<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Drum Fed Saiga</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.pagunblog.com/2008/09/15/drum-fed-saiga/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.pagunblog.com/2008/09/15/drum-fed-saiga/</link>
	<description>The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State ...</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 10 Feb 2012 05:54:30 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
<xhtml:meta xmlns:xhtml="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" name="robots" content="noindex" />
	<item>
		<title>By: Tom</title>
		<link>http://www.pagunblog.com/2008/09/15/drum-fed-saiga/#comment-29808</link>
		<dc:creator>Tom</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 15 Sep 2008 23:19:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.snowflakesinhell.com/?p=5234#comment-29808</guid>
		<description>&quot;A foregrip is fine on a rifle, but not on a pistol. The definition in the NFA for a handgun is a gun that’s designed to be fired by a single hand. ATF argues that the grip on the front means it’s designed to be held by two hands, so it’s an AOW.&quot;

The gun was still DESIGNED to be fired with one hand, adding the ability to control it better makes it ...  more dangerous according to the atfu ( in reality less dangerous except in the hands of criminals who don&#039;t give a rats ass about the laws in the first place) 

Using atfu logic drivers ed cars that have had an additional brake pedal added must therefore be meant to be driven by two people and should be banned as well as they are now more dangerous.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;A foregrip is fine on a rifle, but not on a pistol. The definition in the NFA for a handgun is a gun that’s designed to be fired by a single hand. ATF argues that the grip on the front means it’s designed to be held by two hands, so it’s an AOW.&#8221;</p>
<p>The gun was still DESIGNED to be fired with one hand, adding the ability to control it better makes it &#8230;  more dangerous according to the atfu ( in reality less dangerous except in the hands of criminals who don&#8217;t give a rats ass about the laws in the first place) </p>
<p>Using atfu logic drivers ed cars that have had an additional brake pedal added must therefore be meant to be driven by two people and should be banned as well as they are now more dangerous.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jim W</title>
		<link>http://www.pagunblog.com/2008/09/15/drum-fed-saiga/#comment-29805</link>
		<dc:creator>Jim W</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 15 Sep 2008 22:04:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.snowflakesinhell.com/?p=5234#comment-29805</guid>
		<description>The NRA will direct the ensuing wrath wherever it is most useful. Anyone who contributes to a new ban of any sort will be targeted by the NRA, just like last time.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The NRA will direct the ensuing wrath wherever it is most useful. Anyone who contributes to a new ban of any sort will be targeted by the NRA, just like last time.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Chas</title>
		<link>http://www.pagunblog.com/2008/09/15/drum-fed-saiga/#comment-29800</link>
		<dc:creator>Chas</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 15 Sep 2008 20:26:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.snowflakesinhell.com/?p=5234#comment-29800</guid>
		<description>&quot;If Obama gets in, expect ATF to start banning stuff like crazy regardless of the merits.&quot;

Obama would want to keep his hands clean to maintain his electability.  Sticking it to gun owners would be Joe &quot;Gun Ban&quot; Biden&#039;s job.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;If Obama gets in, expect ATF to start banning stuff like crazy regardless of the merits.&#8221;</p>
<p>Obama would want to keep his hands clean to maintain his electability.  Sticking it to gun owners would be Joe &#8220;Gun Ban&#8221; Biden&#8217;s job.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jason The Saj</title>
		<link>http://www.pagunblog.com/2008/09/15/drum-fed-saiga/#comment-29799</link>
		<dc:creator>Jason The Saj</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 15 Sep 2008 20:06:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.snowflakesinhell.com/?p=5234#comment-29799</guid>
		<description>I guess my 0% government could be seen to allude to a violent revolution.  But my thought is much more a secession of some from said government.

But after re-reading I can see how that could be misleading.

- Jason</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I guess my 0% government could be seen to allude to a violent revolution.  But my thought is much more a secession of some from said government.</p>
<p>But after re-reading I can see how that could be misleading.</p>
<p>- Jason</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jason The Saj</title>
		<link>http://www.pagunblog.com/2008/09/15/drum-fed-saiga/#comment-29798</link>
		<dc:creator>Jason The Saj</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 15 Sep 2008 20:04:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.snowflakesinhell.com/?p=5234#comment-29798</guid>
		<description>&quot;Any circumstance under which a violent revolution would result in a better government would produce an electoral revolution first.&quot;

First off,  I did not specify a violent revolution before an electoral revolution. And much of what many supporters of Ron Paul...be they more libertarian or to the whacko fringes are hoping for is an electoral revolution, a peaceful revolution and resolution to change course.

&quot;The government we have now is the result of people asking government to wipe their asses and fix all their problems.&quot;

Absolutely agree, which is why I personally do not think there could be a successful nationwide revolution. That said, I could see segments, regions distinguish themselves, even separate and secede. 

