ShutYourLib

That's insane! I have driven three different f250's over the past 20 years. I drive a lot and have never been pulled over. I think I would flip my sh!t if I was getting "stopped and frisked" without any cause other than the make of my vehicle.

Nevermind my question. had no idea how this worked, just read up on it. Great idea.

Is it a 50/50 mix? Seems like a great, very accurate way to control the anneal.

concerning article regarding federal lands, including national parks: http://www.businessinsider.com/congress-lays-groundwork-to-get-rid-of-federal-land-and-national-parks-2017-1 In the midst of highly publicized steps to dismantle insurance coverage for 32 million people and defund womens healthcare facilities, Republican lawmakers have quietly laid the foundation to give away Americans birthright: 640m acres of national land. In a single line of changes to the rules for the House of Representatives, Republicans have overwritten the value of federal lands, easing the path to disposing of federal property even if doing so loses money for the government and provides no demonstrable compensation to American citizens. At stake are areas managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), National Forests and Federal Wildlife Refuges, which contribute to an estimated $646bn each year in economic stimulus from recreation on public lands and 6.1m jobs. Transferring these lands to the states, critics fear, could decimate those numbers by eliminating mixed-use requirements, limiting public access and turning over large portions for energy or property development. In addition to economic stimulus from outdoor activities, federal land creates revenue through oil and gas production, logging and other industrial uses. According to the BLM, in 2016, it made $2bn in royalty revenue from federal leases. The Outdoor Industry Association estimates federal tax revenue from the recreation economy at almost $40bn. Ignoring those figures, the new language for the House budget, authored by Utah Republican representative Rob Bishop, who has a history of fighting to transfer public land to the states, says that federal land is effectively worthless. Transferring public land to state, local government or tribal entity shall not be considered as providing new budget authority, decreasing revenues, increasing mandatory spending or increasing outlays. Essentially, the revised budget rules deny that federal land has any value at all, allowing the new Congress to sidestep requirements that a bill giving away a piece of federal land does not decrease federal revenue or contribute to the federal debt. Republican eagerness to cede federal land to local governments for possible sale, mining or development is already moving states to act. Western states, where most federal land is concentrated, are already introducing legislation that pave the way for land transfers. In Wyoming, for example, the 2017 senate has introduced a joint resolution that would amend the state constitution to dictate how public land given to the state by the federal government after 2019 is managed. It has little public support, but Wyoming Senate President Eli Bebout said that he thought the state should be preemptively thinking about what it would do with federal land. The Congressional devaluation of national property is the most far-reaching legislative change in a recent push to transfer federal lands to the states. Because of the Republican majority in Congress, bills proposing land transfers could now swiftly diminish Forest Service and BLM lands across the country. We didnt see it coming. I think it was sneaky and underhanded. It exemplifies an effort to not play by the rules, said Alan Rowsome, senior director of government relations at The Wilderness Society. This is the worst Congress for public lands ever. boundary waters minnesotaShutterstock Rowsome said hes not exactly sure how the rule will be used, but he thinks the first places to come under attack might include areas adjacent to the majestic Grand Canyon National Park in Arizona and Minnesotas Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness. Those areas hold uranium and copper, respectively. Rowsome said hes worried that sensitive tracts of public land, like the oil-rich Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, could soon be up for sale. Some 60% percent of Alaska is made up of national land, and the states representatives have tried to pass laws claiming parts of it for state use as recently as 2015. Its amazing ecosystem and worthy of protection, and its very likely that House Republican majority will open that up for drilling, Rowsome said. This latest effort comes on the heels of a bill adopted in 2016 that directs the Department of Agriculture to transfer 2m acres of eligible Forest Service lands to each state. Giving away national land has been part of the Republican Party platform since the mid-80s, after Reagan declared himself a Sagebrush Rebel, but its regained steam in the past few years as 20 states have introduced some form of legislation suggesting that federal property be given to local governments. In 2015, Bishop and fellow Utah representative Chris Stewart formed the Federal Land Action Group, a congressional team with the specific intent to come up with a framework for transferring public land. Washington bureaucrats dont listen to people, Bishop said in a statement. Local governments do. But Rowsome argues thats a populist message without any popular support, pushed by a small faction of legislators with support from industries like mining and energy. Despite the Republican message that Washington has overstepped in designating national parks and monuments, a 2016 study found that 95% of the American public believes that National Parks are worth protecting and 80% said theyd be willing to pay higher taxes to do so. Western Republicans that are perpetuating the idea are very well funded by the oil and gas industry during their campaign, Rowsome said. Its special interests wielding power for an agenda that will advance their goal. Nearly 90% of BLM lands are already open, but they cant stop trying to get more. A 2016 Colorado College survey of seven western states found that 60% of voters rejected both the sale of public lands to states and giving states control without sale. In 2012, Arizona voters struck down two pieces of legislation that would have turned over federal land to the state, including one that claimed the Grand Canyon as state land. Opponents fear that local governments, especially in states with small budgets, wont be able to invest in management and will sell off land to make money. Last summer, the Forest Service was spending $240m a week to suppress wildfires, and the Department of Interior estimates the cost of deferred maintenance, like updating roads, at around $11bn. In December, Wyoming Governor Matt Mead said that transferring public land to his state was legally and financially impractical. He cited firefighting costs on public land as something that the state budget wouldnt have room for. Historically, when federal lands have been transferred to states, they have become less accessible. Idaho sold off almost 100,000 acres of its public land between 2000 and 2009. In Colorado, access has been limited the public can only use 20% of state trust land for hunting and fishing. John Gale, conservation director for the advocacy group Backcountry Hunters and Anglers, said that hes worried about access for sportsmen. He believes that theres a further danger in segmenting ecosystems through state-by-state development. 70% of the headwaters of our streams and rivers in the West are on public lands, he said. Rivers and migratory corridors dont follow state boundaries. The incoming administration hasnt been clear about where it falls on transfers. Montana Congressman Ryan Zinke, tapped to be the next Secretary of Interior, voted for the rules package, but in the past hes been against land transfers. President-elect Donald Trump has spoken out against reallocating federal land, but hes also met with prominent pro-land transfer groups. Nevertheless, bills proposing land transfer will now have an easy route to passage, as they wont need to be backed by any financial justification. The entire rules package passed on party lines, but it runs counter to legislation that passed both the House and Senate in November, the Outdoor Recreation Jobs and Economic Impact Act of 2016. Signed into law in December, the legislation requires the Department of Commerce to count the over half a trillion dollars from the outdoor recreation economy in the countrys GDP for the first time. Its not just natural resources that are on the auction block, but jobs, said Gale. For a party that prides itself on being fiscally conservative ... theyre talking out of both sides of their mouth.

