Uncle Punk

I think this is nuts, I know that they are selling for $1,200 and the 33 round magazines are going for $125. I wouldn't sell at those prices but if it gets more stupid I will. I haven't looked at what 9mm ammo is going for but I could spare 1000 rounds for stupid money.

This is getting insane, I'm thinking of selling my sub-2000 with the glock 17 10 round magazine along with a 33 round magazine. Let the biding start at $1,550

Our founding fathers would have used any machine gun available to them to kill the tyrannical overlords. They would have made sure its citizens would have access to any weapon available to them to threaten an invading army or another tyrannical government and they did it's called the second amendment.

Did you buy belt loops?

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2011/1104/Second-Amendment-Quiz/Topic-of-Second-Amendment I got one wrong that was a difference of opinion not a factual question. Therefore invalid quiz.

The internet is for porn

I haven't heard of any definitive report about what weapon was used. First reports were confusing at best, two pistols with an AR, wait the AR was left in the trunk, four pistols, no way was the long gun in the trunk an AR. Conceding that the weapon used in the school was an AR legally owned in the state of Connecticut that has an assault weapons ban means that the weapon used could not have been an assault weapon. The gun grabbers can't have both sides of the issue. Assault weapon bans are effective and they should try to get the rest of the country to have one in place because it works to prevent deaths or it doesn’t. The current debate about gun control is coming from the last mass shooting that took place under an assault weapons ban with a legal gun purchased under the ban, by definition it wasn't an assault weapon so how is a ban for the rest of us going to help save lives when theirs was such a miserable failure? This all ties back into my original post that we call on people with guns to stop the shooting why not have people already there with guns to stop them?

I don't have an idea about what really happened, I don't know of an official report being released yet. I do know the weapon in the trunk was not an AR variant. This leaves two options, there was an AR in the school or there wasn't. Assuming that there was an AR platform rifle in the school, that it was legally owned by the shooters mother, purchased in the state of Connecticut, then said AR platform variant could not have possibly been an assault weapon as defined by the last national assault weapon ban that remained in effect in that state. This whole argument about assault weapons is stupid because if a rifle was in the school it was a simple rifle, it was impossible for an assault weapon to have been used.

http://gunnuts.net/2013/01/11/who-needs-more-than-10-rounds/

^My closest call all weekend.^ I love 60. It should be required riding, get there any way you can. The gap will lose its luster after riding 60, however the gap is one of the best scooter roads ever, I didn't ride my bike on it at all last year and have no plans to ride it with the bike this year but I will be tearing that bitch up with the scooter. I would like to thank those responsible for getting me off of the gap and out into the surrounding area last year. I have been down there about a ten times and only rode the gap, 28, Cherahola. I was missing a lot and last year was the best trip I've had because of going out on just as good if not better roads. Did I mention I love 60! https://maps.google.com/maps?saddr=Suches,+GA+30572&daddr=GA-60+N&hl=en&sll=34.875389,-84.242327&sspn=0.001261,0.002411&geocode=FdNPEQIdiOz9-ikn-BtTmWxfiDFxVXd3qqqUpA%3BFSwoFAIdopD6-g&mra=ls&t=m&z=11

Turnone, Hutch, MT, look familiar? https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Suches,+GA&hl=en&ll=34.740376,-83.975976&spn=0.001201,0.002411&sll=34.250406,-84.171753&sspn=1.237276,2.469177&oq=such&hnear=Suches,+Union,+Georgia&t=m&z=19&layer=c&cbll=34.740383,-83.976134&panoid=gM712ttzTyNmmmXXfyfjag&cbp=12,91.15,,0,17.03

Exactly, gas mileage, gas mileage, gas mileage. Aluminum, v-nose, low height, saved me enough in gas the first year I owned it that it practically paid for itself the first year. I store it inside at all times and do not have one bit of rust on it anywhere after five years. No repainting the frame or worrying about support rusting through. I can only carry two street bikes but I have had five trials bikes in it. What I over paid for an aluminum trailer up front has more that made up the difference in cost of ownership in several categories.

