Smith

[quote name='MacGyver' timestamp='1353090291' post='846678'] I hear Mitch McConnell is the leading advocate for extending the term limit right now. That way he can get all the Republicans in the Senate onboard with making Obama a two-term president. [/quote] They rambled that same mess with Clinton.

Sent paperwork Oct. 10th, pending Nov. 13th.

In the USPS defense, the fed takes any and all of their profit and puts it in the general fund. A fairly good example of how government runs things. Take from the makers to give to the takers then blame the makers.

If you convert a Saiga AND properly do the front end the dollar amount is fairly even if not a little ahead with the Arsenal. You have to add in the refinishing and proper parts. Are they worth it? Yes and no. Do you get a "better gun (reliability, function, etc.?) with an Arsenal .... no. Do you get a fully complete and properly factory built AK that is top shelf for a fair deal? Yes. Would I buy an Arsenal? No. I'd go with the Saiga and make it exactly the way I want it. If I wanted a historically correct traditional AK that I wasn't going to change anything on, I'd get the Arsenal. It's all in what you want. Six of one 1/2 dozen of the other.

[quote name='HvyMtl' timestamp='1352930588' post='845716'] They are remaking this. A travesty in my mind. Kerry wont get it. Too much baggage. Too good of a Karl Rove character assassination. [/quote] I agree with the travesty. I'm afraid the remake is going to destroy my childhood and love of AK's! I also agree Kerry won't get it ...at least I hope not. Just the fact that he could be put up for that is confirmation of the administrations outright hatred for the military. BTW - Karl didn't assassinate Kerry's character. Kerry did that himself in Vietnam.

I laugh so I won't cry.

According to Aguilla, they work very well in the Winchester 1300 for which they were deseigned. Aguilla also says they will work in some Mossbergs but not 870's. I had an IAC (870) clone that they workded in but you had to be firm and fast on the pump. Evidently Aguilla's sight is down or I'd post the link.

Problem is there aren't enough that care about values. If Benghazi didn't bring down massive elements of the administration, Fast and Furious didn't lead to prison sentences, or Obama care lead to state revolts - this won't matter. Was it stolen? I wouldn't go that far.No doubt there was massive cheating from the libs as usual, but that is just a continuation of the symptoms of socialism. Going after this issue is like tyring to cure an HIV patient by treating their flu symptoms.

Hey c.lunn, you know D&T has Crossbreeds for the M&P in stock. No wait! :-)

[quote name='reed1285' timestamp='1352779473' post='844668'] Mine had a round trunion, ive seen the ones with the flat trunions as well. Not sure what the difference is either.[/quote] Just different. Older ones seemed to have more occurrences of flat trunnions. Kinda like dimple-non dimple versions.

[quote name='TLRMADE' timestamp='1352691813' post='844130'] Good deal! That's what I wanted to hear! I might try a Vortex Sparc...just dunno about the co-witness?[/quote] It won't co-witness. Come by and you can see mine on the Draco. It has the Sparc as well. Do a search on the TWS and you will see what I've been saying about it. [IMG]http://i176.photobucket.com/albums/w191/nsnate02/Guns/Untitled.jpg[/IMG]

Unfortunately you are defined by the company you keep. That goes for states as well. While there are pro 2A dems it is their party that continues to push for absolute bans. We have to keep our eyes on republicans as well, since they enable the left. Its also true that many dems are actually conservative, but when they elect leftist simply for the D it negates their intentions. Same goes for issues with R's. If they wasn't to change that perception they need to stop voting party and vote their conscience and values. Goes both ways.

[quote name='TNcitizen22' timestamp='1352650647' post='843751']In addition to free choice, perhaps because we disenfranchise a large portion of our population.[/quote] Yeah, that must be the reason:rolleyes:

[quote name='strickj' timestamp='1352506070' post='842778'] What did I miss? What did he say contrary to that, that you have failed to provide for us? [/quote] Context.

