SgtToadette

I like the German-style mag release and I'm sad to see it go. It also unfortunately means that the M2s use new magazines. That said, so long as the P99 is still being off offered there will still be factory compatible mags. Hopefully this move will make Walther parts more available, serviceable, and cost-effective.

Walther separated from it's American importer Smith and Wesson so it could begin to import on its own terms. They've also offered a heap of new pistols that should be hitting periodically throughout 2013, like this new 5" PPQ pictured below. There's also a new PPX being offered along with a .22 PPK/S.

If we as a community subscribe to the idea of 'if you're not with us, you're against us' then we've effectively committed political suicide and we will lose. The notion that because some people can't be swayed means that we shouldn't even try is counter-productive to say the least. There still exists group of people who can be swayed. If I recall my stats correctly, after Aurora, CO public opinion was still in our favor and simply because we've lost some of that percentage in the surge of negative emotions post-Newtown, doesn't meant that we can't get it back. If anything, we need to try our hardest to get those people on the fence over to our side. Emotions fade and nobody wants to be the enemy of reason. I'm going to link a video of the author Sam Harris speaking because I think he raises an incredibly good point. Now please realize, and I'll only say this once, I am not linking this video to raise a religious point despite the specifics of the actual video. I am linking this video because the CONCEPT is analogous to how I believe we should proceed in the spectrum of guns. I am linking to a specific point in the video to avoid offending anyone.

The NRA didn't do itself many favors with its press conference and Wayne LaPierre, who's sole role is to be the voice of gun owners, has hardly proved to be an adequate spokesman. It certainly turned away some crowds.

I think when talking about open carry as it relates to public discourse, there's an important distinction to be made between what we can do and what we should do. I think we should be able to legally open carry firearms as do many people here. But how legal the activity is or isn't is no longer relevant to the discussion when talking about public impressions. If you're trying to teach math to a third grader it makes little sense to start by teaching quantum mechanics or calculus. You need to work your way towards those higher levels. If you're trying to educate people (which, by implication, makes the anti-gunners your target audience) by open carrying, you're effectively teaching calculus to a 3rd grader. If anything, you're making the case worse as you're now adding one more thing to the list of things your target audience wants to have prohibited. If people are dead set about changing the minds of people with a public display, you're better off with a sign that says "Talk To Me About Guns" than walking around silently with an AR15 on your back. Or consider trying to take a viral approach. Take someone who's on the fence to the range and get them to buy a gun, then have them get their friends to do the same. Simply because you can, doesn't mean you should. If helping the cause is your goal, then take advantage of the more effective ways to do that, don't be obtuse and exercise a legal right which effectively accomplishes the opposite result. When was the last time you ever heard someone say they changed their minds about gun-control because they saw someone walk down the street with a rifle on their back?

Their website appears to be broken for the moment. I've been looking at CzechPoint who apparently imports and converts sporter version of the rifles (meaning no bayonet lug). The unconverted ones are currently available, but if I do end up going the VZ 58 route (still trying to decide if I want to finish my AR or not), I think I'd want the converted one.

I don't know if I should hate you or love you right now, hahaha! Now I really want one.

What would have been a fair asking price 2 years or so ago? I see them now for around 1k.

I was looking on GunBroker actually and the price wasn't too outrageous, which was half the reason I was so intrigued. I'm on my phone now, but I'll read those links when I get back to my home computer.

I just learned about this rifle today and I'm very intrigued to say the least, possibly in the market for one. Does anyone here own one? I'd really like to hear some thoughts on it.

I think that there's a lot to be gained in compromise. There's a lot of restrictions we live with now that I'd be willing to trade away in exchange for something. For example, if we could get national concealed carry in exchange for requiring all transfers to go through an FFL, I don't think that's a bad deal at all.

I'm really happy I subscribed to MAC. I've been subscribed to a few other gun channels on YouTube and I think he's got the best one. Nutnfancy was good, but he's gotten too verbose and preachy.

