HeloDude

I posted the S&W M&P15 a couple of months ago from Buds LE...$600 when it was all said and done. I'm sure once the air clears in a few months Buds LE section will once again have some pretty decent deals. If you become a big enough gun nut (like a few of us on here are), you start checking your favorite gun websites several times a day, always keeping an eye out for that awesome deal.

The collection of course that still lies at the bottom of the Gulf of Mexico... Trust me, guys didn't panic buy because they heard what Feinstein was proposing (everybody knows where she stands/what she wants to do)...guys starting panicking because others starting buying quickly. It seemed to be something similar to a stock market crash. As for the synopsis you posted, I follow MAC very closely. I love his videos and he comes across as very knowledgable, fun, and to the point--class act all the way.

FIFY. Reid deliberately did not get a budget passed in the Senate...they can't filibuster a budget. Well, it all depends on whether the GOP will filibuster the bill if it tries to get through procedural hurdles first. I personally want it to go before a final vote...see where everybody stands. More importantly than that, I just want it to go somewhere and fast...that way it can die sooner rather than later and supply/demand will somewhat stabilize. I have no sympathy for anybody who got 'scared' and over-payed for an AR or AK, or for magazines for that matter. Those folks have had 2-3 years to buy almost anything at very reasonable prices and if they waited until they feared they couldn't own something that they didn't care to own earlier, then so be it. The time to buy/stock up is not when there is a 'scare' or when prices are high. What will be interesting to see is will this be a replay for the 2008 election when things cooled off a year later, or will this cause more people to constantly be buying?

Just saw this as well. Thank you for your service and leadership to our country. RIP

The townhall is a pretty conservative news source, but overall I think he makes some solid points. I disagree with the notion that Reid won't let it come to a vote though...the liberal base in the Senate really wants a chance at getting this through, or at a minimum getting a vote on it and then using it to vilify the Senators who vote against it, especially when the next shooting occurs. The author of the article correctly points out that the Red State Dems will have a hard time voting for anything even remotely close to what Feinstein is proposing (if anything at all) and the only GOP Senators I could see supporting the measure would be Collins from Maine and Kirk from Illinois. What it comes down to is that the majority of the country does not want any new gun bans. The latest Gallup poll even right after the recent shooting had a slim majority/plurality not favoring any new bans...and I'm sure that number will rise a little bit in the next several months. This along with the tax/debt issue will definitely make for an interesting news cycle after the new year.

Dude, the GOP was severely outgunned (pardon the pun) in 2009-2010 as the Dems had super-majorities in both houses and hence were able to force through the healthcare legislation without a single Republican vote. Very different landscape then compared to right now, especially since the GOP has a comfortable majority in the House. This isn't the tax/cliff issue where things will happen if both parties don't do anything. If no legislation goes through, the gun laws stay the same. The only thing in terms of banning that I could see even having a remote chance would be high capacity drums (50+ rounds)...and that would be just so the politicians can 'say' they did something, though we know it woud also not change anything in terms of cime.

So it's a political move...if I read you correctly. And if that's the case, he was always wanting to push for it, he was just waiting for the right time. Which goes along with what the gun folks have been saying for a while now--that he has always wanted to restrict/limit gun rights. Now to be fair, the President did say this in one of the debates, so it shouldn't come to a surprise to anybody with half a brain.

Hey--what happened to the President not pushing any new gun legislation?? And don't say the school shooting, else I'll bring up the Aurora shootings, all the killings in Chicago, etc...and not like any new gun bans would have prevented the shooting. Agree with your analysis though. From a political standpoint, I'm assuming Reid will allow Feinstein's Bill to at least come up for a vote? I hope it does.

The Republicans don't help their cause by acting like Democrats. If the GOP votes in any kind of ban, they are screwed as the 2nd Amendment often serves as THE single issue that gun folks use to determine who and who not to vote for. The GOP didn't make huge gains in 2010 by saying they changed their minds and now support Obamacare. Look at the Dem Senators up for re-election in 2014...places like SD, AR, AK, LA...dangerous votes to go against the 2nd Amendment. That being said, I hope legislation comes up for a vote in Jan/Feb--sooner this is killed, sooner the prices will come back down. My $.02

C'mon man--you can do better than that. I gave you an example of how the 14th Amendment didn't work in getting women the right to vote (gender issue), but now you say it will work in forcing States to recognize gay marriage (another gender issue). But going back to the 12-year old argument, just because it's not being contested in the courts doesn't mean the question isn't legitimate--why can a State set their own regulations as it pertains to age, but not gender when it comes to marriage? Personally I don't understand why people would want to live in a State which didn't support at least a majority of their values. You wouldn't see me ever voluntarily choosing to live in California or Massachusetts...and at that same time I would never want to live in Mississippi or Arkansas. However, I would never want to limit any States' Rights.

