TGO David

First, the video: http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/checker.aspx?v=e4qG6UIr8z Then, the news article from Worldnet Daily. Emanuel volunteers Americans to do 'a lot' 'If you're worried about having to do 50 jumping jacks the answer is yes' Posted: November 13, 2008 1:00 am Eastern By Bob Unruh WorldNetDaily A video of a 2006 interview with now-Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel for president-elect Barack Obama reveals plans for mandatory induction for all young adults into a civilian "force." "If you're worried about, are you going to have to do 50 jumping jacks, the answer is yes," Emanuel told the interviewer, a reporter who was podcasting for the New York Daily News at the time. WND reported last weekend when the official website for Obama, Change.gov, announced he would "require" all middle school through college students to participate in community service programs. However, after a flurry of blogs protested children being drafted into Obama's proposed youth corps, officials softened the website's wording. Originally, under the tab "America Serves," Change.gov read, "President-Elect Obama will expand national service programs like AmeriCorps and Peace Corps and will create a new Classroom Corps to help teachers in under served schools, as well as a new Health Corps, Clean Energy Corps, and Veterans Corps. "Obama will call on citizens of all ages to serve America, by developing a plan to require 50 hours of community service in middle school and high school and 100 hours of community service in college every year," the site announced. WND previously reported on a video of a marching squad of Obama youth and Obama's "civilian national security force," which he said in July would be just as powerful and well-funded as the U.S. military. Now comes the Emanuel video, which has been embedded here: (see above) In the interview, Emanuel was questioned whether participants in the proposed force would live in barracks. "Somewhere between the age of 18 to 25 you will do three months of training. You can do it at some point in your college time," he said. "There can be nothing wrong with all Americans having a joint, similar experience of what we call civil defense training or civil service." Emanuel said the planned requiring service "will give people a sense of what it means to be an American." He said, of course, the plan at that point was flexible. "We propose three months [but] at the end of the day [if] someone says it should be four … I'm not going sit here and hold up [plans]," Emanuel said. When the reporter questioned the commitment, Emanuel responded, "Guess what. We have a lot more challenges. We are going to need a lot to do it. If you're worried about are you going to have to do 50 jumping jacks the answer is yes." He chuckled at the reporters concerns. "Rather than figure out if whether you take a train ride or a barrack. … Think of it this way, it will be a common experience. "There will be a body of citizens who are ready, capable and trained," he said. But the plan, especially its demand that Americans participate in a domestic "force," has been raising questions. The blogger Gateway Pundit called Obama's plan the "creation of his Marxist youth corps," and DBKP commented, "'Choosing' to serve should be approved by parents – not required by the government. No amount of good intentions can sugar-coat words like 'mandatory,' 'compulsory' or 'required.'" Emanuel uses his book, "The Plan: Big Ideas for America," to specify that he would propose, for all Americans ages 18 to 25, that they "serve their country by going through three months of basic training, civil defense preparation and community service." Obama, meanwhile, also has yet to clarify what he meant during his July "Call to Service" speech in Colorado Springs in which he insisted the U.S. "cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we've set" and needs a "civilian national security force." A video of his comments is here: [ame= ][/ame][ame] [/ame]Joseph Farah, founder and editor of WND, used his daily column first to raise the issue and then to elevate it with a call to all reporters to start asking questions about it. "If we're going to create some kind of national police force as big, powerful and well-funded as our combined U.S. military forces, isn't this rather a big deal?" Farah wrote. "I thought Democrats generally believed the U.S. spent too much on the military. How is it possible their candidate is seeking to create some kind of massive but secret national police force that will be even bigger than the Army, Navy, Marines and Air Force put together? "Is Obama serious about creating some kind of domestic security force bigger and more expensive than that? If not, why did he say it? What did he mean?" Farah wrote. The Obama campaign has declined to respond to WND questions on the issue. But Farah's call generated intense Internet discussions. The Blue Collar Muse blog commented, "The questions are legion and the implications of such an organization are staggering! What would it do? According to the title, it's a civilian force so how would it go about discharging 'national security' issues? What are the Constitutional implications for such a group? How is this to be paid. … The statement was made in the context of youth service. Is this an organization for just the youth or are adults going to participate? How does one get away from the specter of other such 'youth' organizations from Nazi Germany and the former Soviet Union when talking about it?"

And the combination of a PRI GasBuster charging handle and an adjustable gas block will fix that for a lot cheaper than a piston-driven upper will.

Pretty sure he's in the Williamson County area, although his user profile doesn't say. That'd be a pretty good drive.

Hey... they knew you were coming?

People may express their opinions of the gun with impunity. They may not disparage each other with the same. Now, you're welcome for the tip but if you care to keep going, you will talk yourself out of a spot here in the TGO community. It's your call.

Maybe you should contribute something worthwhile to the thread or just resist the urge to post.

Hey, you should sue Gaston. He copied your signature and put it on the new gun slide.

