In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
Look at the last enraging email I got from NRA
dsmith
Member Posts: 902 ✭✭✭✭
I got the following email from the NRA and it really annoys my (more comments below article)
---Begin Comment---
THE BRADY CAMPAIGN, AND NBC'S KATIE COURIC,
TRY TO RE-WRITE HISTORY
Exploiting tragedy for political gain is nothing new for the media and the Brady Campaign, but this morning's appearance on NBC's Today Show reached a new low. Katie Couric and Sarah Brady used the tragic occasion of President Reagan's passing to shamelessly forward the gun-ban agenda with deliberate misinformation. Led by carefully crafted questions from Couric, Sarah Brady claimed that President Reagan wasn't actually an NRA member, and that he "worked hard" for passage of the so-called "assault weapons" ban.
In fact, President Reagan, the owner of an AR-15, was a strong and consistent supporter of the Second Amendment and the NRA. He was a long time member who actively courted the NRA's endorsement in both of his presidential campaigns, and was the first presidential candidate in history to receive that endorsement. He appeared on the cover of NRA magazines four times. In 1983 he was offered, and accepted, an NRA Honorary Life Membership, the highest honor bestowed by the NRA.
He was the first, and to date, only, sitting president to speak at our Annual Meetings, saying, in part, "The NRA believes America's laws were made to be obeyed and that our constitutional liberties are just as important today as 200 years ago. And by the way, the Constitution does not say Government shall decree the right to keep and bear arms. The Constitution says 'the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.'" In 1986, President Reagan signed the landmark Firearms Owners Protection Act (FOPA), and he never blamed law-abiding gun owners for the actions of criminals.
---End of NRA Comment---
I used to be a big fan of Reagan until I read this. It is good that he was a president who supported a certain degree of gun ownership. However, he was lulled by the NRA into supporting the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986. While the NRA still continues to praise this action as one of the greatest achievements ever, this is the ban that declared that no machineguns made or imported after this date could possibly be licensed to any law-abiding citizen who did not have a gun shop. The NRA supported it then and supports it now. They are the reason I can't afford my MP5K and the reason I will end up paying $4,500+ for the "right" to license an uzi. [:(!]
---Begin Comment---
THE BRADY CAMPAIGN, AND NBC'S KATIE COURIC,
TRY TO RE-WRITE HISTORY
Exploiting tragedy for political gain is nothing new for the media and the Brady Campaign, but this morning's appearance on NBC's Today Show reached a new low. Katie Couric and Sarah Brady used the tragic occasion of President Reagan's passing to shamelessly forward the gun-ban agenda with deliberate misinformation. Led by carefully crafted questions from Couric, Sarah Brady claimed that President Reagan wasn't actually an NRA member, and that he "worked hard" for passage of the so-called "assault weapons" ban.
In fact, President Reagan, the owner of an AR-15, was a strong and consistent supporter of the Second Amendment and the NRA. He was a long time member who actively courted the NRA's endorsement in both of his presidential campaigns, and was the first presidential candidate in history to receive that endorsement. He appeared on the cover of NRA magazines four times. In 1983 he was offered, and accepted, an NRA Honorary Life Membership, the highest honor bestowed by the NRA.
He was the first, and to date, only, sitting president to speak at our Annual Meetings, saying, in part, "The NRA believes America's laws were made to be obeyed and that our constitutional liberties are just as important today as 200 years ago. And by the way, the Constitution does not say Government shall decree the right to keep and bear arms. The Constitution says 'the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.'" In 1986, President Reagan signed the landmark Firearms Owners Protection Act (FOPA), and he never blamed law-abiding gun owners for the actions of criminals.
---End of NRA Comment---
I used to be a big fan of Reagan until I read this. It is good that he was a president who supported a certain degree of gun ownership. However, he was lulled by the NRA into supporting the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986. While the NRA still continues to praise this action as one of the greatest achievements ever, this is the ban that declared that no machineguns made or imported after this date could possibly be licensed to any law-abiding citizen who did not have a gun shop. The NRA supported it then and supports it now. They are the reason I can't afford my MP5K and the reason I will end up paying $4,500+ for the "right" to license an uzi. [:(!]
Comments
Last I heard a MP-5 was going for around $12-15,000, may be more by now.
Does anyone want to say "thanks?"
The gene pool needs chlorine.