So what defines a human being as being able to be a 'consenting adult'? I've read the entire Consitution and I can't find it anywhere. Can it be that each individual State makes laws and regulations as to what age people can do what? For example, age to drive a car, drink alcohol, have consexual sex with a 30 year old--all set by each individual State. The only time the federal government can and should get involved is when it goes across State lines, federal installations, etc. So again, I ask--if a State can set their own regulations on the age of when people can marry, why can't they regulate who can get married as it pertains to gender? Or how many people can marry at one time (I have a feeling you're cool with this one)? As for the 14th Amendment, it makes sense to apply it to race as that is one of the main reasons is was written--one of the Reconstruction Amendments. If it applied to gender, then the country would not have needed the 19th Amendment giving women the right to vote. I personally wish the country would use the Amendment process MUCH more often--that's what it's there for. People, mostly on the left, like arguing how The Constitution doesn't apply in certain areas because of changing times, changing cultures, etc....however, if what they wanted changed/added was that well supported, it would have very little trouble in getting an Amendment ratified. I guess it's easier to appoint activist judges who are liberal or conservative and then essentially give them the power of re-writing The Constitution. The problem with this is that it bites both sides in the ass sooner or later.

So a 12 year old no longer has 'equal protection' of a 'right'? Or is it just that no State allows 12 year olds to marry? And your toaster/dog point is moronic be because a 12 year old has Rights, but a toaster and dog do not. What it comes down to is that you're cool with States making laws you agree with it, but not cool with making laws you disagree with. Nothing under The Constituion says anything about age requirements when it comes into entering a contract.

True, but this should have been figured out a long time ago--both parties kicked the can down the road. And why didn't you list Reid in that mix? I thought he recessed the Senate yesterday?

So by that same argument, I can marry my brother? What about a willing 12 year old? There is nothing anatomically different than a white guy and a black guy...gender makes it a totally different ball game. This is the problem that people have with Liberty...they want to take it one way, but not in other ways. I still believe the framers, and thus The Consitution means what it says in the 10th Amendment. Someone a lot less lazier than me should put this in its own thread as its a worthy debate. I vote for Vertigo to do it.

It is a thread derailment, but I'll bite... As a Libertarin I could give 2 fvcks who people want to fvck. And as for gay marriage, I could care less if 2 dudes or 2 chicks want to marry and thus have a State recognized contract with each other that allows them to see each other in the hospital after an accident, file their taxes together, etc. However, marriage--whether gay or straight is not a 'right' and thus not protected under The Constitution. Marriage is a contract set up by each individual State, so even though I personally don't care if there is gay marriage and would vote for it in a ballot measure, I respect each States' decision. The 10th Amendment allows everything not specifically defined to the federal government to be decided by individual States as long as it's not prohibited by The Consitution. And for all those that bring up "Equal Protection", it's just that--equal protection. So a gay guy can marry a chick in Oklahoma if they want, but I can't marry my brother in Oklahoma or Massachusets. There's also a reason I can't marry a 12 year old if she is willing to, or have multiple wives--equal protection doesn't apply there either unless a State allows it. Back to the 2nd Amendment...pretty clear, especially when your read The Federalist Papers as to what the framers intended. I think we should have a thread on Liberty, Rights, and The Constitution. This would be a perfect place to argue gay marriage...along with all the other crap the federal government is trying to pull on the States and its citizens.

Mine too. All those scary magazines and scary back rifles--all gone <tear>.

