East_TN_Patriot

And don't forget, the next POTUS can just as easily change the policy with a similar swipe of a pen.

  Certainly he didn't think it would stop rounds, right?  

  I'm signed up for their daily emails.  Can't beat their quality, prices, and customer service.  I am especially sensitive to that after taking my Spike's Tactical to the range today and see that it STILL doesn't function properly.   :wall:  Joe Bob Outfitters has some decent deals and they are a TGO vendor.  I'm not sure if they started doing the free shipping for TGO members again or not.

:doh:   I did the same thing once when I was 19 years old.  Shot a hole through my television set and the sofa in the other room.  Thank God nobody was in there.  Learned my lesson right then and there.

I agree.  It would be well worth trying to scrape together the money to get one of these uppers to match the lower.

That this is even remotely a serious question shows how broken the Republican Party is.  :shake: Sorry folks, but it seems that all it takes to be considered as a viable candidate for POTUS is to be loud and obnoxious and make abstract statements about policy that people like.  The Dems got Obama, The Reps wanted Palin, then Newt, and then Bachman.  Then it was Rubio. Then it was Rand Paul.  Now it's Ted Cruz.  And people here are seriously saying that Ted Nugent would be a good candidate, but would also likely say that voting for a solid Libertarian is giving the election away to the Dems???

It might be easier to go into the vendor sub-forum and look at their websites.

At the end of the day, does it really matter?  No, but the upper and lower receiver are really the two primary components of the rifle, it's my preference that they match, especially since these are billet parts instead of mil-spec forged parts.  As far as the BCG, it's not essential, but I'm just nit-noid enough that I prefer the BCG to be from the same place I get the upper and lower.  I built a Spike's Tactical rifle and I like that the logo on the BCG matches the logo on the lower and upper.  It's kind of like Sheldon Cooper and his spot on the couch.  It really makes no difference at all since pretty much all BCGs made to spec are just fine.  They are offering a very reasonable price for a quality BCG, so it's a win-win for me.

And from the item description: Um... :screwy:

The auction is just for the stock:   So you can pay $300 to turn your $300 rifle into a $100 rifle.   :squint:    :slap:

The only thing I would add to this is that some states do indicate that a burglary to an occupied dwelling is prima facie evidence that they intend to do you harm and deadly force is justified. I recall case law that said a homeowner did not even have to wait until the threshold of the home was crossed. In Kentucky, deadly force was authorized for any arson, including to an unoccupied structure. The logic for that was the possibility that someone could be inside and nobody realize it, and/or the fire could spread and jeopardize others.

The party isn't lacking ability. It's the individual voters who can't break free from the false belief that the two party system is the only viable option. Republicans have bought into the belief, one perpetuated by the Republican Party, that a vote for a third party is a vote for the Democrats. They want you to believe that because until you figure out it is a bunch of crap, they can count on you to vote for any candidate they put up with an "R" beside their name. The voters lack the ability to have the guts to vote their conscience.

The Libertarian Party is still ready and willing to accept your support. 

Ok, I'm sure this has been discussed before and I'll admit I didn't do a search because I just got home from work and I'm feeling lazy. What benefit, if any, is there to the .300 BLK versus the 5.56mm besides bullet weight? I have a couple of 16" ARs in 5.56 and I'm considering a .300 BLK with my TGO parts.

Sweet geezuz! Who's on third?

I can't access data on the USDOJ website or the NIJ website, but that's the least of my worries.  Starting Monday, my wife will be working without pay and my income alone isn't enough to pay the mortgage, bills, daycare, and groceries.  We have some in savings after buying this house a few months ago and paying some medical bills, but it will only get us by for the first month or so.  If this continues, you will be seeing me selling off guns one at a time on here until I have none left.  Once that is gone, I guess I'll be looking for a second job until these douchbags get their crap in order.  

Am I the only one who gets irritated as heck by the people on GunBroker who will list an item, but stick the model of a different firearm in the title so it comes up in other searches?  For example, tonight I did a search for a Sig P228 and I get results for a P220, P226, P238, and P239.  Why? Because people will list their item as: "P226 NOT P228 P229" or "P220 Used P226 P228 P229" It just irritates the living bujeezuz out of me and I wouldn't bid on their item simply out of principle.   There. I'm glad I got that off of my chest.  :wall:

I went to CCA for the first time in 2008 when we moved to Knoxville because the State of Tennessee wouldn't recognize my Florida Police Firearms Instructor Certification and I had to take the class for my CCW permit. I was so put off with the place and the attitude of the employees, I didn't return for over a year. I decided to give them another shot, but left with the same impression and didn't go back again until a little more than a year ago after hearing some comments that things had improved. I found that the old group of gun store commandos were gone and they had some nice folks working in there. Since then, they have made some changes to the place and I am happy to swing in there on occasion when I have time to kill or I'm on the lookout for something. I have not used their smithing service, but do plan to have a gun slide or two duracoated by them in the near future.

