RedRocket1647545505

It appears they're doing a bit on Tannerite tonight. Discovery Channel @ 10pm.

I'm a little disappointed that it's one big GM commercial. I'd prefer to see a variety of cars or, here's a novel idea, how about the cars that they originally were.

Right up there with women, huh?

http://img.worldcarfans.com/2009/3/large/ferrari-599xx-technical-study_5.jpg

sick...... http://img.worldcarfans.com/2009/3/large/ferrari-599xx-technical-study.jpg http://img.worldcarfans.com/2009/3/large/ferrari-599xx-technical-study_1.jpg http://img.worldcarfans.com/2009/3/large/ferrari-599xx-technical-study_2.jpg http://img.worldcarfans.com/2009/3/large/ferrari-599xx-technical-study_3.jpg http://img.worldcarfans.com/2009/3/large/ferrari-599xx-technical-study_4.jpg

BTW, 14khz is as high as I could hear via old ipod earbuds. Either the earbuds suck (they do) or I haven't been wearing adequate ear protection whilst shooting guns. Probably a combo of both. Edit* - 15khz with the volume at 100%. 'doh! Edit2* - 16khz using just my laptops speakers. Barely.

It should also be said that if the sound isn't within your speakers Hz range, you won't hear a damn thing either, because there won't be any sound coming out.

That's kind of what I'm hoping for.

I fucking hate Insight. Basic cable (not digital, because it's STILL not available), and no NatGeo, Sci Channel, or Military channel. It it weren't for Discovery and History, and occaisionally SciFi (BSG and Eureka crew), I wouldn't watch TV.

Who do you work for?

I suspect trickery.

A do wha? . . . . . Reid joins Pelosi in opposing ban revival By J. Taylor Rushing Posted: 02/26/09 10:17 PM [ET] Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) will join House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) in opposing any effort to revive the 1994 assault-weapons ban, putting them on the opposite side of the Obama administration. Reid spokesman Jim Manley said the Nevada Democrat will preserve his traditional pro-gun rights voting record. "Sen. Reid would oppose an effort [to] reinstate the ban if the Senate were to vote on it in the future," Manley told The Hill in an e-mail late Thursday night. It was not immediately clear whether Reid would block the bill from the Senate, but his opposition casts serious doubt on its chances. Also, Manley noted that Reid voted against the ban in 1994 and again when it expired in 2004. Reid's stance joins him with Pelosi, who told reporters Thursday that the administration had not checked with her before Attorney General Eric Holder told reporters the administration would attempt to reinstate the ban. Pelosi gave a flat “no” when asked if she had spoken to Holder or any other administration officials about the issue. “On that score, I think we need to enforce the laws we have right now,” Pelosi said at her weekly news conference. “I think it's clear the Bush administration didn’t do that.” Outside of the dig at the recent Republican president, that phrase is the stock line of those who don’t want to pass new gun control laws, such as the National Rifle Association (NRA). Holder said during a press conference Wednesday in Phoenix that Obama had made reinstating the ban one of his campaign promises. "There are obviously a number of things that are — that have been taking up a substantial amount of his time, and so I’m not sure exactly what the sequencing will be," Holder said. "It is something, however, that we still think would be an appropriate thing to do." The news caught Capitol Hill by surprise, immediately pitting Democrats and Republicans against each other and even exposing deep divides among Democrats. A number of House Democrats lost their seats after being targeted by the NRA for voting for the 1994 ban.

.223/5.56 use .224 bullets. In regards to ammunition, nothing is usually the exact size that's advertised. For instance, my .460S&W rounds are actually .45. Why they pull these shenanigans, I'll never know.

Varmint calibers....

You're off to a good start. Keep it up!

I'm thinking about going just to see if I can get them to be complete assholes to me, and then, tear right back into them. I enjoy that shit.

Never personally tried them, but I've heard they destroy shit.

I say we build the biggest one we possibly can and blow up the moon. Fucker's always getting in the way of my view.

Shit, if they're giving it away, I'll take it.

