You’re being a little hard on some of our members Bob.
Am i?
I thought you were being a little hard on people from NYC.
Lol, hard to tell with Sneaky some times but believe he was joking with you talking about you calling members from NYC area on here, loud mouths
1 Like
I didn’t call them names.
Did I?
Yes Bob. Loudmouths.
1 Like
what does a well regulated militia have to do with concealed carry.
allan
Unclench your fists. Let the word go.
1 Like
Hey, what do you think of the current federal restrictions in place—including background checks—on fully automatic weapons? Too infringey? I know you’ve probably stated this before, but I can’t remember.
Of course they are infringements. And useless ones.
Why do automatic weapons impress you progs so much?
3 Likes
Do I sound “impressed”? Unclench your fists. I don’t give a ■■■■ about the weapons; I was more interested in the regulations and your view of them. You say the laws are “useless.” Why so? Do they fail in their intended purpose? Or do you simply disagree with that purpose?
2 Likes
Nothing so why did you bring it up?
1 Like
Yes, you sound impressed. And scared.
What is their “intended purpose”?
2 Likes
Laws almost always fail when the purpose is portrayed as ending or reducing crime. Laws only provide a system to allow punishment after the fact. If they actually prevented crime there would be no murder, no rape, no assaults, no robbery, no theft, etc… Often their only purpose is to allow elites to exercise power over those they seek to subjugate.
5 Likes
No, I didn’t mean members, that was your misunderstanding, but that’s OK.
Then you weren’t following the thread. Your misunderstanding.
Wrong, yours.
Wait:
This sounds “scared” to you?
Hey, what do you think of the current federal restrictions in place—including background checks—on fully automatic weapons? Too infringey? I know you’ve probably stated this before, but I can’t remember.
Lotta fear and trembling there. Clearly.
Anyway, back here on planet Earth:
How many crimes and murders are committed each year with fully automatic weapons?
1 Like
If the purpose of such legislation, going back to 1934, has been to severely limit the civilian possession of these weapons and reduce their criminal use, has it been effective?
It wasn’t the general civilian population using submachine guns and BARs, it was the criminal gangs. They still have access and still use them when they think it is necessary. Only now it isn’t Thompson ,45, it;s UZI, Mack 10, MP5 and smuggled in, or converted AKs. Back in the late 70s it was military grade M-16s, usually stolen from an armory or shipment. The point is the law didn’t stop the criminals.
5 Likes
