angelofdeath

ok, so which gun law will prevent a loony from stealing a firearm from an assumably sane and legal gun owner? i'd love to hear what you come up with. wait, you mean the laws against theft, didnt stop the guy from stealing the gun? and the law against murder didnt stop him from shooting people? hmmm. wait. we just need to re criminalize these things. problem solved! its not bullshit. your point is some scribbling on a peice of paper by some people in washington dc, a prohibition law, will achieve its intended goal. ie. keeping an object out of someones possession. if it does work, how do you have access to drugs? why are they in max security prisons, the most controlled environment in the country? and how can 200 million guns be kept in the right place? what about all the 'legal' ways of obtaining stuff, when you can just go down to a street corner somewhere and get what you want or hell...order it on the silk road?

I believe you are mistaken. are law enforcement shooting bad guys not good guys? the facts are this: 50% of the time, some good guy intervened. of this 50% 2/3 were civilians. 1/3 were uniformed and on duty LE. the other 50% of the time they generally shot themselves or bailed and gave up without any resistance after the fact. interestingly enough, of the police interventions, 7 out of 10 times it was a LONE officer that was able to handle the situation. If these 'nuts' at the 'range' were in fact the psycho's are you idiotically suggest, i can say one thing. a lot more people would be dead. if an actual trained person went psycho, there would be more carnage. the people that do this are bat shit crazy and loony. they get the idea in their head and run with it. for instance, if the batman shooter would not of been using a 'dangerous 100 round beta high capacity whatever the fuck name the anti rights people want to come up with' and would of been using quality USGI or pmags, there probably wouldnt of been a malfunction ending the spree. I do know one thing. it is impossible to keep guns out of bad peoples hands by writing words on paper. i know another thing, the only people who abide by those rules are the people who dont break the law in the first place. who would never murder someone to begin with. so what you create are these neat little victim disarmament zones. where you have disarmed victims. look at the numbers. most of these sprees are in schools, close to 60%. schools have gun bans and stiff penalties. gun free zones. why dont the criminals pay attention to this? nearly all of the rest of the sprees are in areas where guns are either not allowed, where they are locked up, or places like church where people dont generally feel the 'need' to protect themselves in.

I do not know if this is true, but i do know this: Will a gun law with a much less severe penalty prevent someone hell bent on mass murdering people? (carrying the most severe penalty in the american legal system) Do you really think if someone 'isnt a criminal' that is someone really wants to use a gun to shoot a bunch of people, they will sort of stop and have a Q+A with themselves and ask whether it is worth breaking a very minor law to break a law that carries a punishment that is much more severe? Are they going to say: "gee, im going to go shoot up this building with people in it, but, shit, wait, i cant do that because its illegal to possess a firearm on school property. DARN!"

bump this. Interesting no one is talking about the cities and states in the US with the most restrictive gun laws are the highest on the crime ladder. DC, chicago, california, NJ, NY, etc You dont hear to much about the mass shooting sprees in MT where there are approximately 29 guns per household and where gun laws are very lax. Anyone with half a brain could easily see its not how easy guns are to obtain, its psycho's.

perhaps we should also ban pot, crack, meth and heroine. i hear that prohibition works very well at keeping these things out of peoples hands. hell, they might stop getting the stuff in maximum security federal prisons. maybe they should also make schools 'gun free safe zones' and prohibit firearms within 1000 feet of the school. we could also pass over 20,000 firearms laws to solve these sorts of problems. maybe we could pass carry bans and prohibit gun ownership in major cities like washington DC and chicago in order to rid those places of murders and crime. wait... maybe we could also snap our fingers and remove dangerous 3000 lb death machines from america known as cars. over 40,000 people a year die on america's highways due to them. we need to also get rid of the death traps that are bath tubs. you much more likely to be killed in your bath tub than by a gun. swimming pools also need to go. pools of death is what they are. i'd take the gun control position seriously if there was an example of prohibiting activities and items and ridding the world bad things that happen while using said items. however, since its quite apparent prohibition on anything never works, i dont see why people think a bunch of knee jerk bed wetting is going to actually solve a problem. people think if you put a 'no gun' sticker on a door, that an active shooter will not enter. or if you pass a law that requires gun owners to jump to hoops, x, y, and z, that this is going to some how limit guns in the hands of people who do nothing but ignore said hoops to begin with. in 1925 a psycho got peeved off. instead of using the 'most efficient killing device' (guns) he used home made explosives he put together on his farm and blew up a school and killed 125 people. since they cant keep drugs out of the hands of maximum security prisons, there is absolutely no way you can keep 200 million guns out of the hands of psycho's. I do agree that if guns didnt exist, no one would be shot with them. that is also like saying if humans didnt exist, they wouldnt harm the environment. the prospects of getting rid of either are a bit unfathomable. if the rhetoric makes you feel good and makes you feel like you are 'doing something!' thats cool. but remember one thing...pretty much the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun, is a good guy with a gun. direct your anger at the criminal, not the tool.

