Gun Control

The British bill of rights. A light in the mind of Jäger. An example to be inspired upon. A document that states that "protestants" have the right to carry arms. Be damned if you're a catholic. It's all about people rights. If some people don't share the opinion of the founders, they are not people. Be inspired by the wisdom written in it.


http://www.constitution.org/bor/eng_bor.htm

While it might have been a big step in the seventheen century, we are now more than three centuries later.

As for the canadian constitution and the charter of rights. Article 22 states that this charter doesn't limit the other rights of canadian citizens. The Canada also happened to be one of the countries that signed the universal declaration of humans rights. The article 17 of this declaration provides for property.

Protestants or protestants? Dammit, there's that peanut again...

Humm, I didn't find a word about the right to breath clean air, I guess we have to assume it. Ans excuse me if I used the word British instead of English, I wasn't aware it changed the meaning of it's content. And I notice that you write that the right to bear arms to all citizens in England was accepted eventhough it isn't written in the bill of rights. Funny that sometimes something exists even when not written and sometimes you can be considered naive if you only assume so.

And yes in the canadian mentality the wellbeing of people is over and above any right of ownership. I think that the best place to enjoy all possible rights and freedom is in the jungle.

And what is there to say about the Universal declaration of human rights. I guess since Mrs Roosevelt was an actor in its creation you will find it is a terrible thing. After all only 58 countries adopted it. They must all be against humanity. Again a bunch of people that find that people are more worthy than their belongings. http://www.ohchr.org/EN/UDHR/Pages/Language.aspx?LangID=eng

By the way the brits are trying hard to modernise their bill of rights. They already did it in 1998. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/42/introduction?view=plain

Since the creation of the European council they are working on one that would better reflect the present.

I'll keep searching for the peanut though ...

Dancamp wrote:

Humm, I didn't find a word about the right to breath clean air, I guess we have to assume it.

Air, land, water are all part of the common wealth, oh uneducated one. You might do a little bit better if you took the time to read some of Locke and understood how rights vs duties, priviledge vs liberties, etc interact, and how those concepts were used by the men who wrote the EBR - and the American Founders who were the grandchildren of those men's generation.

Socialist or not, why do you happily remain so ignorant of how your country works, it's history, and what rights you do and don't have? How do you possibly benefit from that - in any discussion?

You have nothing to fear; Canada's preference for "peace, order and good government" instead of individual rights and freedoms offers sound constitutional guarantees that you won't find anything criticizing your socialist beliefs. The Quebec school system might have failed you badly, but that is no reason to remain ignorant your entire life. Here's a link to what is generally accepted as the definitive text on Canada's constitution and governance; was required first year reading for me and remains so for most law, political science, criminology, etc students in Canada to this day:
http://www.chapters.indigo.ca/books/Constitutional-Law-of-Canada-Peter-W-Hogg/9780779813612-item.html?cookieCheck=1

Relax. I don't know Hogg, so you don't have to be suspicious when you find you really don't have constitutional property rights in Canada as you naively think you do in your ignorance. Hogg and I aren't running a conspiracy theory on you. We're just trying to help you deal with your ignorance.

After all, you've already learned how registration in Canada has and continues to be used for confiscation. How owning firearms makes you subject to "inspection" of your home without warrant. How that "inspection" can include taking copies of all your information and data stored digitally. Why not extend your education from beyond the issue of gun control and extend it just a little further?

Quote :

And I notice that you write that the right to bear arms to all citizens in England was accepted eventhough it isn't written in the bill of rights. Funny that sometimes something exists even when not written and sometimes you can be considered naive if you only assume so.

Your ignorance of constitutional documents and the relevance of ancillary documents does not change the fact those rights existed for all people and were extended to all people. I assume you grasp the concept that Canada's Supreme Court has extended and expanded rights beyond what is written in the Charter. So why in any rational world you would figure "aha!" because the EBR was narrow in some areas (because Catholics had the right to arms affirmed in earlier documents and subsequently confirmed by courts) it somehow different?