[quote name='strickj' timestamp='1352498476' post='842702'] Robert; I'm not an Atheist and I'm not looking to remove religious expression. You're damn skippy! And why do you think that is? Why do you feel the need to legislate your religious opinion? Your religious opinion is infringing on my rights to not be governed by the church. And, for the question that is always ignored, how would you feel if the law said you could not eat pork or womens had to keep their hair covered? Yeah, that would be considered unconstitutional because it's not your religious opinion that;s being legislated. AK, that is an opinion piece. How about something.... let's say.... legal? I have quoted from Cornell Law, The ACLU, The First Amendment Center in Nashville, and the Britannica Encyclopedia. Not including quoting the First and Jefferson's very own words. Thanks. [/quote] Easy trigger. You know very well we won't see eye to eye on this no matter how much either presents. We've already presented the same stuff over and over and I was trying to avoid that in yet another thread, but alas here we are. I'm fine with that and pretty sure you are too. As far as legal rulings, there aren't any that have to do with the premise you or I layed out, which is the intent of our foundation. All the legal rulings are on specific issues where religion and government crossed. There are cases that speak to both. The ACLU, Cornell, and all the rest you posted ARE in fact opinion pieces on those rulings as well as interpretations of what those rulings inteded and meant and the reprecussion they hold. The reason you and some others believe that my postion is a farily new one is becasue the base understaning has always been (until recently) not in contention. It has only been recent that the base understanding needed a defense from new concepts. Much like the current 2a debates.

Here you go Strickj. [url="http://www.forbes.com/sites/billflax/2011/07/09/the-true-meaning-of-separation-of-church-and-state/"]http://www.forbes.com/sites/billflax/2011/07/09/the-true-meaning-of-separation-of-church-and-state/[/url]

[quote name='strickj' timestamp='1352493775' post='842637'] Stated while sitting president. Held fast for over 200 years. It is not just a modern day heathen opinion. [/quote] Re-read that Strickj. He says "establishment". Until recently that has been intepreted as the govenement not "establishing" a state denomitnation. Thus, the first part of that quote. "Between man and his God" hardly sounds like " between man and his God or lack thereof."

[quote name='AK Guy' timestamp='1352491046' post='842611'] Yeah, it's been so oppressive here for so long. [b]Strickj, we've been over this [/b]and your Cornell intepretatio quote via wikipedia does not an agrument make. Why not just quote Sotomayor. [/quote] No need to to rehash it here.

[quote name='strickj' timestamp='1352490524' post='842608'] American taliban. read the Establishment Clause. The First has been interpreted the same way since Jefferson wrote "separation of church and state". From Cornel Law This is not opinion. [/quote] Yeah, it's been so oppressive here for so long. Strickj, we've been over this and your Cornell intepretatio quote via wikipedia does not an agrument make. Why not just quote Sotomayor.

[quote name='strickj' timestamp='1352489672' post='842601'] Huh? Demanding religion to be removed from government does not mean that I want government controlling us. Quite the opposite actually. I do not want the government controlling, sponsoring and showing preference to any religion. Just like that pesky First Amendment says... [/quote] Freedom "of". Not freedom "from".

This was never about Obama or Romney or democrat our republican. It was and is about the electorate.

JAB, have you been reading Das Kapital?

Aren't gun laws great! The more I read the more like tax code these things sound.

Lester i make no assumption about political party. However, the values of our current parties are clear. As has happened in the past that could very well flip flop and change. I'm not tied to defending a party but there is no denying their is a sharp contrast between the current two. The Bible is also very clear on what type of "government" God intended and there is no denying that it was a prophet lead society. Kings came about because of mans stubbornness. Samuel warned them that a king would take their freedom and yet they demanded a king like the other nations. Like a father with stubborn children, God allowed them what they demanded and they got what we have gotten. So no, you can't make the scripture read what you want it to be anymore than the liberals can make the constitution a "living" document and maintain original intent.

I agree but it appears inevitable. I'd rather me be here to go through it with my kids then leaving them or their children to do our work. Not real exciting either way.