#BoycottNRA

#3,826
#3,826
luthervol said:
There is much more to gun regulation than the prevention of mass shootings. (that would be just a small variable) Guns used in crimes / murders is the more significant issue.
Click to expand...

You keep moving the goal posts. So now you are more concerned about crime/murders than mass shootings?

Okay, well then we can move away from "assault weapons", i.e. - semi-automatic rifles, and move on over to the handgun department, because that's where a yuuuge percentage of crimes and murders are happening. And like you said, a "more significant issue". Glad to see we agree on that fact. Might be a first.

So you're done with the AR thing then, right?

Just checking. Or is it time to slide the goal posts back again?
 
#3,827
#3,827
SpaceCoastVol said:
I want to know how luther feels about buying the Garand rifle. He has not said anything about it and after all it is truly a weapon of war. Should they be banned as well I wonder? Maybe if I paint it black.
Click to expand...
I'm thinking that eight 30-06's out of stripper clips coming at you would get Luther's attention. As long as you don't get your fingers cut off loading it.
 
#3,828
#3,828
GreyWolf1129 said:
You keep moving the goal posts. So now you are more concerned about crime/murders than mass shootings?

Okay, well then we can move away from "assault weapons", i.e. - semi-automatic rifles, and move on over to the handgun department, because that's where a yuuuge percentage of crimes and murders are happening. And like you said, a "more significant issue". Glad to see we agree on that fact. Might be a first.

So you're done with the AR thing then, right?

Just checking. Or is it time to slide the goal posts back again?
Click to expand...
I'm not moving anything. When did I ever say this was about mass shootings?

I think if a gun has a legitimate primary purpose of personal home protection or hunting, it should be legal. Anything else.....up for debate.
 
#3,829
#3,829
luthervol said:
I'm not moving anything. When did I ever say this was about mass shootings?

I think if a gun has a legitimate primary purpose of personal home protection or hunting, it should be legal. Anything else.....up for debate.
Click to expand...

Then why “x rounds in y seconds” if it has the afore-mentioned legitimate primary purpose (and you included personal home protection)? Why would that matter?
 
#3,830
#3,830
luthervol said:
There is much more to gun regulation than the prevention of mass shootings. (that would be just a small variable) Guns used in crimes / murders is the more significant issue.
Click to expand...

That should only be a significant issue if you can prove to me that gun laws effect murder rates.
 
#3,831
#3,831
luthervol said:
I'm not moving anything. When did I ever say this was about mass shootings?

I think if a gun has a legitimate primary purpose of personal home protection or hunting, it should be legal. Anything else.....up for debate.
Click to expand...

What if I’m a bad shot and a sport rifle like the simi automatic 22 (AK 47) is what I use to increase my odds of killing the deer instead of just wounding it.

That’s legitimate. Right.
 
#3,834
#3,834
Here’s what really concerns me: X teachers in Y schools. With “X” being a liberal who thinks the Bill of Rights is a “Bill of Recommendations”.

X being luther and many others like him.

Y is the variable, but it’s safe to say that there’s at least one X in every Y.

That truly frightens me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#3,835
#3,835
GreyWolf1129 said:
Here’s what really concerns me: X teachers in Y schools. With “X” being a liberal who thinks the Bill of Rights is a “Bill of Recommendations”.

X being luther and many others like him.

Y is the variable, but it’s safe to say that there’s at least one X in every Y.

That truly frightens me.
Click to expand...
Me too, and I have no clue what you just said.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#3,837
#3,837
GreyWolf1129 said:
Here’s what really concerns me: X teachers in Y schools. With “X” being a liberal who thinks the Bill of Rights is a “Bill of Recommendations”.

X being luther and many others like him.

Y is the variable, but it’s safe to say that there’s at least one X in every Y.

That truly frightens me.
Click to expand...

The whole x/y conversation has my thinking wtf. I think it may be SOP for the DNC and liberals to Create confusion instead of SOT. That of course is JMO. Tifwiw. Siap.
 
#3,841
#3,841
Luther should be a paid shill for the NRA / AR manufacturers/ ammo wholesalers. Like David Hogg, there’s no telling how much money he’s made for them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
#3,842
#3,842
luthervol said:
I have no clue nor do I care. Put it to the x / y test and see how it stacks up.

My lack of interest in types of guns may be like your lack of interest in types of rocks, or tennis shoes (pick something in which you have little to no interest.)
Click to expand...

Lack of interest? You misspelled "ignorance". Your activities in gun control threads belies your interest.
 
#3,843
#3,843
GreyWolf1129 said:
Then why “x rounds in y seconds” if it has the afore-mentioned legitimate primary purpose (and you included personal home protection)? Why would that matter?
Click to expand...

There is no need for more than x rounds per y seconds for home protection or hunting. That's one of the beauties of x / y.
 
#3,844
#3,844
Orange_Crush said:
Lack of interest? You misspelled "ignorance". Your activities in gun control threads belies your interest.
Click to expand...

Don't confuse lack of interest in types of guns with lack of interested in reasonable and rational gun laws and regulations.

You don't have to be interested in types of rocks in order to be against public stoning.

I think the gun fascination and obsession is often a hindrance to the debate.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#3,847
#3,847
luthervol said:
I'm not moving anything. When did I ever say this was about mass shootings?

I think if a gun has a legitimate primary purpose of personal home protection or hunting, it should be legal. Anything else.....up for debate.
Click to expand...

Outstanding, the AR platform is the ne plus ultra rifle currently available that can/does cover self-defense/hunting.
 
#3,850
#3,850
luthervol said:
There is no need for more than x rounds per y seconds for home protection or hunting. That's one of the beauties of x / y.
Click to expand...

Rights don’t neccisitate a need. Rosa Parks didn’t need to sit up front.

But you’re confused. You seem to believe the type of weapon determines rounds per second. That’s more about the shooters abilities than anything else.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top