Deuce

Neat. But OUCH! People should know by now that white font on black background is awfully hard to read!

Well, Rich. I function as the safety for my weapons, and don't need anything in addition to that. I think the Glock that truly matches your description is the "New York" triggered Glock, which had to be created for knuckleheads used to carrying revolvers who took up the trigger slack when they drew their wheelgun. That discharges a Glock, and will discharge any 1911 type gun if the safety is swept off on the draw, as it's supposed to be. My Sigs didn't have safeties, and the first auto I carried was the P7 M13, which had a very nifty squeeze cock/decock thingie. Finger off trigger is the safety. No flames, I think 1911's look really cool, and are fun to shoot, but are not my first choice for a daily holster gun. What do I know. I usually carry an AMT DAO .45 if I feel the need for a pistol, and it has like a 25lb trigger pull or thereabouts.

These are all you, Jeanne.

Hey, luv2fly? Nothing is sacred in talkback except the stuff in the rules. You gotta toughen up, lad.

She had a different set of guns that were much more effective, my brother.

I'm always available for training. Regular people are much easier to teach than cops. Cops have already learned everything from the movies. Ugh. And if I never have to teach somebody not to hold the freaking pistol sideways ever again.... You can find some ball park costs here: http://www.hunt4ever.com/

Shoulda came to Eloy. Hoo doggy. CoconutMonkey: "JP hold my beer, I need to reload"

1911's are cool, Magnum P.I carried one and all, but the Glock is really a better carry pistol. I've put thousands and thousands of rounds downrange at advanced pistol courses, and my experience was that the Glocks could go all week without malfunction where everything else would start to go. That said, if you get a 1911 type, the Para Ordnance pistols, unmodified, are very nice for the price. $600 or so and up. http://www.paraord.com/pages/products.html Kimbers are even nicer, but my experience was that they were not at dependable as the Paras, but were very nicely made. $750 and up. Way up. http://www.kimberamerica.com/compact.php

Wuss. jp with the 10 round mag limit, get the bigger bullet. a 9mm (.36 caliber) at full expansion is about where a .45 (11.4mm)starts. That's important when shooting people. When shooting plates and targets and stuff, the bigger bullet is just better at knocking stuff over. That Sig .357 (kind of a 9mm magnum) is quite a crowd pleaser too, but the muzzle blast off that thing at night is just horrible. .45

Tom, who at Eloy knows you? Drop me some names. Who were your AFF instructors? What's your A license number? To be fair I'm an AFF coach and I'm on the video rotation at Byron. Connie, Alan, Jack, and Mad John were some of my instructors. I regularly annoy Bonnie, who nicknamed me "Divot" after a very nice crash last year. My D license number is 25597.

That was originally a Boeri, right? Wow. The craftsmanship looks great. The neck brace is overkill. Big time. You will not be able to adequately clear your airspace wearing that thing, and I think it makes you a danger to yourself and others under canopy. You'll get used to the weight, if you can't and can't clear your airspace adequately, you should reconsider wearing the helmet at all. Very nice job, though. Clean, nice cutaway. JP

Not an Urban Myth. True we can pull anyone over for about anything now. But we are allowed to use that as a rule of thumb. As long as the car is clearly on the line and off 3 x within a given distance which we use 1 mile. I mean, the roads are wide enough, unless yoru car has some major alignment problems we can pull youover for suspected DUI. What I'm talking about is the young person who will go into court demanding the case be thrown out because the officer did not articulate three offenses in the mandated one mile distance. There are plenty of people who think they are allowed to traverse the lane marker (BOTTS dots) once per mile without created probable cause to stop. There is not much that is more fun than a PC stop on somebody and them immediately demanding that you justify why. It's very easy to do. Or was when I was a cop in the previous century. Chocolate will screw up the breathalyzer is another cool one. Our training was different. If I observered erratic driving I would initiate a stop to check on the welfare of the driver, or simply with the intention to cite or warn for the lane limit violation. As I developed more specific articulatable facts to support my suspicion that the driver was intoxicated I would introduce them. Here, the prosecutors frowned on us deciding the driver was drunk and then finding a shopping list of what we found out to support that. I would start with a very simple traffic stop and let the driver prove he or she was drunk through their specific behavior.

