Gun control debate (merged)

#17,254
#17,254
hog88 said:
If you would have said "Liptoned" I might have gotten it.

Know your audience. We're a bunch of knuckle dragging sweet tea drinkers, not that fancy smancy stuff.
Click to expand...

sweet tea is heaven

Open carry is better than concealed carry. I'd rather see what the paranoid guy has than not know
 
#17,256
#17,256
hog88 said:
If you would have said "Liptoned" I might have gotten it.

Know your audience. We're a bunch of knuckle dragging sweet tea drinkers, not that fancy smancy stuff.
Click to expand...
Sorry guys. Will file this away.

Anyway, I like that he signed this the same day that Biden announced his attack on 2A with executive orders.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hog88 and NorthDallas40
#17,257
#17,257
Jxn Vol said:
Sorry guys. Will file this away.

Anyway, I like that he signed this the same day that Biden announced his attack on 2A with executive orders.
Click to expand...
Lol they weren’t even EO’s because he knows they would get struck down. It was “executive directives” 🤡
 
#17,262
#17,262
NorthDallas40 said:
Open carry is stupid. It’s a sign over your head that says “hey killer shoot me first!”
Click to expand...

I’m not a huge open carry guy either. I do like not having to worry about printing and having the option to carry OWB but I’m still going to conceal as best I can.
 
#17,267
#17,267
Tastylicks said:
true and I never got that. open carry is better.
Click to expand...

Perhaps you understand part of the principle but I'm not sure you understand the scope. There are states where the "concealed" part of CC is enforced to the point you can get in legal trouble for "printing". By that I mean if you are carrying concealed if it can be made out (shape in a pocket for instance) you can have problems.

Beyond that OC is tactically problematic.
 
#17,268
#17,268
NorthDallas40 said:
Oh ok so you’re completely fine with an individual owning any number of “assault rifles” and magazines or any capacity they choose then right?
Click to expand...
Yes, unless there is definite proof that it is unreasonably detrimental to our society as a whole, then I would listen to solutions.
 
#17,269
#17,269
OHvol40 said:
Yes, unless there is definite proof that it is unreasonably detrimental to our society as a whole, then I would listen to solutions.
Click to expand...
I clearly read that you welcome restrictions then on individual rights based on an entity that has no rights of their own. “Society” doesn’t have rights individuals have rights. So I find your statement to be false. Thanks for playing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rickyvol77 and DEFENDTHISHOUSE
#17,270
#17,270
NorthDallas40 said:
I clearly read that you welcome restrictions then on individual rights based on an entity that has no rights of their own. “Society” doesn’t have rights individuals have rights. So I find your statement to be false. Thanks for playing.
Click to expand...
Nobody really cares what you find to be subjectively true or false, you asked me about what I believe and didn’t get the answer you expected, now you improvise with more nonsense and deflection... then again, we all know you love the attention and dont really pay attention to what you’re saying most of the time lol
 
#17,271
#17,271
OHvol40 said:
Nobody really cares what you find to be subjectively true or false, you asked me about what I believe and didn’t get the answer you expected, now you improvise with more nonsense and deflection... then again, we all know you love the attention and dont really pay attention to what you’re saying most of the time lol
Click to expand...
Actually I got exactly the answer I expected and called you on your bull ****. I knew you would claim you were against any restrictions... well unless we could rationalize them against some non applicable “standard”. Thanks for playing kid. Again.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top