found 1000 rounds of .300 wsm today

[backwoodsbob]

first I've seen in a month.

Is the ammo shortage getting any better where you live?

I'm even having trouble finding .22 and .17 rounds..hell..I've been plinking with my pellet rifle to save rounds

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bbinacan]

4. Speak for yourself.

I happen to care.

[Howardx]

5. +1

[aikoaiko]

6. who is we?

Its as good a topic for discussion as any.

[spin]

9. Lots of Democrats on firearms and care about ammo availibity...

actually, if you carefully consider it, the right to keep and bear arms is a very progressive and liberal idea.

[frebrd]

14. "We" who?

Don't include me in your "we". I care!

[benEzra]

15. Then why the fuck did you open the thread and post in it?

Or were you just itching to dump on someone?

This is a valid topic for the Guns forum (you did notice where you're at, yes?).

[backwoodsbob]

18. go back to my backwoods?

im in the backwoods baby.

I am the liberal you fear..the one who will take his rights..who won"t bend over.

[rl6214]

21. ASS

This is the gun forum, WE do care.

[Name removed]

27. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[jaksavage]

2. No shortages of guns and ammo here.

I keep wondering why folks are worried.
Must be a regional supply thing.
Or perhaps the wingnuts bought up all they could find cuz,"Bama gunna take my guns".

[spin]

10. In north Florida the supply is slowly improving. (n/t)

[msongs]

3. fear of a black president is doing wonders for the gun industry nt

[aikoaiko]

7. yeah, Obama being black explains it.

:eyes:

[AzNick]

11. Those chain emails did wonder

Call me a conspiracy theorist, but I suspect the ammo industry to be behind it. They made a huge profit with those crazy emails.

And yes, the fear of a gun and ammo ban is getting a lot of people all riled up and scared.

Most of my friends who own guns lock their front doors, even in calm neighborhoods, and live in the fear of a home invasion, and they're "ready".

There is a lot of paranoia among some gun owners, that's just the way it is.

I see a bit more liberalism among marksmen, probably because we use our brain a bit more.

[aikoaiko]

13. You mean the chain emailsabout:

Obama's poor history of support for increased gun control.

Obama's websites supporting renewing the AWB

Holder's and Clinton's statements about supporting the reauthorizaiotn of the AWB after the election

Both Houses of Congress being dominated by the party with the most outspoken proponents of gun control.

Sure, all those things led to a surge in guns and ammo buying, but the surge in buying would have happened if Obama were white.

[AzNick]

19. The were chains specifically about ammo

Supposedly the dems wanted to put a higher tax or even limit the amount of ammo one could buy.

Which provoked a rush, and some happy gunshop owners were keen on repeating the lie, because like everybody they want to make a buck.

[aikoaiko]

23. I like how FactCheck addressed that issue as a Blast from the Past

It's clear the Obama liked the idea at one point, but hasn't resurrected this bad idea in a long time. I think this kind of rhetoric played well among the Chicago anti-gun crowd, but now Obama's constituency is much larger and not as supportive of increasing taxes on ammo. In almost all the exaggerated fear mongering put out by the NRA and other groups, there is usually a kernal of truth.

Blast From the Past
As we noted in our article "NRA Targets Obama," the NRA's claim that Obama plans a 500 percent tax increase on ammunition was based solely on a nearly decade-old article from the Chicago Defender newspaper.

That Dec. 13, 1999, article from former Defender staff writer Chinta Strausberg, headlined "Obama unveils federal gun bill," reported that then-Illinois state Sen. Obama, who was running for a seat in the U.S. House of Representatives, proposed "to increase the federal taxes by 500 percent on the sale of firearm, ammunition – weapons he says are most commonly used in firearm deaths." According to Strausberg's report, Obama made the proposal at an "anti-gun rally," where he proposed a host of other gun control policies.

