quote:

Originally posted by Fenris:
OK. So where do we go to advise our dear President on our feelings?

I hear he's on Twitter. Unfortunately (in this case), I am not.

flashguy

quote:

Originally posted by sigmonkey:

quote:

Originally posted by dusty3030:
Truth be told if you were to get an honest answer from every card carrying NRA member you'd be surprised how many would say the same when questioned. Totally ignorant of the magnitude of Second Amendment, the Constitution, Freedom the whole big picture. Those same enlightened individuals also seem to be real quick to throw out an opinion on laws they think will solve the dichotomy between good and evil by blaming an inanimate object.

Yeah, heard Michael Savage going on about how no one needs an assault rifle to defend themselves at home.

Only thing a person needs is a handgun, a small capacity magazine, and a shotgun.

And shotguns are the most complicated gun for most people to operate.

That all police know, but won't tell anyone, is that all assault rifles will penetrate your walls and kill your children, and that no one even thinks about the thought of over-penetration.

And went on to contradict himself by stating the "good guy" that used an "AR" to stop the "madman with an AR" and how it was a good thing, right after saying there was no reason that anyone needs one.

He was all over the place, mostly emotional yammering on and I turned him off.

Now, he has his moments, and once in a while he has some good information, but I think I'll use the ignore feature on my radio for the drive home from now on.

Agreed. Mr. Savage has let his emotions run away with him on this issue. He knows better, or he damn well ought to.

quote:

Originally posted by nasig:
DJT should withdraw this nomination.

This douche and the woman nominated for DHS are clearly 2 nominees NOT in Sync with the President!
She only want a Wall here and a wall there, not the entire border....

quote:

Originally posted by sigmonkey:
Yeah, heard Michael Savage going on about how no one needs an assault rifle to defend themselves at home...

I was listening to him last night, too.
Had to turn him off after a while. I couldn't take any more anti AR-15 propaganda.

I was surprised by this. He's a pretty smart fellow but was completely wrong on this subject. In my opinion, of course.

I can't tell you how tired I am of constantly being attacked by the left (and some on the right) because I'm a gun owner. It's constant.
I don't understand how we can see things so differently.

The AR-15 is the poster-child rifle for the 2nd Amendment.

If I ever need to defend myself with a firearm, for whatever reason, that's what I'm grabbing if I have a chance.

Not a handgun. Not a shotgun. My AR-15. With a couple of fully loaded mags.

I am sick over the ruthless, evil attack that happened in Texas. I only wish the good guy with his AR-15 could have shot the bad guy sooner. But he did what he could and stopped the madman before he killed even more people.
Great job. He showed a lot of courage, too.
Hunting a madman takes guts.

With evil like that in the world, I'd like to keep my defensive weapons, thank you very much.

He's in good company with USA Today - who apparently thinks the "chainsaw bayonet" is a common attachment. Along with the thing that goes up...



https://www.usatoday.com/story...shootings/838283001/

Let acts of insanity guide the course of a nation.

Actions of a madman more powerful than congress!

Absurd!

Restrictions? Fuck 'em. I think that other than nukes, if you can afford it, you should be allowed to have it. If Bill Gates wants to spend a billion bucks to restore a WWII heavy cruiser, load the magazines with 8" and shell targets outside the 12 mile limit, he should be allowed to do so. He should also be raked over the coals if he mis-uses aforesaid 8" guns, and should have to store live projectiles according to explosive storage regs.

I'm mostly ok with limitations on explosives, because they are dangerous as stored, not just as used. However, there should be some level of generally available explosives, or a relatively simple permit process to own up to modest quantities of dynamite stick powered stuff.

I live on a farm. Stick explosives would be some useful to me, I can tell you.

I prefer that laws punish people for conduct, not regulate possession. By that I mean, if you misuse something, you should be punished for it; simple ownership and safe use should not be enough.

did someone include a "come and take them" in their correspondence to the white house?

quote:

Originally posted by Deqlyn:
did someone include a "come and take them" in their correspondence to the white house?

