"Get a fucking clue, dipshit" you say,is it I or you who needs the "clue",I think its you,so here are a few clues for you Professor... Gun fearing Liberals dont make statements like these.. "thats kinda like saying you dont need a good gun when you have a good gun smith,I guess it depends on what somebody calls a good camera,as far as a good gun smith,I charged 3500 dollars for my Govt models and only smithed 1 bad gun for someone I never did it again because all of my guns I worked on had to be combat reliable 100% for 100% of the time and you cant get that with a crappy weapon,sometimes you cant get that with a good one either,..." "Why isnt there an assault weapons section,or gun smithing section?" "I think anyone who wants to enjoy taking pics should be able to ,I also think ppl ought to be able to enjoy shooting too,course my views have never been very popular with the masses..." "Dude,Lomo,sorry man I didnt know about the PM untill I just saw this post,after seeing your post I had to go and find where it was,Im not familiar with all this forum stuff man sorry,any way,I used to smith for a living,yeah,I specialized in mission specific weapons..." More evidence you havent been paying attention.. "Yeah,thats it,traveling to Europe is def worth it,I tell the Europeans here the same about my beloved state of TEXAS,oh and also the rest of America lol.." or you wouldnt have said this..."Did you once say you hailed from France? Isn't that the country that planted trees on the sides of the road so that the occupying German soldiers could march in the shade?" and then there is this..."After you're done, come back to my original post with the informed knowledge that I was inferring that you'd be pissed off enough (due to my response)"No Lomo, Im not "pissed" about anything,I assure you I am quite calm,It is you who is pissed,youre angry I guess because you think I ignored your PM when you asked me this "Hi there - one of your posts caught my eye, and I had to ask...Do you work on firearms for a living, or is it a hobby?" and I Replied."Dude,Lomo,sorry man I didnt know about the PM untill I just saw this post,after seeing your post I had to go and find where it was,Im not familiar with all this forum stuff man sorry,any way,I used to smith for a living,yeah,I specialized in mission specific weapons."..but you didnt see that did you Lomo,no you didnt or you wouldnt have posted half the crap you did ,would you have? no you wouldnt have,now that we have established that you havent been paying attention,do pay attention Lomo. This is another one of your problems right here.."Firearms are potentially dangerous,safety first." and the beginning of your very padded attack "Instilling fear over a fundamental defense mechanism"..thats propaganda its a leading statement,thats how the liberal media works but I see through it-you see Lomo,its you who has the fear,I can just hear you "OMG he said firearms are potentially dangerous !!!" you are just like all those crazy Christian nut jobs standing on the street beating ppl over the head with the bible,shouting through the megaphone (which God never said to do btw),see they are afraid because they cant trust God to save ppl,they think they must do it themselves,thats why they act like that,and they cant trust God because they probly grew up on a bunch of main stream garbage coming from the main stream church.Its sad but real Christians dont do that,I know how their mind has been warped by the main stream church.And you,you just cant trust ppl to speak openly about your ignorance of the constitution and how potentially dangerous firearms are without having a shit fit,the left has you running scared my boy. You have to trust ppl to make up their own mind,even if it hurts your self sanctification lol.You went on the attack over that simple little statement,sorry Lomo but guess what? Firearms are potentially dangerous,safety first.No responsible gun owner would even begin to try to argue with that.go to your fav gun shop and ask them what they think of that policy.ask them if they disagree that firearms are potentially dangerous and that we should adopt a safety first attitude when handling them,esp in the presence of those who arent familiar with firearms,which was the context of my post. "By the way, I'm raising the flag on you."...Thats just funny. Formally," you mean all that before was off the record? lol "and imply that your presence on this forum is by proxy from a previously expunged member of the forum." ... you arent "implying" anything,you just out right accused me of it lol,which I could understand if I was here causing trouble,which I have not,I have however had some good conversations with ppl and passed around a few photos.Once again,it is you who has a burr in your saddle,not I. "No logical thinking individual" we can stop right there,this is the second post I have labored with you on concerning your inability to understand very basic things,very old truths and also your inability to properly follow a thread,maybe if you pull your head out of all that "political theory" as you call it and spend more time on Constitutional fact...Legal fact- you might not make yourself out to be such an overreacting goober,your posts remind me of something coming from Code pink-alot of nastiness and no substance "as evidenced by the first response, an allusion to the infamous