I keep going down in size of my trailers, this one is the smallest I've ever had but I wanted it for several reasons. It has a "V" nose that I will never do without again, the sides are seamless so no more rivet rust, it is all aluminum that I paid for up front but have more than made up the price difference in gas and maintenance plus I will have a better resale when that time comes. I wanted a low height trailer this time as well, again adding to the gas mileage plus I can store it inside a garage. I would buy a low height trailer again but it has caused some issues. One being that in order to get any amount of inside height the floor was lowered; this causes ground clearance issues in the front and in the back. I ride trials and getting into and out of some of the riding sites means I'm dragging the tail on more than one occasion. Not as badly as I was the 24' trailer behind the motor home but more than I expected. Having a trailer still means that folks want to borrow it and this little one is no exception but with it being so small and light I usually don’t need to provide the tow vehicle because a minivan is capable of towing it.

Aluminum 6x12 single axle, no brakes. I will have a scooter in the Harley spot and won't be using the custom wheel chock instead the scooter and the bike will both be held in place with pit-bull trailer restraints. I drive +10 over the speed limit and get 11.7 MPG with a vehicle that gets 14.9 on the highway without the trailer.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/harrybinswanger/2013/01/01/with-gun-control-cost-benefit-analysis-is-amoral/

My contention is that we should be encouraging everyone that has the means to carry a firearm to be doing so at each visit on school grounds. This would mean we need to repeal the gun-free school zone law that has place our children in harm’s way. Can you believe it, another gun nut suggesting that more guns is the solution to gun violence? Let's forget that killing an active shooter is the best way to stop them, let's ignore the fact that with the exception of one incident attempts at mass shooting in non gun free zones end at three deaths. I am not real big on numbers meaning a lot in an argument because it seldom changes my opinion. We have a few anti gun folks around here so I need them to explain to me how the numbers I have come up with don't mean much to my contention that more guns is the answer. I came up with these numbers doing a bit of internet research so I’m not sure if sources are accurate as most things on the internet aren’t but a good faith effort went into getting the numbers for what it’s worth. I think this knee jerk, over reacting, poorly conceived law is responsible for countless lives lost. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun-Free_School_Zones_Act_of_1990 Here are my numbers to support that statement. In the prior twenty-two years of the law being enacted there were forty reported shootings on school grounds including suicides, resulting in forty-eight deaths not including suicides. Post law passage numbers are fifty-one shooting incidents including suicides, with a death toll of one-hundred-forty-eight not including family members that were killed off campus. That’s right one-hundred more preventable deaths had we not shackled law abiding citizens with a law that keeps us from protecting our children. This horrible law emboldened more attempts and empowered the shooters with opportunity to carry out their sick cowardly deeds unopposed. The time is now to stop the attempts at making more laws that will inevitably lead to more deaths that could have been prevented had good people the means to protect those without.

Have we established if these two aren't the same person yet? You will not find me promoting no guns for felons; they should have them after sentence is served. I have never tried to give the impression of being law abiding. A lot of folks here have been on rides with me so this place is a meeting place for people to go out to break laws. I'm missing your point in the hypocrisy.

Out fucking standing!

WHAT? You can't possibly expect the rest of us to consider you pro gun; I find it comical that you are under such a delusional impression that it makes me sad for you. You are the agnostic fence sitter without any real convictions either way and think you can talk out of both sides of your mouth trying to pacify the two sides when in reality both of them hate you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Act http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_Control_Act_of_1968 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_Owners_Protection_Act Enough compromise already, we have twenty thousand other laws that don't stop criminals. None of them are needed to keep me from committing a crime, and some deprive me of opportunity, some of them would make me a criminal for possessing something that would never cause harm to anyone. The slippery slope is already here and compromising from the last set of compromising is a loser’s mentality. Someone commits a crime by stealing something from me and I'm complicit? Let's play that out to the gun/bullet manufactures and make them complicit as well. The crime couldn't happen if the tool was never built. I know others have gone down this path and it's a stupid deflection of responsibility away from where it belongs.

http://gunnuts.net/2012/01/09/blackhawk-serpa-banned-at-fletc/ http://www.mdshooters.com/showthread.php?t=63657 http://www.gunsite.com/main/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/Safety-Issue-Prohibiting-Use-of-Blackhawk-SERPA-Holsters.pdf http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1042429 A safety on a gun is a bad enough idea and you want to add one to a holster? Retention for law enforcement is necessary and deadly without it; retention for concealed carry is deadly.

Not entirely true but accurate for the vast majority, enough so that if it would happen again it would most likely end with a standoff or exchange of bullets, totally dependent on the governments actions. Peace loving people just want to go about their business without the government making their situation more dangerous or being deprived of property.