Everybody PANIC! by Wulfenstar

REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Everybody PANIC!

POSTED BY: WULFENSTAR
UPDATED: Saturday, August 15, 2009 02:53
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 4357
PAGE 2 of 2

Thursday, August 13, 2009 3:01 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
So you're saying he should have been arrested?

No.

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
So you wouldn't mind if someone showed up to a Palin rally with a sniper rifle and a sign that says "All idiot c**ts must die!", then? You'd fully support them in the exercise of their rights? What about if they show up with their gun strapped to their leg at the police station, blasting "Fuck tha Police!" on their stereo system?

All slightly different scenarios that require slightly different solutions.

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
What makes you think YOU can pick and choose? You're in favor of the white guy taking his gun to a rally, but against the black guy exercising his free speech rights in his own home? Does that seem right to you?

And you cannot help assiging your made up positions to other's. Where did I state that I am in favor of a white guy taking his gun to a rally?

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
And can you please show me where I said the guy did anything illegal? Can you show me where I said he should be imprisoned for what he did? What I *DID* say - and what you seem unable to comprehend - is that actions like this, while they may be "legal" in the strictest sense, will be used to drive efforts to make them ILLEGAL. So how does that help?

Please show me where I assigned those positions to you.
Ever wonder if being belligerent to police might affect how those police act in other circumstances?

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Do you contend that I should do everything under the sun that is technically "legal", just because I can? Is there no action that can be taken for which you would say, "Okay, that's not illegal, but it IS really, really stupid and probably shouldn't be done"?

You mean like arguing with police in front of your house? Did I not say that while not illegal, it is pretty stupid?

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
My point is that this yahoo really needed somebody by his side to act as his voice of reason, someone to tell him, "This isn't helping." Just like those who are burning people in effigy, just like Glenn Beck saying he wants to poison Nancy Pelosi, just like the tea-baggers trying to show their support for "democracy" by loudly shouting down voices they don't agree with - these are people exercising their "freedoms" and their "rights", but they sure aren't helping their case.

Couldn't agree with you more. It's just different when the shoe is on the other foot, isn't it?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 13, 2009 3:20 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

According to "Hero", though, if ONE cop goes to one of these rallies and asks the tea-baggers to stop shouting and being unruly, and they persist, then the police are well within their rights to round up all of the tea-baggers on disorderly conduct charges and arrest them and haul them off to jail.

I wonder how many right-wingers would support that in this case...

Mike

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 13, 2009 3:25 AM

KWICKO

Quote:
What makes you think you can pick and choose which rights people are allowed to exercise and when they are allowed to do it?

And there YOU go making up positions and assigning them to me, when I've never advocated such a position.

Mike

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 13, 2009 3:32 AM

KWICKO

Quote:
Originally posted by BigDamnNobody:

Where did I state that I am in favor of a white guy taking his gun to a rally?

Okay, so this is you NOT being in favor of that?

Quote:
Why not? Isn't it his constitutional right?

Quote:

Couldn't agree with you more.

So this is just you being a contrarian? You're only arguing not because of WHAT I posted, but only because *I* posted it? Is that what you're saying?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 13, 2009 5:43 AM

UNABASHEDVIXEN

Kwicko said:

Quote:
Well, gosh... I guess I should say thanks for lumping me in with "the nutters".

Just to clarify, I was not lumping you in with the nutters

I find your arguments well formed and logical. I realize PN is batshit crazy, but that doesn't negate my frustration at the fact that there are folks on the boards that seem to think asserting something is the same as making a well-constructed argument.

I am going to be sadly internet-free for the next five days, but I may come back with some interesting statistics

Just don't want anyone to think I either left in a huff or am out of ammo. Neither is the case

*
People before profits

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 13, 2009 6:22 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Someone walking up and down the street with a gun at-hand constitutes a threat, whether that person is a cop, a soldier, or a civilian.

It might be more appropriate to say: In your opinion, someone walking up and down the street with a gun at-hand constitutes a threat.

