Smith

I'm a little ignorant on suppressors, but I was under the impression that suppresors take care of muzzle flash. That seems like a lot of flash? BTW I have shot with Raquel and she is very nice.

So far all we've seen of these guns are pictrures! Nice to see them getting some use!

You know they will still blame Bush. He was so bad even the "messiah" couldn't undue the 8 yrs of Bush/Cheaney policies. It's almost laughable how apologetic dems are about dems.

I don't know about TN, but in NW Arkansas there are a bunch. It is definitely a weird thing to hear them. Over there you have to be careful with the Mountain Lions/Pumas/Cougars/ etc. when night hunting for coyotes and other varmints. They will definitely come out to investigate the calls. There has also been a rash of attacks out west from these beautiful animals. They are making a comeback nationally so it wouldn't surprise me to see them here.

The more I see those the more I like them.

Every time production can't keep up with the population there is an inevitability... usually war. Those wars tend to thin the population pretty good. Gloomy I know, but call it "market" correction.

A couple of references for you. 1729 - Jonathan Swift's "A Modest Proposal" Walter Williams http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/williams022499.asp Population control nonsense (JWR) ----(http://www.jewishworldreview.com) MULTIBILLIONAIRE TED TURNER, Jane Fonda's husband, told last week's 27th annual meeting of the National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association (NFPRHA): "We have to defeat those congressmen and senators who are standing in the way of progress. We've got to win the next election." Turner, founder of CNN and vice chairman of Time-Warner Inc., was sounding the alarm that something must be done about overpopulation. This father of five said we could achieve the "ideal" world population of 2 billion people, as opposed to today's 6 billion, "if everybody adopted a one-child policy for 100 years." How did Turner arrive at the ideal population? He learned it from his mentor, professor Paul Erlich, author of the 1968 best-seller, "The Population Bomb." In that book, Erlich predicted major food shortages in the United States, and by "the 1970s ... hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death." Erlich forecasted the starvation of 65 million Americans between 1980 and 1989, and by 1999 the U.S. population would have declined to 22.6 million. Erlich saw England in a more desperate situation, saying, "If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000." Idiots like Erlich and organizations such as Planned Parenthood, the State Department's Agency for International Development and NFPRHA constantly sound nonsense warnings about how overpopulation produces disaster and poverty. There is absolutely no relationship between high populations, disaster and poverty. Population control idiots might consider Zaire's meager population density of 39 people per square mile to be ideal while Hong Kong's population density of 247,501 people per square mile is problematic. Hong Kong is 6,000 times more crowded than Zaire. Yet Hong Kong's per capita income is $8,260 while Zaire, the world's poorest country, has a per capita income of less than $200. Planet Earth is loaded with room. We could put the world's entire population into the United States. Doing so would make our population density 1,531 people per square mile. That's a far lower population density than what now exists in New York (11,440), Los Angeles (9,126) and Houston (7,512). The entire U.S. population could move to Texas and each family of four would enjoy 2.9 acres of land. If the entire world's population moved to Texas, California, Colorado and Alaska, each family of four would enjoy nine-tenths of an acre of land. So-called overpopulation problems are really a result of socialistic government practices that reduce the capacity of people to educate, clothe, house and feed themselves. Poor countries are rife with agricultural restrictions, export and import controls, restrictive licensing and price controls, not to mention gross human rights abuses that encourage their most productive people to emigrate. The most promising anti-poverty tool for poor people and poor countries is personal liberty. But let's get back to the population-control gang and ask: Suppose the rest of us don't feel like adopting a one-child policy, then what? The elite's answer will be to use brute government force, like China does, to impose a one-child policy. You say: "Williams, what would make you say that? Just ask, who are the heroes of America's liberals, including Ted Turner's wife, Jane Fonda? They are some of history's most despicable blood thirsty tyrants, like Mao Zedong, Lenin, Stalin and Castro. Don't forget that it was the 1960s campus liberals who marched around singing the praises of Mao, Lenin and Ho Chi Min. The difference between now and then is that many of these liberals have moved up to become congressmen, senators, presidents, college professors and government workers

You guys have lost it. Will it be bad? Yeah, is it the end of the world as we know it? NO! We survived Carter, this will be similar IMO. Did the world recover from 911? Yes. The Great Depression? Yes. Did we recover from WWI & II? Yes. Have we recovered from every other world crisis know to man? Yes. In fact, in most cases we continue to build and advance because/in spite of these kind of circumstances. Will things be forever changed? Of course they will. That is just life and the human existence. "There is nothing new under the sun." Loosen up the tin foil. The blood is not flowing to your brains anymore.