Anything more would be messy, and likely result in either great bloodshed, or a lower-quality of life. The American Revolution was a rarity in that it was a bloody revolution that actually led to a reasonably stable result. Most revolutions that involved violence lead to tragic failures fill with tyranny and death.

I do believe it is possible for a revolution to result in a better form of government. But I believe it is very slim. 1-in-10 at best and probably closer to 1-in-50.

That said, electoral revolutions as you termed it, usually stem from a backlash of someone toward the other side.  The Republican revolution in 1994 was a direct result of President Clinton and a Democrat Congress. Meanwhile, the losses in Congress stem directly from President Bush and a Republican Congress. However, I believe this to be a larger trend because two sides have been affected.  The Left, always ready to hate Republicans, conservatives, etc.  And the libertarians sick of a Republican Party that is neither fiscally conservative nor protects our core rights has led to many conservatives and libertarians dis-avowing support for the Republican Party.

That said, I do believe that if we continue on a path that tramples personal rights and liberties as we seem to be on. The result will be one of two options, a revolution or a fascist socialist tyranny.  It&#039;s just a matter of time, 20 yrs, 100 yrs, 200 yrs? As you&#039;ve stated, many are willing to accept such tyranny in exchange for bread and circuses or in modern day terms pizza and television.

That said, I&#039;d wager $20 that if Obama gets elected with a Democrat controlled Congress. That there would be a strong political backlash in following elections.

&quot;That people want such a government is the problem that needs to be solved.&quot;
Very much agreed, and doubtful there is a solution to that problem other than a complete failure of the system and total collapse which would be chaos and equate to much tragedy.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;Any circumstance under which a violent revolution would result in a better government would produce an electoral revolution first.&#8221;</p>
<p>First off,  I did not specify a violent revolution before an electoral revolution. And much of what many supporters of Ron Paul&#8230;be they more libertarian or to the whacko fringes are hoping for is an electoral revolution, a peaceful revolution and resolution to change course.</p>
<p>&#8220;The government we have now is the result of people asking government to wipe their asses and fix all their problems.&#8221;</p>
<p>Absolutely agree, which is why I personally do not think there could be a successful nationwide revolution. That said, I could see segments, regions distinguish themselves, even separate and secede. </p>
<p>Anything more would be messy, and likely result in either great bloodshed, or a lower-quality of life. The American Revolution was a rarity in that it was a bloody revolution that actually led to a reasonably stable result. Most revolutions that involved violence lead to tragic failures fill with tyranny and death.</p>
<p>I do believe it is possible for a revolution to result in a better form of government. But I believe it is very slim. 1-in-10 at best and probably closer to 1-in-50.</p>
<p>That said, electoral revolutions as you termed it, usually stem from a backlash of someone toward the other side.  The Republican revolution in 1994 was a direct result of President Clinton and a Democrat Congress. Meanwhile, the losses in Congress stem directly from President Bush and a Republican Congress. However, I believe this to be a larger trend because two sides have been affected.  The Left, always ready to hate Republicans, conservatives, etc.  And the libertarians sick of a Republican Party that is neither fiscally conservative nor protects our core rights has led to many conservatives and libertarians dis-avowing support for the Republican Party.</p>
<p>That said, I do believe that if we continue on a path that tramples personal rights and liberties as we seem to be on. The result will be one of two options, a revolution or a fascist socialist tyranny.  It&#8217;s just a matter of time, 20 yrs, 100 yrs, 200 yrs? As you&#8217;ve stated, many are willing to accept such tyranny in exchange for bread and circuses or in modern day terms pizza and television.</p>
<p>That said, I&#8217;d wager $20 that if Obama gets elected with a Democrat controlled Congress. That there would be a strong political backlash in following elections.</p>
<p>&#8220;That people want such a government is the problem that needs to be solved.&#8221;<br />
Very much agreed, and doubtful there is a solution to that problem other than a complete failure of the system and total collapse which would be chaos and equate to much tragedy.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jim W</title>
		<link>http://www.pagunblog.com/2008/09/15/drum-fed-saiga/#comment-29797</link>
		<dc:creator>Jim W</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 15 Sep 2008 19:37:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.snowflakesinhell.com/?p=5234#comment-29797</guid>
		<description>You&#039;re deluding yourself. Any circumstance under which a violent revolution would result in a better government would produce an electoral revolution first. The only real exceptions to this are governments that act in total disregard for the preferences of the voters. 

