TripleDigitRide

It's a shame, but due to the overwhelming number of complete morons who walk among us, it's become necessary, due to liability reasons. I've heard/read several stories about patrons/vendors accidentally firing a loaded weapon, and all too often someone ends up getting injured.

That was some funny shiznit! Real or not, I almost wet myself.

I'll have to agree. I have a friend/co-worker who thought this would be a good idea, until all the officers started getting busted for having sex with the female inmates. Needless to say, he didn't stick around long after.

Today, I made a trip to and from Little Rock, but unfortunately I didn't get pulled over. I was kinda hoping I would, just so I can see how the LEO would react. Oh well, maybe next time.

I've thought about doing this in a pawn shop, but I didn't feel it would be the right thing to do. Gun shops, on the other hand--that would be perfectly exceptable.

I'm proud to be an American, but I can't say the same for some of the decisions made by our politicians.

Yea, that doesn't like much fun. So, no full-auto's are allowed to be made anymore, unless for the government? **********Nevermind, I just read the NFA forum.

I knew about the legal factors, but for some reason I assumed that it wasn't very difficult to make your own full-auto if you wanted, and had the ability.

Admittedly, I'm ignorant when it comes to "full-auto's", so can someone please explain to me how a $160 10/22 can turn into a gun worth several thousand dollars, simply because it's fully auto? Again, I'm ignorant to these type of guns, but I thought turning a semi-auto into a full-auto was somewhat simple and cheap.

I have to take my daughter to Little Rock on Saturday, so I'm gonna try to make it on Sunday.

I'd be full hot on the deal. I'm not sure why you feel the need to protect this scumbag of a training center. I'd post their name all over the damn place. The fact that a mistake was made isn't nearly as disturbing as the fact that they would make you pay again, for a mistake made by them. Can anyone tell me how the Government finds out how many rounds you fired? I'm not sure, but I'd say the training center would have to give the state such information. if that's the case, you'd think they would have realized a mistake long before passing you through the class. This makes me mad, and it doesn't have anything to do with me.

That's one way to get yourself a stubby.

Not so much as my attitude towards some of the gun owners. I wouldn't expect everyone to be an expert (Lord knows I'm not), but a little common sense couldn't hurt.

Call me crazy, but I don't like this idea, not one bit. Steve Watson Infowars.net Friday, May 2, 2008 President Bush last week signed into law a bill which will see the federal government begin to screen the DNA of all newborn babies in the U.S. within six months, a move critics have described as the first step towards the establishment of a national DNA database. Described as a "national contingency plan" the justification for the new law S. 1858, known as The Newborn Screening Saves Lives Act of 2007, is that it represents preparation for any sort of "public health emergency." The bill states that the federal government should "continue to carry out, coordinate, and expand research in newborn screening" and "maintain a central clearinghouse of current information on newborn screening... ensuring that the clearinghouse is available on the Internet and is updated at least quarterly". Sections of the bill also make it clear that DNA may be used in genetic experiments and tests. Read the full bill here. One health care expert and prominent critic of DNA screening is Twila Brase, president of the Citizens' Council on Health Care who has written a detailed analysis (PDF) of the new law in which she warns that it represents the first program of populationwide genetic testing. Brase states that S.1858 and H.R. 3825, the House version of the bill, will: Establish a national list of genetic conditions for which newborns and children are to be tested. Establish protocols for the linking and sharing of genetic test results nationwide. Build surveillance systems for tracking the health status and health outcomes of individuals diagnosed at birth with a genetic defect or trait. Use the newborn screening program as an opportunity for government agencies to identify, list, and study "secondary conditions" of individuals and their families. Subject citizens to genetic research without their knowledge or consent. "Soon, under this bill, the DNA of all citizens will be housed in government genomic biobanks and considered governmental property for government research," Brase writes. "The DNA taken at birth from every citizen is essentially owned by the government, and every citizen becomes a potential subject of government-sponsored genetic research." "The public is clueless. S. 1858 imposes a federal agenda of DNA databanking and population-wide genetic research. It does not require consent and there are no requirements to fully inform parents about the warehousing of their child's DNA for the purpose of genetic research." In a previous report we outlined the consequences of the already existing DNA warehousing operation in Minnesota, a program that the Citizens' Council on Health Care has been following closely for a number of years. Ms. Brase explained in a statement last month that state Health Department officials are now seeking exemption for the so called "DNA Warehouse" from Minnesota privacy law. This would enable state officials to continue to take the DNA of newborn infants without consent, which would also set the precedent for nationwide policy on DNA screening. DNA of newborns has already been harvested, tested, stored and experimented with nationwide. The National Conference of State Legislatures lists for all 50 states, as well as the District of Columbia, the various statutes or regulatory provisions under which newborns' DNA is already being collected. In addition, all 50 states are now routinely providing these results to the Department of Homeland Security. The Newborn Screening Saves Lives Act of 2007 merely establishes this practice within the law. Another vocal critic of bill S. 1858 is Texas Congressman Ron Paul who made the following comments before the U.S. House of Representatives: "I cannot support legislation, no matter how much I sympathize with the legislation’s stated goals, that exceed the Constitutional limitations on federal power or in any way threatens the liberty of the American people. Since S. 1858 violates the Constitution, and may have untended consequences that will weaken the American health care system and further erode medical privacy, I must oppose it." Paul, a medical doctor himself continued, "S. 1858 gives the federal bureaucracy the authority to develop a model newborn screening program. Madame Speaker the federal government lacks both the constitutional authority and the competence to develop a newborn screening program adequate for a nation as large and diverse as the United States. …" "Those of us in the medical profession should be particularly concerned about policies allowing government officials and state-favored interests to access our medical records without our consent … My review of S. 1858 indicates the drafters of the legislation made no effort to ensure these newborn screening programs do not violate the privacy rights of parents and children," Paul continued. "In fact, by directing federal bureaucrats to create a contingency plan for newborn screening in the event of a 'public health' disaster, this bill may lead to further erosions of medical privacy. As recent history so eloquently illustrates, politicians are more than willing to take, and people are more than willing to cede, liberty during times of 'emergency," he concluded.