You are absolutely right. "Rich" people don't have their money sitting around in checking or savings accounts. They are in tax shelter and investments that have no tax liability or little to no liability. They use leverage on their invested money as living expenditures. The only taxes that can be collected are on payroll and income that most middle class Americans make in the form of salaries etc. Again, "rich" people don't get a huge paycheck that can be taxed (most of the time) instead it is in the form of stock options, benefits, expense type stuff. Example - I agree to work for 500k per year but I am paid only 100k in "salary". The rest is paid as housing, car, travel, stock, etc. all those are tax write offs. The only "rich" people by Obama's definition and tax structure will be middle class America that makes a paycheck. BTW - think Carter. 22% interest rates, astronomical inflation, true GDP recession, debt, etc. Of course this will all be blamed on Bush's policies that were just so bad the Messiah couldn't fix all the damage.

I really see Obama as a less effective Jimmy Carter. He owes so many people and has such little political clout, I doubt he'll get anything done. Dems are not know for efficiency in government once in power. They are good at getting in power but start to in fight (Republicans as well). Billiary had a Dem congress, judicial, and executive control and Hillary care failed miserably as did several other projects and he was a skilled politician. Obama will be comletley ineffective as a President even with congress.

no

Can't do much better than this for a reference. http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=3&f=4&t=226782

They gave up. Vanderbilt hospital bought it and is making it a satelite medical plaza. It actually is starting to look decent again. BTW - the Home Depot across the street is the fastest way to loose any and all tools you might have with you. If you see guys sitting in a truck, they are more than likely waiting for you to leave so they can ".shop"

It's because they don't have soy beans and it is cheap and easy to manufacture. Think of it as a poor man's plastic.

Korobov TKB-022 assault rifle http://world.guns.ru/assault/as94-e.htm Just happened to be looking at that yesterday.

and people thought I was paranoid for not wanting to send my kids to commie school.:)

It's all in good fun. Most folks take it in stride.

you had to go and do it. Taken from Chuck Hawks site. However, between the two mentioned, .40.

I gotta go with the Savage 110. You can't beat the price and it will be more than accurate out of the box. I personally think the .270 is a better all round cartridge. You can use it for everything from varmint (light loads) up to elk or even moose with heavy loads.

Long and short is that you can not put a stock on that under current laws, because it is a pistol. East Side has had a couple and they look good. If I had the money and all the other stuff I want already, I'd get one.

I personally think the reaction above shows how conditioned we have become to black racism. The assumption that he made some racist comment is interesting. The joke is exactly the opposite and yet we get these statements. You do realize you are agreeing with his shirt ..... right?

Kel-Tec PF9 or the Ruger SR9. I have been very impressed with the thinness of the SR9.

Ha, Ha! You won't find any books of that nature because it would be about two pages. One of those being a title page! Seriously, field striping is removing the top cover and sliding the bolt back and out. Clean the piston and the barrel. Lube? a little light lube on moving parts is good but not necessary. There is an excellent book on the history of the AK called "AK-47" by Larry Kahaner.

I really like it. In fact I have used them on both AR's I've built as well as all my AK's I've had. The CAA G27 is similar but not the same. I got this one for $15 at CDNN. http://www.cdnninvestments.com/arpigrnewism.html

Saw them some years ago in Little Rock. My college buddy was a big Christian punk/metal fan. They are pretty good. I think Stavesacre was there as well. Although they haven't been around in a while I liked Bride when they were playing as well.