Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: LTARGlok on March 31, 2008, 03:07:26 PM
-
Looks like the folks in Eastern Idaho plan on remaining well armed:
http://www.kidk.com/news/local/16968331.html
I wonder if this is happening nation-wide???? Perhaps this is more a rural America thing.
-
Load up now.
The Libs are coming! The Libs are coming!
Bought my M1A Springfield at this store in Idaho Falls. Excellent store and excellent service.
-
I think it has more to do with an analysis of the current presidential candidates' views on firearms restrictions and a pessimistic view of the DC firearms lawsuit in front of the Supreme Court. If either of those goes bad, we could see a whole host of new laws banning firearm ownership by law abiding citizens. So get them now and hide them (or report them lost/stolen) before it's too late.
-
You guys crack me up. At what point regardless of administration have you not had the opportunity to own an AR-15 in the past 25-30 years. I had my first in 1979 and have owned them ever since.
All the 'bans' have ever done is drive the price up and increase the gun maker's profits, or the profits of the guys selling 'pre-ban' AR's to the guys who needed bayonet lugs to keep the varmints at bay.
Thought it funny how prices dropped when the 'ban' ended and all those guys who stocked up on 'pre-bans' to make a killing selling them off to the panicked 'we're gonna lose our guns' crowd, couldn't sell them fast enough before the ban ended.
Anyone who thinks at anytime that 'they' and their black helicoptors are coming to get the ARs, needs to adjust their tin foil hats.
If I'm sitting over at Colt, Bushmaster, DPMS, Armalite, Rock River etc, I'm planting seeds of panic all over and watching my profilts grow as sales go up just like mentioned in the original post.
Ya gotta love free enterprise :)
-
Out of interest, why do you need bayonet fixings on a rifle?
-
Out of interest, why do you need bayonet fixings on a rifle?
In case you run out of ammo silly.
-
Somewhat off-topic but I read that the factory in Romania (Cugir?) that produces the WASR-10 and other AK47 Clones is ceasing production as a requirement to join NATO. Looks like the days of buying a cheap AK are soon to be over.
-
Out of interest, why do you need bayonet fixings on a rifle?
Accessory mount such as bipod etc..
-
You guys crack me up. At what point regardless of administration have you not had the opportunity to own an AR-15 in the past 25-30 years. I had my first in 1979 and have owned them ever since.
All the 'bans' have ever done is drive the price up and increase the gun maker's profits, or the profits of the guys selling 'pre-ban' AR's to the guys who needed bayonet lugs to keep the varmints at bay.
Thought it funny how prices dropped when the 'ban' ended and all those guys who stocked up on 'pre-bans' to make a killing selling them off to the panicked 'we're gonna lose our guns' crowd, couldn't sell them fast enough before the ban ended.
Anyone who thinks at anytime that 'they' and their black helicoptors are coming to get the ARs, needs to adjust their tin foil hats.
If I'm sitting over at Colt, Bushmaster, DPMS, Armalite, Rock River etc, I'm planting seeds of panic all over and watching my profilts grow as sales go up just like mentioned in the original post.
Ya gotta love free enterprise :)
I have not been able to own one for 10 plus years thank you very much.
IF you really don't think the dems are trying to take your guns away, your not paying attention.
-
I think it has more to do with an analysis of the current presidential candidates' views on firearms restrictions and a pessimistic view of the DC firearms lawsuit in front of the Supreme Court. If either of those goes bad, we could see a whole host of new laws banning firearm ownership by law abiding citizens. So get them now and hide them (or report them lost/stolen) before it's too late.
I just completed my Firearm course this past weekend and am applying for my LTC class A (License To Carry)this week. For just those reason.
-
I have not been able to own one for 10 plus years thank you very much.
IF you really don't think the dems are trying to take your guns away, your not paying attention.
And where is this that you can't own one? Just the blanket statement 'the dems are trying to take your guns away' makes me wonder. Is there some Federal Law holding you back? I live in a state that would be considered a very 'democratic' state. Seems like we were the only state to vote for Walter Mondale for Prez for heaven's sake. Never had a problem owning an AR here.
-
You guys crack me up. At what point regardless of administration have you not had the opportunity to own an AR-15 in the past 25-30 years. I had my first in 1979 and have owned them ever since.