To some people, a black man walking up and down the street constitutes a threat, but that's just opinion as well.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 13, 2009 7:46 AM

KWICKO

BDN, since you're so gung-ho on Constitutional rights being UNIVERSAL and all, and since I assume you're a 2nd Amendment follower, let's look at another hypothetical.

Let's say I show up to a Palin rally wearing full-on Al Qaeda look-alike gear - black ski mask, head scarf, military fatigues, my "Death to Infidels" t-shirt, and carrying a fully-automatic AK-47 (which, for the sake of argument, let's say I have a Class III NFA permit to own), complete with fully loaded 100-round drum magazine. You're saying I shouldn't be harassed, shouted down, intimidated, arrested, or otherwise molested?

Mike

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 13, 2009 7:47 AM

KWICKO

Quote:
Originally posted by UnabashedVixen:
Kwicko said:

Quote:
Well, gosh... I guess I should say thanks for lumping me in with "the nutters".

Just to clarify, I was not lumping you in with the nutters I find your arguments well formed and logical. I realize PN is batshit crazy, but that doesn't negate my frustration at the fact that there are folks on the boards that seem to think asserting something is the same as making a well-constructed argument.

I am going to be sadly internet-free for the next five days, but I may come back with some interesting statistics Just don't want anyone to think I either left in a huff or am out of ammo. Neither is the case

*
People before profits

Thanks for the vote of confidence, Vixen!

Enjoy the vacation.

Mike

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 13, 2009 8:51 AM

WULFENSTAR

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

"Let's say I show up to a Palin rally wearing full-on Al Qaeda look-alike gear - black ski mask, head scarf, military fatigues, my "Death to Infidels" t-shirt, and carrying a fully-automatic AK-47 (which, for the sake of argument, let's say I have a Class III NFA permit to own), complete with fully loaded 100-round drum magazine. You're saying I shouldn't be harassed, shouted down, intimidated, arrested, or otherwise molested?"

Nope. Freedom, bitch. Thats the point.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 13, 2009 9:33 AM

BIGDAMNNOBODY

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
BDN, since you're so gung-ho on Constitutional rights being UNIVERSAL and all, and since I assume you're a 2nd Amendment follower, let's look at another hypothetical.

Let's say I show up to a Palin rally wearing full-on Al Qaeda look-alike gear - black ski mask, head scarf, military fatigues, my "Death to Infidels" t-shirt, and carrying a fully-automatic AK-47 (which, for the sake of argument, let's say I have a Class III NFA permit to own), complete with fully loaded 100-round drum magazine. You're saying I shouldn't be harassed, shouted down, intimidated, arrested, or otherwise molested?

Really struck a nerve, huh?

I'm just doing what you say you do all the time. Try to make you look at something from another angle.

When I thought Gates should have been more compliant with the Officers you called me an authoritarian lapdog or somesuch. You said it was Gates' constitutional right to act the way he did. Does this make you the authoritarian lapdog now? Or does it not count because it involved Obama. Just thought it was strange that you were all for the constitutional rights of other's unless they do something you personally don't agree with.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 13, 2009 9:56 AM

DREAMTROVE

"cars aren't designed to kill or wound."

Vixen, Mr. Nader would disagree.. Cars are designed to kill. He would say "negligence and greed" but I think he might believe as I do "Intentionally."

Why? Think about it.

Peace out.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 13, 2009 10:41 AM

KWICKO

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
"Let's say I show up to a Palin rally wearing full-on Al Qaeda look-alike gear - black ski mask, head scarf, military fatigues, my "Death to Infidels" t-shirt, and carrying a fully-automatic AK-47 (which, for the sake of argument, let's say I have a Class III NFA permit to own), complete with fully loaded 100-round drum magazine. You're saying I shouldn't be harassed, shouted down, intimidated, arrested, or otherwise molested?"

Nope. Freedom, bitch. Thats the point.

So I can count on you being right by my side defending me, eh?

Mike

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 13, 2009 10:56 AM

KWICKO

Quote:
Just thought it was strange that you were all for the constitutional rights of other's unless they do something you personally don't agree with.