No, but I'm getting to the point of open defiance. Slow but certain.

quote:

Originally posted by ArtieS:
Restrictions? Fuck 'em. I think that other than nukes, if you can afford it, you should be allowed to have it. If Bill Gates wants to spend a billion bucks to restore a WWII heavy cruiser, load the magazines with 8" and shell targets outside the 12 mile limit, he should be allowed to do so. He should also be raked over the coals if he mis-uses aforesaid 8" guns, and should have to store live projectiles according to explosive storage regs.

I'm mostly ok with limitations on explosives, because they are dangerous as stored, not just as used. However, there should be some level of generally available explosives, or a relatively simple permit process to own up to modest quantities of dynamite stick powered stuff.

I live on a farm. Stick explosives would be some useful to me, I can tell you.

I prefer that laws punish people for conduct, not regulate possession. By that I mean, if you misuse something, you should be punished for it; simple ownership and safe use should not be enough.

I'm thinking the citizenry should have unfettered access to anything the various govts are likely to use against it should those govts become tyrannical. Proof that those govts are capable of tyranny is that they want to prevent the citizens from being so armed.

Why did the Air Force let this get by...a combination of "laziness" and "people being overworked" said he...

How can you be "lazy" and "overworked" at the same time...sounds like he is an "ox" and a "moron" at the same time.

Drop him like a hot tater.

This one worked for me thanks, sent to the President of the United States of America AKA Donald J Trump.

quote:

Originally posted by ensigmatic:
Sent...

quote:

Dear Mr. President,

It has come to my attention that, during confirmation hearings, Dean Winslow, your nominee to head the military's health care system, asserted (unsolicited, mind you) that he felt it was "insane" that Americans be allowed to possess semi-automatic rifles like the AR-15.

I would respectfully urge you to consider withdrawing his nomination for that post. Regardless of any other considerations or qualifications, I don't believe anybody should serve in any capacity in government who does not support and defend the *entire* U.S. Constitution.

Regards,
Me

quote:

Originally posted by darthfuster:

quote:

Originally posted by ArtieS:
Restrictions? Fuck 'em. I think that other than nukes, if you can afford it, you should be allowed to have it. If Bill Gates wants to spend a billion bucks to restore a WWII heavy cruiser, load the magazines with 8" and shell targets outside the 12 mile limit, he should be allowed to do so. He should also be raked over the coals if he mis-uses aforesaid 8" guns, and should have to store live projectiles according to explosive storage regs.

I'm mostly ok with limitations on explosives, because they are dangerous as stored, not just as used. However, there should be some level of generally available explosives, or a relatively simple permit process to own up to modest quantities of dynamite stick powered stuff.

I live on a farm. Stick explosives would be some useful to me, I can tell you.

I prefer that laws punish people for conduct, not regulate possession. By that I mean, if you misuse something, you should be punished for it; simple ownership and safe use should not be enough.

I'm thinking the citizenry should have unfettered access to anything the various govts are likely to use against it should those govts become tyrannical. Proof that those govts are capable of tyranny is that they want to prevent the citizens from being so armed.

This is exactly it, especially if one actually believes in one of the original reasons for them in the first place - the possible resistance against a potentially tyrannical government.

Not that I think such a conflict is likely, or an attractive proposition at all, but that *was* and *is* half the reason we're allowed them in the first place (along with personal protection) and each and every restriction stomps all over this very necessary function as though it doesn't even exist, which is either foolishly asinine or intentionally disarming.

This guy is a Flight Surgeon who's spent more time out of uniform than in apart of the Air Guard. Considering he's had multiple deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan, you'd think this guy would have a bit more perspective about people's rights and government abuse.

I did not see the NRA-ILA's Dec.22 story linked on this yet:


Self-Pitying Anti-Gun Doctor Provides a Step-by-Step Lesson in How Not to Succeed in Government

https://www.nraila.org/article...ucceed-in-government

Winslow's actions and statements are so idiotic they are "sadly" humorous (in a bad way).

The man should have no responsible job: he thoughts are absolutely unlogical...

quote:

Originally posted by ensigmatic:

quote:

Originally posted by nasig:
DJT should withdraw this nomination.

This ^^^^^

Yes, INDEED!

How about people start contacting the white house and tell them about this asshole?

You're FIRED!

Well, bye

Senate put this ass-hat's confirmation on an indefinite hold, presumably for his gun control testimony, so he withdrew his name from consideration last week.

May he never have power nor influence to oppress the public from now on.