Who's getting a new assault rifle before Obama issues E.O.'s?
 

I know I am!!! Gonna get a whole bunch of new toys prior to the new ban coming...

You watch, it's coming.

I think I might get a AK-47 this time around... cheap and lots of accessories available. Prices will be going up soon.

Mark

Prices have already been going up. I've seen AR's that I was watching at $700 a couple months ago climb to $800-900 preceding the election, and then to $1500 within a few days after the election.

A couple of the manufacturers are reporting that they aren't keeping up with current demand.

But I do not think that Obama will immediately go after guns. He will do it, but not immediately.

But his constitutes really like guns...DC is already full of them even with the prior gun ban ;)

Another reason why gun control is such a retarded idea. Anti-gun laws will only be adhered to by those who follow laws.

Luckily, the DC ban has been overturned (against Obama's objections), but it is still extremely difficult to be allowed to keep a firearm in a DC home. There is lots of cost and complexity in the required paperwork.

I"ve got one AR-15 (Olympic Arms) and two Chinese SKS that were bought back in the day when they were $69 new in cosmoline. I don't use any of them much, so doubt I will buy another. I did have a nice AK-47 that I sold to my buddy who really wanted it.

I think Obama has bigger issues to deal with than trying to push legislation through for gun control.

In my opinion, gun control laws aren't meant to keep them from organized crime as much as to keep them away from the crazies. Making them illegal makes it more difficult to purchase and drive up the cost which could prevent your avg 16 yr old kid from shooting up his high school. Think most of the weapons that were used in school shooting were purchased legally.

You can make all the laws you want, as long as guns exist criminals will have them. So I dont see how it could possibly be a smart thing to take them out of the hands of people who use them responsibly. If someone breaks into my house and has a gun atleast we are on even grounds. If I dont have my guns then what? The criminal will have his no matter what laws are out there. Not a smart thing imo to let criminals have the upper hand.
__________________
Best Car Insurance | Auto Protection Today | FREE Trade-In Quote

Making them illegal for the 100,000,000 people who can legally buy them to prevent 2, 5, 10, (insert your own miniscule number here) that might use them in a crime?:jerkit:

More people will intentionally run someone down with a car that was legally purchased than will kill someone with a legally purchased assult rifle. I guess we better outlaw cars then, right? Yes, that would be stupid. About as stupid as outlawing a rifle for the same reason. Why not outlaw baseball bats or hammers? You can kill someone with those, too.

I just never got that argument. Outlaw the tool, not the take care of the tool using it, huh?

What unlawfully kills more people each year?
a) shootings by permitted gun owners
b) auto accidents caused by intoxicated illegals

Now, which group do you think BO and the Dems are going to go after? And which group are they going to make legal so they can vote for the incumbents. Hmm, I think my question kind of gives away the answer.

Naw Stein you don't get it...

See, I have been doing some research, and it turns out most people killed as the result of a car accident are in fact operating a motor vehicle. Therefore, we should ban vehicles and nobody will be killed... Better for everybody....

A large percentage of small craft fatalities are causes by people drowning. So if there was a law to keep people off the water, then it would be better for everyone....

And it turns out smoking causes cancer which kills people. And someone could try to force me to smoke and to give me cancer. So we should make smoking illegal too.

And bad guys kill people with guns so we should make owning guns illegal. That way no bad people can kill good people.

If I had the money I'd go buy a gun right now. I've been wanting to get one forever.

Hell iirc tobacco kills more than both of them, yet nothing is done about that.
__________________
Best Car Insurance | Auto Protection Today | FREE Trade-In Quote

has a good point. I'm gonna quote chris rock on this one.

"Guns don't kill people, BULLETS kill people! Let guns and bullet be perfectly legal but make them cost like 700$ for 1 bullet. Not many people will buy them and they'd make sure there was no stray bullets. Drive-by's would stop........"

and he goes on with making jokes about the subject and whatnot.

but seriously if bullets costed a ridiculous amount shootings would probably slow down.

What a ridiculous idea. So now the bad guy has to rob the ammo store. Ok. Still stupid. I hope you agree that's a BS idea. Like making gas $50 a gallon to reduce vehicle collisions by drunk drivers. The problem is drunk drivers, not the price of gas. Changing the price of gas doesn't fix drunk drivers.

Don't forget there are more people killed every day in Chicago than in Iraq.