And there you go again, making up positions and opinions that I don't hold, and assigning them to me!

Again I ask, can you please show me where I said this yokel SHOULDN'T BE ALLOWED to do something this stupid, or that HE SHOULD BE ARRESTED for being a fucking moron? You seem to think I want such things outlawed, or that I want a Constitutional Amendment that would make such quaint things as the Second Amendment obsolete. Nothing could be further from the truth. What I *AM* saying is that dipshit stunts like this - and make no mistake, it was indeed a stunt, and a damned stupid one at that - only serve the cause of the ANTI-gun lobby, and make it MORE, not LESS, likely that such a movement will gain a groundswell of support.

CAN you play into your enemy's hands? Sure. The right has been doing it for at least the last two years now. SHOULD YOU play into your enemy's hands and hand them victory? That's entirely up to you. But saying it's legal to do so doesn't mean that it's recommended.

And when one of these pathetic twits actually does pop off a shot at the President, you can pretty much kiss all your gun rights goodbye, and you can then sit around and cry in your beer about how "they didn't have to do that - they didn't have to over-react like that!" Me? I'd rather they showed a modicum of restraint BEFORE that happens, 'cause it's going to be far too goddamned late AFTER it does.

Mike

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 13, 2009 11:05 AM

KWICKO

Quote:
...cars aren't designed to kill or wound.

You really should tell that to the hundreds of thousands of dead animals littering the roads of this country. I'm sure they'd appreciate your concern.

There are entire classes of firearms that aren't designed to kill anything but game animals (and aren't designed to wound those, because that would be cruel). They CAN kill or wound a person, but that's not their intent. Just as a car CAN kill a person - especially when used with just that intent, as has happened.

You're falling into the trap of "all guns bad" rhetoric. They're a tool for doing a job; nothing more, nothing less. And if I really am taken with the mad urge to kill someone - or SEVERAL someones - I sure as hell don't need a gun to do so. A car would do just fine, I'm sure.

Mike

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 13, 2009 5:39 PM

PHOENIXROSE

You think you know--what's to come, what you are. You haven't even begun.

Quote:
Originally posted by UnabashedVixen:
But there's a big distinction between cars and guns: cars aren't designed to kill or wound.

There's another big distinction: the laws governing cars are much stricter.
1) You must have a license to own and operate a motor vehicle, and persons under a certain age are prohibited from doing either.
2) For a car to be considered 'legal' there must be a title, registration, and insurance on it.
(btw, this is not me advocating insurance for all things, I fucking hate insurance companies, I'm just pointing out a fact)
3) Several and various laws of the road must be observed while operating a motor vehicle.
Failure to comply with any such laws can result in tickets/fines/jail time.
For vehicles of a certain size or with a certain size engine, and hence less potential for harm, certain laws do not apply.

Now, before anyone decides my stance is anti-gun, it isn't. I've been shooting since I was twelve. My grandpa can pull a gun out of any nook or cranny in his home. I'm absolutely a proponent of the second amendment. I think a general ban on citizens owning and bearing arms would be wrong on every level. Such a ban would strip away the title of 'citizen' and replace it with 'subject.' None of those opinions mean I advocate a total lack of regulation on something that is deadly. Nearly everything else with proven deadly effects is strictly regulated by law, but the loosest provisions seem to go to those things that are, as mentioned, designed for killing things. Someone too young or untrained to handle a firearm safely should be restricted, until such a time as they can handle one safely. Someone who has proven irresponsible or less-than-capable should be restricted or severely limited in the ownership and handling of firearms. Just as you shouldn't be drunk while operating a potentially deadly machine such as a motor vehicle, you shouldn't be drunk and handling potentially deadly firearms. And someone behaving recklessly should, at the very least, be monitored until such a time they're proven not to be a threat. I don't see how anyone could disagree that training and safety is an essential part of operating a firearm, just as it is of operating a motor vehicle.

