Uechi-Ryu.com

I personally don't have a burning desire to go get married right now. There are a lot of people who've noticed the "lifelong" instution is fubar, with 50% divorce rate, prenups, acrimony, and other nonsense. What pisses me off is that the President and the wingnuts he is sucking up to support an amendment to the FEDERAL consitution to prevent one group of people from enjoying the same unions another group already enjoys. Folks, this is nothing but a black water fountain for the 21st century, make no mistake about it. And it wasn't a couple of homos holding hands, paying bills, raising a kid and paying taxes that asked to get married that caused Britney Spear's marriage to dissolve after 55 hours. People have got to look at their OWN problems and fix them instead of seeking to blame others (AHEM, certain child molesting and or child molester sheltering hypocritical Catholic Bishops).

Otherwise equivalent "Civil Unions" were ok with me intellectually if the majority is insecure about sharing the title they enjoy, but the legal fact of the matter is that "separate but equal" has been untenable for decades. And I would never fault ANY group for being sick of second class citizenship in the supposed greatest democracy in the world, especially when they're expected to fight and sometimes die for it, so long as they do so silently and in shame ("don't ask don't tell," which has led in recent years to the highest rates of purposeless military discharges for sexual orientation in history). I should point out that those vaunted Vermontian Civil Unions get you little to nothing once you're vaccationing in another state and something goes wrong with your partner or kids.

http://www.ustreas.gov/education/fact-s ... trust.html

The phrase was added to coins around the time of the civil war; it wasn't part of any founder's principles. This is much as the religiosity in the Pledge was added to highlight the G-dlessness of communism in the 50s. It isn't fundamental to the State. I believe the Amendment in question means the government should neither AID nor HINDER religious activity in this country. I believe this means the govenment should not endorse the predominant opinion among the vocal members of the predominant religious groups in the country (many Christians, Jews, and some Islamic people, among others, support equality in marriage or at least believe it's not their business to interfere with other's pursuit of happiness). If the govenment does, it is stating a preference for some religious thought over others, which is none of it's business. Once, my partner of 6 year's brother's wife's parents (both ministers) offered to marry us at the probable cost to them of their livelihood. What a noble gesture--we had to decline. Bush, notably, apparently feels their religion is less valuable than his.

I am unaware of any secular purpose for discriminating by sex in the ability to marry someone of a certain gender (men can marry women, but women cannot). We largely understand that discriminating by sex in the ability to vote, work, earn the same wage, be elected, etc, etc is wrong and that countries that do this are backwards and prejudiced, often with the degree of emphasis on gender roles in proportion to the degree of backwardness(good example: fundamentalist islamic societies such as that once ruled by the Taliban have the harshest treatment of women). The excuses for discriminating in the right to marry are as empty as those used by the US military to support it's discrimination (ref "Conduct Unbecoming", Randy Shilts). These included the prejudices of other soldiers (put forth as the rationale for segregated units in the past), unit cohesion (with which western countries without discrimination against LGBs have had no issue, and with which the LGB members of our military have had few problems) and vulnerability of LGBs to blackmail (heightened only by the policy, and negated by being open). Those brought forth in favor of limiting marriage to opposite sex people include protection of traditional marriage (no concrete meaning or reason yet put forth), protection of children (no rationale established and the counterpoint of limiting benefits to same sex couple's children fairly obvious), encouraging procreation (not needed, nor is there a substantial difference in rates of childbearing, nor is there a shortage of adoptable children, nor is there a prohibition against infertile opposite couples), and the like.

In fact it basically comes down to the squeamishness factor, which is, it makes the wingnuts uncomfortable. Sad excuse for modifying the Constitution.

Ben said: "To be honest I can't think of one presidential candidate who wants to deprive me of it. Therefore I do not feel threatend. If I am wrong please enlighten me."

The dems toned down their gun control stance after the 2000 election. However, the disarm America/big brother will protect you mentality is still there, just suppressed at the moment. To combat that image it seems the candidates are making sure they are seen as non-threatening to sportsman. Remember, the 2nd amendment was not about hunters rights, but about protecting the nation from runaway big government.