922® has to be one of the silliest yet most annoying laws they ever passed. and lets not forget it was republicans who gave it to us....the 'pro gun' side

i wouldnt say its 'hard' its just 'different' if you only do basic bench presses of some variety, you'll never be more sore the next day than after hitting 3-5 sets 10+ reps of these type of presses. you'll hit muscles and flexors you never even knew existed. really works on your stability. i've been using it to help rehab my destroyed right rotator cuff. if you dont have a bamboo bar, just use a regular barbell, you'll still get most of the benefits with just straight bar w/ bands and dumbells/kettle bells hanging off it.

Glock 17 is one of the best hand guns ever made.

if you go BCM be sure to consider a mid length gas system. super soft shooting, put a brake on the gun and its like shooting a .22lr.

I havent messed with one, but apparently the waffenwerks are supposed to be giving arsenal a run for their money. especially since arsenal/fime's are non existent right now on the retail market. I would probably own a WASR, but I dont know enough about wasr's to feel confident in figuring out which ones are good. I dont want to end up with a POS and regret dropping 600$ on it. Especially when waffenwerks are only 100$ more...i'll probably go that route when the opportunity presents its self. If wasr's were still 200-300$ i'd probably have 3, just to have them. You can still save some $$$ on 5.45 vs 7.62, but the gap is narrower. If ammo availability in future perilous times is an issue, 7.62 might be a better choice. I'd probably stock enough 5.45 to never have to worry about that issue though.

last workout: 3 board press - 3 RM, then tricep hell strip set bamboo bar w/ kettle bells hanging from bands 4x12 kroc rows 4xhowever many i could get with 115 banded rolling tri extensions 4x8 curls 4x8 shrugs 3x15 jump rope tabata intervals till dizzy almost puked went home

word indeed. i havent done anything heavy in a year because my shoulder is effed ...

why settle for less? Got one of these recently. Hands down the best production DI gun on the market at present.

23 is a great gun. big enough to fight with but small enough to conceal. get a 9mm barrel and g17 mags if you shoot a lot. 2 calibers in one. you'll thank me when you save 12$ per hundred rounds on 9mm compared to .40

BCM man. you wont be disappointed. parts kits....lmt is what im hearing is good.

They dont expect any arsenal deliveries until spring of 2013

Arsenals seem to be out everywhere, especially the sgl series. SLR's seem to be around in 7.62 Check out waffen werks ak74 variants. the first one i come across at a good price, im getting. i've given up trying to find an sgl31. if you shoot alot, after about 3000-4000 rounds of 5.45, compared to 5.56, you basically will pay for the rifle with ammo savings. I'll take a free AK, even though im a died in the wool AR dude.

whats the specs?

finally broke 500 deadlift last week

if you follow some of the more well known tax cases of the last 50 years or so, you'll find that IRS agents, police and all government agents in general are immune from prosecution on the 'advice' they give. my point is you MIGHT get a right answer, and you might not. i personally know of many cases where people specifically asked police if something was legal, and they were arrested for doing what they were told was legal. i also know of people who were told one thing by the IRS, they complied, and were still taken to court. a family member once had numerous conversations with an IRS office to maintain compliance with IRS code, they followed their advice and were hit with penalties the very next year for the same thing the IRS office previously told them to do. they literally can do what they want, because every single aspect of the IRS code and laws in general are up to interpretation. they wont even answer you with a straight face when asked the question: 'what is income?' they term their procedures 'voluntary compliance.' it might as well be something out of an orwell novel. point being: they can tell you whatever they want to. the advice might be right, and it might be wrong. there is no conceivable way an IRS agent can know all the tens of thousands of pages of the code. state agents have legal authority to lie to you and be immune from any consequences. any competent lawyer will tell you to never talk to police or agents. anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. some people might question advice that comes from them. others might not. to each their own. but just remember, when they haul your ass to court the old 'the IRS told me to do this....' argument doesnt work.