The enemy of my enemy is my friend. I support the NRA with all its faults.
Quote "Somehow government decided that the Constitutional Bill of Rights has become the Bill of "Suggested" Rights and are to be rationed to the citizens as the power elite sees fit"
"History will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest." -Gandhi
Reagan gets NO accolades from me..Anti-Second Amendment is ANTI-AMERICAN...
It is sad how far this country has fallen from the days it was just assumed that our rights were real. Back in the good old days (way before my time) you could order a Thompson Submachine Gun right through the mail. Crime with them was non-existent until prohibition caused 5 or 6 people used them to kill a handful of competing crimelords. After prohibition, the guns fell to the hands of FDR. FDR did many things to us. He declared US citizens couldn't own gold (if your country's money is worthless, you are worthless) he said that the rich people could register their machine guns and pay a Great Depression $200 could keep them while the average person was a vile criminal like Capone, he started a draft for WWII and gave young men everywhere a chance: fight for your country, or go to prison (nice guy in the land of the free[V]) and last but not least, he declared that all Japanese people, no matter how valid their paperwork and how legally they were in the US had no right to their homes or freedom and shipped them off to camps (Hitler Anybody?[:(!]).
He also had socialist security. He took away a percentage of the private citizen's finances through taxes in order to give the all knowing government the ability to allocate the money as they saw fit.
But anyway, back to the NRA. They supported FDR's machine gun ban along with Reagan's. When they supported FDR's ban, that wasn't a compromise. In order to have a compromise, both sides have to be getting something that they want. The Fuhrer got what he wanted by eroding our rights and setting a precident that our rights are not absolute. What did the NRA get? They got the satisfaction of knowing that they put a temporary damper on the situation and that the people of the country could still keep their hunting rifles and shotguns, which was really what the second amendment was all about.
I want the NRA to get active and start opposing the 1986 and 1934 bans of machineguns. That would get donations from me. Until then they won't even get my membership dues.
When I go through American Rifleman, I see ads for semi-auto M-16s and AKs. This really annoys me. I would never buy a semi-auto that was meant to be a full auto. To me that is very disrespectful. The government and even the gun manufacturers themselver (Smith and Wesson anybody?) ask you to buy the semi-auto watered down version that you are responsible enough to own, but never, under their watch would you be considered trustworthy enough to own a real AK. Never will the NRA tell you that a semi-auto is the best that they will allow you to have. After all, it's not the NRA's gun rights that they are surrendering, it is my rights they are surrendering.
If I am reading this the way you meant it..Please understand that the Second Amendment has NOTHING TO SAY about your 'Hunting Guns"...except that back in their day,Hunting and War were carried out with the same piece...
The Founders figured that hunting was so ingrained that no mention perhaps was necessary...However,they INTENDED for the Polulace to be armed enough to ALWAYS BE ABLE TO TAKE THE COUNTRY BACK FROM TYRANNY..at least as WELL as and preferably Better armed then any army raised by the FedGov...
Got it. I was indeed a bit confused at that post..'specially after reading others of yours. We see eye-to-eye on the issue.
I find no real drive to own,shoot,nor collect machine guns...but I will defend to the death YOUR right to...and any other decent,honest citizen in this country.And NO slimy politician has the Right to legislate that AWAY....
Anybody comes through that door, you put two in the chest and one in the head!
Nice quote from black hawn down..[;)]
Outstanding movie[^]
Oh yea,, I agree,, Dems suck and sarah brady is cannon fodder.
You may take the most gallant sailor,the most intrepid airman,or the most audacious soldier,put them together at a table.
What do you get?
The sum of their fears
-Winston Churchhill
- NRA compromises too much;
- There should not be a ban on any guns; if one can pay for them then they can own it;
- Where is it stated except in local laws that we have to have a permit to carry a concealed weapon. Certainly not in the 2nd. Should be able to carry open or concealed;
- If one abuses the weapon by hurting someone then they, and not the gun, should be put on trial;
- Until one is open to suffer the consequences of disobeying a law we will always be sheep at the mercy of the political wolves.
Franko
In principle I agree with most of what is said here. I think the quote that I sympathize with the most came from Highball:
"I find no real drive to own,shoot,nor collect machine guns...but I will defend to the death YOUR right to...and any other decent,honest citizen in this country.And NO slimy politician has the Right to legislate that AWAY...."