People were called 'traitors' for merely stating they disagreed with G.W.B. Honestly, what would the reaction have been if someone had ever been in his vicinity, with a protest sign referencing watering the tree of liberty with blood, carrying a loaded gun? Odds are they would have ended up in Guantanamo, and been seen to deserve it. The fact that this yahoo is being allowed to go about his business at all is a testament to how much more the Constitution is being respected by those currently in power. They're not insisting he remove or even unload the weapon, because it surely is his right to carry it. And yet the prevailing attitude seems to be that one of Obama's main objectives is taking away your guns. Well, it's not. And yes, this guy absolutely has the right to be carrying a loaded firearm. Yes, he absolutely has a right to protest and free speech. And yes, President Obama absolutely has the right to put Secret Service, police, and fucking snipers on him if there's even the possibility he'll start 'protesting' with that loaded firearm. Because I'm pretty sure the Constitution doesn't have a provision for shooting someone you don't like, especially an elected official.

[/sig]

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 13, 2009 5:59 PM

KWICKO

PR: Good points. And I would have no problem at all with a "graduated" license program for firearms, just as we have to various vehicle types. Change the stipulations from "May issue" to "WILL issue" on those licenses, too, while we're at it. There are still areas where you can jump through all the legal hoops to own a firearm, and still be denied your right to do so, because the law says that once you meet all these conditions, the Chief Law Enforcement Officer (CLEO) in your area "MAY" issue you a permit. Seems to me, once you meet the requirements, it's not up to someone's personal discretion; you meet the legal requirements, you get the permit, you're allowed to own your firearm.

What KIND of firearm? Well, that's where the graduated license comes into play. Here in Texas, if I take the approved certification course, I get to carry a concealed handgun on my person. I'd like to see that opened up a bit - one level of instruction gets you a permit to open-carry (a visible holster on your person, such as a hip or leg holster), another gets you a permit for a fully-automatic weapon, another for a weapons with a suppressor, etc. As it stands now, you CAN get these kinds of weapons without any special instruction; all it takes is a $200 bribe - er "tax stamp" - from the BATF. I was sorely tempted to pick up a silenced Walther .22 semi-auto at the last gun show I went to, for no other reason than "just because I can." I didn't do it, but I can see where a silenced hunting rifle could be quite useful. Apparently such things used to be not only legal, but their use for hunting was viewed as "being considerate" of one's neighbors (I'm speaking of "neighbors" in the sense of neighbors on farms; my grandfather's nearest "neighbors" were 1.2 miles away, and the nearest town to him was 5.6 miles, so we're not talking about loosing high-powered hunting rounds in an urban setting!)

Anyhoo, it would be nice to see such a thing. Meanwhile, if you ARE going to buy a gun of any kind, PLEASE take the time to seek out qualified instruction on how to use it - and how NOT to use it! I can't tell you how many people I've heard of who've been killed by "unloaded" guns. If you put your hands on a gun, it's loaded until you've ejected the magazine and cycled it at least twice, and THEN visually checked it again and locked the slide back (on a semi-auto, at least). If I never learned anything else from my father, I learned that in your entire life, nobody will ever hand you an unloaded gun. No matter what they say, it's loaded until YOU have confirmed that it's not. And no matter how many times I've checked it, if you point it at me, I'll disarm you. Roughly.

Mike

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 13, 2009 6:33 PM

PHOENIXROSE

You think you know--what's to come, what you are. You haven't even begun.

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
PR: Good points.

Thank you

Quote:
Change the stipulations from "May issue" to "WILL issue" on those licenses ... Seems to me, once you meet the requirements, it's not up to someone's personal discretion; you meet the legal requirements, you get the permit, you're allowed to own your firearm.

Agreed. They shouldn't be more restricted than motor vehicles, either. At least, not by much; I think a paroled murderer can own a car.

Quote:
If you put your hands on a gun, it's loaded until you've ejected the magazine and cycled it at least twice, and THEN visually checked it again and locked the slide back (on a semi-auto, at least). If I never learned anything else from my father, I learned that in your entire life, nobody will ever hand you an unloaded gun. No matter what they say, it's loaded until YOU have confirmed that it's not. And no matter how many times I've checked it, if you point it at me, I'll disarm you. Roughly.

