East_TN_Patriot

  So that makes their lives more valuable than yours or mine and thus we should not be allowed to carry a weapon to protect ourselves?

I decided to make a comment describing my recent purchase from RGuns.  Back in December, I found myself needing an AR bolt carrier assembly for a rifle build I have been working on, I found that RGuns was the only place in stock.  The homepage of their website made it very clear that parts orders would be "at least 4 weeks" and not to order if you couldn't wait that long.  They also made it clear that they were not accepting phone calls and that they would honor all orders listed as "in stock" on their website.  I placed an order for a bolt carrier and a bolt, and submitted the order.  In the meantime, I realized I had a brain fart and hadn't ordered the other parts of the bolt carrier group, bit figured that was my bad and I would pick them up later.   Fast forward about 6 weeks.  I had not received any notification about my order nor had I received it.  I did a little Google searching to see if there were any posts out there talking about their shipping times.  What I found were multiple posts about their terrible service and their shady business practices.  One of the worst talked about the "queen b--ch from hell" Tracy, who handles the orders for the company, lied to the customer, canceled his order out of spite, and threatened to have him arrested for harassment if he called back to complain.  I immediately worried I had made a very bad decision to order from them, but planned to give them a little extra time.   I was pleasantly surprised when I saw a voice message on my cell phone from Tracy about my order.  She advised me that the chrome bolt I had ordered was not available, but I could substitute for a black one for the lower price, the nickel boron one for a little more, or wait until the chrome bolt was in stock.  She also told me to email her back with my order number and decision because their phones are off.  I was a little bummed because I figured I had missed the only opportunity to get the order squared away in a timely manner because I suspect they are getting tons of emails, but I had no other choice, so I sent the email.  I also figured I would take a shot and asked to add 2 each of the small parts for the carrier assembly, even though one of the complaints I read said that they absolutely refuse to allow order changes after they are received.  To my surprise, Tracy called me back the next morning.  She added the items to my order, confirmed my payment.  It took me a couple of minutes to dig out my credit card to confirm so I worried she would be impatient and get nasty - I don't visualize the true queen B from hell to be very patient - but we chatted and she was very friendly.  She confirmed my payment and said it would go out by UPS that night.  I thanked her and told her she was far from the queen B from hell I had read about on the web and she laughed and said, "One of the guys here showed that to me the other day and I couldn't believe it!  I guess you can't please everyone."  And true to her word, my package went out that night and I got it today.   I can't speak to the durability of the parts I ordered, but they appear to be in spec and the fit and finish are what I expected.  I can speak to a positive experience, even though they are slammed with orders.  Just thought I'd pass this along in case anyone was on the fence about ordering something from them. I still tell everyone I meet to avoid DS Arms like the plague.

I understand your point, and don't necessarily disagree, but that doesn't mean they need to go into a detailed step-by-step description to post on the web for all the world to see. Now instead of spending time trying to pry these things open thus giving the police and or the homeowner time to intervene in the crime, or potentially deter the theft completely as a result of the effort, all a criminal with an Internet connection needs to do is read up and be in and out in seconds. I also agree with TMF. The safe sellers act as if every American has the money for, or needs, a super-secure high-end safe that costs many thousands of dollars. When people don't immediately flock to their products, they resort to Internet videos showing all of the tricks that most common thieves would never know just to scare people into buying their products. Frankly, I feel as if they are doing it intentionally, not to educate consumers, but to scare people and make the less-expensive security measures obsolete by exposing all of the tricks that would generally only be known to a locksmith. OPSEC is just as important as any physical security measure, and people like these douchebags made sure to ruin it for anyone who didn't buy a super high-end gun locker for their $500 pistol.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2013/01/31/170700177/should-gun-owners-have-to-buy-liability-insurance A friend of mine who is self-admittedly riding the fence on the current gun control efforts sent this story to me.  My response to her was this:     Curious what other people thought.  

  But nobody seems to wonder why they are in the shape they are in.

I have also ordered from them and the order was shipped quickly.  They are also know for tossing in a free goodie or two with the orders.

http://m.wlox.com/ms/p/a3/40/view.m?id=124279&storyId=20791656&news=Top%20Stories&news2=Main

And thanks to this douchebag, our kids and criminals can now learn how to break into our lock-boxes with a simple Google search.  And of course the simple demonstration wasn't sufficient, so they actually take them apart to show you the internal mechanism to make it even easier for a criminal or determined youngster to gain access.  And what really gets my goat is his constant "the state of California calls this a secure container and it's not secure at all."  All that will do is force the gun grabbers to start removing these from the approved list forcing people to buy lock-boxes they can't afford when these are more than sufficient for most people's needs.   Finally, they are effectively teaching lock picking techniques that can defeat many common locks that we all use to secure our property. 