Change your avatar. That's my professional advice. -Will work for Bushmills.

Urban myth. Seriously. Any reasonably articulate cop can legally stop you for "no reason". While you're putting taco sauce on your drive through. Looking for a CD in your visor. Lighting a cigarette looking down at the lighter. Initiating a turn just before you put on the blinker. Changing lanes without indicating. It is impossible to not generate suspicion. Need to be paranoid? No. Lots of things generate reason to stop without constituting the need for a citation. I recently got pulled over driving down 5 for "no reason". The shiny new chippie just wanted to see if I was tired. No, sir. "How long you been driving tonight?" Two hours. "Take care" "Will do, laters" Didn't even need to buzz him

***What standard for suspicion do they typically train cops to look for? (I haven't studied the whole "reasonable articulable suspicion" standard in three years.)*** Easy ones are driving too slow, inability to maintain constant speed, and tunnel vision driving, where the driver has their hands locked at 10 and 2 and doen't look left or right or check their mirrors. None of the things has to construct an actual moving violation. Big urban myth that they have to. The sum of the observations, coupled with the training and experience of the officer constructs reasonable suspicion. Folks don't need to agree or disagree with this, it is simply the way it is. I could pull you over for being a courteous driver, with the intention of giving you a coupon for a free turkey, and if you were drunk, the conviction would still stick. Bless you lawyers, but they've conviced regular folks that the magic argument can get them out of anything. You didn't say "abracadabra"! Ha! I Get Out Of Jail Free!

I don't disagree with the point you make, Jerry, it's valid. But the cops go after drunk drivers because it's what the special interest groups like MADD want. I got the honor to go "drunk driver hunting" many years, where the local agencies would get lent out to the CHP during the holidays to pump up the number of arrests. I got at least one every year, and always above a 2.0. The easiest way to get a drunk driver is they very often forget to turn on their headlights. People want to hear that "X" number of drunk driving arrests were made this year, "X" percent above/below last year. It would have been nice if the agencies would have cooperated like that during the holidays to arrest car burglars and robbers, too.

Yeah, I guess my experience has kind of cooled me to the extremity of the punishments for drunk driving. I'm all for accountability, and put a lot of people away for different types of crimes. But I didn't see the justice in putting someone in jail for a year, for creating the possibility of a traffic accident, versus a less stringent penalty for someone who went out and committed a robbery and actually did injure someone and took their property. I am intimately familiar with alcoholism, alcoholics, and drunk drivers. I understand the danger they create for innocent people. I just struggle with the disparate amount of resources they get over predatory criminals who use force while completely sober to terrorize, dehumanize and dominate their innocent victims.

Yeah! Betsy's back!

The cop lingo for a drunk driver in California is a "Deuce" believe it or not. (23152 CVC). Anyhow, one of the only places it pays to have a criminal defense attorney is for a drunk driving case. If he has the case mitigated, he should be able to keep his license and maybe continue to be insurable. Usually the attorney's fees are offset by the savings of being able to keep a job and keep auto insurace. There's no doubt he has to attend some drunk driving awareness training.

You're reaching, bud.

I strongly disagree, but I am very interested in learning more from smart guys like the both of you as to why you find this candidate so attractive. Aside from Bush is so flawed we must select any replacement. The last General we had as President was Ike, and when he found out that Congress didn't follow orders he went golfing for 8 years. The military is actually poor training for Congress.

Dude, you were working your ass off the whole time. I have a blink of video of you when I bailed out in my Birdman suit and then it's just you videoing me. And yeah, I've got over 300 clips. I also now have a 120Gig external hard drive and 1.5 megs of RAM. That freaking Premiere is way more expensive than just the dayum program.

Yeah, I just don't get how come people from Holland aren't Hollanders and don't speak Hollish. My bad.

Starting your civilian political career running for President is tough. http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/01/26/1632224

So f*ck you monkey brother.