What Blackstone wrote in his guide to the EBR and its interpretation, specifically about the right to arms, didn't mean anything to you? I don't know why it wouldn't be, because both Canadian and American courts as well as English courts have always found it to be the most authoritative document on the EBR.

The real and obvious problem here is you didn't even know Blackstone existed, much less the English Bill of Rights, before this conversation started.

You're a Francophone, I get why you wouldn't be interested in something called The English Bill of Rights, or a legal interpretive text by a guy named "Blackstone". But you don't need to continue that ignorance indefinitely - now you have a choice.

Quote :

And yes in the canadian mentality the wellbeing of people is over and above any right of ownership.

Another guy who finds a woman raped and strangled with her pantyhose much more moral and and infinitely preferable to a woman standing there with a handgun and a would be rapist laying on the floor. Because an armed survivor over a raped and dead victim always contributes to the welfare of Canadians.

And possibly why a woman in Quebec is many times more likely to be raped in Quebec than in Montana. Or do we just write that off to all those hot blooded Francophone studs?

Quote :

And what is there to say about the Universal declaration of human rights. I guess since Mrs Roosevelt was an actor in its creation you will find it is a terrible thing. After all only 58 countries adopted it. They must all be against humanity. Again a bunch of people that find that people are more worthy than their belongings. http://www.ohchr.org/EN/UDHR/Pages/Language.aspx?LangID=eng

I didn't say anything for or against approving of that declaration. Are you attempting to throw up a strawman regarding your claim to having constitutional property rights, or are you really that thick?

What I did say is you don't even understand how your country works. The UNDHR does not give you property rights in Canada. I'm aware you smugly think it does, but it doesn't. Those rights were explicitly and purposely excluded by Prime Minister Trudeau and the provincial premiers when they were writing the Charter. The Supreme Court has repeatedly reaffirmed that not only do those property rights not exist, but they refuse to "read in" those property rights.

I've provided how many links to court decisions that emphasize that? Is your Google fu really so weak that you can find all these irrelevant links dealing with Mrs Roosevelt but you can't find Supreme Court decisions from your own country and read them?

To cut to the issue: do you still actually claim to have constitutional property rights in Canada?

Quote :

By the way the brits are trying hard to modernise their bill of rights. They already did it in 1998. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/42/introduction?view=plain

That's fine. They have a mechanism for doing that, which is different from simply ignoring what was there before.

My bet is the Brits won't have property rights in any future versions of their rights. I suspect that, in a country where CCTV surveillance is everywhere, privacy won't get a real strong showing either. And if that's what they decide as a country what they want in crafting those "modern" rights, so be it.

Obama isn't going to take anyone's guns. He can't yet.

The D.C. versus Heller Supreme Court decision affirmed an individual right to own firearms.

And we all know that the Heller decision was a 5-4 decision with liberal justices voting against gun rights.

In his short tenure, obama simply added two more SCOTUS picks who WILL take away your guns if/when they are ever in the majority.

Rule292 wrote:

Obama isn't going to take anyone's guns. He can't yet.

I really don't think the U.S. will ever see the day our guns get "taken." The battle being fought on gun rights today is over things like high capacity mags and carry laws.

Hertz wrote:

Rule292 wrote:

Obama isn't going to take anyone's guns. He can't yet.

I really don't think the U.S. will ever see the day our guns get "taken." The battle being fought on gun rights today is over things like high capacity mags and carry laws.

Yep.

Ban lead and the other components of ammo under the guise and authority of the EPA or some other non-accountable government arm. And restrict it's alternative (tungsten and other heavy weight metals). De facto bans.

Dress rehersal was the CPSIA of 2008. The one that has the bike manufacturers scared shitless with kids motorcycles since they are liable for everything that has even traces of lead in any component.

Anyone here following the issue of Project Gunrunner?

TBird1 wrote:

Anyone here following the issue of Project Gunrunner?

Yeah. Interesting how that is being swept under the rug and there doesn't seem to be a lot of media interest, eh?

Jäger wrote:

TBird1 wrote:

Anyone here following the issue of Project Gunrunner?

