PDM

Putting Israel to the side for a moment, don't we here in the good ole USA owe the Iranians a serious ass kicking? There is a tab that's certainly way past due: The embassy takeover in the late seventies, the bombing of the Marine barracks in Lebanon (carried out by Hezbollah, an Iranian sponsored, armed and trained force), the many, many US soldiers killed in Iraq either directly by Iranian agents and/or by IEDs manufactured and supplied by Iran, etc. etc. I really don't want to see our troops in harms way again, but these goat f***ers really need to be schooled. From what I know, many average Iranians are pro-American, but the fanatics in charge need to be introduced to the business end of a JDAM.

I've used Lincoln Park True Value many times and it always has been a good experience. Fast (the forms are almost always filled out by Bruce in advance -- last purchase I was in and out in 20 minutes) and cheap. $40 per transfer, and in the past they didn't charge me any extra for multiple transfers. Just call ahead to make sure Bruce will be there.

After the shooting a few days ago in midtown Manhattan, I saw a newspaper article (I think it was in the Daily News) that referred to the .45 the gunman used as a "powerful handgun" with some non-sensical quote from a police officer to the effect that a hit from a .45 is virtually always fatal. In other words, yet another attempt to demonize the particular gun used, notwithstanding the fact that the magazine only held 8 rounds, which i thought all of the gun banners thought was a-ok. My point is that, yes, these numbnuts will always find some reason to seek to ban any firearm and yes, I believe that if an "assault weapons ban" and mag capacity restrictions went into place, they'd soon move along to the next target. Why does anyone "need" a .45 or a .357? Those calibers are too powerful -- no one needs more than a 9mm! Then a .38, then a .22, etc.,etc. I used to think dialogue with these people might be possible, but I came to realize that unfortunately isn't the case.

The national reciprocity bill was a big mistake and a federal ccw bill should have been proposed instead. The state reciprocity bill raises issues that federal ccw permiting legislation wouldn't -- specifically that states with stricter laws (eg require training) are being forced to accept the "lowest common denominator." There is ample justification for a federal CCW bill -- the 2A right is an individual, civil right. Just like Title VII prohibits discrimination based on race, religion, etc., federal ccw legislation could be seen as protecting a civil right. Federal CCW legislation could be available to anyone who wants to carry nationwide on a shall issue basis, with a training requirement to shut up the people who criticized the reciprocity bill b/c some states don't require training. It wouldn't trump state law -- people would be free to rely on their own state permits (or constitutional carry where that applies) and the current hodge podge reciprocity system. But a federal ccw bill would certainly help people in the "may issue" states and would also streamline the process for those who wanted to be able to carry nationwide without worrying. As for NJ, I'm amazed that no one at least tries to put more pressure on the governor. His deflections -- blaming the current state of affairs on a Democractic legislature -- are nonsense. All he needs to do is issue a directive that carrying for lawful self-defense constutitutes"substantial need". Connecticut is also a "may issue" state but people are routinely granted permits there. We really don't need a lawsuit and a new law -- just a governor and administration that has some balls and the will to do the right thing.

Thanks. I called S&W and they were very helpful and told me the same thing you guys did -- need a new buffer tube kit. The guy also mentioned that the castle nut is staked and it sounds like its a PITA to wrench that thing off of the lower. I think I will probably take it to a gunsmith to do the install. I can't imagine it would be all that expensive. Or I may just decide to leave the thing as is. Not sure that I want to spend another $180 bucks to install a new stock on a $600 rifle.

That's where I'm confused. Do I have to remove the buffer tube? The ace stock seems to come with a piece of foam that slides right over the existing buffer tube. Do I need a new buffer tube?

I am going to pick up an M&P 15 sport. I think I may want to replace the pinned m-4 stock with an ace stock. I located some youtube videos for removal of a collapsible stock, but I can't seem to locate a video on removal of a pinned stock. Does anyone have a reference for me? Will I need a special tool? Any input is greatly appreciated.

I know that Magpul makes 15 rd AR mags and that there are a few other manufacturers, including some local people making them. Do people have good/bad experiences or any recommendations as to which are the most reliable? I'm thinking of ordering the magpul at $21 a piece. Thanks.

I have a P-01 and it is a great gun. Two words of caution -- 1) the DA/SA trigger is gritty and the DA pull is very long. If you are used to the smoother trigger of a Sig or a striker fired gun you might not find it to your liking; 2) since the DA trigger pull is long, if you have small hands (and/or short fingers) you might not find that the P-01 fits your hand very well, even though it is a "compact" gun and very ergonomic. Definitely fondle one for a bit before you buy.

Seems to me there is would be some real demand out there for a handy, quality made, reasonably affordable reliable pistol caliber carbine. I have a kel-tec sub 2000, which is a great idea that was poorly executed and now hard to find from what I hear. The KRISS is very expensive and hard to find. Marlin and RUger discontinued their carbines. Enough with the small CCW pistols already! How about a reliable polymer .45 acp carbine for $500?

