Is this a glitch on your end, or a posting error? No quibbles with post appropriateness, but I don't know without searching each where the core of the discussion lies or if a post is a road to no where. Can this be corrected? Thanks in advance.

Old tale my Grandmother told of that hurricane when it moved upstate and passed over Pasco County:

"Oh, that wind bent the trees over close to the ground. Then, we ran out to tend to the animals and get wood, then ran back in [the eye]. Well that wind came back the other way, and straightened those trees back up!"

Some humor during a bad time.

Note that the 1928 hurricane tracked a path similar to some projections of Matthew. God, I hope it doesn't squat on Lake Okeechobee (40 miles across) and create another self-contained storm surge! This is where over 2,500 souls drowned as "their eyes were watching God" (Z. N. hurston).

Outdoor Life in its latest issue confirmed that fuller chokes do NOT result in longer shot streams (full chokes are about the same as IC in that regard) due to the drafting effect of the tighter patterns. ICs, on the other hand, result in the outer pellets of the wider patterns pealing back (and slowing), thus equaling the full chokes in long patterns, but without the effect of drafting. Some duck hunters have known this for years, and use less choking, esp. over decoys when birds are usually closer and moving slowly.

I also use IC when hunting dove. The result has been more downed (and found) birds than when using modified chokes. And virtually all my kills this season have been via pass-shooting, using 1 1/8 oz of #8s at 1,200 - 1,250 fps. That suggests another recommendation: 8s are better than larger shot, and the more of them the merrier!

Incidentally, the add-on Remington IC tube makes a nice even pattern, even for a bottom-of-the-boat Remington 870 Express.

mentioning products, events, or PSAs dealing with firearms?

Locally, Bold T.V., a low-power terrestrial television outlet which airs old t.v. series, movie serials and feature-length movies (often in poor and blurry condition), I have seen ads for Henry rifles. Sometimes gun shows are advertised (frequently on some radio outlets). No issue-oriented ads or PSAs. What is your experience?

Edit: I live in the Austin area.

tRump doesn't think so.

(Hosts: Please note I rarely post about guns in GD, trying to follow the hazy rules about such in this forum. But evidently, Don the Con has made it a real issue.)

As several posts on this subject have indicated, tRump has adopted Michael Bloomberg's NYC "Stop & Frisk" policy for use at the national level. Bloomberg, noted gun controller who funds several control efforts around the country, was widely criticized for this policy in NYC as it was widely seen as profiling and targeting blacks and POC, thereby restricting their constitutional rights. Indeed, tRump has specifically proposed stop-and-frisk as a means to disarm black people based on suspicion and "knowing" (somehow) that they are carrying a gun, normally allowed by the Second Amendment.

So, I put it to DU: Should blacks and POC enjoy the same Right to Keep Bear Arms as do white people? Or is stop and frisk a reasonable price to pay in order to disarm Some people, all for the greater good and in the interest of a gun-control agenda? I would remind everyone, tRump's policy proposal would be National, somehow covering all states according to his brief knowledge of federalism, and I would also remind folks that pro-RKBA DUers do Not support tRump. Speculate as you will on what the NRA thinks, but the question is to YOU.

The objective in both examples of the same tactic is to kill the "mother" legislation.

No one expects a mythical "clean bill." No one expects the "riders" to be adopted. A perusal of the histories of this tactic should confirm this. What remains? To kill the original bill is what is at stake..

Only the motivations differ.

The GOPers have a mechanistic ideology which is corrosive to any funding outside of military, incarceration, policing, and some road project bills. Zika only represents federal "over reach" in support of centralized welfare spending. So it's worth it to try to put the squeeze on the "wussy Democrat Party," even though the effectiveness of bullying the Party on that basis is less effective. But the GOP is nothing if it ain't ideologically mechanistic.

The gun-controllers, on the other hand, have a different motivation. They, too, know the GOP won't even bend on gun-control (or ANYTHING that fits its ideology). But again, the objective is to kill the "clean" legislation of UBCs. So many Democrats load up the legislation with the dead-fish-smellin' AWB and other appendages. So what is behind the tactic, here? For many Democrats, it is a signal that they want to continue full-bore with gun bans, keep it on the front burner, and cultivate a passion (for culture war) which cannot be found in the Party's other murky issues, and certainly cannot compete in the same league as the GOPer's relentless issue campaigns. By now, most here on this site -- and in the country at-large -- know gun control is a self-defeating issue. But much of the Party structure is still cemented to the issue, and much of MSM has picked at the scab so long, that both see compromise as nothing more than an effort to weaken resolve, and to diminish the future of gun control as An Issue. And the Party, for some forty years, now, has cultivated a non-ideological and technocratic stance that it is singularly to inexperienced to deal with this community of rather extreme prohibitionists.

Same tactic, same dug-in inflexibility, same result, different motivations.

Am I not up to the manly challenge? What are you afraid of? Why don't you play fair? Where is the skill, the challenge?

Discuss.

Must be the gross violation of Narrative.

I renew my proposal to discuss the phenomenon of mass murder in the context of Celebrity Culture (and politics as necessary). I have noticed a number of criticisms of MSM on line which center on its rather narrow, oft-repeated gun-ban outlook as a lens for analysis. One critic pointed to the laudatory comments of one mass murderer; the attention received; the coverage, the history-making, etc. The person who authored those admiring comments was the next murder junkie.

Looking at these events with a wider field of view might be instructive not only to MSM, but to the rest of us who who "consume" news of these events. As a starter, I suggest not mentioning the name of the punk-stink who does the killing, or dwelling on his/her "philosophy," recently-grafted-on religiosity, or feelings of power, etc. This is not to say we should curtail investigations, study, etc. An impossible idea anyway. But I support changing the zeitgeist from wide-eyed amazement at the actions of some skid mark, and substituting an atmosphere of casual dismissal, denigration and de-personalization of the slaughter-boy. Let's reduce the postmortem glory these crap sacks enjoy before-hand (lord knows the script is lovingly laid out for them, predictable as a Fifties Western), and give them nothing to act on in the first place. Life means nothing to them, only celebrity and a measure of immortality (admittedly, of some value these days). So let us not afford them even that.

MSM handles this stuff the same way every time, so its no wonder folks just bow deeper to their hand-helds and say "I don't want to talk about it." Let's take some individual action, however meager, to establish "community" in an online world which is anathema to such. Maybe it will catch on and be supported by those who grind out the news.

Good thoughts, everyone.