Either way, he brought plenty more than needed.


Sidenote :
Everyone who shoots regularly (sport, not hunting) has thousands of rounds.
A 1k brick of 223 is ~28c per shot.
If you buy boxes of 20 each at the range, you're gonna pay closer to ~50c per shot.
If you go to the range 2x per month, firing 200 rounds per trip (6 or 7 mags worth), that's 2.5 months to empty a 1k brick.
~110 bucks/month if you buy 1k at a time.
~200 bucks/month if you buy individual boxes at the range.
The choice is simple. 1k bricks to save money.
So if you have 5 different caliber rifles, you have 5 1k bricks.
This is one of those "out of touch" sort of things with TV coverage. They make it sound like thousands of rounds is a lot to have.

Granted, I know hunters that have 40 rounds to their name, and it will take them 10 years to shoot all 40. One shot at season start to check zero. Then 1 or 2 more to take 1 or 2 deer. But they don't like to shoot, they like to hunt.



I googled 'rapid fire triggers'.

Geissele, Timney, Hypertouch, these are all normal triggers.
They are premium offerings. Smooth, low grit, low creep, clean crisp break.
They don't actually have any function that artificially increases rate of fire.
The marketing can fool you if you don't know what they are.
(It's like buying a "no name mouse" vs a "gamer mouse". One feels better, but you still click just as fast.)

Tac Con 3MR does have its own gimmick. It does a partial reset on every fire. Your finger still has to move forward and back to fire again, so you're still limited by your reaction time. In reviews it's no different than a normal trigger rate of fire wise.



4473 just asks if you've ever been convicted of a felony that could (not did) have had a 1 year sentence. That's a pretty broad set.

AFAIK, they all screw your right to vote. I could be wrong.


Note :
Sorry about edits mid your reply.
I have a habit of "word processing" in place - out of fear that I'll click back or something and lose my text.

-scheherazade

To add to that; if these athletes really did protest outside of the sporting event I seriously doubt it would get any coverage AT ALL. I HIGHLY doubt that the media would give it any air time!

This doesn't hurt anyone directly... it's not obscene... they're not delaying game time... I just don't see how it can strike up such controversy. I'm sorry you had to think about the plight of people of color in this country on your leisurely game day Sunday?

We need more people of color in our governing body's if you don't want to see someone take a knee during the national anthem.

Let them have their time and raise awareness.

There's such a stark contrast between the tone of the early coverage on that day vs what we see with any incident now. While a few of the presenters made mention of the previous bombing at the WTC, there seemed to be a very strong resistance to suggesting it might have been terrorism. I watched another video recently that was a somewhat similar concept, but was longer and bounced from source to source. In that video as in this one it felt like the various people speaking badly wanted the first impact to have been an accident or an explosion from within the tower, rather than a purposeful attack.

Given that the only footage of that first collision didn't come to light until much later and eyewitness reports are frequently unreliable, "we just don't know" was the best they seemed willing to offer. Until the 2nd plane hit, at which point I think the facts spoke for themselves.

I try to not speak about things I don't know about.
I try to avoid "news" like this that's so clearly biased, on any 'side'. They tend to skew and ignore facts to make a political point. A good test is if they can't refrain from childlike name calling.

I can't speak for down under, here, we see "both" sides (and I still strongly deny that the antifa people are really on the left, because fascism is not a politically left philosophy, and they are fascists) acting outrageously.

EDIT:That said, only one group has actually killed so far, and only one group has fired guns into crowds of women and children so far, and that side stands firmly with the right, and the right has so far stood with them, calling them peaceful protesters that only defended themselves from antifa. I have yet to hear of a single democratic representative say antifa are good people, or peaceful protesters, the right however has made that a mantra about the alt right, Nazis and KKK.

Hmmmm...I had to look up Sargon....you've got to be kidding...he's slightly LEFT OF CENTER?!? You are absolutely bat shit nuts. He's clearly, firmly far right. It didn't take me 5 minutes to be sure.
HAHAHA!!!! You start by giving me credit for watching it, then berate me for not watching it. I gave it a total fair hearing, and it took no time at all for it to show it's colors as totally hyper biased far right Nazi apologist bullshit.

Again, only the right wing media is claiming that main stream media is hiding antifa criminality. It's clearly being shown here, and they are called out for the violent idiots they are constantly, but if the right acknowledged that, they might have to deal with the Nazis and KKK and alt right on their 'side' (and sadly, they can't denounce them as easily since they clearly courted them in the election, unlike the left and antifa)
I have absolutely zero need to watch such tripe to be informed. Here, coverage isn't one sided, no matter what Bob and Hannity tell you.

I have no doubt that my arguments fall on deaf ears with Bob, but I can give other readers another rational point of view, denounce debunked fabrications, point out information that's intentionally omitted, and point them towards verifiable sources rather than opinion pieces masquerading as news. They are the minds I hope to reach, Bob's is closed, as, I'm starting to think, is yours.

Yay, at least you bothered to watch the video.

And yes, No Bullshit's channel is loaded with a lot of biased opinions as he leans significantly to the right. But you'd be hard pressed to argue that, despite this particular video not making the mainstream air, that the coverage has shown the depths both sides have plunged to. Australian coverage has been downright blinkered at this point, there is no violence on the left at all and it's all nazi's killing folks... /eyeroll

So instead, you could look at channels like Sargon's, who, despite being constantly labelled as an alt right dickhead, is generally slightly left of center but who calls out violence where/when ever it happens.