Yeah. Interesting how that is being swept under the rug and there doesn't seem to be a lot of media interest, eh?

I found two original press articles on this- one from CBS News and the other from USA Today. That's it! Lots of blather on the internet but precious little real information. Also, no follow-ups on those two articles. Investigative journalism sure isn't what it used to be.

Project Gunrunner - is that where the ATF actually allows guns to be sold illegally to people who then take the guns into Mexico and supply them to drug runners and "not so nice" people around the border towns? Without Mexico even knowing what the ATF is doing?

Is that where the ATF is basically a secret arms supplier to Mexican criminals?

Yeah, that's the story in a nutshell. Little in the way of details, however. The reason for the Project is a sting operation to identify and prosecute the buyers actually supplying the guns to the drugrunners. The feds supplied guns that could be tracked and later identified when used. It seems they downplayed the possibility that our own LEOs could be shot by these very same guns. There are two LEOs dead so far.

The pro-gun folks are in a lather over this and I don't see their point. They didn't want any restrictions on gun sales anyway, so why the uproar over this? Unless they can't stand the competition (from the feds). Their objections seem very disingenuous to me. They use this issue as a focal point to "rally the troops" against possible added controls on gun sales. Where was their concern before? It's not like the drug wars just started.

Maybe I'm missing something here- that's why I'm looking for info.

I think it's a hypocritical thing.

The ATF is doing something illegal. That's pretty stupid and just damn wrong, yet they are the FEDS and they make the rules.

*waits for the peanut gallery*

Actually, most reasonable gun folks and the NRA as well are not in favor of "no restrictions" .

There's some very smart and very reasonable gun laws on the books.
The enforcement and punishment for existing laws is pretty lame, but there are very few intelligent people that
propose "no restrictions at all".

There have been undercover buys by news reporters, etc. at gun shows where no backgrounds were checked, no IDs, nothing. It was recorded on-camera. The existing laws are a joke because so many flout them. I can see where the feds might want to get to the bottom of this but they always do things in a heavy-handed way and often make an existing problem worse. That doesn't mean that there wasn't a real problem to begin with, however.

motokid wrote:

Perhaps you should read this:

Not Coming For Your Guns <--clicky for source

Quote :

The Supreme Court’s Second Amendment ruling is yet another reminder: Obama is not, in fact, coming for your guns. John P. Avlon busts the right’s latest fear-mongering fantasy.

Yeah, it's always "fear-mongering fantasy" claims from the barking mad socialists on the left while trying to downplay what they're up to. Soothing words that we should listen to assurances they have no intent to attack Second Amendment rights.

And when people start thinking maybe they should believe the shit Obama and his supporters are trying to peddle, obviously they should read this. John P. Avlon was obviously too busy stylin' on the Jon Stewart show to notice. Straight from one of their own gun prohibitionists is confirmation that is exactly what Obama intends to do if he can do it without driving the last nails in his second presidency coffin:

Obama tells the Brady Bunch he's working under the covers to enact gun control <--clicky for source

If that's not good enough, how about straight from the horse's ass horse's mouth himself:

Obama looking for ways around Congress to enact gun control <--clicky for source

Obama has a long, long history of supporting Draconian gun control, and a long and unbroken history as a serial liar. Anyone who believes Obama ISN'T planning severe gun control when it can no longer politically harm him is either a supporter of those kinds of policies or needs to get their meds checked.

If and when Obama takes a shot at enacting more gun control, it will come explained by the usual glib liberal bullshit: that the law is "reasonable", "smart", and intelligent people will support it. In other words, if you don't support this attack on your Second Amendment rights, then you're unreasonable and stupid.

Obama and his ilk have long been waging a war of incrementalism on the Second Amendment. Two 5-4 SCOTUS decisions on the Second Amendment being an individual right - the only Amendment with "shall not be infringed" in the wording, and while all other Amendments are accepted without question as affirmations of the rights of the individual. And yet, Avlon and others want to tell us we don't have to worry about their fellow socialists and assorted collection of leftists planning to curtail Second Amendment rights.

One is left to wonder: if their cause is so just, why do they have to lie about it all the time to support it?

