Post by: Manedwolf on April 11, 2008, 07:47:49 AM
Quote
* An anti-gun-trafficking initiative based on partnerships between ATF and local law enforcement. Roughly 80% of criminals caught with illegal guns are not the purchasers of record, according to Daniel Webster of Johns Hopkins. The Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) reported in 2000 that only one percent of Americas gun dealers were supplying 57% of the crime guns recovered by law enforcement. To reduce the number of dangerous weapons on our cities streets, Hillary will:
o Renew the Assault Weapons Ban to take the most dangerous categories of firearms and magazines off the streets.
o Repeal the Tiahrt amendment, which limits ATFs authority to share federal gun-trace data with local law enforcement for investigatory purposes.
o Direct ATF to initiate partnerships with local law enforcement to coordinate and enhance tracking of crime guns and investigate and prosecute gun traffickers. Collaborations like New York Citys Joint Firearms Task Force with ATF may be used as a model.
o Encourage police agencies to use COPS hiring grants to open or expand independent Firearms Investigation Units, and award technology grants to local law enforcement to build ballistics imaging analysis systems that enhance detectives efforts.
http://blog.hillaryclinton.com/blog/main/2008/04/11/152247
And this is what gets me, from Clinton's own site:
Quote
The Gang Violence Reduction Grant would help cities implement a locally tailored version of the anti-gang/anti-violence model first developed in Boston and refined in cities like Chicago and Cincinnati.
Because that's worked SO WELL in Boston and Chicago? O_o Boston has had eight machete attacks in broad daylight this year by gangs, one right in City Hall Plaza!
What...is...wrong with these people?!
*bangs head on wall*
Let's see if NRA-ILA responds to this, or if they're asleep at the wheel.
Post by: Perd Hapley on April 11, 2008, 08:41:16 AM
Post by: jrfoxx on April 11, 2008, 10:42:08 AM
Quote
o Repeal the Tiahrt amendment, which limits ATFs authority to share federal gun-trace data with local law enforcement for investigatory purposes.
Apparently she never reads bills either.just like the majority of congress critters.If she actually read the Tihart ammendment, she'd know that it doesnt prevent the ATF from giving info to local cops at all. They do it all the time.It just keeps them from giving it to people like Sarah brady, Peter Hamm, Bloomberg, Jessie Jackson, etc for them to use to try and sue gun makers and honest, legal dealers for the actions of criminals who commit crimes with the guns, or to be used as anti-gun propoganda. More lies and misinformation.What a shock.The only surprise here is her admitting her AWB plans BEFORE the election. I would have supected her to keep quiet on the issue like most Dems do when running. They know it causes them problems, so they lie or just say nothing until they are in office, THEN start talking about and implimentingthier anti-gun plans.
Post by: The Annoyed Man on April 11, 2008, 10:49:06 AM
Quote
McCain is the ONLY way to keep from being disarmed, now
Yep. Thanks to the Republican party and the Bush administration, all we're left with is McCain.
Post by: El Tejon on April 11, 2008, 11:05:21 AM
Post by: Eleven Mike on April 11, 2008, 11:09:54 AM
Thanks to the Republican party and the Bush administration, all we're left with is McCain.
Paddy, I am curious. If you could appoint the next President, who would you pick and why?
Edit: Don't limit yourself to those who are running, or have run, for office. Tell us the best person who is legally eligible.
Post by: Scout26 on April 11, 2008, 11:10:06 AM
Quote
El Tejon announces massive buying spree.
I'm faxing you my list !!!!
Thanks El T !!!!
Post by: Manedwolf on April 11, 2008, 11:11:07 AM
As for mags, if there were any more Bulgarian Waffles in the safe, I'd need to store a jug of maple syrup in there too. Not taking any chances.
Post by: El Tejon on April 11, 2008, 12:11:11 PM
End of the month, I'm making another large AR mag purchase. Stack them deep, very deep.
Post by: Manedwolf on April 11, 2008, 12:25:23 PM
Hitting a gun show in Concord tomorrow, will see if anyone has any good deals on various sorts. Need FAL mags!
