Bump stocks for guns

I benefit. I have better things to do than try to explain things to someone stuck on what they believe. I'm not offering data you will try to turn around and longer. You are bordering my list to avoid because of your ignorance regarding this matter. I no longer wish to hear what you have to say. Can't figure if you are pulling our chains or having fun. "He that is ignorant, let him be ignorant. Bye.
 
just me said:
Big difference in using facts and idiocy.
Click to expand...

Yea I love facts

DQmYCgREYk4FaLrDFaVWrMx9sFtzVC5L2emaE6fnKgumB6s
 
I have the most conflicted opinion on this entire subject:

I believe bump stock show be as regulated as true automatic firearms in the US.

I also believe that the Hughes amendment of the 1986 FOPA should be removed because shit like bump stocks are a direct result of the gun enthusiast crowd wanting automatic firearms for the fun of it but the starting price, last time I looked, was $7-8000.

The NRA is absolute trash and are fear mongers at their best. I have no respect to an organization that has magazines that they sell that have articles to the effect of "Obama is banning sale of m855 ammo, GET YOURS TODAY!"
 
6c1fa106acb705fa76d91c4446dd2897
Fox Sports

A bump on the shoulder before the game could make someone show their true colors...in this case. Needed something to ease any tension.
 
Eventhorizon said:
can you elaborate because honestly I dont think you have a clue what you are talking about. But please, prove me wrong.
Click to expand...
See, this is the rude and uncalled-for arrogant fucking way you talk to people you disagree with.
Grow up man...this isn’t Jr. High anymore.
It’s goddamn childish and I feel sad for you honestly.
BTW - know the history about what you are flapping your lips about, you just sound ignorant.



Eventhorizon said:
Pretty obvious if you follow the news. As Ive said, liberal law makers want to take guns away which is the first step of controling a country's population.
Click to expand...

That answered the questions in no way.
Proof please.
Is it there?
 
Skarekrow said:
See, this is the rude and uncalled-for arrogant fucking way you talk to people you disagree with.
Grow up man...this isn’t Jr. High anymore.
It’s goddamn childish and I feel sad for you honestly.
BTW - know the history about what you are flapping your lips about, you just sound ignorant.





That answered the questions in no way.
Proof please.
Is it there?
Click to expand...
Attacking me is a great way to divert from having to answer the questions I asked. Please answer them otherwise well simply agree you yet again have no clue what you are talking about. Thanks.

And dude, I will never sugar coat or make my words flowery for anyone, especially you. Stop thinking you are special.
 
Eventhorizon said:
Attacking me is a great way to divert from having to answer the questions I asked. Please answer them otherwise well simply agree you yet again have no clue what you are talking about. Thanks.

And dude, I will never sugar coat or make my words flowery for anyone, especially you. Stop thinking you are special.
Click to expand...

Excuse me, you didn’t answer MY fucking questions...you ignored them cause you cannot.

I’m not attacking you...I’m explaining why you sound like an asshole when you talk to people you disagree with.

And I answered your questions about the history of the NRA and how it used to be a proponent for gun control with a slightly over 2 minute video...it’s very simple to watch...just click play.
If you can prove the history wrong - which is what you are contending - then do it and STFU already.
 
just me said:
I benefit. I have better things to do than try to explain things to (1) someone stuck on what they believe. (2) I'm not offering data you will try to turn around and longer. (3) You are bordering my list to avoid because of your ignorance regarding this matter. (4) I no longer wish to hear what you have to say. Can't figure if you are pulling our chains or having fun. (5) "He that is ignorant, let him be ignorant. Bye.
Click to expand...

(1) Yes you are...calling the kettle black too.

(2) Then what is your point, and why aren’t you if you have it?

(3) Your (and others like you) stereotypical response to those with an opinion you can’t prove wrong, but just don’t like - therefore you ignore the person and the facts they present and make it a personal attack by calling names.

(4) La-la-la *fingers in ears* I can’t hear you!

(5) More personal judgmental insults under the guise of some “wise" quote to try and justify it as necessary and smart.
 
Eventhorizon said:
And dude, I will never sugar coat or make my words flowery for anyone, especially you. Stop thinking you are special.
Click to expand...

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Ouch...that hurt my incisions...hahahaha...
 
Skarekrow said:
Excuse me, you didn’t answer MY fucking questions...you ignored them cause you cannot.

I’m not attacking you...I’m explaining why you sound like an asshole when you talk to people you disagree with.

And I answered your questions about the history of the NRA and how it used to be a proponent for gun control with a slightly over 2 minute video...it’s very simple to watch...just click play.
If you can prove the history wrong - which is what you are contending - then do it and STFU already.
Click to expand...
First, you did not answer my question to you about your understanding of when the NRA changed. Posting a video is not answering my question with your words. I have ignored your questions as I find no reason to bother with them until you answer mine that I asked first.
So...please shine your wisdom and knowledge down on everyone.
 
