In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.

I've been getting some gun owners upset on another board

robsgunsrobsguns Member Posts: 4,581 ✭✭
edited February 2002 in General Discussion
This started out a topic about Bill Ruger and his having a hand in writing some mag. capacity legislation. Dont slam me too hard, but I thought I'd stir a little today.Longbob,I will never attack your belief or opinion, you will come to know that. I for one, dont actually have a need for high capacity mags. I am a hunter, I dont have the money to go play with my ammo, even though I reload. I dont hold it against Bill for having any part in the magazine legislation. Fact is, he probably did all of us a favor, life is give and take these days. As long as I can have my guns, I'm willing to have a magazine restriction, I dont need all those shots. I'll do the background checks, wait a day, register them, as long as I can HAVE MY GUNS. See where I'm coming from? If Bill hadnt met someone halfway, I bet someone else was prepared to do even worse things to the gun owners. I am not saying I like giving ground, but you have to know when to say ok, and when to say no, hindsight is 20/20, but we dont all have that luxury. Did what he had a hand in hurt me, no. Did it hurt anyone, really, probably not. 10 shots is more than enough for any hunter I know, and even the worst shot can probably put one out of 10 shots into an attacker from 7 ft. with a handgun. I'm realistic, not gung ho on dont give an inch thinking. Do I want a background check, hell yes I do. My family is as important to me as yours is to you. Gun control is not bad when applied realisticaly, and rationally. That means when we have enough, stop. We have enough, and then some, we dont need more, I'm with you on that. What I'm not with you on is blaming Bill for any wrong doing. Talk to you later. I gotta go copy some more and post it here.If anyone here believes that NO gun control is needed, I think that you need to think again. I dont want everyone that should not have a gun, haveing one. Criminals, of any kind, should not have one, felons, thats what I'm talking about, that type of gun control. Anyone with intelligence agrees with me on that.The magazine issue. I never said anything about giving ground on any other issue did I? I never said, just because I dont use a .50 at this time, I think they should go ahead and get rid of them did I? I didnt say that although I dont smoke, I think they should take everyones else to right to do so, even though I think smoking is terrible for this country, personally, but I will not support any initiative to do so. I like alcohol, but I wouldnt flip if they took it from me, even though I like it, cause I dont need it. I would flip if they took my right to have it though, thats why I wont support an initiative to take someone elses right to do as they wish, so long as they're not hurting anyone. I dont NEED 10+ rounds of ammo, thats why I dont care about what Bill did, and I would suspect thats why a lot of gun owners didnt care then, and dont care now. A lot of people saw the potential for a magazine of high capacity to be abused for wrong doing, just as people saw the potential for cigarettes to cause harm to others, the same as they see the potential for alcohol to cause harm. The diff. is that you can harm yourself without harming others, and still retain your right to do so, if you are just limited to where you can do it, kind of like using a shotgun in populated areas. For those of you who are upset about it, get over it. Its no different than someone telling you that you can smoke, but you cant smoke inside the building, give a little and get a little. Laws suck sometimes, but most times they're for a reason. I dont want your cigarette smoke around me, I'm happy about that. You dont want some idiot coming into McDonalds and unloading with a 20 rd. mag. into the crowd, now do you? That is what the mag. issue was and is about. I happen to agree with it, you dont have to. Some people cant see the good in decisions no matter what. I can. Your response will likely be hostile, to the tone of 'So what are you going to say when they decide that one bullet in a magazine shouldnt be allowed to be used for any purpose either?' I say this, use common sense. I am a rational thinking person. I dont think with my butt, I use my head. Theres a speed limit on the road for a reason, to make the roads safe for all, that doesnt mean that they're eventually going to make the speed limit 25 on highways, although there may be people who'd love to see that happen. Its the good of all here I'm worried about, not the few. Sometimes, people say its suppose to be the other way around, the rights of the few outweigh the many, I dont know about that, I just use common sense. Your need for high capacity mags. is not a need, its a toy. A gun is a tool, used for enjoyment by some, evil by others. If we can eliminate some of that potential for evil, so much the better. If that cuts into your enjoyment of it, adapt and over come. No, they're not after my hunting gun, yet, I suspect they may be soon, and some believe that is the ultimate goal, maybe it is. I for one defend your rights, and your right as a law abiding citizen to shoot your guns. I also defend the rights of law abiding citizens that are trying to make this world a better place, a safe place, for their