All the 'bans' have ever done is drive the price up and increase the gun maker's profits, or the profits of the guys selling 'pre-ban' AR's to the guys who needed bayonet lugs to keep the varmints at bay.
Thought it funny how prices dropped when the 'ban' ended and all those guys who stocked up on 'pre-bans' to make a killing selling them off to the panicked 'we're gonna lose our guns' crowd, couldn't sell them fast enough before the ban ended.
Anyone who thinks at anytime that 'they' and their black helicoptors are coming to get the ARs, needs to adjust their tin foil hats.
If I'm sitting over at Colt, Bushmaster, DPMS, Armalite, Rock River etc, I'm planting seeds of panic all over and watching my profilts grow as sales go up just like mentioned in the original post.
Ya gotta love free enterprise :)
Maybe you should try getting one in NJ first Gup...the dumbocrats have made it very difficult for the AR-15
style in particular. maybe it's a good thing..god knows how many people have been killed by pistol grips,
flash suppressors and carrying handles over the years :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
-
And where is this that you can't own one? Just the blanket statement 'the dems are trying to take your guns away' makes me wonder. Is there some Federal Law holding you back? I live in a state that would be considered a very 'democratic' state. Seems like we were the only state to vote for Walter Mondale for Prez for heaven's sake. Never had a problem owning an AR here.
Guppy
I live in Ca, and they banned "assault rifles" when the feds did back when George the first was in office. When it expired Cali's didn't.
You really don't think dems want you guns? Go look at most democratic senotors web sites to see their stance. Both Boxer and fienstien or HORRIBLY anti gun.
Go look at the sponsers of everytime they try and bring back the assault weapon ban, and go read what they think counts. Last time I read it, it would basicaly ban most semi auto firearms.
-
Guppy
I live in Ca, and they banned "assault rifles" when the feds did back when George the first was in office. When it expired Cali's didn't.
You really don't think dems want you guns? Go look at most democratic senotors web sites to see their stance. Both Boxer and fienstien or HORRIBLY anti gun.
Go look at the sponsers of everytime they try and bring back the assault weapon ban, and go read what they think counts. Last time I read it, it would basicaly ban most semi auto firearms.
So the question becomes why do the folks in California support it? Why on a National level is it not supported?
We're also talking Feds vs State here. Again, I live in about as Blue as state as there is. I've yet to see there be any kind of serious talk about taking away guns here. If anything it's gone the other way with concel and carry approved etc.
And someone talking about a 'ban' doesn't mean it's got popular support. You saw how effective the last one was. Didn't change anything except you couldn't buy new 30 round mags. Thousands of used out there of course, with inflated prices during the 'ban'. You could get them in any sporting goods or gun shop. No bayonet lug, not that you couldn't buy a pre-ban at an inflated price so you could 'go tactical', and you couldn't have a collapsable stock on your AR so it was pinned.
My son was hugely into AK's and thier history during that time. He had a build done of a folding stock PKMS AK47 version. It had a bead weld on the bayonet lug, and a pin on the folding stock in accordance with the 'ban'. It took him about 30 seconds the day the ban died, to unpin it, and pop that bead weld off.
Considering how badly that 'ban' impacted on democrats during re-election time and how fast it disappeared, I'd suggest it would be the best thing ever for the Republicans to have happen. Get the Dem's spouting anti-gun stuff loud again, and watch how fast it turns against them.
-
One change Obama really believes in is more gun control.
Obama says, "National legislation will prevent other states' flawed concealed-weapons laws from threatening the safety of Illinois residents." David Mendell, "Democratic hopefuls vary a bit on death penalty," Chicago Tribune, February 20, 2004.
About the so-called "assault weapons" ban, Obama says, "I believe we need to renew -- not roll back -- this common sense gun law."
As a state senator, "Obama regularly supported gun-control measures, including a ban on semiautomatic 'assault weapons' and a limit on handgun purchases to one a month." "Obama Record May be Gold Mine for Critics," Associated Press, January 17, 2007.
On July 29, 2005, Senator Obama voted against S. 397, a bill that was designed to put an end to the frivolous lawsuits that were threatening to put many gun dealers out of business.
