Glock models (their numbering makes NO sense)

[AJMD429]

.
https://youtube.com/shorts/kNgzROmPE3g? ... NdLRBrrjYm



I can see why this woman just said 'Give me a SIG instead'...

[44shooter]

Funny video. Yep Glock model numbers are strictly chronological starting with their 17. I kept up through the twenties but it’s too much for me now.

[jeepnik]

I have two Glocks. The first is a 30. Why? Because the City of L.A. passed a law that basically outlawed small handguns. So, I went to the next town over and ask the counter guy what he had that would violate the L.A. City law. Law was overturned in short order.

The other is a Glock 42. Why? Because the state of California said I couldn't have it. So I used a loop hole and bought one.

[AJMD429]

So, I went to the next town over and ask the counter guy what he had that would violate the L.A. City law. Law was overturned in short order.

The other is a Glock 42. Why? Because the state of California said I couldn't have it. So I used a loop hole and bought one.

I’ve done similarly.

When the local hospital banned smoking for employees, even on their lunch breaks, in their cars, in the parking lot, I spent the next day making rounds with an unlit cigarette in my mouth, and even found an excuse to stop by the administration offices to flaunt the ‘defiance’. I’m not a smoker, and advise against it for the health impacts, but they didn’t say you couldn’t possess cigarettes; they just said you couldn’t smoke them. I tried to get other nonsmokers (and smokers) to do the same in solidarity, but most were too beaten-down already to dare ruffle feathers.

[earlmck]

Ha! Now I got a kick out of that video! (Probably because I have stood right there in her shoes).

[jeepnik]

So, I went to the next town over and ask the counter guy what he had that would violate the L.A. City law. Law was overturned in short order.

The other is a Glock 42. Why? Because the state of California said I couldn't have it. So I used a loop hole and bought one.

I’ve done similarly.

When the local hospital banned smoking for employees, even on their lunch breaks, in their cars, in the parking lot, I spent the next day making rounds with an unlit cigarette in my mouth, and even found an excuse to stop by the administration offices to flaunt the ‘defiance’. I’m not a smoker, and advise against it for the health impacts, but they didn’t say you couldn’t possess cigarettes; they just said you couldn’t smoke them. I tried to get other nonsmokers (and smokers) to do the same in solidarity, but most were too beaten-down already to dare ruffle feathers.

A large pharmaceutical company, one of my customers, banned smoking on their premises. So employees would stand out front on the sidewalk and smoke.

An employee doing just that stepped off the sidewalk to allow a group of other employees to pass. The entire place is covered by cameras. So it got recorded. They fired the employee.

A general uprising among the employees, they’re non union, caused a reversal of the decision. I still think the employee should have sued. He may not have won, but the press will have been black eye for the company.

I’m not a smoker. And although I grew up with parents who did I prefer to avoid second hand smoke. Still, such draconian practices by companies and their woke management need to be aired for the world to see.