Vegas Sets New Record

LAST EDITED ON Oct-04-17 AT 07:41PM (MST)[p]Here in the U.S. mass killing seem to have a common thread...assault weapons. We know why, we know how, and we also know that there is no real system in place to stop them.

Ban the full auto loopholes, trace full-auto kit owners for asset trace or recovery, and require a 30 day FFAM training course for legal licensed ownership.

Tomorrow I could load up on ARs, conversion kits, and outside of a small wait period on the ARs there would be nothing to stop me. Of course, I have no interest in that as I am a recreational hunter, not a wannabe mass killer.

There should a system in place where I can still legally attain the weapons. A system where I register up to be licensed owner, finish training, and upon verifying my license can purchase ARs with a 7 day wait.

We, more than most internet forums know exactly what bullets do, it's not pretty. Oddly enough I think there are many here like me that would never own a riot shotgun let alone an assault style gun. We do not want our rights to bolt action rifles and auto-loading shotguns infringed on.

So who speaks for us? Personally guys that are into man guns make me nervous and most of the ones I know do not hunt.
 
>LAST EDITED ON Oct-04-17
>AT 07:15?PM (MST)
>
>Here in the U.S. mass killing
>seem to have a common
>thread...assault weapons. We know why,
>we know how, and we
>also know that there is
>no real system in place
>to stop them.
>
>Ban the full auto loopholes, trace
>full-auto kit owners for asset
>trace or recovery, and require
>a 30 day FFAM training
>course for legal licensed ownership.
>
>
>Tomorrow I could load up on
>ARs, conversion kits, and outside
>of a small wait period
>on the ARs there would
>be nothing to stop me.
>Of course, I have no
>interest in that as I
>am a recreational hunter, not
>a wannabe mass killer.
>
>There should a system in place
>where I can still legally
>attain the weapons. A system
>where I register up to
>be licensed owner, finish training,
>and upon verifying my license
>can purchase ARs with a
>7 day wait all day
>long.
>
>We, more than most internet forums
>know exactly what bullets do,
>it's not pretty. Oddly enough
>I think there are many
>here like me that would
>never own a riot shotgun
>let alone an assault style
>gun. We do not want
>our rights to bolt action
>rifles and auto-loading shotguns infringed
>on.
>
>So who speaks for us? Personally
>guys that are into man
>guns make me nervous and
>most of the ones I
>know do not hunt.
No problem FTW ,move back to California you are safe because Cal is making owners of AR style guns to register them again ...why ? its about the money.
 
LAST EDITED ON Oct-05-17 AT 06:12AM (MST)[p]FTW,
I get what you're saying. I'd be stupid to argue that assault weapons don't kill mass numbers. I own 2 out of the 38 other rifles, pistols and shotguns. It's not to make me feel like a man or get myself closer to mass murder. I can't imagine even pointing a gun a someone. It's because I'm a gun enthusiast. I love guns. I'm not really defending these guns because a lot of what has been said about them is true and it's getting hard to argue in their favor. I just want you to know that I'm not crazy, that's all, because I agree with a lot of your opinions.
 
>LAST EDITED ON Oct-04-17
>AT 07:41?PM (MST)
>
>Here in the U.S. mass killing
>seem to have a common
>thread...assault weapons. We know why,
>we know how, and we
>also know that there is
>no real system in place
>to stop them.
>
>Ban the full auto loopholes, trace
>full-auto kit owners for asset
>trace or recovery, and require
>a 30 day FFAM training
>course for legal licensed ownership.
>
>
>Tomorrow I could load up on
>ARs, conversion kits, and outside
>of a small wait period
>on the ARs there would
>be nothing to stop me.
>Of course, I have no
>interest in that as I
>am a recreational hunter, not
>a wannabe mass killer.
>
>There should a system in place
>where I can still legally
>attain the weapons. A system
>where I register up to
>be licensed owner, finish training,
>and upon verifying my license
>can purchase ARs with a
>7 day wait.
>
>We, more than most internet forums
>know exactly what bullets do,
>it's not pretty. Oddly enough
>I think there are many
>here like me that would
>never own a riot shotgun
>let alone an assault style
>gun. We do not want
>our rights to bolt action
>rifles and auto-loading shotguns infringed
>on.
>
>So who speaks for us? Personally
>guys that are into man
>guns make me nervous and
>most of the ones I
>know do not hunt.

WTF, I also hear what your saying on things that currently circumvent the laws on the books but what makes you think any of what you wrote is gonna stop someone hell bent on going out in a blaze of glory from doing so?

