Does not follow...

[randy]

Reminds me, I need to look into some 'my first gun' type shopping.

I got Darlin' daughter a Crickett rifle when she was 8. About a year later bought a Browning Buckmark (she claims that's also her's. Still in dispute...)

She did well with and enjoyed shooting both.

[Weetabix]

My daughter's Cricket is still in my safe. When she grew up enough for a full size .22, I got her one and said the I'd keep the Cricket for grandkids.

She said, "Nope. It's still mine for my kids."

Guess I need to get another one.

[Vonz90]

https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/ ... d-cop-cars

[Netpackrat]

https://www.kxan.com/news/austin-compan ... us-checks/

[Greg]

I've been watching a lot of 'Forgotten Weapons' and the like on the 'tube. I was not actually aware that the decocker on the Sauer 38H also worked as a cocker. Now I really want to be able to cock, say a DA/SA 229 with the decocker.

We wuz robbed.

[Greg]

Had a weird glitch and then a double post. Deleted the double. Now I'll babble some more....

Adding some more subscriptions on the 'tube. Really really enjoying folks like Drachinifel - others too, like The_Chieftain even if he is a rogue of questionable character, being formerly both an armor officer and Irish (yes, joke).

[Greg]

[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/includes/functions_messenger.php on line 506: count(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/includes/functions.php on line 1836: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at [ROOT]/includes/functions.php:3268)

And the previous post was glitched and also doubled. Attempt to post returned the errors listed above.

[Netpackrat]

I have been getting that also. The post actually did post, if you go back, and hit reload you will see it. Since it actually posted the first time, when you got the error and tried again, that was the reason for the double post.

[Weetabix]

https://www.kxan.com/news/austin-compan ... us-checks/

Interesting. If the peeps are working and still getting full wages, I can see the employer's rationale to save payroll to keep the place going longer. It actually make sense. By rights, "relief" should be for people who actually need it.

But I'm still uncomfortable with it in a way I can't put my finger on. The fastest way to make people angry is to deny them money they feel they deserve.

IANAL

[Greg]

https://www.kxan.com/news/austin-compan ... us-checks/

Interesting. If the peeps are working and still getting full wages, I can see the employer's rationale to save payroll to keep the place going longer. It actually make sense. By rights, "relief" should be for people who actually need it.

But I'm still uncomfortable with it in a way I can't put my finger on. The fastest way to make people angry is to deny them money they feel they deserve.

IANAL

How would people react if employees stopped working because the company got a favorable tax break?

How would you feel if a company cut your pay because your uncle died and left you money, because you didn't need the salary any more?

Feeling you have some right to renege on your end of a contractual agreement because the other party got lucky in some way completely outside the scope of the contract, so they don't 'need' you to meet your obligations, is incredibly dishonest and should be treated as such.

It's not the companies place to decide who and who does not need "relief". Unless, possibly, they ARE the government and what they're paying out is also a subsidy. Don't think that's the case here.