cg2112

My wife's gun is, in fact, a gift. I brought her to the range this weekend, and she shot a Ruger SR22 and really liked it, so I want to get her one for Christmas. As far as financing goes, that's a totally separate issue, but I use zero percent financing all the time. There's really no reason for me not to, I just pay the stuff off quickly, and it's no problem. Though, I'm probably going to end up getting both guns are the same place, it's just more convenient. I had my eye on a Sig Sauer P229, but I'm probably going to go for something a little more affordable. These are first guns for both me and my wife, so I probably don't need to go all out.

I know that if I purchase two handguns from a dealer, they have to report the sale to the ATF. Anyone know about purchasing two handguns in the same day from two different dealers? I want to buy a handgun for myself, and one for my wife. For mine, I want to use financing, so there's a particular dealer I want to go to. For my wife's gun, I want to go to Point Blank, because they aren't any more expensive, and are having a "buy in December, shoot in January for free" range deal.

They didn't say that they didn't test DNA. They said that they did, the day after bin Laden was killed. I believed that they used the DNA of family members.

What a coincidence!

Probably not. Like the rest of them, he'll simply say that he was always opposed to the surveillance, and warned us all ahead of time that this would happen.

That's a really good article, with the exception that it's entire premise is flawed. A "Stand Your Ground" law is a pretty specific self-defense law. It is one in which grants immunity to a person who kills or injures in self-defense without attempting to evade or retreat. The flaw in the argument is that Illinois has no such law. The "Stand Your Ground" that the rightwing blog refers to is not a Stand Your Ground law at all and the the clause that then-Senator Obama supported was not related to criminal immunity. The clause he supported protected a person who defended himself for civil suits brought on by the criminal. It has nothing to do with "Stand Your Ground" or immunity from criminal prosecution.

Like Benghazi, fake outrage from the right on yet another non-scandal. I don't like that the DOJ did it, but they didn't break the law, and it's not all that different than the NSA doing pretty much the same thing during the last administration. There are some serious similarities to President Clinton's second term here - keep on trying, until something sticks. Who knows, maybe, like President Clinton, they'll finally find something completely unrelated to governing and policy to pin on him.

Why would the Saudis write a letter? Did Chile? What about Canada or Australia?

Again "controlled" and "majority" are two different things. Health care reform is a great example of this. If the Democrats truly controlled the Congress, it would have been much easier to pass health care reform. It would have been sooner, and it would have been better. But a 60 vote majority was needed to get the bill to pass, which is how we ended up with a health care law that is more expensive, and less effective.

Had the majority, or controlled? Hardly the same thing.

I agree. But then, if I go back and find two year old posts about current events, I bet I can find discrepancies, too

A green apple taste almost always means that fermentation was stopped before it was completed. There are a few reasons for this. Too little yeast was used, there wasn't enough oxygen in the mix when the yeast was added (you really need to stir the crap out of the wort before adding the yeast - for Mr. Beer, make sure the cap is on tight, and shake it really vigorously for 5 minutes or so ), and more likely than anything else, the beer was bottled too early. How long do you let it ferment for? There's no harm in letting it go longer than the instructions say. Mr. Beer kits say to go two weeks. Personally, I don't think that this is long enough at all, I'd say go four weeks. You can also place the fermenter somewhere a little warmer (but not too warm, just a few degrees warmer), and it will get the yeast going a little more.

If your priming sugar causes any taste change, just let the bottles condition longer. The longer it sits in the bottles, the more the yeast eats up the sugars and anything else that might cause an aftertaste. I agree, the Mr. Beer keg is great for small test batches. It makes things a lot cleaner, and no need to move from fermenter to bottling bucket. I force carbonate when I use the kegs, but you don't have to - you can also use the CO2 to slowly carbonate. I've heard it's better to do that than to force carb (force carbonating is injecting CO2 into the keg at a rapid rate, causing the gas to be absorbed into beer over the course of 10 minutes or so), but I've never been able to tell any difference.

Mr. Beer is how I started out. Some say that Mr. Beer kits aren't real brewing, but I disagree. Mr. Beer is responsible for getting a lot of people into the hobby, and as far as I'm concerned, it's real brewing, just on a smaller scale.

I don't see any mention of brewing in all these threads. Surely I can't be the only one.

Global warming in a natural phenomena. It has happened since the the atmosphere formed. There's no question of this, it's a cyclical event that always occurs. Global warming itself is not alarming. What's alarming is that all evidence suggests that the current cycle of warming is occurring at a rate much more rapid than any other time since the earth could sustain life, basically. Evidence shows that as we left the last ice age, the earth warmed at about 7 degrees a year every 5000 years. Right now, with the current rate of warming, we can expect the earth to warm 35 degrees over the next 5000 years, if the current rate of temperature increase wasn't rising (but it is). http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GlobalWarming/page3.php Science pretty much trumps politics every time.

Snow definitely proved that climate change is fake.

If kickoffs are changed, football will survive, we'll get used to it, and we'll tell our grandchildren how it used to be. At one time, forward passing was illegal. In that case, it was Teddy Roosevelt who intervened to change that rule. Later, the tackle, guard and center were eliminated as eligible receivers.

Sure. But again, the Constitution doesn't prohibit having to pay a fee to have an ID to buy beer. It DOES prohibit having to pay a fee to have an ID to vote. That's one of a few reasons (to say nothing of disenfranchisement) that courts have set aside voter ID laws in a number of states.

The difference between the two is that the Constitution doesn't explicitly prohibit payment to the state in order to be able to purchase beer.

I don't recall liberals complaining about fraud at the polls during the 2000 election. There were certainly complaints about the courts, and about which ballots were valid and which were not, but as far as I know, the 2000 election Florida debacle had nothing to do with allegations of voter fraud at the polls. Because Voter ID laws don't stop voter fraud, but they DO make it harder for some people to vote. Namely, minorities, students and the poor - people who are not likely, as a demographic, to support Republican candidates.

wat

That's what you have to add? Clearly, your position is sophisticated and well thought out.

Yeah, maybe. Or maybe he tried to find people who are more likely to want the first black President to have a third term. There were 800,000 people there. As far as I can tell, from being in attendance at the event, blacks weren't in the minority. Yet, only black people in the video.

Wow, half a dozen black people think they we should change the Constitution to allow the first black President a third term, in a crowd of 800,000. Weird that he only interviewed black people.