children and their grand children. In time it may come to be that you will agree with me, maybe not. I think its time a lot of gun owners asked themselves just exactly what they will be happy with in gun legislation, not whether or not its going to happen, but that it WILL, and they need to be ready to draw that line, and give ground slowly till they reach that point. I know my point. Its simple. Dont touch the hunting guns, the hand guns, the target guns. Enough has been done there. Make no more restrictions of any kind, enough has been done. I personally do not agree with the gun lock laws, thats overboard. We have no more ground to give, unless they try to take the fully automatic weapons from licensed indiviuals. Do I think people need those, no I dont. Would I support the initiative to take them, no I wouldnt. I do believe anyone who has one should be allowed to have it. I dont believe anyone who has one is going to use it for ill purposes though, because people that have one go through hell getting it and retaining it, for the most part. What is my opinion in the diff. between fully auto and a semi with a high capacity mag. you may wonder. Simple, anyone could get a high capacity mag and steal a gun and do terrible things with them, not so with a full auto. You dont just go get one. There are a lot of you wondering, will this guy let them come take his semi-auto shotgun, when its decieded that they can do as much dammage as a high capacity mag in a semi auto? No, I wouldnt allow that either. It has a viable sporting purpose, an advantage for those recoil sensitive, and the action is easier for those that are disabled. They may want to take all but single shot weapons, but I will fight that tooth and nail too. You see, I have drawn my proverbial line in the sand, and I am standing next to it right now. Gotta go copy some more.That was refreshing. I put up my best argument, told you guys how I felt, and didnt get called some vile name. Cool. Just for the record, I dont like whats going on, and dont present my opinions such as this one, where they will likely be heard by anti-gun personnel. Anyone, anywhere else believes I'm extremely hard lined on my gun rights, but I'm really not. So its cool you dont agree with me, but we all have our opinions, dont think I'll be helping to take any of your rights away, cause I wouldnt do that. I wont however sweat the small stuff, or what seems small to me. Just remember, there are a lot of people out there that feel like I do, gun owners at that. There are a lot of things that people believe to be wrong in the world, that people would like to see gone all together, and for some that presents a problem, like cigarette smokers, tobbaco users in general, alcohol users etc. Also, the speed limit on highways and gun control can be used in the same sentence, both are meant for public safety. How well either one works is debatable, to you and I it seems a no brainer, but even we disagree. I personally use the same comparisons, like cars being dangerous, cigarettes killing more people each year than guns, the same can probably be said about alcohol. The fact is though, you do as much as you can to eliminate danger, without eliminating the source of the problem in most cases, thats just how things work. Lets hope that continues to hold true for guns. Good discussion! That was what I had to say, I had to get out of the kitchen, the heat was getting pretty warm, but it was fun, so have at it!
SSgt Ryan E. Roberts, USMC[This message has been edited by robsguns (edited 02-03-2002).][This message has been edited by robsguns (edited 02-03-2002).]
· Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
«1

Comments

  • RugerNinerRugerNiner Member Posts: 12,636 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    I love Rugers, but this is true, he did have a hand in removing Hi-Cap Mags from citizens. Mental Illness can afflict anybody.
    Remember...Terrorist are attacking Civilians; Not the Government. Protect Yourself!
    Keep your Powder dry and your Musket well oiled.
    NRA Lifetime Benefactor Member.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • ED PED P Member Posts: 190 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    I've edited and withdrawn my thoughts, I don't feel like stirring up the pot on this issue.[This message has been edited by ED P (edited 02-03-2002).]
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • jeenyesjeenyes Member Posts: 330 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    What part of "Shall not be infringed" do people not understand?
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • robsgunsrobsguns Member Posts: 4,581 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    jeenyes, I am tired of my own topic, I'll just say I disagree, but thats ok, I know what you mean, I just dont agree.
    SSgt Ryan E. Roberts, USMC
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • smokinggunsmokinggun Member Posts: 590 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    If one or more bad guys are attacking you and they have hi-cap mags then you and your 10 round mag are SOL !
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • robsgunsrobsguns Member Posts: 4,581 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    Ed, Havent you noticed, its a perfect night for stirring, everyone else is watching the super bowl.