We found no record of Obama introducing legislation to this effect while in the Illinois state Senate, or in the U.S. Senate. Now, after further research, we can find no record of the president, or any other administration official, saying that an increase in the ammunition tax is part of his current agenda either. So, thus far, an awkwardly worded sentence from an article written almost 10 years ago is the only support for the claim that Obama wants to raise the federal ammo tax.

[SteveM]

63. Actually, ammo has been going up for a few years, now...

Commodity (esp. lead) price hikes as well as the lack of cartridge detonators has been a persistent problem before few had Googled up Obama's record on gun-control. You realize, of course, that both Obama and the Democratic Party Platform continue to call for another (that's right, Martha) assault weapons ban? And you may also be aware that taxes, cartridge "trace" inscriptions, and other restrictions regarding ammo have been proposed on this very forum, reflecting the ideas and proposals of some lobbyists.

[onehandle]

8. There was a time when it would have been good for the sheet industry.

Guns are the new sheets.

[Euromutt]

42. How very charming

Yep, nothing like insinuating that having bought a firearm since November makes you a closet Klansman to make people receptive to your point of view.

[SteveM]

64. Well, she-e-e-e-t. Since I cut my sheet with a toenail, I'll have to sleep on my Remington.

[benEzra]

16. Hedging against new Third Way/DLC gun restrictions, you mean.

Fortunately, Obama has pretty much kicked the Third Wayers to the curb on this issue (he's the one signaling people that new bans are not a priority, which you might have noticed were you paying attention).

[rl6214]

22. ASS

Having a black president has nothing to do with it. It is all about his record and his websites that have expressed his desire to regulate firearms HEAVILY.

Saying something like you did is a racist statement.

[billh58]

25. I have never

heard, or read any statement by President (or Candidate) Obama that would make him a "grabber," or a promoter of "heavy" regulation. There is absolutely nothing in his "record" that indicates that he wishes to take away, or heavily restrict your 2A rights. As with many issues, people tend to read into statements made by President Obama what they fear they will hear. See this article:

http://www.keloland.com/custompages/kelolandblogs/madvilletimes/Index.cfm?c=2207

And, the NYT believes that President Obama is too Conservative regarding 2A:

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/mark-finkelstein/2008/07/03/second-amendment-obama-highly-conservative-nyts-eyes

I have never heard, or seen, ANY statement by the Democratic Party, or its candidates and elected representatives which advocates taking away anyone's guns. Reasonable regulations and restrictions? Of course, just as most of our "rights" come with caveats and reasonable exceptions. What you consider as a "heavy" restriction, may seem "reasonable" to a majority of your fellow citizens. Some people actually believe that the 1st Amendment gives them the unfettered right to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater, or to impose their religious beliefs on other Americans.

And lastly, there has been a definite rise in the formation of, and membership in, armed white-supremacist groups, which can be directly attributed to the election of a "black president." Gun sales have increased, however, primarily because of false right-wing Internet rumors like the ones you apparently believe, and choose to promote.

[aikoaiko]

28. President Obama campaigned on reauthorizing the Assault Weapons Ban

And its still up at change.gov http://change.gov/agenda/urbanpolicy_agenda/


This is heavy regulation.

One of the latest versions of the AWB reauthorization was HR 1022 which contained something new; subsection L of section 3 which lists the guns that would be banned. Section L would allow the AG to ban almost any useful gun for self-defense because the military procures many useful self-defense firearms that civilians are now able to acquire.

(L) A semiautomatic rifle or shotgun originally designed for military or law enforcement use, or a firearm based on the design of such a firearm, that is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, as determined by the Attorney General. In making the determination, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that a firearm procured for use by the United States military or any Federal law enforcement agency is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, and a firearm shall not be determined to be particularly suitable for sporting purposes solely because the firearm is suitable for use in a sporting event.'.

It is true that most new gun control would grandfather in existing arms and no mainstream Democrat is proposing that the BATFE start kicking in doors and confiscating arms. Most of the time the term "gungrabber" is a metaphor used to describe how some politicians wish to make some guns unavailable as new acquisitions.