On July 13, 2006, Sen. Obama voted for Emergency Powers language that saw only 16 of the most ardent anti-gun senators vote against it. The amendment provides that no money can be used by federal agents to confiscate firearms during a declared state of emergency. The amendment was added to the Department of Homeland Security appropriations bill (HR 5441).
And Obama of course came out in favor of the DC hangun ban in Heller vs DC.
"Obama believes the D.C. handgun law is constitutional." (James Oliphant and
Michael J. Higgins, "Court To Hear Gun Case," Chicago Tribune, 11/20/07
There's change acomin' and you can believe that. It just won't be change for the better. Enjoy!
-
Just my opinion of course, but I just don't see the mood of the country supporting anything like that Toad. Again, maybe it's just me, but with things the way they are in the world, I think folks are a little less secure in the future, and anything that would real or imagined take away from being able to feel like they could protect themselves, would be a sure fire way to lose.
I probably lean more left of center then right on most things, but I think it's a pointless thing to try and legislate. The guns aren't going away, and I don't want to give mine up either. I just don't see it happening. Too many other things on the agenda that need to be dealt with that matter.
-
You guys crack me up. At what point regardless of administration have you not had the opportunity to own an AR-15 in the past 25-30 years.
Especially since presidents don't write laws.
-
Nope, Presidents appoint Supreme Court justices that interpret the law in cases like Heller vs DC.
So you can have an anti like Obama appointing the SC justices and that will adversely affect SC gun cases for literally decades.
-
Especially since presidents don't write laws.
No, but they can easily VETO laws. The current Democrat controlled Congress knows that they could never get any major gun controls past while Bush is still in office.
Although even Bush was in favor of bringing back the previous Assault Gun law ( and the ban on new sales of high capacity magazines that was part of it ). But the Republicans controlled the Congress when it expired, and they would have nothing to do with renewing it. And the Democrats are smart enough to not do anything to make gun owners mad now during an election year. Instead, they will wait until next year when they will have a Democratic President willing to sign off on much more extensive gun controls.
The best way to control guns is to grip them firmly:
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v408/gotm4/3gunAR2.jpg)
-
What this really shows is people in idaho have bad taste in firearms lol.
-
No, but they can easily VETO laws. The current Democrat controlled Congress knows that they could never get any major gun controls past while Bush is still in office.
Although even Bush was in favor of bringing back the previous Assault Gun law ( and the ban on new sales of high capacity magazines that was part of it ). But the Republicans controlled the Congress when it expired, and they would have nothing to do with renewing it. And the Democrats are smart enough to not do anything to make gun owners mad now during an election year. Instead, they will wait until next year when they will have a Democratic President willing to sign off on much more extensive gun controls.
The best way to control guns is to grip them firmly:
So instead they'll do something unpopular and lose control of the congress in their 2nd year of a new president. They're smart enough not to do it now, but in their quest to do dumb stuff they'll do it the next year. You don't think anyone learned any thing from that 'ban' previously? It was pointless other then driving up gun prices and made them look like idiots while getting the gun owners shorts in a bunch and it cost them. Why would they do it again? It is hardly a high priority issue right now.
Toad, how many SC seats do you suppose will come up in the next 4 years? I'm thinking it's fairly set for a while now. All Bush, Reagan appointees outside of 2 from Clinton and 1 from Ford.
-
Nope, Presidents appoint Supreme Court justices that interpret the law in cases like Heller vs DC.
So you can have an anti like Obama appointing the SC justices and that will adversely affect SC gun cases for literally decades.
With the advice and consent of...
The President nominates someone who he thinks that the senate might just confirm.
-
One change Obama really believes in is more gun control.
Obama says, "National legislation will prevent other states' flawed concealed-weapons laws from threatening the safety of Illinois residents." David Mendell, "Democratic hopefuls vary a bit on death penalty," Chicago Tribune, February 20, 2004.
About the so-called "assault weapons" ban, Obama says, "I believe we need to renew -- not roll back -- this common sense gun law."
As a state senator, "Obama regularly supported gun-control measures, including a ban on semiautomatic 'assault weapons' and a limit on handgun purchases to one a month." "Obama Record May be Gold Mine for Critics," Associated Press, January 17, 2007.