Two things and then I am done with this silly "tyranny" rhetoric. 1) I'm a FORMER law enforcement officer. I quit that profession in 2008 because I didn't like the direction the profession was going in and because I could see all of the damage many public policies and laws I was required to enforce we're doing to society. 2) I'm not "rationalizing" anything. I study, teach, and do research on topics related to law, criminal justice policy, theories of crime and criminal justice, crimes of powerful, crimes of atrocity, and the history of law and justice in the United States. I know a thing or two about what I'm talking about. You need to read more since you are making a tautological argument and demanding exactly what you are ranting against.

With all due respect, you're not making sense. In the same argument you are saying that the "Framers" - not the Founders since many of them didn't support the new Constitution and wanted to stick with the Articles of Confederation that very much preferred state and local control over issues in preference to the federal government - the Framers intended for the Constitution to be the supreme law of the land and not to be interpreted in any way by the Supreme Court, even though they included Article III establishing the Court, and even though they added the 10th Amendment that specifically reserves the bulk of law-making power to the states or "the people" being us, yet "the people" have no authority to pass local ordinances. In addition, you are saying that the rule of law and the legal framework that is in place, including the amendment process and the ability to speak freely and protest, are not legitimate mechanisms for determining as a nation what laws should be followed, rather we should all adopt your completely subjective interpretation of what the Constitution means and what the Framers intended because you say so. That, sir, is an argument for anarchy. Your argument also fails to recognize the Enlightenment era political philosophies that inspired the Constitution, especially social contract theory that relies on the idea that people voluntarily give up a certain amount of liberty for the benefits a civil society provides. A civilian society is grounded in the rule of law, a law written through a specific legal process that is conducted with public input and the ability of voters to impeach and/or vote people out of office. You don't like the ordinance. Fair enough. I don't necessarily like it either, but just because you don't like a local ordinance, that doesn't constitutive tyranny. So again, what is tyranny? A definition I quickly looked up on the web says this: tyr·an·ny ˈtirənē/ noun 1.cruel and oppressive government or rule. "people who survive war and escape tyranny" synonyms: despotism, absolute power, autocracy, dictatorship, totalitarianism, Fascism; More a nation under cruel and oppressive government. cruel, unreasonable, or arbitrary use of power or control. "she resented his rages and his tyranny" (esp. in ancient Greece) rule by one who has absolute power without legal right. Please educate all of us on how a sign ordinance that was passed by a board of democratically elected officials, in a meeting open to the public, with multiple opportunities for people to voice opposition, that is presumably supported by most members of that community, that has been deemed to be constitutional by the court, that can be challenged again in court, or repealed through though the political process constitutes "cruel, unreasonable, or arbitrary use of power" or "rule by one who has absolute power without legal right". I'm sorry to burst your bubble, but the law is not determined or interpreted by RichardR. If it were, then we'd have tyranny. However, I'll help you out and propose that perhaps what you are referring to is a "tyranny of the majority" since that makes a little more sense based on your argument. Is it possible for the majority to pass tyrannical policies through the democratic process? Most certainly, however, even here, I find it very difficult to say that a sign ordinance that people support banning the posting of signs on the city right-of-way is tyrannical. The guy can legally post his sign 3 feet away, but that's tyrannical? Tyranny of the majority is voting to support slavery, to remove the Native Americans from the Eastern US, to withhold the right to vote, to support "separate but equal" facilities, to tell people you must be deported without due process because your not an American citizen (even though constitutional rights to due process are considered natural rights for all human beings), to hold people without due process because we label you a potential terrorist, telling a group of Muslims they can't build a mosque in their community, or telling people they cannot participate in legally sanctioned marriage because we don't like the fact that you want to spend your life with a same-sex partner. Tyranny of the majority is voting for leaders and joining their armies in order to force members of a specific religion to wear yellow stars on their clothes until you arrest them, seize all of their personal belongings, and ship them off to be tortured, worked to death, or gassed. Tyranny of the majority is supporting a regime that will arm the population with machetes and tell them to travel across the Rwandan countryside and hack their fellow countrymen to death. That is tyranny of the majority, not telling someone how close to the road that they can stick a flipping yard sign.

Don't ya know?  Bad spellingz iz kewl.

I too own a few Sigs and no Glocks.  Both are well-built and well-engineered firearms.  The Sig is a bit more refined like a Cadillac and the Glock is like a Honda.  