Here is a recent quote from Kerry:

KERRY: There's a story in today's Washington Post that says that Democrats are going to run away from the issue of gun safety. I don't think that we can get elected nationally if we are not prepared to stand up against powerful special interests. Too many die each year from guns. I am for the assault weapons ban. I'm for the Brady Bill.

Source: Democratic Presidential 2004 Primary Debate in Detroit Oct 27, 2003

Clark said: Renew the assault weapons ban. Make sure that guns are designed with safety as a priority. Retain the records of gun purchase background checks as a tool for investigating crime. We should require fingerprinting of guns and create a national database. The industry should not be given special protections from civil liability when injury or death results from its failure to use reasonable care in the design, distribution, security, or sale.
Source: Campaign website, Clark04.com Nov 20, 2003

The only real difference between your hunting rifles and the so called 'assault weapons' is appearance. Look what happened in Great Britain and Australia.

Clark really scares me with his desire to create a national database of firearms. That is the beginning of the end as it was for firearm owners in California and New York.

As for religion in schools, a little christianity goes a long way. If the majority wants a prayer in school they should have one. Much of the deterioration in our society's mores began as God was driven out of education. The whining minority should shut up and home school if they are so offended by a moment of silence or the Pledge of Allegiance phrase 'under God'.

As for LGB issues, that is a states rights concern. If Vermont or whoever wants to recognize gay marriages so be it, as long as it is a decision by the majority of the votors and not an edict by the liberal left.

Rich

So I was videotaping a classroom doing a Civics lesson on the Amendment. And the teacher said something along the lines of "The Constitution was written with a certain spirit and intent, however over time and case law the interpretation of the Constitution and subsequent amendments represent the modernization of the original document to reflect the democratic republic today." She was a teacher who had previously been a trial lawyer.

Is it more important to support what the Constitution meant then or more important to ensure that the constituion is relevant to society today?

Dana

The Constitution is not a 'living document' to be changed with the times. It has provisions for amendments and other than that method should not be altered to make it more of a 21st century document.

The Constitution is still as relevent today as it was in 1787. Freedom of speech, religion, the right to bear arms etc are what made and make the U.S.A. the greatest country and society in history.

Rich

Dana Sheets wrote:the teacher said something along the lines of "The Constitution was written with a certain spirit and intent, however over time and case law the interpretation of the Constitution and subsequent amendments represent the modernization of the original document to reflect the democratic republic today." She was a teacher who had previously been a trial lawyer.

That explains it...

Is it more important to support what the Constitution meant then or more important to ensure that the constituion is relevant to society today?

Words have meaning. When the Constitution was written, the words had common usage and meaning at that time. THAT was the intent of the framers. All of this BS about the Constitution being a "living document" is just that... BS. It has been used as a means to twist the original intent by twisting the meaning of the words. Go back to the commoan usage of words at the time and the common structure of the language at the time and the mean of the Constitution is pretty clear. Language scholars who read the document using their knowledge of the meaning of words, the common language structure of that time, and the common usage of the words at that time, generally have little disagreement concerning the original intent! What makes the U.S. Constitution such an amazing document, is that by using that old language structure and word meaning STILL leaves us with a document that is completely relevant today! There are those that don't like what it says, those that try to say that it says something different from what it says, and those that "interpret" it to say something they want it to say, but the document is just as relevant in the original meanings now as they were then. The founders knew there would be those who would try to distroy what they had created... from without and from within. That is exactly why the so many of the official Oaths for the U.S. contain the phrase: "protect and defend the Constitution of the United States from all enemies, foreign and domestic."

Interestingly enough, many of the "great moments" previously posted, have already been stomped on and destroyed by those domestic enemies...

I aIso believe in the instant background check. I don't want someone fresh out of jail being able to go to the sporting goods store and buy a pistol.

I agree the constitution says the "right to bear arms" not hunting tools. There is a small part of me that would like to own an AKA os SKS as well. (I can buy one for about 300 bucks here in Roanoke) Would I ever hunt with one?? Probably not. Not much of a sport that way. Black powder is just fine.


