Yo Jipso! - Smart kid
 

"Mr. Luddite" wrote:
On 10/18/2014 12:53 AM, wrote:
On Fri, 17 Oct 2014 22:08:47 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 10/17/14 9:21 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 17 Oct 2014 15:20:26 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

If you live in Maryland and travel out of state, you can legally buy
hi-cap mags in another state and legally bring them back into Maryland,
so...in that regard, Maryland and California are not alike.


Like I said, the stupidest "assault weapons ban" I have ever seen.
Knowing what I do about Maryland politics, it makes me wonder who
bribed whom to get these loopholes in the law.



The bans have effective dates, with ownership prior to the effective
date "grandfathered" legal. So, while Maryland can ban the sale of
certain items such as hi-cap mags after a certain date, it can hardly
ban the purchase of those items out of state because they are not serial
numbered and date of purchase cannot be established.

Now, if you have a skinny barrel upper on a legal lower, and that lower
was manufactured/purchased after the ban date, you could be in trouble,
because the state can determine the "age" of that lower, possibly its
date of manufacture, and certainly the date you legally bought it from
an FFL.

So why even bother?

If there are millions of assault weapons exempted, it sounds like
politicians just trying to be able to say they are doing something

I suppose that is just what happens when you try to write a law that
is uncontitutional on it's face.



Here's how high capacity magazines are treated in Massachusetts. My
understanding is that if you have a pre-ban magazine and it's possession
is questioned the owner has to prove he/she owned it prior to 1994.

http://massguns.com/the-massachusetts-high-capacity-magazine-ban/

Napoleonic code. Guilty first.

Yo Jipso! - Smart kid
 

On 10/18/14 3:21 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Sat, 18 Oct 2014 14:41:16 -0400, Poco Loco
wrote:

On Sat, 18 Oct 2014 14:29:31 -0400, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Sat, 18 Oct 2014 10:12:29 -0400, Poco Loco
wrote:

Was looking at rifles yesterday. I like the Ruger Mini-14 Ranch Rifle.
http://www.ruger.com/products/mini14...le/models.html

But, it's not in the works right yet. Might go on a Christmas list
though.


===

Which model would you get? I like the look of the traditional
hardwood stocks but I'm sure the synthetics are more durable. For
hunting a 5 round mag seems like plenty and it cuts down the bulk -
not as nasty looking however.

I like the looks of the Model 5801

http://www.ruger.com/products/mini14...eets/5801.html

but I like the stainless on the 5805

http://www.ruger.com/products/mini14...eets/5805.html

I'm probably just old fashioned when it comes to stock material. Not
sure which magazines I'd get. I'd probably use it mostly for target
shooting (unless Tim invited me to come out and go hunting on his
farm).

===

For target shooting the Remington 700 in .223 is probably a better
choice:

http://www.remington.com/products/firearms/centerfire/model-700/model-700-sps-varmint.aspx



Nearly nine pounds empty, nearly 4' long with a 26" barrel, and bolt
action. Yeah, it's a perfect alternative to a Mini-14. :)

--
The new GOP credo:

Hate the people who are being oppressed,
love the people who are doing the oppressing.

Yo Jipso! - Smart kid
 

On Sat, 18 Oct 2014 15:21:23 -0400, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Sat, 18 Oct 2014 14:41:16 -0400, Poco Loco
wrote:

On Sat, 18 Oct 2014 14:29:31 -0400, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Sat, 18 Oct 2014 10:12:29 -0400, Poco Loco
wrote:

Was looking at rifles yesterday. I like the Ruger Mini-14 Ranch Rifle.
http://www.ruger.com/products/mini14...le/models.html

But, it's not in the works right yet. Might go on a Christmas list
though.


===

Which model would you get? I like the look of the traditional
hardwood stocks but I'm sure the synthetics are more durable. For
hunting a 5 round mag seems like plenty and it cuts down the bulk -
not as nasty looking however.

I like the looks of the Model 5801

http://www.ruger.com/products/mini14...eets/5801.html

but I like the stainless on the 5805

http://www.ruger.com/products/mini14...eets/5805.html

I'm probably just old fashioned when it comes to stock material. Not
sure which magazines I'd get. I'd probably use it mostly for target
shooting (unless Tim invited me to come out and go hunting on his
farm).

===

For target shooting the Remington 700 in .223 is probably a better
choice:

http://www.remington.com/products/firearms/centerfire/model-700/model-700-sps-varmint.aspx

It looks like all except the 'BDL' require a scope, which I don't
want. The 'BDL' appears to be discontinued in the .223 caliber.

