https://www.americanrifleman.org/ar...ng-and-recall-notice-for-certain-38-spl-ammo/ check the link, but suffice to say it's loaded too hot - doesn't specify any further info (ie if it would be OK for +P rated guns.) Don't take the chance; return it.
Don't have a 38/.357 yet, figure until my 44 mag or .45acp fail no need. Although if I do ever venture into the snubnose, only one real choice.
I am pretty sure that is on purpose. Look, Google's and Fakebook's startup were financed by CiA frontends, as a matter of fact. So, they had a plan. And the plan was to implement censorship and destroy freedom of press by outsourcing this tasks to multinational corporations. No single government can hold them accountable, because they are everywhere and nowhere. Anyone believing Zuckerberg is really a tech genius ???
So the governor here in Oklahoma signed constitutional carry bill yesterday. Still not sure how I feel about it. Honestly, we require citizens to have licenses for a variety of things such as driving, hunting, chemical applicators, contractors ect.. I guess I am kinda confused as to why taking a class and obtaining a concealed carry license is hampering my constitutional right. To top it off, the idiot in charge of a group called OK2A after getting this bill signed has already at best made some inappropriate comments that at worst could be construed as a death threats against those that opposed this bill. I have met this fool in person and I can tell you the best parts of this fool ran down the inside of his mother's leg, total jackass. Anyway, I think it is at the very least irresponsible of lawmakers to not require a citizen to take a class advising them of the law and the do's and don'ts of concealed carry.
I'm still wondering how human ancestors ever managed to climb down their trees, without government oversight and licenses ...
being steadfast on your values does not necessarily make you a lemming. It means you are principled. On either side.
of course it's on purpose. Honestly it's an unfortunate unintended consequence of the Citizens United SCOTUS decision- corporations are free to associate (do business with) who they want to politically. Notice you don't hear Progs whine about that too much anymore- they figured out a work-around. Take over the corporations (especially financial and media/social media) via bailouts and revolving door between administrations and lobbyist firms and then you get to fund/defund whoever you want.
Should they require licenses to go to church? Sounds absurd, but every instance you mention requiring a license is a privelege not a right. I said it before, I think the thinking that blood will run in the streets is nothing more than unwarranted fears. Many states have had constitutional carry for a long time and do not have those problems. The fact remains, if criminals would know and obey the laws there would not be potential of them getting shot, but then they wouldn't be criminals. There are irresponsible gun owners both trained and untrained, having a license only means you jumped through the governmental hoops to obtain one.
CNN, they can spin anything. Which was scheduled first, thw Summit or Cohen's testimony? Which one was scheduled to distract?
I've carried for 21 years or at least have had my license to carry when living here in Oklahoma. I have nothing against concealed carry. I guess I am just throttled by not having to at the very least obtain a certificate acknowledging that you have been made aware of the law and proper circumstances in which you are able to exercise your right. It's my understanding that gun ownership is the privilage and carring a loaded concealed firearm is not a right under that privilege and should require training. But that's just me.
Well hopefully SCOTUS will lay that out for us. There are a lot of arguments out there both ways. Some think concealed carry is the privelege and open carry is the right. It has already been decided that the 2nd amendment applies outside of the home, but the courts have shied away from taking cases that would broaden or limit the scope of the 2nd as it applies to the right of carrying ready to use firearms on their person. So we have the "right to keep" about 75% squared away now they need to start working on the "and bear" portion of it. As far as knowing the laws, if the laws were that simple we wouldn't need lawyers. Surprisingly, IL has some of the strongest stand your ground and self defense laws in the country, but knowing each and every situational event and how to proceed isn't going to flash through your mind in the 10 seconds it starys and ends. IMO, it comes down to one thing and one thing only. Is your or someone elses life in immediate threat. If your answer is yes, let a jury of 12 decide. If the answer is no, grab your phone instead. Most people know this regardless of training, but you will always have vigilantes, training or not, and that's just a fact of life.
