I found this quick little explanation of the differences.

I hike with my hiking poles to help save my knees. Mine are similar to these, just an older version. I've had them for several years now and other than losing a few tips, they've been great.

Go to Pinterest and search for Rehearsal Dinner. I've found so much stuff through there! Who does what, who gives what speech, gift ideas, traditions, etc. I'm in the same boat as you - not sure what i need to be doing!

Sounds fantastic, it's definitely on my bucket list. Do you blog about your travels? I'd love to read about them.

I have the opposite problem...lol! I don't let the kids wear their costumes until Halloween Day. After Halloween, they can wear their costumes as much as they want (within reason). I have a hilarious picture of one of my sons taking his spelling test in his ghoul costume. They get worn and used all year long.

Halloween is a big deal in our family. We go all out! Carving pumpkins, costumes, decorating, etc. We put the fire pit in the driveway and roast hot dogs and marshmallows. The grandparents come over to help celebrate. The kids ToT around the neighborhood with DH while I tend the fire and pass out candy. As things are winding down, all the neighbors come over and we sit around the fire and chit-chat. It's great fun!

You're right. Maybe the 4 year old is washing herself, while the Grandma washes herself. I jumped to a conclusion. I still think it's icky though.

I don't think it's the nudity that people are reacting to. For me, it centers around the act of touching a child and washing of the body, including private areas. We teach our children about not letting people touch their private areas, even family members. (1/3 of sexually abused children are abused by a family member). Granny could be the most innocent, sweetest thing, but don't place children in those situations in the first place if you can avoid it.

Not just no, but oh hell NO! Granny gets supervised visitation from now on. Find a new sitter. Read the book Boundaries.

I'm just *meh* on high capacity magazines. To me it's like saying you can't buy a 20-slice loaf of bread, but you can buy two 10-slice loaves. It takes some people literally less than a second to change magazines. I think it's probably a lot like the bump stock debate right now, makes some people feel better about doing something, anything at all. And some people, and I probably fall into this category, know that it isn't going to make any difference to someone intent on hurting others. Also, banning high capacity magazines is sort of a ridiculous goal. The average 9 mm handgun comes with a 14 round capacity (which would be considered high capacity). I don't know how many weapons are out there, but they are super common. How would that work? Everyone that has a 14 round capacity handgun would be on their honor to hand over their magazines? I don't know the average number of rounds fired at a gun range, but shooting 50 - 100 rounds an hour sounds about right. I think switching magazines every 10 shots is slightly ridiculous, but again, it's so easy and quick to switch to another magazine that it really doesn't make a difference to me. Which kind of goes back to why I don't think it would make a difference to someone intent on hurting others. SaveSave Sorry, I'm posting and running out the door. I'll check in later tonight.

I'll try to answer your questions in the order you asked them. The reason the AR-15 is bought over other types of firearms is because it's so customizable. That's it's advantage. Let's say that you don't like the stock because it wears a sore spot in your shoulder. Then you can change it out with a different stock. Perhaps the hand grip feels too large for you. Then you can buy a different type of grip that better fits you. It allows you to make the gun fit you and your shooting style without buying a completely different gun. I have to admit that I'm not sure what you mean with manual vs semi-automatic. (Someone with more knowledge is welcome to jump in and correct my limited knowledge of manual guns.) - A semi-automatic is what most every gun is, especially when you're talking about the average gun-owner. It means when you pull the trigger, you get one shot. The semi-automatic part comes into play because when you fire one shot, the next round (bullet) is automatically pushed into the firing chamber. And AR-15 falls in this category. - A true manual style gun would include both the firing mechanism and loading of the next shot. It would be like what was used in the Civil War. Load the round, pull back the hammer, and pull the trigger. Then repeat the process for the next shot. Some people would argue that revolvers like those used in the 1800s would be manual because you have to pull back the hammer each time you use it. Some people would say it's not a true manual because the revolver automatically spins so that you can shoot the next round. Yes, you are right, semi-automatic guns can fire faster than a manual and it's pretty easy to see why. - A full automatic gun is what the military uses. These are different than semi-automatic guns because you can pull the trigger once and get multiple rounds coming out of the gun. They are banned from civilian use except in very rare cases. The AR-15 can be lighter. An AR-15 could just as easily be a heavier rifle. It depends on what accessories you decide to use on your rifle. It can have cheaper ammo, but it could just as easily have more expensive ammo. The ammo is determined by the diameter of the guns barrel. The most common are .22, 9 mm, .40, and .45. Nine mm rounds are cheaper than .45 rounds. It might be cheaper at Cabela's than Bass Pro Shop. The barrel size you buy determines how expensive your ammo will be. Generally the larger diameter ammo costs more. A hand gun that uses 9 mm rounds will use the exact same ammo as an AR-15 that is 9 mm caliber. You don't walk into a store and say you need ammo for an AR-15. The clerk would look at you like you didn't know what you were talking about. They don't care what kind of gun you have, rather they would direct you to what size you need. I hope I'm explaining this well. As far as recoil goes, again that depends on the ammo you are using. .45 has a much bigger kick than a 9 mm. Equal and opposite reaction, and all that. The AR-15 is more easily modifiable as I said above. That's part of what makes it so popular. I do think it would be easier to use, especially if you can modify it to you. Hmm, trying to think of an analogy.... maybe like driving a car. It's much easier and safer to drive a car when the seat has been adjusted so you can easily reach the pedals, steering wheel, and see the mirrors. Adjusting the seat doesn't make you a proficient driver, just like modifications don't make you a marksman. It just makes it so you can operate in an easier and safer manner. For example, I'm a short lady so a lot of stocks would be extremely uncomfortable for me. I would want a shorter stock so I'm not stretching my arms and finger to reach the trigger. So, in short, an AR-15 shoots the same speed, using the same ammo, at the same power, as many, many other guns. It is one trigger pull, one bullet. There is nothing inherently special about the AR-15 that makes it any more dangerous than other guns of the same caliber. The speed of the round and power come from the ammo used. The cosmetic accessories are what got it classified as an assault weapon. Woo... I'm long-winded today. You deserve cookies if you got through all of that... lol!

