Spotted Hardcore H3 w/ pic's

[SkinGripz]

If you move to texas, be sure to stop at the "Welcome to Texas" visitors center and pick up your free gun. In texas, gun ownership is not a right you can choose to exercise, it's the law. If you dont have one here, folks will wonder what you're up to...

Last time I ran into someone here that didnt have a gun within 10 feet of him, found out he was from California. I guess not being from this country, he simply didnt know...


"If at first you dont succeed, come back with a big damn stick". -My Dad
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[f5moab]

• 2007 Statistics per state
• States with Extremely High Populations of Gun Owners(more than 50%)
• 1. Wyoming - 59.7%
• 2. Alaska - 57.8%
• 3. Montana - 57.7%
• 4. South Dakota - 56.6%
• 5. West Virginia - 55.4%
• 6. Mississippi - 55.3%
• 6. Idaho - 55.3%
• 6. Arkansas - 55.3%
• 9. Alabama - 51.7%
• 10. North Dakota - 50.7%
• States with High Populations of Gun Owners
• 11. Kentucky - 47.7%
• 12. Wisconsin - 44.4%)
• 13. Louisiana - 44.1%
• 14. Utah - 43.9%
• 14. Tennessee - 43.9%
• 16. Oklahoma - 42.9%
• 16. Iowa - 42.9%
• 18. South Carolina - 42.3%
• 18. South Carolina - 42.3%
• 19. Kansas - 42.1%
• 20. Vermont - 42.0%
• 21. Missouri - 41.7% .
• 21. Minnesota - 41.7%
• 23. North Carolina - 41.3%
• 24. Maine - 40.5%
• 25. Georgia - 40.3%
• States with Median Populations of Gun Owners
• 26. Oregon - 39.8%
• 27. Indiana - 39.1%
• 28. Nebraska - 38.6%
• 29. Michigan - 38.4%
• 30. Texas - 35.9%
• 31. Virginia - 35.1%
• 32. New Mexico - 34.8%
• 33. Colorado - 34.7%
• 33. Pennsylvania - 34.7%
• 35. Nevada - 33.8%
• 36. Washington - 33.1%
• 37. Ohio - 32.4% .
• 38. Arizona - 31.1%
• 39. New Hampshire - 30.0%
• 40. Delaware - 25.5%
• 41. Florida - 24.5%
• 42. California - 21.3%
• 42. Maryland - 21.3%
• 44. Illinois - 20.2%
• 45. New York - 18%
• 46. Connecticut - 16.7%
• 47. Rhode Island - 12.8%
• 48. Massachusetts - 12.6%
• 49. New Jersey - 12.3%
• 50. Hawaii - 6.7%

 

[f5moab]

[h=1]States With the Most Legal Guns in 2012[/h]Based on number of NICS background checks for firearms to the most recent state population estimates released by the U.S. Census. States were ranked based on the number of background checks per capita. (Sales between individuals will not be shown in the following statistics.)