None of that would of stopped this guy other than maybe a 30 day training course because he would of eatin that bullet trying to sit thru that class instead of at the crime scene. What exactly is accomplished in a 30 day training proposal other than an large deterrent for most? As long as it don't effect what I like to do right?

300 million plus people in this country are tasked with making decisions every day. Bad ones are made everyday. You centralized govt progressive dingdongs that think people like Hilary Clinton etc need to be left to make them all for all people to bring the utopia is something I will never be on board with.
 
In 2012, 3,328 people were killed in distraction-related crashes.
About 421,000 people were injured in crashes involving a distracted driver.
In 2012, 11% of drivers under age 20 involved in fatal accidents were reported to be distracted at the time of the crash.
One-fourth of teenagers respond to at least one text message every time they drive and 20% of teens and 10% of parents report having multi-text message conversations while driving.
 
>In 2012, 3,328 people were killed
>in distraction-related crashes.
>About 421,000 people were injured in
>crashes involving a distracted driver.
>
>In 2012, 11% of drivers under
>age 20 involved in fatal
>accidents were reported to be
>distracted at the time of
>the crash.
>One-fourth of teenagers respond to at
>least one text message every
>time they drive and 20%
>of teens and 10% of
>parents report having multi-text message
>conversations while driving.


Using the NRA logic all of those are statistically insignificant when compared to the total U.S. Population, so why worry about any of them. Texting and driving is as American as modifying a weapon to spray automatic fire onto a crowd. Neither of those actions are protected by our Constitution though.

Nemont
 
I have fired bump stock AR's, I do not own one and never will, so don't care if they ban them. But it won't change anything. There is not a law that can be passed that will fix anything. Total confiscation probably won't happen, and won't help, and I'm pretty sure most gun owners would do nothing if they tried.
 
So the NRA answer to every issue is: "Nothing can be done, so why even try?" That is was losers do with in their life.

I don't believe banning bump stocks will change anything either. I also don't believe that burying your head in the sand and letting the NRA be the only voice from gun owners will protect MY 2nd Amendment rights. You are free to our source your constitutional protections to Ole Wayne, I choose not to worship at his trough. Your mileage may vary.

The NRA's scorched earth policy of not even being able to discuss issues will eventually mean the public will demand action from Politicians. Do you trust politicians to get it right? Do you Trust courts to get it right? What happens now that Trump broke the Senate when the leftwingers get to install Justices with a simple majority? History of this country has shown that no majority is permanent. If the future of this country and potential tyranny is truly what the NRA and it's supporters worry about then they are taking short term actions that are harmful to that long term goal.

Nemont
 
"Nothing can be done, so why even try?" That is was losers do with in their life, --Is the dumbest thing I have ever heard you say.

I am not a member of the NRA and never will be, don't care about them either.

Nemont, since your a self proclaimed F#####G genius what is your solution?
 
LAST EDITED ON Oct-05-17 AT 10:26AM (MST)[p]Here we go again. Are you and Elkass twins separated at birth?

You used the stats to say 30,000 gun deaths don't matter and then you said nothing will change, so why try.

When I pointed that out to you then you do the classic Elkass response.

You are mister numbers: explain, using your stats, why nothing can be done. No education, no mental health resources, no outreach to non gun owners. Why do just say allowing modifications that allow full automatic fire are just the way it has to be? If it is about protecting yourself from jack booted thugs, why doesn't the military only issue fully automatic weapons to our Soldiers and Marines?

american_zps8iupb5gm.jpg


I guess doing nothing is the answer I get from those who don't really care about it.

Nemont
 
The NRA has lost before and they'll lose again. as Trump would say" you're going to get tired if losing " . but it will take a supreme court decision and so far they're unwilling to go there. but if you notice existing bans are standing.

I'd like someone to tell me why the NRA get's to decide where the line in the sand is drawn ? why does it stop with semi auto combat rifles and 100 round drums and bump stocks ? who says this is what the founding fathers intended? why should anyone accept it ?

This thread on mass shootings like all the others before it is about played out as the bodies start getting put in the ground. Bubba cheers another battle won and the antis build up a little more strength for the war to come. now we all sit back and wait for the next bloodbath. who's next ? another school full of kids ? another concert ? a pizzed off employee? who cares as long as it's not me right.