Because they don't shoot farther, faster, or more powerfully than any other gun? Because the difference is cosmetic? It seems silly to say that this rifle is legal and this rifle is an assault weapon. They both shoot exactly the same way. One just looks scarier. In an attempt for me to understand your point of view, why do you think an AR-15 should be banned?

Addressing the assault weapons question... What do you mean by an assault weapon? Because an assault weapon is not the same thing as an assault rifle. An assault rifle is used by the military. It can be set to semi-automatic, burst mode, or automatic. Assault (or armalite) rifles have been banned since 1934. They are still banned. In contrast, an assault weapon is a regular old semi automatic gun that has had two or more modifications made to it. Those modifications are almost always cosmetic. For example, a folding stock (the part that goes into your shoulder can fold down), a pistol grip (where you hold you hand is shaped in the same way that you hold a pistol), a barrel shroud (a covering that goes over the barrel of the gun, usually used so you don't burn yourself on the barrel). None of those modifications change the firing power, the distance, or speed of the gun. The gun still shoots exactly the same way. There are two modifications listed by Congress that are not necessarily cosmetic. The first is the addition of a bayonet. Adding a bayonet to your rifle can turn it into an assault weapon. The second is the addition of a grenade launcher. Grenade launchers were already banned and continue to be banned, so I'm not quite sure why it was included in the list in the first place.

Ack! Count me as one of those that would consider inner city living a nightmare. This study is more my speed.

ktgrok, I think I get what you're saying. You're thinking about more crime of passion, spur of the moment type of shootings as opposed to the premeditated shooting in LV??? You make some good points. So, you're for some hoop-jumping so that people who don't have the executive function skills will have a harder time getting their hands on a gun? That's an argument I may be able to get behind. I'll have to think about it and at what point is it hoop-jumping vs causing undue hardship to law-abiding owners.

Oops, thanks. I think I fixed it.

I agree with you on the smoking. Smoking is 100% harming other people (with or without intent), so I'm totally fine with it being against the law to smoke in restaurants and other public arenas. I don't think it works for the bump stock law, because 999 out of 1000 times (or more), the bump stock doesn't harm anyone. Someone uses it in a re-enactment or out on the shooting range without incidence. As far as impediments, I don't think I explained myself well. At what point do you draw the line on the hoop-jumping for responsible citizens? Why make it harder, costing time and money to the responsible owners when it still doesn't stop the shootings. I suspect that you and I fundamentally disagree on this issue. That's okay. I don't think the comparison to driving works. We expect aspiring drivers to pass a written test showing they are knowledgable of the rules of the road, as well as a driving test to prove they can operate a vehicle in a safe manner. In no way does it stop Bad Guys from plowing into a crowd of people, like in Nice. Having gun owners take a written test and a live-fire exam to prove competency would be the equivalent. It wouldn't stop the shootings (but may cause the Bad Guys to have better aim.) This isn't even getting into the privilege vs right argument. And just a side note, Quill you seem to be polite and kind while still expressing your views. You seem open to listening and feedback from people who disagree with you, and I hope that I come across the same way.

