- Join Date
- Feb 2010
- Posts
- 2,244
I enjoy it, though mine can be a bit temperamental with lower power shells (anything not 00-buck, slug or sabot). After some testing we found that the rail system I have installed on the front end had changed the wobble of the gun enough to cause the jams (it cycles perfectly with the stock handguard). Still looking for a better solution to that problem. Otherwise it is a champion of reliability.Originally Posted by Galen
It's also fun to own a weapon that is still something of a rarity. I had mine shipped from an online source to a local firearm vendor for the FFL transfer and it comes still in the original box from the Izhmash factory covered in cyrillic writing. It drew something of a crowd when I filled out the paperwork (when the box was opened I hear, "what the hell is that? Is that a shotgun?!"). Only one of the older gentlemen working there knew what it was (this was before Son of Guns made the Saiga-12 mainstream).
And hey, it even made War Profiteer Dianne's ban list by name!* Thanks for doubling the value of it overnight Dianne!
*Amusingly, the .410 and 20 gauge versions which are identical other than caliber, did not make her list.
Last edited by Copperfield; 01-26-2013 at 12:23 PM.
The stock barrel length is a lot longer than you think, though you can certainly get shorter barreled versions (subject to the same taxes and regulations as any SBR).
As for the action, you get used to it very quickly. Before you know it, you have run 300 shells through the damn thing.
We aren't going after the Second Amendment. That is just a slogan. Perhaps the next saeculum will "go after it," indeed.
Looks like gun control will be attempted though, and should be. It must be.
Our 4T IS the next civil war. And there never really was an anomaly. We are now in 1850.
Gun control is divisive. But it is scarcely the only divisive issue. It's just part of the overall great red/blue divide, which is just the latest incarnation of the gray/blue divide.
How will we handle it, is the question. One side must win, politically, and/or we must agree to separate, in order to avoid a confrontation. Odds are it would be violent, as 4T wars have always been; but there's always the chance for progression to non-violence.
One possibility is the growth of militant terrorist groups, like the one James Yeager is organizing. That would be violent, but it would just be a matter of putting down a relatively small group of self-styled militias, an American internal Al Qaeda.
Last edited by Eric the Green; 01-26-2013 at 03:05 PM.
I just hope we can put an end to all your "fun." "Some night" we will; or we will grow up.I enjoy it, though mine can be a bit temperamental with lower power shells (anything not 00-buck, slug or sabot). After some testing we found that the rail system I have installed on the front end had changed the wobble of the gun enough to cause the jams (it cycles perfectly with the stock handguard). Still looking for a better solution to that problem. Otherwise it is a champion of reliability.
It's also fun to own a weapon that is still something of a rarity. I had mine shipped from an online source to a local firearm vendor for the FFL transfer and it comes still in the original box from the Izhmash factory covered in cyrillic writing. It drew something of a crowd when I filled out the paperwork (when the box was opened I hear, "what the hell is that? Is that a shotgun?!"). Only one of the older gentlemen working there knew what it was (this was before Son of Guns made the Saiga-12 mainstream).
And hey, it even made War Profiteer Dianne's ban list by name!* Thanks for doubling the value of it overnight Dianne!
*Amusingly, the .410 and 20 gauge versions which are identical other than caliber, did not make her list.
You can certainly try. Just make sure you are right out in front when you do.
We'll just rev up our prayers and vizualizations of peace and love, and aim em right atcha! You'll drop your guns and run over for a hug. Then we'll run over and snatch your guns and slip away!You can certainly try. Just make sure you are right out in front when you do.
Another great Sheriff giving sensible advice. Learn to defend yourself, the police cannot always be there.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013...nd-themselves/
As I recall, the combination of armed American citizens and a rag tag privately funded volunteer army and a make shift government took on a tyranical govt and won a war of independence. BTW, Washington had the help of the French at the end of war but he fought the bulk of the war without them. Lee was a better general than Washington when he had the early advantage and the initiative at the beginning of the war. Washington was an overall better general because he was more adaptive and able to overcome the odds despite the major disadvantages and uncertainties that he faced and dealt with from the beginning of the war.
Last edited by Classic-X'er; 01-27-2013 at 02:50 AM.
You can hope but hope probably ain't gonna get ya far with people who have alot of faith in themselves as individuals and their groups of individuals or those who have faith in themselves as survivors and their groups of survivors.
I'd like to see how they'd do now against the government and military of today. How, do you suppose?
In any case, your rebellion had better at least have a make-shift organization. Do you suppose people like you (and Copperfield and The Rani and Kepi and '58 Flat and so on) support citizens having military weapons in order to fight an organized rebellion against the government? Will the government itself support these rights so that an organized rebellion can be mounted against it? Does it already?
I know some Republicans like Sen. Coburn do.
By the way, I think you guys will do better if you can learn to copy Al Qaeda, the Taliban and the Iraqi Sunnis and make roadside bombs and such. I just don't think AR-15s are gonna be enough. I'm sure you'll oppose roadside-bomb control as a violation of the second amendment.
