was a proposal which came from the Greenspan Commission appointed by President Reagan and chaired by Alan Greenspan (who went on to later become the Chairman of the Federal Reserve). The full text of the Greenspan Commission report is available on our website. President's Reagan's signing statement for the 1983 Amendments can also be found on our website. A detailed explanation of the provisions of the 1983 law is also available on the website. Q4. Which political party increased the taxes on Social Security annuities? A4. In 1993, legislation was enacted which had the effect of increasing the tax put in place under the 1983 law. It raised from 50% to 85% the portion of Social Security benefits subject to taxation; but the increased percentage only applied to "higher income" beneficiaries. Beneficiaries of modest incomes might still be subject to the 50% rate, or to no taxation at all, depending on their overall taxable income. This change in the tax rate was one provision in a massive Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (OBRA) passed that year. The OBRA 1993 legislation was deadlocked in the Senate on a tie vote of 50-50 and Vice President Al Gore cast the deciding vote in favor of passage. President Clinton signed the bill into law on August 10, 1993. (You can find a brief historical summary of the development of taxation of Social Security benefits on the Social Security website.) Q5. Which political party decided to start giving annuity payments to immigrants? A5. Neither immigrants nor anyone else is able to collect Social Security benefits without someone paying Social Security payroll taxes into the system. The conditions under which Social Security benefits are payable, and to whom, can be found in the pamphlets available on our website. The question confuses the Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program with Social Security. SSI is a federal welfare program and no contributions, from immigrants or citizens or anyone else, is required for eligibility. Under certain conditions, immigrants can qualify for SSI benefits. The SSI program was an initiative of the Nixon Administration and was signed into law by President Nixon on October 30, 1972. An explanation of the basics of Social Security, and the distinction between Social Security and SSI, can be found on the Social Security website.

As a parent I find these kinds of videos very disturbing. Hard to believe there are so many predators who are so brazen about this kind of thing...

I'm almost at the end of a 2 year lease on a 2018 "classic". It's the 6 cylinder base model and I'm very happy with it, so I plan to buy it out and keep it.. I put 16k miles on it and it more than meets my needs. I found a guy on Craigslist who was getting rid of a bed liner for $200 so I grabbed those, and I added a tow hitch. Ride is very smooth and zero issues with light towing or hauling a fully loaded bed (my son to and from college) long distances.

There are no "valid excuses". If you want a CCW you're either politically connected, wealthy, or work security. If you're not one of those then you don't get a CCW.