youtube video:".... Maybe we should ask them. "Get a f*cking clue, Sally. Really."since you keep saying that,Ill keep replying to it this way,this is the second post I have labored with you on concerning your inability to understand very basic things,very old truths and also your inability to properly follow a thread,maybe if you pull your head out of all that "political theory" as you call it and spend more time on Constitutional fact...Legal fact you might not make yourself out to be such an overreacting goober,your posts remind me of something coming from Code pink-alot of nastiness and no substance. "Anyone that professes to have a background on gunsmithing would surely understand the fundamental concepts and inherent responsibility and necessity of the average Joe (or Jane) to be able to unify and defend him (or herself) from a government that has grown out of it's original scope."...Meaningless,it doesnt make any sense,I think you are talking about overthrowing the govt of the United States ? if so you would know (had you actually read the Constitution)that in the Declaration of Independence it deals with that issue,but this...{Anyone that professes to have a background on gunsmithing would surely understand the fundamental concepts and inherent responsibility and necessity of the average Joe (or Jane) to be able to unify and defend him (or herself) from a government that has grown out of it's original scope.}... is just-were you sober when you typed that? "I'll be quite honest with you,"...;Its about time. "You make a great deal of claims in your post that seem unlikely."..you mean like very basic things,very old truths and also your inability to properly follow a thread and your ignorance of the constitution? "Rather than identify them one by one, I formally challenge you to defend each with evidence to support your unrealistic claims."...here,Ill recap {You believe that the Constitution grants us rights instead of setting out the limited powers of government.how can a document by "We the People" forming the government grant rights back to the People that they did not already have? ,Lets start from the basics. The US Constitution and the Bill of Rights.It only sought to enumerate and protect those that were considered important enough to list. It does not contain phrases like, "The People shall have the right to free speech." It contains language like, "Congress shall make no law... abridging free speech..." or "..the right of the People to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." If the People did not already have the right to free speech, how could Congress abridge it? But I digress. The US Constitution is a document firmly founded in the principle of Enumerated Powers. The document is meant to set forth the limited powers that the People were granting the government "to establish Justice, insure domestic Tranqility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty." The first sentence of Article I, Section 1 says it all. "All legislative Powers herein granted..." It is clear that the People are granting certain powers to the government. The People are not being granted rights. Article I. Section 8 even lists those specific powers granted. In fact, James Madison and many of the Founding Fathers (how is that for politically incorrect free speech) argued against having the first eight amendments as they thought them redundant because those rights remained with People. But Alexander Hamilton and others felt it was necessary as those were some of the very rights the King had taken from the People. As a compromise, the Ninth and Tenth Amendments were added to complete the Bill of Rights and assuage those against listing any rights for fear that those listed may be considered the only important ones. The Ninth Amendment truly makes clear for those that may believe otherwise that all rights are the Peoples. "The enumeration in the constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the People." And if you doubt that the Constitution was meant to give only limited powers, the Tenth Amendment should alleviate them. "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution,are reserved to the States respectively, or to the People."} and again Lomo,you believe that the constitution GRANTS us our rights,which would mean we are worthless unless the govt honors those rights,sad and lame,no we have rights because we are AMERICANS not because we have a constitution "We hold these truths to be (SELF EVIDENT)" Oh and by the way,dont be proud that ppl think youre a gun freak,because gun owners like you make the rest of us look bad.If you really cared about our gun rights you wouldnt say stupid shit like this in an open forum "I am obsessive and crazy about a great many things. This is true." or this .."We've got a full-auto 6mm airsoft AK-47 at work (the orange tip is removable)... I should dress up with some old sheets, duct tape some road flares to my chest, and run up behind them with it, shooting & making that victory yell like the turtle hunter guy. Wonder how many would jump into oncoming traffic? That would be great."..what do you think would happen if the liberal media decided to run that story,and yes they would,you and I might think thats funny,but in reality its only fodder for the commies.watch your shit when it comes to firearms Lomo,the liberal gun grabbers certainly are.
