NOT Political but involves IMPORTANT political subject

biggill wrote:

Why is it you guys feel the need to chase people away from the site? Do you really think it makes this site better?

Who’s being chased away??

Did I miss something??

I haven’t left ?

Your ignorance proves my point. You guys just don’t care.

biggill wrote:

Your ignorance proves my point. You guys just don’t care.

You appear to be in opposition to preserving the rights of every single American given by God, and guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States – the very foundation this great country was built upon. I find it ironic that you would say others posting in this thread are the ones who just don’t care.

Simmer down Biggill, this is the internet.

I read through it again and still don’t see anything worth filling out a report for??

I’m fine with this thread in either forum and don’t see what there’s to be upset about or to fight over??? Not worth the time or effort (nor should it be)….

Attachments:

1. 

   Screenshot_20240216-171502.png
   

I guess I’m confused at the uproar here. Perhaps reposting in both discussion forums would have been appropriate. Personally, I rarely go into the hunting forums as I no longer participate in the sport. I do fish a lot, so I found it informative for me as I try to keep abreast of the issues and opinions. Frustrating enough to come back to the forums and find topics have suddenly disappeared.

Run for a political office and vote for what you want ?

Unless I’m missing something this bill actually outlaws .50 cal inline muzzle loaders.

big_g wrote:

Guns are only for hunting…

Is using a gun for removing feral cats considered hunting? Asking for a friend….

blackbay wrote:

Unless I’m missing something this bill actually outlaws .50 cal inline muzzle loaders.

I had the same thought when I read it. Wouldn’t that be something.

weedis wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>blackbay wrote:</div>
Unless I’m missing something this bill actually outlaws .50 cal inline muzzle loaders.

I had the same thought when I read it. Wouldn’t that be something.

Not that it matters because this isn’t going anywhere but it says:

.50 caliber or larger firearm” means a firearm
that is capable of expelling a metal projectile that measures one-half inch or larger in diameter
but does not include an antique or replica firearm that uses black powder.

Which is still weird about what counts as an antique or replica but usually muzzleloaders are excluded from similar things.

mojo wrote:

preserving the rights of every single American given by God,

At least go in the right direction here. God didn’t grant this as a right. The second amendment is supposed to.

Dont forget to watch what the right hand is doing as time is wasted with the people fighting this BS…

Number of times my guns have been used for fishing in the past 10 years.

Hundreds

Number of times my guns have been used for hunting in the past 10 years.

2

Jimmy Jones wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>mojo wrote:</div>
preserving the rights of every single American given by God,

At least go in the right direction here. God didn’t grant this as a right. The second amendment is supposed to.

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

The Forefathers of our great nation stated very clearly that these rights were in fact, granted by God.
The Constitution does not give us rights, it limits the powers of government, so that the rights of Americans are guaranteed. The Bill of Rights and the Amendments to the Constitution were added to clarify any ambiguity.

Im actually shocked it is taking the current admin so long to go after guns.
You know, considering their “persuasion” wink wink biggill…..

Couldn’t be more true.

Attachments:

1. 

   Screenshot_20240219-141155.png
   

I couldnt give 2 shitz if they took everyones ARs away. I dont need one to duck, deer, turkey, pheasant, squirrel or anything hunt. I know it aint the gun its the brain dead jackass shooter but sure seems to be weapon of choice.

JEREMY wrote:

I couldnt give 2 shitz if they took everyones ARs away. I dont need one to duck, deer, turkey, pheasant, squirrel or anything hunt. I know it aint the gun its the brain dead jackass shooter but sure seems to be weapon of choice.

i wouldnt own an AR…..but if they get there foot in the door….then what next!!

JEREMY wrote:

I couldnt give 2 shitz if they took everyones ARs away. I dont need one to duck, deer, turkey, pheasant, squirrel or anything hunt. I know it aint the gun its the brain dead jackass shooter but sure seems to be weapon of choice.

Rifles make up around 3 percent of firearm homocides in the US. Doesn’t sound like the weapon of choice to me.

Joe Jarl wrote:

Rifles make up around 3 percent of firearm homocides in the US. Doesn’t sound like the weapon of choice to me.

Absolutely true. If gun control advocates wanted to use data, they would go after the handgun, which causes more than 75% of all gun-related violence. Rifles are so minuscule it’s barely measurable. The only reason they get any attention is because the media hypes them up as the big bad black “weapon of war.”

gim wrote:

Absolutely true. If gun control advocates wanted to use data, they would go after the handgun, which causes more than 75% of all gun-related violence. Rifles are so minuscule it’s barely measurable. The only reason they get any attention is because the media hypes them up as the big bad black “weapon of war.”

Is there any difference between between, say, gang members killing each other with handguns or suicides with handguns and someone killing 20 six year olds at school with an AR or does only the raw numbers matter?

Oh, and why was the Uvalde police scared because the shooter had an AR? One of them said:

“You knew that it was definitely an AR. There was no way of going in. … We had no choice but to wait and try to get something that had better coverage where we could actually stand up to him.”

Reef W wrote:

Is there any difference between between, say, gang members killing each other with handguns or suicides with handguns and someone killing 20 six year olds at school with an AR or does only the raw numbers matter?

Yes, there is. Because handguns are responsible for more issues than a rifle is. So if you want to make the case for making a significant dent in reducing gun violence, make your case for the handgun. Not the one that only represents 3% of the problem. Simple math, really.

JEREMY wrote:

I couldnt give 2 shitz if they took everyones ARs away. I dont need one to duck, deer, turkey, pheasant, squirrel or anything hunt. I know it aint the gun its the brain dead jackass shooter but sure seems to be weapon of choice.

One of my BIL’s was like this when MN tried this in the past and when I told him the wording in the that bill would make his Remington 7400 270 that he used for deer hunting illegal he didn’t have much to say. I’m not saying you are wrong for your opinion but I would caution that it’s that kind of attitude that doesn’t help anyone in the hunting/gun community. Do you really believe the dems will stop once they get the evil AR’s?

They should make it illegal to commit murder….

A gun ban would be just as effective

It’s not the good guys you have to worry about, and criminals obviously don’t give a $hit.

Chicago anyone???

People need to read the 2nd Amendment. It wasn’t written to be sure I can “hunt or target practice” it was written, so when our government tries to turn tyrannical (exercising power in a cruel or arbitrary way) we as citizens can stop them. We should have weapons of equal effectiveness… but they have already “infringed” on our rights when they outlawed the sale of fully automatic weapons to law abiding citizens. The forefathers knew, eventually the governing body will overstep its bounds… they work for us, not they other way around. People say a civil war is coming again, but to me, fighting our own tyrannical government is hardly civil. When the day comes, I hope I am long gone, but it is coming… and when it does, most of the military will also turn on the tyrants.

Of the People, By the People, For the People
Abraham Lincoln

Here’s the problem, nobody has ever been able to positively identify an assault weapon. You can create a lot of damage with a 870 Wingmaster loaded with 00 Buck.

This issue WILL NEVER go away

A firearm is an inanimate object… Assault is a verb. An inanimate object is not capable of assault.

big_g wrote:

A firearm is an inanimate object… Assault is a verb. An inanimate object is not capable of assault.