As for having the actual guns, I'd just say have what you want to have. Have stripped lowers, too, for stuff you might wish to build. If there is in fact an AWB II, it's going to be worded to prevent the sale or transfer of any "assault rifle", which means you won't be able to sell those AKs.
Post by: The Annoyed Man on April 11, 2008, 02:28:05 PM
Quote
Paddy, I am curious. If you could appoint the next President, who would you pick and why?
Edit: Don't limit yourself to those who are running, or have run, for office. Tell us the best person who is legally eligible.
Edit: Don't limit yourself to those who are running, or have run, for office. Tell us the best person who is legally eligible.
Great question. I can't give you a name (only because I don't know of anyone like this, but I'm sure they're out there) but I'd look for someone with the values, vision and energy of Theodore Roosevelt, FDR, and Thomas Paine.
Post by: Boomhauer on April 11, 2008, 02:38:55 PM
Quote
I can't give you a name (only because I don't know of anyone like this, but I'm sure they're out there) but I'd look for someone with the values, vision and energy of Theodore Roosevelt, FDR, and Thomas Paine.
Mark Sanford. Currently serving his second term as SC governor. Very conservative, hates Pork, a true representative of the people.
Post by: Balog on April 11, 2008, 03:04:55 PM
Quote
I can't give you a name (only because I don't know of anyone like this, but I'm sure they're out there) but I'd look for someone with the values, vision and energy of Theodore Roosevelt, FDR, and Thomas Paine.
Mark Sanford. Currently serving his second term as SC governor. Very conservative, hates Pork, a true representative of the people.
If he's actually conservative I doubt he'd appreciate the FDR comparison.
Post by: Boomhauer on April 11, 2008, 03:26:00 PM
Post by: The Annoyed Man on April 11, 2008, 03:33:01 PM
Post by: Waitone on April 11, 2008, 05:07:03 PM
Post by: wmenorr67 on April 11, 2008, 08:38:02 PM
The majority of Democrats know that if they attempted another AWB they would be jobless come the next election.
Post by: El Tejon on April 12, 2008, 04:36:45 AM
Post by: Manedwolf on April 12, 2008, 04:41:22 AM
We do not know what the future will bring. I know that politicians hate guns in the hands of citizens. So, we buy now, buy early, buy often, not for me, but for future generations of my family.
Unless they make transfer illegal, which Obama wanted to. Transfer of any semiautomatics, illegal. That would require registration. And that'd mean that a Garand would have to be confiscated and destroyed, couldn't pass it down.
Think they woudn't try? Who, in the 70's, would have predicted that full-autos would be illegal to own or transfer unless registered?
Post by: Werewolf on April 12, 2008, 06:06:03 AM
Quote
o Repeal the Tiahrt amendment, which limits ATFs authority to share federal gun-trace data with local law enforcement for investigatory purposes.
Apparently she never reads bills either.just like the majority of congress critters.If she actually read the Tihart ammendment, she'd know that it doesnt prevent the ATF from giving info to local cops at all. They do it all the time.It just keeps them from giving it to people like Sarah brady, Peter Hamm, Bloomberg, Jessie Jackson, etc for them to use to try and sue gun makers and honest, legal dealers for the actions of criminals who commit crimes with the guns, or to be used as anti-gun propoganda...She knows that...
She just doesn't want you to know that so she can indeed have that info released to the likes of Brady, etc
As for her doing all that mentioned in the OP - that's congress' perogative not the prez'. The prez can't do squat legislatively except suggest.
Now if the dems get solid control of the congress and hillbama wins the prez we are indeed well and truly screwed, blued and tatooed...
Post by: El Tejon on April 12, 2008, 06:19:10 AM
Post by: Manedwolf on April 12, 2008, 01:55:36 PM
The NFA was passed in 1934, I think anyone could have predicted that, Mane.
I was referring to 1986, when the registry was closed forever.
Post by: Eleven Mike on April 12, 2008, 03:27:25 PM
Paine was a free thinker who valued the individual above the state. He advocated progressive taxation, free education and a living wage.