I too have no desire to own a machine gun, but that doesn't mean nobody else shouldn't be allowed to own one. However, I don't necessarily agree that anybody who can afford it should be able to get it. Do we really want Bill Gates sitting on a stockpile of machine guns? Maybe its just me, but that just sits funny.
So anyway, I guess my point is that we need to draw a line somewhere. I wrestle with this a lot in my mind: How literally should we interpret "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"? Technically "arms" can mean a lot of things. I may not want to own a mortar, but what if my neighbor does? What if my neighbor is a crackpot? Maybe he isn't a felon and hasn't been institutionalized, but that doesn't mean he is decent and honest. I know a lot of indecent and dishonest people who are not criminals.
I think this is a good litmus test for pro-gunners. Where do they draw the line:
1. Single-Action revolver
2. Double-Action revolver
3. Semi-Auto pistol
4. Single-Shot rifle
5. Bolt/Lever-Action rifle
6. Semi-Auto rifle
7. Full-Auto rifle/pistol (UZI, MAC-10, AK-47, M-16)
8. Machine Gun (stationary, not hand-held. M-60, unless you are Rambo)
9. Grenades
10. RPG
11. Mortar
12. Rocket Launcher
13. TOW (guided rocket)
14. Missile
15. ICBM
16. Nuclear Missile
Realize, the further down the list you go the less popular support you will have. I think I would fall out at #7. Bottom line, this is a political issue, so in your heart you may agree that we should all have #16, but if you broadcast that publically then people will use that against you to take away #1.
-WW
"History will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest." -Gandhi
necessarily agree that anybody who can afford it should be able to get it. Do we really want Bill Gates sitting on a stockpile of machine guns? Maybe its just me, but that just sits funny.
Well,Rich people buying everything decent in sight is indeed a problem for me,also..one of the downsides of a 'free society'..but that covers guns,women,land..you name it.
The thing about guns is...if the stinking government wasn't involved in limiting the ownership of them..a machine gun would be worth 500 bucks...and they would be built in every little machine shop across the country...
I believe the list should encompass to about ...here...
1. Single-Action revolver
2. Double-Action revolver
3. Semi-Auto pistol
4. Single-Shot rifle
5. Bolt/Lever-Action rifle
6. Semi-Auto rifle
7. Full-Auto rifle/pistol (UZI, MAC-10, AK-47, M-16)
8. Machine Gun (stationary, not hand-held. M-60, unless you are Rambo)
9.Any modern advances in armorment in the area of individial arms..
Welcome,vafranko;
You seem logical..of course,this means I agree with your post !!![:D]
heres the rub, if bil gates liked machineguns he could create a security co/manufacturer/importer/whatever and have access to weapons we only dream about.id really like to have bill gates money and influence on our side of the second amndnt question.
all these sidebars still dont cancel one issue, no criminal has been stopped from ownership of any weapon full or semi by virtue of another law.period.
just my take on it.
I actually like the training approach, so I don't mind if I have to take a class in order to get a certain type of firearm, as long as the training is low-cost and the instructor is competent. Unfortunately, we are then "licensing" people to own firearms. Since the 2nd Amendment is a RIGHT (not a PRIVILEDGE, like driving), I can understand why people would be resistant to this. But I think that is where the "well-regulated militia" clause comes into play. So I have no problem with someone owning a full-auto rifle if they have received the proper training and are fully aware of their responsibility to the militia by owning that firearm.
So in my ideal world, I would allow all handguns and semi-auto rifles (maybe with some sort of free training program available, this is where the NRA could really shine with all their "certified" instructors). Full-autos could be purchased by active military, or by civilians with training and a purchase license (maybe renewed after every 4 or 5 years).
The stationary machine guns, grenades, and all that can be left to the military or National Guard, as far as I'm concerned. Although I would like to see some kind of civilian militia program. Right now I would have to go to the 10-week Army basic training in order to join the National Guard. I haven't had 10-weeks to spare since I graduated from college 6 years ago. Now I have a wife and a career, so I can't exactly run off to basic training. It would be great if they had a 2-week basic with say a year of one weekend a month follow-ups. Then at that point I could qualify for all of the other toys mentioned in the list, if I so desired.