Yo Jipso! - Smart kid
 

On 10/18/14 3:43 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Sat, 18 Oct 2014 15:21:23 -0400, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Sat, 18 Oct 2014 14:41:16 -0400, Poco Loco
wrote:

On Sat, 18 Oct 2014 14:29:31 -0400, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Sat, 18 Oct 2014 10:12:29 -0400, Poco Loco
wrote:

Was looking at rifles yesterday. I like the Ruger Mini-14 Ranch Rifle.
http://www.ruger.com/products/mini14...le/models.html

But, it's not in the works right yet. Might go on a Christmas list
though.


===

Which model would you get? I like the look of the traditional
hardwood stocks but I'm sure the synthetics are more durable. For
hunting a 5 round mag seems like plenty and it cuts down the bulk -
not as nasty looking however.

I like the looks of the Model 5801

http://www.ruger.com/products/mini14...eets/5801.html

but I like the stainless on the 5805

http://www.ruger.com/products/mini14...eets/5805.html

I'm probably just old fashioned when it comes to stock material. Not
sure which magazines I'd get. I'd probably use it mostly for target
shooting (unless Tim invited me to come out and go hunting on his
farm).

===

For target shooting the Remington 700 in .223 is probably a better
choice:

http://www.remington.com/products/firearms/centerfire/model-700/model-700-sps-varmint.aspx

It looks like all except the 'BDL' require a scope, which I don't
want. The 'BDL' appears to be discontinued in the .223 caliber.



Any decent gunsmith could fix you up with a Williams rear peep sight and
an NECG band front sight, or something similar.

--
The new GOP credo:

Hate the people who are being oppressed,
love the people who are doing the oppressing.

Yo Jipso! - Smart kid
 

On 10/18/14 4:08 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 18 Oct 2014 13:17:02 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:


Oh, how did Scott avoid indictment? A "deal" was made between his
lawyers, and there was an agreement to pay a huge fine.

Something like 3 times what they say he took.



In the good old days, you could have bought all of SW Florida swampland
for that.

--
The new GOP credo:

Hate the people who are being oppressed,
love the people who are doing the oppressing.

Yo Jipso! - Smart kid
 

On 10/18/2014 11:27 AM, wrote:
On Sat, 18 Oct 2014 07:29:32 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 10/18/14 1:06 AM, wrote:

It was not seen as a joke here. The news tried to make a big deal of
"fangate" until they finally read the rules,

Personally I think Scott missed a great line

"Mr Crist is here with cool air blowing up his front side while he is
blowing smoke up the voter's backside"


Scott making any comments about another politician's honesty is
laughable. Mr. "Biggest Fine Ever - 75 Fifth Amendment Pleas"

Then you have Crist being guilty of taking bribes to appoint judges
and the fact that 3 of his closest advisers went to jail for
corruption. He also has flip flopped on just about every issue,
depending on which way the wind is blowing.
He is backed by the biggest ambulance chaser in the state. That is
troubling right there.
The whole medical pot issue is only on the ballot to get more
democrats to the polls in a year where there is not much to vote for.

Scott hasn't seemed to rob anyone lately and he has done a fairly good
job guiding the state through the recovery.

I still wish there was another viable choice.

I voted for the Libertarian and I am letting others pick their
favorite Menendez brother. There is a good chance that a lot of the
pot voters may do the same.


Thanks to O'Bama's help, Scott should enjoy another term as Gov. of the
great state of Florida.

Yo Jipso! - Smart kid
 

On 10/18/2014 10:12 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Fri, 17 Oct 2014 18:58:39 -0700 (PDT), Tim
wrote:

On Friday, October 17, 2014 6:12:24 PM UTC-7, wrote:
On Fri, 17 Oct 2014 12:45:11 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"

wrote:



Gee, Greg, I simply don't know. If I were you, I'd be more concerned

about the fact that your current governor is a crook whose company had

to pay the largest fine for fraud in the history of the United States

and who pled the Fifth Amendment what, 75 times?



Plus, he's not a fan of fans.







It turns out Scott was right. Fans were specifically against the

debate rules.

I totally enjoyed my M1A and my 1987 M1 garrand, as well as my Hakim.

Only thing I have right now in high powered rifles chambereed .30 is a collection of .303 Lee's

Was looking at rifles yesterday. I like the Ruger Mini-14 Ranch Rifle.
http://www.ruger.com/products/mini14...le/models.html

But, it's not in the works right yet. Might go on a Christmas list
though.