Keep spreading lies and mis-information. If you shout it loud enough and long enough maybe somebody will listen.

Quote :

WASHINGTON — More than five months after Rep. Gabrielle Giffords was shot in the head, the White House has yet to take any new steps on gun violence, even though that's what President Barack Obama called for in the wake of the shooting.

The silence from the administration is drawing criticism from gun control activists and even some of Obama's Democratic allies. Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J., told the president in a letter last week that the administration "has not shown the leadership to combat gun violence."

It's in keeping with Obama's general stance on gun issues since taking office: Outspoken earlier in his political career in favor of tougher gun measures, he's treaded carefully since becoming president, almost never raising the topic except when asked and offering, at most, tepid support for legislation he once embraced, such as re-enacting a ban on assault weapons.

Quote :

There are some issues Democratic Presidents can't seem to win, and gun control is one of them. As a legislator, Barack Obama backed tighter gun laws; as a presidential candidate, he pledged restraint. "I'm not going to take away your guns," he said at a Pennsylvania glass factory in September 2008. He hasn't. Last year the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, citing "extraordinary silence and passivity," graded Obama an F on gun control.

During his tenure, the President has also expanded gun rights by signing laws that allow the possession of firearms in national parks and on Amtrak. And yet, he can't get a nod from the National Rifle Association because those measures were tucked into broader bills Obama liked.

Not a damn thing has changed since Obama took office regarding guns, ammo, or the sales of any of it other than the rhetoric by those who are simply anti-Obama.

You are free and clear to have opposing political and ideological views from the president, but don't push lies and nonsense when it's clearly not a part of the overall agenda.

I can ride right down to my local gun store and buy an AR-15 today. (if I had the money)


Tell me something - who benefits financially from fear-mongering about gun rights?

I'll tell ya - the gun industry.
Kinda makes for perfect marketing and advertising doesn't it?


As of today - your gun rights have not changed one single bit from what they were 5 years ago.

As was poiinted out - if their cause is so just... why do they have to lie about it? And while they're defending the clown currently conducting amateur hour in the White House "working under the radar", one has to wonder what they find so difficult to understand about the words "shall not be infringed"?

motokid wrote:

Keep spreading lies and mis-information. If you shout it loud enough and long enough maybe somebody will listen.

Well, you Obama acolytes and the article you presented to support how benign Obama is about gun control are certainly misinformation and lies. You've tried it - is anybody believing you?

Part of your credibility problem is the identity of the people whose statements are contradicting you and John Avlon.

Are we supposed to believe Sarah Brady of the Brady Bunch was lying when she said Obama told her he was very interested in gun control and was working on implementing it "under the radar"? You know that Sarah Brady is one of the foremost gun grabbers and gun banners in the US, right?

Let's hear from Sarah and compare it to what Motokid from Delaware (home to twice as many extremist hate crimes per capita as gun-filled Montana) wants us to believe about his buddy Barack:

She said the President told her he wanted to talk about gun control and "fill us in that it was very much on his agenda." She went on to say Obama told her, "I just want you to know that we are working on it. We have to go through a few processes, but under the radar."

Sarah Brady says Obama told her gun control is in fact on his agenda, and he's currently working on it under the radar.

Meanwhile, back at the White House clown show, just after Sarah Brady outed Obama on his agenda:

"Faced with a Congress hostile to even slight restrictions of Second Amendment rights, the Obama administration is exploring potential changes to gun laws that can be secured strictly through executive action, administration officials say. With the Obama administration gearing up for its first attempt at reforming federal gun policy, Vice President Joe Biden’s office has begun assuming more of an active role... The vice president, after all, was the lawmaker most closely associated with the last major congressional effort to refigure Second Amendment rights. The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 was written, in large part, by then-senator Biden. It included major curbs on assault weapons, not only barring the manufacturing of 19 different brands of firearms, but also outlawing the possession of newly manufactured high-capacity magazines."

Aside from the fact doing this puts another Pinocchio nose on Obama and his promises of transparency, the obvious question is this:
If what Obama is planning is so "reasonable" - why does he have to do his dirty work under the covers and seek ways to avoid Congress?