2gun, you are right about Bill Gates, I hadn't thought of it that way. He could probably buy Colt, Ruger, and every other gun manufacturer if he wanted. Of course, there are a lot of rich gun-owners that do not support the pro-gun movement, so there is no guarantee that he would be "on our side". And your second point is correct too, criminals don't abide by any gun law. But the mental picture of my idiot neighbor goofing around with an M16 while my kids play in the yard just makes me queasy. He isn't a criminal, but I've seen some of the other dumb@ss things he tries to do. I would hate for him to have to kill somebody in order for his incompetence with firearms to be noticed.
"History will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest." -Gandhi
He personally funded an anti-gun inititive up in Washington State a few years ago..and the citizens stomped his sorry A**.
Too bad they didn't stop buying his computer monopaly...just another bas**** getting rich off the backs of people..and becoming just another Socialist *...wonder what it is that turns rich people Anti-American ?
I have often wondered why people who get wealthy soon forget what makes this country what it TRULY is. Money corrupts the souls of those who have the most it seems to me[V]
You may take the most gallant sailor,the most intrepid airman,or the most audacious soldier,put them together at a table.
What do you get?
The sum of their fears
-Winston Churchhill
And they see the world through rose colored glasses.
The gene pool needs chlorine.
<quote>Too bad they didn't stop buying his computer monopaly...just another bas**** getting rich off the backs of people..and becoming just another Socialist *...</quote>
Far too few to be able to EVER gain it back thru begging the politicians to obey the Constitution....
why do you need that gun?
i dont need it, i want it.
well, it doesnt have a sporting purpose.
so lets see if i understand you.why do you own a porsche?
i like fast cars
well i think they are only designed for breaking the speed limit and polluting he enviroment besides why should you need more than a 4 banger anyway?
its different guns kill people.
no, guns kill people the same way your car does 150 mph,they need a person behind them besides more people have been killed by speeding cars this year than guns and we dont limit cars to 15mph
cars are necessary, guns are not.
guns protect people, cars dont.why should you be entitled to that much car? i think it should be gas guzzler taxed and maybe banned.
this is angoing argument ive been having with an uncle who doenst understand why i want to own guns, for protection he has a security service,you know the alarm that call the police and sends out an armed patrol. hes not a fool but he doesnt see the world the way i do, i want to know i'm protected, not have to wait and rely on someone else to give me and mine security.
And to address the 2nd amendment issue...What highball said.
________________________________________________________________________
Before they can convince you that rights emanate from them (the government), they must first eliminate God. They are working 24/7 to accomplish this.
"If there must be trouble let it be in my day, that my child may have peace" -Thomas Paine
If the people have become so apathetic that they will not vote out all the liberal scum (republican and democrat alike), the only solution is Constitutional Convention II the sequel. Let's get it right this time.
If you get a chance, make sure your uncle gets to see lots of newspaper stories whereas the victim was attacked in such a place as to not be able to call for help. It happens all the time.
You might also ask him why he has fire insurance on his property since there is probably a fire station with fireman just waiting to come and put out any fire, just as your uncle thinks there are police/security people just waiting to come and save him and his family. Heck, your uncle might even a a couple of fire extingishers and you can ask why he needs them since he can just phone the fire department instead.
I have no patience for such people who seem smugly proud to put themselves in a sitution where if TSHTF they will be nothing more than a helpless victim.
Quote "Somehow government decided that the Constitutional Bill of Rights has become the Bill of "Suggested" Rights and are to be rationed to the citizens as the power elite sees fit"
If you can afford an F-16 and know how to fly it or can afford someone to teach you how to fly it, then you should damn well be able to buy it, with armaments of course. The caveat being that the first time you open up on a target that is not attacking you or your family, well you're off to face the executioner. It is silly in my mind to think that we can be trusted to own cars, trucks, motorcycles, boats, etc which kill and maim exponentially more people than arms do, but we're not considered trustworthy enough to own, say an MP5K or a M-16 or an AK.
If you must burn our flag, please wrap yourself in it first.
"If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun." The Dalai Lama
And your imput is neither desired nor welcome...
I agree with your post about what arms to have in general. However you left out the rocket launchers. You said "Any advances in individual arms". A rocket launcher is an individual arm. What's wrong with people owning (or licensing if that is your opinion) one of these?
