No_0ne

  He would just claim it's due to some South American chigger mating manifestation ...

  Well stop fooling around on here and get on it then.  Some of us have many important things to discuss ... :D

  Was that directed at me by any chance?

More of the same.  The last few iterations of Colt have been identical, the hedge fund owners incur massive debt, file bankruptcy, screw over the bondholders, then pick up the remains for a song.  Better to burn the damn thing down ...

  Where else can you get paid for groping old ladies and little kids?

  Not a very good plan, after all, Al Gore says your island will soon be underwater due to global warming ...

Just the nature of the beast, before there were "anyG" networks there were analog cell phones, many were included in luxury autos during the 90's, these went dead several years ago.  On the other hand, this gives me yet another reason why I don't own a cell of any ilk ...

  I'm not too well versed in tax laws for the stupidly rich, for obvious reasons ... however, a deduction of your $40 million would still net you a tax bill on the remaining $60 million, you're confusing tax credits with tax deductions.

  Exactly what the last several sets of investors said too ...

  You just won nearly a billion bucks, don't be cheap, buy your own jet and hire a pilot ...       Buying Colt might make it easier to blow that billion dollars than you think ...

  Probably just a simple mistake.  It would be easy to confuse "TGO" with "Trans Gender Oasis" after all ...

Did I miss a drama thread?  There needs to be a sub-forum just for those, so we don't miss any of the good stuff ...

Most of them are people I never heard of, not surprising in my case as popular culture has never been one of my interests.  I do enjoy watching movies, I suppose I've probably seen many of these people in some of them without realizing their names, but I never watch movies to form opinions on political/social issues of any stripe.  What kind of name is In-Q anyway?

  Wasn't me that said that, I've never shot anything in 6.5 ...     If I'm reading your numbers right, the energy of that particular .308 round is greater than the energy of the 6.5 round at 1000 yards, maybe that wasn't the best example you could have used ...

  Nothing new, just paraphrased for those that didn't already know the law ...     Correct, although those same guys have been in violation of the law for a long time ...     If by "rights", you mean the ability to break the law with impunity, then yes.  I'll not disagree if you make an argument against the GCA of 1968, which is where the vast majority of these laws date from, but as of now, they are in fact, the law ...

  The type of this I order is called PlastiForm, both medical supply and athletic training sites stock it ...

9 sq ft. equates to a 36"x36" target.  At 1000 yds., using an out of the box rifle, with a scope designed for an AR, spending $960 for the total package, and presumably firing factory ammunition, consistent hits on that target sounds really impressive to me ...

  Spend your money on the trigger and optics.  The rest is just hardware stuff.

  That was me, thank you, don't be giving Oh Shoot credit for my astute analysis ...

  You're looking at this through the lens of the current situation, however most of the rules regarding who needs to hold an FFL license dates from the 1968 GCA laws, and the regulations enacted since that time.  That law was an attempt to curb the easy availability of obtaining guns across state lines by creating the FFL system, making licensed dealers the only entities who can legally sell guns from one state to another.  Background checks didn't come into being for a large part of the nation until after the Brady law of 1993, thus conducting background checks was not a responsibility of licensed dealers when the regulations stipulating who is required to hold a FFL were originally written ...

  Interesting question.  I would guess yes, unless you are acting as an agent of the FFL you're doing the transfers through, in which case you would be no different than an employee of the LGS (due to liability concerns I can't imagine any licensed dealer allowing this).  Simply having your purchasers do a background check through an outside FFL, with you as the seller, would still be construed as "in the business of" since you are doing this with the purpose of making a profit.  YMMV, I'm not a lawyer or an ATF agent, it might be informative to pose that question to the local branch of the BATFE ...

I don't see anything in the latest EO's that should precipitate another ammo panic, of course it doesn't take much to set off a buying frenzy these days. Another good reason to insulate yourself against the insanity, "stack it deep" when it's available, a couple of months ago you could find several flavors of 223/5.56 for under $300 per case, shipped ...

  Not complicated, that's already tax evasion, even if the activity generating the income is illegal.  See Al Capone.         "Livelihood", in this sense, doesn't mean you live off of it, or that the income is required.  In fact, you can be technically "in the business of" even if you lose money on all your transactions.  Being piss-poor at a activity doesn't make it legal, I'm sure there were a few bankrupt mobsters over the years ...     Reading through all this, it looks like "much ado about nothing", with 2 possible exceptions:  the changes to the trust laws, which I know nothing about, and the reporting requirements on SS recipients and others.  This is the most dangerous aspect of this EO, as such it might also be the part least likely to pass judicial muster as well ...  

If you look at the SCOTUS cases regarding gun laws over the past 200 years, they have been pretty consistent in acknowledging that the second amendment prohibits the Federal government from infringing on the rights enumerated in that amendment, with the caveat that the states have some authority to regulate what arms are permissible, as well as how and when they are carried.  As others have pointed out, in both the Heller and McDonald cases those localities had a de facto ban on the possession of a certain class of firearms that are considered "common".  It's rare that any single decision makes drastic changes in the intent of a body of laws and regulations, judicial precedence being a fundamental part of the US legal system, but the court has been moving steadily, if slowly, towards wider restrictions on what the states can regulate and prohibit.  I doubt if this will change anytime soon.

  Easy, it's so the folks on the West coast can see them live ...