|
Post by StonerStudent on Jan 23, 2005 8:53:17 GMT -5
JT [my better half] just picked out his first centerfire pistol. He wasn't a anti gunner as much as just didn't care about guns and wouldn't even touch any of mine. But would go to gunshows and shops with me, anyway after 3 years and out of the blue.......came up and ask me about a Walther P99. The salesmen and I sat him down and went through all the pistols they had and JT picked out the Titanium coated P99 9mm. He also told the dealer that he is going to ask me to build him an......AR15!!!!!!!
I'
|
|
|
Post by StonerStudent on Feb 3, 2005 22:22:00 GMT -5
Hey Robert....welcome on board!!!
And folks remember the Brown Bess was this countries orginal assault rifle !!!!!!
|
|
|
Post by StonerStudent on Jan 7, 2005 7:13:52 GMT -5
LOL.......I beleive we have your resume on file Brother Tweak.
|
|
|
Post by StonerStudent on Jan 7, 2005 1:10:43 GMT -5
Buckshots post got me thinking [smell the smoke] How many here have had formal firearm self defense training? Myself I have been to TDI for their LEVEL I-III handgun course but that was back in 97. And I really need to get back to school.
|
|
|
Post by StonerStudent on Aug 2, 2005 0:39:45 GMT -5
Ending Anti-Gun Harassment By Zell Miller Boston Globe | August 1, 2005
More than two years ago, my good friend from Idaho, Larry Craig, introduced a bill in the U.S. Senate to protect law-abiding firearms manufacturers and dealers from being held responsible for the criminal actions of third parties. Fifty-five of his fellow senators, myself included, joined Senator Craig in sponsoring this common-sense legislation. Ultimately, however, the bill went down to defeat because several unrelated gun-control amendments were attached to it.
Now a new day has dawned, and with broad support, Senator Craig has reintroduced his bill -- S. 397, the ''Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act." Senators on both sides of the aisle recognize, as do the vast majority of Americans, that these ridiculous lawsuits are really all about shoving a social agenda -- firearms prohibition -- through the courts. The endgame is to use potentially bankrupting litigation to force the makers of a legal product to cease manufacture.
This attempted end run around our legislatures is regulation through litigation, plain and simple. As one attorney active in these lawsuits put it bluntly: ''You don't need a legislative majority to file a lawsuit."
By any standard, S. 397 is common-sense legislation. Let's think about it for a second but remove firearms from the equation. We'll substitute some other products. Do you believe that Ford Motor Co. should be dragged into court to be held responsible for damage to life and limb caused by drunk drivers? Do you believe that Callaway Golf should be held accountable because someone was assaulted with one of that company's Big Bertha irons? Of course you don't.
I think you'll agree that these are both ridiculous scenarios. But are they any more ridiculous than allowing someone to sue a gun company because a handgun the firm made decades ago was used to shoot someone during a convenience store robbery? I really don't think so. Maybe that's because I've been around long enough to remember a time in this country when we held the criminal who pulled the trigger responsible for his crime.
Times do change, but how did we arrive at where we are today with these predatory lawsuits? I believe that in large measure it's because the gun prohibitionists in this country have failed. They have been unable to convince the people's elected representatives that law-abiding citizens will somehow become safer if they are universally disarmed. To counter this failure, the gun-ban crowd has formed a tripartite alliance with big-city mayors who lack the will to get tough with the criminals who prowl their streets and with greedy trial lawyers who seek big paydays.
Craig and a bipartisan majority of the U.S. Senate recognize the dangers posed by this alliance. They know that even if the firearms industry were to win every case -- which is basically what has happened to date -- victory will come at the cost of many millions of dollars in legal costs. And these are costs this relatively small industry cannot absorb.
While this legislation seeks to protect a lawful industry, it also recognizes that any firearms dealer or manufacturer who breaks the law must be held accountable for those illegal actions -- no protection is offered for such acts. Neither does the maker of a defective product get a free pass.
Senators supporting the ''Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act" also recognize that should our firearms industry be driven into bankruptcy, the impact not only will harm sportsmen, hunters, and citizens who keep and bear arms for self-defense. Our military and the law enforcement community will also feel the adverse impact.
To date, 33 states have acted to block these predatory lawsuits that so clearly abuse the tort liability system. But because 17 states have failed to act, the ''Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act" had to be passed -- without ''poison pill" amendments designed to defeat it -- and enacted into law. The time is long overdue.
Note: This bill passed the U.S. Senate Friday 65-31.
|
|
|
Post by StonerStudent on Jul 30, 2005 2:14:11 GMT -5
Joint Statement by NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre and Chief Lobbyist Chris Cox On Passage of the "Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act"
Friday, July 29, 2005
Today, in an historic vote in Second Amendment history, freedom prevailed.
