uzitiger 193 Posted February 5, 2005 Report Share Posted February 5, 2005 We must work hard to keep Hitlery Clinton from getting into the White House in 08. Her degenerate husband took away too many of our gun rights and fucked up this country for eight years. Now he wants to be UN Secretary Genital and work to take more of our rights and money and give it to that cesspool called the UN. Imagine what that CommuNazi bitch would do if she got into the White House (G-d Forbid) and her husband running the UN? We would also lose American sovereignty and would see more Waco atrocities against decent gun owners. Die terrorist scum Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Doerdie 0 Posted February 6, 2005 Report Share Posted February 6, 2005 watch out for Dean.. Please let him be the Democrat nominee in 2008, they guy cannot keep his foot out of his mouth. He is locked in as the new DNC chairman. Just sit back and watch him make an idiot outta himself Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ozone_00 3 Posted February 7, 2005 Report Share Posted February 7, 2005 Her degenerate husband took away too many of our gun rights Die terrorist scum Yeah, not like Regan or Bush #1.....oh wait, never mind. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
stokstad 4 Posted February 12, 2005 Author Report Share Posted February 12, 2005 (edited) Kinda wondering how this nice post took a hard turn and ended up being a polital thread lol Edited February 12, 2005 by stokstad Quote Link to post Share on other sites
M15A4spr 0 Posted March 2, 2005 Report Share Posted March 2, 2005 well, the flip side is.. without 922r, we probably would get *NOTHING*. Yea, its BS.. and stupid.. but imagine no semi-automatic imports period. That is what the dems' really wanted. aka like Kalifornia, Wash DC, NYC, and Chicago. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> For clarification, who gave us 922r? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Bigfoot Wallace 0 Posted March 2, 2005 Report Share Posted March 2, 2005 Bush 41 gave us 922r. It was an import tariff not a gun law. It was designed to protect Colt and the other big manufacturers. Who wants to buy a $1000 colt when you can get a $200 AK. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
stokstad 4 Posted March 8, 2005 Author Report Share Posted March 8, 2005 To get this post back on track....... I called RAAC this very morning and asked what the status was. The very nice woman I spoke to says everything is lined up and ready to go the are just waiting on The licensing. Would figure our government would slow them down. As soon as they licensing comes through she said the web page would be up. She said to call back twards the end of march. I also told them to contact prodiz about their shotgun accessories. Not sure if they will or not but i figured it worth a try. Sounds like they have everything else lined up. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Grau_Tek 0 Posted March 8, 2005 Report Share Posted March 8, 2005 hey stokstad will you repost the number and addy at RAA? i live in ohio and im thinking about driving down to their warehouse for the grand opening cometo think of it..... we saiga owners should stage some sort of "Homecoming" like a sturgis type deal..... and all go down there and have a huge BBQ on their front lawn maybe we could contact them and get them to allow us to do it maybe we could do it anyways considering were all armed to the teeth with Saigas no seriously maybe we could pull off a grand opening party what does everyone think? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
NCShooter 0 Posted March 8, 2005 Report Share Posted March 8, 2005 We must work hard to keep Hitlery Clinton from getting into the White House in 08. Her degenerate husband took away too many of our gun rights and fucked up this country for eight years. Now he wants to be UN Secretary Genital and work to take more of our rights and money and give it to that cesspool called the UN. Well said!! I think you have outlined one of the main issues needing our attention in the next few years!! And the UN is something to be truly feared if it can get more support, especially from the powerful and clueless American left. Here is an eye-opening excerpt from some notes I have saved as I study these issues (even if it is 'old news'). Dodgeturbo (or anyone else, especially military), have you heard of this? Especially the last part about the US military firing on US citizens: ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Are you concerned... ...that U.S. military personnel are being prepared to become United Nations soldiers? About 300 U.S. Marines stationed at Twenty-Nine Palms, California, got a reality check in 1994 when they were required to participate in a "Combat Arms Survey" asking how they felt about statements such as: **"[T]he President of the United States has the authority to pass his responsibilities as Commander-in-Chief to the UN Secretary General"; **"I would swear to the following code: 'I am a United Nations fighting person...'"; and **"I would fire upon U.S. citizens who refuse or resist confiscation of firearms banned by the U.S. government." ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I guess they would have to call hunters "extremists with sniper rifles" first? Sure makes me think twice about the school kids who come around with their UNICEF collection cans. Like many things, it all seems like such a good and innocent cause until one digs a little deeper... The UN is there, like a vulture, biding its time, waiting for stuff to go wrong here and there, then it swoops in and snatches up little and big scraps of political power, influence and money, as it is able. It grows stronger and more influential with time. Lately, some in the US seem to think it would be good to sign the "Law of the Sea Pact" which would give the UN a major power to control and tax all marine shipping, mining, oil drilling, under-sea cables and so on. Shame on us if the UN get its "own money", for its power is limited now largely by the fact that we don't let it have too much money. The American left would like to change that... "If you mean dying in the course of the United Nations effort, yes, it is worth that. If you mean dying American troops unilaterally going in with some false presumption that we can affect the outcome, the answer is unequivocally no." -- John Kerry 1994 "I'd like to see our troops dispersed through the world only at the directive of the United Nations." -- John Kerry Imagine what that CommuNazi bitch would do if she got into the White House (G-d Forbid) and her husband running the UN? We would also lose American sovereignty and would see more Waco atrocities against decent gun owners. We are already losing our sovereignty. The trend toward allowing "international law" to dominate our own laws, and especially our Constitution, is gaining momentum. A few days ago the supreme court decided a case on capital punishment in the US based largely on what Europeans think is OK and not OK. The issue decided in that case, in and of itself, made no difference to me, but the item of major significance is that there is now a precedent set to follow European law when it suits a certain agenda; and what leftist cause could not be won using European law as a basis for argument??!! Gun control. Right to self defense by any means. Private property rights. Real levels of actual taxation average about 80% or more there, and prices are high and out of control. And so on. Look to Europe to see where the American left hopes to take us; and they are still working hard at it... Rot never sleeps! Best regards, NCShooter PS: Here's more notes on the UN in case anyone is interested: =========================================== UN NOTES: Are you concerned... ...that American blood and taxes are being used for military operations unrelated to U.S. defense? A May, 2000 Joint Chiefs of Staff report states that since 1990 more than 55 "Operations Other Than War" (military engagements now called "peace-keeping" or "humanitarian" missions), have cost U.S. taxpayers over $21 billion -- more than $4 billion in 2000 alone. Of course, there is no price tag imaginable for American soldiers who have been killed in UN-sanctioned, UN-led "Operations Other Than War" such as Somalia. Are you concerned... ...that our own government is committed to making the UN more powerful than any nation on Earth? In 1961, President John F. Kennedy presented to the UN a three-stage disarmament program entitled Freedom From War. "In Stage III," said this State Department document, "progressive controlled disarmament ... would proceed to a point where no state [nation] would have the military power to challenge the progressively strengthened UN Peace Force." The disarmament program originally presented in Freedom From War has never been withdrawn. It remains the official policy of the United States. Are you concerned... ...that the UN is being given control of our military? U.S. forces have been sent to the Persian Gulf and Somalia to carry out UN resolutions. And they were sent to the Balkans under the authority of NATO, a regional subsidiary of the UN. In the Balkans and Somalia, they have been placed under foreign commanders who view the secretaries-general of the UN and NATO -- not the U.S. President -- as their commander in chief. "[The Security Council is authorized to] take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security." --UN Charter, Article 42 "Arrangements for the use of this [proposed UN] force should ensure that the United Nations can effectively deter or suppress any threat or use of arms in violation of the purposes and principles of the United Nations." -- UN "Final Document," Adopted by the 1978 session of the UN General Assembly "Let me give you this final message. If we use the [u.S.] military, we can make the United Nations a really meaningful, effective voice for peace and stability in the future." --President George Bush