I finally got around to ordering a few more parts for the build today. On the list today was the Daniel Defense 12″ lite rail, DD Lite Rail BLL nut wrench, gas tube, DPMS Panther Claw, (a fancy name for a tool that holds the upper receiver in the vice), Magpul trigger guard, and a BCM Extractor spring upgrade kit.
The only bad thing about building an AR-15 this way is the wait. At this point, all I have left to get to make it go bang is the gas block and iron sights. I don’t even want to think what the optics are going to cost me.
Previous total $1403 +Daniel Defense Lite Rail $322 +DD Lite Rail BBL nut wrench $19 +Mid length gas tube $13 +DPMS Panther Claw $49 +Magpul Trigger Guard $19 +BCM Extractor Spring Upgrade Kit $5
The party chose Obama as its standard-bearer. He once served on the board of the vehemently anti-firearms civil rights Joyce Foundation. During his first run for public office, he supported a ban on the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns and semi-automatic rifles. He supports mandatory waiting periods on all gun purchases.
He told the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review in April that “I am not in favor of concealed weapons,” insulting millions of armed citizens who care about self-defense in the process.
Gun owners know Biden as an anti-gun extremist. He consistently earns “F” ratings from gun rights organizations. He claimed credit for writing the original legislation to ban semiautomatic sport-utility rifles that are owned by millions of Americans who have harmed nobody.
I’m simply amazed that they think we can be fooled into believing that they are pro second amendment. BHO and Biden may be the most radically liberal anti-gun cantidates to have ever actually had a shot at the presidency.
The reality is that gun rights are the same for everyone, no matter where they live. And gun owners know from experience that Democrats falsely believe that the only way to keep guns away from criminals is to oppressively regulate gun ownership for everyone.
Obama told his faithful that Sen. McCain “doesn’t get it.” Actually, Democrats “don’t get it.” You do not woo people by treating them like criminals, and you cannot support someone’s civil right at the same time you regulate it to irrelevancy.
It is now clear to gun owners that Democrats only asked them to the dance just to get through the door.
This is a great blog post. All too often we think of anti-gunners as blithering idiots who are ruled by emotion and completely lack any sense of logic. While this is true for some, it is certianly ont the case for all. Some can change.
I admit it, I was a stupid little kid, okay! But seriously, I actually used to believe these sorts of things! I was, dare I say, even bigoted against guns and their owners. But really, kids believe all kinds of stupid things, the really outrageous aspect of this is that nobody ever corrected me. Nobody stopped and said, “Wait! That doesn’t make any sense! You’re arguing for laws we already have! And no woman who shoots a male burglar would ever go to jail; that assertion is just wrong!” Sadly, this never happened. See, I was taught to understand and respect African-Americans, Hispanics, and poor people, but not Republicans, and certainly not anyone foolish and irresponsible enough to own a gun!
And that’s a real shame. It’s easy to empathize with people you already understand, but it takes time and patience to learn about those who are strange and alien to you. It’s the easiest thing in the world to just dismiss them as stupid, uninformed, or evil, but most people have rational, well-thought-out reasons for doing the things they do, and gun owners are no different. Strange that this is such a revelation to me, huh?
A strong person admits when they are wrong. A wise person learns from those mistakes.
The terrorists hit the towers and the pentagon. I can remember it like it was yesterday. I was working in sothern california. That particular morning I was driving my 1974 Ford Bronco from Glendora to the business office in El Segundo. I had just merged into the right lane of the west bound I-210 to get ready for the I-605 south exit when the talk show I was listening to was interrupted by a breaking news cast. “An airliner has just hit the world trade center”. Of course none of the reporters could figure out what was going on. Announcing that it was a tragic accident. I can’t remember how long it was after that, but it only seemed like a minute or two, when they announced the second attack. Accident my ass! Right then, right there, I knew all of our lives would never be the same again.
