sigmtnman

Is that wolf with the bench rest?

How far out you reckon it will hold 1 inch groups? Surely farther out than I can... Kevo, I know you have one. What is the farthest you have shot yours?

100% agreement.

Ron Paul form meet the press: MR. RUSSERT: I was intrigued by your comments about Abe Lincoln. "According to Paul, Abe Lincoln should never have gone to war; there were better ways of getting rid of slavery." REP. PAUL: Absolutely. Six hundred thousand Americans died in a senseless civil war. No, he shouldn't have gone, gone to war. He did this just to enhance and get rid of the original intent of the republic. I mean, it was the--that iron, iron fist.. MR. RUSSERT: We'd still have slavery. REP. PAUL: Oh, come on, Tim. Slavery was phased out in every other country of the world. And the way I'm advising that it should have been done is do like the British empire did. You, you buy the slaves and release them. How much would that cost compared to killing 600,000 Americans and where it lingered for 100 years? I mean, the hatred and all that existed. So every other major country in the world got rid of slavery without a civil war. I mean, that doesn't sound too radical to me. That sounds like a pretty reasonable approach. ------------------------------------- me: The war was fought to "save the union" Lincoln said so himself. The southern states succeeded because of slavery, but because abolishment was being used as a tool of economic warfare by the northern industrialists (I like industry, but not industries that use the government for their own advantage/gain) who had a hold on the Federal gov. The First Confiscation Act, Second Confiscation Act and Emancipation Proclamation only applied in southern states, and did nothing to make slavery illegal, it only freed slaves in "rebel" states. The 13th and 14th amendment reduced all of us to property of the federal government, even though the Constitution already applied to us without needing to be declared federal citizens. They also elevated State created legal entities known as corporations to the level of person.

No one else has one? Anybody know what sort of accuracy I can expect out of this at 150-200 yds?

I dunno, but if anyone is going to look down on the place it will be because: 1. They already don't like guns 2. I am hanging out here.

Constitutional victory I am not sure about... I feel it just goes further to ad case law supporting a cajillion lines of federal code. A corporation has no more standing in my opinion under the US constitution than a Panamanian. So I feel my rights were watered down. In 1886 case law changed that and started recognizing the legal entities known as corporations as natural persons. You see it as repealing a bad law and upholding free speech for everyone. I see it as repealing a bad law and adding supreme court case law to support making a legal entity my equal under the constitution. Read the thing from start to finish and it makes a hell of a lot of sense along with noah's 1828 dictionary. I have owned businesses and my rights to free political speech were in no way hindered at any point, not counting limitations on donations, but I didn't donate anyway. Why would my business need access to modifying laws for any other reason than favors? That is in my mind not moral business. But if I wanted to, what stops me from going or petitioning as a citizen? nothing...

If the constitution is so clear on corporations being natural persons why does the US Code start out with: "In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, unless the context indicates otherwise - ... the words "person" and "whoever" include corporations, companies, associations, firms, partnerships, societies, and joint stock companies, as well as individuals;" http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/01C1.txt Corporations as legal entities enjoy the free speech of the respective state they are incorporated in and have always been able to perform commercial activity and enjoy what every other rights allowed by the state constitution and law. However, nowhere in the US constitution does it say what the very beginning of the United States Federal felt it needed to say. In this republic I feel our founding fathers felt if you wanted to be represented, you better get off your ass and show up. Instead we get corporations like acorn, goldman sachs, et al directly controlling everything claiming they represent a collective koombaya feel good bullcrap.

If No tax money. No programs. No nation building. No victim less crimes. Lots more personal accountability and responsibility. is super progressive. so be it. I would call it libertarian others call it anarchy? Free enterprise without tethers.

No they are not, that is why they are spelled out. I guess I am not as progressive in my interpretation.

Oh, I think adults using smilies is a bigger reason to look down on us. I like the twin 1911s, the uzi and ak. I would like the ak more if it didn't move though. I would like to have them when talking about my guns. I dunno.

The constitution does not allow for "government programs" so that part is easy, can't and don't do it. The church and the nra are not a person either and should not be treated as such. A Corporation no more expresses the political opinion of all of it's people then Barry represents the votes of all of us. How does it become all workers if corporations are no longer a person? Do the owners suddenly die? I never said business was evil, just that it is not a person. Where did I say anything about limiting business, you are mistaken. I don't think the government should be involved in business. That's why I don't like corporations having person hood. Nowhere in the constitution does it grant person hood to a fictitious legal entity created under the authority of a state, be it Tennessee or Nevada.

My problem is that in the constitution it goes so far as to say slaves were three fifths of a person but never says that a fictitious legal entity is a person. The government we love and trust created corporations with statutory law and politicians worked them into having person hood somehow. Everyone and every company has free speech. If a Company wants to say something, they just pick one of the members of the company to volunteer to attach their name to it. The ceo or owner/owners would be the obvious choice to me, because I would think they would support any message that was promoted by their company. Not some bogus, government created, faceless, mindless, corporate person with all of our rights AND a shield, which is used for just that; to shield the offenders...

After being used to only shooting .223 through an AR, it felt much different. Obviously the guns are totally different so why would they not? It seemed like a much larger caliber and it really felt nice to have the solid feedback from the rifle. I hit a gallon milk jug with 8/10 at about 75 yards using the irons.

When all you have is an AK47 everything looks like a target.

The trigger is def a bonus when in my pocket. There is no need to worry about accidentally getting that one...

Those will work. Although the one is a chainsaw and not a chainsaw firing machine gun

If you are unsure, just read up on Old Hank and the Goldman Sachs revolving-door relationship with government.

How come TGO does not have any smilies with guns??

^^^^ * 1E10

Dude! You should have called for a rescue...

If we were all truly free and the fed was left to do what the constitution set out we wouldn't need those jackoffs up there all the time screwing stuff up for the rest of us. We could treat it like jury duty where every citizen could be called to serve in some capacity. Dorms to live in, and food covered while there. With no laws to pass it shouldn't take much time at all. Our offices of Trust have become offices of Profit...

I need one of those for out here on 411... Funny, when the economy was booming, the 4 lane project was at a standstill, but now that we are broke, it is moving along triple time...

Glad you found the rub (PI) and were able to resolve it. But still no pics? what gives?

"We've got a president and his hand-picked treasury secretary directing the hostile takeover and dismantling of American companies, and funneling the pieces to their own corporate backers." And this is different from W and Henry Paulson forcing hostile takeovers and doing the same dismantling how? It is not. It is criminal by both admins. Is this not evidence enough that both parties are in this together? As far as the "free" press, it is not just owned by the the X(left/right). If you look at public records it is owned equally and the ceos and directors have incestuous relationships with the majority of multi national corps, so it is what it is. A megaphone for whoever owns it. Say hello to the new boss, same as the old boss. Obama and Bush were/are owned and owe allegiance to the same people Clinton, Bush Sr, Reagan, Nixon,___ did. The SCOTUS decision upholds corporate rights, not our god given rights and puts them closer to having super rights over ours. It is in how the decision came down and the wording chosen, we could have had the same decision on a more narrow ground, that would have supported all free speech, not just corporate.