in December 1990, prior to the launch of Operation Desert Storm "I want to extend condolences to the families of those who died in the service of the United Nations." -- Al Gore, June 12, 1994, in reference to 15 U.S. Servicemen killed while enforcing a "no-fly-zone" in Iraq "Does ... the Wildlands Project advocate the end of industrial civilization? Most assuredly. Everything civilized must go." --Editor John Davis in the UN Wildlands Project's journal, Wild Earth "[T]he collective needs of non-human species must take precedence over the needs and desires of humans." -- Wildlands Project Co-architect Reed Noss "[H]umanity must undergo a radical change in its attitudes, values, and behavior ... a new global ethics is taking form, and it is finding expression in international law." -- International Union for the Conservation of Nature's Earth Ethics magazine (Spring 1996) Are you concerned... ...that the UN is militantly anti-property rights? The UN is dominated by socialist, communist, and other collectivist regimes that are hostile to private property, the basis of our freedom and prosperity. Karl Marx wrote in the Communist Manifesto that "the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: abolition of private property." Marx continued: "In one word, you reproach us with intending to do away with your property. Precisely so; that is just what we intend." Are you concerned... ...that the UN intends to carry out Marx's plan? In true Marxist fashion, the report of the UN "Habitat I" Conference declares that private land ownership "contributes to social injustice.... Public control of land use is therefore indispensable...." Agenda 21, the UN's massive environmental manifesto, envisions a UN empowered to control and micro-manage our planetary environment and the actions of every person on Earth. It says: "All countries should undertake a comprehensive national inventory of their land resources" and "develop national land-management plans." The UN's Assessment would "reallocate" property rights and have "stakeholder groups," instead of property owners, make decisions on private land use. Are you concerned... ...that our own U.S. government is adopting many of the UN's anti-property rights and policies and treaties? The U.S. has signed Agenda 21 and has begun implementing the UN's "Wildlands Project," an incredible plan to push millions of Americans off their land to make vast nature preserves out of half of the nation. Also, under the UN's 1988 Convention on Narcotics, the U.S. has adopted unconstitutional "asset forfeiture" laws that allow seizure of property without due process. Are you concerned... ...that UN treaties could destroy our heritage of freedom? Nobel Prizewinning economist, Friedrich A. Hayek, noted that "the system of private property is the most important guaranty of freedom, not only for those who own property, but scarcely less for those who do not. It is only because the control of the means of production is divided among many people acting independently that nobody has complete power over us, that we as individuals can decide what to do with ourselves." A tax of one U.S. cent on every 100 lengthy emails ... would generate well over $70 billion a year." -- UN Development Program, Human Development Report, 1999 "The standard of living of the average American has to decline.... I don't think you can escape that." -- Paul Volcker, 1979. Mr. Volcker served as co-chairman of the Ford Foundation's 1995 group that produced Financing an Effective United Nations. "A viable way to [establish an international finances regulating body] would be by establishing not a 0.1% tax on speculative financial transactions as Mr. Tobin brilliantly proposed, but rather a minimum of 1% which would permit the creation of a large idispensable fund -- in the excess of one trillion dollars every year." -- Fidel Castro promoting UN-taxation before the UN-affiliated Group of 77, Havana, April 2000 "Secretary General Boutros Boutros-Ghali ... urged the [uN] to consider imposing its own taxes to become less dependent on the United States...." --Washington Times, January 16, 1996 Are you concerned that... ...numerous taxation schemes to finance the UN are being considered? Economist James Tobin proposed in 1972 that the UN be the recipient of a tax of 0.05% on foreign exchange transactions. In 1993, the Ford Foundation produced Financing an Effective United Nations, a report containing recommendations that the UN tax airline traffic, shipping, and arms sales. In 1995, the UN-funded Commission on Global Governance suggested that the UN collect levies from those who use "flight lanes, sea lanes for ships, ocean fishing areas, and the electromagnetic spectrum." Ultimately, of course, the burden of all taxation falls on consumers. Are you concerned that... ...a State Department study specifically proposed giving the UN taxing power and, ultimately, control of the world? In 1962, the State Department financed a study entitled "A World Effectively Controlled by