On July 29, 2005, Senator Obama voted against S. 397, a bill that was designed to put an end to the frivolous lawsuits that were threatening to put many gun dealers out of business.
On July 13, 2006, Sen. Obama voted for Emergency Powers language that saw only 16 of the most ardent anti-gun senators vote against it. The amendment provides that no money can be used by federal agents to confiscate firearms during a declared state of emergency. The amendment was added to the Department of Homeland Security appropriations bill (HR 5441).
And Obama of course came out in favor of the DC hangun ban in Heller vs DC.
"Obama believes the D.C. handgun law is constitutional." (James Oliphant and
Michael J. Higgins, "Court To Hear Gun Case," Chicago Tribune, 11/20/07
There's change acomin' and you can believe that. It just won't be change for the better. Enjoy!
Hey Toad, how are the Emergency powers' amendment to HR 5441 considered anti-gun? The way you've worded it, they certainly look pro-gun to me...
-
That's about Obama's only pro-gun vote since he has been in the Senate. I put it in there before one of his defenders showed up to prove that his one pro-gun vote out weighs his many, many anti-gun votes.
Only 16 Senators voted against that amendment; it is suprising that Obama didn't make it 17 given his voting history. It's noteworthy, even.
We're fair and balanced here in the O-Club, you know.
-
Common sense gun laws aren't.
-
What this really shows is people in idaho have bad taste in firearms lol.
I don't think so...
I'm pretty sure we support firearm diversity.
-
Support Affirmative Action for Black Rifles!
-
Toad, how many SC seats do you suppose will come up in the next 4 years? I'm thinking it's fairly set for a while now. All Bush, Reagan appointees outside of 2 from Clinton and 1 from Ford.
I think a minimum of two. Stevens is 87. Ginsburg is 75, Scalia 72, Kennedy 71. I think Stevens retires for sure with an ultra liberal like Obama to pick his replacement and a Senate controlled by the Democrats to confirm the replacement. I think Ginsburg will jump at that opportunity as well. Scalia will hang on to the bitter end in this event. Kennedy may or may not retire in 4; I think it could go either way.
Then there's the unknowns; didn't take Rehnquist but 11 months between diagnosis and death. Any one of the present justices is old enough to get an unpleasant surprise in the way of serious illness.
If Obama gets 8 years as seems to be the new American trend, all bets are off. He could be appointing anywhere from 2-6 justices the way things go.
-
Just so you guys know, there is no set number of supreme court justices. Any president if they so please could add on another 25 if they wished it.
-
Laser, Congress sets the number.
-
as far as gun control laws are concerned, i dont reli care one way or another, as i am an archer and much prefer my recurve bow to a gun any day. :aok
-
as far as gun control laws are concerned, i dont reli care one way or another, as i am an archer and much prefer my recurve bow to a gun any day. :aok
Great sentiment from a fellow hunter! Because after all, once they ban hunting guns, they surely won't come after your bow hunting. PETA will give up after all the gun hunters have lost their guns. Plus, there's that huge body of archers that form such a strong political force to preserve your right to hunt.
You have nothing to worry about, fer shure, dude!
-
Looks like the folks in Eastern Idaho plan on remaining well armed:
http://www.kidk.com/news/local/16968331.html
I wonder if this is happening nation-wide???? Perhaps this is more a rural America thing.
Nope. Very popular in the cities as well. It's called "keeping it real" or "supporting your street cred".
-
guppy.. do you really have your head that far up your butt?
Paranoid? I suppose that people who thought the rest of the country would go to unleaded gas when kalifornia did were "paranoid"? How bout helmet and seatbelt laws and smoking laws? are you just wandering around in some cloud?
As kalifornia goes.. so goes the nation. sorry..
You have no idea of the gun laws here.. they will be coming to you soon enough tho unless the pendulum swings the other way and...
I don't see any of the democratic candidtates wanting anything more than more gun control. 99% of all gun control bills are propossed by democrats. democrats are the enemy of the second amendment.. if you can't see that then you are hopeless.
Lots of folks here in kalifornia were as naive as you and thought it couldn't happen to them.
lazs
-
or report them lost/stolen before it's too late.
Careful! there is a new trend in gun legislation that makes it a crime to have a gun stolen. The thinking being: it is the gun owners responsibility to secure his weapon against theft.