That's just smart. Even if the slide is locked, they shouldn't be pointed at anything you don't want a hole in. If everyone handled firearms like that (i.e. how you're supposed to) we wouldn't have accidental shootings. That's exactly why there should be supervised training, an exam, and licenses as a result. It wouldn't be about 'restricting the right' ya know? Just safety and training. I'd say 'common sense' but that stuff is sadly not so common.

[/sig]

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 13, 2009 6:37 PM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

If I was patently secure that regulation of firearm ownership wouldn't be a tool to disarm me, I'd be gung-ho on helping to create some good common sense rules about gun training, purchasing, and use.

Unfortunately, it has been openly stated by the anti-gun camp that each regulation, limitation, and law is a baby-step towards complete disarmament. This doesn't inspire me to cooperate.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 13, 2009 7:01 PM

KWICKO

Quote:

If I was patently secure that regulation of firearm ownership wouldn't be a tool to disarm me, I'd be gung-ho on helping to create some good common sense rules about gun training, purchasing, and use.

Unfortunately, it has been openly stated by the anti-gun camp that each regulation, limitation, and law is a baby-step towards complete disarmament. This doesn't inspire me to cooperate.

Well, yeah... there is THAT.

And of course, there are those on the "anti-gun" side who will say, "Oh no - we'd NEVER try to take away your firearms" - but the truth is, they have indeed tried time and time again to do just that, by small and large degrees.

Now, PR, just to play devil's advocate a bit: Can you point me to the Amendment to the Constitution where it says that "...the right of the people to drive cars, shall not be infringed"?

Just sayin'. Driving a car isn't a constitutional right in nearly the same way that the right to keep and bear arms is. Odd that we treat it as a near-universal right, though - but things that are very specifically mentioned in the Bill of Rights, we don't have any problem trying to curb or take away altogether. Does that seem right to anyone here?

Mike

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 13, 2009 7:12 PM

PHOENIXROSE

You think you know--what's to come, what you are. You haven't even begun.

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Now, PR, just to play devil's advocate a bit: Can you point me to the Amendment to the Constitution where it says that "...the right of the people to drive cars, shall not be infringed"?

No, I can't. Of course, most folk were riding horses back then. They were also carrying muskets that had to be loaded one ball at a time, with the packing of powder and such. Accidental shootings in the home were probably virtually unheard of.
Things are updated with the times. Such as, for example, the common interpretation of the second amendment. Anybody here a member of a well-regulated Militia? I'm sure not. Doesn't mean I don't like mah guns. Doesn't mean I think 'complete disarmament' is a good idea, neither. Well-regulated or not, I do still hold that we should at least have a potential Militia

[/sig]

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 13, 2009 7:23 PM

KWICKO

Thanks for taking that in the spirit it was intended, PR. Just a little light-hearted ribbing, with a nugget of truth at its core...

As for militias, I'm starting to wonder if maybe we SHOULDN'T all belong to some form of a militia or other, self-formed and self-governed. As for what constitutes "well-regulated"... well, I'd say as long as it passes constitutional muster as the Constitution and Bill of Rights were written, it could hardly be said that it didn't meet the standards the founders intended!

Mike

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 13, 2009 7:35 PM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

As an aside, I'm completely willing to settle for parity.

If the police have cap and ball revolvers, I'd be prepared to reduce myself to such. If they want to carry swords, I'll strap on a sidesword. If they want to carry truncheons, I'll fit myself with a telescoping baton.

But whatever they've got, I want to have, and the right to carry it, too.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 13, 2009 9:59 PM

FREMDFIRMA

Quote:
Originally posted by UnabashedVixen:
Just don't want anyone to think I either left in a huff or am out of ammo. Neither is the case

Considerin what the stuff COSTS nowadays, that's all too common, jeepers where the hell can you get 7.62x39mm at a decent price these days ?

Not that *I* need much, given how hopeless I am with a rifle, but ppl keep asking ME, as if I'd know ?

