RangerTurbo

Wow. That .22-250 is one destructive rifle. I'm impressed.

Glocks are indeed great guns. They are indeed very simple to operate, break down and clean. However, I as well tend to prefer the XD line as well since it incorporates the grip safety with the trigger safety, and its just as easy as the Glock to break down and do a field cleaning on. Plus, for me (and if you search you'll hear it quite a bit) Glocks just don't fit my hand very well. You'll realize what fits good and what doesn't when you go rent a few guns and try them out. My personal list in order of preference would be XD .40s&w M&P .40s&w 1911 .45ACP (many brands to choose from!) Glock .40s&w

Sit down over dinner and ask her why she doesn't want a gun in the house, and really listen to her. Don't approach her with all the reasons you want the gun first, she will only turn you off in her head and won't hear anything you're saying (It's like when the wife starts telling you why the grass needs mowed, or the car washed, or the trash taken out... cause how much of that do you really listen to?) See my point? Then, consider her reason why and go from there. Is she afraid of the recoil? Take her out shooting with a .22lr. Not a big 12g. Is she afraid of it being unsafe? This can be tricky to get someone to over come, but take them out shooting and really explain and demonstrate how safety's work. How chamber checks are done. How to properly hold the gun to reduce damage to wrist/shoulder/etc. Take her side of the reasoning and focus on that issue. You're not trying to convince yourself you need the gun, you're trying to convince her.

26 rounds some TSA jerk off just scored for himself. I'm not looking forward to flying back to Ohio in July with my carry gun. I don't expect a hint of trouble. But I've ready too many stories of TSA workers being above the law.

Looks like FUN. Rabbits run a-plenty here in Utah too, I just need to find a nice place near me that isn't hunted to death (fucking rabbits get smart when they are pressured).

Ahh, well, in anycase, if you're ever that way it's still something of interest to stop and check out. If he's there he's always more than willing to talk your ear off. He's forgotten more about the local history of the RR's and coal mining than I'll ever learn. Oddly I find your "all the time" comment strange lol. Its all relevant, but Cabooses haven't been in service for almost 30 years, when the RR's started using the end of train marking systems. (I forget what thats really called). Anyhow, since I can remember (Im 24, been a train fan all my life) Cabooses were limited to local runs and yard switching. Even now the locals are dropping them. The Newark to Mt Vernon local (when owned by CSX) used an old C&O Caboose, but I think now that Ohio RR has taken over ownership even they have quit using one. But like I said, its relative. To me "all the time" would be one on the end of each train.

Take a trip down old Route 40 in Cambridge. You'll come across my uncles house that has 4 (or is it 5) Caboose's in the front along with a reproduction Depot. Pretty awesome sight.

Ah HA! See, thats your biggest problem. You think this allows people to carry in the bar and drink. The flaw is: It's already illegal in Ohio to drink and carry. Being able to carry in the bar doesn't now cancel out the drink/carry law. If someone is going to carry in a bar and drink and break the law, then they're not going to worry about any other laws (for or against carry and drinking). If they are going to do it now, they've already done it.

Not supposed to put it in 4x4 while on pavement, turning aside. When you turn, one wheel travels farther than the other, side to side and front to rear. Traction is split 50/50 front rear. When you turn and the one wheel is traveling further/less than the other, parts of the drive train bind up. Energy has to be released somewhere so the tire with the least traction loses and creates the hopping that is felt. Drive around in a car with a truly locked rear end on the street. You'll feel the same thing.

So if they've had a drink at the bar before, that means they drink there everytime?

The opportunity isn't being presented. It's not a new revelation either. If a guy has been carrying in a bar for the past ten years he's already extorted that opportunity. This guarantee of legality allows the self controlled legal person the opportunity to protect them and theirs should the occasion present its self where deadly force is needed. Ok. Say you're right. Say there is a CCW (sub criminal in same situation) in the bar. He just found out his wife was cheating. She took all his money. Ran away to Poco Rio. Say the law still forbade him from carrying in the bar. This night however he feels he has nothing to live for and feels like going out with a bang. He now has a gun in the bar where no one else is armed. He opens fire trying to take few people out with him before the cops show up and take him out. He kills 10 people because no one was able to fight back. Now, same situation, only this time CCW in the bar is allowed. 5 other guys are CCing. He opens fire. How many does he kill now before he's taken down? One or two? Which situation sounds better for you? Accepting any loss of life though isn't the right answer, any death in that situation is a horrible thought. However, given the absolute that he will kill someone first, I'd rather there be the opportunity for a law abiding citizen to take him down instead of being forced to hide behind the bar for the Cops to show. Create laws that enforce our Rights as law abiders, but help to restrict and deny felons and criminals. Not that it matters though as the felon and criminal will still obtain weapons, it's their definition of character. Outright denial by law for everyone only keeps the law abiding from having a fair chance, for as I said, they will obediently stay lawful, while the criminal will not.