    SSgt Ryan E. Roberts, USMC
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • RobinRobin Member Posts: 1,228 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    One day our law makers will wake up and realize that they can not legislate morality. It is our job as citizens to wake them up. If a criminal is hell bent on firing 90 rounds into a crowd at McDonalds, he can accomplish his goals with a supply of 9 round clips. No problem, might even be easier. Huge capacity drum clips may even inhibit the mobility of an insane gunman.The "give in, to keep something" argument must be familiar to the survivors and students of Adolf Hitler's escalating confiscation and isolation policies directed at Europe's Jewish population and other "inferior races" during the 1930's and 1940's. We should take heed of this historical lesson. I resist and resent any loss of my rights. Law abiding citizens don't abuse large capacity magazines. Criminals do and they shouldn't have the weapon or the hi-cap mag that fits it, in the first place. Take the guns from criminals and large cap magazines are no longer a problem. The current misdirected legislation, pertaining to Hi-Cap mags, turned a little bit of sheet metal and a couple of springs into a commodity valued as much as a well machined, complete firearm. Its crazy.What will we say when the only choice in owning a firearm is a single shot .22 rifle and the legal ammo is a .22 short? Think you will be safer?
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • salzosalzo Member Posts: 6,396 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    I did not read the entire thread, but is it you RobsGuns, who thinks it is legitimate to restrict magazine capacity, or was it the other guy? If that is your opinion, then shame on you.
    Happiness is a warm gun
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • robsgunsrobsguns Member Posts: 4,581 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    Let me just say this. I think the general public has a need for a high capacity mag. like the general public has a need for an AT-4, land mine, claymore, or any other piece of military equipment of current use. WHY, that is the question, what for? You just said it yourself, a man can do as much damage with 9 mags. of 10 rd. capacity as a 90 rd. drum, given the correct circumstances. So why do we need the 90 rd. drum? Shoot we dont even use something so ridiculous as that in the military today. Belt fed, yes, box fed, yes, but not a 90 rd. drum. My point is, its just not something thats needed. I disagree with you about someone being able to be as dangerous with 9 mags. but since you brought it up, and thats an argument you want to present....
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • salzosalzo Member Posts: 6,396 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    It doesnt matter WHY. If someone wants it, they have a right to have it, and your opinion or anyone elses opinion about its necessity does not matter.The second amendment allows us to not have to explain WHY
    Happiness is a warm gun
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • robsgunsrobsguns Member Posts: 4,581 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    salzo, I was just presenting my opinion on Bill being accused of wrong doing, based on the fact I dont have a problem with mag. legislation. I dont support it, wouldnt ask for it, but I could see why it was done, makes sense to me, we dont need high capacity mags. to enjoy our guns. Mine all work fine without them. Ed was making a good argument but retracted his opinion, shame on him. Its funny someone mentioned that if I was to come up against more than one person and I only had 10 rds. I'd be in trouble. I guess it depends on how good a shot they are, and who get the first shot, if there are 10 bad guys and I got ten shots, I'll be ok, provided I've got cover. But who takes on a bunch of people as a civilian, unless they're dealing drugs or something illegal?
    SSgt Ryan E. Roberts, USMC
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • salzosalzo Member Posts: 6,396 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    RYAN Are you trying to stir or something? I sure hope so. I do not have to explain "why" to you, I think you know why. If I had to give you a reason "why" it should be legal(which I do not have to, because the second amendment does not say I have to)is because the government uses them. They should be legal, because the second amendment says the government cannot make them illegal.
    Happiness is a warm gun
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • RugerNinerRugerNiner Member Posts: 12,636 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    I carry a Ruger P-85 in a Galco SS-2 Shoulder Holster with two 15 round spare mags and a 30 round in the gun. Horizontal carry of course.Loaded with Black Talons & Hydro-Shocks alternativly.
    Remember...Terrorist are attacking Civilians; Not the Government. Protect Yourself!
    Keep your Powder dry and your Musket well oiled.
    NRA Lifetime Benefactor Member.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • robsgunsrobsguns Member Posts: 4,581 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    salzo, I dont think that the designers of the constitution had it in mind that civilians would be using high capacity mags. in automatic weapons to do what they are doing today against citizens of their own country, and if they had known this would occur I believe those men were wise enough that they would have made a provision to for that instance, and prevented it from occuring, much as the government has done recently. But who knows, maybe Benjamin Franklin wouldnt have a problem with some guy walking into the pub and shooting 15 or 20 of his friends before any of them could even get out of their chairs..... Oh, I make myself laugh. No I dont think he'd have allowed that to happen, no offense intended for being a smart@$$.
    SSgt Ryan E. Roberts, USMC
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • robsgunsrobsguns Member Posts: 4,581 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    If only dano could see me now.