All this 6.0 bashing, I don't get it! I have an 04 f350 6.0 that has 310k and I have replaced one alternator, ficm, batteries and tires, shocks, break pads and rotors, and one EGR valve. Still have the Same injectors. Just keep up on all the maintenance, no tunes, and they are great. My previous 7.3 was sold with over 500k and was needing injectors but still ran and pulled. Great trucks!

Seems that there are a lot of people with two personalities, their real one, and the alternate persona that they have online. One of my favorites is this guy, on a different forum, bragging about how hard he hunted. Always bashing road hunters and telling everyone how far into the woods he goes. Well, we connected to do some scouting, and upon getting to his house, he was so obese that he could hardly get into the truck. He was about to die after we walked about 300 yards to set up glass. As I alluded to earlier, many have shot a coyote or snake and left them, and in the simplest example, you would probably kill that coon ransacking your garbage can out of pure anger. The moral police are out in full force, and they are everywhere. It seems it is usually to push an agenda, buy a vote, or just to get people to like them, but it's getting ridiculous - we shouldn't play their game too! Heck, people get in more trouble nowadays for kicking a dog than they do for kicking a person. Most of us would probably spend less money buying a cow to slaughter than we do on an elk hunt - it's not about the meat. If it is only about the meat for you, then please stop putting in for bull elk and go after the better tasting cows. I'm with AZLance on this, after all of the hard work, money, and time spent pays off with a kill, then I think that there is something wrong with the person that doesn't express some excitement, doesn't shout joyfully, or jump up and down!!

Unless it's a useless yote or rattlesnake, right? This debate can deep pretty quickly.

Egr valve. If white smoke, loses all power but does it off and on..