Haha--don't know about that, though I'm sure I could make some money off the purchase if I really wanted/needed to. I rarely see the point on selling anything gun related. I buy my 'toys' to own them, not to make a profit. There is an important lesson out of all of this...if you love firearms, shooting, the 2nd Amendment, etc then you should always be buying within what your budget allows. M2 is sitting very pretty right now, and good on him. He, like many others, understands that there are plenty of sheep who would love nothing more than to limit our Rights (and I'm not only talking about the 2nd Amendment Rights). Again, I don't think the GOP House will allow for any new 'bans' on magazines, AR's, or anything else for that matter--if they do, they are finished as then there truly is little to no difference between the 2 parties. So after this quiet downs in 4-6 months you'll see the availability of AR's, AK's, mags, etc...no doubt they'll be a little bit higher priced than before September, but unfortunately, that's just the market doing its thing. I refuse to pay 1.5-2x the price of anything right now.

I bought 80 for less than $800 last week... If someone pays $100 for a single PMag then they are a fool. I'm pretty confident you'll still be able to buy them 6 months from now.

I also have a 442 and carry it often. The +p rounds are a bit snappy, but have favorable ballistics. I got mine last year for $290 (final price) using Buds LE site. The trigger is a bit heavy but a gunsmith can lighten that up a bit. If you get a revolver, it takes a bit more training and practice--I use speed-strips for reloads which is not as quick as a speed-loader but is much easier to carry for extra ammo.

I used to frequent CTD as well (never purchased), though hadn't gone to their site much the last 6-9 months because I found that their prices and shipping to be more on the high side. From now on though, I won't even bother looking at their site. As for the picked over shelves, yep, unfortunately not surprised. I saw PMags going for 10/$99 (free shipping) on Friday morning, planned on buying some after work...thankfully the deal was still there after the event and let's just say I took advantage of the deal. The time to buy/prep is before the shelves get picked over.

Yeah, that's downright overpriced. I'm fairly confident (and hoping) that things will calm down somewhat a few weeks after the holidays. The Dems will keep preaching their AWB/Gun Control talk, and hopefully when that gets killed in the House (if it even gets passed in the Senate), that will quiet things for a while. Like M2 and Hacker mentioned, if you were truly concerned about your Gun Rights, you probably have been buying for a while. I listed the deal on the S&W MP-15 a couple of months ago from Bud's LE section. $600 when it was all said and done and it shoots like a champ...hopefully some others on here jumped on that deal.

Reason for posting this? Or just a friendly safety reminder...like, "Don't forget to wear your seatbelt next time you drive"?

I'm a .40 guy--the research I've read throughout the years makes me a fan of the caliber. I have 2 Glock 22's and an MP40c. The Glocks are great firearms of course, however, I'm more of a fan of the S&W MP series--they just feel a little better in the hand and I like the trigger better. Either way, as a military member, you can get both the Glock and MP's at a significantly reduced price via law enforcement dealers. As for the new gun legislation, it won't go anywhere anytime soon. I doubt the GOP House would even let the leglislation come to a vote (unless it was some random amendment attached to an unrelated bill). As for the Senate, I doubt they could even get much of any new legislation passed--Dem Senators from WV, MT, ND, SD, AK, AR (among others) would likely vote no on most legislation limiting ammo sales, magazine capacities, 'AWB', etc. That being said, I hope they allow something to come to a vote in both houses--like many other Americans, I want folks on the record of whether they want to limit and 'infringe' on Constitutional Rights or not. It's easy for politicians of the most anti-gun states to scream for more gun-control, but will the rank and file in their party support it? The shame is that the election results scare was somewhat beginning to subside and then this happens, most likely causing a spike in demand once again. Lesson that needs to be learned--if you support and enjoy your gun rights, you should always be purchasing ammo, mags, and firearms.

OJ was able to get off...even with his blood at the crime scene. Casey Anthony also got off...and she didn't report her daughter missing for over a month.

Biggest understatement of the year given what you just wrote. AFI 11-402 governs all the questions you're asking. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but if you 'turn in your wings', then you automatically go to an FEB...typically under the 'fear of flying' category. FEB's can take up to/past a year to complete. Unless Flight Docs think that you're 'sick' for failing numerous checkrides, you won't go DNIF, you'll eventually go to an FEB. I'm just breaking your balls a little bit here man, so please don't take offense. I just wanted to relay to the non-rated types that the Air Force doesn't look at 'not wanting to fly' in a light way.