Except that he lost all his battles without them, iirc.BTW, Washington had the help of the French at the end of war but he fought the bulk of the war without them.
Last edited by Eric the Green; 01-27-2013 at 06:45 AM.
I don't know why; there was no inconsistency. You just have to clear up your own confusion.
If someone breaks the law, such as by threatening to kill people or organizing armed rebellions, if they are against the law, then the authorities have the duty to arrest him. And they'd better come prepared, being mindful of what he has threatened to do.
It is kinda amazing that you defend folks like James Yeager. And I won't mention the other guy I am surprised you are defending. Why do you think it's OK to go on you tube and threaten to "start killing people if this goes an inch further?" Do you feel the same way about someone threatening to kill dogs?
I wonder if your friend vandal would endorse that scientific, biological analysis.
But gun control differs from issues like same-sex marriage and marijuana legalization in one vital respect:
If we recognize same-sex marriage, it doesn't take marriage rights away from heterosexuals; similarly, if we stop sending marijuana users to prison, it doesn't mean that someone else is going to be sent to prison instead.
By stark contrast, gun control means taking rights away from people (and in some cases at least, physically taking away the guns themselves). Therefore gun control cannot help but arouse infinitely more antagonism than same-sex marriage or marijuana.
But maybe if the putative Robin Hoods stopped trying to take from law-abiding citizens and give to criminals, take from men and give to women, take from believers and give to anti-believers, take from citizens and give to "undocumented" immigrants, and take from heterosexuals and give to homosexuals, they might have a lot more success in taking from the rich and giving to everyone else.
Don't blame me - I'm a Baby Buster!
Just like the North Vietnamese. Lost every battle; won the war. And the war is what matters -- they're still in charge of their own country, you might notice.
"Qu'est-ce que c'est que cela, la loi ? On peut donc être dehors. Je ne comprends pas. Quant à moi, suis-je dans la loi ? suis-je hors la loi ? Je n'en sais rien. Mourir de faim, est-ce être dans la loi ?" -- Tellmarch
"Человек не может снять с себя ответственности за свои поступки." - L. Tolstoy
"[it] is no doubt obvious, the cult of the experts is both self-serving, for those who propound it, and fraudulent." - Noam Chomsky
It wouldnt just be a ragtag band of gun owners with AR-15's. Many police in this country share the sympathies with those opposed to your communistic agenda as well as many in the military. Examine who makes the bulk of solders in the "combat arms" of the Marines and Army (infantry, armor, special forces). they are overwhelmingly white and from rural areas.(many are of Scots-Irish descent) Where do you think their sympathies are? Do you think they would fire on American citizens? Do you think they dont support our right to bear arms?
In addition, National Guard Forces are armed with full auto M-16's, M-1 tanks and F-16 fighters. Would all of them follow our Govt?
Once the government breaches the Constitution, those sworn to uphold it have a duty to defend it, not a tyrannical govt bent on disarming the people.
Last edited by Weave; 01-27-2013 at 01:10 PM.
Then you recall incorrectly. For example, neither the French nor the Spanish would have supported the rebels unless they won at Saratoga, and the fate of Saratoga was determined in large part by the Battle of Bennington, which was also a victory for the Americans. Also, wars aren't merely a collection of individual, disconnected battles with each victory going onto a scoreboard. As Justin already pointed out, the NVA lost every significant battle in the Vietnam War, but North Vietnam ultimately won the war. There were battles (such as Bunker Hill) that were losses for the rebels but which also resulted in a significant degradation of British military assets--enough men were killed or enough resources were expended that they were really losses for the British even though they took a fort here or a settlement there. There was one battle that I'm trying to recall that was a loss for the rebels in the sense that they lost territory, but it was a victory for the rebels in the sense that so many British soldiers were lost that it was one of the war's major turning points. Maybe someone more well versed in the history of the Revolution could fill in that blank.
"All stories are haunted by the ghosts of the stories they might have been." ~*~ Salman Rushdie, Shame
I used to believe this, myself, then I realized that the Vietcong were seasoned guerrilla fighters, which overweight middle-aged gun-nuts certainly aren't. The RW gun-nuts here would shit themselves.
To recommend thrift to the poor is both grotesque and insulting. It is like advising a man who is starving to eat less.
-Oscar Wilde, The Soul of Man under Socialism
Not a one of the Viet Cong was born a seasoned guerrilla fighter. In fact, if you read Giap, you'll recognize that pretty much none of them were even really trained to any significant extent. The seasoning the farmers, schoolteachers, accountants, carpenters, and so on went through on the way to becoming the rough-n-tough guerrilla force (that sent the 'strongest military on the planet' packing) was very much OJT. Which meant a lot of losses, of course. But that's also part of the nature of such conflicts.
