AR-15 Tip Of The Week
New tip! April 7 2003 AR-15 building tools.
When building your Ar-15 Lower receiver use Brass Punches, this will save the finish on the lower and on the parts that you are working on. Also try to find Plastic (nylon) punches and a plastic hammer, these will be nice while your rilfe is still new when tapping out the rear take down pin and front pivot pin.
When you buy a bolt carrier,
you should check it to be sure
it is chromed where the bolt
rides it.
This will aid in preventing jams.
All-chrome bolt carriers are
sometimes available, but the
chrome is not needed anywhere
except the bolt area. Besides
being unnecessarily expensive,
the extra chrome actually causes
extra wear on the inside of the
upper receiver and may shorten
it's life considerably. So when
someone tells you, you cant get
enough chrome they are wrong.
Have you ever put an AR parts kit
into a new lower receiver and the
push pins didn't fit? Or a detent
wouldn't go in?
Try using a
drill bit that is just bigger that
the hole you are trying to fit
the part. Take a pair of pliers to
hold the drill bit and twist the
bit into the hole, go strait in dont
try to waller out the hole all
you are doing is getting the extra
finish that was applyed to the
receiver out of the hole. This works
great. If you have a roll pin that
won't go into its place try to file
the end that is going in to a semi
rounded point, if you don't want
to do that you can sqeeze one end
with pliers to get the roll pin to
start. Try these they work!
Oh look another AR!
Gun Control? Think about it.
"Are you considering backing gun control laws? Do you think that because you may not own a gun, the rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment don't matter?
CONSIDER THIS...
**In 1929 the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, approximately 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
**In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
**Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, 13 million Jews, Catholics, gypsies, homosexuals, the mentally ill, and others, who were unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
**China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million
political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
**Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
**Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000
Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
**Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1957 to 1977, one
million "educated" people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
## That places total victims who lost their lives because of gun control at approximately 56 million in the last century.
Since we should learn from the mistakes of history, the next time someone talks in favor of gun control, find out which group of citizens they wish to have exterminated.
((Maybe they'll use the immortal words "it won't happen to me.")(I don't think of myself as being immortal))
**It has now been 12 months (from the date of Paul's Broadcast) since gun owners in Australia were forced to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed, a program costing the government more than million dollars!
The results;; Australia-wide: Homicides are up 3.2%, assaults are up 8%, and Armed robberies are up 44%. In that country's state of Victoria, homicides with firearms are up 300%. Over the previous 25 years, figures were showing a steady decrease in armed robberies and Australian politicians are on the spot and at a loss to explain how no improvement in "safety" has been observed after such a monumental effort and expense was expended in ridding society of guns."
It's time to state it plainly; Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, GUN CONTROL laws only affect the
law-abiding citizens. " End of comment.
Let me also state it plainly. "If, as a law abiding citizen, you don't want to own a gun, and do not wish to exercise your right to own a gun, that's fine with me!! BUT DON'T FORGET that is your right to do that!!"
As a law abiding citizen it's my RIGHT to own guns, as many guns as I want or can afford and all the ammunition I want or can afford. It's my right to use my gun and enjoy legal recreational shooting and also to protect myself and my family from the those who choose not to abide by the law. Some of you may not like it, TOUGH, cause there are lots of things other folks choose to do that I don't like. BUT,, don't forget, this is America,, "Home of the free..." If you don't like that freedom move to Russia or maybe Mexico and enjoy there peaceful society where *Gun Control* is under control, the control of the drug smugglers and mafia.
Rosie and guns??
Rosie O'Donnell's bodyguard recently applied to the Greenwich Police Department for a concealed weapon permit. This has led to rumors, so far denied by the O'Donnell camp, that the guard will carry a gun when accompanying Ms. O'Donnell's son, Parker, to public school starting this fall.
Ms. O'Donnell, notorious for her virulent anti-gun stance, insists that although she doesn't personally own a gun, "if you are qualified, licensed and registered, I have no problem." Moreover, according to today's Stamford Advocate, Ms. O'Donnell has expressed concern that "publicity about her son's attendance at a local school coupled with the information that the guard would be unarmed could make him [Parker] vulnerable to harm [emphasis added]." This is about as close as it gets to a concession that an unarmed private citizen finds himself at greater risk of harm from the various felons and crazies that populate our world.
Why is this news? Isn't it sensible that a high-profile, very wealthy celebrity would take whatever measures necessary to protect her children? Sure, but consider: Just last year, while conceding that she was "not an expert on the Amendments," Ms. O'Donnell came to the startling conclusion that the "only people in this nation who should be allowed to own guns are police officers." (Wow! What would Amadou Diallo think?)
She elaborated: "I don't care if you want to hunt, I don't care if you think it's your right. I say 'Sorry.'" And to cap off this stunning display of jurisprudential obtuseness, Ms. O'Donnell added that, in what was then apparently her ideal world, "you are not allowed to own a gun, and if you do own a gun I think you should go to prison." Unless you're Rosie O'Donnell's personal bodyguard, apparently.
