The left one looks just as nice as the right. What's the big deal? Maybe it's just me....
Posted on 05/13/2008 5:40:56 PM PDT by brycemax
Purchasing a pistol with your stimulus package money is foolish if you consider that for the same money...
The SKS at under 200 bucks a copy is a good choice. Romanian AK's at under 400 bucks a copy isn't a bad idea either.
L
I guess I was thinking about rifles, not pistols.
Uzi’s for about $8k, but that’s submachine gun...
The left one looks just as nice as the right. What's the big deal? Maybe it's just me....
Exactly right. Why give the show away? That’s why both of our M1 Super 90s have a round up and the safety on.
Normally, I would agree, especially in a SHTF situation like post Katrina. But what if you're simply out for dinner or on a driving vacation? In neither of those situations would I have access to a long arm. A pistol may be all you have in which case it is of course better than nothing. I think if you're going to get a pistol, it should at least be one of high quality. H&K, Sig Sauer, Glock are all contenders, here. Possibly Kimber, Colt, Springfield Armor and maybe Smith & Wesson. I'm speaking only of handguns, remember.
I couildn’t afford another AR so I just bought the lower receiver. The upper should be here in about five weeks because they’re on backorder.
As far as magazines go, I thought I was ok until I found out I wore out my Ruger 10-22 mags. I only have three left.
What a Dillon 550 is to reloaders, the Magna MasterCaster is to bullet casters.
Yea, but you've already got a pistol or two for that, don't you?
And you could probably buy two Mossberg 500s, or Mavericks by Mossberg for the price of a pistol. Might even be able to buy a Mossberg 590. Any of those would probably better serve when the Super Delegates give Hillary the nod, or Later if either one of them makes it to the White House, with an increase 'Rat majority in both Houses of Congress.
That was actually the Firearm Owners Protection Act. Other than the machine gun ban, it was a good bill, eliminating many of the more onerous features of the Gun Control Act of 1968. You could once more have ammunition shipped directly to you. You no longer had a "register" your purchase of "handgun ammunition", which meant any ammunition which cold be used in a handgun.
The machine gun ban was literally a last minute amendment on the House floor. It was so poorly written that if interpreted as written, rather than as intended, it wouldn't ban much of anything.
Reagan may not have even known of the anti machien ugn
For a plain old regular civilian, even a glock is probably overkill and too bulky for everyday. I’ve got a kahr pm9 and I am actually thinking about stepping down to something littler and lighter.
Read the history of the bill. The NRA was pushing it all the way, and the machine gun ban *was* a last minute amendment. Should have been removed in the Senate, but you know the Senate. There was ZERO discussion on the amendment, which passed by one of those dubious "voice votes", in the House. The Senate then adopted the House version as a substitute for a bill it had already passed, which did not contain the machine gun provision.
THE FIREARMS OWNERS' PROTECTION ACT: A HISTORICAL AND LEGAL PERSPECTIVE
Read that and get back to me about how "guilty" Reagan and his administration where. Without the FOPA, we'd probably be restricted to buying guns from or through licensed dealers, BY BATF REGULATION not law. It's taken them 20 years to get back to near their former level of Jackbootery. We'd be hassled every time we crossed a "hoplophobic" state line. Probably thrown in jail. It's happened even with FOPA, but the charges have generally been dismissed, except where the requirements of the law (unloaded, inaccessible, no stopover and possession legal at both origin and destination) were not met.
Here, (from the website of is what the VPC, who hate FOPA, say about it:
----------------------------------------------------------
The NRA and pro-gun members of Congress pushed for years for a legislative package to weaken the GCA. (Gun Control Act of 1968) In 1986 they finally prevailed. The Firearms Owners Protection Act (FOPA) was sponsored by former Representative Harold Volkmer, D-Mo., and then Senator James McClure, R-Idaho, who insisted it was necessary to curb abuses by federal officials of law-abiding gun owners and firearms dealers.
Although the parliamentary wrangling over the measure was intense, it ultimately passed and was soon signed into law by Ronald Reagan. The FOPA changed the GCA to:
Explicitly forbid the establishment of any system of firearms registration.
Limit the number of unannounced dealer inspections by federal officials to one a year. Previously, such inspections were allowed at "reasonable" times.
Impose a higher standard of proof while lessening penalties for dealer violations.
Remove record-keeping requirements for ammunition dealers and allow for the mail-order sale of ammo.
Legalize the interstate sale of rifles and shotguns as long as the transaction took place face to face and the sale complied with the laws of the home jurisdictions of both the buyer and the seller. Gun-control proponents did, however, succeed in attaching a ban on the production of new machine guns for civilian sale.
----------------------------------------------------------
With the NRA supporting the law, what evidence do you have that Reagan even knew of the machine gun ban? Did he mention it during the signing ceremony? Or in document? (Of course his Treasury Secretary, James A. Baker III, should have told him, but did he?)
I'll try that again. Here, (from the website of the VPC, who hate FOPA,
It probably cost her the same too.
If he really was ignorant of the machine gun ban added to it, that doesn’t make him innocent, that makes him a fool(in this situation). He got played like a cheap violin.
See, there's the rub. smaller and lighter is more comfortable. But a defensive handgun isn't supposed to be comfortable it's supposed to be comforting. Smaller and lighter would be my S&W M642 (aluminum frame) in a Mika pocket holster. But small, light and comfortable also requires more skill to fire accurately. Don't get me wrong, I carry my 642 all the time, exactly as I described. But I also practice point shooting two hands in a crouched classic FBI stance an awful lot too. At contact to about 15 feet, I can blow the center from my target in less than 2 seconds. All five shots. But as I said, I do practice quite a bit. That's fine for mugger defense, but in the age of increasing really VIOLENT crime and terror, I worry (well "worry" is too strong -- rather I'm concerned) all the time about the nightmare scenario. Something that requires a more precise shot and higher capacity and maybe a slightly greater range. Just a few feet outside my box o' truth so to speak and I'm toast unless I can close the range, not a really inviting concept. That's why I got the H&K P30. 15 rds of 9mm happiness, very thin profile, excellent recoil and accuracy characteristics. I tend to agree with you about the Glock. It's too boxy for my tastes. But how is the Kahr going to be if you have to make hits beyond 10 feet? Say at 30 feet? My H&K can and will do that all day long and it rides super comfortably in my CROSSBREED "super tuck deluxe" under a cool tropical shirt here in the south end of paradise. That's my new solution.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.