Jump to content
VL-16

Gun Talk

Recommended Posts

On 3/1/2018 at 8:15 AM, Vertigo said:

Yeah, that's why hotels and car rentals places get sued all the time for not renting to those under 21. Wait a minute...

Pretty indifferent but their case is going to be it's not a constitutional right that you can drive a car or rent a hotel. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Zoom22 said:

Pretty indifferent but their case is going to be it's not a constitutional right that you can drive a car or rent a hotel. 

It's not a Constitutional right to purchase a firearm from Dick's either.

It's the right to bear arms, not the right to force a sporting goods store to sell to whom they choose not to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Vertigo said:

It's not a Constitutional right to purchase a firearm from Dick's either.

It's the right to bear arms, not the right to force a sporting goods store to sell to whom they choose not to.

It's not a Constitutional right to purchase a cake from any baker either.

You just destroyed the liberal argument to the Supreme Court that would force a Baker to make a cake for a homosexual couple.

The ruling later this year will have huge implications.

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, ClearedHot said:

It's not a Constitutional right to purchase a cake from any baker either.

You just destroyed the liberal argument to the Supreme Court that would force a Baker to make a cake for a homosexual couple.

The ruling later this year will have huge implications.

I agree. I don't believe the baker should have to sell to a homosexual couple if they choose not to, even though they are a protected class (and 18 year olds aren't). 

The real question is why you, as a small business owner, wouldn't want that business? It's not like you're approving of their lifestyle, you're just profiting from making a cake.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Vertigo said:

I agree. I don't believe the baker should have to sell to a homosexual couple if they choose not to, even though they are a protected class (and 18 year olds aren't). 

The real question is why you, as a small business owner, wouldn't want that business? It's not like you're approving of their lifestyle, you're just profiting from making a cake.

 

It doesn’t matter to me, but for some religious beliefs trump profits.  God Bless America.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, ClearedHot said:

It's not a Constitutional right to purchase a cake from any baker either.

You just destroyed the liberal argument to the Supreme Court that would force a Baker to make a cake for a homosexual couple.

The ruling later this year will have huge implications.

I think the outcome is pretty apparent, and it will effect more than we can even think about on both sides.  Of course I thought the ACA was going down, that damn Kennedy.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Vertigo said:

I agree. I don't believe the baker should have to sell to a homosexual couple if they choose not to, even though they are a protected class (and 18 year olds aren't). 
 

 

Both are state by state.  In Oregon, age is a protected trait, 18 and up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Vertigo said:

The real question is why you, as a small business owner, wouldn't want that business? It's not like you're approving of their lifestyle, you're just profiting from making a cake.

The same reason why Dick's doesn't want more business...it's not like they're approving of school shootings, they would just profit from gun sales.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, HeloDude said:

The same reason why Dick's doesn't want more business...it's not like they're approving of school shootings, they would just profit from gun sales.

I imagine the sale of guns to 18-20 year olds is so small they can absorb that lost profit without even seeing a blip on the profit/loss sheet, whereas a small business maybe can't afford to alienate a segment of the population (and their supporters).

Regardless, no one should be FORCED to sell a product to someone else whether it be a cake, a gun, or a lapdance.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, ClearedHot said:

It doesn’t matter to me, but for some religious beliefs trump profits.  God Bless America.

MOST people start up a business to make money, not to preach their beliefs.

But to each their own. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Vertigo said:

MOST people start up a business to make money, not to preach their beliefs.

But to each their own. 

why not both?

Image result for joel osteen

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/6/2018 at 12:13 AM, raimius said:

JS, Pmags are good to go.  The issue with aluminum "GI" style mags is that any damage to the feed lips can be hard to visually detect, but can cause malfunctions.  Pmags are either broken or not broken--the polymer doesn't experience plastic deformation very much.  They can fracture, but then you can see it.  That said, they are hard to destroy. So, if you are not regularly running them over, stomping on them, or body slamming them against concrete, you should be good.  Even if you do abuse them, they are $10-15 each. 

7.62x39 is not optimized for the AR system.  There are uppers for them, but some have issues.  If you are willing to spend a little more, .300blackout gives performance pretty close to x39, runs well in short barrels or suppressed, and only requires a barrel change from the normal AR system (the case is based on 5.56). 

The 15-22 had some issues a few years back, but I haven't kept up lately.  You might want to do some research on that.  Alternately, 9mm AR pistols and carbines are gaining popularity.