At least the cocking serrations point in the direction that you're supposed to hold the gun. That should cut down on potential lawsuits, right?

I'm not sure what the hell they are smoking in Austria, but once again they fail to deliver interchangeable back straps to customize the grip to the shooter's hand size. And the new cocking serrations... seriously? I mean, come on... really?

You guys really need to read Lone Survivor by Marcus Luttrell if you haven't already. Great book. Gives tremendous insight into the world of the guys who do this kind of thing (SEALs) and the sacrifices they sometimes make. It's also pretty eye-opening in respect to the region, the people and the social-political structure where this guy was held captive.

Great... someone had to mention "bearskin jockstrap". Now we're definitely going to end up on a watch list.

Welcome. Thanks for joining us.

I'm sorry.

Glock has probably done more to create jobs in the aftermarket pistol sight industry than any other manufacturer. All by virtue of the fact that their standard sights suck major bilge water. That being said, there are literally hundreds of possible candidates for your new sights. I would really recommend trying to get your hands and eyes on as many of them as possible before buying any one in particular. I've gone through three sights of night sights on my own Glock 19, trying to find a set that I really liked. And the problem is, I've really liked all of them but I end up seeing something else that looks like I would really like more and then the process starts over again. I am presently using Warren Tactical / Sevigny Carry sights with tritium inserts on my Glock 19. It is a dot-on-dot arrangement similar to the Heinie Straight Eights.

Go for the gold, man. You know I think that a full auto transferable MG is going to be the bee's knees and I'd own one in a heartbeat if I had the disposable resources to do it. And yeah, the MG would be a lot better "investment" than the SBR. You can always part out an SBR and retain your lower receiver, sell the rest... but you're going to see depreciation on the value of the parts. That's not going to be the case with the transferable gun. Hell, I see just the receivers going for upwards of $5,000 easily. Do eet.

Perhaps... just perhaps... there's nothing to discuss in private? And thanks for resorting to name-calling (jerk) and trying to make it a personal issue when it's just a matter of point and counter-point.

It cuts the velocity a bit with a standard A2 brake. You pick some of it back up with a suppressor and with certain brake designs (like the Noveske KX3) but never enough to really get back to where you'd want to use a SBR to engage a target out at 300yds. When you shorten the barrel beneath 16-inches, you're effectively relegating that rifle to closer quarters use.

I didn't build my rifle to be an investment and could care less if it goes up in value, as I have no intention of selling it. I built it to be a practical defensive carbine for my own enjoyment. You're missing the point of enjoying a firearm if you constantly hamstring yourself with thoughts about how much it's going to be worth when you decide to flip it. As for professional, I didn't realize we were engaging in business here. I thought we were having a conversation.

I'm just doing my part to cut through misinformation. If my attacking the flawed points your making bothers you, stop making flawed points.

I lied... I'm not done with you yet. #1. It's not a silencer, it's a suppressor. ergo, my next point... #2. Unless you're shooting subsonic rounds or shooting a wet suppressor, it's not THAT much quieter and your neighbors are still going to hear it. #3. Given the choice between having another half pound of metal hanging off the end of a front heavy 16-inch carbine or a more balanced short barreled rifle, I'm going to go with the shorter barrel. WHICH, coincidentally enough, is the reason why most of the people who know about this **** because they get paid to prance around in the 5.11 tacti-cool pants in places where the targets shoot back, choose to have a short barrel rifle to begin with. But what do I know.

Your ignorance on the matter is astounding, but I don't have the patience or the interest to rehash the benefits of a SBR with someone who apparently knows way more than I do about it. We'll just pretend that I have no experience with the ergonomics or benefits of a shorter barreled AR15 and I will defer to what you've gleaned from reading **** on the Internet. Cliffs Notes: You win, because I don't care. EDIT: I forgot to mention that your argument about the lack of practicality of a civilian owning an SBR unless they just want to look cool prancing around their house in 5.11 gear pretty much MURDERS your reason for wanting to own a "bullet hose" (your words) for which the practical applications are undoubtedly limitless. Am I right? Because if a guy with a SBR looks cool to the geeks at the shooting range, then a guy with a fully is going to be a mother****ing GOD among men. I get it now. You're just wanting the biggest gun-dick that you can afford.

Do you realize that you are trying to make a case against a $200 tax stamp to own a short barrel rifle which are cheap and plentiful by making a case for a $200 tax stamp to own a transferrable full auto weapon which are neither cheap nor plentiful? It would take someone in the used car business to use logic like that. Oh, wait...

I have no idea. Key words, perhaps. I'm getting ready to upgrade our forum software, so it may even be a bug. We're still in Beta phase with the 3.8 version.

Emails of any sort coming out of the TGO server are going to be subject to the same crap we've been fighting with for months now. A lot of ISPs block our emails incorrectly as "spam".

The costs involved are... $200. You're right. It seems super prohibitive when you look at it that way. As for the actual gains, that falls into the category if "If you have to explain it..."