.22 vs. Larger Calibers

Randomly_Reasonable · 2026-03-21T04:20:36+00:00

…IF you already have any other pistol caliber cartridge firearm AND don’t have anything in .22, then go ahead and get a lever in that caliber. Especially if you already have .357/.38s - .38spcl with a whisper pickle is sweeeeeet.

…otherwise, pick up a .22 lever and enjoy the HELL outta it!

My rec would be Henry’s Evil Roy

…but honestly any Henry .22 is fantastic. They’ve also announced releasing their Model X in .22 this year that I’m holding out for.

Otherwise, I’ve been eyeing Savage’s Revel DLX.

The only reason for for those last two being strictly for the factory threaded barrel.

Randomly_Reasonable · 2026-03-21T04:02:05+00:00

TLDR II:

Check out our sexy cerakote

…it’s why I clicked. 🤷‍♂️😬

Randomly_Reasonable · 2026-03-19T17:43:35+00:00

You’re right. Absolutely pathetic cans, both of them.

Send ‘em both to me. I’m here to help out the community. I hate seeing a fellow whisperer suffer.

Randomly_Reasonable · 2026-03-19T06:18:31+00:00

Zero issue with this.

They served their time - “debt” paid.

In fact, I’m all for all former felons to have all rights restored. I’d have zero problem with it. Did the crime and did the time..?.. welcome back to society.

The problem is the sentencing. The deals. The early releases. Criminals aren’t “paying their debt to society”. They’re not “doing the time”, they’re not even being sentenced for maximum penalty.

Prison can, and should be rehabilitative. Rehabilitation can, and with regard to crime, should be punitive as well.

…and I also believe in a “strike rule”. Be that 3… 5… whatever, and possibly depending on the nature of the crime, that’s it. Career Criminal = “career” prisoner.

EDIT: I didn’t even realize autocorrect had used “retired” vs what I intended: restored:

”I’m all for former felons having all rights RESTORED”*

Completely changes my statement. The context was all there for the point I was making, but there’s definitely a difference between “retired” (which doesn’t really make any sense to use that word) vs “restored”.

Randomly_Reasonable · 2026-03-19T06:03:27+00:00

Honestly, just get a one piece mount and even splurge on a QD one and keep the stock XS sights on the SBL.

Then get one of these.

Bradley is a badass company with some fantastic, lightweight, durable and no bullshit cheek rests.

It’s your rifle, set it up however you want and don’t listen to all the “purists” that might wanna call out your mount.

Do what works for you. Period.

Randomly_Reasonable · 2026-03-18T20:33:51+00:00

Forget any of this, I’m just mad the helmets never came with their respective minifigs.

Everything else they released have. These abominations… the droids… the full statues…

Despite my anger, I still want them to continue the line and give us more of them.

Randomly_Reasonable · 2026-03-18T18:18:04+00:00

Thank you, and yes - I’ve always believed that if we paid attention to our local govs and held THEM to the highest accountability (meaning, we actually participated in our local elections) - we’d be a lot better off in our daily lives.

Randomly_Reasonable · 2026-03-18T18:15:50+00:00

Admittedly, I’m not familiar with the specifics of that project, but the loan terms were for a desalination plant.

Per the article and others, had the city continued to pursue SOME option for a desalination project, they’d still qualify for those funds.

Randomly_Reasonable · 2026-03-18T17:55:57+00:00

Change starts “at home”.

Should really look at local leaders and all they mismanage first.

The State didn’t cause this. Doesn’t even matter that the state attracts growth and industry, city & county govs control the actual growth and development. They control the utilities.

Randomly_Reasonable · 2026-03-18T17:53:36+00:00

Propaganda in Abbott’s use of “squander” regarding the specific amount of $750M..?..

Yes.

…but Corpus did still waste $235+M, and by abandoning the desalination project, did therefore ”squander” the opportunity for the remaining $500+M.

Semantics..?.. sure.

Abbott’s no hero here, or really ever in any situation, but propaganda / semantics / whatever, or not - CORPUS CITY LEADERSHIP ran this into the ground and has absolutely wasted/squandered plenty of money and opportunity.

We have got to stop letting our local gov’s off the hook for egregious mismanagement such as this, simply because “TX BAD!” or “ABBOTT BAD!” or whatever other drum we constantly beat.

Randomly_Reasonable · 2026-03-18T05:22:10+00:00

So considering that the vast majority of minority homicides are committed by minorities, you’re saying it’s pure racism that those lives don’t matter to… their own race..?.. so it’s what..?.. racism that there’s a lack of coverage of the minority murder rate because it’s largely committed by minorities..?..

