JSF01

For preperartion for a true SHTF type of deal your best bet would be to have some firearms in the most common calibers (and a stash a large statsh of ammunition), firearms in less common but still very availible at most stores (with a good supply of ammo to go along), and some firearms in rare calibers (which if you have ammunition for great if not not a big loss) The reason being, in a true all ammunition is going to be sold out. less common calibers may last a little bit longer given you a little more time to purchase more but even that won't last long. People will end up buying ammunition eveen though they do not have firearms in that caliber since at the very least it is a tradeable item. By having lots of ammo in some common calibers but firearms in many different calibers puts you at a great advantage. you could than get faverable trades with a guy that needs ammo for in a common caliber. For example guy one only has a .308 rifle and no .308 ammunition for it, but has 100 rds of .303. Guy two for example has both a .303 and .308 rifle with plenty of .308 ammunition. since guy two is in the beter position he can ask for the 100 rds of .303 for 60 rds of .308.

Or picatinny rails

Simple because it would be illegal to use a firearm durring the commision of a crime so those criminals would have been breaking the law if they had a real gun.

That sounds like it would be kind of cool to do. To bad there are some major logistical problems preventing me from being able to participate. Maybe I should just buy a crate of Mosins for my self.

It might simply have been an active shooter exercise. Someone texts thier spouse saying hey i will be late because of an active shooter exercise going on. the spouse misunderstands whats going on starts telling every one there is an active shooter. Another way is since the base would probly be on lock down during the exercise people are lined up waiting to get on to base wondering whats going on. By the time word filters to the back of the line, like a game of telephone, the message changed from active shooter exercise to just active shooter.

While you will never convince those on NJ.com that hate guns, the benifits of replying to them out number those than not saying any thing. Think of your replies more in the context of a debate, you will the person you are debating with will probably never change their mind those that read your comments might. By not answering you are in a sence telling those who do not understand the issues at work here that your side has no responce and that those anti gun people are correct. Same thing goes for facebook comments. As for those that dismiss Facebook, I must say that I find it most usefull for keeping in contact with friends. Being in the Air Force I have friends stationed all around the world. I think of email as a form to have a one on one conversation with a friend. Facebook is more like hanging out with a group of friends where eveybody can be part of the conversation.

The good news is I am an NRA member. I had just joined finally anout two months ago. I have not tried to get any one else to join the NRA yet, though just the other day I began trying to talk my brother into getting a FID.

Right now it does not look like they will have quite enough votes to pass an AW ban. So if this were to pass without an AW ban, it would basicly be a licence to print money.

Tried to sign but where I am at the only internet I have has a "security policy" that blocks out inaproprite websites. it took me a while to find a proxy site to even visi these forums, but it is causing problems when I try to sign the petition.

If I am reading this right this sound awesome. Buy a very cheap AW turn it in for $100 in a buy back program and than another $2000 from the tax credit. Repeat the next year. Even gun manufacturers could get in on it by building a line of really cheep crappy AWs just for the sole purpose for people to turn in.

I have a question that sort of goes along with this. Often when the antis are talking about the "gun show loop hole" they like to say 40% of all gun purchases are done with out a background check (I have also seen them use the same percentage for just guns purchased at gun shows so it could be the media misquoting something). Does any one know where that statistic is coming from and when? I have been to gun shows both in Montana and Virginia before and usually out of a 400-500 table show there is only 3-4 tables at most (with usually less than 10 firearms) that are not licenced dealers. I am not really seeing 40% of firearms being sold with out background checks.

I doubt it hurts there cause at all. Most anti-gun people want the US to be like England

That may work. The only problems I see is that A) most places do not have a licencing system, and those that do are usually quite anti-gun. B) you still run into the problem of people that no longer live at that adress, or no longer own firearms. Not sure how big that problem would be though.

I have been giving this some thought. I think I have an idea that could correct for that. The downside is it would take new research and polls to accomplish, which you most likely do not have the capabilities to perform. If you could find what percentage of people honestly answer questions about gun ownership in polls, you could then use that information to extrapolate the total gun number of gun owners. If your poll says that 35% of the population owns firearms but you know that 50% of gun owners lie about owning guns it would indicate actually 70% of the population owns guns.Of course the trick is figuring out what percentage the population lies about it since if a person that lies about firearm ownership is probably not going to tell you that they would lie about firearm ownership. The most simplest way to run the pool would be to a few gun ranges across country an poll them on who would answer polls on gun ownership honestly, and under what circumstances. Since they cannot lie about if whether or not they own a firearm or not when you can see they own one you know they are firearm owners. Because of that them telling you whether or not they would lie about firearm ownership would be pretty accurate. Limitations of such polls would be that the results could be skewed one way or the other by people that do not go to ranges (for example people that bought a firearm for self defense or other emergencies, than put in a drawer never to touch it again.) Overall though I think It would be a pretty good rough estimate to go off of.

