RangerTurbo

WTH..., wrong thread?

FWIW with the worth of the dollar issue: I left for Europe and checked the exchange rate last week and it was 1.56. Yesterday exchange rate had fallen to 1.47. Not a huge change, but, not a completely floundering dollar.... yet. Oh, and everything is expensive as Fuck over here, sheesh.

I as well.

I checked out your forum, it bugged my eyes lol.

I questioned the trigger too, but STi isn't the only name to use the plastic trigger. That is a horrible stock picture, in person they do look much better. Edit: thanks for the added info Cinergi. I *should* have the gun today, if not early in the week. They were shipped late last week early this week so they should be about here. I'll have a range report sometime in the coming week then if I get it before I leave for Europe.

All the reviews I've read put this 1911 at the top of the food chain for it's price. The place I'm picking it up from, is the guy who did my CCW class out here. He owns one hell of a shop, and always has good deals on new guns and or group buys. These retail for $660 before tax and transfer fees from STI, I pay'd $582 with tax for mine Anyhow, not looking for anything from it other than a reliable super fun target gun. Though I know I'll OC it every now and then

I'm picking up a .45ACP too, though in a slightly larger frame, and not for CC http://www.stiguns.com/guns/Spartan/images/Spartan06-Main_800w.jpg

No, I do. I just couldn't figure a way to reword my previous post to not make it sound like you were wanting those restrictions. Hard to make the separation when both points needed made. CCW's do have the lawful ability to protect others if their life's are in terminal danger if they so choose. This doesn't make them Lone Ranger's, Desperado's, Outlaw's, Gun Slinger's or any other hyperbolic media term for them wanting to help protect their fellow man. A little over zealous? Sure maybe. The town and state escape me right now. But there is a U.S. town where it's required for every adult citizen to be armed. This town has not had a violent crime in ~30yrs. Couldn't possibly be because they are all carrying?

Give the wild west analogies a break, Hollywood has played that scene up way too much. Other wise, I follow your thoughts. The people who are going to argue, want to argue. Unfortunately, other than what your wife has done, there isn't much more to do. Those guys, though openly argumentative, apparently aren't going to go shooting the place up cause they can't carry there. Neither has. So arguing the point that they shouldn't be allowed to carry simply because they don't walk around with the "I carry a gun so I have to kiss everyone's ass and speak like a preacher on Sunday" attitude isn't a valid reason. Take it a step further though and you'd be right. If they were pissed enough to shoot up the place wouldn't you rather your wife have the uninfringed right to carry her self to possibly nuetralize that threat? More dumb gun laws wouldn't stop the guy from going psycho if he had obtained the gun legally to begin with, hell if he'd obtained it illegally for that matter too. Instead, more gun laws are keeping people at risk (such as your wife) from being able to protect their own freedom. Yes, those two were wrong and handled the situation wrong. They responsibly should have requested to speak to a manager, district manager, CEO etc of the Bank and informed them of why they would be leaving and taking all their business elsewhere. Not to call you Liberal again since that came off wrong the first time. But look and see that restricting those guys from carrying, will only restrict your rights more. Catch22 situation arises. Where as, they only got verbal, you didn't say they threatened, or brandished, so other than NOT leaving when asked, they did nothing wrong really. So, if by that logic, they shouldn't be allowed to carry because they get offended that they can't carry, you're thinking the same way all the anti's are. AMEN!! Otherwise you become these victims in this video http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=8ac_1185738996 Luckily, the gun jambed or ran out of ammo. The guy at the counter saw the threat and had more than ample time to have been able to respond with force. No indication of state the video came from, so no indication of whether he was able to carry or not. Maybe it was his personal choice, or he simply wasn't allowed by law. The simple fact is, had he been carrying, the outcome could have been a total flip from what took place. But, putting gun restrictions on law abiding citizens makes us ALL THOSE potential VICTIMS.

Awwee, you're curling up into your anti-ball. Why you bowing out. Can't come up with anymore more than the anti, illogical, emotional garbage you've already spewed?

..

\/

Well, if they didn't sell that car, then that person wouldn't have had the chance to buy it and use it against you! Duh.

http://www.impactguns.com/store/media/ruger/ruger_1022rb.jpg Harmless squirel hunting and plinking gun. Ruger 10/22. http://www.buymilsurp.com/zencart/images/1022%20Fusion%20Rifle%20System ZOMG!!!!11! An evil black rifle. Look at that black stock, pistol grip, telescoping stock and extra capacity magazine. That's a cop killing, child maiming weapon of mass destruction! Better ban it cause it looks evil and will kill all the people in the streets. It's the same damn gun. See what type of hyped up bull shit you play into?

Gotcha. Now insert vehicles for guns/concealed weapons and look how silly that statement is. "Vehicles are only for killing people" isn't hysteria at all. I'm not a vehicle-grabber, and I beleive that vehicles are for the sole purpose of killing people. Why? Because there are only 2 reasons for a vehicle to exist: -Driving kids to soccer practice -Killing things There are more deaths a year from drunk drivers, road rage, drowsy driving, teenage drivers etc than there are from violence involving the use of a gun.