Stay Thirsty My Friends
 
>
> The NRA has lost before
>and they'll lose again.
>as Trump would say"
>you're going to get tired
>if losing " .
>but it will take a
>supreme court decision and so
>far they're unwilling to go
>there. but if you
>notice existing bans are
>standing.
>
>I'd like someone to tell me
>why the NRA get's to
>decide where the line in
>the sand is drawn ?
> why does it stop
>with semi auto combat rifles
>and 100 round drums and
>bump stocks ?
>who says this is what
>the founding fathers intended? why
>should anyone accept it ?
>
>
>This thread on mass shootings like
>all the others before it
>is about played out as
>the bodies start getting put
>in the ground. Bubba
>cheers another battle won and
>the antis build up a
>little more strength for the
>war to come. now
>we all sit back and
>wait for the next bloodbath.
> who's next ? another
>school full of kids ?
> another concert ?
>a pizzed off employee?
> who cares as long
>as it's not me right.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Stay Thirsty My Friends
ask 6 million Jews.
 
264,

Do tell how if they all had an AR it would have saved the Jews from the Holocaust. The other side had tanks, Aircraft, artillery, vast amounts of ammo for all them and political motivation. So if all the Jews just had an AR they could have held off the German Army and the German population who supported that German Army? It is a false narrative sold to the dim witted and paranoid that having an AR in their closet allows them to take on their government and prevail by force of arms.

You couldn't hold off a two man team of 18 year olds equipped and trained for combat. One would pin you down while the other called in a mortar round or tossed a grenade or used an AT-4 or simply moved up and put a round in you. To pretend you can go toe to toe with an organized military unit is a fantasy fed by Ole Wayne so he can buy another vacation home.

You can use an AR or shotgun or hand gun or rifle to protect your home from an intruder or thief or drugged out junkies but that weapon won't do diddly if the military ever decides you are a threat. When the military sees a threat in a house or building, that building disappears. Ever see what military ordinance can do to a ever a brick or block structure?

Nemont
 
So explain how having an AR allows you to take on an organized military unit. Explain how the Jews would have stood and fought if each were simply armed with an AR or an AK. It is a fantasy you harbor that is kept alive by Ole Wayne that just be having a weapon you can take on tanks, Bradleys, Artillery, Mortars, M2 .50 cal MG, AT-4 Rockets, Air, MRLS, M-60 MG's, SAWS. That is just some of the firepower at the finger tips of every Butter Bar LT. leading an infantry platoon. You would last exactly 10 seconds. Your first mag change would be your last.

But keep on sending money to the NRA and keep on believing that they have your best interests at heart. Ole Wayne appreciates your blind loyalty as does the talking Yam. No thinking required.

Nemont
 
Notags,

The issue isn't how people decide to kill other people nor is about banning guns from lawful users. It isn't about anything the NRA tells you it is about.


Nemont
 
LAST EDITED ON Oct-05-17 AT 12:01PM (MST)[p]So if you couldn't go toe to toe with a well trained military unit how did we beat the British in the revolutionary war? And what about again in the war of 1812? HMMM that's a head scratcher.

**** Criminals follow gun laws like politicians follow promises ****
 
Yeah because the military of today hasn't changed a bit since the revolutionary war or the war of 1812.
 
>Yeah because the military of today
>hasn't changed a bit since
>the revolutionary war or the
>war of 1812.
You play to many war video games.
 
You sniff too much nose candy.

The average civilian has no clue how much controlled violence a trained infantryman or Marine can bring to bear. When you put them in squads, platoon, Companies and Battalions, the get more and more lethal. They gain additional firepower as they go up an echelon. They can bring in combined arms firepower that would make short work of fake patriots like you hiding behind an AR with a bump stock. That is just a fact. You wouldn't make it past the first magazine.

Now go back to your fantasy that an AR would keep the Jews safe from the holocaust and everything Ole Wayne tells you think. Both he and Trump count on stupid, easily fooled clowns who pretend to be patriots.

Nemont
 
LAST EDITED ON Oct-05-17 AT 02:19PM (MST)[p]Here go 4 NRA terrorists fighting the US military in the holy war they've always dreamed of. carrying their AR-15's with bump stocks and 100 round drums.


Here comes enemy they hate so much in an Apache.






Game over. questions?