I've stated my case before to Y8s that Obama wants to ban our guns, nobody seems to listen and / or care. AWB (Federal Assault Weapons Ban - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) did nothing to keep Fully auto weapons from the hands of Larry Eugene Phillips, Jr. and Emil Matasareanu. (North Hollywood shootout - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

Just ask any LA cop why they've got an AR-15 / MP5 in their trunk now.

There are 2 uses for gun control:

Take the tools from rightful LEGAL owners, and place them in the hands of those who are going to do wrong.
Attempt to remove our Second Amendment Rights which were put in place to keep fuckers like Obama and Liberal Democrats in CHECK.

Second Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

since history had shown taking away the people's arms and making it an offense for people to keep them was the way tyrants eliminated resistance to suppression of political opponents.[3] In District of Columbia v. Heller (June 26, 2008), the Supreme Court ruled that self-defense is a central component of the right.[4]

Thats because the Government makes WAYYY too much money off them. Hell, I'm sure Obama would offer to ban Tobacco for higher income taxes.:giggle::bang:

I knew that was the answer, its funny how if it benefits the government then its ok.
__________________
Best Car Insurance | Auto Protection Today | FREE Trade-In Quote

Do you seriously think that criminals pay retail for the guns and ammo that they illegally possess?
__________________
Best Car Insurance | Auto Protection Today | FREE Trade-In Quote

Cocaine is illegal last time I checked. Sure is hard to get, right? :jerkit: Same thing.

I'm just going to say one thing and that's it. We don't need another long debate. I think elesjuan definitely has a valid point that making guns (or some subset) illegal won't stop people from getting them. But if some kinds were illegal at least those caught using them in a crime would get additional jail time. I also think the idea that an armed citizenry is somehow keeping the criminals and the government at bay is a ridiculous pipe dream.

Maybe, but if guns were illegal to have then criminals would have absolutely nothing to deter them. They already dont care about the law.
__________________
Best Car Insurance | Auto Protection Today | FREE Trade-In Quote

I bout a Stag stripped lower this weekend :)

But they weren't purchased by the 16 year old kids. They were purchased by their parents / grandparents, who are entirely able to circumnavigate whatever bureaucratic and financial obstacles might be placed in the way.

Granted, if you were to outlaw firearm ownership completely, then school shootings would probably decrease, or possibly even cease if the police were actually successful in removing all firearms from the hands of private citizens. But I don't believe that any congress would be successful in outlawing firearm ownership completely. And there's the catch- so long as it is legal to purchase and own firearms of any kind, then a small subset of the population (who are not traditional criminals in the sense of gang members, burglars / robbers, members of the drug trade, etc.) will indeed obtain and use them to commit what we class as the "crazy & random" crimes- school / workplace shootings, climbing bell towers, and so on.

I honestly don't buy the hype concerning so-called assault rifles. In all seriousness, put yourself, for a moment, into the shoes of a depressed 16 year old kid who is planning to lay waste to the classroom. Presume that you have access to your grandad's closet which contains a number of "conventional" handguns, a couple of shotguns and sporting rifles, as well as an 9mm Uzi SMG, a MAC-10, and an MP-5. Obviously, you are going to grab from the latter group simply because they have a considerable coolness factor to them.

Consider however that these weapons do not exist. You're not likely going to say "well, fuck it then" and go back to being stuffed into lockers. You'll happily select from the assortment of handguns, be they semi-automatics, double action revolvers, whatever.

I'll never forgot one day, back in high school physics class, when were were talking about parabolic trajectories and the teacher (jokingly) asked "Does anybody happen to have a crossbow with them?" Dennis Sink (who today would probably be flagged for special attention, as he did in fact play D&D, wear trenchcoats, etc) calmly got up and went out to his truck in the parking lot, returning a few minutes later with a very nice compound crossbow and several bolts. Understand that he had to walk down a very long corridor on his way back in, and doubltless passed others in the hall while carrying the weapon. Nobody freaked out, and nobody got arrested however- we just went outside and upended a large, into which Mr. Tidwell proceeded to fire the crossbow several times from a distance at various angles of inclination and from various heights.

i'm only jumping in here cuz my name came up.

for the record, i'm not anti-gun. i'd probably own some if I had a reason or more inclination. my dad offered to sell me some of his but i honestly didn't have a good enough reason to own them so I said no. my sis who lives in SF wants his 9 though...

really, any gun (or car, whatev) can be lethal. so banning some types is somewhat misguided. i prefer the background checks and waiting periods. if I'm really into guns, I am hardly imposed upon by waiting two weeks for whatever gun.

and it's true, gun control doesn't stop illegal gun sales. DC's murder rate has been astronomical even with a gun ban. I've never lived in a city and heard more gunshots than when I lived in Southeast DC!

so write your congress peeps and tell them what you really want and wouldn't mind compromising on so they know how to make legislation.



and get back on topic!