[billh58]

29. Thank you

for the level-headed response, but again, what you and others consider "heavy-handed" may not be viewed that way by a majority of Americans. Many religious zealots feel that not allowing prayer in public schools is "heavy handed."

I will not debate you about what the definition of a "civilian gun" might be, but I stand by my former claim that neither President Obama, nor anyone else in the Democratic Party wants to violate the 2nd Amendment by confiscating guns, or by forcing "unreasonable" restrictions on gun owners. In the final analysis, the Congress, State Legislatures, and City and County Councils enact laws governing the regulation of certain rights and practices, and the Courts determine their Constitutionality.

As far as the Gungeon definition of "grabber," I have seen the term used as a blanket dismissal for anyone who disagrees with some gun owners on DU.

[Treo]

30. What do you define as a "reasonable restriction" ? NT

[billh58]

31. I have a feeling that

I will be labeled as a "grabber" by you regardless of how I answer. I consider any type of civic restriction, or regulation, as being "reasonable" if it is a duly enacted law, or administrative procedure, which has been determined to be Constitutionally sound. That criteria would apply for "reasonable restrictions" to any civil right, and not just to 2A specifically.

[PavePusher]

36. So, if a law was passed saying that no firearm of greater than .25 calibre...

or capable of holding more than a single round of ammunition could be civilian owned, retroactive to all previously owned firearms, and the courts upheld it, you would find that to be "reasonable"?

I won't even go into the possible applications for racial, gender, sexual, religous, political, or judicial abuse of such a philosophy. I'm just glad you are not the great decider.

[billh58]

38. How in the

world did you arrive at putting those unreasonable and idiotic words in my mouth just because I recognized your baited question, and didn't fall for it? The word "reasonable" is in most dictionaries, and even the law recognizes the legal fiction of the "reasonable person" standard for comparison. There is no "philosophy" either implied, or stated, in any of my posts. In a Democracy, reasonable people agree to disagree, and arrive at a compromise which complies with existing law.

Your thinly-veiled personal attack on me concerning matters not even under discussion ("racial, gender, sexual, religious, political, or judicial") typifies the extreme off-topic attacks I have noted by you on other threads. I am a voting Liberal Democrat, and have been for over 48 years. You don't have a clue as to my thoughts, or past and current activism, on ANY of those subjects that you so casually throw around. I would also be willing to bet that I qualified "Expert Marksman" with an M-16 way before you fired your first weapon.

I have absolutely no quarrel with you bubba, but I have noticed your aggressive ad hominem attacks on those who totally support RKBA, but disagree with you on certain points. That is the reason that I normally don't respond to your posts. Others on this forum are willing to calmly discuss the various issues, but you seem determined to turn every honest and sincere observation or question into a "you're either with me, or you're against me -- you evil grabber!" diatribe. I have neither the time, nor the patience, for irrational bullshit.

Peace and aloha,

Bill

[billh58]

48. This response was

meant for someone else, and I apologize for not verifying the source before engaging big mouth.

[Treo]

49. If you just said

That you would consider a total gun ban reasonable as long as it was "duly enacted" , yes I would consider you a grabber.

[billh58]

53. Never said, implied,

nor even thought about a "total gun ban." If you want an M-40 sniper rifle, and you can legally get one -- go for it.

[Treo]

55. How is an M40 sniper rifle different than any other long rage hunting rifle?

And what if I want an M-2 ?

[billh58]

56. Meh...

Buy what want, and go with what you know bubba...;-)

[aikoaiko]

33. Recent Gallup polls may shed some light on the subject.

For the first time in a long time, the same amount of folks who want gun laws to stay the same or be less strict equal the number of folks who want gun laws to be more strict. And the trend is heading toward those who want stricter gun laws becoming a minority.. I think this is evidence that new guns laws like a Federal AWB is not a majority concern. Federal gun bans are heavy-handed. Other than gun confiscations, they is nothing more heavy-handed in my opinion.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/117361/Recent-Shootings-Gun-Control-Support-Fading.aspx

Separately, the October Crime survey found just under half of Americans, 49%, wanting the laws covering the sale of firearms to be made stricter than they are now. This is the lowest percentage favoring stricter gun laws in Gallup trends since the question was first asked in 1990. While only 8% say gun laws should be made less strict, 41% say they should remain as they are now.