Also, somebody mentioned owning an F-16. I will support this. Just as long as said individual is responsible and knows the implications of the expensive toy he is about to purchase.[:D]
there are those who say that there is some distinction but it always seems to be on the basis of some group feels that ANYONE(notice the capitalization) would become a crazed killer by owning some particular weapon or system.theres no logic to it, theres no reason why if something makes a bigger hole it should be banned, if it holds more shells,if it is black. these dont determine what it will do, its the person holding it.okay preaching to the chior again.
its your right to own a weapon, its your responsibility to use it wisely.ignorance of the law and failure to be safe is not an excuse to deny rights in order to save morons from the consequenses of their actions.
tr i like my uncle and i dont want to see him hit with a violent crime. he believes that he is protecting them with the insurance and the alarm and the extinguishers etc. and to have guns in the house(i believe one is never enough)and loaded mags is an invitation for disater with his teens. they have never touched a gun.i believe there are some things you dont wait around for and personal protection is one. he feels that he is better waiting i hope he never finds out.
Obviously, the same stands for other flammables and explosive materials, such as gasoline, cleaning solvents, and gun powder. I wouldn't store large quantities of these in my home either (in fact, I think it would violate my lease). Although the difference is the explosive nature of grenades, rockets, and such. While gasoline would surely be bad news in a house fire, a box of grenades would be even worse, I imagine, because they are designed to throw shrapnel everywhere. I'm no expert on this, so I could be wrong.
But if some guy lives on a ranch somewhere, and has some sort of certified weapons bunker, then I guess he should be allowed to get some sort of license to store explosives. I'm sure that probably already exists for folks that work with TNT. So if he is negligent in his weapons storage then I suppose that is his own stupidity and he will have to deal with the law accordingly.
There are other issues that come up though, like lets say this guy wants to buy a patriot missile battery, or something like that. Well, there's got to be a lot of hazardous materials involved with missiles and rockets, so what happens when the guy leaks rocket fuel into the groundwater and pollutes his neighbors wells? I think it is best for us to stick to handguns, semi-autos, and possibly full-autos. I'm not saying that you shouldn't be allowed to play with rocket launchers, but it should be in a controlled environment, such as my "civilian militia" suggestion. We shouldn't have to spend 10-weeks in basic training just to be involved in our national defense. It doesn't mean that we will become experts, but we can at least become educated about this kind of hardware. I don't think most people can just buy an M-1 Abrams and read the manual and be all set to fight a war.
Just My Humble Opinion...
-WW
"History will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest." -Gandhi
Yeah, yeah, I know there can be and are accidents with conventional firearms. But it is a question of how much risk can a reasonable person (like myself I hope) stand or be expected to stand. I am willing to trust my fellow gun owners with conventional firearms because it is very, very unlikely that an accident on their part will harm more than one person; not an entire block.
Quote "Somehow government decided that the Constitutional Bill of Rights has become the Bill of "Suggested" Rights and are to be rationed to the citizens as the power elite sees fit"
it seems tere are quite a few believers in the rights to own black rifles who dont really have an appreciation for what freedom means. free people dont automatically have an assumption that they will cause mayhem and murder because they own something different than what other people want them to have. that shrapnel argument is great. i think you should send that to hci, thats why they want to ban military type rifles and high cap magazines. they are designed to spray large amounts of lead everywhere. my friend grenades require a user too.
personally i dont see much of a need for a grenade but the belief we must hold is that the 2nd amendt is for defense against tyranny and self defense. the instant we fail to adress that, we have given up our right to own anything that doesnt meet someones definition of sporting purpose. trust me ,you wont be defining sporting purpose,it will be some pencil pusher who never touched a firearm and doesnt really understand why someone would need one anyway or some un flunkey.
theres a saying about trading rights for security.... definitely dont trade your rights for your neighbors security.
anyway destructive devices are a different ballgame than arms.i think the patriot missle battery is a bit different than arms as i think the weapons that would be used by the infantry soldier would constitute the militia weapons. for that reason i believe that handgrenades may well be allowable in spite their explosive device nature. larger bore guns such as artillery etc. are not the weapons of the militia but i would not give up my right to own them to make someone else happy. patriot missles or antiaircraft missiles are offensive in nature and there should be a ban on private individuals owning them. as much as id like to say that perhaps someone with a strella would have been able to stop 9-11 and it has a legit purpose, i cant, theres nothing anyone can do with it save mayhem and therefore it has no more purpose than a thermonuclear device.
i hope i made some sense
2gun, I may be wrong about the grenades, as I said I don't know exactly how they respond to fire. I know there is a fuse and a charge and that the case is supposed to turn to shrapnel. I don't know if fire is enough to cause them to detonate or if the pin must be pulled. I have heard that ammo, in small amounts, is pretty benign to fire. The casing may burst and the powder will ignite, but without a barrel to focus the energy on the bullet I have heard that a cartridge won't do much more than pop open in a fire.