 

Good info bro.  Funny you mention blackout, my good friend who built several ARs currently has a 300 Blackout version and was recommending the same thing to me.  I just don't like the higher ammo price, which is why I was thinking of that 22 to really have fun with while keeping the regular 5.56 for home defense and occasional hog hunting or something.  And I guess at the end of the day, if I were really going to get a good 7.62x39 rifle, why not get the original "assault" rifle that it was designed for. 

Questions on magazines:

1.  How many magazines do you guys keep on hand?  I have read guys having several to several hundred.  I friend of mine bought a case of 100 GI magazines when the Obama freaks were talking about banning high capacity mags. 

2.  If you keep multiple mags on hand, how many do you keep loaded up while your AR is in crew rest?  I think I have like 8 magazines but only keep like 3 or 4 actually loaded in the safe next to the rifle.  I heard it doesn't really harm the spring to keep them loaded with 30 rounds indefinitely.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/11/2017 at 10:32 AM, Hacker said:

Funny to look back at the beginning of this thread, 10 years later, at how .40 has begun to fall from favor after a decade.

I bring it up because in the last two weeks I've picked up two used .40 former LEO trade-ins -- a Sig P229 and a Glock 23 -- in absolutely ripping deals.  All courtesy of the trend to move away from the .40 and back to the 9x19.  Both are in terrific condition, typical police trade in stuff, light holster wear on the outside, dirty and needing a good cleaning but barely worn on the inside.

Seems like I just got done buying some great cheap LEO trade-in wheel guns (a Smith 686 and Smith Model 28) back when the "wonder nines" became popular in the early 90s.  I also followed that up a decade later when .40 became the new hotness for cops and the FBI here 15 years ago and 2nd gen Glocks and others in 9x19 were hitting the used gun stores.

Too bad those Smiths and Glocks are all long gone now, traded or sold for others over the years, but I sure enjoyed them and their budget price, and definitely got more than my money back in the sales and trades.  I'd especially love to have that 686 back.


I'll be buying more LEO trade-ins in 9x19 when that goes out of style again here in another 15-20 years.  Until then, now I finally have something to do with all that .40 brass and random .40 rounds I've picked up over the years at the range.

Good to know.  I asked the guys at the local gunshop about this and they definitely said there were a lot of .40s coming in as people try to sell them.  The gun store said they stopped taking them in because they had too many to get rid of.  I asked him what a good price was on, for example, an M&P .40 used, and he was telling me $425 or so.  That didn't seem like that great of a deal. 

Where were you picking up these used LEO .40s?  I even looked in a few local pawn stores for one and didn't see anything. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Vertigo said:

I imagine the sale of guns to 18-20 year olds is so small they can absorb that lost profit without even seeing a blip on the profit/loss sheet, whereas a small business maybe can't afford to alienate a segment of the population (and their supporters).

Regardless, no one should be FORCED to sell a product to someone else whether it be a cake, a gun, or a lapdance.

Yet a cake company can't afford to not sell a cake to an extremely small segment of the population?

Totally agree on your last sentence. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, JS said:

Good to know.  I asked the guys at the local gunshop about this and they definitely said there were a lot of .40s coming in as people try to sell them.  The gun store said they stopped taking them in because they had too many to get rid of.  I asked him what a good price was on, for example, an M&P .40 used, and he was telling me $425 or so.  That didn't seem like that great of a deal. 

Where were you picking up these used LEO .40s?  I even looked in a few local pawn stores for one and didn't see anything. 

$299 at AIM Surplus for a LEO .40

https://www.aimsurplus.com/product.aspx?item=F1SWMP40&name=LEO+Trade-In+Smith+%26+Wesson+M%26P40+.40+S%26W+Handgun&groupid=7952

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, JS said:

 

1.  How many magazines do you guys keep on hand?  I have read guys having several to several hundred.  I friend of mine bought a case of 100 GI magazines when the Obama freaks were talking about banning high capacity mags. 

2.  If you keep multiple mags on hand, how many do you keep loaded up while your AR is in crew rest?  I think I have like 8 magazines but only keep like 3 or 4 actually loaded in the safe next to the rifle.  I heard it doesn't really harm the spring to keep them loaded with 30 rounds indefinitely.  

1. Personal preference.  If you are worried about a magazine ban (with grandfathering), more is better.  Otherwise, I'd say however many you would want to use at once times 1.5 or x2, just to cover potential damage.  Frankly, there are enough 10-pack Pmag deals out there that one of those would be a logical choice.