1. Kentucky
Total background checks: 2,542,796
Population: 4,369,356
Background checks per 100,000 residents: 58,196

2. Montana
Total background checks: 127,631
Population: 998,199
Background checks per 100,000 residents: 12,786

3. North Dakota
Total background checks: 81,398
Population: 683,932
Background checks per 100,000 residents: 11,901

4. West Virginia
Total background checks: 216,517
Population: 1,855,364
Background checks per 100,000 residents: 11,670

5. Alaska
Total background checks: 79,992
Population: 722,718
Background checks per 100,000 residents: 11,068

6. Wyoming
Total background checks: 59,756
Population: 568,158
Background checks per 100,000 residents: 10,517

7. South Dakota
Total background checks: 82,218
Population: 824,082
Background checks per 100,000 residents: 9,977

8. Oklahoma
Total background checks: 344,781
Population: 3,791,508
Background checks per 100,000 residents: 9,094

9. New Hampshire
Total background checks: 118,259
Population: 1,318,194
Background checks per 100,000 residents: 8,971

10. Wisconsin
Total background checks: 481,829
Population: 5,711,767
Background checks per 100,000 residents: 8,436

11. Alabama
Total background checks: 402,832
Population: 4,802,740
Background checks per 100,000 residents: 8,388

12. Idaho
Total background checks: 129,265
Population: 1,584,985
Background checks per 100,000 residents: 8,156

13. Missouri
Total background checks: 480,953
Population: 6,010,688
Background checks per 100,000 residents: 8,002

14. Arkansas
Total background checks: 234,086
Population: 2,937,979
Background checks per 100,000 residents: 7,968

15. Illinois
Total background checks: 1,021,440
Population: 12,869,257
Background checks per 100,000 residents: 7,937

16. Minnesota
Total background checks: 419,261
Population: 5,344,861
Background checks per 100,000 residents: 7,844

17. Colorado
Total background checks: 400,919
Population: 5,116,796
Background checks per 100,000 residents: 7,835

18. Utah
Total background checks: 220,503
Population: 2,817,222
Background checks per 100,000 residents: 7,827

19. Tennessee
Total background checks: 489,078
Population: 6,403,353
Background checks per 100,000 residents: 7,638

20. Pennsylvania
Total background checks: 919,749
Population: 12,742,886
Background checks per 100,000 residents: 7,218

21. Washington
Total background checks: 488,808
Population: 6,830,038
Background checks per 100,000 residents: 7,157

22. Mississippi
Total background checks: 210,934
Population: 2,978,512
Background checks per 100,000 residents: 7,082

23. Indiana
Total background checks: 447,513
Population: 6,516,922
Background checks per 100,000 residents: 6,867

24. Kansas
Total background checks: 197,083
Population: 2,871,238
Background checks per 100,000 residents: 6,864

25. Louisiana
Total background checks: 307,022
Population: 4,574,836
Background checks per 100,000 residents: 6,711

26. Maine
Total background checks: 88,115
Population: 1,328,188
Background checks per 100,000 residents: 6,634

27. New Mexico
Total background checks: 135,148
Population: 2,082,224
Background checks per 100,000 residents: 6,491

28. Oregon
Total background checks: 247,719
Population: 3,871,859
Background checks per 100,000 residents: 6,398

29. Connecticut
Total background checks: 226,842
Population: 3,580,709
Background checks per 100,000 residents: 6,335

30. South Carolina
Total background checks: 295,814
Population: 4,679,230
Background checks per 100,000 residents: 6,322

31. Texas
Total background checks: 1,350,658
Population: 25,674,681
Background checks per 100,000 residents: 5,261

32. Vermont
Total background checks: 32,746
Population: 626,431
Background checks per 100,000 residents: 5,227

33. Virginia
Total background checks: 414,466
Population: 8,096,604
Background checks per 100,000 residents: 5,119

34. Ohio
Total background checks: 589,065
Population: 11,544,951
Background checks per 100,000 residents: 5,102

35. Nevada
Total background checks: 137,440
Population: 2,723,322
Background checks per 100,000 residents: 5,047

36. Arizona
Total background checks: 320,495
Population: 6,482,505
Background checks per 100,000 residents: 4,944

37. North Carolina
Total background checks: 464,607
Population: 9,656,401
Background checks per 100,000 residents: 4,811

38. Iowa
Total background checks: 143,345
Population: 3,062,309
Background checks per 100,000 residents: 4,681

39. Georgia
Total background checks: 436,490
Population: 9,815,210