Well, I both agree and disagree.

On the matter of an armed citizenry keeping the government at bay, you're 100% correct. The second amendment was written back when there wasn't much of a practical distinction between "The People" and "The Militia", and when, in terms of land warfare anyway, the weapons likely to be owned and kept by private citizens (muzzle-loading rifles, non-repeating handguns, etc) were the exact same ones used by the army. Today, however, it's just not a fair comparison. How many private citizens do you know who own Apache helicopters, cruise missiles, Abrams tanks, etc?


On the matter of keeping criminals at bay, I have a strongly different outlook. There is sufficient historical data available on the subject to lead me to believe that there is a strong bias towards "favorable" outcomes (attacker driven off, disabled, or killed, with reduced or zero loss to victim) in situations involving an attempted assault, theft, or burglary where either the target of the crime or a proximate third-party bystander was in possession of a handgun and competent in its use, relative to those situations in which the victim was unarmed. I also believe that if a larger percentage of citizens carried firearms and were skilled in their use, that the number of both attempted and successful crimes in the above listed categories would decrease in a manner proportional to the percentage of armed citizens, approaching (but not quite reaching) zero as handgun ownership approached 100%.


The only way for bans on the private ownership of guns can reduce crime is if law enforcement is able to act with a high degree of efficiency in applying mass surveillance techniques and proactively preventing criminal activity, rather than responding to it. Without commenting one way or the other on the effectiveness of any particular law enforcement agency, it can be broadly observed that the ability of a law enforcement agency to operate in such a capacity somewhat mirrors the degree to which the society in which they operate resembles a fascist and / or police state.

Supporting evidence

mandatory gun ownership:
Kennesaw Crime Statistics (GA) - CityRating.com
gun ban:
Washington Crime Statistics (DC) - CityRating.com

25 years murder-free in 'Gun Town USA'
Crime Rate Plummets in Kennesaw, GA

Exactly.

Picture you're a criminal walking down the street looking for a victim. Now, you see three guys walking along none know each other, or you. Two of the guys have very large and very visible pistols holstered on their hip and the third does not. Tell me.. who do you think twice about fucking with? The unassuming guy or the two with guns bigger than yourself?

In 2004 a friend and myself were held at gunpoint for over an hour by some crazy pipehead and I'd have given my right testicle to produce my pistol and remove us from the situation. Since then I've become a HUGE advocate for Conceal and Carry laws, and even straight up Unconcealed carry. Living in this major city area and often driving around in a pretty flashy red sports car I'd personally feel much better having a tool to possibly defend myself if attacked.

Back on topic of Assault weapons; Currently I don't own an assault weapon but have plans on the acquisition of one. The thought has even entered my mind of application to acquire a fully automatic rifle, I think it'd be a lot of fun.

A Couple pictures from our last outing with an FFL:
http://jugrnot.com/Picture-132s.jpg
http://jugrnot.com/Picture-139s.jpg
http://jugrnot.com/TechDay09_0031.jpg

Do I *NEED* any of those weapons? Excuse me, Firearms? A Firearm is not a weapon until its used in a crime. Not really, but anyone who has ever had the ability to fire a fully automatic .223, .45ACP, 9mm pistol.. Its a LOT of fun!

The other thing about home / self defense. I wouldn't even bother pulling an assault rifle for any sort of self defense, I'd hate to end up shooting my neighbor through the perp laying dead in my front yard. A .357 magnum or buckshot in a shotgun is plenty effective in my opinion. ;)

Shotgun is ideal home weapon if you have room to manuver. For the pistol I have it loaded with the "safe" rounds that dissintegrate. Not only will they not kill your neighbor as they come apart when they hit something substantial like the wall of your house, glass window, etc. they are more effective when you hit what you are aiming at. About 500 little pieces of lead coming apart inside your torso will ruin your day.

No, I already have enough firearms.

I'd kinda like to have a pistol, but I always balk when it comes down to it because being left handed and right eye dominant I'd have better luck throwing it at a target. Rocks are much cheaper.

Grenades are better.;)

it sucks i can't really spend the money right now or there's a few i'd be buying. fortunately a friend of mine has many new toys i can use at my disposal. I fear they may outlaw certain ammunitions in the future too so potentially some guns would become very expensive to shoot

expect ammunition in general to get much more expensive. that will be much simpler for the left to accomplish while appearing to be moderate and pro 2nd.

Awaiting thread titled "Who here does their own reloads?" in 5... 4... 3... 2...

It all depends on how the Economy continues to tank and how far I can pare down the kid's (and wife's) Christmas lists.

(I've got my eye on another AR-10...)

Starting to sound like it might finally be cheaper soon...

I'm not against banning all guns, and I'm sure Obama isn't aiming for that too. What I'm for is banning assault rifles and semi automatic weapons.

If a criminal breaks into your house, you're not going to exchange 200 rounds of amo on eachother. Most likely there will be in a couple of fire shot and either one of you two are dead or he ran away. I don't see any good justification for owning these types of weapons other than purely entertainment value.

I swear I just use them for hunting. They're perfect for quail.


:giggle:

So either one of those things here...


1. You need to brush up on your gun lingo and learn a little more?
or
2. You're for banning all guns except pump-action shotguns and revolvers?

First off, 98% of violet gun crimes involve HAND GUNS, not "assault rifles." Bill Clinton's idea that "Assault Rifles" were for sale on hotdog stands on every corner of America is absurd and Insulting.

Semi-Automatic is a pistol, rifle, or gun that fires one shot per one trigger depression. Maybe you're talking about "Fully Automatic" where one trigger depression fires multiple rounds? If so, they've been banned since 1934 (National Firearms Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) However you can still purchase one if the FBI, ATF, Sheriff, and local Police Chief sign off on your ownership, along with a 200$ "tax" stamp.

According to Wiki it's has a cartridge. If you have a gun just to protect your house, a revolver is sufficient. Semi-automatic weapons are easier to reload and can hold more rounds.

Semi-automatic pistol - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Revolver - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I'm planning on picking up a nice Ak-47 sometime this month.

INCORRECT! ALL MODERN DAY FIREARMS USE CARTRIDGES!

Heres a fine example!

http://www.imfdb.org/images/7/71/800px-Glock_36.jpg
http://www.taurususa.com/images/imagesMain/455SS2.jpg
http://www.modelguns.co.uk/images/milchicag21.jpg


What do the Three firearms pictures have in common???



One is a Semi-Automatic Pistol, One is a double action revolver, and the final is a semi-automatic or FULLY AUTOMATIC MACHINE GUN... They ALL fire the *EXACT SAME ROUND* .45ACP.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...J_-_SB_-_2.jpg

Heres a neat little trick; If someones shoots up someones house with the Glock or Tommy gun, They leave behind the empty 'cartridges' for forensics bullshit. Sure, you can pick them up, but have you ever searched through grass in the middle of the day for small shell casings? Guess what they don't leave behind with the Revolver? DING DING DING DING! No shell casings!

Btw, they make revolvers with 8 round capacity, just like the .45 semi-auto pistols.

Think a Semi-automatic magazine fed pistol is 'easier to reload' then a revolver? Tell that to this guy:





I really hope that clears up some misconceptions about firearms. Nothing pains me more than to see people pissed off and against something they're not fully educated on.

Actually a .223/5.56mm has less a chance of over penetration than a standard pistol round.

Sources - Pistol versus Rifle Caliber Ammunition
Olympic Arms, Inc. - Real World .223 Testing


Actually Obama has, more than once, mentioned a push for a complete ban on concealed carry. While not an outright ban on all guns, it sure diminishes their usefulness.

I don't know about you, but if I am in the situation where I need a firearm to defend myself, I want the quickest shooting weapon with the highest capacity magazine I can have. Shoot the threat down.

This has already been covered to a degree, but the depth of your ignorance in this matter is so staggering that I want to make sure that we have been absolutely 100% clear, with no room for ambiguity or misinterpretation.

A "cartridge" is what most people would commonly refer to as a "round" or (incorrectly) a "bullet". It is an assembly which consists of the brass casing, the primer, the gunpowder charge, and the bullet. The bullet is the (usually lead) projectile that comes out of the front of the gun, the casing is the part that remains behind in the cylinder (in a revolver) or is ejected out the top or side of the slide (in an automatic.)

Here is a diagram of a complete cartridge:
http://img139.imageshack.us/img139/4521/bulletrr2.gif
1= Bullet (the projectile)
2= Casing
3= Gunpowder
4= Primer

Cartridges are used in pretty much all modern firearms, be they revolvers, semi-automatic (one shot per trigger pull), fully automatic, even bolt-action, lever-action, and pump-action target rifles. Even the shotgun shell is technically a cartridge. The alternative to cartridges in hand-held firearms is generally muzzle-loading. This is basically what you see in revolutionary war paintings, where to fire the weapon you first pour a little gunpowder down the muzzle, then pack it down with a rod, then some cotton wadding, then a bullet and more cotton (pack with rod again) then you insert a cap onto the firing arm, and *then* you can fire the gun.

Once.


So, what exactly were you trying to convey by "According to Wiki it's has a cartridge"?



Yup. Penetration is about many things, but generally, the type of gun that fired the round isn't one of them. Case size, powder load, bullet mass, all these things affect penetration, and vary primarily with caliber (the general type of round being fired.) What elesjuan touched on, but I think a lot of people miss, is that for most modern cartridges, you can find all manner of firearm to chamber them.

Here's a quick example:

This is a Glock 17. It (or some variant of it) is the standard-issue sidearm of about half the police departments in the US, and very popular among civilian target shooters and as a home-defense pistol:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...rkaGlock17.jpg

This is an Uzi submachine gun. It fires 600 rounds per minute and is the sort of thing one might select to look cool while shooting up a school auditorium:
http://www.weaponsvault.net/images/israeli-UZI-9mm.jpg

What do they have in common? This round:
http://www.genitron.com/Ammunition/9mm-new.jpg


I'm surprised nobody has mentioned frangible ammo. While still slightly controversial within the shooting community (owing to concerns about stopping effectiveness and such) the basic idea is that the bullet itself is made from a compressed powdered material, rather than solid lead. Thus, when it strikes a solid object (such as a wall) it will disintegrate rather than ricochet or penetrate. Pretty much the ultimate concept in a home-defense round.




Semi-automatic weapons? Like this one?
http://www.defendu.com/images/Walther-PPK.jpg
That's what a semi-automatic pistol looks like.


Could be. Depends upon the criminal I expect. If it's your average professional burglar, then I have to assume he's not breaking into my house in the first place, owing to the fact that someone is clearly home, as evidenced by the cars in the driveway. If it's some douchebag who is so high that he's not really noticing little things like pain and fear just at that exact moment, then I'd feel pretty good about having more than a six round capacity.

All good points Joe.

Good to see not everyone here is closeminded and we can have a mature discussion.

Joe: You're right I guess cartridge is the wrong term, I'm thinking of magazine.

M1A1 would be on my list. Call me old fashioned.

P.S. Phil Miculek is awesome!

Don't you think that someone who is grossly ignorant to firearms should not make arguments regarding them?

You're Right on many accounts. I've looked up Obamas previous voting record on 2nd amendment rights, and he hasn't voted PRO 2nd very often.

http://www.federalpremium.com/images...a-shok-big.jpg My self-defense round of choice. ;)

+1 x11tybillion

Umm...I won't start a thread, but does it really surprise anyone here that I do?:giggle:

When I was shooting competition, it was a necessity. I don't shoot competitively anymore, but I still have 18,000 Hornady .40 bullets and a five gallon bucket of brass, so I'm covered, at least for my .40. I have a few thousand brass and bullets to load my .223 and quite a bit less stuff for my .454 and .270 which I reload not only for cost but better accuracy. My .454 are up to close to $30 for a box of 20 if I have to buy. I can reload with 300 grain Hornady XTP bullets for about $.40 each for bullet, powder and primer.

Umm.... what's the difference between robbery and armed robbery? The use of a weapon and additional jail time. The law already adds penalties for using a gun in a criminal act. Also, as far as I know if you are in posession of a firearm and committing any felony (21+ mph over the limit can be tried as a felony in TX), you are in violation of federal gun laws already.

If I happen to have a shotgun under the back seat of my truck and get pulled over for going 51 in a 30 I could technically be arrested and put in a federal pen for 15 years for violating gun laws.

So, you want to tell me that we need to ban guns in order to have a penalty in writing? We already have a lot of them!!! The problem is that there are not enough police officers, they are rarely in the right place (I don't want to get shot either so I can't blame them), and the courts don't enforce laws properly IF the scum bag is caught.

It's my constitutional right to own them and I intend to do so. period.