Nice! Where is the video?

I beat one in court. I was very polite, had a good attitude, and told the judge that I believed that there must be something wrong with the camera. I asked how often the cameras had to be calibrated and tested. The judge asked the officer, who replied that it had to be calibrated every 90 days. I asked for proof of the calibration, which resulted in a new court date while they attempted to find the information. At the next court date the documents showed that the camera had not been calibrated since installation, which is probably the norm. The judge dismissed the case. This was in El Mirage.

No bail needed, but he put aside his own personal ethics to hunt where he bashed others for hunting... Way to go!! Bash your fellow sportsman then hunt along side of them. I'm betting that you are also the guy that thinks I do not NEED some of my firearms, but have deemed them ok for yourself.

Lug marks? From your rifle? If that's what you are talking about I would think that you have a problem with your bolt, the face may not be square. I would think that it would have to be a pretty big die problem, one that you could see with your eyes, to cause that issue.

Everyone needs to take a year off.

I'm not even sure what you are talking about? Overrated in relation to lion hunting? Elk hunting? Youth hunts? I think both of those calibers have a home depending on what they are going to be used for. I think a .300 ultra is a bigger waste of resources.

Sold?

Look for the upcoming response from NY enemy "nobody needs a serrated knife to skin a deer"

Not sure I agree with that. From my understanding the cases are identical, but the actual chamber dimensions are different. If I remember correctly the 5.56 chamber has a longer throat to accommodate higher pressures. There are a lot of cartridges that will chamber in other caliber rifles, but not safe to shoot.

Wear your seatbelt. I believe that John Noveske was killed in an auto accident shortly after posting the same information on FB.

So, now that the bait ban has been put into place, I thought it would be interesting to list out our predictions of what the department may come up with next. I believe that we will move to an archery deer tag draw. With all of the new regulations, you need enforcement. I think that tag prices will move up. Game cameras will be considered an unfair advantage and will not be allowed over water, and eventually at all. Is it a problem that I cannot think of any positive things that may change?

That's the beauty of true democracy. Regardless of their background, it’s ultimately the vote of the people that make the decisions. There has to be some sort of research, analysis, or rational to justify any potential recommendation for change. I am not fully up to speed on the current actions necessary to modify existing G&F activities, but it would appear that a small group makes a pitch for a recommended change, they get buy in from what 5 commissioners, and shizam.. it’s a done deal. I do not think that we “screwed”, but any change will take sacrifice. The problem with folks nowadays is that they are fine with getting screwed for a very long time. Everyone seems fairly content with the crumbs, but one day, everyone will have had enough and make them change. The ball is truly in our court. The department is fully funded by us, we just lack the camaraderie, discipline, and inconvenience of making it work our way.

Wow, in reading this thread, it appears that nobody actually uses bait. Why are you all so worked up? HAHA.. too funny that nobody will admit to using. In general, I am 100% against the passing of any new laws. In my mind, if there are concerns about a disease, or anything else for that matter, there should be some research conducted by the appropriate biologists employed by G&F or private party. The findings of that research made available to the hunters of the state, then a vote should be held for all licensed hunters in the state. They should only be concerned with enforcement of laws that the sportsmen/women have deemed appropriate. If they are not appreciative of the collective voices, provided no factual studies or evidence, I am no longer going to give G&F my regular donation that I contributed to them annually. What needs to happen is for the great people of AZ to decide that enough is enough. Everyone should take 2014 off from hunting, do not buy any tags, or put in for any annual hunts. The only way to make our voices heard is to take away the allowance. Things would change in a hurry.

Try a cl ad in the lost and found section

http://cnsnews.com/blog/gregory-gwyn-williams-jr/bank-america-freezes-gun-manufacturers-account-company-owner-claims Bank of America has reportedly frozen the account of gun manufacturer American Spirit Arms, according to its owner, Joe Sirochman. In a Facebook post dated December 29, Sirochman wrote the following: My name is Joe Sirochman owner of American Spirit Arms...our Web site orders have jumped 500 percent causing our Web site e-commerce processing larger deposits to Bank of America. So they decided to hold the deposits for further review. After countless hours on the phone with Bank of America, I finally got a manager in the right department that told me the reason that the deposits were on hold for further review -- her exact words were -- We believe you should not be selling guns and parts on the Internet.(emphasis added) Sirochman also wrote that he told the bank manager that they have no right to make up their own new rules and regs and that [American Spirit is a] firearms manufacturer with all the proper licensing. He also noted that he has been doing business with Bank of America for over 10 years, but will now be looking for a new bank. According to Unlawful News, this isn't the first time Bank of America has targeted a customer involved in the firearms industry. McMillan Group International was reportedly told that its business was no longer welcome after the company started manufacturing firearms even after 12 years of doing business with the bank.