At least he finally talked about the .gov's own studies that show the original AWB was ineffective and how accidental shootings are at all-time lows.   As far as the background checks at gun shows, if that's the worst to come out of this, then I'll count myself lucky.  I didn't intentionally work it out this way, but I've never bought a gun from a gun show that didn't come from an FFL holder anyhow.  Also, if non-FFL holders are the kind that set up shop at a gun show to sell multiple firearms, they are walking a very fine line with the ATF anyhow and probably should have an FFL based on the current laws.    My view on background checks is probably not a popular one here, but here it is.  I think it is safe to say that most gun owners believe the 2nd Amendment is an individual right to own firearms.  However, few rights in the Constitution are absolute and are subject to some limitations.   For example, our 1st Amendment right to free speech is limited when it leads to a riot, threatens people's safety, is libelous or slanderous, or places people's lives in jeopardy such as yelling fire in a crowded theater.  The 4th Amendment is limited to "unreasonable" searches and seizures, with many exceptions to the warrant requirement in place.  With that said, I think that background checks are a very reasonable step to help keep firearms out of the hands of people who shouldn't own them.  Basically, they keep honest buyers and dealers honest while providing a legal mechanism for criminals who lie about their background and dealers who violate the law to be held accountable.  Unfortunately, the BATF does not do anywhere close to an adequate job of prosecuting these people.  I'll concede that it's unlikely eliminating the background check requirement would have actually make gun crime increase since most crime guns are obtained illegally anyhow, but it's such a minor inconvenience that if it forces the criminals to go to the extra effort to get their guns that way, I'm OK with that.

  :rofl:

Here's the photo. Judge for yourself if this is criminal behavior. I honestly can't help but wonder if the outcome would have been different if the guy was white. Based on this, that means I need to remove a couple of photos from my Facebook page before the SWAT team kicks in my door.

          Full story here:   http://www.jsonline.com/watchdog/watchdogreports/atfs-milwaukee-sting-operation-marred-by-mistakes-failures-mu8akpj-188952581.html?abc=Ct5vpWpS

Good testimony.  Here's the link: http://youtu.be/JCXch2GBfAM

It may have already been posted, but I hadn't seen it and I laughed my @$$ off!  :rofl:

Sure, count me in. 

In accounts of shootings I have read and heard personally, you won't even hear the gunshot. I've read about cops who shoot a suspect and don't immediately realize they ever fired their weapon. If that moment ever comes, your body will go into survival mode and you act instinctually. I wouldn't risk damaging my hearing. There is reason that police firearm training always takes place with hearing and eye protection in use.

Man, I have a spare set of .223 dies.  I need to list those bad boys! 

I just assumed you were referring to the people who hand out the hooker baseball cards on the strip.

  Now, that I can believe.  This is an eBay gripe, but since PayPal and eBay are the same entity, it applies.  I had a holster listing on eBay cancelled and my listing fees forfeited with no explanation.  I called eBay and was told I had violated terms of service by having a firearm in my listing photo, which is prohibited, and I didn't specify that the firearm wasn't for sale.  I looked at the photo and saw it was a solid cast aluminum dummy gun.  I told eBay that the "firearm" was a completely non-functioning cast aluminum dummy gun, and they said it didn't matter because they can't tell the difference between a dummy gun and a real firearm.  I then made a choice comment about the overall ignorance of someone who can't tell the difference between a real gun and a solid hunk of gun shaped aluminum.  Regardless, I lost the argument.  So now, every listing I make has a disclaimer in big bold letters stating that the "nonfunctioning dummy gun is for product demonstration purposes only and is not part of the auction."

Agreed, but there is one fundamental fact that everyone must understand about the media.  They are not in the business for the viewer; they are in business for their advertisers.  The news media ultimately does not care what viewers want to see beyond what that means for the money they make from advertisers who pay based on the viewership numbers.  The more viewers or readers, the more the news outlet can charge for advertising space.  So if you want to influence media content, you do it with your pocketbook and threaten to boycott the businesses who pay for advertising space with outlets you don't like and support the businesses who advertise with the news outlets you do like. 

One thing to keep in mind is that many nations supporting this treaty are countries engulfed in civil war, lawlessness, and genocide.  They have a different motive and perspective than we do in the United States.  They see it as a way to control the illegal weapons trade that supplies criminal warlords and makes it difficult to establish law and order.   This is also the reason I have heard for support from American politicians who do support it.  Does that mean they perceive it as a side opportunity to restrict gun ownership in the United States?  Perhaps. Regardless, the treaty must be ratified by the US Senate and treaties are subordinate to the US Constitution as they relate to American citizens.  I don't think it will be ratified, just like how the United States has refused to sign onto the treaty related to the International Criminal Court.

  To echo the comment above: Just another example of how stupid our gun laws are.

This shouldn't be surprising to anyone.  The DOJ is under the umbrella of the executive branch, and Eric Holder is an Obama appointee, so it's no shock that he would work to implement Obama's executive orders.  Now, it's time for the courts to decide which of these, if any, are constitutional.