2. Again, personal preference.  If you would use it for defensive purposes, I'd suggest at least one.  Having it in the safe in condition 3 might not be a bad idea, so long as you respect the status of the firearm during handling.  Running out the door/back to the bedroom while shoving loose rounds in a mag is not a great idea, despite the guy in TX's results against a mass shooter.  If you fear zombie uprisings or just don't like loading mags before heading to the range...more, I guess.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, JS said:

Where were you picking up these used LEO .40s?  I even looked in a few local pawn stores for one and didn't see anything. 

Online at places like GT Distributors, Kings's Firearms Online, and Recoil Gun Works.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/9/2018 at 7:40 AM, Hacker said:

Online at places like GT Distributors, Kings's Firearms Online, and Recoil Gun Works.

Cool, I have purchased from GT distributors before.  I was doing some research on a 9mm for concealed carry, and it looks like GT distributors has the best Blue Label prices for a Glock 43 ($358).  Anyone have any experience with the Glock 42 or 43 as far as using it for concealed carry? 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have carried a 43 for the last 1.5 yrs...I like it.  My wife also carries it in her purse when she's not with me (e.g. I'm carrying).  I put the +2 mag extensions on not only for capacity, but for a better grip.  They do not make a big difference in terms of printing/comfort while wearing; I use an IWB holster from crossbread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/8/2018 at 9:08 PM, HeloDude said:

Yet a cake company can't afford to not sell a cake to an extremely small segment of the population?

Totally agree on your last sentence. 

I'm just making an assumption, of course, that the cake company is a small business with not a lot of profit margin. I also going on the assumption that alienating an extremely small segment of the population also alienates a larger segment of population that supports that community, and that could potentially be enough of a cut in business that they are no longer viable. 

My assumptions could also be wildly off base.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Vertigo said:

I'm just making an assumption, of course, that the cake company is a small business with not a lot of profit margin. I also going on the assumption that alienating an extremely small segment of the population also alienates a larger segment of population that supports that community, and that could potentially be enough of a cut in business that they are no longer viable. 

My assumptions could also be wildly off base.

And this is why no one should be forced to sell a product to another person.  They should be able to make that decision and reap the possible consequences.  The cake shop may well go out of business.  But this logic applies to Dick's as well.  It would be a mistake to think that the gun rights community is small or inactive.  I would suggest that Dick's, despite its largess, put itself at greater risk for business losses than the cake shop, despite its small stature.  Of course, had the cake shop's decision stayed a local matter, it wouldn't have been as big a risk as it is now that the media got a hold of it.  The lawsuit against Dick's should follow the same path as the cake shop, meaning both should be found in favor of the business, imho.  Revealing a tiny bit of the virute-signalling hypocrisy on the left would also be.........(standby).........the icing on the cake.

On 3/7/2018 at 7:37 AM, Vertigo said:

I agree. I don't believe the baker should have to sell to a homosexual couple if they choose not to, even though they are a protected class (and 18 year olds aren't)

The real question is why you, as a small business owner, wouldn't want that business? It's not like you're approving of their lifestyle, you're just profiting from making a cake.

 

Curious if you have a source for this as it would counter my knowledge of the subject.  Under federal law, which I'm using since the discussion was about the Supreme Court and Constitutional rights, sexual orientation and age are equally protected.  In other words, neither of them carry a suspect or quasi-suspect classification, meaning that they currently fall under rational basis review with regards to discrimination.  There have been a few opinions by U.S. District Courts, and one Appellate Court, that indicated the possibility of quasi-suspect classification for sexual orientation, but nothing more.

State law on this issue is nice and all, but discrimination cases tend to bring up constitutional issues.  That, combined with the Supremacy Clause, put these cases square in the federal court's wheelhouse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/12/2018 at 6:20 PM, otsap said:

And this is why no one should be forced to sell a product to another person.

I think it's less about being forced to sell a product but rather being forced to treat everyone fairly.  Business owners usually reserve the right to refuse service to anyone, but their rights end when someone else's begin.  People have the right to not be discriminated against if they are a member of a class of people identified as needing protection.  This exact discussion occurred in the 60s and was part of the impetus for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which is why we have these protections.  Laissez-faire doesn't always work.

No_Dogs-Negroes-Mexicans_-_Racist_Sign_f

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×