the United Nations." The report outlined what would be needed for such a total world government: "a mandatory universal membership," an ability to use "physical force," and "compulsory jurisdiction" of its courts. One of the UN's "principle features," stated the report, would be "enforceable taxing powers." Are you concerned that... ...no matter how much our nation gives, the UN will never be satisfied? In addition to hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars in foreign aid, our nation has provided the UN with tens of billions more for its programs since 1945. Currently, U.S. contributions make up 25% of the UN's annual budget. But, in his May 2001 speech at Notre Dame University, UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan complained with a typical anti-American attitude, "It is shameful that the United States ... should be one of the least generous in terms of helping the world's poor." Are you concerned that... ...taxing authority would fuel an unaccountable UN Superstate? Former UN Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali said of a UN tax: "We would no longer be under the daily financial will of member states who are unwilling to pay up." UN Founder Harlan Cleveland made the same point in Futures: Rather than relying on "the worn-out policy of year-to-year decisions by individual governments" (about how much to give the UN), "what's needed is a flow of funds for development which are generated automatically under international control." And there would be no Congress to limit the UN's appetite for your tax dollars! Are you concerned that the United Nations... ...would deny your right to a trial by jury? On July 1, 2002, the International Criminal Court became reality. The United Nations' International Criminal Court would deny Americans the right to a trial by a jury of their peers. An ICC "trial" would be decided by a panel of six or more judges, no more than one of which could be an American. In addition, the 1998 Rome Statute of the ICC contains no right to habeas corpus and no right to confront accusers. ICC prosecutors could even provide secret evidence to judges. There is a widespread misperception that current U.S. halfway measures, such as "unsigning" the treaty and exempting peacekeepers from prosecution for one year, afford genuine safety to our country's sovereignty and people. In reality, these measures actually compound our danger by lulling the American people and Congress into a false sense of security and providing a disincentive to take timely and effective action now, when it is most needed. "So quietly that even the gun lobby hasn't noticed, the United Nations is beginning to set its sights on global gun control." -- Associated Press, May 24, 1994 "Some progress is already being made as States [nations] tighten their arms export legislation and collect and destroy surplus weapons." -- UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan in his 2000 report to the General Assembly "States [nations] emerging from conflicts should, as soon as practicable, impose or reimpose licensing requirements on all civilian possession of small arms and light weapons...." - 1997 UN "Panel of Governmental Experts on Small Arms" report Are you concerned that the United Nations... ...is anti-gun? A UN disarmament film, Armed to the Teeth, states that only those guns that are "used by armies and police forces to protect us" can be considered "legal." On the other hand, privately owned firearms are portrayed as a pestilence: "Small arms are not fussy about the company the keep. They an murder indiscriminately...Small arms are like uninvited guests who won't leave. Once they take over a country, the are virtually impossible to get rid of." The anti-gun statue at UN Headquarters in New York City accurately reflects the organization's anti-gun bias. Are you concerned that the United Nations... ...has already disarmed civilian populations? A 1999 UN "Small Arms" report approvingly noted a number of gun control measures in various countries, including weapons turn-in and destruction programs. UN forces have already been used to disarm civilian populations in Kosovo, Haiti, and Somalia. This same policy is likely to be implemented here -- if our leaders continue to transfer more power to the UN. Are you concerned that the United Nations... ...plans to disarm civilians as part of its program to disarm nations? The UN-funded Commission on Global Governance (CGG) called for civilian as well as international disarmament programs in a 1995 report entitled Our Global Neighborhood. In the chapter "Promoting Security," the CGG claimed: "Militarization today not only involves governments spending more than necessary to build up their military arsenals. It has increasingly become a global societal phenomenon, as witnessed by the rampant acquisition and use of increasingly lethal weapons by civilians -- whether individuals seeking a means of self-defense, street gangs, criminals, political opposition groups, or