NUT JOB

[COA]

I speculate it was over a woman

[muledeerarea33?]

Anyone know how to word a letter to "whom it may concern"? Even the "consertive radio guy's on our side" have no idea what their talking about! It's sad and hard to listen to these hosts and the people calling in. I want to reach thru the radio and shake these people! In all good intents the folks trying to help us are phu cking us!! Ask for an inch, take a mile!!

[trphyhntr]

Anyone know how to word a letter to "whom it may concern"? Even the "consertive radio guy's on our side" have no idea what their talking about! It's sad and hard to listen to these hosts and the people calling in. I want to reach thru the radio and shake these people! In all good intents the folks trying to help us are phu cking us!! Ask for an inch, take a mile!!

[CatfishKev]

I agree with the NRA but I aint crouching down and licking no ones hand. As a gun owner or not shouldn't there be a line drawn somewhere?

[trphyhntr]

I agree with the NRA but I aint crouching down and licking no ones hand. As a gun owner or not shouldn't there be a line drawn somewhere?

a line for what?

[CatfishKev]

 

I agree with the NRA but I aint crouching down and licking no ones hand. As a gun owner or not shouldn't there be a line drawn somewhere?

a line for what?

 

 

A point at which it's no longer about just the second amendment and what should be available to the public. I think that if the founding fathers knew the direction firearms would eventually go with full auto, bump stocks, mass murder etc. I think they might have had some things added to the amendment. I'm not for gun control generally speaking. I have no problem with AR's, silencers etc but I also see a practical use for them. I don't see much practical use for full auto. And yes I get that shooting full auto has got to be fun as heck and I would love to, but if there's no practical use I don't think it should be available to the public.

 

Come on.. even the NRA is speaking out on this one. Has nothing to do with giving up freedoms.

[trphyhntr]

That's the second time you've mentioned automatics, they've already been banned for many many years. The shooter didn't have an automatic. It's actually very clear what my forefathers meant "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Does that sound like they weren't thinking ahead to you?

[Tropicalmulch]

I disagree, I think it would be giving up a small freedom but a freedom nonetheless. I personally don't have a want or a need for a bump fire Stock,or a full auto for that matter but I do think that if a law abiding citizen wants one he should be able to have it. There's no practical need for a Ferrari but we can have those. Almost 3 times as many people in the U.S. are killed by cars every year then killed by guns. Should we outlaw cars? Maybe outlaw cars that go over 50mph or 100 miles on a tank of gas?

[CatfishKev]

Honestly there was no way for them to know what would take place in the distant future so no i don't think they were. Also I thought full autos were allowed with the ATF stamp the same as silencers. I could be wrong on that though.

 

Also the verbiage "well regulated militia" what does that mean excatly? Military or the general public? Bump stocks are a bit of a grey area I suppose but either way, taking them away I don't believe infringes on the right to bear arms, it's simply drawing the line I alluded to earlier.

[muledeerarea33?]

Suppressor, not silencer! Some say potato tomatoe but there's a huge difference! I think the NRA is trying to give an inch in hopes they don't take a mile. Any further bans is TAKING A MILE!! You may not like bump stocks or full auto weapons or whatever but there will come a time that more is banned and it will be what you do like!

[DesertBull]

Lib logic - when a dentist kills a lion in Africa its the dentist fault but if a nutjob kills a bunch of people in America its the guns fault.

[trphyhntr]

Honestly there was no way for them to know what would take place in the distant future so no i don't think they were. Also I thought full autos were allowed with the ATF stamp the same as silencers. I could be wrong on that though.

 

Also the verbiage "well regulated militia" what does that mean excatly? Military or the general public? Bump stocks are a bit of a grey area I suppose but either way, taking them away I don't believe infringes on the right to bear arms, it's simply drawing the line I alluded to earlier.

Sad.

[muledeerarea33?]

And what good does banning something do? There's already how many of them out there? So you ban a particular thing that's been sold for 10 years, do you send out a police force door to door to check for the ones already sold?? Tell me what good it does?

[CatfishKev]

Suppressor, not silencer! Some say potato tomatoe but there's a huge difference! I think the NRA is trying to give an inch in hopes they don't take a mile. Any further bans is TAKING A MILE!! You may not like bump stocks or full auto weapons or whatever but there will come a time that more is banned and it will be what you do like!

 

Yes that could happen I suppose. It could be happening now with cat hunting, trapping etc. And when I have the chance I will make my vote count. Like I said earlier this is just my opinion. I realize it may be an unpopular one. But is there a point when even we as gun owners and hunters can say "well maybe this is going a bit to far"?

[Tropicalmulch]

The 2nd amendment was put in place as a means for the people (general public) to keep the government in check. How can the people keep the government in check if their arms are slingshots and the government has full autos? Firearms have evolved but so have the people that run this country. Making bump Stocks illegal will change nothing. Criminals will have them law abiding citizens won't. Last time I checked mass murder was illegal too. It still happens weather it's with a firearm a bomb or a car