Stay Thirsty My Friends
 
>You sniff too much nose candy.
>
>
>The average civilian has no clue
>how much controlled violence a
>trained infantryman or Marine can
>bring to bear. When
>you put them in squads,
>platoon, Companies and Battalions, the
>get more and more lethal.
> They gain additional firepower
>as they go up an
>echelon. They can bring
>in combined arms firepower that
>would make short work of
>fake patriots like you hiding
>behind an AR with a
>bump stock. That is
>just a fact.
>You wouldn't make it past
>the first magazine.
>
>Now go back to your fantasy
>that an AR would keep
>the Jews safe from the
>holocaust and everything Ole Wayne
>tells you think. Both
>he and Trump count on
>stupid, easily fooled clowns who
>pretend to be patriots.
>
>Nemont
What ever you say Barney 5.
 
I think the argument is flawed that well armed civilians couldn't take on a tyrannical government. You are assuming that those in the military, commanders, generals, admirals and all the way down to Private are on the government's side of the equation. You are essentially saying that the military might not be patriotic and would just follow orders to mow down civilians.

Suppose our politicians decided that there would be a complete ban on all guns and that Americans had 30 days to turn in their weapons. Are you suggesting that our military leaders would follow orders to confiscate the weapons we are rightfully guaranteed to own?

In the case of the Jews, I doubt that Jews having AR's would have stopped the holocaust but it probably would have lessened the number of dead Jews as a result. Why would Hitler have disarmed the Jews while making it easier for Germans to get guns if he wasn't concerned about the weapons they had? You're making it sound so one dimensional like our military can just whip ass over anything it encounters. If that is the case why are we still in Iraq and Afghanistan fighting low rent people armed with assault rifles? There is always more to the equation.

Do you think the other world leaders would approve of our military mowing down our citizens? Hell just look what history has shown us whenever the government tries to mow down it's own citizens. Remember Waco and David Koresh? Yeah that didn't work out so well in the court of public opinion for Janet Reno did it?

The bottom line is that a blanket statement that well armed citizens are no match for the military, while true, assumes that it's always going to be the citizens versus the military. In reality, it would almost never be like that.
 
264mag, just give up on Nemont. He is not capable of seeing the big picture that when the ARs go, next will be the semi auto shotgun and pump action shotguns that can be called "assault weapons" since the military have been using them in every war since WW1.
All it would take would be one killer using a shotgun with a extended magazine tube to mow down a bunch of people in a crowd with OO buck. That would become the new mass killing assault weapon for the anti gunners.

Nemont is on the side anti gunners by being the divided Quisling on the inside. He can deny it and give every excuse he can come up with, bottom line he is no friend to gun owners who believe in the 2nd. amendment. Dude is there right along beside him. Consider them the enemy and treat them as such.

RELH
 
Before you say anyone here doesn't support the 2nd amendment you better damn well define what the 2nd amendment says. at this point NOBODY can. we know what the Heller decision said and that's all good. now we need the supreme court to tell us the rest of the story. so far they've said if you want to enforce bans we won't stop you, but that's not a decision it's merely indifference.


As far as Bubba taking on the government that one is even less certain than one can imagine. because you cannot count on all gun owners fighting the government. depending on the situation some gun owners may be shooting at Bubba in defense of their nation while Bubba is shooting at the government. this isn't nearly as simple as Bubba is.


As far as the bullchit slippery slope propaganda goes I have one question for you. shotgun barrels of less than 18" were banned in 1938. what is the minimum length today ?








Stay Thirsty My Friends
 
>264mag, just give up on Nemont.
>He is not capable of
>seeing the big picture that
>when the ARs go, next
>will be the semi auto
>shotgun and pump action shotguns
>that can be called "assault
>weapons" since the military have
>been using them in every
>war since WW1.
> All it
>would take would be one
>killer using a shotgun with
>a extended magazine tube to
>mow down a bunch of
>people in a crowd with
>OO buck. That would become
>the new mass killing assault
>weapon for the anti gunners.
>
>
> Nemont is on
>the side anti gunners by
>being the divided Quisling on
>the inside. He can deny
>it and give every excuse
>he can come up with,
>bottom line he is no
>friend to gun owners who
>believe in the 2nd. amendment.
>Dude is there right along
>beside him. Consider them the
>enemy and treat them as
>such.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> RELH
+1 Nemont is back reading his Obama manual...wait for it
 
I am not on the side of the anti's, I am on the side of law abiding citizens and their right to keep and bear arms. I am not on the band wagon of stuffing the pockets of the NRA leadership. They have an agenda that in the end and in the big picture is going to cost me my rights. I have no issue if you want to buy any legal fire arm. AK's, AR's, SKS, what ever, I don't really give a turd about it because I also own Benelli's and Beretta's and semi auto pistols.