terrorist organizations." Note that civilians "seeking a means of self-defense" constitute a security threat -- just like "street gangs" or "criminals." In 1997 UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan endorsed a "Small Arms" report that defined as small arms such weapons as "revolvers and self-loading pistols" and "rifles and carbines." Are you concerned that the United Nations... ...threatens to abolish the Second Amendment? The 1997 UN "Small Arms" report recommended the "All States [nations] should ensure that they have in place adequate laws, regulations and administrative procedures to exercise effective control over the legal possession of small arms...." So much for the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution! "Private land ownership ... contributes to social injustice.... Public control of land use is therefore indispensable." - United Nations "Habitat I" Conference Report, 1976 "Syria won a seat on the U.N. Security Council ... with overwhelming global support and no opposition from the United States, despite its prominent position on the U.S. list of nations sponsoring terrorism." -- Associated Press, October 8, 2001 "...nationhood as we know it will be obsolete; all states will recognize a single, global authority." - Strobe Talbott Deputy Secretary of State, 1994-2001 "In order to stabilize world population, it is necessary to eliminate 350,000 people a day. It is a horrible thing to say, but it's just as bad not to say it." - Oceanographer Jaques Cousteau. Published in the Courier, a publication of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Sunset_Va 2 Posted March 8, 2005 Report Share Posted March 8, 2005 Great News! Glad to see some one is going to continue importing Saigas. And too, the high capacity magazines, but even if they import them, I won't forget my order with Daewoo. He stepped in and voluntered to help out and the forum members shouldn't forget that. I am going to have my local FFL dealer order a Saiga .223 with a 20" barrel for me when the Saigas become available. I bet the thread here about the high capacity magazines has set a record for entries, and has brought guests from other forums to read here. Well, its March 8th today, hmm, by the 20th, you guys think the Saigas will be here? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ricardomagana 0 Posted March 8, 2005 Report Share Posted March 8, 2005 Gentlemen! Even if for some reason Hillary Clinton gets nominated by the DNC, which most likely won't happen, the US will not vote for her. You guys saw the perentage of people that voted for Bush in 04'. A good majority of those people are Christians, and we believe, and don't take this the wrong way, but the leader and the man is the one that does all the decision making. Hillary is also completely the same as Kerry, she doesn't know what she stands for. She is trying to be a conservative democrat, which doesn't make sense anyways. She has already done the damage in New York and has become a yippy liberal. Even yippy liberals won't vote for a woman to take the seat. I am a Republican and I like Mrs. Rice and there's talk about her runnig for office and I wouldn't vote for her, I would go Independent first if she was the Republican dominee, and it's not because she is a black woman, but just a woman. I honestly believe they aren't capable to lead a nation. I love women and have a lot of respect for them and pray that my wife is the best woman in the world. But leading the US. It's a tough sell. The US has become liberal, but most of the US is still Conservative. Ricky Quote Link to post Share on other sites
BattleRifleG3 16 Posted March 9, 2005 Report Share Posted March 9, 2005 One thing we've never seen before is a black candidate against a white one or a man against a woman. Mark my words, the day that happens the country will be divided along those lines, with only a few cases that might be the exception. Rice as the Repub candidate would mean one such exception. Rice is one of the most sincerely conservative pro RKBA folks in government, no question about it. She's also been in the executive loop long enough to really know what's going on and have a lot of experience making hard decisions fast. Of course there's a truckload of issues with her being a woman as president. And I would not be quick to say "Yes she should be the nominee." We should look long and hard at many good candidates. But I'd definitely say she's one of them. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
stokstad 4 Posted March 9, 2005 Author Report Share Posted March 9, 2005 Guess I should have made a new post. I tried to divert this post away from the political bullshit and back to its original context and low and behold it goes right back to the political bullshit lol. Oh well Anyways they are working on gettig the saigas coming just thought Id let you know................................ Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Wolverine 10,360 Posted March 9, 2005 Report Share Posted March 9, 2005 Thanks Stokstad. Im looking forward to a ready supply of Saiga guns, magazines, and accessories. Hopefully RAA will be up and operating by 3/31/05. Wolverine Quote Link to post Share on other sites