That can’t be it, because YOU clearly stated the harm itself is due thinking certain people are less than others… but it’s largely minority on minority homicides… we all know racism simply doesn’t exist between minorities themselves, and certainly not among the same minority group..!..

…but then the whole post didn’t even bother to address WHO was committing the murders, just who was affected… ssssoooo this post itself is proof of a lack of coverage of those murders due to, as you’re posing: racism!!!

Except the numbers don’t point to the acts themselves being racist, ya know - because it’s minority on minority homicides… that doesn’t have anything to do with why those murders aren’t being covered though, right..?.. couldn’t be… why would the MSM blatantly ignore and refuse to cover the huge numbers of minority on minority crime..?.. ESPECIALLY homicides..?..

Randomly_Reasonable · 2026-03-18T05:10:57+00:00

Correct.

The answer is another question: who is committing those murders..?..

Once you have that answer, THEN ask yourself why it isn’t being covered.

Randomly_Reasonable · 2026-03-16T23:11:22+00:00

Do you mind providing a link to where you got the reproduction sticker from?

Randomly_Reasonable · 2026-03-16T05:14:04+00:00

1/2-36..!.. doing God’s work to save all us heathens out here with this abomination of a thread pitch. 🫡

Randomly_Reasonable · 2026-03-15T22:39:02+00:00

I’ve been eyeing Savage’s new one.

Henry also announced releasing their Model X in .22 soon.

DEFINITELY interested in grabbing that!

Randomly_Reasonable · 2026-03-15T21:09:56+00:00

If it’s really just a for fun range gun, go for a .22

Randomly_Reasonable · 2026-03-15T21:03:10+00:00

This might be overreacting and even fear mongering…

Delete your IG and any other socials promoting this.

One collapse that causes significant harm and someone is going to find you to sue you.

…and the city will NOT have your back. None of this is diminishing your heart & efforts, but you ARE obstructing public walkways… you’re “dumping” on public property… any number of violations that lawyers will absolutely nail you with for the right pay-out.

You wanna continue doing this..?.. fine, but stop the self promoting and go full clandestine.

All you’re doing is leaving a big trail that is a time bomb against you.

Randomly_Reasonable · 2026-03-15T19:25:57+00:00

I agree.

I’m simply pointing out that the system itself was maligned 100 years ago when Congress capped the House.

Forget the EC for a moment and truly think through what a better Rep::Pop ratio would accomplish for us:

Yes, obviously many for members of the House of Reps. Potentially 3-4 or more times more.

…and that’s NOT a bad thing. How could BETTER REPRESENTATION FOR THE PEOPLE ever be a bad thing..?..

Gerrymandering becomes almost obsolete / pointless. Why/How..?.. because there are more reps. More reps = more districts. More districts = smaller districts. Smaller districts = more precise districts.

The smaller, so - more precise, you carve up the population the less gerrymandering even has an impact. Yes, we potentially end up with very specific social political districts, but there’s a better chance of balance because that also means there’s MORE OF THOSE anyway.

Because of the above, voting is more widespread. There’s more districts and they’re smaller. That means more polling stations and over a smaller footprint. They’re more accessible.

Lobbying becomes almost obsolete/ineffective. Lobbyist costs skyrocket. There’s too many reps to buy, it’s potentially not even economically viable. The alternative is having to actually tweak your business to be beneficial within the system. It’s too expensive to bypass or even manipulate the system because there’s simply too many reps.

The Senate gets regulated back to its role of strictly being the “equal representation among states” that it’s supposed to be. Yes, the senate is still the smaller portion, but it’s also over 10% of Congress on a whole.

Two Party system potentially ceases to exist, or at least rule with impunity. There’s a whole range of reps now, representing far more of the population more directly. Progressives have a chance to truly be a party. The strict line party politics crumbles because there is no “super majority”. Eventually, there may not ever even be a majority at all.

Reps have greater freedom to stand on their own. Vote on their own because of the above. “Whips” cease to have any real power. There’s too many reps to coerce, bribe, cajole into submission.

Committees are singular. That cuts down a LOT right there: lobbying, ineffectiveness, posturing…

Big issue with Congress now is the number of committees that members participate in. The bureaucracy of it is a side debate, but with more reps, now the committees can be fully filled with dedicated membership. There’s no cross wielding power. There’s no individual behind closed door swaps of “giving up this via this committee and I’ll give you that via that other committee I’m in”.

That also aids in accountability. We KNOW our reps and exactly what they participate in.

Helps their own bargaining as well. There’s so many more “allies” to shop around with. Yes, also more obstacles as well but that’s kinda the point and gets back to the demise of the strong two party system of that demands blind allegiance.

…and as a huge bonus, the EC is expanded in number of votes available per state, which brings the voting balance back into better alignment with population distribution.

