HeloDude

Have any of you guys seen any of the initial reviews of the Tavor bullpup? Thoughts? Early arguments are saying it's one of the best bullpups available (though good luck finding one right now since they just came out to the public). I have to say, the more video reviews I watch, the more I want one. I can only hope they come out with one in .308, but I won't hold my breath. Here's an awesome review that MAC recently did on the Tavor:

This

He evolved...just like Obama and Hillary on gay marriage. And by the way, the clip only spoke about gun shows...it didn't say anything specifically to private sales at non-gun shows (where I would argue a majority of the private sales take place).

FIFY

True...but I think the keeping up with proposed and passed/failed legislation is important to post/discuss along with the sharing of the crazy stories we're seeing about confiscation, etc. Maybe move this type of discussion to the Constitution/Rights thread or make a new 'Gun Legislation/Shenanigans' type thread? Where's M2 when you need him!

Because yesterday you said this: So again, would I have to keep this 'receipt' on me? What happens if I lose the receipt? If there is no further record of the transfer (ie no national database) then how can anybody enforce this action? Because if we don't need to keep the 'receipt' you mentioned, then everybody could just say that they 'lost it'...which defeats the entire point of your argument. Again, you have to show how a 'universal background check' can be enforced without a national database. My argument made sense...you trying to make the opposite point does not. The Constitution does not say anything about how many 'arms' I can have...just that the Right to 'bear' those arms will not be infringed. Whether I have 0, 1, 10, or 100 arms does not do anything to anybody else--remember, they are inanimate objects. Now voting...every citizen of age (not counting released felons, which I would allow to vote after they serve their sentence) gets 1 vote for a specific race/election, and that's it. You can't vote multiple times for yourself, you can't vote for somebody else, you can't be registered to vote in 2 different places and vote in both locations. Voting is not an inanimate object...it's an action, that produces a result. My firearms produce no action until I choose to do something with them (which if then is 'suspected' to be illegal will cause me to be charged with a crime). So unless you're for a person being able to vote multiple times, vote for somebody else, vote in 2 different locations, etc...you have to have a way to ensure that is done properly. Else, what's the point of having an election? Trust me...if it would be legal for me to purchase land in multiple areas and vote multiple times, vote for other people, etc hen I agree, we wouldn't then need any forms of identifying yourself and I would be happy to buy land in multiple places to vote multiple times. See where your argument falls flat on its face? One Right if exercised can only occur once (per election/race) and the other Right if exercised has no Constitutional limit to how many inanimate objects that I can own. Without the means to SECURE your Rights, you don't have any Rights. If we did not have the Right to bear arms, then all your others Rights could be legislated/dictated away. Think about it--if all personal firearms and the means to produce them are taken away from the people except for the 'government'. Then the said 'government' says you no longer have any other Rights--what do you do? Just sit and take it? You obviously can't effectively fight back because they've taken that means away from you. Read these quotes... ...plenty more if you want them. Many people in history and even now can 'vote' and it doesn't mean that they are free or have Liberty. Sorry to the others for the TLDR post...

I couldn't agree more with what Learjetter and Scared said. So let me get this straight...under your plan, I would have to carry a piece of paper with each firearm I have (ie similar to that of Class 3 Firearms...that are, by the way, nationally registered)? What would happen if I 'lose' such piece of paper?...if there is no national record of me purchasing the firearm, how would I get a replacement copy of the piece of paper? Would the ATF be able to come to the gun range and ask to see a copy of the transfer like they can with a Class 3 firearm? How would they ever be able to check the validity of the person with the FFL transfer form if they can't verify the original transfer through a national database? And what do you suggest for the 300 MILLION firearms already out there that necessarily do not have current paperwork? If somebody were to sell another person a firearm after the said legislation went into affect, both parties could just say that they did it before there was such a law. And if it only applies to to firearms purchased after the law goes into affect, then that is silly because again, there are 300 MILLION firearms out there...so why worry about just the new ones? Now...to the Constitutional argument--I find what you propose as being extremely hypocritical (go figure). You said that requiring somebody to have an ID to vote infringes on the Right to vote...especially when it comes to the poor/minorities, but yet you have no problem making it illegal to own a firearm without an ID? Like others have said--there's no way to enforce such a law without randomly stopping to ask people to 'show their papers' or setting up sting operations to catch people in possible illegal private sales (news flash, criminals won't obey the law). If the Dems want to pass a stupid law that says you can't do a private transfer at an actual gun show, then whatever--they can say they passed something to get rid of the supposed evil 'Gun Show Loophole'. None of this crap is going to make any difference...just like most laws the government passes.