I've seen a lot of shit in burrowing in to this, from a lot of sources on both sides (and people who try to be objective). Objectively, if you show up in black masks with pre-bagged shit, urine, fireworks and glass bottles, weighted sap gloves, bike locks and pepper spray combined with a clear message that it's okay to attack "nazi's" who's crime is expressing their admittedly vile ideology, you're not a good person.

Red shirts vs brown shirts, Wiemar Germany pre-WWII anyone?

You can try to make this about me ('ermagerd, you caused me to downvotes the video'), but you've admitted you didn't even watch the vid. At least I gave it a fair hearing, and while I do certainly admit the videos maker has an agenda, it is still documenting what is going on out there. Turn off the fucking voice track if you're too much of a snowflake to hear commentary you don't agree with, but the footage is damning...

As for Bob, I've been fairly unequivocal in the past about his line of deeply partisan BS and the veiled racism he espouses. As per the Ruins Everything sift up (https://videosift.com/video/Why-Proving-Someone-Wrong-Often-Backfires) atm about arguing and how it generally reinforces opinions, do you think that you two haranguing each other constantly (or even you and I) is going to accomplish anything other than entrenching the other side? \= |

" Murkowski and Collins are getting fewer headline inches out of it."

Can we move beyond this please?

Their votes were just not news on this day. Both of these senators were known no votes for weeks before this vote and got plenty of coverage for it.

https://t.co/K4Gwch1ZOw

Would be interesting to see a comparative study of media coverage of Mosul and Aleppo.

I had to read this op-ed. No fan of DT, however I am painfully aware that our news coverage of him is pretty much click-bait with little real substance. This photo is an example -- pictures can lie, they are but a moment in time.

I have to think that this op-ed is accurate -- there are some really horrendous things mentioned that are no credit to DT. And it would be too easily disproved if there were outright lies. (And yes, there is a whiff of BS, but nobody in politics can get by without a whiff of BS. NOBODY.)

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/13/opinion/the-trump-vision-for-america-abroad.html

Grab some coffee. More coffee. Maybe some soilent green, too. Now, may I direct your attention at this piece by the great Edward S. Herman, who basically wrote the book on propaganda together with Chomsky.

In this piece, he takes aim at the NYT's coverage of Russia. This, of course, includes the election. It's about 2/3 into the piece, beginning with:

"The Putin connection was given great impetus by the January 6, 2017 release of a report of the Office of Director of National Intelligence (DNI), on Background of Assessing Russian Activities and Intention in Recent US Elections."

Well, the details are out and guess what? It is doom and gloom. Medicaid is going to be gutted. Who benefits from Medicaid?

64% of nursing home residents
39% of American children
60% of American children with disabilities
76% of all poor children in the US.

Meanwhile, tens millions of Americans will lose healthcare coverage. All this so that tax cuts can make the richest people in America even richer.

Are you sure you're a Christian? Last time I checked, Jesus didn't tell you to fuck the poor and make the rich even richer. This bill isn't just "mean" like Trump calls it; it is pure evil. This bill and the Republican party is a disgrace to Jesus and a disgrace to humanity.

The scary thing is, absolutely none of what he said about Brexit wasn't known before the vote. Also, pretty much none of it was known by the British public.

The politicians on both sides tried to fight it on slogans rather than facts, and the press did practically nothing to improve the situation. The American press get a lot of flak for partisanship, but they've got nothing on the Brits.

In fact, completely unsurprisingly, the British press came dead last out of the 33 countries in a recent EU poll on how much the people trust the press. Have a guess how much coverage this got there.

It really annoys me, and we Irish are supposed to hate the Brits.

Also: "Thatcher In The Rye". Brilliant. Still sniggering.

Also also: there are also plenty of good arguments for Brexit, but they got equally terrible coverage.

Watched this on the daily coverage, and DAMN! That was one hell of a save. 5th gear (around 140-150?) sideways in the air!
Some pee definitely came out.
*quality race....for everyone except Hutchinson, who crashed.
*promote some inhuman bike control

@Drachen_Jager
yeah,the way i am reading it is that this new plan is going to defer much more control,and therefore responsibility,to a state level.

considering that many local municipalities are broke,bankrupt or on the verge of both.i do not see this ending well.with local and state governments being forced to trim plans to non-existent coverage,or raise premiums.

as it is written right now,this is a lose -lose for the republicans.

and to answer your question @ChaosEngine,the american people are down with single payer according to the polls (when the right questions are asked),and this includes moderate republicans.

so it is not the american people,it is the multi-billion dollar health insurance industry,and THEIR politicial bullshit is an entirely separate conversation.

let's just say they are cunts,and leave it at that.

Since election rigging is featured so often in the media these days, the lack of coverage of the class-action suit filed against the DNC becomes even more apparent. Luckily though, some some blogs are still on the case.

Appetizer:

Counsel for the DNC tap-danced around the judge’s initial line of questioning before finally answering that primary elections are “generally state funded.” But he left out how the Clinton campaign’s “takeover of national party structure” completely changes the context for “state funded.” Sure, there’s accounts with the state’s name on them, but the money was supplied by the Clinton campaign. At the very least, counsel for the DNC is being disingenuous when he says the DNC doesn’t fund state elections. In 2016 alone, FEC filings show that Florida received almost $22 million from DNC Services corp. How does that not constitute DNC funding?

Ok republicans. I didn't, and won't buy a cell phone, you cover 100% of my medical care and we'll call it even. I've done my part (I've never had a cell phone, and I'm fine with that), it's officially time to put up or fuck off.

Edit CBO report shows 14 million lose coverage instantly, and another 10 million in 10 years, with an instant jump of 15-20% in insurance rates. Not what they promised, is it?