    SSgt Ryan E. Roberts, USMC
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • salzosalzo Member Posts: 6,396 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    Robsguns- I think my posts clearly illustrate I was sniffing and nibbling, but never swallowed the bait.
    Happiness is a warm gun
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • robsgunsrobsguns Member Posts: 4,581 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    I saw the bobber go completely under, pole bent over double and the drag was just a whizzing, thought I was about to break my spider wire.
    SSgt Ryan E. Roberts, USMC
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • salzosalzo Member Posts: 6,396 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    ROBSGUNS-HEHEHEHEHE. Im rolling on the floor!
    Happiness is a warm gun
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • fatbobcatfatbobcat Member Posts: 73 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    my two cents, Nobody has use for high cap mags? have you never heard Fear a government that fears your guns!! I for one dont want to be tossing the bolt open on a chipmunk 22 while I am trying to defend my home and family. I would prefer to jack back the bolt,slam it shut on a 90 round drum that they didnt know I had and make em earn whatever they came to my home to get!!!I know everybody has a right to their opinionand I respect yours,however I disagree with giving anymore of my 2 ammen rights now or ever
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • salzosalzo Member Posts: 6,396 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    Robsguns- Your work is not finished. Continue pleaseYou got two hooks on that line?
    Happiness is a warm gun[This message has been edited by salzo (edited 02-03-2002).]
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • robsgunsrobsguns Member Posts: 4,581 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    Salzo, OH MAN YOU WONT BELIEVE IT, PUBLISHERS CLEARING HOUSE IS PULLING UP IN FRONT OF MY HOUSE!!!!! NEW GUNS!!YES YES YES!!!!
    SSgt Ryan E. Roberts, USMC
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • robsgunsrobsguns Member Posts: 4,581 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    salzo, Think of all the high capacity mags. I can buy now, coooolllll!!!
    SSgt Ryan E. Roberts, USMC
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • BoomerangBoomerang Member Posts: 4,513
    edited November -1
    True - If you get down to it, no one in this country really needs anything, including guns. Therefore, lets limit / take away everthing that we really don't need, guns, computers, motorcycles, expensive cars, expensive houses. Great idea, lets base all our constitutional rights on a needs basis. Geez, such liberal/left thought process it makes me sick. Boomer
    Protect our Constitutional Rights.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • robsgunsrobsguns Member Posts: 4,581 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    salzo, False alarm, its for the neighbor, damn, guess I'll have to go back to watching the 1/2 time show, and reeling in the fish.
    SSgt Ryan E. Roberts, USMC
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • salzosalzo Member Posts: 6,396 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    I guess you are not going to let me off the hook. Enjoy it my friend, I got a hook with your name on it!
    Happiness is a warm gun
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • robsgunsrobsguns Member Posts: 4,581 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    I gotta let you off, my hands are full with my other 2 rods.
    SSgt Ryan E. Roberts, USMC
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Gordian BladeGordian Blade Member Posts: 1,202 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    If Ben Franklin were alive today, he'd be ashamed at what we common citizens have allowed our government to do to us. I have very good reasons why I want and need greater than 10 rd magazines. I have very good reasons why I don't want the government passing irrational laws that don't solve anything but make people feel like something was done to help them, when all that was done was take away freedom.If your primary use is hunting, what if the government decided that hunting rifles more powerful than, say, .30-06 can be single-shot only? For public safety reasons, of course. Am I going to decide that it doesn't matter to me since I personally don't need anything bigger than .30-06, so people who want their 1895G's or whatever can go hang? No, because I know that the anti-gun people aren't going to stop with that. If we let them divide and conquer, we're lost.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • RugerNinerRugerNiner Member Posts: 12,636 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    I carry a lot of rounds in case I'm in a situation where I have to hold my own till help gets there. For example at a ATM machine, four Gang Bangers, and they are every where, pull up in a car, show they are carrying weapons by pulling up their shirt just so I can see they are carrying with out anybody else seeing. I would have enough time to pull my gun and take cover. If They have four guns then probably have at least 24 rounds if all are carrying revolvers let alone semi- auto's.I don't live in the sticks(but I wish I did), I live in a nice neighborhood but any shopping center is a Prime Target for these Punks.
    Remember...Terrorist are attacking Civilians; Not the Government. Protect Yourself!
    Keep your Powder dry and your Musket well oiled.