The best part about this is that she can offer the ban up as an amendment which will get an up/down vote...so you'll still be able to see who votes for/against it. At this point, the only thing I see passing both chambers and getting signed into law are the proposals to strengthen laws against straw man purchases (which are already illegal) and similar proposals. I'm not so sure even a bill requiring 100% background checks on all purchases (ie restricting private sales without an FFL transfer) would pass both chambers, especially because the only way it would even somewhat work would be to have a national registry, which cannot pass. I've still been noticing the steady decrease of price of various AR's...my bet is by the fall/end of the year the prices won't be too far off what they were this time last year. Ammo will probably take a little more time and I have a feeling we'll never see the exact same prices we saw at this time last year. When production catches up, a good deal for .223 brass will soon be $.35 a round.

https://www.myfoxny.com/story/21671098/bloomberg-announces-nyc-anti-tobacco-legislation Bloomberg Wants to Ban Tobacco on Display Yes, because the dirty magazines behind the cover boards definitely made me not want to get my hands on a Playboy when I was a kid.

I'm sure they are! Tell you what I'll do for you and the other guys (since I love you all so much...hey, it's ok now), leave me your credit card number, expiration date, and that little 3 digit number on the back...along with your full name and address and next time I'll order for you guys! Don't worry, I work for the government...so you can trust me, I'm here to help. Oh, and just in case they ask, I'll need your SSN too!

Prvi Partisan 5.56 brass. $12 for a box of 20, so around $.60/round and it's currently in stock. Fortunately I'm well stocked up, but if I really needed some, I'd buy a little bit at this price. When I see brass .223 getting down to $.40-45 a round again, then I'll start to buy a little more. Edit: Forgot to add that it's at PSA and I'm sure it won't last long https://palmettostatearmory.com/index.php/ammunition/rifle-ammunition/223-5-56/prvi-partizan-5-56-m193-200rd.html

AIM Surplus has 5.45 1080 rounds spam can for $190...about $25-30 higher than their prices this past summer. Not horrible but not great...but better than Buds.

He's a huge improvement over Hutchinson. I'm glad to see some in the GOP at least trying to somewhat get back to The Constitution.

-FBI website already states how a fugitive will fail an NICS background check. -As for private sales, ATF website already says a fugitive from justice is already somebody who you can not legally make a private sale to. So we already have laws against fugitives legally acquiring a firearm, whether from a licensed dealer or a private seller. Passing more laws will not stop the wrong person from getting a firearm as there are already laws against it.

This just keeps on getting better... Now, I know that shortly after the picture was taken she was shot and almost killed...with a handgun (same type (handgun) of firearm her husband just purchased the other day, along with the AR-15). It was no secret before she got shot that some crazy person can get a hold of a handgun, AR-15, whatever, and do some damage if they choose to...just like it's no secret that it can happen very easily again. So if a few tragic instances over several years can cause someone to change their mind about a Right, then I question why that person ever supported that Right in the first place. I don't have to wait to get hit by a drunk driver to know that I'm against drunk driving. And even if I was ever hit by a drunk driver, I would never want to ban alcohol.

It appears that there is bipartisan support in the Senate to pass an amendment to force the DoD to reinstate TA. Be interesting to see where this one goes.

Way overpriced man--like most of Bud's items since the scare began, much worse than other online firearms dealers. And this is coming from someone who has given Buds a lot of business in the past. I was able to get these cans for $135 from Sportsmans Guide before the scare and even AimSurplus has had them for $170-180 the last 1-2 months. Obviously if you need/want the 5.45 go for it as it's in stock. Just trying to add some perspective.

Because those are OPR bullet 'savings', not real savings.

You surprised me on this one man...sad really. By your logic, the government should confiscate your firearms because someone in your family 'may' becoming mentally unstable, your children 'may' get a hold of one of your firearms, somebody (a previously convicted felon) 'may' break into your house and steel your firearms (the excuse Chicago officials used for years to ban handguns btw)... Where's the line? Why not do the same thing with alcohol? As for convicted felons...so if one of your parents was a convicted felon and you allowed them to take residence with you and in your home, you'd be fine with the government coming to your door to take YOUR firearms away? What if your wife went to the doctor for depression and they labeled it as 'mental illness', what then? That's essentially what you're saying if you agree with what happened in the article. It's basically guilt by association.