He "valued the individual above the state," yet he believed the state should intervene in private contracts, setting price floors on labor? Leading to higher unemployment?
Are you trying to be ironic?
Post by: The Annoyed Man on April 12, 2008, 04:36:53 PM
Quote
Leading to higher unemployment?
The Big.Lie.
The concept of government representing people is beyond you. I understand. It's OK. You think predation of the strong upon the weak without any intervention is the way to go. It's not.
Post by: grampster on April 12, 2008, 05:36:46 PM
Paddy, you bemoan, at least I think you do, the national debt, the unbalanced budget, the rifling of SS by the very people who dreamed it up, who blames the other party with a straight face. (That was a good one.) The over regulation of...well...just about everything. (I'm laughing about American Airlines thumbing their nose at the goobermint.) Gee, I wonder why we have an energy independence problem in the country that is blessed with as many resources we have, both natural and mental. Could it be government regulation/obstruction?
Fahhh. Statist neo liberalism has done more to wreck our freedoms and enslave generations of poor and people of color with their "programs" than enemies foreign.
What I've never been able to figure out is why the electorate has any faith in the power/money hungry boobs they send to Washington and just about every state house. None of them can run a limited, effective government, why would anyone assume they can regulate businesses which are the lifeblood of the country. Just one example: The Democrat socialist governor of Michigan and her cronies in the state house have increased government spending by 2.5 BILLION dollars since she's been in office. Meanwhile the state has the highest unemployment in the country, lost 244,000 jobs between 1999 and 2006, increased income taxes by 11%, put a 22% surtax on business, pours money into tax funded colleges while it's graduates leave the state. While non government workers in Michigan have had their pay not equal inflation since 1999, raising by an average of 15% with inflation at 17.%. Those in the public sector in west Michigan have seen their pay raises at an average of 29% to as much as 40%.
It is a fact that government should have an eye fixed on business. The people who run businesses have proven that someone needs to keep an eye on them. But someone really ought to be asking why the major financial/business meltdowns that have occurred, are occurring and will occur are never found out till after the train wreck. We can't build the safe nuclear power plants without years and years of bureaucratic obstruction or even recycle nuclear waste (solving the disposal problem, thank you Jimmy Carter (D) Georgia) giving us reasonably priced, safe energy. But the damn fools stand around (look the other way?) claiming ignorance while the coyotes (who buy and sell them) raid the hen house.
Post by: Werewolf on April 13, 2008, 05:29:57 AM
Quote
Leading to higher unemployment?
The Big.Lie.
The concept of government representing people is beyond you. I understand. It's OK. You think predation of the strong upon the weak without any intervention is the way to go. It's not.
Price floors when set above the equilibrium supply/demand price create artificial excesses of supply. In this instance a wage floor creates an excess of labor thus increased unemployment since employers will not hire workers worth $5/hr at $6/hr. It's actually a quite simple concept. You can find it in any college level ECO 101 text. It works the other way too. Price ceilings create artificial shortages. But then you have lots of company in your erroneous belief Paddy - most of our congress critters are too stupid to understand basic economics too (or they aren't and just don't care - easier to buy votes that way).
Post by: Lennyjoe on April 14, 2008, 02:52:12 AM
Post by: Manedwolf on April 14, 2008, 04:25:12 AM
I picked up a Mac-90 and about a dozen mags last week. Think I'll get another AK variant in her honor next week.
If you wanna join the legion of MAK aficionados, it's MAK, for Modified AK (19)90, referring to its sporterized design.
Also, if you got an older auctioned one, there's two things you want to check. One, whether it's a milled or stamped receiver, the milled are worth a lot more. Secondly, you want to make sure it's not one of a very small number of them that had a third hole in the receiver, filled with a rivet. Distributors recalled them, but a few pop up from time to time. Google "three hole MAK-90" for more. This is very important to check, due to the fact that even though there's nothing in the hole, its existence makes it a machine gun to BATFE.