    NRA Lifetime Benefactor Member.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • fatbobcatfatbobcat Member Posts: 73 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    ROBSGUNS HA HA HA! YA GOT ME I Hope you catch and release?
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • boeboeboeboe Member Posts: 3,331
    edited November -1
    I refuse to buy a Ruger newer than 10 years old in response to their position on hi-cap mags.For the reason we civilians don't need hi-cap mags, refer to Item #32 in the 40 resons for gun control. Others may apply as well.1. Banning guns works, which is why New York, DC, and Chicago cops need guns. 2. Washington DC's low murder rate of 69 per 100,000 is due to strict gun control, and Indianapolis' high murder rate of 9 per 100,000 is due to the lack of gun control. 3. Statistics showing high murder rates justify gun control but statistics showing increasing murder rates after gun control are "just statistics." 4. The Brady Bill and the Assault Weapons Ban, both of which went into effect in 1994 are responsible for the decrease in violent crime rates, which have been declining since 1991. 5. We must get rid of guns because a deranged lunatic may go on a shooting spree at any time and anyone who would own a gun out of fear of such a lunatic is paranoid. 6. The more helpless you are the safer you are from criminals. 7. An intruder will be incapacitated by tear gas or oven spray, but if shot with a .357 Magnum will get angry and kill you. 8. A woman raped and strangled is morally superior to a woman with a smoking gun and a dead rapist at her feet. 9. When confronted by violent criminals, you should "put up no defense--give them what they want, or run" (Handgun Control Inc. Chairman Pete Shields, Guns Don't Die - People Do, 1981, p. 125). 10. The New England Journal of Medicine is filled with expert advice about guns; just like Guns and Ammo has some excellent treatises on heart surgery.11. One should consult an automotive engineer for safer seatbelts, a civil engineer for a better bridge, a surgeon for internal medicine, a computer programmer for hard drive problems, and Sarah Brady (Officer of Handgun Control Inc.) for firearms expertise. 12. The 2nd Amendment, ratified in 1787, refers to the National Guard, which was created 130 years later, in 1917. 13. The National Guard, federally funded, with bases on federal land, using federally owned weapons vehicles buildings and uniforms, punishing trespassers under federal law, is a "state" militia. 14. These phrases; "right of the people peaceably to assemble ", " right of the people to be secure in their homes", "enumerations herein of certain rights shall not be construed to disparage others retained by the people", and "The powers not delegated herein are reserved to the states respectively, and to the people." All refer to individuals, but "the right of the people to keep and bear arms." refers to the state. 15. "The Constitution is strong and will never change." But we should ban and seize all guns thereby violating the 2nd, 4th, and 5th Amendments to that Constitution. 16. Rifles and handguns aren't necessary to national defense! Of course, the army has hundreds of thousands of them. 17. Private citizens shouldn't have handguns, because they aren't "military weapons", but private citizens shouldn't have "assault rifles", because they are military weapons. 18. In spite of waiting periods, background checks, fingerprinting, government forms, etc., guns today are too readily available, which is responsible for recent school shootings. In the 1940's, 1950's and 1960's, anyone could buy guns at hardware stores, army surplus stores, gas stations, variety stores, Sears mail order, no waiting, no background check, no fingerprints, no government forms and there were no school shootings. 19. The NRA's attempt to run a "don't touch" campaign about kids handling guns is propaganda, but the anti-gun lobby's attempt to run a "don't touch" campaign is responsible social activity. 20. Guns are so complex that special training is necessary to use them properly, and so simple to use that they make murder easy21. A handgun, with up to 4 controls, is far too complex for the typical adult to learn to use, as opposed to an automobile that only has 20. 22. Women are just as intelligent and capable as men, but a woman with gun is "an accident waiting to happen" and gun makers' advertisements aimed at women are "preying on their fears." 23. Ordinary people in the presence of guns turn into slaughtering butchers but revert to normal when the weapon is removed. 24. Guns cause violence, which is why there are so many mass killings at gun shows. 25. A majority of the population supports gun control, just like a majority of the population supported owning slaves. 26. Any self-loading small arm can legitimately be considered to be a "weapon of mass destruction" or an "assault weapon." 27. Most people can't be trusted, so we should have laws against guns, which most people will abide by because they can be trusted. 28. The right of Internet pornographers to exist cannot be questioned because it is constitutionally protected by the Bill of Rights, but the use of handguns for self-defense is not really protected by the Bill of Rights. 29. Free speech entitles one to own newspapers, transmitters, computers, and typewriters, but self-defense only justifies bare hands. 