Then why even bother to respond to me at all if you won't back anything up? You could put me on block or ignore and I think we both would be much happier here.
Bump stocks for guns
- Thread starter just me
- Start date
Quite, yes. Some private reserves breeding them and tending to ones that are caught on farmer's lands.
Cheetahs are hunters but they are cowards. Pretend like you charge at them and they run off. Leopards around here are the real problem.
Well my whole post was in response to Pin, who seemed to be suggesting the US do things the way countries like Switzerland do.
I dont think Id like to call a wild cheeta a coward to its face none the less.
Lol...it is quite nerve wracking to come across any predator in the bush. Cheetah, leopard, lion, hyena, wild dogs...none of them is something you'll ever forget.I dont think Id like to call a wild cheeta a coward to its face none the less.
Since this has drifted from just bump stocks into the larger debate some might find this relevant...
https://www.theatlantic.com/politic...land-should-change-the-debate-on-guns/553937/
https://www.theatlantic.com/politic...land-should-change-the-debate-on-guns/553937/
I can understand where this guy might come from but truth be told, it's not "a gun" that is the only problem. It may not be a semi-automatic rifle, but one can load any rifle with a solid copper tip bullet and only a small canal wound be on the body, some of the tissue will be dead as well, then one can load that same rifle with an open lead tip bullet and you'll have a small entry hole, the size of the bullet and an exit hole the size of anything between an orange and a small melon, depending on where the shot was landed. Using different types of bullets for any weapon will wield different results.
The AR-15 is dangerous, as any gun but is also just an extension of the hand that holds it. A semi-automatic weapon can mean the difference between life and death in self-defence, an automatic weapon however has no place in civilian society.
I'll probably be executed for this but...From the news and reactions (I have no firsthand experience of any of this, so it is only my opinion on how your news is portrayed here and what is shown and what not) of some of the US population, they are so fixed on defending their rights that they lose sight of the implications and to a degree the meaning of the right. Now I do realise that more hillbillies than civilized folks are interviewed, but some folk's mentality who have been on the news would never be allowed to get within 30 feet of a gun in these parts.
There is no sense when it comes to gun “rights” in the US. The agenda is driven by the extremes funded by a nihilistic and amoral lobby group.
We all went to school and all know that one person who would’ve been the shooter back in our day. His name was Phillip and he was relentlessly bullied. He got into a fist fight once and everyone stood around him and laughed. It was damn hard and too expensive to buy a gun back when I was in high school. Not so anymore.
We all went to school and all know that one person who would’ve been the shooter back in our day. His name was Phillip and he was relentlessly bullied. He got into a fist fight once and everyone stood around him and laughed. It was damn hard and too expensive to buy a gun back when I was in high school. Not so anymore.
Automatic weapons have their place. Our (US)founding fathers had the intelligence and experience to know that unless checked, any goverment can get out of hand. If for no other reason to be able to protect ourselves from the goverment when the time comes, they do have their place. Thats a big part of what the 2nd Amendment is all about. Keeping the goverment in check and making sure it stays that way.
Now today, no American civilian will be able to protect themselves should the goverment decide to use the armed forces against them or even the National guard which is their coy way around military on civilian soil. Even so, it still gives them more power than without it.
I might have missed it if you've already stated it somewhere else, and I'm just wanting to clarify. Do you believe that the way we hold our government accountable to us is by being equally armed? If so, are you also saying we need a lot more civilians owning other types of military grade equipment? Doesn't it also follow that we would need to be equally well trained?
The best case scenrio is that we are never in a position where the goverment decides the constitution is an idea or a nuisance and then acts in relation to that. But if it were to, what options would there be? Citizens need to be able to protect themselves against threats they encounter. Police cant always get to a location in time. I think most of us realize that when time is of the essence it rarely happens they get there on time. So, are you supposed to lay down and beg? Or should you have the right to defend yourself in a way you can actually defend yourself or your family?
I think it’s would be better to raise the age for joining the military to age 21.
>Preemptive okay<
>Preemptive okay<
Bump stocks are toys and a waste of ammo. I don't own a full auto...have no need for one. Once again, I've been around guns all my life.I'll hesitate to make a list of how many ways a person can kill. They should be killed themselves and not talked about on the news. There is no deterrence.