|
S |
M |
T |
W |
T |
F |
S |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
|
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
8
|
|
9
|
10
|
11
|
12
|
13
|
14
|
15
|
|
16
|
17
|
18
|
19
|
20
|
21
|
22
|
|
23
|
24
|
25
|
26
|
27
|
28
|
29
|
|
30
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 members (GETTEMANS),
653
guests, and
4
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums10
Topics39,557
Posts562,750
Members14,594
| |
Most Online9,918
Jul 28th, 2025
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 11,805 Likes: 678
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 11,805 Likes: 678 |
King, I thought you just told us that none of the young people in your family want anything to do with hunting. Is this just another attempt to portray yourself as a gun guy? You could always contact ex-Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens to see who does his barrel work: Looked up Levin in Wikipedia. Seems like some of my conservative friends. His book on the Court confirms my loosey-goosey characterization of its deliberations. Change and change again, nothing sacred or inviolable, eh?
"Men In Black: How The Supreme Court is Destroying America
Levin authored the 2005 book Men In Black: How The Supreme Court Is Destroying America, in which he advanced his thesis that activist judges on the Supreme Court (from all parts of the political spectrum) have "legislated from the bench." In a review of Men in Black, Commentary magazine's Dan Seligman wrote that Levin asks readers "to identify with 'originalists' who look to the text of the Constitution and the intent of its framers, and to reject the 'activists' who construe the Constitution broadly and are more concerned with getting to their own 'desired outcomes'."
That seems to put him at odds with the NRA-promoted amendment. Senator Stevens, a Republican appointee who served for 35 years on the Court with mostly Republican appointees and under three Republican chief justices, argues for amendments that would reduce the role of federal courts in American political life; in other words, amendments to entrench judicial restraint.
Levin and Stevens, on this evidence, appear to believe that the Second amendment should only apply only to those who keep and bear arms while serving in the militia, and not as an individual right. Stevens goes further in his book, saying democratic processes should decide on the matter, not the judges, as a remedy for "what every American can recognize as an ongoing national tragedy."
All from a Reagan conservative and a Nixon-appointed jurist. Want to hear what Mark Levin really has to say about the meaning and purpose of the Second Amendment? Take 5 minutes to listen to this:[/color] http://therightscoop.com/mark-levin-the-...cal-government/
Voting for anti-gun Democrats is dumber than giving treats to a dog that shits on a Persian Rug
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2009
Posts: 2,072 Likes: 72
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Mar 2009
Posts: 2,072 Likes: 72 |
King, I thought you just told us that none of the young people in your family want anything to do with hunting. Is this just another attempt to portray yourself as a gun guy? You could always contact ex-Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens to see who does his barrel work: Looked up Levin in Wikipedia. Seems like some of my conservative friends. His book on the Court confirms my loosey-goosey characterization of its deliberations. Change and change again, nothing sacred or inviolable, eh?
"Men In Black: How The Supreme Court is Destroying America
Levin authored the 2005 book Men In Black: How The Supreme Court Is Destroying America, in which he advanced his thesis that activist judges on the Supreme Court (from all parts of the political spectrum) have "legislated from the bench." In a review of Men in Black, Commentary magazine's Dan Seligman wrote that Levin asks readers "to identify with 'originalists' who look to the text of the Constitution and the intent of its framers, and to reject the 'activists' who construe the Constitution broadly and are more concerned with getting to their own 'desired outcomes'."
That seems to put him at odds with the NRA-promoted amendment. Senator Stevens, a Republican appointee who served for 35 years on the Court with mostly Republican appointees and under three Republican chief justices, argues for amendments that would reduce the role of federal courts in American political life; in other words, amendments to entrench judicial restraint.
Levin and Stevens, on this evidence, appear to believe that the Second amendment should only apply only to those who keep and bear arms while serving in the militia, and not as an individual right. Stevens goes further in his book, saying democratic processes should decide on the matter, not the judges, as a remedy for "what every American can recognize as an ongoing national tragedy."
All from a Reagan conservative and a Nixon-appointed jurist. Want to hear what Mark Levin really has to say about the meaning and purpose of the Second Amendment? Take 5 minutes to listen to this:[/color] http://therightscoop.com/mark-levin-the-...cal-government/ Another thread diversion, the question asked is about the modification of chromed bores. The answer is that it can be done and identified a gunsmith who can do the work (Mike Orlen) and how best to contact him. Does it really matter whether or not someone in King's family has the SKB's or not, I believe the question useful for anyone visiting this board with a similar question of altering chromed bores. While I can agree with you perceptions of what the Second Amendment means, I do not believe it repeatedly needs to be pasted in unrelated threads. Keith do you have an actual contribution reference the actual question of altering Chromed Bores?
Michael Dittamo
Topeka, KS
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 9,350
Sidelock
|
|
OP
Sidelock
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 9,350 |
Gentlemen, Mike says he can do it but Homeland Security wouldn't allow him to send my nephew's barrels back from the US. Apparently anything: a brass bead, spring or latch is a firearm. So Briley is out, too.