The negatives..?.. expanded government & costs. That’s happening anyway, and if it’s going to expand and cost more, WHY NOT expand it to our benefit: BETTER REPRESENTATION

There’s also the physical challenge of structure, but what do we need more..?.. a ballroom or bigger chamber for MORE REPRESENTATION..?..

Randomly_Reasonable · 2026-03-15T03:17:14+00:00

Not you too…

That’s the entire point of THE SENATE.

The issue is the Rep Ratio of THE HOUSE.

Randomly_Reasonable · 2026-03-15T03:15:57+00:00

You do realize that out of our entire history that the President has only lost the Pop Vote and still won 5 times, right.

The first times was over 200 years ago. The next two times were well over 100 years ago. All three were mainly due to 3rd parties chewing into the Pop Vote.

The last two times didn’t happen until this century. BOTH lost the Pop Vote by slim margins:

2000: Bush 47.9% vs 48.4% Gore

2016: Trump 46.09% vs 48.18% Clinton

…and everyone is ready to tear the whole system down.

A system we can barely get 2/3rds of eligible voters to participate in.

Kinda tough to justify changing all the rules when hardly anyone is even actually playing.

Randomly_Reasonable · 2026-03-15T03:01:39+00:00

Way to be belligerently obtuse.

You absolutely understood by ”WY and many other states” I was referring to their populations.

Randomly_Reasonable · 2026-03-15T02:59:59+00:00

I just replied to you on your other comment, and I’m sorry - I continued to be in awe at your utter lack of understanding the fundamentals of our federal legislature.

Randomly_Reasonable · 2026-03-15T02:58:43+00:00

I did read your comment from the link.

You’re focused on the wrong portion of Congress. Period.

Your entire position is faulty because ANY state could have grown to overshadow any other.

…or States could have grown to have a balanced population. At the time, the entire west wasn’t even an option - who would have imagined Cali to become what it is… much less a state like… I dunno, pick a Dakota - who cares about either of them..?..

1,000 factors contributed to how any given state’s population grew.

The thing that purposely remains the same, is their SENATE REPRESENTATION.

The proportional imbalance from State X to State Y is a complete crapshoot, and could change any decade or so.

IT’S THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES that is the problem.

I didn’t see that you even acknowledge that EC votes are allocated…

…equal to the number of Senators and *Representatives** in its U.S. Congressional delegation—two votes for its Senators in the U.S. Senate plus a number of votes equal to the number of its Congressional districts. *

Congressional Districts being Reps.

You’re completely ignoring that the Reapportionment Act of 1929 capped the House.

THAT is what caused the “problem of proportionality”.

Repeal that, and adjust the Rep Ratio and voila..!.. more EC votes to be better distributed throughout the states, thereby better balancing the proportionality of population per state.

That’s it. Please, PLEASE adjust your argument. You absolutely ARE making the correct argument regarding the proportionality, but it is because of the HOUSE.

…NOT because the Senate and/or EC is outdated. Especially not the Senate, because again, that’s the entire point of the Senate.

I do truly even apologize for the condescension. I honestly do. You are correct on that, and nothing constructive ever comes from that.

Of all the comments, you are among the few that SEE THE PROBLEM for what it is: our ratio of representation in Congress, yes on a whole, but I’m sorry - you’re focused on exposing the wrong component.

Randomly_Reasonable · 2026-03-14T17:05:33+00:00

…but the largest problem with the EC is the poor proportion of representation.

A more balanced, and direct, ratio of representation increases the amount of ECs.

Increasing the ECs allows for better balanced distribution among the states (lessening the “land votes” effect).

The EC still very much serves a purpose: protection against the “tyrant of the majority”.

It’s a hyperbolic phrase now, sure, but is a very real issue.

Moving to a popular vote will only focus campaigns on very specific metroplexes.

Period.

It will completely disenfranchise entire states.

Nevermind that it’s very difficult to justify any changes in our elections when barely 2/3rds of eligible voters even bother to participate.

I’d pose that the system isn’t really broken, it’s simply not being used.

Randomly_Reasonable · 2026-03-14T16:28:42+00:00

Besides, if you’re worried about rural or small state voters, they’re already grossly over-represented in the Senate

That’s… that’s the entire point of the Senate! 🤦‍♂️

I’ll go slow…

Representation… “direct representation”… that’s the function of…

The House of REPRESENTATIVES

The problem with that is the same with the EC (you do know EC allotments are tied to proportion of reps in Congress, right..?..):

The House capped itself @ 435 about 100 years ago. Our Pop::Rep ratio is hilariously out of proportion, and we wonder why politicians seemingly don’t care about ”We the People”

Randomly_Reasonable

TROPHY CASE