Background checks per 100,000 residents: 4,447

40. Nebraska
Total background checks: 80,099
Population: 1,842,641
Background checks per 100,000 residents: 4,347

41. Michigan
Total background checks: 407,373
Population: 9,876,187
Background checks per 100,000 residents: 4,125

42. Florida
Total background checks: 777,729
Population: 19,057,542
Background checks per 100,000 residents: 4,081

43. Delaware
Total background checks: 28,365
Population: 907,135
Background checks per 100,000 residents: 3,127

44. Massachusetts
Total background checks: 199,774
Population: 6,587,536
Background checks per 100,000 residents: 3,033

45. California
Total background checks: 1,071,390
Population: 37,691,912
Background checks per 100,000 residents: 2,842

46. Maryland
Total background checks: 130,030
Population: 5,828,289
Background checks per 100,000 residents: 2,231

47. Rhode Island
Total background checks: 22,141
Population: 1,051,302
Background checks per 100,000 residents: 2,106

48. New York
Total background checks: 321,511
Population: 19,465,197
Background checks per 100,000 residents: 1,652

49. Hawaii
Total background checks: 16,601
Population: 1,374,810
Background checks per 100,000 residents: 1,208


50. New Jersey
Total background checks: 82,745
Population: 8,821,155
Background checks per 100,000 residents: 938

51. District of Columbia
Total background checks: 421
Population: 617,996
Background checks per 100,000 residents: 68

 

[f5moab]

And the best ranking to get is ZERO:
From the Violence Policy Center (AKA the Brady Bunch)

4 Stars
CALIFORNIA 81
2 NEW JERSEY 72
3 MASSACHUSETTS 65
4 NEW YORK 62

3 Stars
5 CONNECTICUT 58
6 HAWAII 50
7 MARYLAND 45
8 RHODE ISLAND 44
9 ILLINOIS 35

2 Stars
10 PENNSYLVANIA 26
11 MICHIGAN 25
12 NORTH CAROLINA 16
T*15 COLORADO 15
T*15 OREGON 15
T*15 WASHINGTON 15

1 Star
T*17 ALABAMA 14
T*17 MINNESOTA 14
18 DELAWARE 13
19 VIRGINIA 12

NO stars
T*22 GEORGIA 8
T*22 SOUTH CAROLINA 8
T*22 TENNESSEE 8
T*25 IOWA 7
T*25 MAINE 7
T*25 OHIO 7
T*27 NEW HAMPSHIRE 6
T*27 VERMONT 6
T*29 NEBRASKA 5
T*29 NEVADA 5
T*39 ARKANSAS 4
T*39 INDIANA 4
T*39 KANSAS 4
T*39 MISSISSIPPI 4
T*39 MISSOURI 4
T*39 NEW MEXICO 4
T*39 SOUTH DAKOTA 4
T*39 TEXAS 4
T*39 WEST VIRGINIA 4
T*39 WYOMING 4
T*41 FLORIDA 3
T*41 WISCONSIN 3
T*47 IDAHO 2
T*47 KENTUCKY 2
T*47 LOUISIANA 2
T*47 MONTANA 2
T*47 NORTH DAKOTA 2
T*47 OKLAHOMA 2
T*50 ALASKA 0
T*50 ARIZONA 0
T*50 UTAH 0

 

[SkinGripz]

Now double the numbers. In texas, CHL holders dont have BG checks for each weapon purchased, other than to verify an active CHL. Private sales are not recorded, and most of us have many of our fathers and grandfathers weapons as well.

Myself, I have around 20 pistols (mostly 1911's) and somewhere around 30-35 rifles and shotguns. Most of the folks I know have similar stories.

My prior comments were obviously in jest. Texas does not automatically give you a gun when you cross the state line. Most of the time, you have to ask nicely...

 

[ABNTROOP]

May the schwartz be with you!

:wink:

 

[ABNTROOP]

Matt you're bringing out all the great GIF's today!

:thumbs:

 

[ABNTROOP]

OK, all ready. Say something smart !

 

[DJinCO]

I remember the "good old days" when Colorado was a free state.

Now we are lumped in with the New England states, the Left Coast and gun-grabbers.

POTUS stumps here to get glad handed by all of his "supporters" and friends.

I really wonder why he is still campaigning so hard. Shouldn't he be concerned about the economy or something?

 

[SkinGripz]

Hey, didnt you guys just pass "Recreational" pot use? Seems to me it dont get much free'er (is that a word?).

While I wont trade my weapons for it, it does put a college smile on my face..


"If at first you dont succeed, come back with a big damn stick". -My Dad
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[DJinCO]

Yep. Another stupid idea from the left heard from.

While I agree that IF pot was handled like alcohol, and taxed to pay for roads, it would be fine. The stupidity arrives when on one hand it's OK (state law) and on the other hand (federal law) it's not. Then the local (state) folks haven't figured out how to manage this, regulate, sell etc... I would be more than willing to grow the stuff to sell to the "stores" since I really have no desire to smoke it; I would like to get on the cash-flow bandwagon. When medical MJ was approved a few years back I commented to a co-worker at that time that we should grow it for sale to the stores.