-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 13, 2009 10:08 PM

FREMDFIRMA

Mikey -

Quote:
I learned that in your entire life, nobody will ever hand you an unloaded gun.

It's loaded - and if it ain't, and you're not IN THE PROCESS of cleaning it, it damn well SHOULD BE!

An unloaded gun is just a fancy, expensive, and not very effective club.

Quote:
As for militias, I'm starting to wonder if maybe we SHOULDN'T all belong to some form of a militia or other, self-formed and self-governed. As for what constitutes "well-regulated"... well, I'd say as long as it passes constitutional muster as the Constitution and Bill of Rights were written, it could hardly be said that it didn't meet the standards the founders intended!

You DO, silly man.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/ts_search.pl?title=10&sec=311

"Section 311. Militia: composition and classes

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied
males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section
313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a
declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States
and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the
National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are -
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard
and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of
the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the
Naval Militia."

Clear enough for you ?

-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 13, 2009 10:11 PM

FREMDFIRMA

And one final notation, you know what Obama coulda done to REALLY take the wind out of that guys sails ?

Take two secret service goons with him, just in case, and GO OUT TO HIM, and tell him flat out that "this isn't helping" and express concern for how he was representing himself, and other law abiding people to the public.

They really missed out on a serious PR coup opportunity with this one, in so many ways.

-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 14, 2009 2:03 AM

KWICKO

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Quote:
Originally posted by UnabashedVixen:
Just don't want anyone to think I either left in a huff or am out of ammo. Neither is the case

Considerin what the stuff COSTS nowadays, that's all too common, jeepers where the hell can you get 7.62x39mm at a decent price these days ?

Not that *I* need much, given how hopeless I am with a rifle, but ppl keep asking ME, as if I'd know ?

-F

Keep an eye on http://www.classicarms.us/

They've got lots of the stuff at $259/1000, which is about as low as I've seen it lately.

Oh, and since you're "in the know" on the Saiga family of rifles and shotguns, you should know that they've added the 5.45x39mm caliber to their lineup in the U.S. First rifles are just hitting the stores in the next couple weeks. Price is nice - $369 - and ammo on those runs pretty cheap still, at around $180/1080 rounds for surplus stuff. At those prices, a few thousand rounds of ammo and the savings pay for the rifle!

People have mixed opinions on the efficacy of the 5.45 round (weight, impact energy, ballistics), but for my purposes, it would be just fine. Hell, at this point I wish that Saiga would bring in a .22, with everything else set up the same as their other rifles. It would be great for practice and training, since you could actually afford to do those things with a .22... I've been considering a WASR-22 for just that reason.

Mike

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 14, 2009 3:02 AM

KWICKO

Frem:

Check this out:

http://www.centerfiresystems.com/AM762100.aspx

Lowest I've seen in a while. Still too high, though. But at least it's TRYING to come down a bit. My bet is it really won't go much lower, unfortunately. Kinda like when gas went from under $2 a gallon to over $4 in a month - and when it came back down to $2.40, we were glad to have it.

Sucks, huh?

I've had good luck finding deals at these two places:

http://gun-deals.com/index.php

and

http://www.ammoengine.com/

Although for some damn reason, ammoengine.com seems to be down right now, which really bites, because they seem to cast a wider net and catch more deals.

7.62x39 at $250/1000, or 5.45x39 at $150/1080. Seems like I might be able to make a solid financial case for a new rifle!

Mike

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 14, 2009 5:12 AM

FREMDFIRMA

Quote:
People have mixed opinions on the efficacy of the 5.45 round (weight, impact energy, ballistics), but for my purposes, it would be just fine.

I do believe Revy has some sound advice on that topic herself.
(WARNING: Language, Violence, NSFW)

Also worth noting Tuco (The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly) had some advice which was probably even more appropriate to that situation.

AND

Interesting note that a Libertarian friend sent me GeorgeD's take on this whole sign and pistol moment...
http://georgedonnelly.com/libertarian/kostric-tactical-mistake
and seeing the black banner on his site gave me a WTF moment, as Georgie WAS a Libertarian...