Thus, as of last fall, Americans were evenly divided at 49% each over whether the laws covering the sale of firearms should be made stricter, or not. This contrasts with public opinion in the early 1990s, when the balance of opinion was more than 2 to 1 in favor of making gun laws more strict.

I don't like calling DU posters "gun grabbers" and I haven't used it here a long time. I know I'm not alone in trying to calm the inflamatory rhetoric, but it seems like there is always someone willing to ignite some flames from both sides.

[Euromutt]

34. A general problem with those polls...

... is that they don't control for the respondents' knowledge about what the law currently is. As a result, you get quite a few respondents who say they favor stricter laws, not realizing that the specific measures they have in mind already are law. Unsurprisingly, non-gun owners are significantly less familiar with firearms law than gun owners are (hey, I don't know anything about the legal niceties of keeping alpacas, say), so that's more likely to occur with non-gun owners.

[billh58]

35. I don't find

these stats difficult to understand at all, as I believe that most Americans value the the entire Bill of Rights. On the other hand, I don't believe that current positive public opinion about the sale, or ownership, of firearms would extend to a general agreement about "open carry" in crowded public venues like the recent Town Hall cowboys (as an example) -- even while conceding that it was perfectly legal for them to do so. That is what I mean about a "reasonableness test" for enacting regulations pertaining to the use of firearms.

I also do not believe the goal of sincere gun enthusiasts, and other RKBA supporters, includes the eventual "arming of America" for the sake of arming ALL Americans. I'm not sure that I would want to live in a country where paranoia and potential anarchy has replaced common sense, the Democratic process, and societal civility. I certainly don't have an answer to the increasing crime rate, but relying on an armed civilian populace to do the job of taxpayer-funded law enforcement agencies, seems like a poor approach, and a step backward to me.

I feel extremely fortunate to have lived all of my adult life in Hawaii, where the only guns most people ever see are: registered, carried by LEOs or the military, at gun ranges, in private homes, or being used by hunters (mainly on private property); and, the gun-death rate is the lowest in the nation.

[aikoaiko]

37. That's all well and good.

I think our conversation has drifted a bit. If I may review....

Someone commented that the surge in ammo and gun buying was due to the President's comments on gun control policy and not the race of the President.

You said that you had never "heard, or read any statement by President (or Candidate) Obama that would make him a "grabber," or a promoter of "heavy" regulation. There is absolutely nothing in his "record" that indicates that he wishes to take away, or heavily restrict your 2A rights."

I tried to show you that the President has made comments that one could consider heavy handed. Really, and this is a question to you, what besides confiscation is more heavy handed than banning popular guns in popular configurations?

You responded that supporting the AWB may not be considered "heavy regulation" by a majority.

I responded by providing some evidence that more regulation (i.e., renewing the AWB) is not a majority issue.

It may be the case that you don't think Obama's past gun control rhetoric as heavy handed, but I have showed you how some it could worry a significant proportion of the country.

[billh58]

39. And therein lies

the very American right to agree to disagree. I'm not sure, however, that even the SCOTUS would find that ALL weapons which are "popular guns in popular configurations" are covered by 2A, or that private citizens should be able to own every "popular" weapon available. I'm also not convinced that the shift in public opinion includes the RKBA for ALL weaponry.

No group will ever agree on ALL restrictions, or the definition of which restrictions are "heavy-handed," but the beauty is that we don't have to agree. That is very reason for the concept of majority rule through representative government, and the judicial system of checks and balances. It may be slow and ugly, but it beats whatever is in second place by many free air miles.