I do not support and unless some dramatically changes with your leadership and their tactics will never support the NRA's scorched earth policy. You can continue with them if you choose


CA,

No I am not assuming anything. 264 said his AR means he could go toe to toe with the military, He can't . Now all the rest of the hypothetical is just that a hypothetical. If we are to the point of gun confiscation then we are also at or near civil war. Then you pick sides, that is different then believing that just buying an AR is a guarantee from tyranny is pure lunacy but I guess considering 264 is loony I should not expect anything else.

Look at the nut bar in Vegas, he had a room full of weapons and knew he couldn't hold out even against the police. Neither could 264 or almost anyone. All that AR really does is let you believe in a paranoid fantasy of either civil war or jack booted thugs and most likely it won't come to that. Doesn't mean the 2nd Amendment shouldn't be defended and gun ownership isn't important and a way to defend yourself. It does mean that buying weapons in the belief it protects you from tyranny is silly reason to buy them and is used by Ole Wayne as a scare tactic to keep the money flowing.

Nemont
 
>
>
> I am not on the
>side of the anti's, I
>am on the side of
>law abiding citizens and their
>right to keep and bear
>arms. I am not
>on the band wagon
>of stuffing the pockets of
>the NRA leadership. They
>have an agenda that in
>the end and in the
>big picture is going to
>cost me my rights.
>I have no issue if
>you want to buy any
>legal fire arm. AK's, AR's,
>SKS, what ever, I don't
>really give a turd about
>it because I also own
>Benelli's and Beretta's and semi
>auto pistols.
>
>I do not support and unless
>some dramatically changes with your
>leadership and their tactics will
>never support the NRA's scorched
>earth policy. You
>can continue with them if
>you choose
>
>
>CA,
>
>No I am not assuming anything.
> 264 said his AR
>means he could go toe
>to toe with the military,
> He can't .
>Now all the rest of
>the hypothetical is just that
>a hypothetical. If we
>are to the point of
>gun confiscation then we are
>also at or near civil
>war. Then you
>pick sides, that is different
>then believing that just buying
>an AR is a guarantee
>from tyranny is pure lunacy
>but I guess considering 264
>is loony I should not
>expect anything else.
>
>Look at the nut bar in
>Vegas, he had a room
>full of weapons and knew
>he couldn't hold out even
>against the police. Neither
>could 264 or almost anyone.
> All that AR really
>does is let you believe
>in a paranoid fantasy of
>either civil war or jack
>booted thugs and most likely
>it won't come to that.
> Doesn't mean the
>2nd Amendment shouldn't be defended
>and gun ownership isn't important
>and a way to defend
>yourself. It does
>mean that buying weapons in
>the belief it protects you
>from tyranny is silly reason
>to buy them and is
>used by Ole Wayne as
>a scare tactic to keep
>the money flowing.
>
>Nemont
I never said that you lying ##### cox sucker !!
 
Come on, you would crap you depends when the first round popped off. You know it, I know it and anyone reading this knows it.

You are a chicken hawk.

Nemont
 
Ocho we know you'd be the first f##kin turncoat when they came for everyones gun. You'd blow the whistle on all your friends and family like a member of the mob trying to stay out of prison. Give the left one inch and they take a mile so the answer is no no and F##k no on a ban of any sort. Let me say it again so you don't have to re-read the solution to the problem quit handing anti depressants out like smarties. You want to ban something tell Sony and Microsoft no more shooter video games. Make your kids buy their own God Dam Cell phone and data. Take your kids and their buddies to do outdoor things. Make your kids cook and wash dishes and put away their phone at the dinner table. Buy them a fishing pole or a bow instead of an andriod watch or PS3 for christmas. Most important less social media.
 
Ochodingdong, you have made my point perfectly. Assuming that the Bubbas would fight the Bubbas is also assuming that soldiers would follow orders to kill civilians. You can't blindly assume that it will be the military versus the civilians therefore civilians shouldn't own assault weapons.

Nemont, I understand what 264 said, but you also said that assault weapons are useless against the military. You're right but civilians against the military would almost never happen realistically. A civil war which would pit civilians against civilians with military on both sides of the argument is much more likely. In a civil war I would much rather have an assault weapon than a bolt action hunting rifle.

It's understandable that the Vegas shooter stood no chance against the police but he's one guy. If 20 people armed with those same weapons went up against that same police force, I guarantee you would have a lot of dead cops.

If 55 million gun owners armed with assault rifles went up against the 1.2 million active duty military, you would have severe casualties on the military side I don't care how many tanks and Apache's they have.

