February 3, 2009

The New M&P 15, Smith & Wesson

Posted in Uncategorized tagged , , , , , at 6:13 pm by Rid

mp152

The above is a picture of my new M&P 15, manufactured by Smith & Wesson. This is my review of this weapon. I have had several thousand hits on my review of the KHAR 40 and XD 40.  So I have decided to review some of the other weapons in my arsenal of democracy.

I DO NOT ADVERTISE. I DO NOT TAKE ANY CONTRIBUTIONS FROM READERS OR CERTAINLY NOT MANUFACTURERS. I REVIEW WEAPONS THAT I HAVE PURCHASED WITH MY OWN MONEY.

The M&P 15 shoots the Soviet block 5.45 x 39 round. I chose this weapon over the 5.56/223 because, frankly, the round is (was) a hell-of-a-lot cheaper. I purchased my 15 in November of 2008, ditto for the ammo. I bought 10,000 rounds at .19 cents per round.  Most of my ammo sources are now over .26 cents.

The price gap between the  556 and the 545 has narrowed, but still make sense for you to choose the aforementioned.

5.45 x 39 Russian Military Surplus

5.45 x 39 Russian Military Surplus

Regarding ballistics, there is some good source material on the web, but you will find that side by side comparisons between the 545 and 556 are very comparable. This post is a work in progress and I will post data as it comes available (let me know what your experience was.)

If you have fired the 556 then you have fired the 545. After the break-in period, I have had no problems with the weapon. I did have 2 failures to feed in the first 200 rounds. But my buddy who purchased the exact same weapon had zero f.t.f. problems – just my luck.

MORE TO COME>>>>>>>>

Republican Senators – Get Some NADS! Stop Daschle!

Posted in Uncategorized tagged , , at 2:57 pm by Rid

“Make no mistake, tax cheaters cheat us all, and the IRS should enforce our laws to the letter. ” TOM DASCHLE

The following video is from a speech Daschle gave in 1998 admonishing tax cheats.

CSPAN Video Link

Obama’s Senate Bill S.2433, Global Poverty Act

Posted in Uncategorized tagged , , , , , , at 5:45 am by Rid

No Wonder Guns Rights Advocates Are Concerned About Obama’s Agenda!

Candidate’s Global Poverty Act could be a veiled threat to U.S. taxpayers

Back in March, I posed a few questions to voters about Barack Obama. I asked “What is Obama’s real agenda? What does his extremely liberal leadership mean for America?” The answers are beginning to show themselves. Obama’s campaign theme is “change.” Folks, if he’s elected president, we may all be working for “change,” pocket-change.

“I believe in the power of the African-American religious tradition to spur social change,” Obama has asserted. He also says his faith has led him to question “the idolatry of the free market.” Now it appears that a President Obama’s foreign and domestic policies are much like his previous church’s Afrocentric doctrine he once pledged to uphold. Americans will pay a hefty price. It’s not too hard to figure that trading Iraq for third-world countries tips the scale in the wrong direction.

Yes, some of Obama’s African priorities are noble, such as fighting AIDS and genocide. But how much U.S. aid, resources and presidential time would he devote to them? How much is enough and at what cost?

The picture clears when we look at the Global Poverty Act , Senate Bill S.2433 sponsored by none other than Obama. If this bill passes in the Senate in September, Barack Obama and the U.N. may well be on their way to having their hands in the U.S. taxpayer pockets. Read on.

The bill requires the president to develop and implement a comprehensive strategy to advance a foreign policy objective of promoting the reduction of global poverty, the elimination of extreme global poverty, and the achievement of the Millennium Development Goal of reducing by one-half the proportion of people worldwide, between 1990 and 2015, who live on less than $1 per day. It also includes guidelines for what the strategy should include — from foreign aid, trade, economic development and debt relief to working with the international community and leveraging the participation of businesses and nongovernmental organizations.

The bill requires that the president’s strategy include specific and measurable goals, efforts to be undertaken, benchmarks and timetables. The president would also be required to report back to Congress on progress made in the implementation of the global poverty reduction strategy.

A release from the Obama Senate office about the bill declares, “In 2000, the U.S. joined more than 180 countries at the United Nations Millennium Summit and vowed to reduce global poverty by 2015. We are halfway towards this deadline, and it is time the United States makes it a priority of our foreign policy to meet this goal and help those who are struggling day to day.”

The bill defines the term “Millennium Development Goals” as the goals set out in the United Nations Millennium Declaration, General Assembly Resolution 55/2 (2000). These goals call for “the eradication of poverty by redistribution of wealth and land,” cancellation of “the debts of developing countries,” and a fair distribution of Earth’s resources.”

Does this smack of socialism to you?

They have a formula prescribed for developed countries, the U.S., to contribute. The U.N. says that “the commitment to provide 0.7 percent of gross national product as official development assistance was first made 35 years ago in a General Assembly resolution, but it has been reaffirmed repeatedly over the years, including at the 2002 global financing for development conference in Monterrey, Mexico.

However, in 2004, total aid from the industrialized countries totaled just $78.6 billion — or about 0.25 percent of their collective GNP. So they want more money.