I started search in Canada, and one response was: "We don't do it, and wouldn't do it to that good Japanese-made gun. If it's for duck hunting sell it and buy an 870 and have enough left over for years of ammunition."
I forwarded the information to my nephew. He replied that his SKB M/F had always worked well for him and he regretted being influenced by those slick S/As when they became the rage. Thanks everyone.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 11,805 Likes: 678
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 11,805 Likes: 678 |
Thanks for your prompt and extremely predictable response old colonel... or should I call you old hypocrite? I didn't get a chance to reply to your similar post in a timely manner in King Brown's "Queen of Guns" thread when you attacked me for bringing politics into the thread, because I've been busy with more important things like flintlock deer hunting. I made that post just for you, knowing that King never responds directly to me. I knew you would attack me for doing exactly what King had done there prior to me doing it. You recently went to great lengths to proclaim that you are not a hypocrite, and that you are not biased or selective in who you criticize. It was very easy to get you to rise to the bait to prove that you are full of shit. Does any of this sound double-gun related old hypocrite, I mean old colonel? It was more than a mention, craig. He declared his misogyny publicly to the world, a professed right of celebrity to take what you want from women. Not for nothing some gal finished with millions more votes than he did. C'mon, mc, I'm just like you, admiring some presidents, less so others, just as I do our prime ministers. Some members are tired of my praising Obama as one who will go down in history as one of the best. What's malicious in that? Just an opinion on an international board, no better than yours. I wonder where your great concern and disapproval for thread diversions was when these posts were made???? My actual contribution to King was to advise him to ask his anti-2nd Amendment retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens who does his barrel work. Deal with it.
Voting for anti-gun Democrats is dumber than giving treats to a dog that shits on a Persian Rug
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 521 Likes: 4
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 521 Likes: 4 |
Correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't the barrels black chromed on the outside, too?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2009
Posts: 2,072 Likes: 72
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Mar 2009
Posts: 2,072 Likes: 72 |
Keith, this is where you could have added in that the restrictions created by the outgoing administration has caused harm to legitimate commerce without helping improve safety.
Further that the incoming administration may positively change those regressive, excessive, and generally silly limitations to encourage reasonable trade in goods and services.
All that and in topic with where the thread is going.
Michael Dittamo
Topeka, KS
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 11,805 Likes: 678
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 11,805 Likes: 678 |
And this is where you could have had the stones to admit that you are a hypocrite and that you attack me for the very same things that do not concern you in the least when posted by certain other folks. I can admit that I don't like you or respect you. You can't because you're hung up on your faux civility. Now you need to accept the fact that I don't give a damn what a hypocrite like you thinks. Now, here's a link to a thread where King was attempting to spread falsehoods about the NRA's stance on the 2nd Amendment. Much more interesting than your attempt to discuss the Obama administration's actions on trade and commerce. http://www.doublegunshop.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=368191&page=2 
Voting for anti-gun Democrats is dumber than giving treats to a dog that shits on a Persian Rug
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 9,350
Sidelock
|
|
OP
Sidelock
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 9,350 |
From Wikipedia:
"In Internet slang, a troll (/ˈtroʊl/, /ˈtrɒl/) is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory,[1] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[2] or of otherwise disrupting normal, on-topic discussion,[3] often for the troll's amusement.
Cure: don't respond.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 11,805 Likes: 678
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 11,805 Likes: 678 |
Are you talking about posting anti-gun, anti-NRA, and anti-2nd Amendment garbage like the following on a firearms related website King? If so, then yes, I'd say you described yourself perfectly: Ed, historically the individual "right" to bear arms is relatively new. I believe John Ashcroft in 2002 became the first federal attorney-general to proclaim that individuals should be able to own guns. The Supreme Court in 2008 overturned all mainstream legal and historical scholarship by ruling that there is an individual right to own firearms although with some limits. Obama said it again last week.
I believe that during the previous 218 years the Second meant what it said: firearms shall be held by "the People"---a collective and not individual right---insofar they are in the service of "a well-regulated militia." Was an individual right even mentioned at the Constitutional Convention or in the House when it ratified the Amendment or when debated in state legislatures? I don't think so. Gun control doesn't work? I believe gun control works reasonably generally in Canada, providing a less violent society compared to some others, in good part because of our different culture. Democracies make choices. Americans accept mass murder to defend an individual right to bear arms in the name of personal freedom. P.S.-- Thanks for the response, Troll.
Voting for anti-gun Democrats is dumber than giving treats to a dog that shits on a Persian Rug
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,226 Likes: 3
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,226 Likes: 3 |
The main issue with chrome-lined barrels is letting the 'smith know that they ARE chrome-lined so he is set up to work with them. Apparently finding out in mid-job with the wrong setup is a nasty surprise!
|
|
|
|
|
