Should McCain win, I believe we just may have riots in the streets

[BlueStateSaint]

Well, I'll lay in a bunch of extra 7.62 if you say so, alyce, but I really don't think anything will come of it. 

Would that be the NATO round, or the WarPac round? 

In my case, it would be WarPac.  Both of 'em.   (7.62 x 39mm AND  7.62 x 54mm)

When I bought my Nagant (similar to the one below), she was a '1942 model', and had 26 tic marks down the side of the stock.  Since then, she's been one of the best deer and elk rifles I've owned.  I choose that old girl over the A-Bolt I inheirited from my dad whenever I manage to get drawn.

I've got to get me a Nagant.  My local gun dealer has a couple of the cavalry models in stock, I think.

[Peter3_1]

Prolly won't riot anywhere it is COLD. This is not the 60's where there were valid beef's about segragation, jim crow, etal.. Today, even the welfare folk have plasma TV and cable.

As for rioting on the woods!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QMUB5lZPoi8

I DON'T THINK SO!!!!!

[DumbAss Tanker]

Well, I'll lay in a bunch of extra 7.62 if you say so, alyce, but I really don't think anything will come of it. 

Would that be the NATO round, or the WarPac round? 

Either NATO 7.62X51 or Pact 7.62X39 will work for me.  I don't currently have anything that would take 7.62X54R, though. 

And yeah, Peter3_1, "Poverty" means something wildly different in the US than it means in the rest of the world.

[Chris_]

Thanks for reminding me that I need to order some more 7.62X39.......Midway here I come....

doc

[debk]

Hate to say it...but I agree with the OP....I think there will be riots too.

Regardless of who wins.

Seeing as how one of the candidates has been prognosticating - dare I say, "prophesying"? - much the same thing, and then throwing gasoline on the fire by calling everything their opponent says, does, thinks, wears, eats and screws racist, and that every point of opposition the American people have to this candidate's "policies" is because they are racist as well, and the self-fulfilling prophesies really start piling up quickly.

Like you said Deb, this election and it's results are going to drastically change this country, regardless of who wins.  November 5th might well dawn with us looking out on a country that resembles Compton after the Lakers win - or lose - a championship.

I agree with you too, D6....I think it's going to be rioting in the streets just as there have been in large cities after a major sport championship. We have seen riots, when the team has lost....and "celebration" riots when they have won.

I think that's what will happen in November....God help us if there is any question whatsoever on any of the election results. All hell will break loose if that happens.

[Lauri]

did they riot when the S&L crapolla hit the fan in the 80s?

did they riot after 9/11 when the economy tanked for 8 months?

did they riot when the tech bubble burst?

and apparently our economy withstood ALL of those things and kept on humming along. i hate this correction as much as anyone, but its necessary. after its over and done with, maybe they will understand it better, but for now, they are all kindergarteners in their grasp of how the world works.

rioting.. my ass. 

[Chris_]

did they riot when the S&L crapolla hit the fan in the 80s?

did they riot after 9/11 when the economy tanked for 8 months?

did they riot when the tech bubble burst?

and apparently our economy withstood ALL of those things and kept on humming along. i hate this correction as much as anyone, but its necessary. after its over and done with, maybe they will understand it better, but for now, they are all kindergarteners in their grasp of how the world works.

rioting.. my ass.  :whatever:

The correction has corrected back -- the Market gave back almost all it took.

[jtyangel]

With all due respect, you are both wrong. This is far more then a correction. The government is putting together a humongous bailout(that's been all over the news today). Free, the market was up on news of this bailout, however this bailout is a HUGE risk to taxpayers. The gov. is GUARANTEEING money markets and repackaging mortgage debt instruments. OUr government is essentially buying up bad debts.  :oThis is all very substantial and unusual measures. It is not merely a 'correction'.

As a side note, Obama supports this plan. That alone would make me a little wary seeing as he also supported the 'plan' that lead to the downfall of some of these institutions to begin with.

`Real Difference'

Congressional leaders who met with Paulson and Bernanke late yesterday in Washington said they aim to pass legislation soon to shore up banks. The Fed said it will lend to banks to meet demands for redemptions from money-market mutual funds and will buy debt of the largest mortgage-finance firms, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, from primary dealers to spur liquidity.

``We're talking hundreds of billions,'' Paulson said in a press conference. ``This needs to be big enough to make a real difference and get to the heart of the problem.''