Then came the reports of the tower collapsing. I was so overwhelmed hearing the report that I had to pull over to the side of the road. I could see alot of other people doing the same thing. For a while, I actually considered going back home. Then came the news of the Pentagon and the flight that went down in Pennsylvania. So I continued the rest of my 2 1/2 hour drive (to go 45 miles).
Our business office was only a mile or so south of LAX. I pulled the bronco into the parking garage, drove to the very top. When I shut off the engine and got out, the silence was deafening. Normally looking east from LAX on a clear day, you can see aircraft lined up on final approach 30-60 seconds apart as far as the eye can see. That day, there was not an aircraft in the sky. Something that I hope I will never see again in my lifetime. There was no roar of a 747 throttling up for take-off, no sounds of an Airbus engaging it’s reverse thrusters on landing. No turbo-props spinning. Not even the high pitch whine of jet engines on a 737 taxiing to the ramp. Just silence.
Police said officers found Bush carrying the pistols – which were equipped with laser sights – and 400 bullets. They also found another 7,800 rounds of ammunition in his van and 3,000 more in his storage locker, police said.
Emphasis mine.
Hmm, laser sights, why would he need more than one laser. And the 11,200 rounds of ammuntion? I almost have that much in .22 lr alone (damn those Bi-Mart sales).
I support the re-imposition of the ban on the sale of assault weapons that expired in September 2004 because I believe these guns are used primarily for criminal rather than sporting intent. I also support requiring gun manufacturers to install child safety locks on all of their products.
Used primarily for criminal rather than sporting intent? Even the FBI disagrees with that statement.
We recognize that the right to bear arms is an important part of the American tradition, and we will preserve Americans’ Second Amendment right to own and use firearms. We believe that the right to own firearms is subject to reasonable regulation, but we know that what works in Chicago may not work in Cheyenne. We can work together to enact and enforce commonsense laws and improvements – like closing the gun show loophole, improving our background check system, and reinstating the assault weapons ban, so that guns do not fall into the hands of terrorists or criminals. Acting responsibly and with respect for differing views on this issue, we can both protect the constitutional right to bear arms and keep our communities and our children safe.
I find it amazing that the democrats can contradict themselves so much in one paragraph.
Let’s look at this sentence by sentence.
We recognize that the right to bear arms is an important part of the American tradition, and we will preserve Americans’ Second Amendment right to own and use firearms.
To the Dem’s the right to keep and bear arms is nothing more than american tradition. Notice how they changed the verbage on the second half of the sentance from keep and bear to keep and use? I don’t believe for a second that this is a typo. There is a HUGE difference between “keep and bear” and “keep and use”. The 2nd amendment says “keep and bear”, ’nuff said.
We believe that the right to own firearms is subject to reasonable regulation,
Yeah, and the Dem’s get to determine what is reasonable? Give me a break.
Definition of the word reasonable
rea·son·a·ble /’riz?n?b?l, ‘rizn?-/ -adjective
1.
agreeable to reason or sound judgment; logical: a reasonable choice for chairman.
2.
not exceeding the limit prescribed by reason; not excessive: reasonable terms.
3.
moderate, esp. in price; not expensive: The coat was reasonable but not cheap.
4.
endowed with reason.
5.
capable of rational behavior, decision, etc.
hmm, let’s see, I don’t know of any liberal democrat that meets that definition at all.
Maybe the sentance should have started like this. “We Believe that the right to own firearms is subject to illogical, knee-jerk reaction, emotionally inspired regulation.” Because that’s what it really is.
but we know that what works in Chicago may not work in Cheyenne.
Really? I doubt it. But even if I were to concede that some things may work in Cheyann that don’t work in Chicago, why the hell would the Federal government step in. They have state and local governments to handle that, so long as they themselves don’t violate the constitution.