Could I live with a ban on assault rifles? Yep. Do I want to? Nope. What is more important to me.. Getting a president into the white house that will not run the economy into the ground or owning an assault rifle. Tough choice. What's more important? My children stuck with the legacy of Gee Dubyah or me having a really cool gun?
One important point I want to make is that a president cannot pass laws without the consent of congress. Even if Clark was President do you really think that congress would pass a law banning assault weapons?

What if the majority of Americans wants to ban Assault weapons? I believe someone here is for majority rule eh???

If the majority wants a prayer in school they should have one. Much of the deterioration in our society's mor(al)es began as God was driven out of education.

Wasn't it common to pray in school back in slavery days? Was that moral? Didn't slave owners use bible verses like "therefore slaves be subject unto your masters"
.

The whining minority should shut up and home school if they are so offended

I know many right wing christian fundamentalists who don't want EVILution taught to their kids and do just that.



I have heard that it is best to never talk politics or religion with people if you don't want to offend them. Normally I steer clear of these issues in conversations with people.. but hell.. this is the Tough issues Forum.

If the constitution, as written, is:

completely relevant

Then today is irrelevant to the constitution. Because today we have property ownership and voting rights for women and racial minorities. The only reason we have those things is because we made amendments (read as: updated) the constitution to be more relevant to a society that embraced the rights of women and racial minorities - not just the rights of white men.

I can't quickly dismiss the idea that the same constitution that needed to have rights for women and racial minorities won't again need to be updated from time to time.

Now - if the majority of Americans happen to vote that the correct amendment to update the constituion today is to protect marriage as a man and a woman then that is the right of the voting public. I may not agree with it but because of my personal beliefs but I do strongly believe that this is one of the best processes invented thus far to help society get along.

Dana

benzocaine wrote:I aIso believe in the instant background check. I don't want someone fresh out of jail being able to go to the sporting goods store and buy a pistol.

Having a felony record is an exclusionary thing, however what about the concept of paying one's debt to society? If someone has done their time, why shouldn't they have their rights restored? If they (gasp) haven't really paid their debt to society, then what the hell are we doing letting them out?

I agree the constitution says the "right to bear arms" not hunting tools. There is a small part of me that would like to own an AKA os SKS as well. (I can buy one for about 300 bucks here in Roanoke) Would I ever hunt with one?? Probably not. Not much of a sport that way. Black powder is just fine.

Woah... The 7.62X39 round is basically an anemic 30-30. Lots of hunting takes place with the 30-30 round in many states. It is commonly used for large whitetail hunting. While hunting laws vary, use of a semi-auto for hunting is also common, usually with a restriction of a maximum 5 round magazine. Therefore, the common AKS (are you sure you meant AKA? That is a fully-automatic machinegun that has never been imported to the U.S. for general purchase. The U.S. examples are government owned, collectors items, or "war trophies" and are all highly regulated and accounted for by the BATFE)... anyway, the AKS or variants are semi-automatic, just like any other semi-automatic hunting rifle, and there are 3 & 5 round magazines available specifically for hunting use. The SKS has a fixed magazine, has never come in a fully automatic version, therefore is also a semi-automatic, just like any other semi-automatic hunting rifle, and there are specific plugs for the SKS fixed 10-round magazine that will limit the capacity to 3 & 5 rounds specifically for hunting use. Because of the looser tolerances of the AKS and the SKS, they are not as accurate as some other rifles, although they are pretty good shooters for the money. Black powder rifles are considered "primatives" in many states and have their own hunting season. However, to someone who is knowledgeable about firearms can tell you that Black Powder rifles made in the last 50-70 years are, in most cases, more accurate than the AKS or SKS. Also, the power of the rifle can be much higher than the AKS or SKS, it depends on the loading of the user. Additionally, as previously indicated, the AKS and SKS fire a .30 caliber projectile while most Black Powder rifles are commonly chambered for a .50 or .54 caliber projectile! Because a rifle is "black powder" and must be loaded (many states require black powder hunting to be done with a muzzle loader, but there are many fine break-open versions that load from the breach), the fact is that since the late 1800s black powder rifles have "rifling" (hence the name) which increases accuracy. While one can load these types of firearms in the "colonial" style of adding pad, powder, patch, and "ball", there are premade setups available that "drop in".