Score another for the good guys: . . . . . U.S. Senate Votes to Uphold Second Amendment in Washington, D.C. Thursday, February 26, 2009 Fairfax, Va. - The United States Senate has voted, with overwhelming bipartisan support, to adopt an amendment offered by Senator John Ensign (R-NV) that seeks to protect the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens in the District of Columbia. The amendment, attached to S.160, the D.C. Voting Rights Act, will repeal restrictive gun control laws passed by the District of Columbia's (D.C.) city council after the landmark D.C. v. Heller Supreme Court decision. The vote margin was 62-36. "Today's vote brings us one step closer to restoring the Second Amendment freedom of law-abiding D.C. residents," said NRA-ILA Executive Director Chris W. Cox. "It's ludicrous that good people in our nation's capital continue to be harassed as they try to defend themselves and their loved ones in their own homes. This vote reinforces the historic Heller ruling." After the Heller ruling, the D.C. city council passed a law requiring would-be gun owners to pay a registration fee, pass a 20-question multiple choice test, take a five-hour training course, undergo an invasive background check every six years, re-register any firearm every three years, and finally, submit all handguns for ballistics testing. Current D.C. law also bans an overwhelming majority of firearms commonly used for self-defense. This Ensign Amendment would also remedy that unjust practice. "NRA would like to thank the lead sponsor, Sen. John Ensign for his efforts to reform D.C.'s gun laws and enable folks to protect their property and their loved ones," concluded Cox. "It's time for leaders in Washington to wake up to the fact that the Supreme Court decision is now the law of the land."

So which customer did he steal that from?

I would like to subscribe to your newsletter. Do you, by chance, have a brochure?

Off to school, ladies. Leave some good pro-ban arguments for me to shred apart tonight.

Ray of HOPE, or subterfuge? http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/...009-02-26.html Pelosi tosses cold water on assault weapon ban By Mike Soraghan Posted: 02/26/09 11:59 AM [ET] House Speaker Nancy Pelosi tossed cold water on the prospect of reinstating the assault weapons ban, highlighting Democrats’ reluctance to take on gun issues. Attorney General Eric Holder raised the prospect Wednesday that the administration would push to bring back the ban. But Pelosi (D-Calif.) indicated on Thursday that he never talked to her. The Speaker gave a flat “no” when asked if she had talked to administration officials about the ban. “On that score, I think we need to enforce the laws we have right now,” Pelosi said at her weekly news conference. “I think it's clear the Bush administration didn’t do that.” Outside of the dig at the recent Republican president, that phrase is the stock line of those who don’t want to pass new gun control laws, such as the National Rifle Association. The White House declined to comment on Holder's remarks, referring reporters to the Department of Justice. The DoJ did not respond to The Hill's request for comment.

I'd just like someone to tell me what makes an 'assault weapon' any more dangerous than a 'normal weapon' ? Seriously. A bullet to the head, is a bullet to the head. Your dead body won't know the difference. And as flounder said, where does it stop? -Ok, you've got 'assault weapons' banned. Now what? -Well, hi-cap mags are the problem. No more mags with a capacity >10rd. -Well, now 10 rds. is too much, so we'll pick another arbitrary #, we'll say 5rds. -Woah. Now 5 rd. is too much. You could kill 7 school children with that 5rd. mag! -No more detachable mags. They're too dangerous. You have no logical reason to need to reload that fast. -Well, now your single shot .308 is too powerful. You could kill someone from 2 miles away with that thing -Nothing allowed over .223. We've gotta keep those boolits from reaching China and starting WWIII. -Welp, someone managed to get a .223 to reach China, almost starting WWIII -We're gonna have to regulate it to strictly single shot .22LR and below. Anything else is unnecessary. The general population doesn't need anything more. -We've just got teh murder statistics in; more people are killed with .22LR than anything else. We're gonna have to ban guns completely. so sry. -Knives only -Oh shit, knife crime is on the rise. What will we do? Ban those evil assault knives! Do you see where I'm going with this? The weapon is NEVER the problem. Never was. People are the problem. Always have been. Just take a look at England for how effective an outright ban on guns has been. They're now trying to ban knives. I'm not kidding. Trying to blame an item for making a person do the crime is stupid. I'll go back to the original quote; 'Trying to blame gun crime on the gun is like trying to blame the spoon for making Rosie O'Donell fat'