plumbum

am I the only one here who thinks backing the sizing die off is the free solution to a $100 problem? we have yet to establish that the headspace is too large. we only know it is somewhat imperfect. it may well be perfectly serviceable. how much work is being done when resizing the fired brass? perhaps very little.

switch bolts. or set the barrel back. or, don't size your brass all the way, unscrew the die a 1/4 turn or so.

how was the old crown?

and that they have no "legitimate sporting use."

FYI the REAL cause for "global warming" is attached. GW2.bmp

WITH AN AR-15!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Yay! Hopefully this means that cheap mil-surp unfit for combat will be coming our way again!

http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/proudwhite.asp

cyrillic. some of the yugos use the cyrillic alphabet. could be serbian too, but probably not only because they are less common. have your friend look at yugo mausers on gunbroker and see if that does not help.

yugoslavian

sell it on ebay as a NATO trigger guard.

you left out the establishment part. that's the rubric used against prayer in school and Christmas stuff. by espousing one type of prayer, or Christmas, the reasoning is that the state is endorsing that religion. I think the analysis has gone far awry, but that's the idea.

no problem, I am glad to contribute what I can to this forum. this stuff really is tricky. it looks so simple, but there is a lot of context that guides the application of the laws. as to the first amendment, there are even religious restrictions. if not, there would be nothing stopping families from stoning their daughters for being unchaste - that is an old, longstanding, undisputed religious tenet for some folks. here, we prohibit that as murder. so the analysis for the first amendment is not that no law can be made, as it certainly can, and was. the point is how do we define "restrict"? and the answer is "very carefully" I think you are correct. some people use the word significant, some would use reasonable, or both. for example, prohibiting (traditional) felons from gun ownership, based on a 1,000 year old tradition of law, is a reasonable restriction that does not significantly infringe upon the second amendment. same as not allowing prisoners to own weapons. or lunatics. this stuff is hard to keep straight.

the first amendment never was absolute. think about it - how could there be libel if freedom of speech was absolute? or slander? violation of a veral contract? there always have been rstrictions on speech. and firearms, too. even when the Constitution was written. not all slopes are slippery. my take on the transcript is pretty good. kennedy is the frightening one right now, and he didn't say anything scary yet. so far, so good.

you don't have to agree for it to be true. reading the constitution according to the reasonableness of the time it was written is not a "living constitution" thing. the "living document" idea is interpreting according to today's standards and definitions. you are correct of course that creating a reasonability standard for the second amendment would have been unacceptable, that's why Scalia offered an alternative. which is that there is reasonableness inherent in the Constitution, which can be known from the time it was drafted, and that reasonable application of the second amendment is not an infringement. as a "strict constructionist" perhaps you can explain whether the first amendment freedoms of speech apply to handwriting or the internet. which is not "spech" or the "press." a "press," strictly construed, is a printing machine. "speech," strictly construed, is speaking. please explain. "JUSTICE SCALIA: Well, number one, I believe in moderation, and I don't believe in strict construction, I am not a strict constructionist, I'm sorry to tell you that. I believe legal texts should be interpreted neither strictly nor loosely, they should be interpreted reasonably. And the example I often use is that if you really are serious about being a strict constructionist, you would say that the First Amendment would not be offended by Congress' censoring handwritten mail, because the First Amendment only says, you know, it guarantees freedom of speech and of the press, and a handwritten letter is neither speech nor press if you want to be strict about it. But of course the First Amendment has always been understood as protecting freedom of expression, and I think that is a reasonable interpretation of it, and that's the interpretation I apply. Which is why, you know, I was the fifth vote in the flag-burning case, which said this was an expression of contempt, just one way of expressing it, and you can't have a law against an expression of contempt." you may think your understanding of con law is better than scalia's, but I respectfully suggest that is highly unlikely to be true. I know that mine is not. he's in a pretty small club when it comes to con law. this stuff is tricky, it's not easy to understand, and it's easy to be misled by buzzwords like "strict construction." I also thought it sounded like a good idea until I really thought about it.

