raydog1

I had no idea there were so many Firefly fans here. +1 to all of you! Also. . . Jericho & The Unit.

+1 for both the used Eotech & Primary Arms clones suggestions. At any given time you will find several Eotechs for sale on the major gun forums. I bought one on ARFCOM for $270 that looks like it never came out of the box (or he just took really good care of it). I also have one of the Primary Arms M3 clones that I think is going for around $70 on their website. I've had it on an AK & an AR and it's worked perfectly. When I got the Eotech, I tossed the clone around my carpeted living room several times for giggles to see if I could break it. All I ended up doing was putting a couple scratches on my walls as it liked to roll & bounce in unpredictable directions. Still works 100% and no dents/scratches. Here is a youtube vid where a guy tossed one of their micro clones around on concrete:

Yep. Which is why he patted it on the head and claimed it as his own: Obama Likes Heller - Politics - The Atlantic "I have always believed that the Second Amendment protects the right of individuals to bear arms, but - BS about stuff I know nothing about. . . " It will be interesting to see if he spins this the same way, or as 6.8 AR suggests, he states that the SCOTUS went too far this time. If he choses the latter, I wish him luck in explaining THAT to us.

Lamentation of the women indeed. Speaking of Arnold, I wonder what the "shadow of his once great self" will say about this since he hasn't touched the anti-open carry bill on his desk yet.

Helmke's always good at making lemonade out of lemons.

And I give you. . . Paul Helmke: Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence : Media Statement of Paul Helmke on U.S. Supreme Court Ruling Jun 28, 2010 Washington, D.C. - Paul Helmke, President of the Brady Center and Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, issued the following statement: "We can expect two things as a result of today's decision by the U.S. Supreme Court in McDonald v. Chicago: the gun lobby and gun criminals will use it to try to strike down gun laws, and those legal challenges will continue to fail. "We are pleased that the Court reaffirmed its language in District of Columbia v. Heller that the Second Amendment individual right to possess guns in the home for self-defense does not prevent our elected representatives from enacting common-sense gun laws to protect our communities from gun violence. We are reassured that the Court has rejected, once again, the gun lobby argument that its `any gun, for anybody, anywhere' agenda is protected by the Constitution. The Court again recognized that the Second Amendment allows for reasonable restrictions on firearms, including who can have them and under what conditions, where they can be taken, and what types of firearms are available. "Chicago can amend its gun laws to comply with this ruling while continuing to have strong, comprehensive and Constitutional gun laws, just as Washington D.C. has done. After the Heller decision, at least 240 legal challenges have been brought to existing gun laws, nearly all of which have been summarily dismissed. There is nothing in today's decision that should prevent any state or local government from successfully defending, maintaining, or passing, sensible, strong gun laws." ### As the nation's largest, non-partisan, grassroots organization leading the fight to prevent gun violence, the Brady Campaign, with its dedicated network of Million Mom March Chapters, works to enact and enforce sensible gun laws, regulations and public policies. The Brady Campaign is devoted to creating an America free from gun violence, where all Americans are safe at home, at school, at work, and in our communities.

VPC in serious pain, y'all: Violence Policy Center Statement on McDonald v. Chicago Decision -- WASHINGTON, June 28 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- "People will die because of this decision. It is a victory only for the gun lobby and America's fading firearms industry. The inevitable tide of frivolous pro-gun litigation destined to follow will force cities, counties, and states to expend scarce resources to defend longstanding, effective public safety laws. The gun lobby and gunmakers are seeking nothing less than the complete dismantling of our nation's gun laws in a cynical effort to try and stem the long-term drop in gun ownership and save the dwindling gun industry. The 30,000 lives claimed annually by gun violence and the families destroyed in the wake of mass shootings and murder-suicides mean little to the gun lobby and the firearm manufacturers it protects."

Or he may do as he did with Heller and act like he was down with the 2nd Amendment all along, lol. Clinging to guns & re-election.

Eliminates the ban, but not "every law regulating firearms." From P.40: It is important to keep in mind that Heller, while striking down a law that prohibited the possession of handguns in the home, recog-nized that the right to keep and bear arms is not "a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose." 554 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 54). We made it clear in Heller that our hold-ing did not cast doubt on such longstanding regulatory measures as "prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill," "laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and gov-ernment buildings, or laws imposing conditions and quali-fications on the commercial sale of arms." Id., at ___-___ (slip op., at 54-55). We repeat those assurances here.Despite municipal respondents' doomsday proclamations, incorporation does not imperil every law regulating firearms. So the next step is to file suit against unreasonable restrictions that will surely follow this decision as it did in DC.

The goodness starts early in the opinion-P. 19: With this framework in mind, we now turn directly tothe question whether the Second Amendment right tokeep and bear arms is incorporated in the concept of due process. In answering that question, as just explained, we must decide whether the right to keep and bear arms is fundamental to our scheme of ordered liberty, Duncan, 391 U. S., at 149, or as we have said in a related context, whether this right is "deeply rooted in this Nation's his-tory and tradition," Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U. S. 702, 721 (1997) (internal quotation marks omitted). A Our decision in Heller points unmistakably to the an-swer. Self-defense is a basic right, recognized by many legal systems from ancient times to the present day,15 and in Heller, we held that individual self-defense is "the central component" of the Second Amendment right. 554 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 26); see also id., at ___ (slip op., at56) (stating that the "inherent right of self-defense has been central to the Second Amendment right"). Explain-ing that "the need for defense of self, family, and property is most acute" in the home, ibid., we found that this right applies to handguns because they are "the most preferred firearm in the nation to `keep' and use for protection of one's home and family," id., at ___ (slip op., at 57) (someinternal quotation marks omitted); see also id., at ___ (slip op., at 56) (noting that handguns are "overwhelmingly chosen by American society for [the] lawful purpose" ofself-defense); id., at ___ (slip op., at 57) ("[T]he American people have considered the handgun to be the quintessen-tial self-defense weapon"). Thus, we concluded, citizens must be permitted "to use [handguns] for the core lawful purpose of self-defense.