Santa came early to my house.

Yo Jipso! - Smart kid
 

On Sat, 18 Oct 2014 16:21:09 -0400, Harrold wrote:

On 10/18/2014 10:12 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Fri, 17 Oct 2014 18:58:39 -0700 (PDT), Tim
wrote:

On Friday, October 17, 2014 6:12:24 PM UTC-7, wrote:
On Fri, 17 Oct 2014 12:45:11 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"

wrote:



Gee, Greg, I simply don't know. If I were you, I'd be more concerned

about the fact that your current governor is a crook whose company had

to pay the largest fine for fraud in the history of the United States

and who pled the Fifth Amendment what, 75 times?



Plus, he's not a fan of fans.







It turns out Scott was right. Fans were specifically against the

debate rules.

I totally enjoyed my M1A and my 1987 M1 garrand, as well as my Hakim.

Only thing I have right now in high powered rifles chambereed .30 is a collection of .303 Lee's

Was looking at rifles yesterday. I like the Ruger Mini-14 Ranch Rifle.
http://www.ruger.com/products/mini14...le/models.html

But, it's not in the works right yet. Might go on a Christmas list
though.

Santa came early to my house.

No kiddin'!!

Yo Jipso! - Smart kid
 

On 10/18/14 4:19 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 18 Oct 2014 15:32:06 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 10/18/14 3:21 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Sat, 18 Oct 2014 14:41:16 -0400, Poco Loco
wrote:

On Sat, 18 Oct 2014 14:29:31 -0400, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Sat, 18 Oct 2014 10:12:29 -0400, Poco Loco
wrote:

Was looking at rifles yesterday. I like the Ruger Mini-14 Ranch Rifle.
http://www.ruger.com/products/mini14...le/models.html

But, it's not in the works right yet. Might go on a Christmas list
though.


===

Which model would you get? I like the look of the traditional
hardwood stocks but I'm sure the synthetics are more durable. For
hunting a 5 round mag seems like plenty and it cuts down the bulk -
not as nasty looking however.

I like the looks of the Model 5801

http://www.ruger.com/products/mini14...eets/5801.html

but I like the stainless on the 5805

http://www.ruger.com/products/mini14...eets/5805.html

I'm probably just old fashioned when it comes to stock material. Not
sure which magazines I'd get. I'd probably use it mostly for target
shooting (unless Tim invited me to come out and go hunting on his
farm).

===

For target shooting the Remington 700 in .223 is probably a better
choice:

http://www.remington.com/products/firearms/centerfire/model-700/model-700-sps-varmint.aspx



Nearly nine pounds empty, nearly 4' long with a 26" barrel, and bolt
action. Yeah, it's a perfect alternative to a Mini-14. :)

A 700 is not a "run and shoot" gun. It was designed for serious target
shooters or "varmint" hunters as the name implies.



I appreciate that. Herring is, I believe, older than I am, and has "coke
bottle" eyeglasses, and wants to shoot, as he stated in a newer post,
without a scope. That should be an interesting experiment in eyeball
physics, what with a target in the distance and the long sight radius of
that rifle sans a scope.


--
The new GOP credo:

Hate the people who are being oppressed,
love the people who are doing the oppressing.

Yo Jipso! - Smart kid
 

On 10/18/14 5:38 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 18 Oct 2014 16:12:37 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 10/18/14 4:08 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 18 Oct 2014 13:17:02 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:


Oh, how did Scott avoid indictment? A "deal" was made between his
lawyers, and there was an agreement to pay a huge fine.

Something like 3 times what they say he took.



In the good old days, you could have bought all of SW Florida swampland
for that.

How "old"? The 30s?
By 2000 Florida real estate was a hot commodity and the swamps were
protected wetlands


The good old days I was referring to were back in the mid 1920s and then
again in the 1950s through the early 1960s. Even on the other coast of
Florida, you could buy one hell of an estate in the late 1950s for very
little money. I know this because the first time I actually went to
Florida was in 1959 over the Christmas school break as the guest of my
then-girlfriend's family, and her dad was looking over some property
when we were down there. He was considering a beachfront failed orange
"farm" north of Ft. Lauderdale, and while I don't remember the numbers,
I do recall they were quite low for a lot of acreage. During the most
recent crash, you could buy oceanfront high rise condos for 10 to 20
cents on the dollar. But those days are over, what with all the South
Americans taking over that area.

I suppose the prices will nosedive again when the aquifer dries up.

--
The new GOP credo:

Hate the people who are being oppressed,
love the people who are doing the oppressing.