Pure BS to me but oh well, you know....the panzie state :rolleyes:
-
Great sentiment from a fellow hunter! Because after all, once they ban hunting guns, they surely won't come after your bow hunting. PETA will give up after all the gun hunters have lost their guns. Plus, there's that huge body of archers that form such a strong political force to preserve your right to hunt.
You have nothing to worry about, fer shure, dude!
very funny. most people dont even see bows as much of a threat. and i dont hunt by the way, i'm more part of the target shooting crowd right now. i do understand where ur coming from, and i dont want to see guns taken away, as it allows for several protections that would be gone if the guns go away. however, i would liek to see more people learning to shoot bows. (and i mean traditional bows, compounds are practically guns with all the machinery on them ICK >_<). anyway, i do believe people having guns is good for preserving the status quo with government power, and also for all the times they have helped save lives.
-
Living where I live it's hard for me to give much focus on federal firearm laws. The attack is unrelenting at the state level, and that is a far greater threat to my 2nd Amendment rights -- not that I wouldn't make an effort at the federal level if things got serious. Gun owners in sane areas simply do not understand what it’s like in places like this.
It doesn't help that my federal senator is NRA F rated Obama, and my Congressman is the F rated Republican Mark Kirk.
Technically, I live under an AWB as a Cook County resident. However, there are potential home rule issues that MIGHT mean the ban only applies to a few agreeable communities and unincorporated areas. Still, I have resisted the urge to get an AK, AR of FAL while the ISRA lawsuit against the ban is worked out. I did add a Choate pistol gripped synthetic stock, front top rail and Aimpoint to my latest CMP carbine that had a crappy stock anyway. SHOULD be legal given my reading of the current AWB, and fully reversible.
But, Daley is pushing an even tougher AWB that will also ban most all pistols for the county with no home rule options. Here's his latest taxpayer funded PR effort along those lines:
Chicago students rally for tougher gun laws
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-chicago-teen-protest-gunsapr02,0,6887438.story
Basically, Daley gave them the day off school for this protest, bussed them downtown, set up the cameras and cried his crocodile tears. The local media laps it up, but when 2500 Illinois gun owners marched on the state capital a few weeks back -- on their own dime in the middle of the week -- it was ignored. I wonder how many of these "student activists" would show up on their own dime on a Saturday :)
Charon
-
Charon, then you should be interested in the incorporation fight for the 2nd that comes next at the Federal level. If the 2nd is incorporated into the 14th you should have much more favorable results on your home ground.
So you need to be interested at the Federal level. ;)
-
Charon, then you should be interested in the incorporation fight for the 2nd that comes next at the Federal level. If the 2nd is incorporated into the 14th you should have much more favorable results on your home ground.
So you need to be interested at the Federal level.
Oh I am -- especially that aspect. I even dare hope that incorporation MIGHT be addressed this time around. FWIW, it is believed that the judge hearing the Cook County AWB lawsuit is waiting for June to get some guidance from Heller.
This was a ban forced through back channels with no opportunity for public commentary much like Meigs Field. We had held off several previous efforts through normal channels by slamming the phones.
Charon
-
So is it now the Demkratic Pipples Republic of Illinois or DPR of Chicago? Or both?
Suxxors either way, my condolences.
-
So is it now the Demkratic Pipples Republic of Illinois or DPR of Chicago? Or both?
Suxxors either way, my condolences.
Chicago and Cook County make up the tail that wags the dog. The numbers balance out at the state level so it is basically a tie -- but always a handful of votes type of thing, and there is always something (often many things) in the works ever single session. 2-3 fires to put out. Cook County is much harder – about 2 to 1 Daley, but if you make enough calls they actually back down on occasion. That's why he had to do the end around for the last AWB.
It really does suck. I live 4 blocks from the county border. And it's not just firearms but the whole, tax and spend cash suck to pay for the city's social programs. As I noted in previous threads, a variety of communities are working to remove themselves from Cook County's waste, graft and corruption. You'll likely see class 3 weapons in Chicago before they succeed though.
Illinois is literally giving Mass and California a run for their money. That's why Teddy and Obama get along so well. Hillery is Barry Goldwater by comparison.
Charon