sandgroperbill wrote:Or...
You could just go back and delete your post
sandgroperbill wrote:Thanks, Sam.
My last post was in reference to jonesy who challenged us to give a single example as to how anyone could justify the adler, as well as stating the ruger charger and the adler shotgun were both testing our laws and that the charger could not fall into any existing category and therefore should not be approved.
When his stance was challenged and shown to be flawed, he simply went back and deleted his post.
Poor form.
sandgroperbill wrote:These aren't weapons, though, they're simply tools of the trade.
It really annoys me that there is so much focus and wasted resources on more and more restrictions on legal firearms.
sandgroperbill wrote:On a bit of a side note, the most lethal firearm i have ever seen is a .22lr in the hands of farmers that only own .22s and shotguns. They know their rifles so well that they can successfully take shots you wouldn't imagine, and they only need the one shot.
These aren't weapons, though, they're simply tools of the trade.
It really annoys me that there is so much focus and wasted resources on more and more restrictions on legal firearms.
If only they would use these resources more constructively to reduce the black market imports, well then they may see real progress in reducing gun related crime.
valkyrie wrote:Fringe members? Im sorry but everyone i have met on this forums seems very measured in their views
Jonesy wrote:valkyrie wrote:Fringe members? Im sorry but everyone i have met on this forums seems very measured in their views
That is your opinion and you are welcome to it.
Many members of the same view agree with each other maybe?
Anyway done here.
It is a forum for persons of a certain persuasion and I am not part of that..
Enjoy yourselves guys.
bigfellascott wrote:Yeah I don't get the mag capacity crap either (just used as an excuse to further restrict Law Abiding firearms ownership as far as I'm concerned) and won't ever affect crims who don't give a rats freckle about laws of any description so one can only assume the real target in any firearms laws changes are indeed aimed at restricting Law Abiding firearms ownership.
Title_II wrote:bigfellascott wrote:Yeah I don't get the mag capacity crap either (just used as an excuse to further restrict Law Abiding firearms ownership as far as I'm concerned) and won't ever affect crims who don't give a rats freckle about laws of any description so one can only assume the real target in any firearms laws changes are indeed aimed at restricting Law Abiding firearms ownership.
It is. We don't talk about it enough. The spokespeople for gun control like to misrepresent or lie about crime statistics when they get a chance or figure out a way to do it. And talk about keeping guns out of the hands of criminals. But that's not what this is about.
Most of the people that support gun control realize there is always going to be crime and there is not much that can be done about it. They are not worried about criminals with guns, they are afraid of their neighbors having guns. Plain and simple. And if making access to firearms more difficult has a trickle down affect and reduces criminal access to guns a little, that's a bonus. But they know the criminals will get all they need to practice their trade. This is about you.
Title_II wrote:If you carry a fun in Australia you will go to jail.
Jonesy wrote:Do you think having lever action Shotguns and guns like the Ruger Charger draw the attention of politicians and anti gun people?
I think it does, the few who want these style of Rifles and "Pistols" may do more damage to the majority of shooters in the long run.