A lot of "the RW gun-nuts" would indeed shit themselves (trained soldiers have tended to do that, too). And a lot of them would die, too. But the ones that were lucky enough not to would be the ones that learned. And a steep learning-curve is another feature of insurgency-type conflicts.
Last edited by Justin '77; 01-27-2013 at 02:50 PM.
"Qu'est-ce que c'est que cela, la loi ? On peut donc être dehors. Je ne comprends pas. Quant à moi, suis-je dans la loi ? suis-je hors la loi ? Je n'en sais rien. Mourir de faim, est-ce être dans la loi ?" -- Tellmarch
"Человек не может снять с себя ответственности за свои поступки." - L. Tolstoy
"[it] is no doubt obvious, the cult of the experts is both self-serving, for those who propound it, and fraudulent." - Noam Chomsky
Washington had victories (these are battles he commanded personally) at Boston and Trenton without French assistance. Of course there were many generals serving under Washington who had important victories against the British. For example, General Morgan's crushing defeat (including a perfect double envelopment) of the British at the Battle of Cowpens.
You will have to excuse Eric. He tends to make things up if reality happens to contradict his beliefs.
Last edited by Copperfield; 01-27-2013 at 03:00 PM.
Oh, yeah. I considered adding Cowpens to the list but, although the French weren't directly involved, that took place after the French and Spanish had entered the war on the side of the Americans, unless I'm remembering incorrectly. And, absolutely, there were other victories for the rebels. However, I wanted to highlight the fact that the involvement of French and Spain was contingent on rebel victories in North America.
"All stories are haunted by the ghosts of the stories they might have been." ~*~ Salman Rushdie, Shame
Thanks, Mr. Cats. The one I hazily remember was in the North, but Guilford Courthouse would be another example.
"All stories are haunted by the ghosts of the stories they might have been." ~*~ Salman Rushdie, Shame
If they were to shit themselves in combat, that would be a completely normal and not at all unexpected response. I do see what you were getting at, though.
At the same time, I would recommend taking a little trip outside your bubble every once in a while. I know that it's popular in the circles you travel online (i.e. over at the Democratic Underground) to portray "RW gun-nuts" as old overweight diabetic apocalypse junkies, but looking at my own Facebook feed, most of the people who've been most vocal in their opposition to current gun control arguments seem to be young fit men who are either currently in the military or who have left it within the last five or six years. Almost all of them are combat veterans. That may say something about the make-up of my Facebook friends list, but it also suggests that the caricature you're invoking might be a little off the mark. On top of that, having been in the military, the impression that I got was that there are a hell of a lot of "RW gun-nuts" serving and, after getting out, lots of these "RW gun-nuts" go on to run shooting ranges, gun stores, etc. I know plenty of guys who own their own AR-15s, and people who have been in the service tend to have a fondness for tactical gear more generally.
The belief that "RW gun-nuts" will sweep across the nation in their tanks and planes to disarm "RW gun-nuts" (including themselves and their buddies) seems pretty bizarre to me, but what do I know?
"All stories are haunted by the ghosts of the stories they might have been." ~*~ Salman Rushdie, Shame
While Ive made my points as to the possible efficacy of a RW insurgancy, frankly its a little silly at this point. The chances of Diane Frankenstiens bill even getting to the floor for a vote are slim to none, although the Repubs ought to let go to floor and put the Red State Dems squirm. Two good things could happen, first they could follow their constituents and kill the Bill decisively, or allow themselves to cave under White House pressure and lose in 2014.
The writing is on the wall already and the Dems seem to be consigned to defeat on this issue. I do however appreciate that they have again fired up the conservative base and ensured rural voters will be turning out in droves in 2014.
Gun control has nothing to do with these other issues. It's true these other 2 issues are about recognizing rights; gun control is about recognizing that some people don't really have what they consider "rights." But so are laws against pollution, requirements that the wealthy pay taxes, and other things you might favor. I put gun control in that area, rather than comparing it to cultural issues per se-- except that there is a culture of guns. But that is a culture we don't need. James Yeager is not a good role model.
I understand your dedication to gun "rights." I suggest there really is not such thing as "freedom" with respect to guns. Guns are a means to exert power over others, not a means to freedom. They are more dangerous than helpful if used in defense. Hunting and target shooting are less important values than the safety of children, students and adults in public places. The government itself is not, I don't think, going to allow the "right to bear arms" for the purpose of overthrowing it, or its laws violently resisted.
The proposals now being made are a good start, and I doubt it will go further in this 4T era. These proposals don't take any rights away. You could still buy a gun that is not a military weapon under these proposals, if you are qualified. I would personally like to go further someday; there are way too many handguns out there. But that's just my opinion, and what happens will depend more on education than confiscation. I don't see much education going on here yet. Little seems to be sinking in. But nationally, the trend is there; we're moving away from the gun culture. The faster the better; but it depends on Americans waking up to the new ways of life, and moving past the old ways. That's what our times are all about, since the 1960s. It is our greatest heritage.
)].