Wasn't too long ago in history tyrants such as him would be hung from a tall tree. Shame we had to get all PC and wussified.

[sarcasm]No, if someone was coming at me to attack me I would try to trip them up, or attempt to reason with them to not use their gun/knife on me[/sarcasm] ^^Indirect quote from THR which was posted from an anti newsletter. http://www.travel-destination-pictures.com/data/media/67/cute-sheep_1008.jpg

Reads as: Oh sure, take a little of my rights right now. It's not like you're taking them all away at once. So I can live with a little at a time. Come to think of it, if you do it slowly enough, I won't really notice, till all my rights are gone. Then I'll be fucked. We kinda agree here. I open carry almost exclusively. I do CC when time/place/dress dictate it. I hate to read all that liberal BS though about "if you're concealing it then all you have is bad intentions... guns are bad mmmkay.... only criminals have guns". Those types of comments go hand in hand with "guns are only for killing people" type of hysteria that all the gun grabbers love to puke out. Wrong, what you are seeing is different tactics and that's it. They aren't as willing to go after guns anymore cause they know it's a losing situation to be in. Instead they are going after microstamping, ammo limitiations, ammo serialization, non magnetic ammo, non lead ammo, 'smart guns', etc etc. This way, when ammo prices rise through the fucking roof because of added shit to the manufacturing process people wont be able to afford it. End result equals their new "gun ban" via ammo proxy. It's simple. They aren't adapting anything but their scandalous ways. And all I've read from you is the book on Liberal standings. You've used every term and argument the anti's use. Come up with something on your own, not from the Media and someones political agenda. I did not vote for Bush, once or twice. Oh you mean like Obama and Clinton2 wanting to keep the 2A cause it supports HUNTERS and SPORTSTERS? Neither of them have the true meaning in mind, they are just trying to appease the fence sitters, then will, without whencing an eye, try to take that away. Quite hard to do given the past candidates and future ones. I think we can both agree?

Concealed means concealed. Do your part and never worry about it.

That second picture looks like the front of a new Eclipse. How none of the hood, fender, window lines seem to merge. Looks like junk. I think they could develop the current body as is for a few more years though.

I'd also be willing to bet that our Government wouldn't use such capable weapons on our own soil. We aren't Mother Russia, Germany, etc where we would destroy our own nation for the "good of the people". Though, I wouldn't put it past them 100%. Urban war fare would most likely be the scenario. Also, fighting dirty was what won us our Freedom to begin with. Fighting in line, face to face like the British tried to do would have slaughtered us and we'd be speaking proper English right now. You do understand Obama wants to abolish nation wide CCW yes? You do understand this is just 'another' step in the plan to ban all weapons yes? You see how this is just a different approach to the same plan? Their game is the same, their tactics have changed to help save face from their previous AWB which flopped horribly and their myriad of other attempts to put ban weapons. and yet you've already asserted this: Tripping yourself up are we? Trading one Right, for two other Rights, which are already guaranteed is illogical. Why should the thought of having to trade any Right, to achieve free speech and fair trial, even be a consideration? It's already our Right, why make compromise? If it comes down to that, then you and the .gov have failed, both as a citizen willing to be a puppet, and as our great nation for allowing what we set forth to distance our self from. I'm waiting for something showing you do. And, don't assume I support anything Bush has done. I can't stand the illiterate jack-ass as much as the next guy. I still think he was a better candidate than John Kerry however. As for Clinton, he *was* a good president. Like all presidents however he has his bad points too. He only passed the AWB, he had nothing much more to do with it than that. But, he gets the bad wrap for it much the same as every other president. I don't let political party's decide for me. I don't follow either. I follow previous actions and history of the candidates. The fact, again, remains that Obama is not American, he supports nothing of National value. He is not a considerable candidate for office, 2A controversy or not.

Yes,... I was thinking more along the lines of peicing together completely stripped uppers and lowers. Making it cheaper to purchase for the end user.

You are putting way to much faith in our Government and Military. First, for assuming the Government will not stomp your ass out the first chance they can get, for what ever reason. Second, for assuming militia's aren't worthy.

Because you've been shot with a .22 while wearing a leather jacket... correct? Are you equating members of our nation as indigenous people compared to our Military? I laugh at how the Media has morphed your mind into what it has become.

Have you? Would you like that price broke down into buying a fully built off the shelf AR? Or how bout an upper and lower peiced together seperately? How about entirely building your gun peice by piece by yourself? You'd be surprised to find out the price gets cheaper the more 'input' you put into the gun and keep the third party sellers out of it. Don't cling to that 'assault weapon' term to hard. You do understand the gun itself can't actually assault anyone? Just another anti, liberal, gun grabber term to massage the sheep into thinking guns are dangerous. Also, do you know yourself what qualified a gun to be an 'assault weapon' under the Klintun AWB? You'd laugh at the asinine shit that qualified a simple gun as an assault weapon, and another gun as normal. You'd care if you cared for your rights.