In Atlanta I would have gone in making $45,000 a year base pay had I gotten a job with APD (I have a graduate degree). The job I do right now I am making $27000 a year and tops out around $50,000 a year. Yeah, it sure is a crime how little they pay police officers.

That is probably intended more for an EMA type role. Obviously you live in a rural environment; should any kind of disaster happen in your area, the mobile command post allows local autorities to move closer to the affected area, and should the town need to be evacuated for any reason they can maintain some semblance of central control outside the evacuated zone. In all likelihood it was purchased with a lot of help from state and federal agencies because they can draw on this capability themselves if needed. Isolated commuities actually need things such as mobile command centers because they probably have responsibility over a wider area than if they were closer to other communities.

Browning still makes BARs actually. But they look a little different than they used to

They could put a pizza oven in the back instead of having to go to pizza shops. They could even offset the purchase cost of the MRAP and the pizza oven by using it as a food truck when not on duty.

There is a bit of a difference between a bush jacket and an anti-mine vehicle. Him buying a surplus MRAP would be like you buying a surplus spacesuit from NASA. Sure, it might keep you warm and dry, but it's a lot more complicated and inefficient to use than an actual jacket and makes you look like an idiot going down the street.

The shooters in Las Vegas used pistols. The guy here in Georgia planned to use homemade explosives once inside the building. The shooter in Seattle used a shotgun (horrible choice for a shooting rampage by the way unless you are using a Saiga shotgun-takes too long to reload). Most shootings in the US are committed with pistols, yet the majority of gun control advocates fixate on "assault weapons" (just because something is black and has a pistol grip does not make it more dangerous) because they are scary. Under "assault weapons" bans an SKS (a 5-shot semiautomatic Russian rifle with attached folding bayonet) would be perfectly legal, but the same rifle with a black TAPCO stock would be illegal. What we need are harsher penalties for felons possessing firearms/possesion of stolen firearms (a significant number of shootings in the US involve one of those 2 offenses) and better mental health treatment.

Pretty much this. Their thought process is "so, what cool shit can we spend taxpayer money on that we couldn't normally get?". Now, I have no problem with a large or metropolitan police force buying a few surplus M-4s (even though, as police, they have access to better, new weapons for the same price), comm gear, or load-bearing harnesses to equip their SWAT team. But the average beat cop on traffic duty doesn't need a surplus M-4 sitting in his trunk. And they don't need a mine resistant vehicle. And if a major police force doesn't need one, a county sheriff certainly doesn't. I don't think you need an MRAP to do a raid on a methlab, or operate speed traps on that road where you randomly drop the speed limit 20mph so you can get ticket revenue to pay for your toys. If you are really concerned about officer safety in SWAT situations then buy one of these.

I remember once, about 3 years ago, I was officiating a high school football game on theoutskirts of a major metro area. On the sidelines were a couple local sheriff deputies watching the game and (I am assuming) working security for the game. One of them had to be a good 280lbs (and not muscle) loaded out in a tactical vest and harness, gloves, and sunglasses. He just wanted to look bad-ass (but looked like an idiot).

Why not just get a safety-deposit box and a lawyer. Pay the lawyer to open the box up and distribute the contents after x-number of years. If you are expecting to die before that date put a clause in your will to continue paying the lawyer's fees. Worried the lawyer will retire before then? Word the contract so that the lawyer has to transfer it to another lawyer who keeps getting paid by you.

The major airline I work for has a shipping option designed specifically for things such as important documents and small packages that guarantees immediate shipping (on the flight booked or earlier) or 100% refund. So there is really no need for air couriers these days anyway unless the item is too valuable to ship unescorted.

I agree with you on that that "whom" sounds more correct in that instance, because there is an implied "in" at the beginning of the sentence (since it is the DO), ie "In whom do you trust". In that case "whom" sounds both correct and more fluid than it does in the summary title, where is sounds klunky, forced, and (as someone somewhere else here said) kind of pompous. But it might just be a colloquial quirk that I have regarding the phrasing "whom must" with the concurrent "m"s, so that "who must" sounds better than "whom must".

My simpe rule of thumb is this: does a "to" in front of who/whom in the sentence fit? If so, then "whom" is the more proper word. For example "(to) Whom did you give this?" sounds more correct than "(to)Who did you give this?". So in the case of the title, "who" sounds more correct than "whom" (now, if the title had said in whom must you place your trust, it would be more correct). I know this is basically what you said, I just felt like resaying it without all those fancy English terms :)

Well, one would hope that someone who was wanting to build something that has the potential to cause harm to others or especially themselves (would you really want to hold your first attempt at printing a gun in your hand for the first firing attempt?) would get to know at the very least common terms with the types of object they are making, if not learn how they properly function. Hopefully they understand a litte more than "I put this little thingy in this hole and point the narrow end in this general direction and then pull this little lever and BANG".

Having to resort to personal attacks never helps you in an argument, as it shows you have run out of counterpoints or evidence. It's nothing to be ashamed of, really.

The one guy I've posted on here a few times used the handle for a butt stock, and used the metal from the shovel blade to forge into the frame of the receiver. He used a barrel blank and milled it out for the barrel and used a parts kit for the bolt, trigger assembly, and furniture like the wooden handguards. But it looked bad ass and very post-apocalyptic nonetheless.

Manual, used milling machines can be had for around $1000, if not cheaper.

2 - 3D printing requires no special skill or knowledge, unlike subtractive machining. You load it with plastic or resin ( a simple operation ) and hit the print button then walk away for a few hours. When you come back you have a object.

Next question?

Odds are, anyone making the investment and effort to first buy a 3-D printer and then look for and print firearm blueprints isn't just going to be plugging the machine in, hitting print, and walking away. They are going to be tinkering, playing with it, learning how the printer works. If they can do that, they can learn how to use a manual milling machine.

Oh, and Booth (assuming you mean the Civil War Booth) was an idiot driven by ego who thought he could be a hero, not a patriot. Lee and Jackson were patriots. And I say that as a Southerner.