stokstad 4 Posted March 9, 2005 Author Report Share Posted March 9, 2005 hey stokstad will you repost the number and addy at RAA? i live in ohio and im thinking about driving down to their warehouse for the grand opening cometo think of it..... we saiga owners should stage some sort of "Homecoming" like a sturgis type deal..... and all go down there and have a huge BBQ on their front lawn maybe we could contact them and get them to allow us to do it maybe we could do it anyways considering were all armed to the teeth with Saigas no seriously maybe we could pull off a grand opening party what does everyone think? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Should be a link at the top of this post Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Onepoint 0 Posted March 9, 2005 Report Share Posted March 9, 2005 I think at this point it will be a bigger surprise to not have Hillary on the ticket in '08', however I will speak my political opinion to only to the extent that I am not convinced bans are a thing of the past and every spare dollar I can come up with is going to something in the evil black rilfe catagory, with ammo to go with it. I hope I see more low priced Saigas soon. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
LeadMonkey 0 Posted March 10, 2005 Report Share Posted March 10, 2005 well 2008 is a long ways away i say we buy all the guns,spare parts, ammo, mags we can now and if the biatch gets elected we wont feel the impact so hard . Quote Link to post Share on other sites
j-man 0 Posted March 10, 2005 Report Share Posted March 10, 2005 (edited) Damn, I thought I was finally going to see some new info on Russian American Arms and Saiga imports.... Edited March 10, 2005 by j-man Quote Link to post Share on other sites
stokstad 4 Posted March 10, 2005 Author Report Share Posted March 10, 2005 There is some new info but some peopel just cant help hijacking the thread so you have to sort out the bullshit to find the info. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
G O B 3,516 Posted March 11, 2005 Report Share Posted March 11, 2005 Let's hope the NEW importer brings in the WHOLE SAIGA line, all callibers, and all available parts and accessories. EAA-SUCKED! G O B Quote Link to post Share on other sites
zipgun 0 Posted March 15, 2005 Report Share Posted March 15, 2005 Ok, it is mid March, where is the new importer? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
cvasqu03 21 Posted March 15, 2005 Report Share Posted March 15, 2005 Do you know if the new importer will be importing the 30 rd magazines? what about prices on the rifles? also, did they tell you what the website url is for when they bring it up? thanks. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
pistonring8 1 Posted March 15, 2005 Report Share Posted March 15, 2005 Where the hell is my 30.06 AK?! Its mid March damnit! I want my 30.06 AK!!!!! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Wolverine 10,360 Posted March 15, 2005 Report Share Posted March 15, 2005 A 30.06 AK would kick like a mule. Better look for it in a full length gun.......say maybe a H&K or FAL. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
G O B 3,516 Posted March 16, 2005 Report Share Posted March 16, 2005 REAL MEN SHOOT .30-06! .30-06---when it absolutly MUST die! G O B (also there are a few .7.62-54 rounds available,a few dozen .308 rounds. There are thousands of different .30-06 rounds) Quote Link to post Share on other sites
BattleRifleG3 16 Posted March 16, 2005 Report Share Posted March 16, 2005 I would absolutely love one in 9x53R, shown on Ishmash's website. A 7.62x54R necked up to 35 caliber. 358 Winchester eat your heart out, this is probably closer to the whelen. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
oak 3 Posted March 17, 2005 Report Share Posted March 17, 2005 NCShooter please keep your UN paranoia in another post that is related to your UN fears. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
stokstad 4 Posted March 17, 2005 Author Report Share Posted March 17, 2005 Do you know if the new importer will be importing the 30 rd magazines? what about prices on the rifles? also, did they tell you what the website url is for when they bring it up? thanks. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Everything is unknown at this point we are all hopeful. They havent released any more info than whats on this post I believe. Otherwise im sure someone would post it...... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
pistonring8 1 Posted March 17, 2005 Report Share Posted March 17, 2005 stokstad, thanks... keep us posted. ncshooter..... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
NCShooter 0 Posted March 17, 2005 Report Share Posted March 17, 2005 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.