Reply to Thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="DavidMcmillan" data-source="post: 3796263" data-attributes="member: 11749">I think we may be missing the point a bit.&nbsp; More laws is not the answer, but that is what we are going to get.&nbsp; Our typical response is the line &quot;what part of Shall Not Infringe&quot; and our normal &quot;libturds&quot;, Demoncrats, etc.&nbsp; That doesnt seem to be helping us in the realm of public opinion.&nbsp; We really need to improve our game.&nbsp; We tend to come across as &quot;well it&#039;s too bad those students died, or those doctors died, but at least the rights of the shooter were not infringed&quot;.&nbsp; That attitude doesn&#039;t help us one bit. We don&#039;t know what state of agitation the guy in Tulsa was in as he bought his AR, just hours before shooting up the doctor office, but wouldn&#039;t have been great if the seller had seen a potential problem and denied the sale or even just delayed it.&nbsp; There are indeed people and/or times when a firearm should not be available.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="DavidMcmillan, post: 3796263, member: 11749"] I think we may be missing the point a bit. More laws is not the answer, but that is what we are going to get. Our typical response is the line "what part of Shall Not Infringe" and our normal "libturds", Demoncrats, etc. That doesnt seem to be helping us in the realm of public opinion. We really need to improve our game. We tend to come across as "well it's too bad those students died, or those doctors died, but at least the rights of the shooter were not infringed". That attitude doesn't help us one bit. We don't know what state of agitation the guy in Tulsa was in as he bought his AR, just hours before shooting up the doctor office, but wouldn't have been great if the seller had seen a potential problem and denied the sale or even just delayed it. There are indeed people and/or times when a firearm should not be available. [/QUOTE]

Verification