Could I live with a ban on assault rifles? Yep. Do I want to? Nope. What is more important to me.. Getting a president into the white house that will not run the economy into the ground or owning an assault rifle. Tough choice. What's more important? My children stuck with the legacy of Gee Dubyah or me having a really cool gun?

This isn't a choice.

One important point I want to make is that a president cannot pass laws without the consent of congress. Even if Clark was President do you really think that congress would pass a law banning assault weapons?

They already did, where have you been?

What if the majority of Americans wants to ban Assault weapons? I believe someone here is for majority rule eh???

NO. You obviously took one comment without context and think you understand what it meant. You do not. This nation was founded as a Constitutional Republic, not a "democracy". A democracy is essentially mob rule... the equivalent of two wolves and a sheep voting on dinner and deciding that the sheep is the entree'. A Constitutional Republic is the equivalent of the two wolves voting to have the sheep for dinner and finding a sheep knowledgeable about his Constitutional Rights, who is therefore a well-armed, well-informed sheep. My previous reference was to the slippery slope that we have been on taking us away from a Constitutional Republic and towards a "democracy". We hear it all the time... How we live in a democracy. We aren't supposed to live in a democracy. Democracy always, inevitably leads to Socialism/Communism the minute that people find out they can elect leaders who will pay give them money from the public coffers!

Wasn't it common to pray in school back in slavery days? Was that moral? Didn't slave owners use bible verses like "therefore slaves be subject unto your masters"

It is wholy unwise to bring slavery into this. This "discussion" could deteriorate very quickly. I believe that you targeted the use of slavery in this discussion because the person you are disagreeing with is from the South. I warn you to NOT make that mistake. If you want to bring slavery in as an issue, please give your sources and cites for such statements.

I know many right wing christian fundamentalists who don't want EVILution taught to their kids and do just that.

I know plenty of people who homeschool and most of them aren't "right wing christian fundamentalists" (gee... you say it like it's a bad thing). I know plenty of "right wing christian fundamentalists" who don't homeschool or who homeschool and include evolution theory. (Darwin has merits, but much of his "theory" has been proven wrong. There are more current theories of evolution that work/fit much better.) It is improper to judge someone's scientific knowledge based on their religious faith.

I have heard that it is best to never talk politics or religion with people if you don't want to offend them. Normally I steer clear of these issues in conversations with people.. but hell.. this is the Tough issues Forum.

politics or religion are fine to discuss, this is the Tough Issues forum, but please keep the rules (posted on the forum) in mind. I do ask that folks come with a basis for their opinions and remain (relatively) civil.

"A democracy is essentially mob rule... the equivalent of two wolves and a sheep voting on dinner and deciding that the sheep is the entree'. A Constitutional Republic is the equivalent of the two wolves voting to have the sheep for dinner and finding a sheep knowledgeable about his Constitutional Rights, who is therefore a well-armed, well-informed sheep."

This sheep would like to point out what the next step is for the wolves: Amending the Constitution to prevent the sheep from having the same rights they have. That's what is being proposed by the religious wrong and our President. The majority CAN eat sheep, they can amend the Consitution to give themselves the right. Who out there stumping for the majority would like to comment how THEY would react if the majority voted that they could not serve in the military without hiding their ancestry or religion and could be subjected to withhunts to discover it? Or if the majority removed the ability to get married under their religion?
Or raise or visit their children? Or get a job, or apartment without respect to their heritage or some other irrelevant characteristics? Gosh, it's ok by me, they amended the Constitution, so I literally don't have that right.

I imagine your 2nd Amendment support would become even more fervent.

"It is wholy unwise to bring slavery into this."