i'd advise the original poster to never talk to an IRS agent. what they tell you is probably not the truth. they all have different answers. and they are even legally immune if you listen to what they say but it turns out to be false. same with cops. dont ask cops or govt agents for advice on the law. talk to an accountant or lawyer

arsenal all the way. rifle dynamics new production rifles if you have a lot of money to blow. or get an arsenal and send it to rifle dynamics. its down to your philosophy on gear. what is your life worth? what is it worth to have a dead on reliable well made gun that will last forever? would you rather buy once and cry once or end up with hunks of junk over the next 10 years? if you just go arsenal, no worries about some bent up, rickety junk.

he is probably shooting a rat or something in the house considering the weapon is cocked, not locked, and ready to rock, in addition to finger on trigger

so, a peice of property that is in my family for generations, that was worked and maintained by the family is oppressing people? why is the land ownership oppressing people, but if i just have a house somewhere, im not oppressing them by not allowing them in my house? to me this logic is totally bass ackwards. its sort of like saying that if you have a wife, and she keeps her legs closed, she is oppressing the other men because they cant get at whats in between those legs. if i wanted to make some money and i contracted with a neighbor to work on his car or bale some hay for him, how am i being oppressed if i consent to it or if i am super excited about the opportunity to earn some money? if a prostitute voluntarily contracts with a pimp to manage her business, that is her problem. she consented. if a pimp puts a gun to the prostitutes head and forces her into service or refuses her the right to leave when she wants, that is involuntary. look at it another way. the tyranny of the symphony orchestra. if you play a wind instrument, the conductor literally TELLS YOU WHEN TO BREATH! i mean, even the nazi's didnt do that. but the player voluntarily agreed to this arrangement. which is why, when you come to tell me or someone i have contracted with, that this arrangement is oppression, you'll end up getting my precious metals, lead first. i still need to know exactly how much land i can have in my 'self sufficient' farm and at what point you are justified in taking the excess from me. seems to me, if property is oppression, all property is oppression, including the very concept of self ownership. if you own yourself, you are oppressing people 'bro' i fail to see how someone willingly coming up to me and offering to fix my roof is oppressing him. by logical deduction you can say that it is in there best interest if they came to me, otherwise they wouldnt do it. trade is mutually beneficial, if it wasnt, the trade wouldnt take place. what if the roof guy is starving and wants to fix my roof and i tell him...'sorry man, if you give me your surplus labor, im oppressing you. no, i dont care if you are starving and you;ll willingly do the work for a home cooked meal, im still oppressing you. better try some place else to be oppressed. im an anarcho communist real libertarian.'

he went to wall street with an 'i am the 1%, lets talk' sign. he essentially went to point the fingers at the government and say the protesters should be occupying the federal reserve. he engaged in a few conversations basically between himself and people telling him to pay more taxes and that a few more regulations can fix all the problems. im curious as to where you draw the line to determine whether someone is a 'wage slave.' is a wage slave someone who voluntarily comes to me to contract to work? and i a slave driver if i pay the guy what he wants and what we mutually agree upon, even if you dont agree with the wage? well, i definitely an advocate of private property. so this is where i see the problems. if i am on a farm my family owns for instance, lets say its 500 acres. we work this land and run a business on it. what is keeping you from coming to take my property for being a 'greedy fuck?' i dont understand where you guys draw the line. you are apparently ok with people owning a house, but where does the line get drawn from 'me producing a life for myself' and me 'exploiting the proletariat?' how big of a house? can i own multiple vehicles? how much land can i own and homestead? without an theory of property rights, there is no way to both properly allocate resources and determine what constitutes a crime and an infringement on liberty. since i believe in self ownership, property is nothing but an extension of this. if i have a right to my body, i have a right to my labor and if i mix my labor with property, i therefore own it and control it this is where i like what you say. you guys can have all the commmunal living you want. my only provision is to not be forced to join your commune. i would wish you well, i just think we'd have serious problems coming to terms what exactly constitutes 'oppressing' people by living in freedom and what yall would 'allow' me to hold as property. for instance, i think the major problem would come if say i owned a 500 acre farm and ran a business off of it, you'd come to take this from me. to which, you would meet massive deadly force in resistance. but what i'd really like to see is you take on the more liberal minded people such as decy or soup on issues where you disagree. because you seem to always be in agreement with the statist liberals, i want to hear where the anti state liberals diverge.