Options U.S. officials are considering include establishing an $800 billion fund to purchase so-called failed assets and a separate $400 billion pool at the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. to insure investors in money-market funds, said two people briefed by congressional staff.

The Treasury sold $60 billion in cash management bills, for the second day in a row, to allow the Fed to continue to pump emergency cash into the financial system.

`More Issuance'

The U.S. may have to borrow an extra $700 billion to $1 trillion to fund the rescue of the financial system, according to Barclays Capital Inc.'s Michael Pond.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601110&sid=azZFO8kdLYa0

We are basically taking out debt to cover the asses of banks and save them from financial collapse. A correction normally happens  without unusual measures. This is a very costly and unusual measure that is being undertaken. BTW, what all that means is WE as a country are taking out debt in order to cover the mess of some very large financial firms that because of their size could send us into a depression if not addressed. And we will need to take out even more debt until it is done. Taxes will be going up to cover this my friends, of that I can assure you. I almost want Obama to win now so he gets saddled with having to raise them.

Of course the markets are happy about this. Gov is stepping in to save the day. Should be interesting to see at what costs.

[BlueStateSaint]

With all due respect, you are both wrong. This is far more then a correction. The government is putting together a humongous bailout(that's been all over the news today). Free, the market was up on news of this bailout, however this bailout is a HUGE risk to taxpayers. The gov. is GUARANTEEING money markets and repackaging mortgage debt instruments. OUr government is essentially buying up bad debts.  :oThis is all very substantial and unusual measures. It is not merely a 'correction'.

As a side note, Obama supports this plan. That alone would make me a little wary seeing as he also supported the 'plan' that lead to the downfall of some of these institutions to begin with.

`Real Difference'

Congressional leaders who met with Paulson and Bernanke late yesterday in Washington said they aim to pass legislation soon to shore up banks. The Fed said it will lend to banks to meet demands for redemptions from money-market mutual funds and will buy debt of the largest mortgage-finance firms, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, from primary dealers to spur liquidity.

``We're talking hundreds of billions,'' Paulson said in a press conference. ``This needs to be big enough to make a real difference and get to the heart of the problem.''

Options U.S. officials are considering include establishing an $800 billion fund to purchase so-called failed assets and a separate $400 billion pool at the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. to insure investors in money-market funds, said two people briefed by congressional staff.

The Treasury sold $60 billion in cash management bills, for the second day in a row, to allow the Fed to continue to pump emergency cash into the financial system.

`More Issuance'

The U.S. may have to borrow an extra $700 billion to $1 trillion to fund the rescue of the financial system, according to Barclays Capital Inc.'s Michael Pond.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601110&sid=azZFO8kdLYa0

We are basically taking out debt to cover the asses of banks and save them from financial collapse. A correction normally happens  without unusual measures. This is a very costly and unusual measure that is being undertaken. BTW, what all that means is WE as a country are taking out debt in order to cover the mess of some very large financial firms that because of their size could send us into a depression if not addressed. And we will need to take out even more debt until it is done. Taxes will be going up to cover this my friends, of that I can assure you. I almost want Obama to win now so he gets saddled with having to raise them.

Of course the markets are happy about this. Gov is stepping in to save the day. Should be interesting to see at what costs.

Obama says that McCain is in a "panic."  Projection, anyone?  When McCain starts letting people know about "following the money" right back to the Barackstar!, he's going to start the slide down to a loss in the GE.

[jtyangel]

With all due respect, you are both wrong. This is far more then a correction. The government is putting together a humongous bailout(that's been all over the news today). Free, the market was up on news of this bailout, however this bailout is a HUGE risk to taxpayers. The gov. is GUARANTEEING money markets and repackaging mortgage debt instruments. OUr government is essentially buying up bad debts.  :oThis is all very substantial and unusual measures. It is not merely a 'correction'.

As a side note, Obama supports this plan. That alone would make me a little wary seeing as he also supported the 'plan' that lead to the downfall of some of these institutions to begin with.

`Real Difference'

Congressional leaders who met with Paulson and Bernanke late yesterday in Washington said they aim to pass legislation soon to shore up banks. The Fed said it will lend to banks to meet demands for redemptions from money-market mutual funds and will buy debt of the largest mortgage-finance firms, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, from primary dealers to spur liquidity.

``We're talking hundreds of billions,'' Paulson said in a press conference. ``This needs to be big enough to make a real difference and get to the heart of the problem.''

