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.

Well, that will drive the porn industry into the back door. Can any politician do something actually constructive?

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.

Did I not say he is entitled to his due process like every other US citizen?

I just looked again I guess they are now reporting the the Saudis didn't write a letter to DHS.

Why would the Saudis write a letter?

Did Chile? What about Canada or Australia?

all three were controlled by Obama cocksucking democrats. Thats how the health care plan was passed. I havent read the article yet, but Im curious, where are the terrorists going to go?

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.

I will admit I am getting old, so my memory isn't that good anymore. So would someone be kind enough to remind me who controlled the White House, the Senate and the House for 2008 through 2010.

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

3 years does not sound like a speedy trial...Just sayin

Isn't this like the accused being the judge?

http://www.bradleymanning.org/featured/a-recap-of-rulings-in-the-bradley-manning-pre-trial-hearings-trial-delayed-until-june

I agree.

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

I've noticed just about all the recipes I've made tend to have this same very faint underlying flavor, like something green apple that bugs me.

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 has been going on since the ice ages, what what their exccuse before the times of modern man?

Sent from my DROID3 using Tapatalk 2

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 the NFL gets rid of kick offs I don't know if I will watch any more. They already have made the defensive players afraid to hit.

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.

Last I heard, the state recommendation for beer, liquor and cigarette sales was ID required to be seen unless customer visibly appears to be over 50.

You will get ID'd if a state agent or snitch is suspected to be anywhere in a neighborhood.

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.

Friggin ridiculous to not expect a Id. You need it to buy beer for Christs sake.

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 love hearing liberals use the "there's no fraud" argument....from the same mouths that swore the 2000 election was rigged.

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.

If there truly weren’t any voter fraud, why would anyone object to showing a photo ID to prove whom he or she is? I dislike extremists on both sides of the table. I know they have their purpose, but most anything that goes overboard/extreme is usually not good for someone.

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.

Do you even understand how the shitty healthcare system you have must work? It must be more fun to scare other retards such as yourself. It is true that your healthcare is not so good. Must get rid of crappy insurance companies in order to fix.

I must ask if you have a disability. Your posts appear to bely a lack of understanding on how things work in USA. You live there. Maybe you should learn.

Why must you live in fear. You can always admit that your micro penis causes you to imagine threats bigger than reality. Some of us very tired by your bullshit ideas.

wat

Fixed

That's what you have to add?

Clearly, your position is sophisticated and well thought out.

Maybe he just picked the dumb looking people regardless of race.

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.