[aikoaiko]

40. Actually SCOTUS has said that popular guns are protected.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

from wiki because it describes this issue well enough:

Scalia's opinion for the majority provided 2nd Amendment protection for commonly used and popular handguns but not for atypical arms or arms that are used for unlawful purposes such as short-barreled shotguns. Scalia stated: "hatever the reason, handguns are the most popular weapon chosen by Americans for self-defense in the home, and a complete prohibition of their use is invalid." "We think that Miller’s “ordinary military equipment” language must be read in tandem with what comes after: “rdinarily when called for service men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179." "We therefore read Miller to say only that the Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns."

[billh58]

41. I agree,

but he did not say ALL popular guns, and that particular issue remains very much unsettled. In any event, you win this discussion and I wish you well. I'm sure that we will have the opportunity to share thoughts and ideas in the future.

Peace...

[Euromutt]

43. AWB aside, there's the stated intention to repeal the Tiahrt Amendment

I'd actually consider that unreasonable. For those not in the know, the Tiahrt Amendment prohibits the ATF from releasing information from its Firearms Trace System database except to federal, state or local law enforcement agencies in connection with an ongoing criminal investigation or prosecution, and cannot be used in civil litigation except administrative proceedings initiated by the ATF itself.

Now, I like the idea that government agencies--at all levels--can't access the ATF's trace data except on probable cause; it precludes fishing expeditions, and use of the trace data for purposes other than for which it is collected.

[rl6214]

50. Your definition of unreasonable and majority of Americans

is flawed. Some of the weapons that would be heavily regulated by a new aWB are the most popular weapons on the market. I would say that means that the MAJORITY of Americans don't agree with you.

[billh58]

52. I've already

conceded that every American is entitled to own a nuclear-tipped missle, if they can afford it. Seriously, I am not a gun afficiando, and have confessed that many times, so I am not qualified to to argue esoteric "types" of weapons which are popular, or which may or may not, be "regulated."

My position is that "reasonable" people will eventually agree to disagree, and the representative government process of and by the American people will arrive at a (maybe temporary) decision. You and I may not agree with that decision, but we will learn to live with it. To me, there are more serious concerns facing our nation than who has (or can obtain) the most popular gun.

Peace...

[pneutin]

61. Wrong

"If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an out-right ban, picking up every one of them... 'Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in,' I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren't here."

Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) on 60 Minutes, 1995.

And don't think for a second that her mind has ever changed on the subject. What makes her even more ridiculous is that she had a concealed carry permit during a period in her political career.

[friendly_iconoclast]

62. Hey! No fair bringing facts into this discussion.

That will force people to do things like research before they post and confirm sources.

Then where will we be?

[Treo]

26. hell of a lot of Obama bumper stickers in my local gun shop parking lot. NT

[billh58]

12. Guns don't

kill people -- people with bullets kill people...;-)

[backwoodsbob]

20. I have lots of bullets

I haven't killed yet

I don't get the gun grabber mentality

I now have..lets see..a .17..a .22..a .223.a 308

a 30.06 ..a .243..the .300 wsm..a 12 gauge pump..a 20 gauge pump and a 20 gauge single

a .410

pistols..a 9mm an old flintlock..a .357

Why are so many afraid of guns

[billh58]

24. It was meant

as a joke, and a takeoff on the old NRA tagline: "guns don't kill people, people kill people." I have always maintained that that neither guns, nor people, kill people -- bullets do.

I am not a "grabber" as so many overly-defensive gun owners refer to anyone that doesn't see the need to be prepared to defend myself, or my country, with lethal force 24/7. I "defended" myself and my country in Viet Nam for two voluntary tours, and haven't experienced the need to fire a gun since. I'm not "afraid" of guns, or of you for that matter.

I fully support your RKBA, just as I do all of of your other Constitutional rights, AND any reasonable regulations or restrictions on the exercise thereof. I believe, however, that the artificial polarization over the gun-rights discussion -- "grabber" vs. "gun-nut" -- only hardens positions on both sides of the issue. I frequent the gungeon on DU because I see some extremely sensible discussions here, but also the occasional over-the-top, and unfounded, hateful accusations from both sides of the issue. I tend to call bullshit when I see it.