If you want a real fucking history lesson now cause the video wasn’t good enough for you...
Then sit down and shut the fuck up and wait until I finish typing it before you ignore it completely.
Impatience is not a virtue.
 
@Skarekrow As a note I would gain an infinite amount of respect for you if you did nothing other than admit you are wrong when you are wrong. Something as simple as "hey sorry I just became very passionate about this and said some things I cant really back up" would do it.
 
Eventhorizon said:
@Skarekrow As a note I would gain an infinite amount of respect for you if you did nothing other than admit you are wrong when you are wrong. Something as simple as "hey sorry I just became very passionate about this and said some things I cant really back up" would do it.
Click to expand...
What are you implying I am wrong about?
WTF are you even getting at.
 
Skarekrow said:
What are you implying I am wrong about?
WTF are you even getting at.
Click to expand...
I really cant be more clear. Read it again, Im not sure how to make it eaiser to understand. If you think it doesnt apply then it was a waste of my time to type it.
 
Eventhorizon said:
First, you did not answer my question to you about your understanding of when the NRA changed. Posting a video is not answering my question with your words. I have ignored your questions as I find no reason to bother with them until you answer mine that I asked first.
So...please shine your wisdom and knowledge down on everyone.
Click to expand...

You’re lame.
And if you go back and look at the order of questioning...never mind, you won’t cause you always assume you’re right which again - is lame.
In the 1930’s the NRA helped FDR with parts of the New Deal that would contain gun control regulations which resulted the 1934 National Firearms Act and the 1938 Gun Control Act - the first FEDERAL gun control laws.
This imposed taxes and regulations such as outlawing machine guns, sawed off shotguns, and things like silencers.
Gun owners were required to register with the federal government and outlawed felons from owning guns.

Not only was the legislation unanimously upheld by the Supreme Court in 1939, but Karl T. Frederick, the president of the NRA, testified before Congress stating, “I have never believed in the general practice of carrying weapons. I do not believe in the general promiscuous toting of guns. I think it should be sharply restricted and only under licenses.”

For the next 30 years, the NRA continued to support gun control. By the late 1960s a shift in the NRA platform was on the horizon.

On Nov. 22, 1963, President John F. Kennedy was assassinated by Lee Harvey Oswald. He shot the president with an Italian military surplus rifle purchased from a NRA mail-order advertisement. NRA Executive Vice-President Franklin Orth agreed at a congressional hearing that mail-order sales should be banned stating, “We do think that any sane American, who calls himself an American, can object to placing into this bill the instrument which killed the president of the United States.” The NRA also supported California’s Mulford Act of 1967, which had banned carrying loaded weapons in public in response to the Black Panther Party’s impromptu march on the State Capitol to protest gun control legislation on May 2, 1967.

The summer riots of 1967 and assassinations of Martin Luther King Jr. and Robert F. Kennedy in 1968 prompted Congress to reenact a version of the FDR-era gun control laws as the Gun Control Act of 1968. The act updated the law to include minimum age and serial number requirements, and extended the gun ban to include the mentally ill and drug addicts. In addition, it restricted the shipping of guns across state lines to collectors and federally licensed dealers and certain types of bullets could only be purchased with a show of ID. The NRA, however, blocked the most stringent part of the legislation, which mandated a national registry of all guns and a license for all gun carriers. In an interview in American Rifleman, Franklin Orth stated that despite portions of the law appearing “unduly restrictive, the measure as a whole appears to be one that the sportsmen of America can live with.”

Here is where things changed...

A shift in the NRA’s platform occurred when in 1971 the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, during a house raid, shot and paralyzed longtime NRA member Kenyon Ballew suspected of stockpiling illegal weapons. The NRA swiftly condemned the federal government. As Winkler points out, following the incident NRA board member and editor of New Hampshire’s Manchester Union Leader William Loeb referred to the federal agents as “Treasury Gestapo”; the association soon appropriated the language of the Panthers insisting that the Second Amendment protected individual gun rights.

For much of the 20th century, the NRA had lobbied and co-authored legislation that was similar to the modern legislative measures the association now characterizes as unconstitutional. But by the 1970s the NRA came to view attempts to enact gun-control laws as threats to the Second Amendment, a viewpoint strongly articulated at last week’s Republican National Convention by current NRA leader Chris Cox. Today’s NRA could be summed up with words uttered by the Black Panther Party 40 years earlier: “the gun is the only thing that will free us—gain us our liberation.”
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top