The Rabbi

They'll get jobs working for the state.

I have no experience with the Intratec guns. I know Auto Ordnance is making copies for like $800+. I dont understand the appeal of this. They were OK post WW1 as a "trench broom" in full auto. By WW2 they were obsolescent as the M1 carbine became more popular and by Korea hardly anyone had one. And as a semi auto it has even less appeal. But $200 for a plinker isn't a bad deal. I'd assume it would take standard Thomson mags. I could be wrong too.

Yeah, we'd really show them by fielding guys who look like this: Please, this scenario is so remote as to be laughable.

Welcome from your friendly neighborhood gun shop.

If you don't know Oleg Volk you certainly know his photos and pro-RKBA posters. Many of you also are on The High Road, which is his site. Or Armed Polite Society, also his site (I've been kicked off both btw). Today at 5:30 Oleg is making a personal appearance to shoot pics for the store at Eastside Gun Shop. Anyone interested is welcome to come. Anyone not interested is welcome to soak their heads.

Not at all. There are plenty of restrictions that I think will pass "strict scrutiny". Convicted felons, minors, etc. What I think will fail are FOID cards, 1 gun a month, etc type of stuff. And good riddance to it too.

The eminent Mr Wall knows his stuff. You would ignore him at your own peril. Plus the ammo is gawd-awful expensive. I would want to put a couple of mags through any gun to check reliability etc and that adds up quick.

The media will give Obama an enormous pass in this election. They dont want to be seen as racist so they will go out of their way to ignore the fact that unscripted he sounds like a shifty bumbler. Go look at the tape of his Q&A when his advisor, a recipient of low interest sweetheart loans from FNMA, resigned. He sounded like he was trying to hide something, and doing a poor job of it.

Let's see what happens after Heller. I am pretty sure Heller will affirm an individual right. Not sure how far that will go. Let's see if they change their tune.

I've actually done that. Not deep fried it but pan fried it or better oven baked.

You're only 20something years old so it can't be that long. But you're right. The ACLU however has never, to my knowledge, taken a case involving the 2A. Maybe this will change.

I hear you can always appeal for a restoration of rights. In the meantime your wife can protect you. I had to request the "temporary" which was just a letter to that effect.

It'll depend on whether you are right eye or left eye dominant. I am right handed but left eye dominant. I actually shoot better weak handed. On strong hand stages I simply hold the gun midline to my body and let the strong eye take over.

It came with gear, like the pig sticker bayonet. His idiot gun seller forgot to pack the rifle in the box it came in before letting him out the door with it. Sorry Rightwinger. I'll hold it for you.

I think it expired end of April and I sent renewal end of March.

Ah gee yew two fitty fo it. I have no idea. You can check GB for similar models. Prices for these things are crazy. I am going to guess that either the nickel or the blue are re-finishings. Most likely what happened was the nickel flaked and instead of re-nickeling it was blued. But that's just a guess.

Renewal HCP arrived on Friday. I had some letter or other as a temporary permit but I couldn't swear I could lay my hands on it at any given time. What a relief!

Right on NSNate. Here is the WSJ on the subject. The Supremes actually subverted, not upheld, the Constitution. The President is in charge of establishing policies for war time, not the courts.

Treif.

I guess so. It seems like grandstanding or something. The gov't regulates every other right we have, under "strict scrutiny." I don't see the problem with subjecting RKBA to "strict scrutiny" type regulation either. In fact I think it's a great idea.

The quotation was from an act of 1916. Even criticism of government officials was punishable by fines and/or imprisonment. So to say that we have always had the same amount of free speech is simply ignorant.

Do you honestly think there is a reasonable case to be made that white people are devils? This is the problem with America today. There is no certainty. There is no right and no wrong. My right is your wrong and vice versa. All of it is just a matter of opinion. So whether someone believes that white people are devils or whether someone believes that terrorists are merely criminals entitled to the same rights as US citizens or whether someone thinks blowing up the WTC is a legitimate act of protest, it is all the same, all a matter of just one's guy's opinion versus some other guy's opinion. In that climate there can be no debate. There can only be expressions of feelings.

I am not sure I see much of a difference here. Absolutely untrue. Try this language for starters: This act made it a crime: It was also upheld by the Supreme Court. Well there we go down the slippery slope again. If we ban one kind of speech then we end up banning everything. It hasn't worked that way.

I think you're back pedaling on what you said. But since you now say that you would allow speech that encourages "civil disobedience" (and I don't disagree), what about inciting to "uncivil disobedience"? There was a demonstration in front of a clothing store in Harlem not too many years ago. The owner had done something, I dont remember what, to incur the wrath of Al Sharpton. They had a protest and he whipped up people until finally someone firebombed the place. So should Sharpton's words have been protected under free speech, or were they incitement, and therefore criminal? It isn't the same thing at all. We have regulated speech in this country since before the founding. So further or different regulation would hardly destroy it. So there is nothing objectively wrong about it. People can disagree and there is room for legitimate debate (like now). So it would pass muster for free speech.

OK, you raise a good point. You would limit it where it "explicitly incites a crime." Why do you draw that distinction? Presumably it is bad for society to have crime and people whipping up others to commit crimes. As I saw quoted this AM: the Constitution is not a suicide pact. (This was in regard to the latest Supreme court decision on habeas corpus). Likewise I would argue that allowing people to express views, which if taken to their logical conclusion would destroy this country, is a danger to the public and therefore worthy of banning. So there is a negative consequence to allowing some kinds of speech. And it is precisely those kinds that I am inclined to see banned.