NUT JOB

[CatfishKev]

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.

 

I'm all for the dentist killing the lion. And I'm not blaming the gun. I'm also not a lib.

[trphyhntr]

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.

I hated that dang meme, I keep seeing one that says "idiot killed a lion" rustles me so hard.

[CatfishKev]

Why Sad?

 

We already lost the ability to keep the government in check. The closest we can come is on voting day. If any group righteous or not tried to rise up against the govt. they would be labeled a terror group and be destroyed. We lost that control long ago.

[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.

 

I'm all for the dentist killing the lion. And I'm not blaming the gun. I'm also not a lib.

Sorry I did not mean to imply anything to you personally.

 

I dont think bump stocks are a 2nd Amd issue but I dont think banning them does one bit of good either. We have an evil problem, not a gun problem, IMO.

[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!

 

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"?

it's been going on with varmint and cat hunting/trapping since the 90's. you had more freedom then than now. People just lay back and accept it. What good does a ban do? Does it keep legal law abiding citizens at bay? Does it prevent criminals from getting guns/accessories? Does it keep the crazy people from being crazy? If you want to buy something, you can buy it!

[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.

I hated that dang meme, I keep seeing one that says "idiot killed a lion" rustles me so hard.

When they killed the stupid gorilla in the zoo the libs blamed the boy. Why didnt they blame the gun?

[Tropicalmulch]

Because it was the moms fault

[CatfishKev]

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?

 

Don't have a good answer for that. Just stating my opinion is all. Cant undo whats already been done so I don't know how that would pan out.

[Tropicalmulch]

Parents fault I should say

[Edge]

 

 

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?

 

Wou

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.

Would outlawing bump stocks prevent the massacres? No. Nor would it have prevented any other massacre, Sandy Hook, Columbine, 9/11, OK City etc, etc. Were bump stock used?

 

If you want rapid fire from your AR, finger your belt loop and push forward on the fore stock, instant bump stock. Outlaw belt loops? Besides, anyone with half a brain can build a bump stock in a couple hours. Where do you draw the line?

 

Any freedom taken away is a freedom lost forever.

Understand the 2nd amendment, it's not there so you can shoot skeet, it's there to fight an oppressive government. It protects all other amendments and as it is eroded, so are all other rights.

NRA has been wrong in the past and they're wrong again.

[DesertBull]

I bet they find out this guy was in some prescribed pyscho drugs for depression. Probably mixing them with booze at the casinos he lived. Its a very common denominator between all these crazies

[DesertBull]

Because it was the moms fault

You mean a person? Point made. Thanks.

[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?

Don't have a good answer for that. Just stating my opinion is all. Cant undo whats already been done so I don't know how that would pan out.

not mad at you, you have an opinion like everyone else. I just hate seeing bans. It won't stop the people who do it illegally. It will stop the good folks from having freedom.

[Tropicalmulch]

I dont know how to like a post. So I'll do it this way, edge I like your last post

[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?

Wou

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.

Would outlawing bump stocks prevent the massacres? No. Nor would it have prevented any other massacre, Sandy Hook, Columbine, 9/11, OK City etc, etc. Were bump stock used?

 

If you want rapid fire from your AR, finger your belt loop and push forward on the fore stock, instant bump stock. Outlaw belt loops? Besides, anyone with half a brain can build a bump stock in a couple hours. Where do you draw the line?

 

Any freedom taken away is a freedom lost forever.

Understand the 2nd amendment, it's not there so you can shoot skeet, it's there to fight an oppressive government. It protects all other amendments and as it is eroded, so are all other rights.

NRA has been wrong in the past and they're wrong again.

 

 

I'm in agreement with most of what your saying. After columbine, sandy hook and any other tragedy I never once thought that guns were the problem. No they didn't use bump stocks and thank God for that because it would have been waaaay worse. This last event is the only one that ever made me think that a line should be drawn at least somewhere though.