"History will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest." -Gandhi
Here is a couple more of my cents...
In principle I agree with most of what is said here. I think the quote that I sympathize with the most came from Highball:
"I find no real drive to own,shoot,nor collect machine guns...but I will defend to the death YOUR right to...and any other decent,honest citizen in this country.And NO slimy politician has the Right to legislate that AWAY...."
I too have no desire to own a machine gun, but that doesn't mean nobody else shouldn't be allowed to own one. However, I don't necessarily agree that anybody who can afford it should be able to get it. Do we really want Bill Gates sitting on a stockpile of machine guns? Maybe its just me, but that just sits funny.
So anyway, I guess my point is that we need to draw a line somewhere. I wrestle with this a lot in my mind: How literally should we interpret "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"? Technically "arms" can mean a lot of things. I may not want to own a mortar, but what if my neighbor does? What if my neighbor is a crackpot? Maybe he isn't a felon and hasn't been institutionalized, but that doesn't mean he is decent and honest. I know a lot of indecent and dishonest people who are not criminals.
I think this is a good litmus test for pro-gunners. Where do they draw the line:
1. Single-Action revolver
2. Double-Action revolver
3. Semi-Auto pistol
4. Single-Shot rifle
5. Bolt/Lever-Action rifle
6. Semi-Auto rifle
7. Full-Auto rifle/pistol (UZI, MAC-10, AK-47, M-16)
8. Machine Gun (stationary, not hand-held. M-60, unless you are Rambo)
9. Grenades
10. RPG
11. Mortar
12. Rocket Launcher
13. TOW (guided rocket)
14. Missile
15. ICBM
16. Nuclear Missile
Realize, the further down the list you go the less popular support you will have. I think I would fall out at #7. Bottom line, this is a political issue, so in your heart you may agree that we should all have #16, but if you broadcast that publically then people will use that against you to take away #1.
-WW
"History will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest." -Gandhi
Actually numbers 1 thru 8 are considered to be arms, 9 thru 16 would be military ordinance. Even in the late 1800s the military had the ordinance (cannons and mortars). I do think that a person should be able to own any of 9 thru 16 with proper checks and balances. One last thought, How about term limits for the congress and senate. Get out and VOTE. Replace those who would hurt the country. Or run for office and make positive changes for ourselves.
Chris H.
Chris M Hunt
PJ
quote:Originally posted by WoundedWolf
I agree with tr fox. I don't agree with everything the NRA does, but now is the time for us to be united. I can't even get a 13 round pistol magazine, let alone a machine gun. I think we should focus on the greater enemy rather than squabble over these minor issues. Once the Brady Campaign is defeated, then we can start quibbling over what kind of machine gun we would like to own.
"History will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest." -Gandhi
If nobody seen you do it, how could you have done it. NRA Endowment Member, AF&AM
For just one examaple, I have purchased several of the Eagle 17 round 9mm S&W 5900 series mags. Although I have read posts whereas some GB members think they are junk, I have had excellent experiences with them. Until that is I bought 2 more from a mail-order company. One of them, as I had expected, functioned perfectlly. The other one would not. Careful inspection noted a slight difference in the top of the follower. The difference being that the good mags had a small "ear" or protrusion at a right angle to the mag body. I sent the bad mag, without the protrusion, back to the seller and got him to exchange it for another Eagle mag that HAD the above mentioned protrusion. I received it yesterday and it also works fine. But bottome line I usually try to avoid buying aftermarket mags unless it is one of the ones made by a company that actually makes the factory orginal mag for that partiuclar gun manufacturer. JMHO
Quote "Somehow government decided that the Constitutional Bill of Rights has become the Bill of "Suggested" Rights and are to be rationed to the citizens as the power elite sees fit"
However, as of Friday I am permanently moving to Nevada, HOORAY!!! So I might check out CheaperThanDirt at that time, when it will be legal for me to do so.
-WW
"...That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state."
-The Debates in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Virginia, on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution. June 27, 1788.