Post by: The Annoyed Man on April 14, 2008, 06:35:47 AM
Quote
Price floors when set above the equilibrium supply/demand price create artificial excesses of supply. In this instance a wage floor creates an excess of labor thus increased unemployment since employers will not hire workers worth $5/hr at $6/hr.
You're wrong again, but that's not unusual for you corporate koolaid addicts. Prices are not simply a direct result of costs. Prices are set by demand. One example is Nike, whose prices continued to skyrocket as their costs decreased by outsourcing to third world sweatshop. Your 'unemployment' references are the same tired old fearmongering tactic used by business to keep money in their pockets. You assume these business don't really need the $5/hr people who they wouldn't hire at $6/hr if it were minimum wage. You fail to follow your 'logic' to its conclusion; that they'd commit financial suicide instead, by simply stopping production. No, they'd pay the difference out of profits.
If your assumptions were correct, we be at 100% unemployment now, due to minimum wage increases over the years.
As far as your snotty references to Econ101, I'm a retired corporate accountant. And you do what........play with computers?
Post by: Manedwolf on April 14, 2008, 06:38:31 AM
You assume these business don't really need the $5/hr people who they wouldn't hire at $6/hr if it were minimum wage. You fail to follow your 'logic' to its conclusion; that they'd commit financial suicide instead, by simply stopping production. No, they'd pay the difference out of profits.
No, they'd flee the statist states that mandate it and go to neighboring states.
In case you hadn't noticed, your state is hemorrhaging the best and brightest startups to the nearby states.
Post by: Gewehr98 on April 14, 2008, 07:02:00 AM
It WILL NOT return to that demeanor after this warning post.
I guarantee that.
Post by: Werewolf on April 14, 2008, 09:53:56 AM
Quote
Price floors when set above the equilibrium supply/demand price create artificial excesses of supply. In this instance a wage floor creates an excess of labor thus increased unemployment since employers will not hire workers worth $5/hr at $6/hr.
You're wrong again, but that's not unusual for you corporate koolaid addicts. Prices are not simply a direct result of costs. Prices are set by demand. One example is Nike, whose prices continued to skyrocket as their costs decreased by outsourcing to third world sweatshop. Your 'unemployment' references are the same tired old fearmongering tactic used by business to keep money in their pockets. You assume these business don't really need the $5/hr people who they wouldn't hire at $6/hr if it were minimum wage. You fail to follow your 'logic' to its conclusion; that they'd commit financial suicide instead, by simply stopping production. No, they'd pay the difference out of profits.
If your assumptions were correct, we be at 100% unemployment now, due to minimum wage increases over the years.
As far as your snotty references to Econ101, I'm a retired corporate accountant. And you do what........play with computers?
I'll just ignore your inane and ill stated comments re: price floors. Ignorance rarely deserves a response. But in your case I'll make an exception: I'll stick with the likes of Friedman and what he taught over the likes of an angry ex-capitalist who's donned the chicken feathers of failed socialism.
As for what I do. I'm a financial analyst with a Baccalaurete degree in finance with a minor in Economics from the University of Oklahoma.
If you truly believe the tripe you've been spouting over the last month it is no wonder you're retired. As for accountant - more likely book keeper.
Post by: MechAg94 on April 14, 2008, 10:14:51 AM
I was thinking of getting a Hi-cap 9mm. My brother wants my Beretta 92 and I was considering a Ruger SR9 or maybe one of the XD/M&P types. That SR9 is nice slim pistol for a high cap. A Glock 17 might be a useful also, but I had my heart set on one of those others. I might get a few more Glock 22 mags though. Overall, I do need to look at mags for all my pistols as I tend to stop at 4 to 6 mags normally.
I had also been considering a Sig 556 or 6.8mm AR. Still not sure on that one. I can't decide if that Sig rifle is worth the extra money.
Post by: Manedwolf on April 14, 2008, 10:20:30 AM
"Well, I guess that's the end of that suit."
I was thinking of getting a Hi-cap 9mm. My brother wants my Beretta 92 and I was considering a Ruger SR9 or maybe one of the XD/M&P types. That SR9 is nice slim pistol for a high cap. A Glock 17 might be a useful also, but I had my heart set on one of those others. I might get a few more Glock 22 mags though. Overall, I do need to look at mags for all my pistols as I tend to stop at 4 to 6 mags normally.