One might almost get the impression that DU is a political board, or something similar. Lighten up bubba...;-)

[backwoodsbob]

44. over the top by me

sorry :hug:

[billh58]

47. No prob... n/t

[rl6214]

51. Thank you for your service in Vietnam Sir.

[billh58]

54. I'm sure that

your remark was well-intended, but I don't deserve any thanks. Thank those who didn't make it back.

[friendly_iconoclast]

57. We certainly wouldn't want your posts to be misconstrued

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x6637991#6643109

billh58 (524 posts) Sun Sep-27-09 03:44 PM
Response to Reply #61
72. I would argue
Edited on Sun Sep-27-09 04:24 PM by billh58
that anyone who views the 2nd Amendment as some sort of cult charter, and is fixated 24/7 on owning, carrying, and openly displaying firearms "because it's legal," does not adhere to a traditional Left/Right philosophy of politics. I believe that radical gun promoters on both the (self-described) Left and the Right have much more in common, than they have differences.

Most radical gun zealots that I have interacted with seem to lean more toward a Libertarian anarchical point-of-view. They profess to be only interested in self-protection, or in participating in a "necessary" civilian armed-militia if the opportunity presents itself. Of course, there are the more traditional gun owners who are totally responsible, and don't view themselves as the potential modern-day Revolutionary Soldiers.

The people of the United States of America have more guns per capita than any nation in the world (just above 2nd place Yemen), and the least actual need for them, yet they want "legal" access to bigger, faster-firing, and more advanced weaponry which (in most cases) was specifically designed for military use. And no, I am not a "grabber," as anyone who dares to disagree with the more radical gun promoters is labeled. I just question the sanity and civility of a fully-armed civilian populace, and the export of heavy weaponry lost by irresponsible (or greedy?) owners and dealers that end up in the hands of Mexican drug lords


nashville_brook (1000+ posts) Sun Sep-27-09 07:15 PM
Response to Reply #83
87. Policy Shift in U.S.-Mexico Cross-border Illegal Drug & Weapons Trade
fwiw...

http://globaleconomy.foreignpolicyblogs.com/tag/drug-tr... /

In a major foreign policy shift, U.S. Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton admitted publicly that an “insatiable demand” by Americans for illegal drugs in the U.S., along with easy – and cheap – access to powerful hand guns and assault rifles are fueling the drug cartel violence at the U.S. – Mexican border. “Our inability to prevent weapons from being illegally smuggled across the border to arm these criminals causes the deaths of police officers, soldiers and civilians,” noted Clinton. That violence threatens to spill over across the border into the U.S. Seeking to ease a cross-border relationship strained by the illegal drug trade and cross-border drug trafficking, Secretary Clinton made the clearest acknowledgment yet from the U.S. government of the role American demand for illegal drugs, and the supply of illegal weapons to the drug cartels play in the illicit cross-border narcotics Market.

In addition to the burgeoning demand & supply of illegal drugs Market, Secretary Clinton noted about the flow of American guns and money into Mexico that criminals are out-gunning Mexican law enforcement. Clinton, referring to guns and military-style equipment like night vision goggles and body armor that the cartels are smuggling into Mexico from the United States, “Clearly, what we have been doing has not worked and it is unfair for our incapacity … to be creating a situation where people are holding the Mexican government and people responsible,” she said. “That’s not right.”

Mexian President Felipe Calderon has complained for two years that the U.S. isn’t carrying its weight in the cross-border drug war, despite the fact that American drug users and illegal weapons smugglers fuel the problem. “We need to stop the flow of guns and weapons towards Mexico,” President Calderon told U.S. reporters last month. “Let me express to you that we’ve seized in this last two years more than 25,000 weapons and guns, and more than 90 percent of them came from United States, and I’m talking from missiles launchers to machine guns and grenades.”

billh58 (524 posts) Sun Sep-27-09 07:37 PM
Response to Reply #87
88. Thanks for
the post, and I'm certain that some gun promoters will manage to lay this sad bit of reality at the feet of the illegal-aliens among us. Somehow, they will manage to portray this as an example of why US citizens need to arm themselves more heavily, and in greater numbers.