It's tough, but dead-on pertinent. The fact is slavery was constitutional because the white men meant it that way for a long time--and if we go with the interpretation proposed here that the word is the word and no exceptions or modernizations, we also have to accept that all the text in our Founder's writings regarding equality under god and the like was acompanied by the little footnote "except blacks and women etc." If we vote away everyone's right to marry by amendment, we can also vote away their right to freedom--slavery can be restored by amendment. The very fact that the religion of the founders was consistent with slavery and that religion is driving the current amendment push is worth pointing out. In my mind, it is not a good reason to amend the Consitution.

"It is improper to judge someone's scientific knowledge based on their religious faith."

That was not done.

"As for religion in schools, a little christianity goes a long way. If the majority wants a prayer in school they should have one. Much of the deterioration in our society's mores began as God was driven out of education."

So do your Christian education at home. What's stopping you? Why does it have to be forced on the Jews, atheists, muslims, etc? Our government is NOT to establish your religion as the correct one just because its the most common. I've read enough accounts of how difficult it was to be a Jew getting Christ drummed into you at school to know such measures aren't needed because there's plenty of time at home and because morals can be taught without the religion education, and that such measures are scary for those who don't want them. If you lived in a city where most people began using drugs, Rich, would you shrug and think, "aww shucks, I could always move to Sweden" if they started teaching how to safely use crack and heroin to your children? I don't think religion is that bad but neither is it anyone's place to indoctrinate in public schools.

"The whining minority should shut up and home school if they are so offended by a moment of silence or the Pledge of Allegiance phrase 'under God'."

The phrase wasn't added until the 50s. God was easily a bigger influence in school BEFORE then. It doesn't add up. The morals were as you liked them BEFORE then. Why does this country insist on conspicuous public demonstrations of faith when they are NOT necessary to that faith's practice unless it is to make a statement? The moment of silence isn't going to make it easier for anyone to be christian, for example. How many hundreds of opportunities do they need to reflect quietly during a day? There are easily dozens and dozens of free moments for this without forcing it on others. It's merely good at demonstrating they have the power to get their moment of silence.

"As for LGB issues, that is a states rights concern."

To which I say: Full faith and credit.

"If Vermont or whoever wants to recognize gay marriages so be it, as long as it is a decision by the majority of the votors and not an edict by the liberal left."

To which I ask: and if pre antislavery Amendment some judge decided to conclude slavery was unconstitutional, what would you say?

It is wholy unwise to bring slavery into this. This "discussion" could deteriorate very quickly. I believe that you targeted the use of slavery in this discussion because the person you are disagreeing with is from the South. I warn you to NOT make that mistake. If you want to bring slavery in as an issue, please give your sources and cites for such statements.

You are incorrect in your assumption that I targeted slavery because someone here is from the south. I was merely rubuting the statement that we were more morlal back in the good ol' days when school prayer and Bible reading was common. I have met this person face to face before.. and will again. I think he is a nice, and also well informed person. He just has a different philosphy about school prayer than me. Myabee I came off too flippantly. Sorry.

Having a felony record is an exclusionary thing, however what about the concept of paying one's debt to society? If someone has done their time, why shouldn't they have their rights restored? If they (gasp) haven't really paid their debt to society, then what the hell are we doing letting them out?

So you are saying give them the right to own guns? Or are you saying keep them in prison longer? I personally believe that losing the right to vote and the right to bear arms is appropriate for an armed bank robber.

"right wing christian fundamentalists" (gee... you say it like it's a bad thing).

Just like the Liberal lefters want to take your guns away from you and raise the red flag with the gold sickle and hammer. I guess it's all about perspective.

First, to Ben, I meant mores, not morals as you editied it. To wit:

Main Entry: mo·res
Pronunciation: 'mor-"Az, 'mOr- also -(")Ez
Function: noun plural
Etymology: Latin, plural of mor-, mos custom
Date: circa 1899
1 : the fixed morally binding customs of a particular group
2 : moral attitudes

Interesting point by Panther:

'while most Black Powder rifles are commonly chambered for a .50 or .54 caliber projectile'

There is a move afoot in many states, including VA, to make civilian possesion of any firearm capable of firing a .50 caliber or larger projectile illegal. The thinking of the uneducated gun banners is that this is an ideal terrorist weapon unsuitable for any other purpose. Of course this is BS Ben, but should this law pass are you ready to turn in your black powder hunting rifle (what caliber is it?)? I have heard the argument that even shotguns with slugs would be banned!