Options U.S. officials are considering include establishing an $800 billion fund to purchase so-called failed assets and a separate $400 billion pool at the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. to insure investors in money-market funds, said two people briefed by congressional staff.

The Treasury sold $60 billion in cash management bills, for the second day in a row, to allow the Fed to continue to pump emergency cash into the financial system.

`More Issuance'

The U.S. may have to borrow an extra $700 billion to $1 trillion to fund the rescue of the financial system, according to Barclays Capital Inc.'s Michael Pond.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601110&sid=azZFO8kdLYa0

We are basically taking out debt to cover the asses of banks and save them from financial collapse. A correction normally happens  without unusual measures. This is a very costly and unusual measure that is being undertaken. BTW, what all that means is WE as a country are taking out debt in order to cover the mess of some very large financial firms that because of their size could send us into a depression if not addressed. And we will need to take out even more debt until it is done. Taxes will be going up to cover this my friends, of that I can assure you. I almost want Obama to win now so he gets saddled with having to raise them.

Of course the markets are happy about this. Gov is stepping in to save the day. Should be interesting to see at what costs.

Obama says that McCain is in a "panic."  Projection, anyone?  When McCain starts letting people know about "following the money" right back to the Barackstar!, he's going to start the slide down to a loss in the GE.

One of the big reasons I'm wary is Obama's support of the subprime mortgage debacle. He'd love for it all to go away and on the taxpayer dollar no less. And people want to put this man in charge?  As I said though, raising taxes will be necessary to cover this. I'd rather see dems saddled with that then reps. but I would hate to see what other kind of trouble the Obamessiah will put us in. I'm nearly 40--I don't have time to waste on someone who runs the country into the ground.

[DumbAss Tanker]

Well, I'll lay in a bunch of extra 7.62 if you say so, alyce, but I really don't think anything will come of it. 

Would that be the NATO round, or the WarPac round? 

Either NATO 7.62X51 or Pact 7.62X39 will work for me.  I don't currently have anything that would take 7.62X54R, though. 

And yeah, Peter3_1, "Poverty" means something wildly different in the US than it means in the rest of the world.

A 91/30 in excellent condition can still be had for around $75.  Hard to beat that.

I have a 38/44 (and an EXCELLENT-handling carbine it is in terms of form factor), but it's in the middle of a cartridge conversion to a different .30 cal round.  I have a system to my weapons purchases as to what calibers I buy, 7.62X54R just isn't in the program.

[Chris_]

Well, I'll lay in a bunch of extra 7.62 if you say so, alyce, but I really don't think anything will come of it. 

Would that be the NATO round, or the WarPac round? 

In my case, it would be WarPac.  Both of 'em.   (7.62 x 39mm AND  7.62 x 54mm)

When I bought my Nagant (similar to the one below), she was a '1942 model', and had 26 tic marks down the side of the stock.  Since then, she's been one of the best deer and elk rifles I've owned.  I choose that old girl over the A-Bolt I inheirited from my dad whenever I manage to get drawn.

I've got to get me a Nagant.  My local gun dealer has a couple of the cavalry models in stock, I think.

All I can say against the Nagant is that you have to watch the manufacture dates carefully.  The one thing to avoid in this regard is the 1943 model year.  Reason being is that, being short on steel for tooling at the close of 1942, the Russkies re-used the worn out 1942 tools for the 1943 model year.  As a result, the accuracy suffered in the 1943 units.

[BlueStateSaint]

Well, I'll lay in a bunch of extra 7.62 if you say so, alyce, but I really don't think anything will come of it. 

Would that be the NATO round, or the WarPac round? 

In my case, it would be WarPac.  Both of 'em.   (7.62 x 39mm AND  7.62 x 54mm)

When I bought my Nagant (similar to the one below), she was a '1942 model', and had 26 tic marks down the side of the stock.  Since then, she's been one of the best deer and elk rifles I've owned.  I choose that old girl over the A-Bolt I inheirited from my dad whenever I manage to get drawn.

I've got to get me a Nagant.  My local gun dealer has a couple of the cavalry models in stock, I think.

All I can say against the Nagant is that you have to watch the manufacture dates carefully.  The one thing to avoid in this regard is the 1943 model year.  Reason being is that, being short on steel for tooling at the close of 1942, the Russkies re-used the worn out 1942 tools for the 1943 model year.  As a result, the accuracy suffered in the 1943 units.

H5 for the tip.