 

[SkinGripz]

In my short time in law enforcement (was a cop for awhile) I never had a pot smoker do anything hostile. Drinkers however, would be fine talking one second then swinging on you the next.

Worse a smoker would ever do is ask if we could hit the Taco Bell drive thru on the way to the station...

I see nothing wrong with it (vs alcohol) except the illegal part. Would rather have a smoker chilling than a drunk that wants to fight everyone.

Just my opinion, which at last appraisal was worth a bit more than two cents...

 

[RamRod]

IF pot was handled like alcohol, and taxed to pay for roads

that would do two things! Take money away from criminal organizations and provide a benifit to the general public in the form of a new revenue stream for public funding...

If only there was a way to test for impaired driving...

 

[SkinGripz]

If the driver has a huge smile, is going 20 mph under the limit, and the vehicle is full of twinkies wrappers and doritos bags, an LEO would have reasonable suspicion...

 

[ABNTROOP]

If the driver has a huge smile, is going 20 mph under the limit, and the vehicle is full of twinkies wrappers and doritos bags, an LEO would have reasonable suspicion...

Unless said driver is in a hummer in which case, it's self explanatory

 

[DJinCO]

I believe that the state is discussing xx nanoliters of THC in the blood.

 

[RamRod]

I believe that the state is discussing xx nanoliters of THC in the blood.

very interesting... that would make sense...

 

[ABNTROOP]

I believe Washington is working out these same details

 

[SkinGripz]

I believe Washington is working out these same details

I thought Washington was dead?

Guess I need to clean the twinkies wrappers and doritos bags out of the truck then...

 

[ABNTROOP]

The state, and yes, u and me both!

 

[SkinGripz]

Could use some febreze as well...

 

[bendyprissy]

Yep. Another stupid idea from the left heard from.

While I agree that IF pot was handled like alcohol, and taxed to pay for roads, it would be fine. The stupidity arrives when on one hand it's OK (state law) and on the other hand (federal law) it's not. Then the local (state) folks haven't figured out how to manage this, regulate, sell etc... I would be more than willing to grow the stuff to sell to the "stores" since I really have no desire to smoke it; I would like to get on the cash-flow bandwagon. When medical MJ was approved a few years back I commented to a co-worker at that time that we should grow it for sale to the stores.

I just hope they don't approve it here in Texas...my patients are bad enough with the mile-long list of drugs they're ALL on when they come to the hospital; we don't need to add pot to the list. :banghead:

Oh wait, my bad, that's already on their list & it's not even legal here yet.

 

[SkinGripz]

When Twinkies went out of business, I quit on principle...


"If at first you dont succeed, come back with a big damn stick". -My Dad
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Expendable]

I just hope they don't approve it here in Texas...my patients are bad enough with the mile-long list of drugs they're ALL on when they come to the hospital; we don't need to add pot to the list. :banghead:

Oh wait, my bad, that's already on their list & it's not even legal here yet.

That's better than CA policy where if you call 911 to report an overdose the person calling and the person overdosing can not be charged for the illegal substances in their body (my best friend is a LEO and he responded to a call like this recently)

 

[SkinGripz]

I agree with the CA policy. Might save a few lives.

However, nobody in the history of man, has ever OD'd on pot itself. It's impossible. Scientific studies concluded it would take 3,000 pounds of pot smoked to reach lethal doses. Before that point, a person would have likely choked to death on doritos or a stale hostess cupcake..

Now to compare, people die all the time from alcohol poisoning on less than a liter.

Further, last year 17 traffic deaths were directly attributed to pot. 128,000 attributed to alcohol.

If we want to outlaw something for the peoples protection, outlaw alcohol and tobacco.
(Oh wait. Cant do that, the Gov makes too much tax money on it.....)

OK, next step, tax pot. And bring back Twinkies damn it !!


"If at first you dont succeed, come back with a big damn stick". -My Dad
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk