Grouse

It's always Democrats who push these anti-gun laws. Vote Obama a 2nd term and we will all get screwed. The Dems will not push this crap in an election year, but after the election, it's all out war on gun owners if they win. Who cares how much ammo this nut bought online? Do you think he was carrying 6000 rounds on him in the theater? Did he shoot 6000 times? No. What has one thing got to do with another? Do you know how expensive ammo will become if only FFL's can sell it to you? And if you can pay the price for it afterwards, what's to stop someone from buying 1000 rounds a week for 6 weeks to avoid the law? STUPID!! Pure harassment of the hated gun owner by the Dems is all it is!!

The theater shooting doesn't prove we need more gun control. It proves we need more idiot control.

Where you are in this life is the result of the choices you made all your life. The government wants to support a lot of people who have made very bad choices in life and will continue to do so. Of course they are using other people's money to do it so they don't care. There needs to be stricter administration of any govt handouts to insure the taxpayers are not being taken advantage of. I object to many govt handouts because they are not designed to help people get back on their feet. They are designed to keep them on relief. And that means they will have to keep voting for the party that continues to promise them the relief. It's obvious vote buying!

Whenever I sell a gun, I sell it on Gunbroker.com. I always get close to book value for it, sometimes even more depending on the gun I'm selling, even after the very small fee that Gunbroker.com takes, and the buyer pays the shipping charges. Put it on there and thousands of interested buyers from all over the country will see it. All you need is a signed FFL from the dealer they are using for you to ship it to and you take it to UPS and ship it to the FFL. Selling a gun any way else IMHO, will get you a lot less money for it.

Get a Kimber 84M in .308. Anything else is a compromise. Save up till you can afford one before you settle for something less.

That's true, but it is because they didn't attend to the fire, or negligently tossed a cig that the wildfire got started. A campfire can be controlled without fear, but the government doesn't trust it's people to do the right thing. Admittedly, a lot of people can't be trusted, and that's why the rest of us must suffer.

It's funny they made this until Oct 10, 2012. What if things change and we get a lot of rain next month? I guess they could just recind the ban then.

Ethanol was forced on us to pollute less, but it gets lower gas mileage. Seems to me because we burn more fuel per mile using the 10% ethanol crap, we probably are polluting just as much per mile as we did with the old gas. More corn demand means higher prices for corn and everything that needs it. The government never seems to do anything that improves our quality of life, even though that's what they tell us it will do. This is the stuff that matters when you decide who you are gonna vote for.

Do you have a link for this info? I have not heard of any ban and Oct 10th is a long way off.

This article was a very interesting read on the abuse we take from some of the "Holier Than Though" and "Reasonable Gun Law" types we run into all the time. It doesn't mention the NRA, but we NRA members get abuse for supporting the "Ugly Guns" with large cap mags all the time. Tactical Wire editor Rich Grassi has some thoughts (and a goodly helping of tough love) for all of us in the outdoor community. Without descending into the current political morass of charge/counter-charge, extremist vs. extremist, agenda and charisma driven politics, I think it's time for a block of voters to coalesce - the people of the outdoors. Yes, it sounds like interest group politics. Extremist whack-job pseudojournalists who exist only in the NYC-DC Bubble and on our TV screens label us as "special interests" and "gun lobby." I prefer the term organized interest group, as that's where we should be - an organized interest. Our interests, like our country, is diverse. We need to organize to be effective. (Remember the TEA Party? Pretty good organization for an outfit with no discernible leader, pretty effective at turning elections around.) We have traditionalist hunters, birders, archers, collectors with their closed shop. We have the pseudo- (and/or former) military and police types with their own special lingo and mode of dress. There are cowboy-action shooters, USPSA and IDPA shooters, trap-skeet and sporting clay shooters. There's the "gun guy" every locality has and the concealed handgun licensee. Don't forget Class III aficionados who cheerfully send postal money orders for the ATF tax stamp which is permission to own what the Second Amendment says we can own absent taxation. They divide us, the cynical gun-grabbing scumbags who gleefully play in the blood of crime victims, tragedy victims and suicides. They ask only for "reasonable regulations," compromise on things upon which we all agree. "We all" in the context of agreement amounts to "reasonable citizens concerned more for the welfare of the community" than the idiosyncratic proclivities of the "gun guy." "Let us get the real killing machines off the street, you know, assault weapons(sic)." Translation: "Let's get the ugly guns that look military and get rid of them for you." You incompetent child, don't you know? You're more likely to shoot yourself or a loved one than a criminal offender. "Assault weapons" is a term popularized by plagiarist and serial-gaffe-master Joe Biden from the late 80s. Needing something to hang his hat on, since his hair plugs needed to "breathe," he got the concept from others - surprise! - and tried to get a ban passed as early as 1988. "Reasonable people" agreed with it. Who the hell needs a thirty round magazine? (Answer: someone who misses a lot.) Even Ronald Reagan, as he slipped under the bonds of reason-killing Alzheimer's, agreed with it. As recently as two years ago, a congregation of firearms media brought together by one little conglomerate split over the concept of Modern Sporting Rifles. "They're making a big mistake," it was said of one of the oldest firearms firms on Earth. "Going to making AR15s." A look of disgust crossed the scribe's face. "Who can have any pride of ownership in something like that?" Who indeed? It's a tool, not a work of art like the writer's Classic Sporting Rifle - a modern bolt-action rifle, wonderfully barreled, highly polished and deeply blued, nestled in beautifully figured Circassian walnut. Who wouldn't have pride of ownership in such a magnificent "extension of the owner's will"? -- Well, maybe someone like that gun-grabbing skunk Chuck Schumer. You people need to figure out who your enemies are and you better do it right quick. It's not people who shoot Modern Sporting Rifles. It's not mall ninjas, tac-tards, military arms enthusiasts, gun school attendees or makers of "ugly guns" with "standard capacity" magazines (standard for the design of the piece). Your enemies are the ones smiling at you at the cocktail parties, telling you that the kind of trash who'd own an AR15 is doing nothing but taking your sport down. "They stand in the way of "reasonable gun controls."" Let's have no misconceptions: that smiling weasel looking at you over the martini doesn't like you any better than he likes me. You're something he stepped in out in the yard; something he can't get off his shoe. But he's not getting rid of people like me. There are more AR15s in private hands now than ever before. Hell, there may be more ARs and AKs in private hands in the US than there are bolt action rifles. Besides, reasonable gun control means we'd have to take those "long range sniper rifles" away from you. You're such children. Besides, you don't need them to hunt ducks. -- Rich Grassi (By the way: shotguns go next!) Jul 20-21 2012 Case Collector's Reunion W.R. Case & Sons Cutlery, Bradford, PA Jul 21 Crossbow Magazine National Pop-Up Target Challenge Shooting the X, 233 Allen Road, Carlisle, PA 17013 Jul 26-28 MGM Targets Grand Nationals Parma Rod & Gun Club, Parma, Idaho Jul 30-Aug 4 104th Annual ACA National Casting Tournament Cincinnatti Central Turners Lake/Lebanon Sports Complex Aug 2 Outdoors Without Limits National Kick-Off Banquet JW Marriott, Atlanta, GA Aug 9-12 10th Anniversary JP Enterprises' Rocky Mountain 3-Gun Match NRA Whittington Center, Raton, New Mexico

Our elected officials do not have GOVERNMENT RUN healthcare. What they have is unlimited PRIVATE healthcare funded by taxpayers. I don't think they should have it. If everyone had it, we would be broke in a month. Obamacare is less costly. It will only take 5 years to bankrupt the country. Want to shut down Rush and MSNBC? Get the government the hell out of our private lives.

Saw one last weekend with the spots still slightly visable. Something in the woods spooked it ( Bear or Coyote I think ) and it ran across my yard and right into the foundation of my house. It hit it hard too, then veered off to the left towards the pines. I wonder if it was blind. The sun was in it's eyes at the time though. Seconds later two full size doe appeared and veered off to the left into the pines, all the while bleating to the fawn to get it to come their way. I bet that fawn gave itself a headache.

