I like the idea of having a H&K .45 USP SS
at my side with laser sighting.
But none of those beats a 7mm magnum at 100-200 yards in the hands of a sniper with a high powered scope. None but the best kevlar in the world would stop that round inside of 100 yards.

So first ya gotta get to me.

Your right to (not) own guns is already a foregone conclusion but when that facist ass steals the election, be prepared to turn in your vocal cords too. Enjoy this forum while it's still allowed (and while its admin is still a free man). And while your right to "vote" may still be intact, your right to have the candidate with the most votes win the election is obviously already a thing of the past. Never mind that document that guys like Thomas Jefferson & George Washington helped write, the liberals don't like and apparently they know better than the afformentioned two gentlemen who built this country from the trenches of war up.

http://www.alienzoo.com/features/m/200011160001.cfm

It has been speculated that this entire election cluster fuck has been orchestrated as a means to allow the New World Order’s One World Government to take complete and silent control of the US. By allowing the NWO sympathizer Al Gore to become president we will loose our national sovereignty. Not to say that electing George W. would be any better. There are forces working behind the scenes, at every level, within our government to see that this becomes a reality. This isn’t some paranoid “conspiracy theory.” During the last eight years Clinton has passed more executive orders in regards to FEMA and national emergencies than any other president. Could this election (or the possible civil uprising after the results) constitute a national emergency? Some of these executive orders were enacted to illegally and silently chisel away our constitutional rights. All of our constitutional rights would be suspended in the event of the president declaring a national emergency. The ideals of the NWO are not some euphoric, “Star Trek”-like, global alliance to harbor peace, personal freedoms, and civil rights. The One World Government would like to see us unarmed and weak, much like in Nazi Germany or the (Peoples’ – yeah, right) Republic of China. This will happen unless the people of this once-great nation stop it. Unfortunately as a population we are divided on nearly every issue (be it politics, religion, or even food preferences.) This is good for the NWO – divide and conquer. George Orwell may only have been off my 17 years...

Celebrate the short week.
And the even shoter threds of sanity.

Currently the constitution, that EVERY elected official is sworn in to uphold, is being systematically destroyed by the left and there is no evidence to prove this otherwise..

The standards change again.

But for the left its just business as usual. Does anyone remember impeachment?

Only through judicial/jury activism, can the liberals get there fundamentally flawed ideas ram-rodded through, to destroy the very things we, as Americans consider sacred...liberty, freedom, justice.

Again, as proved over and over again, the liberals will not respect the laws
that are needed for this great republic to remain in order. Clearly it is not their intent to respect the laws, or respect any portion of law that will not represent their side in the pursuit of there goals. The left has not respected the constitution or the rights of honest people for years, and nothing has presented itself to think that they ever had the " will of the people " in mind when any decisions have been made.

For years, only through the court system, has the agenda of liberalism been able to be "forced" on to the unwilling recipients of the United States of America. Too many Supreme Court cases, federal and state level, present themselves as proof. Only through deceitful practices, using people, criminals, the elderly, and now children, as pawns in there game, are they able to scare up support through doomsday rhetoric, to get there ideas shoved down our throats. People who oppose this form of "activism" are regarded as uncaring and hateful.

Lets look at why, we who accept responsibility for our actions don't look for government handouts. We have jobs, have gone to school, made personal sacrifices, to get where we
are today. We do not need to have rules passed to tell us the difference between right and wrong. We do not need the government, or any off-chute of said group, to regulate how we raise our children, nor do we want any interference in our homes, where we live. Being respectable people, we can take care of our own, and others in the community. We do not need a program stipulating how or when we need to do things, or take care of ourselves.

These things are clearly spelled out in the constitution, but only one side seems to respect the rule of law, which only stands to further the gap between people who want to live there life free, and those who would rather be a serf.

at what point in american history did the elected officials stop respecting the laws that they took an oath and swore to uphold?

who was the first american offical to defy all respect for the rule of law?

Vermont State Rep. Fred Maslack has read the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution as well as Vermont's own Constitution very carefully, and his strict interpretation of these documents is popping some eyeballs in New England and elsewhere.

Maslack recently proposed a bill to register non-gun owners and require them to pay a $500 fee to the state. Thus Vermont would become the first state to require a permit for the luxury of going about unarmed and assess a fee of $500 for the privilege of not owning a gun.

Maslack read the "militia" phrase of the Second Amendment as not only affirming the right of the individual citizen to bear arms, but as a clear mandate to do so. He believes that universal gun ownership was advocated by the Framers of the Constitution as an antidote to a "monopoly of force" by the government as well as criminals.

Vermont's constitution states explicitly that "the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and the State" and those persons who "conscientiously scrupulous of bearing arms" shall be required to "pay such equivalent." Clearly, says Maslack, Vermonters have a constitutional obligation to arm themselves so that they are capable of responding to "any situation that may arise".

Under the bill, adults who choose not to own a firearm would be required to register their name, address, Social Security Number, and driver's license number with the state. "There is a legitimate government interest in knowing who is prepared to defend the state should they be asked to do so," Maslack says.

Vermont already boasts a high rate of gun ownership along with the least restrictive laws of any state - it's currently the only state that allows a citizen to carry a concealed firearm without a permit. This combination of plenty of guns and few laws regulating them has resulted in a crime rate that is the third lowest in the nation.

Thank you Chad! Jomama please-PLEASE sell your Ruger. No offense dude but they just arn't good weapons. Sell it add 100 or 200 and get a decent gun. I say a Glock or SIG. Just my 2cents worth.

If you really need new MAGAZINES try Bills gun shop in Lilydale or the gun shop on 48 and chicago in MPLS.