You do.
Wrong. I’ve posted ad nauseum if someone is a threat to themselves or others they shouldn’t possess guns.
You do.
Wrong. I’ve posted ad nauseum if someone is a threat to themselves or others they shouldn’t possess guns.
Wrong. I’ve posted ad nauseum if someone is a threat to themselves or others they shouldn’t possess guns.
And yet you're so frigging stupid you can't even see how badly you've owned yourself with your own wordsWrong. I’ve posted ad nauseum if someone is a threat to themselves or others they shouldn’t possess guns.
I find the type of person that has a desire to keep a loaded firearm bedside to be a threat to themselves and others. So, I guess that means people that many of the people that want guns shouldn't possess guns.
I'm glad we agree.
Wisconsin strikes again
“Every employee of a Wisconsin novelty glassware company will be given their choice of revolver for Christmas in an effort to promote personal safety.”
https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-brie...ployee-a-handgun-for-christmas?rnd=1542162207
Wisconsin strikes again
“Every employee of a Wisconsin novelty glassware company will be given their choice of revolver for Christmas in an effort to promote personal safety.”
https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-brie...ployee-a-handgun-for-christmas?rnd=1542162207
At least they required a gun safety course....
Wisconsin strikes again
“Every employee of a Wisconsin novelty glassware company will be given their choice of revolver for Christmas in an effort to promote personal safety.”
https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-brie...ployee-a-handgun-for-christmas?rnd=1542162207
(9) After they had heard the king, they went on their way, and the star they had seen when it rose went ahead of them until it stopped over the place where the child was. (10) When they saw the star, they were overjoyed. (11) On coming to the house, they saw the child with his mother Mary, and they bowed down and worshiped him. Then they opened their treasures and presented him with gifts of gold, oxycontin and 9mm. (12) And having been warned in a dream not to go back to Herod, they returned to their country by another route.
I doubt you’ll find many gun owners who think people like these should have their guns.
How do you define this? I have asked a few avid 'don't take my guns' folk this question and also to give suggestions of what they would consider reasonable regulations regarding ownership. I have never gotten an answer. (going on about 5 yrs now). If I get any acknowledgement at all it is an immediate response about the slippery slope but no answer that could be constructive. So maybe you can answer. What do you think would be reasonable as a way to increase safety while preserving the right to own?Wrong. I’ve posted ad nauseum if someone is a threat to themselves or others they shouldn’t possess guns.
Yes.I find the type of person that has a desire to keep a loaded firearm bedside to be a threat to themselves and others. So, I guess that means people that many of the people that want guns shouldn't possess guns.
I'm glad we agree.
Wisconsin strikes again
“Every employee of a Wisconsin novelty glassware company will be given their choice of revolver for Christmas in an effort to promote personal safety.”
https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-brie...ployee-a-handgun-for-christmas?rnd=1542162207
At least it's a revolver, and not a 9mm Glock. Plus the safety course, sure.
What are the implications if you don't accept the gift, though? First on the chopping block during the next recession, for "not fitting in with our culture", I'll bet.
At least it's a revolver, and not a 9mm Glock. Plus the safety course, sure.
What are the implications if you don't accept the gift, though? First on the chopping block during the next recession, for "not fitting in with our culture", I'll bet.
And yet more sounds of crickets....How do you define this? I have asked a few avid 'don't take my guns' folk this question and also to give suggestions of what they would consider reasonable regulations regarding ownership. I have never gotten an answer. (going on about 5 yrs now). If I get any acknowledgement at all it is an immediate response about the slippery slope but no answer that could be constructive. So maybe you can answer. What do you think would be reasonable as a way to increase safety while preserving the right to own?
Yes.
I really don't get the rabid opposition to requiring licensing, to make sure people know safety and how to care for a gun. My kid pointed out he could legally buy a gun in some places before he could drink or rent a car. His opinion about that was.... not favorable.
Representative Swalwell was surely just kidding around when he said, "The government has nukes", in response to the posit that not everyone would willing accept confiscation by force.
Not his finest hour.
https://reason.com/blog/2018/11/16/rep-eric-swalwell-thinks-gun-confiscatio
https://www.google.com/search?q=con...rome..69i57.5605j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
I think Swalwell may have, for the first time in over one hundred weeks, knocked POTUS out of the "worst elected official Tweet of the week" number one ranking.
And yet more sounds of crickets....
You would think this would not be a hard thing to answer if one was being reasonable instead of reactive