I don't own any assault weapons. I used to have an SKS but I sold it because I never shot it and the guy offered my a good price for it. I really don't think people need to fear for their safety enough to have assault weapons but who am I to tell people what to fear? Like I said before, I'm willing to make concessions on the modifications, etc. that make assault weapons even more deadly but I think the mental health problem and the radical Islam issue should be addressed as well.
 
The 2nd amendment says nothing about assault rifles. so I don't have to assume anything more about assault rifles than I do surface to air missiles in the 2nd amendment .


I do not think our military would turn on citizens unless it was to save the nation from traitors like whines. in which case they'd have the support of many americans like myself. with or without Rambo chit we'd be a militia.


Maybe a lot of this comes down to how much you love your country. I do. or how much you fantasize overthrowing it. I don't. even as it is with an orange retard in the whitehouse and a bunch of do nothing losers in congress I have confidence things will work out .



Stay Thirsty My Friends
 
Admit it dude!

You are Scared Ssshhhiittleess of an AR!






Back Me Off to 1,700 Yards,650 is a Little Close & I'm Not Comfortable with it!

A GUT SHOT at 1,700 Yards will Still Make Some Good BRAGGIN Rights so I Can Say I At Least Hit Him!


90087hankjr.jpg
 
Hey Ocho you just proved you don't know a dam thing about guns the gun assault rifle doesn't exist there is no such thing as an assault rifle it's a left wing made up imaginary unicorn type gun. Now in a gun like a AR-15 AR stands for ArmaLite rifle. So Shut the hell up because you just proved you know nothing about guns and people who don't know anything about guns carry no weight in a debate to ban them. Ocho you don't love this country you turncoat orgeganian POS. Nemont yeah the military has changed the british had more cannons than the USA had if you want to compare rifles to mortars in modern times of being outnumbered in arms.
 
My point is that we don't try to fix anything that kills people, so why go after guns. Ban cell phone while driving, being overweight and you would save thousands of lives.
 
>Nemont yeah the military has
>changed the british had more
>cannons than the USA had
>if you want to compare
>rifles to mortars in modern
>times of being outnumbered in
>arms.

You may want to research a bit more how the fire power of our military has changed with 1812.

Hypotheticals that ALL 55 million gun owners would turn on the military, or that the military leaders would disobey orders is a lot of yada, yada, yada. If your reason for purchasing an AR or AK or SKS is because you believe it would protect you from tyranny, then when you look in the mirror, that guy staring back at you is an idiot. If it ever comes to outright confiscation, then all bets are off and then you will have a harder time feeding yourself and family than protecting from tyranny of the government. But the NRA feeds this narrative.

I actually see many AR platforms used by the local guys who hunt coyotes. They are fun to shoot, I don't think banning them would work given the number of them that out there and how many would be bought prior to an any ban. I just think that guys who pretend they can take on all comers with one are just like what Tillerson thinks of Trump, F@$king morons. Look at the caliber on posters on here who believe it.

Nemont
 
Well leave it to TOG to try and compare an Apache to an AR. You are a true idiot . Try living one day out of the peyote haze , well, and out of the dolls arse.
 
Tog re-read it there is no such thing as an Assault Rifle. It doesn't exist it's a made up narrative which you suck those in every day from your news links.
 
Whines, how much would you like to bet assault rifle is not a term for your Rambo chit ? put up or shut up.


Nonuts, the point you always miss is painfully obvious and over your low hanging head. the military has better equipment than you do. yeah, it's true. they'll vaporize you with a drone from a control room in NV or an Apache your pea shooters can't reach. or a thousand other ways you can't compete with.

Get it ? I doubt it.









Stay Thirsty My Friends
 
57 dead in Chicago the month of September. A city with strict gun laws. Bad guys who are prohibited from gun ownership doing the most of the killing. Just saying...with that being said bump stocks have no value to the average gun owner. Get rid of them.
 
Two things about Chicago. are we going to say gang bangers in the ghetto are no different than we are at a Vegas concert ?

And do we really care about Chicago ?

I'd like to be politically correct but what's the use. everyone here is saying no to both questions. and so am I. so let's not pretend this isn't different.



Stay Thirsty My Friends
 
TOG you idiot I am the last one who is afraid of the government or the military. You are so stupid it must hurt to be you. God you really need to lay off your whiskey. I will ask you a question and let's see if you can answer it honestly. I know you struggle with reading comprehension but have you ever had a good friend or co worker shot to pieces with an AK or an SKS ?
 
