Lord Ratner

I need some song suggestions for a morning alarm clock. I have an unnecessarily complicated morning automation to wake up our 14 month old, and it ends by playing a song randomly selected from a list. But I need more songs to add to the list. And ideally something a little less... assertive than this, which is the alarm I use on my phone:

I just got a Sig Rattler LT with the 6.75" barrel. Haven't got it dressed up yet, and I'm still on the fence between keeping it a pistol or getting an NFA stamp for better stock options. Hopefully the court cases work out to beat back the SBR rules a bit. That Ruger looks sick.

I like a carry gun to be as sleek as possible, minimize the things that can catch on clothing. I don't like single/double actions either. I used to think it was great when I primarily shot a SIG P229, but since moving to striker-fired (always single action) I've been converted. That's something I do like about a 1911, every trigger pull is the same force. External safeties are (in my opinion) for guns I don't want to unload/unchamber between uses. Trap shooting, hunting, etc. For a carry gun it's just something that can be in the wrong position and hinder a stressful and time sensitive use. If the gun is out of the holster that means it's time to shoot. Same theory behind carrying one in the chamber. Of course that means any holster must have complete trigger coverage, but that's pretty normal. Hair trigger: You're right, what I really was meaning to say is that the pull distance is so short. I like there to be some movement in the trigger since with a carry gun there are many scenarios where your finger is on the trigger but not firing. Obviously that's my preference, I don't think it's unsafe for a trained and competent shooter to carry a 1911, I just think most people carry them because they are cool (they are) or it's what they are used to, when there are much better options. Again, 1911 use in Mil/LEO is practically zero for a reason.

I absolutely hate 1911s for carry weapons. External safety, external hammer, hair trigger pull, low ammo for the footprint. I do like that the single stack magazine makes it thin, but there's a reason you don't see many Mil/Leo professionals using a 1911 on duty. Or 45ACP for that matter. And if you need more than 8 you're probably trying to take down a shooter at longer range. Like this dude. Amazing shot, he didn't need the extra rounds at 40 yards, but I probably would 🤣: https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/indiana-mall-shooting-elisjsha-dicken-neutralized-gunman-15-seconds/ Damn beautiful guns though.

Unethical? You bet your ass. Doubly so in the states where your property tax can go up through no action of your own. I believe it is objectively immoral to change what someone owes on something they purchased responsibly and within their budget simply because a bunch of other people around them have different budgets or spend irresponsibly. Of all the plethora of things California gets wrong, prop 13 should be the law of the land. I would address that problem specifically, and make it illegal. However the better answer is to simply stop suppressing interest rates artificially. These billionaires are only to play this stupid game because banks are willing to give out near zero interest loans. No billionaire is going to do that if they have to pay 9% on it. That doesn't make it ethical. And more importantly that doesn't change the fact that the unintended second and third order consequences of this change can be very messy. However, unforeseen second and third order consequences are a Hallmark of almost all Democratic legislation, so par for the course. The problem is that this is the government trying to blame others for what it created. You want to know why the ultra wealthy in this country have reached escape velocity compared to the rest of us? It's because we have a government that believes fiat currency allows them to print as much money as they want for whatever they want. But they are so fantastically unimaginative with this power that they simply feed it directly into the banking system. Gee, small wonder that the biggest beneficiaries of this mechanic have been real estate, equities, and financial assets. Overwhelmingly things that the rich and ultra-rich own disproportionately. So if you want to fix it, let's lock our currency to something that doesn't allow the government to devalue it massively in a manner that flows almost directly to the richest people in the country. Let's stop artificially suppressing interest rates so that the wealthiest in this country can get nearly unlimited free money to spend in whatever way they see fit. Let's stop protecting gigantic corporations and Banks from the financial Doom of their poor decision making every time it comes home to roost. Too big to fail should be considered hate speech. Anything short of that it's just another trick fuck bit of legislation that will end up having second third order effects worse than the problem it was trying to solve, without addressing the root issue.