And for my lovely folks on the left...yes One, this includes you: https://www.bloomberg...html?cmpid=yhoo Unbelievable. Here's what I find most disturbing: So if I'm a legal gun owner and I have a wife or a child who has been hospitalized for mental illness (which I would say is a good thing because that means they are at least getting some sort of help/treatment), then I can't have any of my firearms even if it's in my own house? What's to stop the government from going as far as to say that unsupervised children can't have access to firearms, and thus, you're not allowed to have any firearms in your house? Why aren't the government officials going to all the houses with those people who have been convicted of a DUI or have enrolled themselves in an alcohol rehab program from attempting to enter your house and start searching for alcohol? Those people who may have alcohol problems may then drink and then get in a car and kill somebody, so we should do something about it, right? Drunk drivers kill quite a bit more people each year when compared to homicides with a firearm. Now as a responsible citizen, I'm all about keeping firearms out of reach/secured from children, and I would definitely extend that in my house if someone was mentally unstable. But now the government can attempt to come into your house (article seems to say that they can't forcefully come into your house without a warrant, thank goodness at least for the 4th Amendment), but still--they are trying to come into your house, just because you have a firearm and somebody who has been hospitalized for mental illness? This right here is one of the many reasons why gun owners do not want a national registration. There are people who want and are trying to take people's guns away. And if you're ok with the above article, I then ask--how far can the government go? What's their limitations when it comes to 'protecting' you?

Since I'm fiscally conservative, I'll bite: First, I would like to know--what is the definition of a 'government handout'? If TA is a government handout, then are my flight suits a government handout as well? When I go TDY, is the gas money that is reimbursed to me a gov't handout? I could go on and on. One of the reasons I ask, is because the Air Force has made it painfully clear in the past that it wants their officers to get a masters degree--so much that promotions/retainability are greatly affected by whether you have one or not. So it can be effectively argued that the Air Force has told us that we need a masters degree to our job (whether I agree or not). And prior to recently, leaders have told us that there is no reason we cannot obtain a masters degree, because TA more/less covers the cost. The post 9-11 GI Bill (which is actually fairly new) only becomes available to many officers at their 8-9 year mark, in which case it would be challenging to then start a degree program and finish in time prior to your O-4 Board...you know, that board that gives a lot of weight to whether we have a masters degree or not. So again, if the Air Force tells us we need a masters to compete/do our job, then it's not much different than the Air Force paying for my flight suit...get my point? Now should the Air Force be in the business of making/paying for all of us to get Masters degrees?--I say no. I'm in agreement that I don't think it makes us better leaders, pilots, space officers, etc, and unless your job can not be completed without an advanced degree (physical therapist for example), then we don't 'need' one. But for my entire career thus far, that is not the message the Air Force has sent out (save the couple of years when AAD's were masked on the PRF). So all of a sudden budget issues have caused leadership to tell us that they were wrong/lying this whole time and that masters degrees really don't make us better leaders/better at our jobs? I'm all for that, but then they of course need to immediately mask it on PRF's and explicitly tell Sq/CC's and above that they can not even ask their folks about advanced degrees because that could unjustly influence stratifications, DP's, etc. I'm all for the cuts man. As I have said, I think the DoD cuts should be in the form of closing bases and ending missions, but yes, get rid of TA too. But then leadership needs to change their tune, and they need to change it soon.

Just got the email from the CSAF--interesting that they put something to the effect of 'potentially changing eligibility requirements for future sustainability'. Fortunately I used all of mine years ago, though I had hoped in the future to have used the one-time certificate deal...probably won't happen now. IMO this plays right into the Big Blue's hands: This way they can get their officers to do the SOS/ACSC Masters PME (whatever it's called) and then save money by not using TA while at the same time getting more people to do their masters program because it will still be free. Thoughts?

https://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/03/11/Schakowsky-Assault-Weapons-Ban-is-Just-the-Beginning Here's another one...more specifically for the leftists who like to say 'nobody is trying/wants to take your guns away'. The folks who believe this are just following the party line (ie "tell people we don't want to take their guns away"...regardless of what they say when they don't know they're being recorded) or they're too stupid to believe that people in government do not believe you have the Right to own firearms. Just another example for guys like One...because Cuomo, Dem Missouri legislators, what Obama said in the past, etc is not enough to prove that if there was an up or down vote that they thought they could get passed without hurting them (or their party) politically, many would vote to outright ban the ownership of firearms.

Watching A Few Good Men more or less concurs with everything you just said. I should have been a lawyer.

Touché, I stand corrected. I was referring to the question "Are you the actual buyer of this firearm?". I thought there was a law against buying the firearm if you knew/planned that you were going to turn around and transfer it directly to someone else (not including a gift)? I'll step aside and allow M2 to answer (and anybody else with an FFL). Thanks for keeping me honest. That being said, he's still a hypocrite and I don't believe his story one bit. Again, why buy 2 firearms to turn around and to give one to the PD? Not to mention the fact that most firearm homicides are committed with a handgun--looks like he gave the wrong one up.