http://www.nraila.org/legislation/federal-legislation/2012/feinstein-goes-for-broke-with-new-gun-ban-bill.aspx Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.)—author of the federal “assault weapon” and “large” ammunition magazine ban of 1994-2004—has announced that on the first day of the new Congress—January 3rd— she will introduce a bill to which her 1994 ban will pale by comparison. On Dec. 17th, Feinstein said, “I have been working with my staff for over a year on this legislation” and “It will be carefully focused.” Indicating the depth of her research on the issue, she said on Dec. 21st that she had personally looked at pictures of guns in 1993, and again in 2012. According to a Dec. 27th posting on Sen. Feinstein’s website and a draft of the bill obtained by NRA-ILA, the new ban would, among other things, adopt new definitions of “assault weapon” that would affect a much larger variety of firearms, require current owners of such firearms to register them with the federal government under the National Firearms Act, and require forfeiture of the firearms upon the deaths of their current owners. Some of the changes in Feinstein’s new bill are as follows: Reduces, from two to one, the number of permitted external features on various firearms. The 1994 ban permitted various firearms to be manufactured only if they were assembled with no more than one feature listed in the law. Feinstein’s new bill would prohibit the manufacture of the same firearms with even one of the features. Adopts new lists of prohibited external features. For example, whereas the 1994 ban applied to a rifle or shotgun the “pistol grip” of which “protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon,” the new bill would drastically expand the definition to include any “grip . . . or any other characteristic that can function as a grip.” Also, the new bill adds “forward grip” to the list of prohibiting features for rifles, defining it as “a grip located forward of the trigger that functions as a pistol grip.” Read literally and in conjunction with the reduction from two features to one, the new language would apply to every detachable-magazine semi-automatic rifle. At a minimum, it would, for example, ban all models of the AR-15, even those developed for compliance with California’s highly restrictive ban. Carries hyperbole further than the 1994 ban. Feinstein’s 1994 ban listed “grenade launcher” as one of the prohibiting features for rifles. Her 2013 bill goes even further into the ridiculous, by also listing “rocket launcher.” Such devices are restricted under the National Firearms Act and, obviously, are not standard components of the firearms Feinstein wants to ban. Perhaps a subsequent Feinstein bill will add “nuclear bomb,” “particle beam weapon,” or something else equally far-fetched to the features list. Expands the definition of “assault weapon” by including: Three very popular rifles: The M1 Carbine (introduced in 1944 and for many years sold by the federal government to individuals involved in marksmanship competition), a model of the Ruger Mini-14, and most or all models of the SKS. Any “semiautomatic, centerfire, or rimfire rifle that has a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds,” except for tubular-magazine .22s. Any “semiautomatic, centerfire, or rimfire rifle that has an overall length of less than 30 inches,” any “semiautomatic handgun with a fixed magazine that has the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds,” and any semi-automatic handgun that has a threaded barrel. Requires owners of existing “assault weapons” to register them with the federal government under the National Firearms Act (NFA). The NFA imposes a $200 tax per firearm, and requires an owner to submit photographs and fingerprints to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE), to inform the BATFE of the address where the firearm will be kept, and to obtain the BATFE’s permission to transport the firearm across state lines. Prohibits the transfer of “assault weapons.” Owners of other firearms, including those covered by the NFA, are permitted to sell them or pass them to heirs. However, under Feinstein’s new bill, “assault weapons” would remain with their current owners until their deaths, at which point they would be forfeited to the government. Prohibits the domestic manufacture and the importation of magazines that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition. The 1994 ban allowed the importation of such magazines that were manufactured before the ban took effect. Whereas the 1994 ban protected gun owners from errant prosecution by making the government prove when a magazine was made, the new ban includes no such protection. The new ban also requires firearm dealers to certify the date of manufacture of any >10-round magazine