The amount of money that could be extorted from U.S. taxpayers by this bill is debatable, but sizeable. Some say $210 billion more, between now and 2015, than what we’ve already contributed through foreign aid. Some have the 13-year figures at $845 billion. Suffice it to say, U.S. contributions toward these goals are substantial. The U.S. is the largest source of foreign direct investment in developing countries, the largest recipient of developing country exports, and the largest provider of development and humanitarian assistance to developing countries.

The Global Poverty Act, by itself, adds little of value, but, in the context of the development progress and the heavy U.S. engagement in contributing to it, it could imply U.S. support for the broader goal that developed countries should provide 0.7 percent of their national wealth annually to developing countries.

Herein lies the danger of this bill and the possible burden to taxpayers. Strict adherence to the MDGs or the goal of eliminating world poverty would leave little discretion for the U.S. to distribute or withhold aid based on country performance or political objectives.

Before September when Congress reconvenes, we need to tell our senators we need to solve poverty and hunger in this country first. We need to tell Obama that this is the example we need to set for the world to see. Vote “NO” on Senate Bill S.2433.

In the hands of a would-be President Obama who, through his faith, questions what he calls the “idolatry of the free market,” who seeks “economic justice” and who champions ridding the world of aids and genocide, the Global Poverty Act is a wad of gum far bigger than we want to chew, and it’ll keep getting bigger. Handing out taxpayer dollars to third world countries only treats the symptoms of poverty and not the causes.

Excerpts taken from “The Global Poverty Act: The Wrong Track for U.S. Aid Policy” by Ambassador Terry Miller, director of the Center for International Trade and Economics, and Brett D. Schaefer, Jay Kingham Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs in the Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom at The Heritage Foundation.

February 1, 2009

England’s death by 1000 cuts – Multiculturalism

Posted in Darwin Awards, Video tagged , , , , , at 10:32 pm by Rid

This is what happens when you sit back on your ass and let liberals shred your rights and laws.

England, sadly, you are getting the government  you deserve.

Concealed.

June 27, 2008

2nd Amendment VICTORY!

Posted in Uncategorized at 3:30 pm by Rid

(For entire SCOTUS ruling, click here)

In a First, High Court
Affirms Gun Rights
By JESS BRAVIN and SUSAN DAVIS
June 27, 2008; Page A1

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court ruled that the Constitution guarantees individuals the right to keep handguns in the home, ending a debate about the Second Amendment’s 18th-century language while opening new battles over the politically charged issues of guns, crime and violence.
For the first time, the Supreme Court affirms the individual right to own guns. Gun deaths in the U.S. average 80 a day.

In a 5-4 opinion by Justice Antonin Scalia, the court struck down perhaps the nation’s toughest gun law, a 1976 District of Columbia ordinance that effectively bans handguns and required that rifles be disassembled or disabled by trigger locks in the home.

The decision stopped short of invalidating other local, state and federal gun regulations. The court also declined to hand legislators a blueprint for permissible gun regulations, acknowledging that the contours of the Second Amendment right, like other constitutional rights, will have to be mapped in litigation over the years to come.

Gun-rights advocates said their efforts will now swing toward challenging handgun bans in other cities, licensing laws and other statutes, such as zoning laws that ban gun stores. Among the issues that the court left to future litigation: whether the government can restrict other kinds of firearms besides handguns, specifically assault weapons, which have been the focus of numerous legislative battles at the state and federal level.

Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Handgun Violence, one of the NRA’s chief opponents, said there could be a silver lining. Because the decision eliminates the specter of gun confiscation, advocates will be more willing to come to the table and discuss other gun-control issues.

Reflecting the passion and political importance of gun owners in an election that could be decided by independent voters, both presidential candidates immediately embraced the opinion — while shading their comments to emphasize different portions of the decision that appealed to their varying bases.
[

Candidates React

“Unlike the elitist view that believes Americans cling to guns out of bitterness, today’s ruling recognizes that gun ownership is a fundamental right — sacred, just as the right to free speech and assembly,” said Republican John McCain, seeking to join the gun enthusiasts’ celebration while warning that the decision still left open the chance that lawmakers could enact firearms regulations that stopped short of an outright ban. “This ruling does not mark the end of our struggle.”

His Democratic opponent, Barack Obama, was more restrained, saying that he “always believed that the Second Amendment protects the right of individuals to bear arms.” He emphasized that while the ruling protects a core right and “the D.C. gun ban went too far,” the protection “is not absolute and subject to reasonable regulations enacted by local communities to keep their streets safe.”

The Bush administration sought simultaneously to endorse the decision while assuring the public that existing federal gun regulations would remain intact.

“As a longstanding advocate of the rights of gun owners in America, I applaud the Supreme Court’s historic decision today confirming what has always been clear in the Constitution: the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear firearms,” the president said in a statement. He urged the District of Columbia to “swiftly move” to protect residents’ Second Amendment rights.

In its own statement, however, the Justice Department noted that the court said some restrictions on gun possession were permissible. The Justice Department said it “will continue to defend vigorously the constitutionality, under the Second Amendment, of all existing federal firearms laws.”
[Second Amendment]
Associated Press
Pro-gun advocates and supporters of the District of Columbia’s firearms ban demonstrated outside the Supreme Court in March.