The government we have now is the result of people asking government to wipe their asses and fix all their problems. That people want such a government is the problem that needs to be solved.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You&#8217;re deluding yourself. Any circumstance under which a violent revolution would result in a better government would produce an electoral revolution first. The only real exceptions to this are governments that act in total disregard for the preferences of the voters. </p>
<p>The government we have now is the result of people asking government to wipe their asses and fix all their problems. That people want such a government is the problem that needs to be solved.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jason The Saj</title>
		<link>http://www.pagunblog.com/2008/09/15/drum-fed-saiga/#comment-29793</link>
		<dc:creator>Jason The Saj</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 15 Sep 2008 18:32:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.snowflakesinhell.com/?p=5234#comment-29793</guid>
		<description>&quot;Voting for Ron Paul is not the path to 90 percent less government. It&#039;s the path to 90 percent more government because you are helping Obama get elected.&quot;

Not sure...

I think Obama might be the path to zero government. (ie: revolution).  Voting for the lesser of two evils simply delays matters. Voting for the greater can sometimes be a catalyst.  That said, Sarah Palin has won my vote. I won&#039;t be voting for McCain, but I will vote for Sarah.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;Voting for Ron Paul is not the path to 90 percent less government. It&#8217;s the path to 90 percent more government because you are helping Obama get elected.&#8221;</p>
<p>Not sure&#8230;</p>
<p>I think Obama might be the path to zero government. (ie: revolution).  Voting for the lesser of two evils simply delays matters. Voting for the greater can sometimes be a catalyst.  That said, Sarah Palin has won my vote. I won&#8217;t be voting for McCain, but I will vote for Sarah.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jim W</title>
		<link>http://www.pagunblog.com/2008/09/15/drum-fed-saiga/#comment-29792</link>
		<dc:creator>Jim W</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 15 Sep 2008 18:29:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.snowflakesinhell.com/?p=5234#comment-29792</guid>
		<description>Voting for Ron Paul is not the path to 90 percent less government. It&#039;s the path to 90 percent more government because you are helping Obama get elected.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Voting for Ron Paul is not the path to 90 percent less government. It&#8217;s the path to 90 percent more government because you are helping Obama get elected.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jim W</title>
		<link>http://www.pagunblog.com/2008/09/15/drum-fed-saiga/#comment-29791</link>
		<dc:creator>Jim W</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 15 Sep 2008 18:28:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.snowflakesinhell.com/?p=5234#comment-29791</guid>
		<description>The ATF has addressed that issue already, I beleive in a revenue ruling before they got folded into DOJ. 

If you are firing potatoes at inanimate objects, it is not a weapon and therefore not a DD. 

If you use it as a weapon or you start making weapon type rounds for the spud gun, it becomes a DD. 

The ATF has better things to do than go around making themselves look stupid for arresting 15 year olds with potato guns. Technically molotov cocktails are DDs as well, but I suspect the vast majority of [male] children have constructed gunpowder or gasoline bombs at one time or another for fun.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The ATF has addressed that issue already, I beleive in a revenue ruling before they got folded into DOJ. </p>
<p>If you are firing potatoes at inanimate objects, it is not a weapon and therefore not a DD. </p>
<p>If you use it as a weapon or you start making weapon type rounds for the spud gun, it becomes a DD. </p>
<p>The ATF has better things to do than go around making themselves look stupid for arresting 15 year olds with potato guns. Technically molotov cocktails are DDs as well, but I suspect the vast majority of [male] children have constructed gunpowder or gasoline bombs at one time or another for fun.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jason The Saj</title>
		<link>http://www.pagunblog.com/2008/09/15/drum-fed-saiga/#comment-29788</link>
		<dc:creator>Jason The Saj</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 15 Sep 2008 18:04:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.snowflakesinhell.com/?p=5234#comment-29788</guid>
		<description>&quot;any type of weapon by whatever name known which will, or which may be readily converted to, expel a projectile by the action of an explosive or other propellant, the barrel or barrels of which have a bore of more than one-half inch in diameter, except a shotgun or shotgun shell which the Director finds is generally recognized as particularly suitable for sporting purposes.&quot;

Wow....

Maybe I should tell a few of my friends that they need to register their potato guns. By definition, they fall into such a category. *lame*

I wish everyone saw the wisdom in voting for Ron Paul. Sure, some might disagree with his viewpoints. But getting rid of 90% of government influence would have been a beautiful thing.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;any type of weapon by whatever name known which will, or which may be readily converted to, expel a projectile by the action of an explosive or other propellant, the barrel or barrels of which have a bore of more than one-half inch in diameter, except a shotgun or shotgun shell which the Director finds is generally recognized as particularly suitable for sporting purposes.&#8221;</p>
<p>Wow&#8230;.</p>
<p>Maybe I should tell a few of my friends that they need to register their potato guns. By definition, they fall into such a category. *lame*</p>
<p>I wish everyone saw the wisdom in voting for Ron Paul. Sure, some might disagree with his viewpoints. But getting rid of 90% of government influence would have been a beautiful thing.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