I am actually kind of glad the new proposed bill is this bad. The worst the bill is for us, the less likely the bill would pass. If it was basically just a copy and paste of the 94 one, it would be much easier for politicians that "support gun rights" but want to make it look like they're doing something, to accept. It is much easier to call it a reasonable restriction when it really is only a minor annoyance to gun owners. With as tough as the restrictions are with this proposed bill, those with wavering support for gun rights are less likely to jump ship. This proposed bill than just turns into a waste of time where nothing happens. While those that want to reenact the AWB would then try to start again after this fails with one being closer to the one in 94, the more time that passes the less support it will get due to the less public pressure on the politicians. The worse the proposed bill for us is the better off we are.

It's been a while since I posted any thing in here so here you go.

I would support opening up the NICS system to everyone. Now I am not sure but I thought I read something that when NICS was put into place the NRA was fine with it being open to everyone but it was the Bradly Campaign that did not want it to be. Anyone know if that is true? I dependently do not support making it mandatory that all firearm transfers need to go through an FFL. It Is nothing more than a greater burden on law abiding citizens. The fact that you can make face to face sales is not really a problem. While many criminals may do a FTF deal to get their firearms, they are buying them from black market dealers. Making firearm transfers through an FFL is not going to change that, they will just keep on doing so illegally. More Importantly because the right to keep and bear arms if fundamentally tied to the security of a free state you do not want all firearms to be easily traced to who currently has them. FTF means if a tyrannical government were to arise or a hostile fore were to invade, They cannot just go to the ATF/Dealers and have a list of all the firearms some one may have.

Pics or it was never built!

I just bought an untouched M 1878 Martini-Henry rifle from Atlanta Cutlery. I figured that it would be a fun project to try to restore it. If I could get it operational that would be awesome. If not I would end up with a nice wall decoration. It came in last Tuesday, I never expected it to be in as great of a condition as it is. It's covered in a lot of dirt and grease from years of storage, and a little bit of pitting under the barrel in few spots, but otherwise it's almost perfect. Every thing functions smoothly as it should, and if I had ammo for it, I am sure it would shoot in it's current condition. (whether it was actually safe to do so is another question entirely. I plan on having a gun smith look it over before I would actually try to shoot it) Something like this would be perfect for you since you are looking for a wall hanger. No matter what you get, once you clean it up it would make a nice wall hanger. If you get lucky you wind up with a rifle that you could actually use if you really wanted then that's a great surprise. Even if it is fully functional it still would make a great wall hanger since the ammo for it is both very rare and so expensive that your wife might kill you for buying ammo for it. (for the cost of a box of 20 rounds you costs buy yourself a new rifle.)

Yes it is semi. The only reason I bought it is because I think it looks awesome. I also want to get the rifle one too. (and a real fully auto one as well but I am not ready to spend the money on one yet.)

Wait you meant that my new pistol that I just got today is not legal!!!!! NOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!! Yes I that is actually mine. Duel state residency FTW. Which evil features dose this pistol have? All of them.

It seems to me they are trying to thier best to deflect attention away from the economy.

Okay this might sound completely crazy and be a very dangerous game to play when it comes to gun rights, but it could be fun/funny. I was thinking about this and an Idea popped into my head. We should write emails to her and other rabidly anti gun politicians encouraging her to really try hard to pursue such a new assault weapons bill. Since this potential bill would have an almost 0% of ever passing we would not have to really worry about it regardless. But If these politicians perceive that there is much support behind these bills they will waste a lot more time, meaning they would be spending less time trying to come up with other anti gun bills, which could actually have the potential to pass. I also would love to see it actually become a bill only to be voted against 430-5 that would be hilarious (Well not love to see it make it that far, but to see it be voted down by that big of a margin I think that would really piss off those anti gun politicians) I kind of see it like a controlled burn. By having a small easily contained fire you can prevent a major Forrest fire. In general the US is moving more and more to pro gun positions, but as of now there is still enough support of anti gun laws that the government has the potential to still move towards anti gun positions especially if it were to happen in small bits. All it would take is those politicians just finding the right spot to begin their push. The longer they are focused on "assault weapons", which we all know is pretty much a nonstarter theses days, the right starting point for such action becomes a smaller and smaller target. It's all a very dangerous game to play with our rights but in the end could be very beneficial.

This is an extremely easy one. You explain to the person that they are looking at the wrong statistics because gun deaths are not any different than any other deaths, so the statistics you should be looking at are total deaths. Lets say 1 out of every 100 suicides is done by drinking a cup of Draino. If you were to get rid of all Draino suicides using Drano would probably decrease quite a bit, but would you expect to see a decrease in suicides? No you would not because a person that would have committed suicide with Draino would just use somthing else like bleach instead. Once you compare states amount of gun control with the total number of deaths you see there is no correlation. Having only 10 gun deaths an 100 knife deaths is no better than 100 gun deaths and 10 knife deaths.

This is really an impoosible question to answer. The farther back in time the more important the battle is to current history. To demonstrate my point think back 2000 years to the roman empire. There were many minor that propbably are not even remembered by history. You do not even have to change the out come of those battles to completely rewrite history. Suppose just one more soldier died durring that battle. That would mean a potential 6.6x10^240 people who exsisted that would never have exsisted at a minimum. Of course not only would those people not exsist but But the people they would have had kids with would have kides with others. That one extra soldier being killed means that by the time history got to this point not a single person alive would still exsist. If the people are all different then what happens would also be different.