So Motokid's right: somebody's lying here on the topic of how harmless Obama and his administration are on gun control.

It might be Sarah Brady, one of the nation's foremost gun grabbers and gun banners, when she said Obama told her it was on his agenda and he's working on it under the radar. (do we need to stop and point out that here we have Obama caught, yet again, as a serial liar? How does working "under the radar" and attempting to circumvent Congress work with his signed pledge promising "an unprecedented level of openness in government"?)

Or the liar might be the spokesmen for the Obama administration, who put out press releases saying that Obama and Biden are exploring more gun control - and as part of doing that are looking how far they can go using executive orders and federal agencies in order to sidestep Congress.

Or it might be Motokid and John Avlon - whose article Motokid suggested we read to assure ourselves of how harmless he is - who are the ones doing the lying Motokid was complaining about.

Being as Motokid wasn't in the audience Brady had with The Anointed One (nor was John Avlon, presumably), my guess is that Sarah Brady knows more about what Obama admitted he was scheming and plotting than Motokid and John Avlon do.

Being as Obama administration spokesman get their talking points from The Anointed One and not Motokid, my guess is that Administration spokesmen know more about what Obama is up to than Motokid does.

Motokid's credibility problem arises from the fact that the very President we're telling us is not planning on more gun control is telling prominent gun banners and the press corps that more gun control is exactly what he's planning on.

Quote :

As a legislator, Barack Obama backed tighter gun laws; as a presidential candidate, he pledged restraint. "I'm not going to take away your guns," he said at a Pennsylvania glass factory in September 2008.

Oh, another Obama promise? Well hell, nothing to worry about then! If he wouldn't lie about allowing five days for public comment before signing bills into law, having shovel ready jobs, transparency in government, etc... why would he lie about gun control? Oh wait... he did lie about all those other things? Jeez, I guess maybe he was lying about gun control as well - especially when he told Brady he was working on his gun control agenda "under the radar" and publicly says he is exploring how he can bypass Congress with his gun control agenda.

Quote :

During his tenure, the President has also expanded gun rights by signing laws that allow the possession of firearms in national parks and on Amtrak.

Major fail. Obama didn't change the law ONCE AGAIN allowing firearms in National Parks. Bush did. And the legislative action for that to happen took place long before Obama, taking effect January 9th. All Obama fanboys should know he was sworn into office January 20th - 11 days after the legislation took effect.

The regulation prohibiting the possession of firearms in National Parks and National Wildlife Refuges was promulgated by the Department of the Interior in 1983 and is listed at 36 C.F.R. 2.4. The Bush Administration amended this regulation on December 10 2008, by adding subsection (h) which states:
Notwithstanding any other provisions in this Chapter,
a person may possess, carry, and transport concealed,
loaded, and operable firearms within a national park
area in accordance with the laws of the state in which
the national park area, or that portion thereof, is
located, except as otherwise prohibited by applicable
Federal law.
This amendment went into effect 30 days later on January 9, 2009.

But when you're misrepresenting and spinning for Obama, it doesn't hurt to claim he was responsible for doing that, of course. Lots of people will probably believe it.

Quote :

Not a damn thing has changed since Obama took office regarding guns, ammo, or the sales of any of it other than the rhetoric by those who are simply anti-Obama.

Really?

So the BATF under Obama HASN'T ruled that US made M1 Garand rifles (the same ones sold under the CMP) are a "threat to public safety in the U.S.", and barred those US rifles returned from Korea from being sold to the public? You're saying that actually hasn't happened, that it's all anti-Obama rhetoric? Cross your heart and hope to die, that's all a pack of lies?

You're telling us the ATF DIDN'T just release a study discussing the suitability of certain "non-sporting" firearms for importation and sale in the US, with the study saying that those firearms with military type features are not suitable for sporting purposes and so do not qualify for legal importation? Considering how often the words "sporting purpose" appear in federal firearms legislation, and that ATF can make regulation without Congressional oversite, talk about laying the groundwork for a massive attack on preventing importation of firearms.