We can work together to enact and enforce commonsense laws and improvements -
“Commonsense” is very similar to “reasonable”. In the same way that I can’t think of any liberal democrats that have are reasonable, I can’t think of any that actually have more than an ounce of commonsense, because if they did, the gun-rights would be a non-issue.
like closing the gun show loophole
There is no such thing as a “gun show loophole”. What they are really talking about is making it illegal for ANYONE other than a FFL from transfering a weapon. No private transfers period. The impact of this is a huge infringement on our right to keep and bear arms, let alone basic property rights (but that’s a whole ‘nother subject).
improving our background check system,
Improving the background check system? For god’s sake, how hard is it to run a NICS check? I’m interested to see in what they have in mind here. The only logical conclusion I can come to is that they want to track more information about the citizens of the country. And don’t get me started on that.
and reinstating the assault weapons ban, so that guns do not fall into the hands of terrorists or criminals
Reinstating the assault weapons ban? First off it didn’t really ban any assault weapons that weren’t already banned. Second, the Brady bill did absolutely nothing to stop or reduce crime. The only thing it did was infringe on the rights of law abiding citizens. The CDC’s (Center For Disease Control) own studies even show there is absolutely no evidence that the Brady Bill did anything to reduce crime.
Acting responsibly and with respect for differing views on this issue, we can both protect the constitutional right to bear arms and keep our communities and our children safe.
I just about choked when I read this sentence. They actually believe that 2nd amendment rights and safety are mutually exclusive. IMO, the only way we can be sure to keep our communities and our children safe IS to protect the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. For that matter protect ALL of our civil rights. Compromising our civil rights is neither responsible, nor respectful of our differing views. Besides, if they actually respected the 2nd amendment, there wouldn’t be a differing view.
Anyway, that’s only one little tidbit from the platform. We could go on for days about the rest of the crap that is the plaform of the democratic party, but this is a gun blog.
There are allot of issues that I’m concerned about. The economy, the war on terror, border security, and property rights are right up near the top of my list of the most important issues facing us today.
But in truth, there is one issue, more specifically the candidates position on that issue, that tells me just about everything I need to know about a candidate. Or at least everything I need to know to keep the candidate in the running for my vote. That issue is gun control.
Any candidate that believes that by restricting your constitutionally recognized god given right to keep and bear arms that somehow society is a safer place is sorely mistaken and cannot be trusted. They cannot be trusted because they believe we are not capable of taking care of ourselves. No, wait, its not even that innocent. They dont want us to be able to take care of ourselves. They want you to be dependent on the government. The more dependent you are on the government, the more power the government has, and the less freedom you have. If a candidate is not on the right side of gun rights, they probably are not on the right side of all the other issues Im concerned with. If a candidate does not support gun rights and the right of a person to defend themselves, their family and their property, their core values are fundamentally flawed.
The U.S. Constitution is not a cafeteria menu that you get to pick and choose your favorite dishes from (Ill take a free speech and a side of separation of church and state please), it is the rule book for government. And as such the government must follow it explicitly. You cant take an oath of office to uphold and protect the Constitution of the United States, and then turn around and trample one of its amendments. To do so puts you in violation of your oath.
It seems more and more common that new legislation is created and thrown at the wall to see if it will stick. Instead of following the constitution when writing legislation, it will be written to specifically challenge the authority of the constitution. And once voted into law, it can take months if not years or decades to get it overturned by the Supreme Court. Meanwhile us regular citizens have to bend over, and take it with a smile or else. And now, even when the Supreme Court declares a gun ban unconstitutional (i.e. DC gun ban) and specifically ruling that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right, other government officials publicly announce that it doesnt apply to their laws.
Lets get something straight. Laws dont stop criminals. Laws simply allow us to punish criminals for their crimes by temporarily removing them from society, and if necessary, permanently. And in doing so, we hope that it will detour crime. Now, lets take murder for example. A person who commits murder already has little or no concern for the law. The murderer is never going to stop and think, god I better not use a gun, I might go to jail, maybe I better just use a knife or a baseball bat. Nope, thats just not how it happens. Criminals target potential victims who they perceive as weak, are not likely to fight back or are incapable of protecting themselves. The fact is, gun control doesnt work. It doesnt reduce crime. It just increases the victim pool for the criminals to choose from.
I think Robert A. Heinlein said it best An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his actions with his life.
z?