I have CYMA's AKM, cm036a I believe. The gun is beautiful, works as well as it looks, and has never given me an issue. CYMA's AK-74 series is full of full-metal & real wood guns; they're very popular amongst communities such as red-alliance.net for their accurate bodies and durable nature. I'd recommend an AK-74M or AKS-74 from them, if you don't buy from theUnit. G&P mid-caps make good complements to them.

ohh man hahaha. i saw that bro, my exact reaction was:  #-o

 Yeah, it was fun... Thankfully it was just a simple thing that had nothing to do with the inner workings of the gun. I think that now I have a reason to practice shooting at small targets though. Perhaps my next go will be full of win instead.

I think there's a difference between a law that requires profiling and a report describing documented behaviors. Were legislation passed with content and requirements similar to 1070, pertaining to "right wing militias" and milsim stuff, etc., I'd be just as worried as I am about 1070.

Quote from: "Kodiak"

Quote from: "SARC"

Quote from: "Kodiak"

I think this is relevant to the OP.
From MIAC Report: PP7 Paragraph 1, Sentences 1-2. "Political Paraphernalia: Militia members most commonly associate with 3rd party political groups.  It is not uncommon for militia members to display Constitutional Party, Campaign for Liberty, or Libertarian material."

Since the Tea Party was not in existence when this report was published it is not mentioned but is most certainly implied.  This is taking law abiding citizens who don't approve of or share the current administrations views, and who voice them via their first amendment right to freedom of speech, and lumping them with extremist wackos.  Also since you obviously failed to read the report it lumps all "milsim" activities in the same category, my point being that everyone on the forum including you who are law abiding citizens and enjoy our hobby are under scrutiny.

 I can imagine that they reference "3rd party" and libertarians because you would be hard pressed to find a communist militia in America. And I can also imagine that if there were communists mentioned in the report, the reaction to it would be much different. The MIAC report is written from the perspective of a state law enforcement body. You imply that I am naive to think that we are not being watched by the government, or to say that such a thing is not unwarranted. I say it is equally naive to expect law enforcement agencies to remain ignorant of militias in their states, the potential they have for violence, and the history of violence some have established.

 I see why you are worried, the concerns are valid. But I still think that you are reading the report from an under-siege point of view. The MIAC report does indeed mention milsim, you are right. However, it mentions milsim only as an event that radical militias may be drawn to, not as a militia movement in itself. The entire report is structured in this manner. It doesn't target groups likely to give rise to extremist militias, it targets extremist militias and what they typically associate themselves with. It is an all squares are rectangles but not all rectangles are squares sort of thing. The report goes on to list several types of militias, including "public" militias, which it describes favorably.

I'll second that hood recommendation. My jacket has a hood on it, and it works better than you'd expect.

Put it this way:
Real world experience has proven that following this popular, Depression-era theory of increasing tax rates will not work.  If this theory were correct, then both North Korea and Cuba would be shining, prosperous examples for the rest of the world.  Where are they today?

 Both are dictatorships, born out of bloody wars, and shoved into the dirt by oppressive leaders and trade embargoes. Better to use the Scandinavian nations as a model for success. Democracies, and close to what you'd call Socialist. They have high taxes, but know how to balance their budgets. They're just as free there as here, and have just as good a life as us.

 If you're going to cut back on government, it wouldn't be prudent to ignore the elephant in the room:




Eventually something will have to go, ideologies aside.

I think this is relevant to the OP.

http://www.stripes.com/article.asp?section=104&article=69360