I tried but I just cannot follow all this. Sally rather then use quotes (" ") just simply click the quote button at the top of the message field If you do not see the option then its a setting in your browser preferences. Personally I go against the popular idea of the AK being all that great of a rifle myself. But I disagree that Republicans passed more anti gun legislation. Its been one of the lefts mantras for the last 30 + years. Beyond all that this is two hard to follow. TMI
I told you we'd get along just fine. Seriously, though - take the time to quote properly. If you intend for anyone else to read your contribution to the post, it would certainly aid you cause if you made it easier to read. Kinda like how those glow-in-the-dark internal trunk release pull-levers work. When you call me "Professor" - I can't help but think that you might be a recent incarnation of anyone that used to visit the forums in years past, as "Professor" was part of my name at one time, back when we could change them at will. When you "quote" previous conversations and posts, don't think I don't remember them. I recalled each and every one of those, and I recall what you've posted in the past. To answer the original question posted in this thread (something I hoped to do earlier on in the thread, but got sidetracked,) the real reason that there isn't a 'gunsmithing or assaualt weapons' section is simply due to the fact that we do not currently have enough subscribers to warrant such a dedicated forum. If we did, including you and I, we would probably have (at most) 5-6 regular posters to the forum. The problem I see with this forum is that the more you specialize the subjects, the less interest and/or traffic you have with each. Nobody will currently seek out the opinion of the Fugly forums on fashion issues, and if we were to create a section devoted to fashion itself, whom (of the current audience) would actually post in it, and how could it be marketed to the public as an 'up-and-coming' fashion forum, ready to leak secrets that only the stars know? Same can be said of firearms. We've got a few patrons here that are actively enthusiastic about their firearms, but we get by discussing amongst ourselves our hobbies in a less-specific forum. Serious questions/answers/etc. are best placed at other forums that have a much larger constituent base of like-minded individuals. Now, you've stated your case rather firmly, and I'm inclined to believe that you very well may be a new face with some useful input to this place, rather than a recycled former personality. I'll be the first to admit, I come across rather harsh at times, and you have kept with the punches, and (despite your quotation disability,) seem to be ready for round 6, 8, 14, etc... I'll refrain from my instincts and concede this debate, in the hopes of gaining a forum member that has some valuable input on these (and other relevant) topics, and extend my digital hand for a firm handshake. Do you accept?
Well no it is a great rifle for what it was designed for,in the age it was designed,if you want to drop a lot of brass for cheap,the AK is a top choice,but for modern warfare,well Im just glad our enemies use them,the AK is inaccurate,reliable but not worth much at range.Also not for any CQB work,but thats not going to be the case with any conventional main battle rifle.We have to move into a bullpup design to change that The comment I made about the AK was under very narrow circumstances.It was contextual
Well Joe,even a stopped clock is right 2 times a day.That the republican party would pass any kind of anti gun legislation the likes Ive seen in the past few decades is shitty enough. Anti-gunner Mike Castle (RINO-DE) has introduced another piece of legislation straight from Sarah Brady’s gun control wish list. H.R. 2324 attempts to close the infamous gun-control straw man, the gun show loophole. The legislation would federally require background checks for all firearms sold at gun shows. This legislation has been introduced in the House and has been [...] just some examples: http://conservativesagainstfred.wordpress.com/2007/06/11/fred-thompsons-anti-gun-senate-record/ http://www.learnaboutguns.com/2009/02/07/more-anti-gun-republicans/ http://web.dailycamera.com/shooting/21aguns.html http://gunowners.org/a052099.htm http://bsalert.com/artsearch.php?fn=2&as=2471&dt=1 http://www.strike-the-root.com/3/powers/powers2.html
Ok I got you RINO's they are called that for a reason. And its the reason in the Republican primaries I really could not manage to piece together a team I was happy with. And I believe it is the reason the right did not turn out the vote I think very few conservatives voted for McCain while some came out to vote against Socialism AKA Obama. RINO's are just that though. "Republican in name only"
Mighty glad to have you on board. The thing I love about the AK is that it's much like the computer term "point and click." Not to mention it's relative inexpensive ammunition a year or so ago. Reliability is legendary, for sure, but I would love to get my grubby paws on a current (or potential) successor to the AK, namely an AK-108. Can't we find another Bedtime for Bonzo candidate? Seems like training idiots with the ability to vote is our only obstacle in turning our country in the correct direction. Why haven't we produced a figurehead that is able to captivate an audience long enough for them to make it to the polls? Damn if I can't help but reference the Idiocracy movie again...
It's getting to where the smart one's stay out why put up with the circus? But What about Newt? The dude is sharp as a tack and has the right answers to the energy and so called health care crisis. Thing is the idiots are to stupid to see the long lasting effects in the future of what is happening now. I do not want a conservative to fix this mess I want to see the dumbasses learn for the hundredth time that the Socialist experiment does not work.
