|Topic Review (Newest First)|
|Yesterday 10:24 PM|
|Luuca||They sell ammo in Nevada. SO ive heard.|
|Yesterday 09:36 PM|
|bruinjeeper||dont even get me get started on the cost of ammo up here.|
|Yesterday 09:20 PM|
Originally Posted by Bong_Holyeo View Post
|Yesterday 07:47 PM|
|Yesterday 06:37 PM|
I should not bring this up. It may focus the liberals attention to real facts. Black guns are more scary than hunting rifles that are chambered for large game to a lot of people. That is ignorance.
Even though the military uses the 5.56. To me it is nothing more than a varmint round. Not even a good one at that when equipped with a full metal jacket bullet. Probably the last gun I would pick up if I wanted to mess stuff up...
|Yesterday 04:38 PM|
|Chrisnvegas||Only a small number of people participate in the political section.|
|Yesterday 04:34 PM|
For those who think "no one outside of cops and soldiers should have scary looking black guns, they aren't generally used for hunting"
Doesn't understand the second amendment.
The second amendment isn't about hunting ducks. And by arms, they did't just mean flintlocks and muskets. They knew about advances in firepower. The Ferguson was available in 1776.
Spencer, Sharps, Henry and Winchester repeating rifles were all available during the civil war. The military didn't adopt the repeating rifle until 1894.
After WWI, soldiers were allowed to take their M1903 Springfields home with them.
For most of American history, the military would have been outgunned by American citizens. The founders made it clear they didn't object to private citizens owning ANY type of weapons. When the Bill of Rights was ratified regular citizens owned artillery and the war of 1812, most of the ships and weapons were privately owned. They operated under " a letter of marque and reprisal"
Mark and Reprisal... "A letter of marque and reprisal (French: lettre de marque; lettre de course) was a government license in the Age of Sail that authorized a private person, known as a privateer or corsair, to attack and capture vessels of a nation at war with the issuer."
Scary black guns?
The idea that the government has the right to forbid you to own a specific type of weaponry is new, it is dangerous, and it is a trend that is foreign to the thinking of the Founders and traditions of the nation.
|Yesterday 04:21 PM|
Originally Posted by bpounds View Post
EDIT: I used to take friends out to the range and show them how much fun shooting is. That was years ago though.
|Yesterday 03:47 PM|
Oh yeah, fricken Utopia I tell ya, if you're a coward.
We've actually had people drop everything and run in a panic because a car backfired. That's how paranoid people are about imaginary threats.
|Yesterday 03:15 PM|
Originally Posted by bpounds View Post
|Yesterday 01:16 PM|
They are constantly trying to change things to make it harder to own one, so my info might even be a little outdated.
I applaud @Luuca for doing his part to educate friends. I've done some of that too, but now days I almost feel like getting anyone involved in shooting sports is not in their best interest in this state. Because they government here does all they can to make it expensive and risky to own guns. They purposely IMO, write laws so that you will easily and inadvertently violate the law. Simple things like inheriting a gun, or lending a rifle to someone so you can hunt together, can be a felony. Their goal is to make it just not worth the pain of gun ownership.
We have to undergo background checks to purchase one round of ammunition.
|Yesterday 11:24 AM|
|Yesterday 11:20 AM|
Is the originator of this thread @NIUPonyBoy still an active member?
|01-22-2020 10:25 PM|
Originally Posted by Luuca View Post
I used to work with a buuuunch of very liberal people. One of them was a pretty nice girl that I got along with really well. Her fiance was a gun owner and she would go shooting with him, but she was dumbfounded that I would purchase an AR. "Those are bad guns, we don't need them. You have no reason to own one."
I was working there when the Boston bombing happened. I asked a bunch of my co-workers if they thought we should ban bombs now. "Yes! Bombs are horrible and evil, you should not be able to own one!"
|01-22-2020 06:44 PM|
And violence is violence. The Middle East, car bombs, The Uk. Driving a vehicle into a large crowd of people.Also mentioned, stabbings, beatings, etc. etc.
It is a people problem and law abiding citizens with toys that are purchased legally are not the problem.
Sure, some firearms have acted up and slam fired for instance. But if in the hands of a responsible handler, no one is worse for wear. Always point it in a safe direction, treat it like it is loaded, know your target and beyond. You guys all get that. The manufacturing facility or workplace with malfunctioning safety features on equipment, driving in traffic on snowy roads, using a faulty floor jack with no jack stands, improper safety when working at heights, walking or running at night in dark clothes and no lights or reflectors, water poisoning, faulty wiring in old houses, counting on your auto headlight feature in your new car "just being on" (I almost got broadsided by an Accord the other night that had no lights on on a divided highway. Never f'n saw them. There was not a light on that car turned on, front or rear.) My list could go on forever. My point is that I feel that I face more real threats daily than a damn firearm. Lots of other things that can malfunction or just go wrong. "Mass shootings" have a trend of occurring in gun free zones. Hmmmm. Duh!
Guns themselves are not a threat. In fact less of a threat than a lot of other stuff. Take them away from the good guys and let the punks run rampant though..... Oh. Statistics have proven that "gun violence" increases in places where gun laws have been increased.
I know, preaching to the choir.
|This thread has more than 15 replies. Click here to review the whole thread.|