2011SVT

No, no. You don't understand. It's only disgusting if you reference *his* children. http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/nra-commercial-calls-obama-elitist-hypocrite-article-1.1241044 When it's your kids on the line, Obama = zero fucks given.

There are some things in there which are proper EO material and I agree the feds should be doing. Mostly around enforcing existing federal law and/or making those more effective. Some things I agree with but think the government has no business messing in like coming up with a model plan for schools etc. You know we'll end up with something hopelessly slanted to a POV vs. something effective. Plus it will cost $3B, impose unfunded mandates on states, and need a new Dept. of School Safety cabinetposition be created. Let's see, what's that old saying, "Fool me 10,000 times...." Idiots. Their new safety standards for gun storage could just as easily become another 'poison pill' that will actually have the opposite effect of making us safer. Can you imagine them outlawing all kinds of secure, quick access devices? Trigger locks no one will use because they are so damn secure it takes 5 minutes to get them off? Regs that add $1,000 to the cost of a safe? These are the things Congress should be saying, "Not so fast" to. These are items better legislated than mandated and, even better, STFU about. Some things are within the President's power but I'd rather not see done like putting in a new permanent ATF director. I can remember the 'bad old days' when the ATF was like the secret police. Out there creating opportunities to run afoul of the laws on technicalities and baiting individuals into the traps. Re-empower those mouks and see what happens. Now of course, we just get things like 'Fast and Furious'. Imagine that on steroids. Overall though - I can't pick any item out of the 23 where he blatently crossed the line. (At least enough to get impeached for).

Just given the 'close call' that this will have been (hopefully), I predict demand will remain high for evil black guns, magazines, and rifle caliber ammo for a while as everyone tries to get out in front of the next 'crisis'.

Problem solved: "Mr. Obama, professing his commitment to the Second Amendment Monday, blamed others for fanning fears of gun owners about the government's intentions. "Responsible gun owners, people who have a gun for protection, for hunting, for sportsmanship—they don't have anything to worry about," he said." - WSJ 1/15/13

True 'dat. Also an object lesson to anyone who thinks the feds would stop at a 10 round magazine limit. NY is at 10, now they want 7. Then it will be 5, then 3, and then (since that's not working), ban guns that accept magazines..... Modern, high capacity, semi automatic rifles, sidearms, and shotguns are the defacto miltia weapons which are the real exercise of our right to defense recognized by the 2A. Laws which 'cripple' (infringe on?) that capability are unconstitutional on their face. That includes restrictions on magazines, access to military type ammunition, etc.

Looks like Obama might 'stay between the lines' on the EO crap: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/01/biden-guns-executive-actions-86187.html?hp=t1_3 Even with those, we'll see how much cooperation he gets.... His proposals (all the gun grabbing ideas) are supposed to come later and as you pointed out with Harry's remarks, look DOA in the Senate *and* the House. Hope this is over soon so the market can get back to normal. I got a Daniel Defense order I want to put in.

Opinions differ. So does the recognition of your legal authority to defend your rights with force. http://www.in.gov/legislative/ic/code/title35/ar41/ch3.html

Appreciate the sheriff's comments but.... confiscation is the 'nuclear' case and it's, frankly, easy to support the citizenry on that. First, because it's very cut and dried. Second, that it would be wildly unpopular and would spark a general resistance regardless of how LE or the military lined up. Third is that it is so constitutionally suspect as to guarantee action by the courts. I wonder how many of these same LE will step up to physically defend a business that makes a sale or manufactures a product in defiance of an executive order? Or when some guy puts a proscribed flash hider on his 'post-ban' AK, posts it on the internet, and dares the ATF to do something about it and they do, what then? Not so quick to roll the local SWAT team to face the Feds I'll bet. Oh, your local sheriff might refuse to help them but would he defend you? Would they be willing to arrest the federal agents on state charges? For that matter, what would any of us do if the guy was our neighbor or that business was down the street from us?

Saw that this morning. Ben did a great job. Stayed out of the 'traps' and challenged Morgan on his BS debating tactics. Love the "(Constitution is just a) 'little book'" comment on Morgan's part. Oops. Kind of like one of those Obama moments when he goes off script and tells you what he *really* thinks.

Obama's firm support for the 2A: http://www.whitehousedossier.com/2013/01/11/obama-opposed-gun-ban-exception-defend-home/

yeah, sounds like he attacked without warning :thumbup:

Awesomeness.

Me gusta. I know this is going to sound stupid but I have an airsoft gun which is a licensed replica of the HK USP Compact. I love the way that thing feels/points compared to my SIG226. Always wanted to shoot a "real" one to see how good it really is.

In before the recent panic on that one. Good heads up though. Much appreciated. Got a bunch of tacticool stuff delivered today for the AK. In before the panic on that one too. On the other stuff. Not so much :fuuuu:

Will be there too w/ pals. We need special Beerfest CR pins. :fa: Thoughts for next time.