I've looked for 15 rd Mini-14 mags and they don't exist. Just curious, why would you go through the trouble and potential (albeit unlikely) legal issues involved with pinning a 20 rd mag? Who really cares if it's 15 or 10?

I don't have to assume anything. I can read the Heller and McDonald decisions, which from a real world practical standpoint tell us what the scope of the 2A is (with many fuzzy areas, obviously). Justice Scalia clearly wrote that not all types of arms are covered by the 2A. What are covered are arms in common use for a lawful purpose, with a particular focus on the core use of self-defense. He also gave lip service to the notion that a purpose of the 2A was to "resist tyranny" but did not explicitly include this in the core purpose of the 2A. Thus, machine guns, bazookas, flamethrowers, grenades, etc. all could clearly be banned, IMO (not commonly lawfully owned and not useful in self-defense) . Semi-automatic "assault rifles"? Given that millions of these are lawfully owned for legitimate purposes -- sporting and self-defense -- it seems clear to me that these types of rifles can't be banned outright. As for the magazines, would a ban on 100 round or 30 round magazines eliminate the lawful ownership of these firearms for lawful purposes? I think not. An AR with a 20 round mag or even a 10 round mag is still perfectly suitable for target competition, hog hunting, and self-defense, and still useful to "resist tyranny". People can debate whether the costs of such a ban would outweigh the benefits, but I believe it would pass constitutional muster if reviewed by the Supreme Court.

I think that this is a question that needs to be asked more often by gun rights advocates. We are so busy arguing against any magazine ban -- either on practical grounds (the ban would have no impact) or constitutional grounds -- that we miss the opportunity to highlight that gun control advocates virtually never have any factual basis for their proposals and absolutely never consider the real costs that their proposals would impose on law abiding citizens. I was at a conference and asked Richard Aborn (past president of Handgun Control Inc (precedecessor to Brady) and current gun control talking head) where the 10 round limit comes from. Why not 12, or 15 or 8? His response was that it "seemed like the right number" being slightly more than the capacity of the largest capacity revolver and a "reasonable" number of rounds for self-defense. If we are honest with ourselves, a 10 round magazine probably is more than enough for virtually any realistic civilian self-defense scenario, particularly with a spare mag or two. The real argument against the 10 round limitation is that a huge, huge number of firearms have already been sold with mags between 10 and 20 rounds and an even larger number of additional magazines have been purchased. There would be a huge cost to a ban, even with a grandfather clause because these items would become non-transferrable. In addition, there is a potential incremental benefit from a self-defense standpoint to having more than 10 rounds, even if 10 rounds could be considered sufficient in most scenarios. Again, if we are honest, the same incremental benefit from a self-defense scenario also results in an incremental danger if larger mags are used by violent criminals. I will probably get slammed for this, but I would be fine with an outright ban on mags greater than 30 rounds, provided that people are compensated for turning them in (or make them NFA items and require those procedures to be followed). Mags between 20 and 30 rounds could be banned with a grandfather provision, and mags of 20 rounds or less would not be affected. Do I think this would have a meaningful impact on violence? No. But at least there is some reasoning behind the proposal, which people can obviously disagree with. The cost to law abiding citizens would also be minimal, and the proposal could be wrapped in a larger firearms bill that could, for example, expand nationwide CCW rights.

I've purchased a number of times from Buds and never had any problem whatsoever. They always shipped exactly what I ordered, within the times advertised, and ordering was a synch on their website -- I've never had a need to speak with anyone there (it is hard to get through). I've also saved hundreds and hundreds of dollars. The problem is finding a reliable, convenient and reasonably priced FFL in this state. I much prefer that process to the high prices, surly attitude and crappy customer service I've found at virtually all of the gun shops in my area.

Could I/would I vote for Menendez? Ummmmm ..... no. But, if Kyrillos was clearly anti-gun ownership, as opposed to neutral(ish), I probably would say f-him and not vote at all.

