I've run into the BLM rangers a few times.

Once they saw that I was being safe, cleaning my brass up, and not using garbage for targets they wandered off. Some have asked about the weapon but not about it being legal but what it's like to shoot.

Quoted: ---snip--- I know that the BLM website says AW are legal to use so long as they are legal to own for that person...etc. However, I have also heard that you need to get "approval" or permission to use an AW on BLM land---or in specific areas. Since I do not own an AW, I was going to check into this with BLM directly if/when any other lowers are added to the list. Anyone know the answer to this? Dave

For the first two or three years the BLM forbid assualt weapons. There was a change of heart about two years ago and they are now permitted just like every other weapon. I chatted with the rangers in Moreno Valley that handled San Berdinino county where the county bans the shooting of all rifles ... but the BLM rangers said that they didn't care what the county law was they were federal employees.

They even had a copied map of the location of BLM approved shooting areas.

Quoted: Here's how I would collect all of the "registered" AW's (or whatever..) 1) You can't pay your property taxes until you "turn in" your AW's. (Meanwhile fines and penalties start adding up) 2) You can't sell you house until you turn in your AW's. 3) You can't withdraw money from your bank (to "bug out") until you turn in your AW's 4) Yup, freeze your VISA, M/C. 5) No vehicle registration 6) No cashing of paychecks. Get the idea?? Saying "it can't happen here" is lying to yourself... Sorry.

None of those things are legally possible for a state to "do" to a person ... but neither are about a dozen restrictions that I can come up with off the top of my head that are already being enforced upon us here in California now. I do think you're possibly missing the point about why the politicians are dropping restrictions on the ownership of guns by lawful citizens.



These people aren't stupid; most of them are lawyers themselves and are way smart enough to know that by making a pistol grip rifle illegal it's not going to save one stinking life. Not one. Ever. Ain't gonna' happen. So ask yourself what is the end game? Why are they expending political energy on disarming lawful Californians. Un-lawful Californians don't comply by definition. A gang-banging murder doesn’t care if the web of his hand protrudes conspicuously below an imaginary line drawn though a bag of steaming doo-doo.

I think part of it is due to the size of our mega-state. I've mentioned this theory before and haven't been convinced that I'm not right about it. Here in California we've got so much media, so many people, and so many politicians that the scumsucking among the politicians have to create more and more extreme laws to get their name in the headlines and to have "bullets" for their re-election fliers. Look at the next election - it's 95% about nothing but name recognition. Think about the road-side signs, you don’t see “Jones for better schools” or “Jones for more gun control” or even “Jones (D)” … you will only see “Jones for Congress”. Very few of the positions will warrant TV spots where if you’re not watching closely … will only be attack adds on the other guy! Once these clowns get elected and despite a 20% approval rating in the California senate, they’re 100% re-elected. Yes, a one hundred per cent re-election rate in the last election.

Amazing doesn’t begin to describe that amount of stupidity (by the electorate).

So I know part of ever increasing bizarre laws are for the media attention that it garners … what’s the rest of it?

For the liberals the overwhelming “mission statement” is to create a dependent victim class that are dependent upon the government for their welfare, protections, and jobs. They want to be daddy, giving them social programs that never really solve a problem, give them “protection” with the expanded police and the ever weaker justice system and revolving door (three strikes was a big failure for their side), and more and more government jobs. Once you’ve been hooked who are you going to vote for? One side is going to give you more midnight basketball, more gun control, more cops to “protect” you, more failing schools, more handouts, more taxes on the rich, more civil service “jobs” or the other side which use to try to be for smaller less intrusive government?

Less government is a scary thought to most. How could we actually fend for ourselves without the government to enforce our weaknesses upon the masses forcing them to take us as fully productive citizens? (How about becoming fully productive!) Without Daddy who’s going to hold our hands and protect us from the big bad corporations, guns, and give us our “right to choose” on demand? Personal responsibility is a big big scary thing for an eight year old child … which is about where most of these people are in development in my mind.

There are also the uber-liberals who want to be Daddy and protect the poor ignorant people from themselves. They know best for us. They know how to “regulate” our freedoms so that we don’t hurt ourselves or others. These people pander off the needy victims and actually work to keep these people disadvantaged and down. A successful person doesn’t need the big powerful arms of the Daddy state to protect them.

So it’s a ying and yang thing. This is a symbiosis – a relationship of mutual benefit or dependence – a close, prolonged association between two different “species” that benefits each member. Keeping the victims self assured in their failure – it’s actually not your fault that you dropped out of high-school (classes are too hard and they’re written in English), got addicted to drugs (the CIA introduced crack to the inner cities), were too stupid to evacuate New Orleans (George Bush’s weather machine), were too stupid to buy home insurance (FEMA will buy you a new house) …. Keeps the democrats in power to spend other people’s money while getting treated like royality … for life.


... and I haven't even started!