30. The ACLU is good because it uncompromisingly defends certain parts of the Constitution, and the NRA is bad, because it defends other parts of the Constitution.31. Charlton Heston, a movie actor as president of the NRA is a cheap lunatic who should be ignored, but Michael Douglas, a movie actor as a representative of Handgun Control, Inc. is an ambassador for peace who is entitled to an audience at the UN arms control summit.32. Police operate with backup within groups, which is why they need larger capacity pistol magazines than do "civilians" who must face criminals alone and therefore need less ammunition.33. We should ban "Saturday Night Specials" and other inexpensive guns because it's not fair that poor people have access to guns too.34. Police officers have some special Jedi-like mastery over handguns that private citizens can never hope to obtain.35. Private citizens don't need a gun for self-protection because the police are there to protect them even though the Supreme Court says the police are not responsible for their protection.36. Citizens don't need to carry a gun for personal protection but police chiefs, who are desk-bound administrators who work in a building filled with cops, need a gun.37. "Assault weapons" have no purpose other than to kill large numbers of people. The police need assault weapons. You do not.38. When Microsoft pressures its distributors to give Microsoft preferential promotion, that's bad; but when the Federal government pressures cities to buy guns only from Smith & Wesson, that's good.39. Trigger locks do not interfere with the ability to use a gun for defensive purposes, which is why you see police officers with one on their duty weapon.40. Handgun Control, Inc., says they want to "keep guns out of the wrong hands." Guess what? They have the wrong hands.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • fatbobcatfatbobcat Member Posts: 73 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    Looks like I got to spit the hook!!
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • robsgunsrobsguns Member Posts: 4,581 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    My arms are getting tired salzo, hey bobcat, whats YOUR favorite lure? Do you use buzzbait, or live bait?
    SSgt Ryan E. Roberts, USMC
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • fatbobcatfatbobcat Member Posts: 73 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    Been known to use the jig, flipped a few suckers on the rocks myself! should have known better than to eat the cheeseburger laying on the bank BOBCAT
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • BullzeyeBullzeye Member Posts: 3,560
    edited November -1
    I could give you a real earful, but my fox instincts sense a trap.So....how bout them Pats?
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • timberbeasttimberbeast Member Posts: 1,738 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    Hell, I just hate reloading every few minutes when I'm firing a thousand or so rounds in a day!! Robsguns, do you really NEED all that line on your fishing reel??
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • agloreaglore Member Posts: 6,012
    edited November -1
    Nobody was born a criminal, so I guess we are all capable of becoming a criminal. I have no use for AK47's, SKS's or even AR15's, but I will defend your right to own one. Why is it that so many people that portray themselves as defenders of the US Constitution only want to support the parts of the Constitution they like. This is not about the Second Amendment of the Constitution, this is about the Constitution as a whole. We are not haveing our rights taken away, we are giving them away. Had a discussion with a gentleman the other day in my chat room and he wanted the govt. to pass a law that said you had to go along with what the govt. was doing in todays situation with the terrorist. That you should not be able to protest what is going on with transferring the captives to Cuba. This from a military person that believes he should be able to own any firearm he wants just because the Constitution says his "Right to keep and bear arms, Shall not be infringed". Thanks but no thanks, I would rather live in a world where all 27 Amandments are just as important as the Second.
    Allen Glore
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • agloreaglore Member Posts: 6,012
    edited November -1
    Ryan, does the First Amendment recognize the TV, Radio or the Internet when it says the right to free speech? Of course not. But it is just interpeted that it does by the Supreme Court. Your still welcome to come hunting.
    Allen Glore
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • COWBOYKIDDCOWBOYKIDD Member Posts: 239 ✭
    edited November -1
    Just 3 words.... Jerry,Jerry,Jerry
    Thieves in 3 piece suits = Politicians,Doctors & Lawyers
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • robsgunsrobsguns Member Posts: 4,581 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    I'm glad to see you're all still alive and well, it was an interesting super bowl sunday, I guess my work here is done. Hi Allen, thanks to everyone else who posted also. Dano, ahh.....what a feeling.
    SSgt Ryan E. Roberts, USMC
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • SXSMANSXSMAN Member Posts: 2,616 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    I couldn't get on to post last night,so wife helped me get off (I guess I was still posting) to sleep.Nice stirring Ryan.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
Sign In or Register to comment.