But apparently not any more.
http://georgedonnelly.com/asides/evolved-into-anarchist
And apparently said "Libertarian" friend has now hoisted the black banner themselves as well.

The more the merrier!
Ain't not a one of us quite as good as ALL of us!

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 14, 2009 8:10 AM

KWICKO

Quote:

Interesting note that a Libertarian friend sent me GeorgeD's take on this whole sign and pistol moment...
http://georgedonnelly.com/libertarian/kostric-tactical-mistake
and seeing the black banner on his site gave me a WTF moment, as Georgie WAS a Libertarian...

Be sure to mention to your Libertarian friend that even a lefty loon like ME could see that one off in the distance, like Omar Sharif heading for the oasis across the desert...

He pretty much echoed what I said way up above - Just because you CAN do a thing, doesn't mean you SHOULD do a thing. Kostric has the right to do what he did, obviously - and you can tell because he's still alive and walking around in a state of "not in jail". But his actions set the followers of the Second Amendment back a good ways. We were making some real inroads, too - gun sales are way up, even "liberals" are buying guns just because they can (and secretly aren't sure how long THAT situation might last), people who were actively anti-gun or at best apathetic are starting to actually think about things in a different light, and agree that if treated responsibly, there's really no reason a trained and responsible person SHOULDN'T be allowed to own a firearm.

On the other side, there are more people like you, Frem, who are starting to agree - out loud and in public, no less - that it really wouldn't be a bad idea to hand out some good training to go along with the purchase of that shiny new bang-stick.

So, while we were all on our way to somewhere nearer the middle, somewhere off the edge a bit, along comes Shooter McHickoid, all bluster and balls, hollering "Look at me, ever'body! Look what I can do! Yeeeeeeeeeeeee-HAWWWWW!" and potentially screwing it up for everybody. Right now, the Brady bunch are glad-handing each other and shaking each other's dicks all around this nation, congratulating themselves on having a moment that makes otherwise-rational people look at the TV and say, "You know, that shit just ain't right..."

This dolt is going to cost you and me money, along with anyone who believes in gun rights and responsible gun ownership and NOT waving the damn thing around just because it's illegal to wag your dick in public. Now *I* am going to have to give money to the NRA and other lobbying groups just to counteract the bad press Douchey McPistol-hand netted us.

Okay, I feel better...

Mike

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 14, 2009 2:28 PM

FREMDFIRMA

Ehh,

Eff the NRA, buncha weak-kneed quisling milquetoast sumbitches more interested in stroking each others egos and not upsetting anyone than getting the job done - and in the end about as "effective" in defending our rights as the AARP is at "representing" seniors - just like the AARP handed them over on a plate to Big Pharma and the Healthcare Industry, the NRA hands us over on a plate by helping *write* and then supporting the very crap they're trying to work against claiming that if they don't, whatever else comes along will be worse ?

Oh fekkin PLEASE, while they're busy goin around trying to sell the masters a gentler whip to hit us with, WE are the ones who wanna take the damn thing away and break it over our knee.
http://www.jpfo.org/
I might not like their religion, most certainly hate the State founded on it, but one thing's for damn sure, Jewish folk know full and well what the end RESULT of handing over that right is.

L. Neil Smith issues a blistering account of NRA collaboration here.
http://www.jpfo.org/smith/smith-friends-like-nra.htm

And a right damned good look at the matter from a fundamental perspective that contains probably the clearest, most concise explanation of the very CONCEPT at hand, as well.
http://www.jpfo.org/smith/smith-herefords.htm

So, piss on the NRA, doesn't matter how much money they got if they're unable or unwilling to rock the boat with it, and while they're not, the JFPO *is*.

-Frem
It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 15, 2009 2:53 AM

KWICKO

Good call, Frem. Sadly, the NRA is the one that gets the attention, though. But that's not to say that JPFO wouldn't make better use of the money...

Mike

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER

POST DATE