WOW. You're lucky it didn't blow up in your hands. I'm gonna have to ask you to hand that firearm over to me for safe keeping. BTW...I'm still waiting to have my FTF cherry popped.

What an idiot. Everyone knows there's 58 states, not 57.

I was kinda thinking the same thing. If this is the case, I'm probably gonna have to pass on the trip. They figure it will cost about $4,000-$5,000 for the 21 day trip. No way, as a single father, can I pull that off.

Mine took 6 or 7 weeks, but a friend of mine, his took closer to 12. He even turned his paperwork in 3 days before I did.

I was leaning the same way, but you know how those reloaders are--It's like pulling teeth to get them to admit that the issue could have been caused by bad ammo.

Yep! For the ridiculous price of nearly $760. But hey, at least that's after taxes and BG check.

My Father and Uncles are in the very beginning stages of setting up a charity (St. Judes Children Hospital and National Center for Missing & Exploited Children) motorcycle ride, and I'm trying to help gather as much helpful information as possible. The ride is set to take place in July of 2009. This trip will span roughly 8,000-10,000 miles, over a 21 day peroid. As of now, most of the riders will be leaving the Tulsa Oklahoma area, and the destination will be around the Anchorage/Fairbanks Alaska areas. The Denali National Park would be perfect. Now, I really have no idea where to start. I'm trying to find anyone who's been involved with any type of charity event, in hopes of gaining as much helpful info as possible. Being a single father, the financial aspect isn't going to be easy to pull off. With that being said, I am really interested in information about finding people to sponsor me. Is there anything I need to know about this aspect? Yes, I must be able to afford the trip, but more importantly, I want to raise as much money for the two charities. When searching for sponsors, am I allowed to use some of the sponsored money for the expenses of the trip? Again, this is in the very early stages, and I'm sure I have many more questions, but I can't think of them right now. If you think you have any helpful information, please, don't hesitate to respond in this thread, or you're more than welcome to PM me. Thanks in advance. Oh, I have another question. If/When I'm able to find sponsors who are willing to donate money, do I need to set up a bank account? I know I've heard of other situations where people are looking for other to donate money, and they'll open a bank account with a title like, "John Doe's Funeral Fund". Of course, that's just an example, but I'm sure you understand what I'm saying.

They also have a few videos (YouTube, I think) showing how these guns will fire while the gun is not fully in the battery position. If you really want to watch them, here they are. http://fivesevenforum.net/showthread.php?t=17426&page=7

I use the hell out of wolf .40S&W, in my XD, and I've never had a problem. It does tend to be a little dirtier, but I clean my guns after each trip to the range, so it hardly matters.

Yes.