I carry the P365X. Phenomenal gun. I recommend going to a range and trying the 365, 365x, and 365x-macro. If they have one with a red or Green Dot sight on it, give it a try. I was very skeptical of pistol mounted optics, doubly so for concealed carry, but it took all of one day to make me a convert. The technology is great. There's a reason it's the most popular gun in America right now.

Right, and we would add yet another incentive to have every asset overvalued by the government, while creating a new industry around undervaluing assets.

Oh yeah, what ever happened to that guy?

I think that just says more about you and how you approach the conversation. That's not to say that you don't get some fairly absurdist abuse thrown your way, but if you haven't been able to hone and adapt your positions based on the information and data on this forum, then you're on a team. I'll be honest, I respect that you continue to engage, and about 75% of the time you do it in a respectful manner (I consider that a very high percentage for internet conversation. I don't think I meet that standard). But I have found your arguments to be fairly cookie cutter, cheerleader type DNC stuff. Rarely compelling, and I am not even remotely a die-hard conservative. I think a part of that might be that since you are a political minority here, you are usually on the defensive and that makes it very hard to concede any ground to the other side. It's not a unique phenomenon. And yes, I absolutely believe there are people here who fit that description but from the conservative side. Pretty much anyone who defends Donald Trump's character probably falls into that category. You could just be a true believer, but it is rare to find someone on either side who so neatly fits into the political party positions. I only bring this up because I get the sense from gearhog that he is legitimately interested in honing his own beliefs and incorporating as much new data into them as possible. Even though I do not agree with a lot of his conclusions. That's the value I get from this board as well. I get the sense that you believe your positions are already perfected. At least that's how you communicate them. In that case, yeah you are definitely wasting your time.

While I agree with the concept of debating the content and not the source, the only realistic way to do anything useful is to filter out sources that do not meet a certain standard. Being correct sometimes is not a high enough standard. As an example, it is unrealistic to expect someone to spend time disproving the many insane things Alex Jones says regularly. Even though he's right sometimes, and even though he's right sometimes when everyone else is burying the story. It's just the peril of dealing with unlimited information. As an intermediate solution, you can ignore a source with an obvious bias. A sort of "recusal" for media. I'm this case, it's rational to discard Russian-government-controlled media when discussing a war Russia is waging. Yeah, they'll be right sometimes. Too bad so sad. There's not enough time in the day to vet sources with a huge bias when other sources exist. I wouldn't trust the Ukrainian press releases either, nor waste time with them.

Awesome, thanks. This will simplify my life It's a shame USAA is "just another back" now.

Got a link to the jun 15 change on the sweep? Thanks for the heads up, I'm going to get this set up

Definitely a poet first... his songs all sound poorly produced and his voice is trash. But the lyrics are always amazing. I always had this one in my head when we'd all drunkedly stumble back to the base in UPT.

That was my thought too. 3 1/2 hours is a long way to go to randomly break into a house.

While I agree in principal, recidivism is a real problem with crime and we simply don't have the resources (or will power) to keep that many people locked up forever. I don't have a great answer, obviously, but a background check is relatively painless and there are definitely people you don't want having guns. For example, a murderer/rapist/gang banger awaiting trial out on bail. Abolishing the entire bail system isn't realistic. More controversially, I am open to limited waiting periods. Far more than background checks. No more than 7 days, but maybe an even lower limit. Crimes of passion are real and demonstrated, and cooler heads often prevail with time. I can think of no constitutional scenario where a gun needs to be purchased *now* as opposed to next week. You aren't forming a functional anti-tyrannical-governmental force in 24 hours. Concerns about self-defense (which are arguably not what 2A addresses) might require a gun sooner, but I think you can allow police the option to waive a waiting period and you wouldn't have a worse outcome than we have now. I think state-funded gun safety courses would be a brilliant move for the cause. Conservatives are so against spending money, but if you really wanted to change the narrative and get more people comfortable with the 2A, this would be a low cost way to make gun owners safer, make more people gun-friendly, and take away many liberal arguments against gun ownership.