Just seeing the Words:

AR!

SKS!

AK!

Scares dude!









Back Me Off to 1,700 Yards,650 is a Little Close & I'm Not Comfortable with it!

A GUT SHOT at 1,700 Yards will Still Make Some Good BRAGGIN Rights so I Can Say I At Least Hit Him!


90087hankjr.jpg
 
And Scares NeMont Too!







Back Me Off to 1,700 Yards,650 is a Little Close & I'm Not Comfortable with it!

A GUT SHOT at 1,700 Yards will Still Make Some Good BRAGGIN Rights so I Can Say I At Least Hit Him!


90087hankjr.jpg
 
Looked like there were 22,000 cowards running like scared rabbits in Vegas. that was some funny chit huh?

Some of us don't need to compensate with man cards. you're the cowards.








Stay Thirsty My Friends
 
Dude your man card is your bottle of Crown and the King ranch you like to brag about.

RELH
 
I'll take both. at least I don't need to play army man to get off.


A king ranch is just a pick up around here, it's not really anything special. it seems like bragging to you because you live in a chit hole and drive a Prius.

Crown is very popular around here too . it just seems like bragging to you because you live in a chit hole and do crack.

You do your thing and I'll gladly do mine.



So this thread has died. yawn. a week later, nobody we can blame so who gives a FF. we tried nothing and it didn't work, what are you going to do ?

So like I've said so many times before. now we sit back and wait to see what next blood bath brings. we have a new record ..... next......










Stay Thirsty My Friends
 
> I'll take both.
>at least I don't need
>to play army man to
>get off.
>
>
> A king ranch is just
>a pick up around here,
>it's not really anything special.
> it seems like bragging
>to you because you live
>in a chit hole and
>drive a Prius.
>
>Crown is very popular around here
>too . it just
>seems like bragging to you
>because you live in a
>chit hole and do crack.
>
>
>You do your thing and I'll
>gladly do mine.
>
>
>
>So this thread has died.
>yawn. a week
>later, nobody we can blame
>so who gives a FF.
>we tried nothing and it
>didn't work, what are you
>going to do ?
>
>So like I've said so many
>times before. now we
>sit back and wait to
>see what next blood
>bath brings. we have
>a new record .....
>next......
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Stay Thirsty My Friends

Don't forget that Sioux massacre over 200
 
Too bad the Vegas shooter didn't have the same weapons the army had at wounded knee. there would be at least 40 more people alive in Vegas today. white people, the only ones who matter.


That is kind of my point , thanks for making it.













Stay Thirsty My Friends
 
Guyana is a long was from Vegas. and I didn't think going to a concert was supposed to be suicide.

But he did get people to drink the kool aid, just like the NRA. so thanks for making my point.









Stay Thirsty My Friends
 
How ironic that Ochodingdong is cool with his crown and pickup truck which in combination kills approximately 10,000 people per year. Using his logic shouldn't we ban alcohol? I mean we don't need alcohol and we could surely save lives if it was illegal right?

What's funny is that he gets all retarded about people's "man card" guns but his alcohol kills more people every year. There's not a chance in hell he would be willing to give up alcohol to save lives so let's just cut the shyt and admit this isn't about saving lives.

After all, I should be able to get in my car with my family and travel anywhere I want without having to worry that some drunk idiot is going to plow into us head on at 70 mph. I guarantee you not one of those 22,000 people at that concert thought for one second that they would be sprayed with bullets that night so what's the difference? Why should I have to fear drunk drivers especially on holiday weekends?

Why is it that when a family of four is killed by a drunk driver it only receives local media attention but if a shooter walks into a bar and just randomly starts killing people it makes national headlines? You see, it's not about the lives lost, it's about the why did he do it. Does the drunk driver not intending to kill those people lessen their value of life? Can you even call it accidental when the drunk driver knew it was against the law to drive drunk and that he might possibly kill people? If a drunk driver "accidentally" plowed into a crowd of people and killed 58 of them would anyone be calling for the banning of alcohol? Hell no so why is this any different?

Banning alcohol would mean that the left would have to give up something that they love which is why they don't care about the carnage inflicted in a DUI crash. The left is anti-gun which is why you hear about more gun laws and gun bans no matter what gun is used in a mass shooting. Gabby Giffords assailant used a hand gun and people cried about limiting the number of rounds handguns could hold.

We can't talk about banning Muslims when a Muslim turns all jihadi on people and we can't talk about banning alcohol to save lives because none of that is convenient for the left. PERIOD!
 
