Post by Sgt K USMC on May 23, 2008 2:10:42 GMT -5
Well…
I'm not a big fan of Kel Tec in general; their pistols especially should be avoided at all costs if at all possible as the reliability and durability factors are seriously sub-par.
As for the rifle in question.
I have never fired one, but I have seen the specs on them and handled one a few times. From my understanding this is Kel Tec's attempt to break into a higher tier of production standards and reorganize themselves into a more reliable and well known company.
From a performance standard… not much I can say about the weapon, but from those I have spoken to that have fired them, I have been told they are about on par with the Ruger Mini -14, which has been reviewed in this section.
To the second question…
Without fail, almost every time a dem takes office they chop up the 2nd Amendment as far as they can. You have to look no farther than the great state of Massachusetts and Kalifornia for evidence of this.
To this end, and because it is a well known pre-established fact that dems love to destroy the 2nd Amendment, ANYTIME a dem has even the slightest chance of winning the center seat the sale of certain weapons starts to peak because those are the ones with the highest probability of being banned, this time around is no different, and yes, the weapons that have the highest chance of being banned will get more expensive the closer we get to election day.
The wife and I bought our M-4's when Hillary's momentum just started to peak, those same weapons now cost $50 more each because Obama is leading.
The weapons that you have to worry about are anything that has a military counterpart, anything with a bayonet lug, anything with a flash suppressor, anything that is designed to hold a magazine that holds more than 5 rounds, any weapon that is 'compact' or has a folding stock.
Tell me that ain't stupid… You can buy a lever action rifle that holds 8 rounds, that is always going to be legal, but a weapon that looks like an M-4 or an AK-47 nope…. That is the dangerous one…
It basically all comes down to perception in the minds of the dems when banning time comes, as was proven by the Brady Ban. They were more concerned with what 'looked' lethal and assigning specific titles to weapons than they did with passing any legislation that would actually keep dangerous weapons out of the hands of dangerous people, as such, you can expect more of the same if any future bans come into play, with looks and 'perceived title' being more important than actual function and legal use.
I'm not a big fan of Kel Tec in general; their pistols especially should be avoided at all costs if at all possible as the reliability and durability factors are seriously sub-par.
As for the rifle in question.
I have never fired one, but I have seen the specs on them and handled one a few times. From my understanding this is Kel Tec's attempt to break into a higher tier of production standards and reorganize themselves into a more reliable and well known company.
From a performance standard… not much I can say about the weapon, but from those I have spoken to that have fired them, I have been told they are about on par with the Ruger Mini -14, which has been reviewed in this section.
To the second question…
Without fail, almost every time a dem takes office they chop up the 2nd Amendment as far as they can. You have to look no farther than the great state of Massachusetts and Kalifornia for evidence of this.
To this end, and because it is a well known pre-established fact that dems love to destroy the 2nd Amendment, ANYTIME a dem has even the slightest chance of winning the center seat the sale of certain weapons starts to peak because those are the ones with the highest probability of being banned, this time around is no different, and yes, the weapons that have the highest chance of being banned will get more expensive the closer we get to election day.
The wife and I bought our M-4's when Hillary's momentum just started to peak, those same weapons now cost $50 more each because Obama is leading.
The weapons that you have to worry about are anything that has a military counterpart, anything with a bayonet lug, anything with a flash suppressor, anything that is designed to hold a magazine that holds more than 5 rounds, any weapon that is 'compact' or has a folding stock.
Tell me that ain't stupid… You can buy a lever action rifle that holds 8 rounds, that is always going to be legal, but a weapon that looks like an M-4 or an AK-47 nope…. That is the dangerous one…
It basically all comes down to perception in the minds of the dems when banning time comes, as was proven by the Brady Ban. They were more concerned with what 'looked' lethal and assigning specific titles to weapons than they did with passing any legislation that would actually keep dangerous weapons out of the hands of dangerous people, as such, you can expect more of the same if any future bans come into play, with looks and 'perceived title' being more important than actual function and legal use.