This is not the first time that Ms. O'Donnell has resorted to the actual or implied use of force. Last Halloween, the Queen of Nice had a security guard separate the parents of trick-or-treaters from their kids at the front entrance gate to her house in Nyack, N.Y. That's right, a security guard. So much for that Solidarity of the Moms stuff that's so recently been all the rage. (Come to think of it, given the Sturm und Drang about "kids killing kids," she might have been better off giving the adults the go-ahead and leaving the little shavers to cool their heels on the street.)
Ms. O'Donnell, in fact, recently left her 22-room Nyack spread, putting it on the market for .75 million. (Don't worry, the Queen of Nice won't be homeless: She bought a .75-million weekend home on Miami's super-exclusive Star Island last year, and also owns a home in Greenwich.) It seems trick-or-treaters are not her only security concerns. She's also had to endure the dreadful indignity of repeated doorbell-ringing by strangers, and a fan who scaled a brick wall to land in her yard. Then there was the threat to kidnap her son, Parker. And of course, the NRA kooks are mad at her.
While this is a woman who takes her security concerns seriously, she saves time for her political fomenting as well. The Queen of Nice was recently in the news as emcee of the Million Mom March (which, far from being a one-day melodrama, has now officially morphed into a 501(c)(4) lobbying organization and a 501(c)(3) educational foundation.) The MMM branch of the gun-prohibition movement is, according to its website, willing to "acknowledge that guns may be necessary for hunting, law enforcement, and national security." Self-defense does not make the cut.
It's difficult, but when it comes to limiting gun ownership for people other than her bodyguard, try to understand how Ms. O'Donnell's mind works. Appearing on ABC's This Week on May 14, Ms. O'Donnell argued that "there are 200 million guns in America and 20,000 gun laws. So the guns are winning." Is the argument here (assuming there is an argument here) that with 200,000,0001 "gun laws," this anthropomorphized weaponry would be "losing" and we'd wipe out murder once and for all? If a country had one law prohibiting murder (say, oh, the Fifth Commandment), and two homicidally-inclined people, would that mean the cutthroats would, ipso facto, triumph? And what if there were three versions of the Fifth Commandment would that then solve the problem? Rosie, violent human passion has been with us since Cain killed Abel, and no amount of gun control is ever going to change that.
And the spirit of Cain still haunts us. Rosie O'Donnell knows this. As her spokesperson, Lois Smith, explained: "You can cope with almost anything. But when it comes to your child, that takes priority."
Indeed. Who could disagree? Certainly not Memphis, Tennessee mom Patsy Tankersley. "When it comes to your child, you don't know what you'll do," Ms. Tankersley once said. But in her case, more was at stake than doorbell-ringers, or even threats. In 1994, Ms. Tankersley was stabbed in her own home by two male robbers. After she refused their demand to remove her pants, one of the men slashed the throat of Ms. Tankersley's six-year old daughter. Ms. Tankersley quickly agreed to retreat into her bedroom and come back naked. But the robbers were in a for a shock. Ms. Tankersley emerged in the company of a .22-caliber semi-automatic pistol, which she used to blast one robber in the chest and send the second fleeing. Her daughter needed eighteen stitches to repair the damage to her throat, but mom and daughter lived. Ms. Tankersley's actions were ruled to be self-defense. According to Ms. O'Donnell's sophistry (or at least, one strain of it), Ms. Tankersley, a gun-owner, should have been taken from her child and put in jail.,
Would any of the sorts of things Ms. O'Donnell advocates have protected Ms. Tankersley? Licensing and registration, a "one a month" limit, safety locks and none of these could have protected Patsy Tankersley and her little girl from robbers wielding knives (so far not the subject of regulatory demands by anyone, not even celebrities safe in their high-security cocoons.) On the other hand, consider if Ms. Tankersley had had to struggle with a safety device in the few crucial, panicky seconds she was given to take life-or-death action while her child stood helpless at the hands of armed brutes. As Sammy "The Bull" Gravano once explained (and he would know): " If I'm a bad guy, I'm always gonna have a gun. Safety locks? You'll pull the trigger with a lock on, and I'll pull the trigger. We'll see who wins." (One has to wonder: Will Rosie O'Donnell's bodyguard have a safety lock on his gun?)
Ms. O'Donnell can afford a security guard to protect her from trick-or-treaters' moms and dads and escort her own kids to school each day. Ms. Tankersley cannot. Ms. O'Donnell can afford to trade in one multi-million dollar mansion for another, more secure one. Ms. Tankersley cannot. Ms. Tankersley had a gun. It's a good thing. There may have been a million moms on the Mall, but at the Tankersley residence, there was only one and nary a bodyguard or celebrity in sight. Let Patsy Tankersley have the final word here: "I knew I had to protect my daughter."
Gotta love a woman with a good taste in firearms!
A taste of Russia