Doesn't seem we can talk about guns either does it dipchit ?


Pretty funny how many of you girls are so scared of alcohol. stick to your kambuhca and lattes if your vag can't handle a drink. I guess booze and Birkenstocks don't mix I the metro areas huh? but you do like your drugs.



There are lots of regulations on alcohol. limits on content, liability for bars that don't cut customers off. you can't drink in public. you can't drink until you're 21. I could go on.

But for guns we want no regulations. put the same restrictions on guns we have on alcohol and you'll be about where common sense gun laws should be.




Stay Thirsty My Friends
 
> Doesn't seem we can talk
>about guns either does it
>dipchit ?
>
>
> Pretty funny how many of
>you girls are so scared
>of alcohol. stick to your
>kambuhca and lattes if
>your vag can't handle a
>drink. I guess booze
>and Birkenstocks don't mix I
>the metro areas huh?
> but you do like
>your drugs.
>
>
>
>There are lots of regulations on
>alcohol. limits on content,
>liability for bars that don't
>cut customers off. you
>can't drink in public.
>you can't drink until you're
>21. I could go
>on.
>
> But for guns we
>want no regulations. put
>the same restrictions on guns
>we have on alcohol and
> you'll be about where
>common sense gun laws should
>be.
>
>
>
>
>Stay Thirsty My Friends
LMAOF ....HAVE ANOTHER SWIG
 
I knew you would go full retard when someone brought up alcohol. I drink all the time so before you go ASSuming that I can't handle alcohol you should understand that I'm not advocating banning alcohol you dope.

Of course we regulate alcohol but you're dumb enough to think that more regulations are needed on something that kills far less people. Typical libtard wanting something banned that doesn't affect you but see how you act when someone brings up alcohol. You proved my point to a tee as usual by getting your panties in a bunch when I brought up banning alcohol. Next I expect you to say that the two are apples and Tuesday.

You fail to see the comparison is exactly the same though since by your own admission there are already numerous regulations on alcohol yet drunk driving kills way more people annually than ARs do.

Why don't you just be honest and admit that you don't give a shyt how many people die from alcohol every year? Why not just admit that banning alcohol would save thousands of lives but your greedy alcoholism is more important? Just say it, you like alcohol so you want to keep it no matter how many people die.
 
Maybe they should Outlaw dudes CROWN!






Back Me Off to 1,700 Yards,650 is a Little Close & I'm Not Comfortable with it!

A GUT SHOT at 1,700 Yards will Still Make Some Good BRAGGIN Rights so I Can Say I At Least Hit Him!


90087hankjr.jpg
 
You're to dumb to get it Californian. we have more restrictions on alcohol than we do guns. and considering how many people buy alcohol it must be working. a total ban would be the only way to reduce deaths. we could ban cars and then we could remove all restrictions on alcohol if that would make you happy? every night would be like rodeo dance night.


But NOBODY is talking about a total ban on guns dumbchit. just restrictions. and that is something you can't bullchit your way out of. in the end majority will rule. it just takes time.



http://www.npr.org/2017/10/13/55743...both-parties-favor-increased-gun-restrictions





Stay Thirsty My Friends
 
Again, you're too dumb to see it but that doesn't surprise me at all. You don't care about the deaths and you cannot be honest about it. Libtards like yourself would be too inconvenienced by a ban on alcohol so you don't want it. Tell the truth dumb #####, banning alcohol would save thousands of lives but you don't want that.

You only want to ban things that you don't use and it's the same with most libtards. Society doesn't need alcohol to exist and it remains a life luxury so we look past the amount of death it causes. Why you're so stupid to see that is beyond me. So you like alcohol and some other dude likes assault rifles. Both cause the death of people but you LOVE the more deadly one. Typical libtard making zero sense at all.
 

Click-a-Pic ... Details & Bigger Photos

Member Gallery Photos and Videos!

B16CCEF2-4459-4292-BF7A-8FDA3829792D.jpeg
81CA51B8-D53F-4A01-A011-036122BD50A0.jpeg
IMG_0564.jpeg
FF9EA63C-5F2C-4AFE-BB7E-DF165C161137.png
79925EEE-1A61-43B2-8BF3-B189EC9DFB78.jpeg
Wide Buck with Extra Stuff
image.jpeg
876D09F1-A873-48DB-9C11-8AFD617BFE94.jpeg
20210727_112205.jpg
Late Hunt Stud
Elk 2.jpg
Monster Muley with Fun Extra Stuff
Back
Top Bottom