I had also been considering a Sig 556 or 6.8mm AR. Still not sure on that one. I can't decide if that Sig rifle is worth the extra money.
I was thinking of getting a Hi-cap 9mm. My brother wants my Beretta 92 and I was considering a Ruger SR9 or maybe one of the XD/M&P types. That SR9 is nice slim pistol for a high cap. A Glock 17 might be a useful also, but I had my heart set on one of those others. I might get a few more Glock 22 mags though. Overall, I do need to look at mags for all my pistols as I tend to stop at 4 to 6 mags normally.
I had also been considering a Sig 556 or 6.8mm AR. Still not sure on that one. I can't decide if that Sig rifle is worth the extra money.
You saw the bit about the recall on the Ruger not being drop-safe, right? Also, pick up a Sig 556 before buying it. I found it disappointingly nose-heavy and clunky.
Post by: El Tejon on April 14, 2008, 11:00:56 AM
I do not think that Hans and Franz would any ammo downrange in its development. Pure CDCAM gun.
Post by: Manedwolf on April 14, 2008, 11:08:27 AM
Not only is the 556 clunky as a block of wood, but when you picked it up, Mane, did your hand cry out in pain? I cannot imagine shooting a carbine class at Gunsite or TR with such a grip. That would tear my trigger control all to pieces.
Yup! Handguard is a cheesegrater, and the grip, for some reason, just was not comfortable. It might have been due to the weight distribution of the rifle, but it just put a lot of strain on my right hand when trying to hold it in a normal firing grip. And I love SIG stuff, I was very disappointed! It made my 5.56 Saiga feel like a featherweight .22. There's no reason why a 5.56 rifle should be that nose-heavy.
Also, I once got to pick up a SIG STG-57, which had excellent ergonomics and shouldered easily, nice grip and all. The 556 is the unfortunate opposite.
Post by: El Tejon on April 14, 2008, 11:24:25 AM
You know the 57!!! I grew up shooting an AMT on my uncle's farm. Good memories.
Post by: Manedwolf on April 14, 2008, 11:29:18 AM
The only thing available now is parts kits that seem to have been through a war, and a receiver has been a "working on it" from various makers for years, not there yet. BATFE mandated that all incoming ones have the receiver destroyed.
An intact AMT now costs about $8000.
Post by: El Tejon on April 14, 2008, 12:09:07 PM
Diese ist ich mit dem Gewehr de meines Onkels.
Es ist nich moglich!
Post by: The Annoyed Man on April 14, 2008, 01:08:36 PM
Quote
I'll just ignore your inane and ill stated comments re: price floors. Ignorance rarely deserves a response. But in your case I'll make an exception: I'll stick with the likes of Friedman and what he taught over the likes of an angry ex-capitalist who's donned the chicken feathers of failed socialism.
As for what I do. I'm a financial analyst with a Baccalaurete degree in finance with a minor in Economics from the University of Oklahoma.
If you truly believe the tripe you've been spouting over the last month it is no wonder you're retired. As for accountant - more likely book keeper.
As for what I do. I'm a financial analyst with a Baccalaurete degree in finance with a minor in Economics from the University of Oklahoma.
If you truly believe the tripe you've been spouting over the last month it is no wonder you're retired. As for accountant - more likely book keeper.
after a moderator says this
Quote
It's getting rather pissy in here, ironic for a place called Armed Polite Society.
It WILL NOT return to that demeanor after this warning post.
I guarantee that.
It WILL NOT return to that demeanor after this warning post.
I guarantee that.
You claim an undergraduate degree from some little schoolhouse in flyover country. Oklahoma. Yeah, that's a real economic powerhouse. Then you worship at the altar of Milton Friedman, who has been completely discredited. You've told me all I need to know.
A 'financial analyst' is no more than a clerk who prepares schedules. I've supervised dozens of them.
But, I guess that's all you need for the tractor dealership who employs you.