And I feel like the real reason they want us unarmed has nothing to do with safety, they read the same statistics we all do and draw asinine
conclusions from those statistics. I may be wearing my tin foil hat but I think it has more to do with they know damn good and well, if they want complete control over us, it is pretty hard to do with an armed America!! It has to be something like this or how could any one that has at least 5th grade reading comprehension keep ignoring/misinterpreting the statistics.
Some of the gun grabbers are just ignorant, but way more of them are at a high level of government and highly intelligent, yet they constantly ignore the facts or flat misrepresent the facts... Not even going to mention the BS MSM puts out, because both sides of that group are full of it!!
Oh hell ya! When on the way home was listening to Tucker Carlson on the radio. He was interviewing a gun grabbing liberal college law professor that made a big public stink on social media saying the Las Vegas shooting could have been stopped with just a few laws.
Tucker kept quoting he was a law professor, and taking him to task about what laws would have prevented that.
Professor kept backpedaling and crawfishing saying the police should be notified if somebody buys too many guns in a short period in time and ask why they were bought was the Professor's answer. Then he went off on "silencers" and Tucker shut him down saying he was ignorant of guns and suppressors were not even involved.
It's not online yet, but sure shows how the idiots that know nothing about guns want to legislate those of us that do.
Oh I'm all about compromising on bump stocks. I'm OK with making bump stocks NFA, in exchange for repealing Hughes. There are other things I'd like to get as well, such as SBR's and cans off the NFA registry, national CCW reciprocity, etc., but Hughes repeal is the absolute minimum I'm willing to consider. If it's not on the bill, I'm a solid "NO!" vote.
As a veteran (Vietnam veteran to be precise) it infuriates me to no end to see the flag of my country desecrated by a bunch of punks that have the cojones to mouth off against their country, but not serve it. As far as I'm concerned, free speech does not mean the freedom to dishonor those that paid the ultimate sacrifice, which is what they do when they dishonor our country. Most countries in this world still maintain laws against disrespecting their national symbol (flag), even if we don't. Most countries would also consider that type of behavior as being treasonous.
I strongly believe in and support the 2nd Amendment. But I was raised to believe that the shooting sports involved primarily the disciplines of hunting, competitive shooting, and self-defense, and I think that you fill find that the vast majority of gun owners subscribe to these disciplines only. Just because you personally think that you should be able to own a fully loaded F-16, M1 Abrams, or an M2 HBMG .50 cal MG does not mean that everyone thinks the same way. You, as a civilian have absolutely no reason to own these type of weapons. If you want to play with this stuff, then join the military.
Maybe you should also read the 2nd Amendment again. Obviously you get the part about "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." but you seem to ignore the part about "A well regulated Militia".
Interesting that you bash my stance on limiting certain types of free speech, yet choose to ridicule MY rights of free speech, calling me a "FUDD". So your take on all this is that unless I am in lockstep with your opinions, then I'm against the 2nd Amendment (in your opinion)?
I will let everyone know that I still love the shooting sports, though I can no longer participate as extensively as I once did because of age and disabilities. I will also let everyone know [AGAIN] that I am not a dyed-in-the-wool Republican, nor am I a dyed-in-the-wool Democrat. I like some of the ideas that the Republicans maintain and some of the ideas that the Democrats have. If any of you feel that I am no longer welcome as a member of 'Oklahoma Shooters Association', which first and foremost should be about Oklahoma gun enthusiasts and not just about politics, then let me know here and now.
Disregarding your reductio ad absurdum argument on F-16's and M1 Abrams, the United States Government has always thought it to be a right of law abiding citizens to own powerful military grade weapons, including "M2 HBMG .50 cal MG" and other weapons the military uses, to include older retired tanks and artillery guns! And if the NFA Registry doesn't qualify as "well regulated", then what does?
I get that you have an opinion and that's fine, but the law and majority of educated gun owners don't agree with you. That's something you need to square with yourself, not us!
I do not "need to square with myself" anything, my friend. I stated my beliefs and you stated yours. I will not change your mind, nor will you change mine. We can agree to disagree and move on or you can simply put me on ignore, that is your choice.
Hey, it's all good! This is America and you have a right to be wrong! Cheers!