Should I choose to hunt I'd take my .30 cal M1A with a 5 round magazine and iron sights. The 7.62 X 51 mm round is very humane to the intended target. The SKS/AK round in 7.62 x 39 mm is a little light for deer as it was designed to maim humans though there are good hunting rounds available for it. The AK74 uses a 5.45mm round that is illegal to use for big game in VA. Again, it is a maiming round. However it and the NATO 5.56mm round is a good varmint round.

Ian: I am not sure what your last question was.

Rich

Thank you Rich for your correction concerning the word mores. I will add that to my expanding vocabulary

My father in laws rifle is 50 cal. No I do not want to give it up.

BTW Panther. I did not realize that an AKA is actually an AKS. My knowledge of guns is limited. I can clean the ones I own, sight them in, and hit the target though

RACastanet wrote:There is a move afoot in many states, including VA, to make civilian possesion of any firearm capable of firing a .50 caliber or larger projectile illegal. The thinking of the uneducated gun banners is that this is an ideal terrorist weapon unsuitable for any other purpose. Of course this is BS Ben, but should this law pass are you ready to turn in your black powder hunting rifle (what caliber is it?)? I have heard the argument that even shotguns with slugs would be banned!

10ga. & 12 ga. are greater than .50 caliber and would be defacto banned.

The AK74 uses a 5.45mm round that is illegal to use for big game in VA. Again, it is a maiming round. However it and the NATO 5.56mm round is a good varmint round.

The AK74 has a number of chamberings. There is a version chambered for 5.56 NATO and a version chambered in 7.62x39 as well...

IJ wrote:This sheep would like to point out what the next step is for the wolves: Amending the Constitution to prevent the sheep from having the same rights they have. That's what is being proposed by the religious wrong and our President. The majority CAN eat sheep, they can amend the Consitution to give themselves the right. Who out there stumping for the majority would like to comment how THEY would react if the majority voted that they could not serve in the military without hiding their ancestry or religion and could be subjected to withhunts to discover it? Or if the majority removed the ability to get married under their religion? Or raise or visit their children? Or get a job, or apartment without respect to their heritage or some other irrelevant characteristics? Gosh, it's ok by me, they amended the Constitution, so I literally don't have that right.

There is a reason why it is so difficult to pass Constitutional Amendments. It should be difficult! It takes 2/3 of the States to ratify the amendment. I'm not saying that mistakes haven't been made or that they can't be made. Prohibition is a prime example. Personally, I think the current push in Massachusetts (or anywhere else) is BS as well... Since I'm not playing "devil's advocate" with this post, I'll point out that my belief is rather simple... I believe you have the Right to live as you chose and I won't do anything to interfere with your life, but I demand the same consideration in return. The minute you want to stomp on someone else's Rights, you've crossed the line in my opinion. I have no problem with anyone marrying anyone else... go for it... it's religious freedom and if that's your religion and it doesn't harm me, I don't care. I may or may not have the same religious beliefs and that's my perogative. If you want me to support your cause for your personal freedom and Rights, I'm willing to do that, but I expect my cause for my personal freedom and Rights to be fully supported as well.

I agree with you comment about "full faith and credit". However, since you mentioned the 2nd Amendment, let me point out that States do not give "full faith and credit" to my License to carry a firearm! This goes back to "incorporation" (under the 14th). We could get into all kinds of debates about whether this is right or wrong, but this is what we are dealing with. It is painfully obvious that under the current guidelines and rulings States are free to chose what they will recognize from other States. I don't agree with it, but that's where we're at.

I also believe that reading the text of the Constitution and Declaration of Independence, we don't see things like "all men are created equal, as long as they're white". We also don't see things like "all men, and we only mean the male sex, not 'mankind', are created equal". We can (or at least we should) all agree that it is a tragic thing to have ever had to be specifically inclusive of any race, sex, religion, etc. Even at the time he wrote the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson believe that those of the opposite sex and of different races were truly "created equal" in the eyes of God. Other founders felt the same way.