Hah, find one and have the seller convinced that he cracked the head and it needs replaced before he sells it, then haggle him down somemore. I bought mine from a coworker, and he thought he popped the head (0331 casting). Wanted to have a shop look/fix/replace what was wrong. I told him I'd give KBB value minus what the cost of parts and labor would be since I could source and do all the work myself. And so that's how I got the Jeep for $1800. The kicker is, I've put 7,000 almost on it and have yet to burn a drop of oil or coolant because of this "crack"

Well, think of it this way. Maybe you can't put 8rds on top of each other in the silhouettes head. Neither can I with my 4" barrel carry gun (I almost can with my 1911), but hell, you're able to put them Center of Mass, and thats what really counts.

But it doesn't say they were either. You're assuming that they were (or might have been) and then making your judgment call that CCW'rs aren't law abiding. Thats a gross misjudgment. You're making the correlation that everyone is criminal until proven innocent by assuming those criminals were CCW holders. That's an unsound way to pass verdict, very disturbing. You can't criminalize everyone to attempt to stop violence. There are already laws out there forbidding criminals and felons from obtaining deadly weapons. Yet they still do. Enacting laws that forbids EVERYONE from doing such will only leave the criminals with the deadly weapons. The law abiding will obediently follow the law, the criminal will continue not to.

Gotta run to lunch, then have a heavy work load coming up. Will continue on when I can. Keep on posting guys

YOU tell ME. It's your point to prove how guns in bars = bad news. Not my point to prove how many times a crime never happened because of carry.

I know, I see those people too. Does it worry me? Yah. Do I change my thinking, reasoning, and beliefs just so I can curtail their Rights? Hell NO. I am a die hard Constitutionalist. But the 2nd Amendment is not about the right to buy guns. I support each and every Amendment to the Bill of Rights. I don't let my own personal opinions and fears dictate how certain rights should be treated. Basing judgment on how to restrict a person's Rights simply because you or I might think they aren't with good intentions is how Rights become privileges, and those privileges quickly become restricted. Maybe those guys in Vances are just buying them for recreational use. Maybe they are buying them for the fear of dramatic times that may lie ahead. I didn't buy all mine because I like to shoot paper targets. Some are for fun, others are bought for the purpose of thwarting off home invaders, would be muggers, or a .gov gone tyrannical.

I would love to use the example of putting the same type of restrictions on excersizing your other rights. But 100% of the time anyone arguing against some form of carry always makes the statement that the other rights have nothing to do with guns and what not. And it's always because their depth of reasoning on the situation don't let them see past the "guns are bad" mentality and take a look at what that type of thinking does to the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the Freedoms that we take for granted daily. Which one of you guys would like to have to have a license to post on here which must be approved by a Government body after you go through extensive training and a backround check? I know I know, what does writing have to do with guns, right?

LOL, oh boy. I haven't proven shit because there aren't statistics to show how many times an OC or CC have stopped a crime from happening. Crime statistics are real, anti-crime statistics don't exist. No one calls to report that a "would be robber came into the bar, but left when he saw my carry weapon". Reports filed where CC or OC stop the crime from being committed are still filed as a crime report, not an anti-crime report. You haven't shown one shred of evidence for your claims. How would you like me to show you all the ways crimes have been stopped due to carrying? I've already covered the type of person who uses this type of reasoning. It's like I'm psychic and knew someone would say that EXACT line. Or maybe it's just typical closet anti gun speek? Which you backed up earlier by saying you like guns, but not other people with them. (I am a gun lover, but bottom line is i dont trust many people that have their CCW)

Which makes you think more about your statement if you analyze it? a) You're implying that excersizing your (our) 2nd Amendment Right is too easy. or b) It's too easy to receive a CCW; an infringement on a Right not to be infringed upon. He's avoiding them all.