GRIZ -- I understand that, but I think his NJ voting record is a good indicator of how he might vote. His vote against OGAM is definitely a positive, but then again I believe all NJ republicans voted against it so he clearly had political cover there. I have a feeling that when it comes to national carry reciprocity, he would probably vote "no" in the US Senate. Again, I think it all boils down to the fact that as it stands NJ politicians, including our Governor and guys like Kyrillos, see zero upside in extending themselves in any way on 2A issues. The best we're gonna get is neutrality and perhaps some resistance to expansion of existing gun control laws. That is, UNLESS the grassroots 2A community continues to grow and let's their voices be heard. I will vote for Kyrillos over Menendez, but I plan sending him a letter expressing my views on the 2A. The more people that do that the better,

I had read some fairly negative things about Joe Kyrillos' (will be running against Menendez for US Senate) views on the 2A. OnTheIssues reports that he responded as follows regarding gun control: 1) He believes existing gun laws for NJ and that they don't need any amendments; 2) He supports restricts on the purchase and possession of guns; 3) He opposes concealed carry; and 4) He supports requiring a license for gun possession. #s 3 and 4 are obviously troubling. #s 1 and 2 are negative to neutral -- he doesn't support additional gun control measures in NJ and the question regarding restrictions on purchase and possession of guns is poorly worded -- that could mean anything from simple background checks to registration. I dug a little further on his actual record, and saw that he voted against OGAM. So, while he is clearly less than ideal on 2A issues, that "no vote" on OGAM in and of itself leads me to conclude that I can at least vote for him over Menendez under the theory that he will do less harm than Menendez on 2A issues and will certainly be better on economic and other issues. Any views on this?

I've gotten a few negative responses from people when they find out that I own guns -- one woman said "I used to think you were a nice guy." So idiotic that I didn't even respond (I was never a nice guy). However, I am more often than not pleasantly surprised. I've taken 3 or 4 friends to the range already (none of whom had handled a gun before) and have had requests from a bunch more. I think you will find that there are some idealogues who -- logic be damned -- will look down on you. Most people tend to be neutral or curious about the gun issue, and tend to get into it when they have the opportunity.

Sorry if I came off sounding like a tool -- I didn't mean to. I totally understand the desire to stock up, particularly if prices are rising and you want to save some $$ and need the ammo for recreational shooting. It's just that in some of the posts it seems that people express the need to have a stockpile of thousands upon thousands of rounds in anticipation of some sort of civil unrest or think that the feared shortage is a result of a government conspiracy. I just find that to be a bit "tinfoil hatish" for lack of a better adjective. But to each his own.

Gotta say, it's rather encouraging to read the comments on Joshie Sugarmann's article over on Huffington Post. I'd say more than 50% of the comments rip into him -- not what you'd expect on the Huffington Post.

I see that there is a new "study" out by the Violence Policy Center stating that gun deaths outpace motor vehicle deaths in 10 states. This "news" has been picked up in a number of media outlets -- do a google search and you will see. This is laughable, because comparing intentional homicides and suicides -- which together account for almost all gun related deaths -- to motor vehicle accidents is meaningless. I've seen at least one gun control blogger set up a straw man argument and assert that "gun owners" (generically, with no specific attribution) routinely compare motor vehicle accidents to gun deaths. Not sure which gun owners are being referred to, but the only valid comparison is between the 600 or so accidental gun deaths and the thousands of motor vehicle accidents each year. Also, the VPC misleadingly harps about "gun safety" which as we know has nothing to do with its true aim -- gun prohibition. The VPC is referred to as an "educational organization" in some of these articles -- which is outrageous, since the VPC is an advocacy organization that spews propoaganda and disinformation by the bucketful. It would be a good idea if people on this forum commented on some of these stories pointing out the fallacies and outright lies being spread by the VPC.

If you go to the range a lot or buying large quantities of ammo helps you sleep better at night, by all means have at it. However, I am fascinated by all this talk of the need to stockpile thousands of rounds because of fear of civil unrest. Could there be riots due to a Zimmerman acquittal or some other event? Of course. But even if there were riots as bad as those in the 60s or the LA riots, just how many rounds do you expect to be firing off? For that matter, how many rounds do you think civilians fired off in those riots in self defense? Do people really imagine that they will be going to war in their own towns and that there won't still be legal consequences? If we are talking about an apocalyptic Mad Max type scenario, then sure, you'll probably be glad if you can equip your own private army. But in any realistic scenario I'm guessing that whatever most of us have on hand will be more than sufficient for self defense.

"Demonstrate that he or she is worthy of the public trust". That is so insane it is laugable. What does "worthy of the public trust" even mean? Basically a government functionary gets to decide whether they like you or not. A law like this would make cronyism, elitism, discrimination, etc. a formal part of the legal process. This bill goes way beyond any conceivable notion of public safety and is utterly offensive. Although it has no chance of gettting out of committee, I really hope pro-2A groups go on the offensive about this and try to tar and feather Boxer. What a piece of human excrement she is.

"the allotment of ammo for the public is done for the year." WTF??? How many ammo manufacturers are there? I can probably name 10 off the top of my head. They've all informed their distributors that they are done for the year. They're coordinating their sales practices and have all stopped shipping. The military is buying up all available .45ACP, .40sw and .38 spcl/ Really? C'mon people.

The sky is falling! Martial law is coming! The economy is collapsing! I need to have at least 100,000 rounds on hand, more than I can shoot in a decade! What a bunch of looney tunes.