Quoted for truth. From the WSJ as of 1:19 PM this afternoon. Biden talks about the growing "consensus" (as if!): "Aside from banning high-capacity weapons and requiring universal background checks, the steps would also involve strengthening the background-check system, increasing research on gun-related injuries and deaths, and considering what responsibilities gun owners have to keep their firearms out of the wrong hands." So let's break this down: 1. "banning high-capacity weapons" - AWB on steroids. 'Nuff said. 2. "requiring universal background checks" - Ensuring the govenment knows about all transfers and who has what? I can support this for it's good purpose of keeping the bad people from getting guns. Must be accompanied by the *absolute* requirement and proof that the record of the check and the information which could be used as defacto registration is destoyed as called for in current law. Failure to do so is a federal offense. Should also specifically say the act can *never* be expanded to include anything else. 3. "strengthening the background check system" - Hopefully this is about states being required to do a more thorough/timely reporting of felons/crazies into the federal database. I can support that. Block grants please. 4. "increasing research on gun-related injuries and deaths" - No fucking way. This is just an excuse to have government funded anti-gun groups pour out more propaganda on the taxpayer's dime. We got enough research already. 5. "considering what responsibilities gun owners have to keep their firearms out of the wrong hands" - I've already written here about our responsibilities as owners should be. Having the feds involved and writing "the rules"? 110% bad idea. Let's add some lawyers and special interest grouyps in. Yeah, that will fix it! Just another reach into our personal lives/business. That said, I am writing the NRA to ask them to step up the info/training available to gun owners regarding safe storage/access control and questions you should be asking a potential buyer/red flags. That's the way to do this.

"It is the common fate of the indolent to see their rights become a prey to the active. The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance." - John Philpot Curran 1790. Stewart, like many clever debaters, presents us with a false choice: We must either surrender our liberties (a piece at at time or in total) or be unable to address our current problems. I do not accept that these two things are ever tied. Often the first action presented by the government whether it's school shootings or terrorist attacks is to abridge the rights of the people in some way as seems expedient (suspense of Habeus Corpus, military tribunals, warrantless searches, 'assault weapons' bans). Actions which are largely ineffective in a practical sense but are erosive to our freedoms and set us up for the argument that, "well, last time we just didn't go far enough" as is being done now.

So I am in the process of writing and I realize that with the newly created 3rd congressional district I am trapped behind the statist's lines. Joyce Beatty :fuuuu: R U Serious? There must be some mistake.

Political suicide or not, it looks like we may know sooner rather than later.... http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/biden-obama-might-use-executive-order-deal-guns_694984.html Congress needs (needed) to stand up to the President over these executive orders. I am ok when these things provide proper clarification on enforcement of existing law but not, as has been and likely to be done here, have the executive branch creating new laws, cabinet depts. etc. I have more letters to write (again). What an f'ing circus. Time to hammer our representatives.

Congress passed an AWB or Obama issued a restrictive executive order and a large number of people very openly refused to comply? What if large capacity mags were outlawed and individual citizens assembled them from parts kits and continued to sell/trade them or put pistol grips on their SKS etc. in direct violation of the new law? Civil disobedience on a wide scale. Is it just me, or am I reading a mood in this country that a fair amount of folks have had enough bullshit and something 'transformative' could happen?

How fast are you planning to go? Meeting tech requirements for ECTA gets pretty pricy and *really* pricey in the 200+ category. Kirkey can build a compliant seat and so can UltraShield (you might want to compare prices/features). I haven't sat in either but it certainly doesn't look like something I'd want to take on a road trip I have a rule book and would be glad to look something up for you.

I call BS. Everyone knows if you *really* respected the liberal viewpoint you would have had them melted down or given them to deserving anti-gun Hollywood celebrities or government officials for use by their private security forces. My error, there is something else... you *could* have sold them to some Mexican drug lords in order to help the administration prove that guns are bad. My apologies for doubting your story.

You guys may have posted this for lulz but this story/video shows that these things can be practically built without a lot of effort/sophistication and used to kill people. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/dec/17/citizen-drone-warfare-hobbyist-explores-a-frighten/?page=all Increasing automation of weapons making warfare 'even easier' (e.g. 'we will just have our robots attack you') is not a good thing. I don't doubt for a minute that we are already at a point where our existing drones can be ordered to pick their own targets based on software rules rather than having a human in front of a screen flying a mission. Apologies if this got deeper than it was supposed to.

This kind of shit needs to get banned via international treaty. Doesn't take much of an imagination to see these types of weapons deployed beyond the traditional battlefield as assassination devices (just slave it to your upcoming citizen facial recognition 'anti terrorism' system) or as general population pacification drones.

Hollywood displays its hypocrisy