A lot of scary info on how many people depend on the government for survivial. http://www.staged.com/video?v=Klmb

Raining nicely in Delhi today. No wind, lightning or thunder, just rain. Temps @ 69 degrees too. Nice!

The United Nations This week, a month-long series of negotiations on a proposed international small-arms arms treaty kicked off in New York City. There are, incidentally, 193 countries participating in the talks- you may have heard of a half-dozen or so of them. The rest make a goodly percent of their nations' livelihoods being professional recipients of the UN's equivalent of welfare. Supporters of the proposed treaty are confident that by the end of the month, there will be a treaty in place. Now, we find the United States among those supporters of at least a part of the treaty. That's a complete about-face from the past. The United States' UN contingent has been told - in no uncertain terms- that the people of the United States want no part of any UN governance over anything Second Amendment related. Guess what? Our diplomats, headed by "rock star" (that's the NY Times description, not mine) diplomat - and Secretary of State- Hillary Clinton, have decided that we're too-ignorant to know what's good for us. Seems they're more than prepared to sign the UN treaty on traffic in small arms on our behalf. They're already on record as being prepared to accept controlling the trade in guns -but are pushing back on ammunition. China and Russia (two scions of individual freedoms) have said they're not supporting a limit on arms production or sales - or a human rights requirement for those sales. Our staunch allies Britain, France, Germany and Sweden have called for a legally binding treaty. Excuse me, but I'm not feeling the need to be helped along by our "allies" who have already restricted everything from guns and pocket knives to harsh or words. But I'm not the current administration. They have quietly reversed the United States' previous opposition to the treaty. If/when ratified, the United Nations treaty on small arms isn't supposed to have an impact on our domestic policies regarding firearms. Excuse me if I'm a bit distrustful of anything from the United Nations, Hillary Clinton or the rest of the current administration. Having covered the shenanigans of diplomats at the United Nations, traveled in countries where UN "peacekeepers" were on the job and seen the results of their stabilizing presence, I'm not reassured by their assurances. It seems inappropriate that on the Friday following our Independence Day we find ourselves - once again- looking at another erosion of our rights. Unfortunately, 2012 looks more like the days before the Declaration of Independence than the two centuries of freedom that followed the standards set forth in that document. US Senator Rand Paul has joined with the National Association of Gun Rights to put together a Firearms Sovereignty Survey (http://www.nagr.org/UN_RP_Survey2.aspx )that anyone can sign and let their Senators know they're AGAINST the UN move. It also includes a pledge to vote against any Senator who supports ratification of the UN Small Arms Treaty. Jim Shepard The Outdoor Wire

I'm not bashing cops Ants, but I am pointing out certain behavior many engage in that is not sound and should not be condoned. I respect and appreciate LEO's but I will also point out they have no right to take advantage of that respect to engage in dangerous behavior. I know many LEO's who are very upset that many of their own are giving all the rest of them a bad image by doing things that they know they can get away with, even though they know they shouldn't do them in the first place. It's hard for the good cops to withold support for the bad ones when they get pinched, even though they know in their hearts the bad ones should be held responsible for their dangerous actions. The peer pressure and retaliation can be very intense, even dangerous. That goes for cell phone use, or anything else that puts the public in jeopardy. Once again, not bashing LEO's in general, but not giving a pass to the ones who deserve to be held accountable either.

It absolutely matters what happened. Though it's sad and the dead are to be mourned, unless you want to see it happen again, you better find out what happened. Things like this don't happen unless something wasn't done right. If safety laws were ignored, someone has to set up as an example.

Voting for Democrats is voting for more gun control, period! There is no way to deny they have given us every anti-gun law on the books and are not nearly satisfied with what exists now. They have made their intention known, for elimination of the 2nd Amendment and all gun rights, numerous times. You may like what they do in other areas (because you have been fooled) but if you vote for them, you will see attacks on gun rights.

Saw this on the news last night. A bad storm moved into the area at that time. It had high winds and heavy rain. I have to ask, when they saw this storm coming and the water getting choppy, why didn't they take precautions like putting on life jackets and steering the boat into the wind? Was the boat carrying more people than it was legally allowed to? Seems to me the skipper has a lot of questions to answer.