Hillary is a "grabber."




billh58 (524 posts) Sun Sep-27-09 08:57 PM
Response to Reply #94
99. So our
government is selling illegal arms to the Mexican drug cartels? These must be the same people that flew the airplanes into the Twin Towers and the Pentagon, and assassinated JFK. Sneaky bunch these invisible government operatives. We just may need to form a "militia" and root them out...


nashville_brook (1000+ posts) Sun Sep-27-09 08:40 PM
Response to Reply #91
93. had to google rkba --
i have recently paid attention to discussions in the gun forum, and it's a whole different world.

billh58 (524 posts) Sun Sep-27-09 09:04 PM
Response to Reply #93
101. Too true,
and if they are to be believed, the Second Amendment is the most important sentence in the entire Constitution, and takes precedence over all other rights and freedoms.

Did you not think someone might not read both forums, and notice a certain, shall we say, divergence of tone?

[Treo]

58. Clearly ,

You're one of those "Gun Loonies" and you're just labeling bill as a "grabber" because he doesn't agree W/ you

[friendly_iconoclast]

59. Just comparing what he says here to what he said there

I'm sure he'll be along directly to explain it to us.

There, he laments the types of weapons allegedly flowing to Mexico via straw sales, and the types of
guns Americans own.

Here, well, see for yourself:


billh58 (524 posts) Sun Sep-27-09 02:55 PM
Response to Reply #50
52. I've already
conceded that every American is entitled to own a nuclear-tipped missle, if they can afford it. Seriously, I am not a gun afficiando, and have confessed that many times, so I am not qualified to to argue esoteric "types" of weapons which are popular, or which may or may not, be "regulated."


There:

nashville_brook (1000+ posts) Sun Sep-27-09 08:40 PM
Response to Reply #91
93. had to google rkba --
i have recently paid attention to discussions in the gun forum, and it's a whole different world.

billh58 (524 posts) Sun Sep-27-09 09:04 PM
Response to Reply #93
101. Too true,
and if they are to be believed, the Second Amendment is the most important sentence in the entire Constitution, and takes precedence over all other rights and freedoms.


Here (from his post #24)

I frequent the gungeon on DU because I see some extremely sensible discussions here, but also the occasional over-the-top, and unfounded, hateful accusations from both sides of the issue. I tend to call bullshit when I see it.

[benEzra]

17. 7.62x39mm is back in stock at the major bulk suppliers...

at more or less reasonable prices ($259/1K).

[AzNick]

32. Pellet rifles are fun

You learn to be a bit more accurate, as loading is a PITB.

[backwoodsbob]

45. I haven't found loading that bad

pumping after 100 or so shots is a different story :)

Pellet guns are great for practice..I shoot into a box full of pillows I picked up at a garage sale for a few bucks..can shoot the same pellets over and over and good for practice

My pellet gun

http://www.crosman.com/airguns/rifles/break-barrel/B1500STM

[AzNick]

46. I have a Gamo Big Cat 1200

All the other crap available at the store was made in China.

Gamo is made in Spain. Except for the scope: Made in China (which I don't care for, as adjusting for windage is a pain on it).

I like the pillow idea... May do just that!

Pellets are not too expensive, but I see what you mean.

[dashrif]

60. 17hmr

Fire up that 17

http://www.ammunitiontogo.com/catalog1/index.php/cName/17-hmr-ballistic-tip-ammo 17gr vmax 11.40 per box if you buy 500 rds

http://www.midsouthshooterssupply.com/department.asp?dept=AMMUNITION&dept2=RIMFIRE&dept3=17%20CAL 9.99 a box 17gr vmax best price when they have it

http://www.sportsmansguide.com/net/cb/hornady-varmint-express-17-hmr-17-gr-v-max-500-rds.aspx?a=92046 17gr vmax 10.11 club price per box when you buy 500 rds best price online now