But you say none of that really happened, it's all just lies, huh? You want more?

Quote :

You are free and clear to have opposing political and ideological views from the president, but don't push lies and nonsense when it's clearly not a part of the overall agenda.

Given the above, you might want to look in the mirror the next time you try that little propaganda speech while shilling for the Obama agenda. If you can find the time from your efforts to push Montana as a "hotbed of extremists" of course...

Quote :

I can ride right down to my local gun store and buy an AR-15 today. (if I had the money)

Not if it's a Class III you won't - your state is afraid of those.

Quote :

Tell me something - who benefits financially from fear-mongering about gun rights?

Being as fear-mongering is the stock in trade of the gun grabbers trying to deceive Americans that there is such a threat that the words "shall not be infringed" should be ignored, your accusing those whose rights are under attack of fear-mongering is rather amusing.

The real question is: who benefits from all the bullshit trying to assure gun owners Obama has changed and no longer has a Draconian gun control agenda when Obama himself is saying quite the opposite?

I'll tell ya: all the barking mad socialists, statists, leftists, and pseudo libertarians and conservatives who refuse to accept the meaning of the Second Amendment and the words "shall not be infringed". And the first thing they need before they can advance their agenda is to lull gun owners into complacency with BS and spin about how they can go back to sleep, there's nothing to fear from Obama.

Quote :

As of today - your gun rights have not changed one single bit from what they were 5 years ago.

Kind of like telling parents the registered sex offender living next door and watching porn is nothing to worry about, because the kids have gone to school and back every day since he moved in without being molested...

Yeah gun laws have changed, contrary to that claim of yours as well. A few examples:

Bush enabled the carrying of firearms in National Parks again, something you couldn't do five years ago.

While Obama on the other hand has prevented American made M1 Garands from being brought back to the US - something that could be done five years ago. Under Obama, they have suddenly been ruled a "threat to public safety". And the BATF is setting the stage for massive firearms prohibitions with their little "study" on what is "sporting" (ignoring, as they always do, that the word "sporting" does not appear anywhere in the Second Amendment, nor the discussion of the Founders on the purpose of the Second Amendment and what it should say).

The semantics game says "See, prohibiting the importation of firearms, lead in ammunition, etc doesn't affect your gun rights one single bit". True, the availability of firearms and ammunition is badly diminished by these changes. You might not be able to get ammunition - but if you could, your rights to use it would be unchanged. That's not so bad, is it?

Maybe you should start another poll: not like the one which shocked you about how few people trusted and would vote for Obama. Instead, this time ask how many people believe your claims that Obama doesn't have an anti-gun agenda. I'd like to see how that one goes.

A little refresher on how firearms-friendly The Anointed One is. Obama has voted in favour of or expressed he supports all of the positions below - he has yet to publicly renounce even one of them.

• As a senator, supported a complete ban on handgun ownership.
  
• Supported a ban on inexpensive handguns
  
• Opposes Right To Carry laws
  
• Supports local gun bans in Chicago, Washington, D.C., and other cities.
  
• Voted to uphold local gun bans and the criminal prosecution of people who use firearms in self-defense - twice.
  
• Supports gun owner licensing and gun registration.
  
• Refused to sign a friend-of-the-court Brief in support of individual Second Amendment rights in the Heller case.
  
• Supported the Washington DC gun ban while the Heller case was being heard.
  
• Supported a proposal to ban gun stores within 5 miles of a school or park - meaning just about every gun store in America.
  
• Voted to ban almost all rifle ammunition commonly used for hunting and sport shooting.
  
• Endorsed a 500% increase in the federal excise tax on firearms and ammunition.
  
• Voted for an Illinois State Senate bill to ban and confiscate semiautomatic "assault weapons".
  
• Wants to re-impose the Clinton Gun Ban.
  
• Supports mandatory micro-stamping.
  
• Supports mandatory waiting periods.
  
• Supports one-gun-a-month purchase restrictions.
  
• Supports mandatory firearm training requirements for all gun owners and a ban on gun ownership for persons under the age of 21.