In case anyone is interested in knowing the difference between assault weapons and assault rifles. I linked to only Wikipedia articles for the information in an attempt to be as neutral as possible. The Federal Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 banned assault weapons, NOT assault rifles (because assault rifles were already banned). It expired in 2004. If it were assault rifles that were banned, then they would be legal for purchase today, but they're not because they weren't banned under the Federal Assault Weapon Ban (they're banned under the still-in-effect National Firearms Act of 1934.) Here is your regular old rifle. And under the now-expired ban, this rifle would be considered an assault weapon because it has a folding stock (the part that goes in your shoulder), a pistol grip (where you hold your hand is shaped like a pistol), and it has a barrel shroud (the part with all the holes in it). They shoot and operate exactly the same. Neither can shoot full-automatic or burst mode like an assault rifle. There may be good reasons to ban so-called assault weapons, but none of them have anything to do with it functioning like an assault rifle. Those reasons are focused on a reduction in the number of gun shows and copycat weapons (both based on the cosmetics of the guns). And with the exception of a study done by the Brady Center, which the ATF wouldn't comment on the validity of, the studies cited have shown no significant effects on gun violence from the ban. I'm not up for a debate, just posting what I think is correct information on a topic that sees its share of misunderstandings.

Just a correction here. Assault weapons are not the same as assault rifles. The terminology is often confused. The ban was on assault weapons, not assault rifles. Assault (armalite) rifles used by the military are already banned. They have selective fire capabilities, including burst mode and semi-automatic. Assault weapon is just like any old regular rifle. An assault weapon doesn't shoot faster, longer, or more powerful than a regular old semi-automatic rifle. It got the name assault weapon because it had two or more features, such as a pistol grip or barrel shroud.

Not sure exactly where I stand on the issue just yet (still forming my opinions, still open to new info), but I'm leaning towards "No, I don't want to see a law like this passed." Why? Well, they are ridiculously easy to make yourself without any special sort of equipment. No 3D printers or metal shops required. I don't want to link to it, but there are videos on Youtube on how to build you own. If you're a gun owner, you probably have everything you need right now in your home to make your own bump stock. It isn't some major alteration. A bump stock just uses the guns own recoil action to bump back so that you can shoot faster. If you couldn't buy one in a store, it wouldn't make any difference to a Bad Guy, especially someone like the LV shooter who planned his attack. I have a big dose of libertarianism in me. I err on the side of less laws, not more. Why? Because Bad Guys generally don't follow the law anyhow. I dislike making laws that require hoop-jumping for adult law-abiding citizens in a (failed) attempt to deter Bad Guys, who will break the law anyhow. I'm not sure what the answer is. Let's say we passed a gun registration law. It wouldn't have stopped the LV shooter (or any shooter). We would just find out after a shooting who the gun was registered to. Limits on ammo? LV shooting was premeditated. It wouldn't have stopped him. He amassed his guns and ammo over time. It wouldn't stop most shootings in the US. (I apologize I can't find the info right now, but it was between 4-5 shots per incidence/victim.) Even if we required mandatory psych visits, I'm not certain that it would have stopped this guy. He seemed to hold it together for many years, leading a somewhat successful life. It is horrifying and I understand the knee-jerk reaction to want to ban the bump stock. But I just don't think it would actually make any difference. I suspect that it will pass because it seems to have bipartisan support. Now, with all that said, I don't have super strong feelings either way regarding the law. I don't think I would write my Congressmen about it. I haven't yet found anything on either side of the issue to convince me strongly one way or the other.

My grandma used to say the phrase, and now I realize she didn't use it the way most of you are using it. For her, she'd want you to be your best and excel as far as you could, but at the same time you needed to be humble about your gifts and talents. If you walked around like you were the Queen of England because you had XYZ gift, she would say you had Tall Poppy Syndrome so don't be surprised to get cut back. She would say Nellie from Little House on the Prairie had Tall Poppy Syndrome because she always had to have the most lavish dresses and expensive bows and mostly because she would flaunt it in front of Laura. Then when Nellie inevitably fell in the mud, she was getting cut back due to her Tall Poppy Syndrome.

I'm on FB, but you'll be fine without it. Accept that you will miss out on some things. Some things you'll be glad you missed out on, but there will be some things that you may have wished to be included on. Completely your choice. I will admit that I like FB, but I don't have any problems with it. I like seeing what my family is doing, where my friends are traveling to, and following my favorite homeschooling pages. I have a drama-free FB...lol! It's downright boring compared to how everyone else describes their FB.

2 years old... but in my defense, it was because his speech therapist highly recommended it. He was non-verbal but had fun making sounds with the Articulation Station app. I should mention that we didn't have an iPad before that and it became his by default. Since then my other kids have all gotten an iPad, mostly as a birthday gift around the 9 - 11 year old age. DH and I don't have iPads.

double post

Ahh hell. Forget it. Praying for those involved.