The court’s decision appears to strike a balance on gun ownership that reflects the views of the general public. A majority of Americans, 59%, said they oppose laws that ban the sale of handguns, according to an April poll conducted by the Pew Research Center. Yet a similar number, 58%, said it is more important to place controls on gun ownership versus the 37% that said it is more important to protect the right to own a gun.

Despite the opinion’s broad language, it was unclear if it would apply beyond the District of Columbia, the federal enclave whose unique status as the seat of government makes it part of no state. Although the district’s elected City Council operates autonomously under home-rule legislation approved by Congress, Washington’s municipal government is, as a constitutional matter, part of the federal government.

In a footnote, Justice Scalia noted that the issue known as “incorporation” — whether federal rights also are binding on state governments — wasn’t before the court, and observed that prior cases “reaffirmed that the Second Amendment applies only to the Federal Government.” In a 1997 book, he suggested views even more ominous for gun enthusiasts, writing that “properly understood, [the amendment] is no limitation upon arms control by the states.”

For Dick Heller, the security officer who challenged the ordinance, the court’s 5-4 ruling means district officials must issue him a license to keep a handgun in his Washington home. But it doesn’t necessarily allow him to buy another one in the district — or require the city to allow gun stores to operate within its boundaries. District officials, noting that the decades-old gun ban was widely popular within their city, pledged to do all they can to limit firearms in their jurisdiction.

Three activists from Virginia cheered the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision on the District of Columbia’s gun ban Thursday.

Elsewhere, cities with tough gun laws seized on the decision’s focus on Washington. Because it only concerns the District of Columbia, the ruling “does not apply to state and local governments,” said Benna Solomon, a deputy corporation counsel for Chicago. Chicago has one of the strictest gun regulations. City officials said they are expecting a challenge but would continue to enforce its handgun ban until ordered by a court to cease.

States with assault-weapons bans or licensing requirements for gun owners said that they felt confident their laws wouldn’t have to change as a result of the ruling. “The decision affirms the right of states to regulate gun ownership in order to preserve public safety,” said David Wald, a spokesman for New Jersey’s attorney general.

The village president of Morton Grove, Richard Krier, said that lawyers were reviewing the community’s ordinance following the decision and that he had “every intention” of complying with it.

Morton Grove has banned the possession of handguns in the homes of its 22,000 residents since 1981, as well as other dangerous weapons.

Delivered on the last day of the Supreme Court’s term, the 5-4 decision underscored the central place the court plays in the nation’s politics and culture as well as its law. For the third time this month, a major constitutional issue was decided by a single vote — that of Justice Anthony Kennedy, the maverick conservative who earlier sided with the court’s liberals to extend habeas corpus rights to Guantanamo detainees and bar the execution of child rapists. Today, he lined up on the right to hold that each household in Washington may arm itself with deadly weapons to fend off intruders.

Gun-Right Origins

Justice Scalia’s opinion was a 64-page tour from the obscure origins of gun rights in the fratricidal wars of 17th-century England through the violent struggles that defined America in its colonial revolt against the British crown, its division over slavery and the subsequent repression of freed blacks. It continued through to the modern era, where battles against foreign invasion and between internal factions have given way to urban crime.

“By the time of the founding, the right to have arms had become fundamental for English subjects,” Justice Scalia wrote, in an opinion joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito. “The Second Amendment, like the First and Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right.”

The Second Amendment, in its entirety, reads: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

That phrasing has led to countless debates over what precisely is being protected — a right of states and their citizens to organize militias, obviating the need for a standing army; a right of individuals to arm themselves, in case they may someday need to form a militia; or some other construction involving either or both personal and collective rights.

The Supreme Court last heard a Second Amendment case in 1939, when it upheld a federal ban on interstate transport of short-barreled shotguns. Since sawed-off shotguns had no “reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument,” the court found then. Ever since, most courts have seen the amendment as providing for weapons possession in connection with service in a militia, or its modern descendant, the state-run National Guard.

Justice Scalia, however, wrote that his opinion was consistent with the 1939 ruling, which he saw as holding only that not all guns were covered by the Second Amendment. Otherwise, he wrote, why would the court focus on “the character of the weapon rather than simply note that the two crooks were not militiamen?”

Gamut of Restrictions

The court’s liberal wing strenuously disagreed, offering its own historical construction that emphasized a gamut of restrictions on firearms over the same swath of time and asserting that the 1939 case, which itself examined precedents on weapons possession dating to colonial times, had settled the matter.

Yet the lead dissent, by Justice John Paul Stevens, did not dispute that the Second Amendment protects an individual right. Rather, he wrote, the question was the “scope of that right,” which protected militia service but left additional regulation to the judgment of the legislature. The Second Amendment’s drafting history revealed the founders’ “concern about the potential threat to state sovereignty that a federal standing army would pose,” something that could be checked by state militias, he wrote, joined by Justices David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer.

–Gary Fields and Louise Radnofsky contributed to this article.

Next page

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.