*edit* Also, the 2nd amendment in it's entirety reads as follows:
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

This means two things to me...

1) If Barack takes away my guns he is unamerica, a traitor, and should be removed from office for failure to uphold the oath he will give when sworn in to protect and defend the constitution.

2) We have the right to bear arms to "protect our free state"... aka defend ourselves from once again being stepped on by the government (which in my opinion is treating us much worse right now than taxation without representation). NOT TO DEFEND OURSELVES AGAINST CRIMINAL. That's just a pleasant side affect.

I didn't actually say they should be banned. I was kind of musing. And additional time over the existing laws would be some kind of deterrent. Then again criminals are stupid... Ah hell, I don't really care. I don't need a gun for personal protection because I won't live or go to places where that might be necessary. period.

Whats the best solution for lack of police officers? Obviously its not more.

NYC CANCELS POLICE CLASS, CUTS JOBS - New York Post

You know, speaking of race, gender, politics and the police force... I tried pretty hard for 3 years to get myself onto a police department and was turned away at every corner. Personally I thought of myself as a perfect candidate for a worth while LEO; Had never been arrested, have a spotless driving record, bright, very quick on my feet, Honest (I'm an Eagle Scout, how more honest can you get?)

Some things I don't have:

A Harvard Law Degree
Financing for Harvard Law Degree

A running total of about 12 different departments collectively, 2 Sheriffs departments, and three City Departments were WAY more interested in the fact that I didn't immediately jump into a $260,000 debt for post-high school college enrollment than anything else.

KCMO-PD told me before I even interviewed with the Chief that since I'm not Black or a Woman I didnt have a chance in hell of getting on with them. Growing up my best friends father was a Police Officer for 25 years and I wanted so greatly to walk in his shoes when I was old enough. The more I grew up and the more other crooked ass cops I met, the more motivation I had to become something better than any of them ever could be. Cest La vie, was a stupid dream anyway.

Isn't treason punishable by death, still?

I decided to buy one of these.

DPMS: AR-15 Rifles, Parts and Accessories.

Mark

I want that bad. I sold my competition air rifle for $1500 with plans to get one of those and a pistol. Never spent the money. The price is right on that one and i like the stainless barrel.

Actually, I picked it up for $975 with 3 20rd mags. MD does not allow for mags greater than 20 rds. I also liked the stainless barrel. Sorry to say, but the quality of the best AK's don't even seem close.

Mark

Not to further rag on you......but what does a magazine have to do with anything?? My .380 simi holds 6 in the mag. I have only two mags but, I have four speed loaders for my 357. Getting to the point, most simis dont hold 30 rounds. Even more importantly you can reload revolvers quickly enough.

Nice score. That's one I've been watching too. I've also been watching the classifieds to see if something used and local comes up for reasonable.

I'm considering selling one of my two sniper rifles to fund the AR. No one seems to be talking about banning sniper rifles. :giggle:

Well you wouldn't use a sniper rifle to kill people, I mean, where is the fun in that?

Strange thing is that my "AR-15" with the heavy barrel and fixed stock is not an "assault" weapon in MD. Folding or collapsible stock, and it would be (and subject to a 7 day wait.) Would you mind selling me the collapsible stock on the wall... I want to make it an assault rifle when I get home! LMAO. No I didn't buy the collapsible stock... I was tempted to make a point.

So now I have a semi-auto "sporting rifle" capable of 0.5" MOA and 3 20 round clips.... but an AK with a folding stock, 1 30 round clip and inherently poor accuracy is more dangerous?!? WTF.

I did order my M70AB underfolder parts kit today. Because everyone needs a clean relatively untraceable weapon. After all, it's not a gun without a receiver. Brilliant. Drill some holes, fold a piece of steel with a harbor freight bender and voila... you have a fully functional AK.

RANT
Now, I am stupid, I purchased all the compliance parts to make a LEGAL AK... The criminals... they save a few bucks and just roll full auto... Anyone see something wrong with this picture?!?
/Rant.

So I will have one of each.

Mark

The Torrington Telegram Online

Heres the bitch; In the state of Kansas with recent legislation you can purchase (with jumping through hoops..) a Fully Automatic "Weapon." However, something you CAN'T do is buy 'hop up' parts or fully automatic receiver combination from say a full Auto M-16 for your AR15. How fucked up is that? Its still considered a federal offense to 'modify' your semi-auto to full auto even if you've got proper paperwork.