Calling them out during the last state of the union address was unwise.

"We will continue to fight those challenges, and are confident they will continue to fail." - Wow! And I thought we've been putting some in the WIN column lately.

I think that may win the prize for Most Ridiculous Poll Ever. Failure on so many levels.

Finally! Now for much wailing & gnashing of teeth from the Brady Campaign, Daley, Bloomberg. . . I'm gonna LOVE the next few weeks.

So if the ban is overturned, will it be legal to stick a bayonet up Daley's butt? Constitutionally speaking of course. . . Mayor Daley Regrets "Up Your Butt" Comment About City's Handgun Ban - cbs2chicago.com At that news conference, Chicago Reader reporter Mick Dumke asked Daley if the ban has been effective, given how many people are shot in the city every year. The mayor responded by picking up a rifle with a bayonet from among several seized guns that Chicago police had put on display. "It's been very effective," Daley said as he held the rifle. "If I put this up your butt, you'll find out how effective it is. Let me put a round up your, you know." Asked what prompted him to pick up the rifle in the first place, Daley said, "It was a gun with a bayonet. . just think, a gun with a bayonet. What is a bayonet used for?" When a reporter pointed out bayonets are not traditionally used for sticking up someone's butt, Daley said, "you stick it everyplace."

Just curious: Were you spraying cleaner in the gas tube for troubleshooting purposes, or is this something you normally do?

I'm afraid to pass any car now. They could be driving anything now! I swore I saw a dude get pulled over by a pink Mini Coop yesterday. :tinfoil:

I was heavily researching these a few months ago and it was hard to find any positive reviews. That may be simply because they aren't popular sellers yet, but it was hard to ignore the lack of shiny, happy people writing glowing reviews. Fortunately, my patience paid off and Academy ran a sale on 700 ADL's for under $300. Thusly, the search ended. The main complaints I recall were: 1. Ugly looks 2. Too much plastic (cheap feeling) 3. Gritty action (apparently NOTHING like the smooth 700 action) 4. Lack of features even at the small price point 5. Can't change the barrel.

A M82A1 with a t-shirt on it? Dyslexia comes in handy sometimes.

During her Solicitor General nomination proceedings, Ms. Kagan provided answers to Senator Chuck Grassley regarding her view of District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S.Ct. 2783 (2008): "The Supreme Court held in District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S.Ct. 2783 (2008), that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to keep and bear arms. The Court granted this right the same status as other individual rights guaranteed by the Constitution, such as those protected in the First Amendment . . . . I understand the Solicitor General’s obligations to include deep respect for Supreme Court precedents like Heller and for the principle of stare decisis generally. There is no question, after Heller, that the Second Amendment guarantees Americans “the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation."[19] Elena Kagan - Judgepedia

Amen to that! Kalifornia in the year 2095:

"Police have been told to be on alert for gang-related retaliation against the boys, according to Ken Jones, whose stepson, Daniel Galli, was one of the students who refused to turn their T-shirts inside-out when asked by a vice principal on Wednesday." Google searches of that area show reports of Hispanic gang activity. So I'm not sure I'm ready to hang Asst. Principal Rodriguez just yet until we've heard the whole story. I can imagine that it's possible he got wind of some threat against these students and hoped they could solve it by having them turn their shirts inside out. I hate this whole situation as much as the next guy, but I don't ever want to see a child become a martyr for the 1st Amendment, the flag, whatever.

For years & years, every company I worked for had Fed-Ex & UPS accounts and I knew the drivers by name. So it was easy for me to ship and have things delivered without ever touching a US Post Office. Then, I was laid off and started getting those advertisements in the mail about all the postal services. They certainly had the price right so I decided to give them a shot (even with all the horror stories I've heard). Well, I used them twice. On both occasions (one was shipping to Europe), I used their website (which they LOVE to push) but brought the package in to ask a simple question. On both occasions, I had to deal with the same guy who seems to be in a perpetual bad mood. Asking him questions is a NO-NO! With the international package, he even proceeded to lecture me about how I was saving money by doing it online and I wasn't supposed to bring the package to him. I guess I was supposed to leave the package in the car before asking him anything so I can wait in line twice. Oh yeah, and I saved a whole dollar. I wonder if he even cares or does he see the writing on the wall and lost all hope? When someone comes to your store and says, "I'm used to using your competitor so can you tell me how you handle. . . ?" Isn't this a perfect time to snatch a customer from your competitor just by being a little courteous? So back to UPS for me.

He appears to be joking with the girl and it wasn't a WWE-style beat-down by any stretch. But, he put his hands on her multiple times and that is a NO-NO! Bad judgement on his part. A quick and sincere apology on his part just might save his job, but nothing will save him from the impending lawsuit.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/right-now/2010/04/hhs_reports_of_buried_health_c.html "If this issue hadn't consumed my entire day so far," said Richard S. Foster, chief actuary at the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, "I would have found it fairly amusing." The article, he said, was "completely inaccurate."