sold, a virtually impossible task, given that virtually no magazines are stamped with their date of manufacture. Targets handguns in defiance of the Supreme Court. The Court ruled in District of Columbia v. Heller that the Second Amendment protects the right to have handguns for self-defense, in large part on the basis of the fact handguns are the type of firearm “overwhelmingly chosen by American society for that lawful purpose.” Semi-automatic pistols, which are the most popular handguns today, are designed to use detachable magazines, and the magazines “overwhelmingly chosen” by Americans for self-defense are those that hold more than 10 rounds. Additionally, Feinstein’s list of nearly 1,000 firearms exempted by name (see next paragraph) contains not a single handgun. Sen. Feinstein advocated banning handguns before being elected to the Senate, though she carried a handgun for her own personal protection. Contains a larger piece of window dressing than the 1994 ban. Whereas the 1994 ban included a list of approximately 600 rifles and shotguns exempted from the ban by name, the new bill’s list is increased to nearly 1,000 rifles and shotguns. Other than for the 11 detachable-magazine semi-automatic rifles and one other semi-automatic rifle included in the list, however, the list appears to be pointless, because a separate provision of the bill exempts “any firearm that is manually operated by bolt, pump, lever, or slide action.” The Department of Justice study. On her website, Feinstein claims that a study for the DOJ found that the 1994 ban resulted in a 6.7 percent decrease in murders. To the contrary, this is what the study said: “At best, the assault weapons ban can have only a limited effect on total gun murders, because the banned weapons and magazines were never involved in more than a modest fraction of all gun murders. Our best estimate is that the ban contributed to a 6.7 percent decrease in total gun murders between 1994 and 1995. . . . However, with only one year of post-ban data, we cannot rule out the possibility that this decrease reflects chance year-to-year variation rather than a true effect of the ban. Nor can we rule out effects of other features of the 1994 Crime Act or a host of state and local initiatives that took place simultaneously.” “Assault weapon” numbers and murder trends. From the imposition of Feinstein’s “assault weapon” ban (Sept. 13, 1994) through the present, the number of “assault weapons” has risen dramatically. For example, the most common firearm that Feinstein considers an “assault weapon” is the AR-15 rifle, the manufacturing numbers of which can be gleaned from the BATFE’s firearm manufacturer reports, available here. From 1995 through 2011, the number of AR-15s—all models of which Feinstein’s new bill defines as “assault weapons”—rose by over 2.5 million. During the same period, the nation’s murder rate fell 48 percent, to a 48-year low. According to the FBI, 8.5 times as many people are murdered with knives, blunt objects and bare hands, as with rifles of any type. Traces: Feinstein makes several claims, premised on firearm traces, hoping to convince people that her 1994 ban reduced the (relatively infrequent) use of “assault weapons” in crime. However, traces do not indicate how often any type of gun is used in crime. As the Congressional Research Service and the BATFE have explained, not all firearms that are traced have been used in crime, and not all firearms used in crime are traced. Whether a trace occurs depends on whether a law enforcement agency requests that a trace be conducted. Given that existing “assault weapons” were exempted from the 1994 ban and new “assault weapons” continued to be made while the ban was in effect, any reduction in the percentage of traces accounted for by “assault weapons” during the ban, would be attributable to law enforcement agencies losing interest in tracing the firearms, or law enforcement agencies increasing their requests for traces on other types of firearms, as urged by the BATFE for more than a decade. Call Your U.S. Senators and Representative: As noted, Feinstein intends to introduce her bill on January 3rd. President Obama has said that gun control will be a “central issue” of his final term in office, and he has vowed to move quickly on it. Contact your members of Congress at 202-224-3121 to urge them to oppose Sen. Feinstein’s 2013 gun and magazine ban.

Thats the problem in America......we the people...let the government get away with all the B.S. I agree, and this is the final straw that surely allow tyranny to run rampant, without any means to stop it. If this goes through, we will have set the perfect stage for a dictatorship, or worse yet another hitler. I fear for my kids chances of an American dream and for the potential enslavement of grand kids.