so does shotgunnews.com

not true. not true at all. there are reasonable restrictions on the first amendment, voting, and everything else. and the Constitution still stands. you mean Stevens, perhaps? he was not showing the absurdity of the government's case, he was trying to see if Gura was making the absurd argument that there can be no restrictions at all on firearms. Gura doesn't want the Supreme Court to write the word "reasonably" into every second amendment amalysis; we already have enough trouble with the rational, intermediate, and strict scrutiny standards. that's why he says "we don't know what this 'reasonable' standard looks like." here is more of that analysis, which shows Gura accepting a reasonable restriction concept inherent, but not expressed, in the constitutional analysis: JUSTICE STEVENS: So we can -- consistent with your view, we can simply read this: "It shall not be reasonably infringed"? MR. GURA: Well, yes, Your Honor, to some extent, except the word "unreasonable" is the one that troubles us, because we don't know what this unreasonable standard looks like. JUSTICE SCALIA: You wouldn't put it that way. You would just say it is not being infringed if reasonable limitations are being placed upon it. MR. GURA: That's another way to look at it, Your Honor. Certainly - CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: -- you would define reasonable in light of the restrictions that existed at the time the amendment was adopted. MR. GURA: Those restrictions. this all has to do with standards of review and the way the law is applied. it's probably more important to lawyers and judges than anybody else. but it is important.

if my post upset you, don't read the transcript, as EVERYBODY agreed machine guns could be prohibited.

you seemed to miss the following part, on pages 75-76 of the transcript. JUSTICE STEVENS: Let me ask a question are you, in effect, reading the amendment to say that the right shall not be unreasonably infringed instead of shall not be infringed? MR. GURA: There is that inherent aspect to every right in the Constitution. JUSTICE STEVENS: So we can -- consistent with your view, we can simply read this: "It shall not be reasonably infringed"? MR. GURA: Well, yes, Your Honor, to some extent, except the word "unreasonable" is the one that troubles us, because we don't know what this unreasonable standard looks like. JUSTICE SCALIA: You wouldn't put it that way. You would just say it is not being infringed if reasonable limitations are being placed upon it. MR. GURA: That's another way to look at it, Your Honor. Certainly - CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: -- you would define reasonable in light of the restrictions that existed at the time the amendment was adopted. MR. GURA: Those restrictions. CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: You know you can't take it into the marketplace was one restriction so that would be we are talking about lineal descendents of the arms but presumably there are lineal descendents of the restrictions as well. MR. GURA: Framing our practices would inform the kind of restrictions that would be accepted, but even beyond that, they also form the contours of the right. In the Fifth Circuit, for example, we have the Emerson decision, Alpha Seven decision, and the way that court examines the Second Amendment, when they get these felon and possession bans and drug addict and possession challenges, what they say is, these people simply are outside the right, as historically understood in our country, and that's a very important aspect to remember, that the Second Amendment is part of our common law tradition, that we look to framing our practices in traditional understandings of that right, as to both the reasonableness of the restrictions that are available as well as the contours." so, they did discuss the "shall not be infringed" thing. yes indeed, it should, but it won't. there are some folks out there who see "shall not be infringed" and stop right there. they refuse to look at the bigger picture because they don't like it. there were restrictions on guns at the time of the Constitution. before, during, and after. apparently, they were not seen as an infringement. but what would the drafters of the Constitution know? they only wrote the thing. as was carefully and comprehensively explained by experts in the field, who are friendly to our goals, "shall not be infringed" did not and does not mean "shall not be regulated in any way." "shall not be infringed" allows some regulation, including prohibiting certain persons from owning any firearms at all; that's the way it was meant by the people who wrote the Constitution, and their opinion trumps all others. felons were not allowed to keep or bear arms. well, the militia act post-dates the Constitution, so it is not useful in analyzing the Constitutional language. so they do know about federal law. and now, so do you, at least a little more about the militia act.

those days are over . I can get 2 or 3 MOA with new factory fresh ammo.

good ammo, good brass, load like any other military brass. there was some later 80s or 90s dated indian ammo imported that was defective. the earlier stuff, like you have, is good.

it takes more than 4 gallons of water to refine one gallon of gasoline from crude oil. more like 7 or 8 IIRC. crazy, eh?

the mapp/oxygen torch will work just fine to braze it. brazing is better because that part does not need to be heat treated and does get some stress. but be advised that oxygen cylinder is not cheap but does go fast. don't dillydally around.

hand adjustable? by whom? I have never heard of this. interesting.

and spent on crap as well, those snakes do not, can not, and will not live in the mojave desert as the map depicts they can.