Smith

I'm using the VLTOR stock and like it. I have also used the Command Arms CBS stock. Rock solid and it works. Although it's new, I like a lot of the Mission First Tactical stocks. I have some of their stuff on the AK and was pleasantly surprised by the quality and design. I like the Magpul CTR (MOE) and have had several but everyone and their mother has one as well . The Magpul UBR is an awesome stock with and equally impressive price tag.

Agreed. On Target is who owns this thing. Arsenal should have taken care of it but being that old I can see why they would state that position, especially if they are thinking it was previously owned. Arsenal has always produced top of the line guns. It is unreasonable to think they wouldn't ever get one out without an issue. After all they do have a warranty department and evidently they don't have much experience with those matters. On Target could have cleared all that up and gotten it taken care of from start to finish with Arsenal, if in fact it was a first time sell. If it was a previously owned gun they should have also taken care of that and made it right. This is On Targets debacle.

Depends on the gun and condition. The biggest discount is the lack of tax and TICS on the private sector. In a store it all depends on what the shop had to give for it and unlike the new guns that is not a fixed cost

In their defense it wasn't so obvious. Nobody caught it till Taylor shot it. I had a Red Jacket do some work on a front end of a Saiga once and it was equally as bad. Couldn't tell till you shot it. However, Red Jacket quickly fixed it. That can happen but they should have fixed it and/or their gunsmith should have taken it to his bench and then brought it back out 30 min. later ... fixed.

I have no problem with his statement in context. He wasn't talking about owing the Presidency to Obama, but rather the use of "politics as usual" as a characterization of Obama's campaign. Really think there is nothing there. Sometimes reading between the lines just gets you stuck in a rut.

It should. Those HG lock up pretty tight. However, I'd rather use the MI leaf sight mount. That way you know it will hold zero, you won't have the possible heat issue, and it mounts lower. Plus, I think it looks better balanced IMO. http://www.midwestin...category_id=421

Lower handguard is standard AK the top handguard is different. However, if the Top handguard attachs to the lower, like the MI, then they will work. As to the keyholing, that was fixed a while back by Century. The first runs of those they tried using 5.56 barrels and it didn't work. I have one and it is great. I love the keyholing stories because it meant I could get an awesome '74 variant under $500!

After some of this, I'm not sure if I'm more concerned by the sheer lack of big picture vision on our side or the straight up socialism on theirs. Paul will give us Obama like Perot gave us Clinton.

I have some stuff with Troy right now. He's as good as they come.

If it were indeed a 7.62, I'd be willing to bet it was actually a 7.62x25 Tokarev.

Not exactly the same thing, but the CCI Quiet .22's are truly quiet. I spent every week night shooting opossum's out from under my house with the stuff in my AR with a CMMG .22 conversion bolt. Won't cycle a semi auto, but it's about as loud as a BB gun. Velocity is around 710 fps. http://www.cci-ammun...ewproducts.aspx

I guess his house was safer than he thought!

Well, they arrested him for 2nd degree murder so there is definitely more there than the article allows us to know. If it was simply aggravated murder he wouldn't have gotten the 2nd degree. I'm guessing there are some extenuating circumstances.

Unfortunatley we can't. It is too violent and the fat kids get picked last and that hurts their feelings.

Oh, don't bring my Cubs into this! They have enough issues with the curse and all.

It's not a maybe. The homosexuals said they wouldn't push for adoption ... and now? They said it wouldn't push sodomy laws ... and now? They said it wouldn't push bestiality .. talk to Washington. The list goes on. Once you open the door of changing definitions from the established to the interpretive value of the few you will get a mess. Heck, that's how we've gotten to where we have with the constitution and liberalism. It's the so called "libertarians" and conservatives who can't see the connection between absolutes/relativism and the Constitution/law/society and issues such as this that concern me. There are either absolutes or there are not. You can not have some and have others be relative to the individual. This is not as much a religious issue as some want us to believe. That is too easy to dismiss for many. The deeper issue is what I have stated above.

Tombstone was FAR better. However, I did like how Wyatt Earp showed Earp's early years before the west. To me that was a far more interesting personal evolution in Earps' story than the bettter known western days,

Accroding to you own inability to know wright and wrong ... you get here from where? Sounds like an absolute to me.

The "rights" issue is a red herring. That is already doable through other channels. Heck giving power of attorney would do the same in most cases, living wills, etc. The bigger question is why do some insit on recognized same-sex marriage if those factors are not part of the equation? If marriage is legally recognized, Church's would then be subject to legal retaliation for "discrimination". Not only that but one small groups theology gets dictated to me and I have to abide or risk legal ramifications from the Federal government. Then you would have the State dictating the Church on theology and doctrine. If the State is dictating theology and doctrine then the State has become a church in and of itself. That is neither libertarian, constitutional, nor American. That alone is the main argument, but there are plenty of others. Why does a very small group of individuals get to dictate an entire culture shift and definition of a matter that is one of the few cultural and religious understandings that has transcended time, religion, and society throughout recorded history?

Technically, it wouldn't be either since both are governmental/political terms (legal/ civil union). Here's another way to think about it. If there is no one around to officiate/witness/document (TEOTW scenario) can there be a marriage or just two people being together? However, since the government has seen fit to oversee the ordinance it would be legal. BTW -on a humorous side note, in Medieval Britain if two people made commitments and physically consummated the relationship it was a legal marriage. Needless to say it was a busy time for Dark Age courts!

You are on the correct path. So why is marriage an issue to begin with?

I find it ironic that many of you who keep chanting about benefits of same-sex marriageare some of the same ones who complain about ex's getting all their stuff. I also find it ironic that many of the folks here crying for it here are the same ones that want absolute separation of church and state ... except when they want the state to dictate the Church. So the Church can not dictate to the state, but the state can dictate to the Church and that is some how more constitutional? If you want to talk about tax issues related to marriage that is political ... marriage is not. Marriage has always (and I mean always) been a religious recognition in all societies between God/god man and woman in every society and every religion. The fact that government has seen fit to involve itself in that is troubling. Separation of church and state unless it is marriage.

I liked the movie and thought the idea of the origins of the bad guy and Costner's character background was pretty good. The whole PO being the uniting factor was a little odd IMO, but not entirely unbelievable. As to Nicholas Cage, I never understood his appeal. The only movie he was worth anything in was Raising Arizona. That was an awesome movie!

Maybe we can have a "bump you Rep Points" thread like we used to have the "bump you post count" threads.

Don't know that I'd be able to really order them. They all have pro's and con's. The only one I'd really put at the bottom (or off the list) would be the Jennings. It was my first and I quickly learned a valuable lesson, so in that sense it was a good one for me - Romanian Draco - it counts as a pistol? 1. Browning - Hi-Power (Several 9's and a .40) 2. S&W - M&P9 (3) 3. CZ - 2075 RamiP, 75, P-07 4. Walther - P99 (2) 5. FN - FNP9 USG, Hi-Power (9mm and a .40) 6. FEG - PJK-9HP 7. Springfield - XD9 4" (several) 8. Glock - 19 (several) 9. Sig - 226 10. Ruger - SR9, LCR 38 11. Kel-Tec - PF9 (several), P11 12. Radom - P-64 13. Jennings