When it comes to something as fundamental as the Second Amendment, the American people are determined to protect this freedom. That’s what happened in the United States Senate today.
The final outcome of the U.S. Senate vote on S. 397 -- the “Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act” -- is a groundbreaking step forward for law-abiding firearm manufacturers, retailers and owners in this country. The National Rifle Association (NRA) invested many years trying to pass this needed legislation that will put an end to politically motivated predatory lawsuits.
The “Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act” is a vital bill that will save the centuries old, law-abiding, and highly regulated American industry that has persevered under the burden of these predatory lawsuits. The success of this bill was so critical to national security interests that it prompted the Department of Defense to issue a strong letter unequivocally urging passage.
We are grateful for the support of the 62 co-sponsors from both sides of the aisle. On behalf of our 4 million members and the tens of millions of gun owners across this country, we would like to express our heartfelt thanks to Majority Leader Bill Frist for his unyielding efforts to ensure that S. 397 received a fair and just hearing before this legislative body.
We also appreciate Senator Larry Craig for his steadfast hard work in marshalling this effort through the Senate. Senate Majority Whip Mitch McConnell and Senate Republican Conference Chairman Rick Santorum were also vital parts of this team whose dedicated efforts ought to be recognized.
The NRA needed 60 votes to ensure passage of this bill. This would not have been possible without support from Senators from the both sides of the aisle. We thank Minority Leader Harry Reid for supporting this legislation and the members in his caucus who voted for this proposed law.
America is a better and safer place with the passage of S. 397. Members of the United States Senate who voted for this measure placed principle over politics and voted for good policy.
|
|
|
Post by StonerStudent on Aug 17, 2005 9:04:26 GMT -5
Your not wrong there Buckshot.....it's a chunk of steel to be sure.
|
|
|
Post by StonerStudent on Aug 17, 2005 0:52:56 GMT -5
Update.......Stoner just picked up a backup pistol, a used S&W 686 2 1/2 barrel and is going to do some customizing ;D
|
|
|
Post by StonerStudent on Jun 20, 2005 23:12:57 GMT -5
Salukifan asked us, with snippage: Am I right in thinking that a "pre-Model 10" is basically the old Military and Police gun that Smith and Wesson later named the Model 10? If I wanted to buy one and change out the grips I would just need the same kind of K frame grips the modern M10 takes? Just curious... You might try looking around and asking on the Smith&Wesson forum smith-wessonforum.com/eveCougar[/quote] Pretty much.......K frames have two grip shapes though....round butt and square. I think that the newer L frame has the same grip dementions as the K frame as well.
|
|
|
Post by StonerStudent on Jun 19, 2005 19:39:16 GMT -5
SS, Rather amazing that one managed to get pitted. In that era many were fired with lead bullets, often the "FBI Load" 158 LSWCHP which tended to lube the bore and keep it from pitting. I have a S&W M65 (same gun with fixed sights) and it does very well, really smooth. Don't you just love it when you come across something like this? Buckshot Yes I was really surprised as well, never let the sunset on a dirty weapon.
|
|
|
Post by StonerStudent on Jun 16, 2005 23:34:39 GMT -5
I picked up a exLEO SW 66 357mag with a 4 in barrel last Friday. It was in pretty good shape but the bore is pitted and I was pretty much looking at having in rebarreled...anyway took it to the range today and d**n if it doesn't shoot fairly decent groups [with my skill level anyway] I must say I am impressed and surprised with it . This makes my second "cop gun" my first is a Berretta 92 that I love.
|
|
|
Post by StonerStudent on Jan 22, 2005 15:56:05 GMT -5
That ok Buckshot......I found it, thats the one Bill at Cylinder and Slide made ;D
|
|
|
Post by StonerStudent on Jan 21, 2005 1:12:22 GMT -5
Once again Buckshot.......I don't know what I'm talking about again I was thinking of the FA Rem 1100 that the Navy [Crane] played with for awhile. I have only seen one gun like the one your talking about.....and it was made by Cylinder and Slide shop. But please post a pic of it if you got one.
|
|
|
Post by StonerStudent on Jan 20, 2005 23:28:34 GMT -5
I have shot the USAS12 in full auto at the Creek and yes it was alot of fun......well not for the guy trying to hit the same bowling pin I was anyway
|
|
|
Post by StonerStudent on Jan 20, 2005 23:25:40 GMT -5
I believe the shotgun your talking about Buckshot was call the M7188.......BOY THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN A HECK OF A RIDE FOR 7 ROUNDS!!!!!!!
I'm with you Quarterbore....that stock would have to go!!!
|
|