  Where to start... Based on the way I am reading your argument, liberty and individual freedom only exist in an absence of government (aka anarchy).  If that is the case, then say so and argue the point from that position.  If that is not your point, you are saying that any government regulation that you, as an individual, disagrees with is tyranny.  Further, what do most people consider tyranny?  I am rather certain that the police yanking a political sign from someone's front yard in the section that is deemed city right-of-way would be tyrannical.  I believe you are sharp enough to know this, so you are using the "tyranny" trope for dramatic effect.  Next, in regards to your point about an ordinance trumping the 4th and 5th Amendments, I think you have it a little wrong.  The 4th Amendment has been ruled to not apply to crimes that are in plain view or open fields.  The police observed an ordinance violation, the evidence of the violation was in plain view, and it was on a city right-of-way, not private property (if you want to argue the point about city easements on what you think should be private property, then that's a different argument to have).  Next, once the sign was seized, the property owner should have an opportunity to appeal the police action and receive his/her property back if it is found that no law was broken.  That is due process.     No, that is no comparison.  A whole different realm of constitutional law has been entered into here.  The area immediately around the house is considered curtilage and is specifically protected under the 4th Amendment just as the interior of your home would be.

The treaty has been signed by enough UN member nations to become binding under international law, but a minimum of 50 nations have to officially ratify it through their own political process.  That has not happened. Currently only 7 nations have ratified the treaty.  The United States has signed it, but for it to be legally binding, it has to be ratified by the US Senate with a 2/3 majority.  That is not going to happen in the near future.  If it were to happen later on, it will primarily be up to the executive branch to enforce the treaty within the United States unless the UN Security Council unanimously votes to use the power of the United Nations to have member nations contribute military and/or diplomatic resources to get the United States to comply.   The next question is one that is being neglected here: what does the treaty say and what would need to be enforced?  On this one, I think that this one has been blown a tad bit out of proportion.  Why? 1) The treaty specifically reaffirms the "sovereign right of any State to regulate and control conventional arms exclusively within its territory, pursuant to its own legal and constitutional system"   2) It specifically states that the treaty assumes a policy of "non-intervetion in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any State..." 3) It specifically says the purpose is to "prevent and eradicate the illicit trade" of firearms, not ban guns.   4) It specifically prohibits the illegal sale of weapons or the international sale/trade of weapons for the purpose of "commit[ing] or facilitating a serious violation of international humanitarian law... human rights law... an act constituting an offence international conventions or protocols relating to terrorism... or protocols relating to transnational crime."   5) Importing nations have the responsibility to assure that weapons are not being imported or diverted for the prohibited actions above.   6) The importing nation (and I think this is the rub for many folks) must take measures to keep tabs on imported weapons and provide that information to other member nations.  The text is clear though that "such measures MAY include end use or end user documentation" (emphasis added by me).  In other words, the individual nation is expected to keep track of imports to some degree and MAY choose to collect end user documentation.  Various types of record keeping are "encouraged" and the records must only be maintained for 10 years.   If this was implemented in the United States, it would have to be done in accordance with federal law and constitutional law.  I also propose that our current FFL record-keeping policies are sufficient for the purposes of this part of the treaty.  I conceded that this COULD be a reason to try and pass a national gun registry, but I don't think this would happen, nor would this treaty be necessary to pass a gun registry. 7) The treaty specifies that the responsibility for enforcement primarily rests with "Each State Party" that is party to the treaty. Because of all of these points, I personally think that the threat from this treaty - even if ratified by the United States - is minimal.  For the apocalyptic outcomes that people are predicting to come true, the scope, purpose, and wording of the treaty would have to be blatantly ignored.  As I said before, if that is what would happen without protest from politicians/military/law enforcement, then we have far more serious concerns to focus on and this treaty isn't needed to implement a gun ban in this country. The text of the treaty is here:  http://treaties.un.org/doc/Treaties/2013/04/20130410%2012-01%20PM/Ch_XXVI_08.pdf#page=21  

No, treaties cannot legally trump the Constitution. Clearly, the question becomes one regarding whether elected officials, courts, and voters will actually do anything meaningful to prevent an unconstitutional treaty from being enforced. I think what most people fail to understand is that even ratified treaties - like restraining orders - are only pieces of paper that are as good as a nation's willingness to abide by it and the UN Security Council's willingness to enforce it. The UN does not have an army, and I seriously doubt that the other members of the Security Council would agree to use their military to enforce the treaty in the US. That would leave the United States to enforce it and no president in their right mind would try to do that. Why would any elected politician risk impeachment to keep records of gun sales on file fir 10 years? The Feds can't even get a magazine ban implemented, much less pull off an obviously unconstitutional gun ban in accordance to a UN treaty that doesn't even include a language calling for a gun ban. If the government is so corrupted that they would try, then that UN treaty is the least of our worries. EDIT: One other thing.  The president does not have to sign a treaty.  The Constitution and related federal law only states that the treaty must be negotiated by the executive branch with the assistance of the House of Representatives and it cannot be signed without the consent of the president.  If the president's signature were required, then Harry Truman would have been sitting on the deck of the USS Missouri instead of Douglas MacArthur at the end of WWII.  The Secretary of State is a cabinet appointee who is responsible for foreign affairs and acts at the direction of the president.