Glock 43 (single stack 9)

[rottenit]

Armslist post is down now, I flagged it last night.

[Aztecf]

Its back up but with the price is at $1 so people aren't flagging him right away, but some people deserve flagging.

Let the flogging begin,

http://www.armslist.com/posts/4248608/m ... 43-9mm-g43

[Holland&Holland]

Its back up but with the price is at $1 so people aren't flagging him right away, but some people deserve flagging.

Let the flogging begin,

http://www.armslist.com/posts/4248608/m ... 43-9mm-g43

why?

[Spartan]

I saw one yesterday and had it in my hands . $ 495 ... its basically a Kahr with a better trigger .... maybe a bit more reliable ... no one with a shield or an exs or solo should care at all ....

[Aztecf]

You can pre-order at Bud's guns $474 shipped.

[karlobag]

Here's one on Armslist, at a good price!

http://www.armslist.com/posts/4268495/m ... ck-43-used

[bstrawse]

Picking mine up tomorrow from Thunderjohn
b

[IDPA Shooter]

Anyone who ordered thru Bud's on the G43 for $474 shipped, let me know when you get one. As I noted in a different post I got one on Friday May 1 at Cabelas, with their usual lack of service, two different people , both double checking your DL and permit and taking 20+ minutes to process. Not only did I pay $450 for the gun, I got to send Gov Goofy $40 in sales tax so he can redistribute it for me.... good thing I really like the gun and got $11 in Club Rewards from Cabelas.

[Aztecf]

Your selling your Unicorn already?? Don't like it???

[B-One]

Who wants to take advantage of this "deal"????


http://www.armslist.com/posts/4246039/m ... ck-43--nib

What a low-life. Nothing pisses me off more than when a purported gun enthusiast blatantly tries to F other gun owners. Dirtbag. He claims in his other ad that he had a buyer back out of that deal so he's relisting it. Buyer probably realized what other b.s. the seller was shoveling.

Almost as annoying as someone that insists upon imposing his values and enforcing his terms on a contract to which he is not a party, and is between two consenting adults he has never met. Nobody has been intercoursed if two people agree upon the terms of a contract. Buyer's remorse is a different story and is the fault of the buyer for failing to completely consider the terms of the agreement and seek alternatives prior to executing the contract.

"Who in their right mind needs more than 10 rounds in his gun and we need limits," is no different than, "This guy is a jerk for asking for way more than I think he should and we need limits." Both are arguments are anti liberty and cries for tyranny.

[onebohemian]

Who wants to take advantage of this "deal"????


http://www.armslist.com/posts/4246039/m ... ck-43--nib

What a low-life. Nothing pisses me off more than when a purported gun enthusiast blatantly tries to F other gun owners. Dirtbag. He claims in his other ad that he had a buyer back out of that deal so he's relisting it. Buyer probably realized what other b.s. the seller was shoveling.

Almost as annoying as someone that insists upon imposing his values and enforcing his terms on a contract to which he is not a party, and is between two consenting adults he has never met. Nobody has been intercoursed if two people agree upon the terms of a contract. Buyer's remorse is a different story and is the fault of the buyer for failing to completely consider the terms of the agreement and seek alternatives prior to executing the contract.

"Who in their right mind needs more than 10 rounds in his gun and we need limits," is no different than, "This guy is a jerk for asking for way more than I think he should and we need limits." Both are arguments are anti liberty and cries for tyranny.

We have a responsibility to protect our own. We are a much stronger gun community when we stick together. There are enough forces working against gun ownership without us preying on one another. We need to speak up when a fraud blatantly lays a trap into which no informed buyer would fall. It is hardly a cry for tyranny to expect members of a close-knit community to show one another respect and behave in ways that will encourage new members to join. More likely than not, the seller hoped he'd find some newbie to hand over the cash for the ridiculously inflated price before an experienced gun owner spilled the beans on the actual value of the item. It reminds me of when cheaper than dirt tried to take advantage of all of us after the last gun related tragic event. That was reprehensible conduct going far beyond two parties entering into an arms length transaction. One may work to make as much money as one desires, but that pursuit is no longer honorable nor defensible when it involves trying to fleece one's neighbors.

[xd ED]

... We need to speak up when a fraud blatantly lays a trap into which no informed buyer would fall. ...

What was fraudulant?
Did the seller misrepresent the price (in the original ad deemed oh so offfensive)? ... did he misrepresent the item being sold?
Was the gun description in the ad inaccurate?....or was the offering simply not to your liking...

The former might be fraud; the latter, an irrelevant difference of opinion.

If no informed buyer would consummate a purchase, where is the problem?

Which part of 'willing buyer and willing seller' do you object to?

B-One's comment is spot on. Of any group, gun owners should be more than wary of those third parties who would impose their ill-formed values over the rights of others.

[B-One]

We need to speak up when a fraud blatantly lays a trap into which no informed buyer would fall. It is hardly a cry for tyranny to expect members of a close-knit community to show one another respect and behave in ways that will encourage new members to join. More likely than not, the seller hoped he'd find some newbie to hand over the cash for the ridiculously inflated price before an experienced gun owner spilled the beans on the actual value of the item. It reminds me of when cheaper than dirt tried to take advantage of all of us after the last gun related tragic event. That was reprehensible conduct going far beyond two parties entering into an arms length transaction. One may work to make as much money as one desires, but that pursuit is no longer honorable nor defensible when it involves trying to fleece one's neighbors.

Speaking up is one thing, but forcibly dictating the terms of someone else's contract is certainly the definition of tyranny. Maybe you should consider whether a person that isn't bright enough to undertake the responsibility to become informed on the going price and availability of something like a gun isn't really bright enough do decide what gun is best for him. Maybe you should also dictate to that rube what type of gun he should own.

At what point is the price "ridiculously inflated?" Who gets to decide what is a "ridiculously inflated price" for anything? Understand if you as an uninterested third party assume that you can be the arbiter of what is fair for two consenting adults, you also cede that third parties can impose their idea of what is fair unto your contracts. I'm not terribly comfortable with that and resent that we have ended up in a place where third parties not a part of the deal are dictating the contents of my contracts. I'd be willing to bet that you also have been annoyed when you have run into situations where you and someone else wanted to enter a deal, but the terms of that deal (terms that you find ridiculous) were dictated by uninvolved third parties.

[BigBlue]

This vigilante user feedback thing makes Armslist sound like a real $hithole. Flagging something as 'extremely overpriced'?? How about let buyer beware? If they can't research what a reasonable price is and make up their own mind about how much something is worth to them then either a) they won't buy it; or b) a fool & his money have parted. It's nobody else's business.