Regardless, the words of the Constitution are inclusive as they should be. When we read the phrase "the people" it means ALL of the people and not any special class. I don't advocate giving guns to felons, but I still wonder about paying one's debt to society. I agree that doing certain crimes should bring about the punishment of the loss of certain Rights for good, but on the other hand, if the person can't be trusted to properly exercise certain basic Rights, can we truly trust them to be back in society?

benzocaine wrote:Just like the Liberal lefters want to take your guns away from you and raise the red flag with the gold sickle and hammer. I guess it's all about perspective.

When the facts can be documented, one must at least start to think they're credible.

I did not realize that an AKA is actually an AKS. My knowledge of guns is limited.

Thank you for confirming my thought. The acronyms AKA and AKS were created in the U.S. The actual rifle discussed was originally the AK-47. Designed by Mikhail Kalishnikov in 1947 for the Soviet military as the replacement battle rifle for the SKS (designed by Segei Simonov). The acronym "AK" stands for "Automat Kalishnikov", the addition of "A" or "S" on the end was for distinction in other countries and refers to (fully-)Automatic or Semi-automatic. As previously mentioned, the number of "A" variants is highly restricted and I know of only a few that are around. They have never been made available in the U.S. for general consumption by the public. The version that has been available is based on the Semi-automatic variant and there are many different versions of it. AKS, AK-74, MAK-90, etc. BTW, SKS stands for Samozariadnyia Karabina Simonova and as the name indicates was a Carbine style (at the time) rifle designed by Simonov. There are also a number of versions of this rifle that were available in the U.S. prior to the AW ban. (See they already HAVE passed laws banning or severely restricting certain firearms... for more proof please read the NFA34 law - passed as a tax, but became a defacto ban on certain firearms and devices, as well as GCA68 - touted to be a "gun control act", but was provably modeled after the Nazi gun control laws of 1934, the "Brady" Bill, and the AW ban - which was a ban on importation of certain firearms pushed by Josh Sugarmann because he knew that he could confuse the public into believing that he was banning "machineguns" - an intentional deception that was proven over a decade ago...) None of these rifles can be imported the same as before the ban, anything since the ban has been modified to meet certain legal requirements and have the further restriction of not being able to be further modified by the purchaser. I purchased my original Russian SKS (came in the original box, written in Russian, packed in cosmoline grease) for well under $150. I've been offered 3X that for it now. It's not for sale, because... ahem.... selling firearms is against my religion!

Panther said: "The AK74 has a number of chamberings. There is a version chambered for 5.56 NATO and a version chambered in 7.62x39 as well..."

Are you sure about that? I thought that the AK74 was the 1974 variant of the AK47, built against Kalishnikov's recommendation, to utilize a round similar to the NATO 5.56, the 5.45mm. The Soviet high command seemed to think we had a superior round for the M16 and wanted one similar to it. Hmm...

The are many variants of both but an AK74 in 7.62x39mm would just be an AK47. This is per my Jane's Guns Guide.

Rich

RACastanet wrote:Are you sure about that? I thought that the AK74 was the 1974 variant of the AK47, built against Kalishnikov's recommendation, to utilize a round similar to the NATO 5.56, the 5.45mm. The Soviet high command seemed to think we had a superior round for the M16 and wanted one similar to it. Hmm...

The are many variants of both but an AK74 in 7.62x39mm would just be an AK47. This is per my Jane's Guns Guide.

Ummmm... Yeah, I guess an AK-74 chambered in 7.62x39 would be the same thing as an AK-47. I just know someone that has an AK-74 (at least it said so on the box and paperwork) that fired 7.62x39. I've also shot the 5.56 NATO version, so I know it exists. I've read about, but never shot the 5.45 version. I actually heard about, but have no comfirmation of a version in .308 (7.62x54). I could be wrong, but wasn't there some other changes made to the AK-74?

I don't particularly like the trigger on the AK for lots of shooting... say a few hundred rounds on the range. I prefer the SKS. I like the AR-15, FN-FAL or L1A1 triggers better.