Because you bring nothing but unfounded opinion, projection, and hyperbole to the conversation. Argue facts, not what Sarah Brady tells you. No, I act as if you don't want anyone to carry in a bar out of fear and fear alone. I carry a gun. I conceal it most of the time now. I'm not sure how concealing shows just how bad ass I am? Maybe people can just look at me and tell? I mean I know I'm pretty kick ass, but bad ass? I'm not sure. You start off hostile and beligerant. Get called on it. Tuck your tail, and now are whining that someone is opposing your opinion without sucking your dick to appease you at the same time? This aint preschool, "grow a pair". And you're coming off as the person who walks in, makes asinine comments to a conversation, and fails to follow up or backup anything he says or is called on. Also, I haven't been to a bar since I started carrying. Utah bars suck, the beer is of poor quality here, and I'd rather drink home brew and watch TV. Nope, I can say that a few beers doesn't make me want to get shit faced wasted. However, you did just confirm, in a round-a-bout way, that this is your mentality. Which shows a poor lack of control. Which backups up my statement earlier that you lack the self control to drink, therefore lack the self control to carry a gun and be responsible. Ultimately, this underlines the fact that since you don't have the control, you feel no one does. The more you type in here, the more your exposing your self. It proves EVERYTHING you've claimed to be false. It does matter that much. You made a claim to help enforce your opinion, but didn't substantiate that with any information. Just like the rest of your argument.

LJ --> Here Cred, I'll do the leg work for you. Suzanna Hupps Wiki Page which is actually pretty good. Despite how much I hate using wiki for reference material. Hupps story of events Now, listen to that and answer your own accusations. 1) Why do you think she would want this? Her parents and the 21 victims that day aren't acceptable losses. 2) Does she look like a "fucking hillbilly" to you? She was a former House member in Texas. 3) How would "growing a pair" helped anyone in that situation? 4) "give them what they want and no one gets hurt". And what should they all have given, other than their lives? 5) "They shoot first, and then take what they want." So you're comfortable with the fact you want to take away everyones chance of equal response? 6) "I was born and raised in the city with the highest crime rate in the WORLD." And yet you still fail to back this up when called on it. Making "macho" comments doesn't make you macho. 7) "In a bar, the best thing that can come from someone carrying a gun, is to prevent multiple killings, which is good, but honestly, how often does that happen?" You get this, and yet you still fail at being intelligent about it. It shouldn't have to happen once. The "once every now and then" is not an acceptable loss. Right, so disarm everyone including the good law abiding. Because, you know, the law breaker would listen to that law and no one would ever carry in a bar, right? To be clear, you only mean if it effects you. Otherwise you don't care how regulated something is. That statement goes with the "I'm in full support of the 2nd Amendment, but...... As long as the parts being regulated don't effect you, you ultimately don't care in the end. The only problem is, the stories and theories the gun grabbers cry will happen, don't. They haven't been right about any of their accusations about what will happen when anything progun/procarry comes up. Is saving your own life?

Yes, they can. But I was more saying you can find a mint low mileage (sub 90,000 miles) Cherokee for that price. Or, you could be like me and pick up a '00 with 93,000 for $1800

Have you taken the responsibility of researching Susanna Hupp and what she and her parents went through? Your ignorance is blinding. The restaurant they were eating at that day was your picture perfect place where one would least expect anything "crazy dangerous" to take place.

We had a 99 GC with the 4.0 and it would get 23mpg on the highway not pulling anything. Albiet a 2wd model though Also, you can find the Cherokees with a NP231 or NP242 transfer case. The 231 is a true 4x4 case whereas you shouldn't use it on dry pavement. The NP242 is nice as it has Jeeps rendition of AWD, kinda. This can be used on dry pavement 100% of time and has no wear effects on the drive train. Personally, I like the 242 because you can throw it in that selection when its raining or light snow etc and have the comfort of all 4 wheels pulling you. I have the NP242 in my 00 Cherokee. Oh, and it is inevitable. All 4.0's end up leaking around the rear main seals, valve cover gasket, and/or the oil filter adapter.