Now, Motokid is asking that you please believe Obama's position statements and votes are not those of a Draconian anti-gun statist who REALLY doesn't like the Second Amendment. That his telling Sara Brady he is working "under the radar" on a gun control agenda is nothing to be concerned about. That his press releases saying he and Joe Biden are working on gun control measures - using executive orders and other means to bypass Congress - is nothing to be concerned about.

No, any concerns about Obama and his "under the radar" gun control agenda is just firearms industry fear mongering. That's all it is.

You're supposed to go to sleep at this point, feeling safe and comfty after being assured by Motokid that you have nothing to worry about regarding your Second Amendment rights.

I'm not educated enough to understand (in spite of the info presented herein) all of what my two favorite * cough * forum site posters are debating here, but I'll go out on a limb and say we're (this Nation - the USA) heading for a revolution (for one reason or another).

This is my next CA purchase: http://www.lwrci.com/p-129-m6a2-d-dea.aspx

So that one should keep the varmints away and if not the two 45 Sig Sauers should reduce the possibility of a hostile POC.

Thanks for the discussion on the real matters that count.

Sincerely...

X-Racer wrote:

I'll go out on a limb and say we're (this Nation - the USA) heading for a revolution (for one reason or another).

I don't think so. Revolution isn't justified just because the last election didn't go your way. As long as the ballot box is open, the ammunition box will remain closed.

Now if Obama manages to trash the US economy so badly that the country falls into economic ruin writ large, then a descent into anarchy is certainly possible.

Quote :

This is my next CA purchase: http://www.lwrci.com/p-129-m6a2-d-dea.aspx

So that one should keep the varmints away and if not the two 45 Sig Sauers should reduce the possibility of a hostile POC.

Well, that will put you ahead of another "assault rifle" (we'll ignore for the moment that the "assault rifles" in question never have been considered assault rifles) ban if Obama decides to indulge that personal bias of his.

LWRC make very good kit. However, I think both the piston models and the really short barrels are ingenious solutions to nonexistent problems. On my Small Arms Instructor's Course last year, a screwup left us without weapons lubricant on one of our big range days. By the end of the day it had been fairly reliably determined throughout the entire course that an absolutely dry M16 variant will fire approximately 1600 rounds while being fired at a high rate and getting smoking hot before experiencing failures to feed and failures to extract. That's a worst case scenario, and yet the gas impingement operating system works just fine. I've never had any problems with my weapon either back here at home on ranges or overseas on deployments, even in really cruddy conditions, so I don't see what the piston operating system solves. My personal opinion is that the piston system works just as well as the gas system, but mostly it is a sales gimmick.

Second, the only advantage I can imagine from a 14" bbl is if all your intended use is in houses and from within vehicles. Even then, I'd still prefer the folding butt with the standard length barrel. Reducing the barrel length by 6" does not produce any advantage that makes up for the loss of bullet velocity and terminal effectiveness that the 20" bbl offers. Expansion ratio means barrel lengths mean a big difference with the smaller calibers, losing approximately 50 fps of muzzle velocity for each inch a barrel is shortened.

But... you should and probably will buy whatever it is that tickles your fancy.

Jag: Yes... I was referring to the second scenario. Not from who was in office.

...and I'm not educated in the science of the firing types. It was strictly a looks cool, "Tickle my Fancy" pick. ...but thanks for the input. I had another question I'll ask you offline.

@ Jager

You a big Glenn Beck fan? You sure sound like one.

A) I did not vote for Obama

B) Never voted for a Dem for president in all my life. Not once.
C) Never voted for a Rep for president in all my life. Not once.

D) This train wreck we are living through was started long before Obama took office.

E) I'll have to look into some of the crap you posted - but it's Saturday evening and I just don't care that much.


I don't support Obama. I just think he's one heck of a lot better than Bush ever was.

At least we've not started any new wars since Obama took office. That's the best thing I can say about him.

Most of the local gun laws are not created by the President. They are created by the local government.

If my state has bans on certain guns, it's the state's fault. Not the Pres.