I'm sure many of you guys here are familiar with the blog The Truth About Guns. Well they recently ran some simulations that, at least as an anecdote, test the feasibility of armed teachers and security personnel. Here's a quick taste: It's nice to see some actual testing of an idea and I think this solution represents a positive move forward. I'll admit I wasn't a big fan of Wayne LaPiere's suggestion at first, but after giving it a bit of thought, I'm agreeing more and more that it's the most appropriate and immediately effective way to both deter and mitigate future events of mass violence without infringing on anyone's rights. Here's a link to the simulation summary: http://www.thetrutha...s-and-analysis/ If you want the full report, scroll down and click the corresponding link. Enjoy!

From what I understand, it is bio-mechanically possible to change your eye dominance, but for most people the effort isn't worth the result. According to some quick Google searching, Larry Vickers is cross-eye dominant and simply shoots long-arms on his eye dominant side.

It has gone viral to a certain extent. And you're correct in your criticism. He has another video out right now which I think is much better:

At work right now so I can't see the link, but is it this video?

I tried to avoid using the word solution because I don't think that one necessarily exists. I think my hypothetical system refines the current one and provides a mutually beneficial move forward for both sides of the issue. We get easier and less expensive access to NFA items for the law-abiding while at the same time ensuring more background checks on more individuals and restrictions on high-capacity magazines.

I suppose, but I don't think it's much different than how it is now (a bit less restrictive IMO). I think given the two extremes, the first being no government control whatsoever and everyone can have what their wallets (or credit cards) can handle, and the other being total government control and you need a permit for each bullet, my system satisfies my pragmatist criterion floating somewhere in the middle. But opinions are like are like a**holes, everyone has one and they all stink.

The difference is largely semantic, however the FID would be different in that you don't need to reapply for a tax stamp or pay a fee every time you would want to purchase a suppressor or magazine exceeding 30 rounds. I don't believe that my system is necessarily adding more government to the process as much as it is streamlining the process. My system is impossible to implement for several reasons. The first is that my system overrides the ability for individual states to have their own laws by eliminating AWBs. It also allows for manufacturers to start selling new fully automatic weapons to civilians.

I actually differ from a lot of you guys on this perspective, but I don't think the NFA is a conceptually bad idea. With some caveats, of course. I think that there should be an infrastructure by which civilians can own, I'll use the phrase: 'more deadly' weapons, while allowing the more 'standard' options to remain readily available. For example, I wouldn't oppose and would actually support the concept of scrapping the NFA entirely and implementing a new, permit-based system in which individuals can get the equivalent of a federal level FID which would allow them to purchase suppressors and magazines exceeding 30 rounds freely. You would then have a system similar to the permit to purchase a handgun system here in NJ for fully automatic weapons and SBRs. The sale of automatic weapons would no longer be prohibited under these conditions and newly manufactured automatic weapons would be available given the standards I mention above. The background checks would be more thorough than a simple NICS check for the federal FIDs. Otherwise, all other firearms would remain legal and unregulated, however all private sales would be required to go through an FFL so as to allow for a NICS check. That's what I'd do.

I'm not sure if it's because I've been living in a virtual bubble since Newtown (as a consequence of poor news reports), but I'm feeling steadily more confident in what the future has in store. I'm seeing the resurgence of pro-gun articles in big publications like Forbes and, in what was extremely exciting for me personally, even my idol Sam Harris recently gave his well reasoned opinion (with some obvious, but petty disagreements) on gun-control. Even in typical liberal online territory I see the paradigm shifting towards our position. Even the massive media and social criticism of Wayne LaPierre's notion of putting armed guards in schools is receding significantly (especially since it was brought to attention that former president Bill Clinton made very similar proposals). Not to diminish the severity of the threats facing us, but I've seen a decline in the defeatist attitudes here and elsewhere. Go team!

Haha! I guess we're going fully-formal then.