What I don't understand is why all of these driver issues aren't already covered under the careless driving law? Why do we need to have a law for every little thing, in detail, to write someone a ticket for driving dangerously? Perhaps the cops don't get support from the traffic courts when they write a ticket for driving while eating or applying makeup? Maybe the lawyers have caused this mess? I don't think we need a law to cover hand held distracted cell phone use in particular, because it's careless driving in the first place. I agree we have too many laws now, but if they aren't enforced, ( or worse, selectively enforced ) what good are they? I have noticed many local PD's not enforcing, what they consider trivial infractions, when local budgets get cut and their manpower is down, claiming they don't have the time or manpower to enforce those things so they can concentrate on more pressing crimes. I don't buy that excuse though, because they need to do their job, and the lost revenue only makes their budget problems worse. Do they really have a lot more "pressing issues" than before too? I don't want the PD to go on a ticket blitz just for cash, but writing tickets for real driving infractions should not be stopped. Besides, it often just looks like a PD Union work stoppage in protest of the town not raising taxes.

I don't agree with the huge incomes of American CEO's, but that is between them and the company's stock holders. Interestingly, even if they took 1/4 of the money they are getting, not one single employee would be hired because of it. If the workforce needed expansion, the CEO would do it. Corporations want to be lean and cut expenses as much as possible without causing inefficiencies in production. The idea is to make as much profit for investors as possible. They get the huge pay check when they hit certain agreed upon profit goals. They are not paid by the hour, they are paid on very specific contract terms. Unfortunately those contracts often say if they are let go by the Board of Directors prior to the end of their contract, they get a golden parachute when they leave. That is often something the CEO negotiates with the board prior to coming on as the CEO. They want to protect themselves from a Board that would have them pilot a company to huge success by fixing all the problems and then turn them out the door after all the problems are solved. Cutting the CEO's pay would simply mean more profit and more money towards stock holders shares. Stock holders would love to see a CEO willing to take less pay because it means more money for them, not for the employees or the company. In actuallity, less money for CEO's usually means less profit for the company and less help to the economy. Foreign companies also operate on a totally different level than American companies. CEO's in Japan for example are really just top level managers that work for the Board of Directors of the company, and many of those Board members make much more than American Board members, because they are actually the real owners of the corporation, often holding more than 51% of the company stock. It's easy for this type of propaganda to be used to make the electorate vote a certain way, because it's complicated and few voters take the time to educate themselves on an issue and find out the truth. It's not their fault though, because often they are working long hours just trying to afford the taxes they have to pay. Not many want to spend their free time doing reasearch on propaganda.

I'm not bashing cops here, just pointing out their attitude towards cell phone use while driving. I spent many years in Emergency Services and saw it happening once cell phones became common. I also don't agree anything official should be discussed off the radio, as nothing can be recorded when they take it off the radio and use the cell phone. If they are on a cell, rather than the radio, they are most likely discussing something they don't want overheard or recorded. Use of a cell phone by a cop responding to a call with lights and siren, is extremely negligent and puts the public in danger. If it is actually necessary to use a cell in an official capacity, the cruiser should be equipped with a hands free system like Ford's Sync. As far as why so many average Joe's use the cell phone when driving, it is easily summed up in two words. Inconsiderate and Oblivious! Seems more people are self centered and self concerned these days than ever before. It's an attitude that was cultivated by the "Me" generation without any concern for the side effects it would produce. Too many people lack any concern for other people, their safety, or their opinions. They do have a lot of self esteem though, but no accomplishments to speak of that would justify it. And when they cause an accident while on the cell, they never accept responsibility for their actions either, preferring to find fault with the other driver or pedestrian, even if they have to lie to do it.

Maybe because they would feel like hypocrites.....seeing as they do it all the time and are one of the worst offenders. They are exempt from the law though, so for them it ain't illegal. But it's sure not safe.

What is there to think about?

If you are a handgun fan and own a few of them, check into NY's draconian handgun laws too. Coming from Oregon, you will be shocked!