America's Gun Violence

Thirty Bills Unpaid

mcgruff10 said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

mrussel1 said:

mcgruff10 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

mcgruff10 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

mace1229 said:

mcgruff10 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

oftenreading said:

Oh, the irony.

The NRA bans guns at their upcoming convention while Mike Pence is in attendance.

https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/entry/nra-convention-bans-guns-to-protect-mike-pence-parkland-survivors-jaws-drop_us_5ae4f225e4b04aa23f239924

It's almost like they're admitting that, despite a whole convention hall of presumably "good guys with guns", someone might still manage to commit violence. 

I believe they become a gun free zone for their convention and headquarters every year, every day, respectively. Their hypocrisy has been around for quite sometime.

In the article it says the secret service put these restrictions in place. 

Pretty much anywhere the president or VP go is a gun free zone. I don’t know why anyone is surprised an NRA convention with the VP is not an exception to that.
and as you pointed out, it was the secret service who required this. Although I think it’s a good idea, NRA seems like that had nothing to do with that decision.

So no guns around important people? Just regular people? 

Yea, I thought having everyone armed was the best way to ensure safety? Why can’t you bring your gun into the White House or Capitol building? Being a law abiding and “responsible” gun owner and all? Plus, wouldn’t the good guys with guns stop the bad guys with guns? If it works in schools, why not in Congress?
 

Halifax2TheMax said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

mace1229 said:

mcgruff10 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

oftenreading said:

Oh, the irony.

The NRA bans guns at their upcoming convention while Mike Pence is in attendance.

https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/entry/nra-convention-bans-guns-to-protect-mike-pence-parkland-survivors-jaws-drop_us_5ae4f225e4b04aa23f239924

It's almost like they're admitting that, despite a whole convention hall of presumably "good guys with guns", someone might still manage to commit violence. 

I believe they become a gun free zone for their convention and headquarters every year, every day, respectively. Their hypocrisy has been around for quite sometime.

In the article it says the secret service put these restrictions in place. 

Pretty much anywhere the president or VP go is a gun free zone. I don’t know why anyone is surprised an NRA convention with the VP is not an exception to that.
and as you pointed out, it was the secret service who required this. Although I think it’s a good idea, NRA seems like that had nothing to do with that decision.

So no guns around important people? Just regular people? 

Yea, I thought having everyone armed was the best way to ensure safety? Why can’t you bring your gun into the White House or Capitol building? Being a law abiding and “responsible” gun owner and all? Plus, wouldn’t the good guys with guns stop the bad guys with guns? If it works in schools, why not in Congress?
 

You two are funny lol. I m guessing it is a law and law abiding gun owners have no problems following the law. 

But why is making a law to make the White House and Capitol gun free zones okay but schools and municipalities that do so are mocked and ridiculed? Do you not see the hypocrisy in that? I’m willing to bet that you can’t make an appointment to meet with Wayne LaPierre at NRA headquarters while concealed or open carrying either. Why is that? What are they afraid of?
 

Write a letter to the secret service and ask them.  Let me know what they say. 

I certainly understand why the VP attendance would make it gun free.  The more interesting question is whether a normal convention, minus a principle, would also be gun free.  Someone mentioned that the NRA HQ is gun free.  Do we know that to be true?

But if these guys walked the walk... there'd be no restrictions.

Bottom line: hypocrisy at a very humerous level (if it wasn't so pathetic).

It isn’t hypocrisy because they are playing by the secret service s rules. Del you are really stretching on this one. 

Can we get clarification on the NRA headquarters' policy?

Bentleyspop

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

mcgruff10 said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

mrussel1 said:

mcgruff10 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

mcgruff10 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

mace1229 said:

mcgruff10 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

oftenreading said:

Oh, the irony.

The NRA bans guns at their upcoming convention while Mike Pence is in attendance.

https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/entry/nra-convention-bans-guns-to-protect-mike-pence-parkland-survivors-jaws-drop_us_5ae4f225e4b04aa23f239924

It's almost like they're admitting that, despite a whole convention hall of presumably "good guys with guns", someone might still manage to commit violence. 

I believe they become a gun free zone for their convention and headquarters every year, every day, respectively. Their hypocrisy has been around for quite sometime.

In the article it says the secret service put these restrictions in place. 

Pretty much anywhere the president or VP go is a gun free zone. I don’t know why anyone is surprised an NRA convention with the VP is not an exception to that.
and as you pointed out, it was the secret service who required this. Although I think it’s a good idea, NRA seems like that had nothing to do with that decision.

So no guns around important people? Just regular people? 

Yea, I thought having everyone armed was the best way to ensure safety? Why can’t you bring your gun into the White House or Capitol building? Being a law abiding and “responsible” gun owner and all? Plus, wouldn’t the good guys with guns stop the bad guys with guns? If it works in schools, why not in Congress?
 

Halifax2TheMax said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

mace1229 said:

mcgruff10 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

oftenreading said:

Oh, the irony.

The NRA bans guns at their upcoming convention while Mike Pence is in attendance.

https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/entry/nra-convention-bans-guns-to-protect-mike-pence-parkland-survivors-jaws-drop_us_5ae4f225e4b04aa23f239924

It's almost like they're admitting that, despite a whole convention hall of presumably "good guys with guns", someone might still manage to commit violence. 

I believe they become a gun free zone for their convention and headquarters every year, every day, respectively. Their hypocrisy has been around for quite sometime.

In the article it says the secret service put these restrictions in place. 

Pretty much anywhere the president or VP go is a gun free zone. I don’t know why anyone is surprised an NRA convention with the VP is not an exception to that.
and as you pointed out, it was the secret service who required this. Although I think it’s a good idea, NRA seems like that had nothing to do with that decision.

So no guns around important people? Just regular people? 

Yea, I thought having everyone armed was the best way to ensure safety? Why can’t you bring your gun into the White House or Capitol building? Being a law abiding and “responsible” gun owner and all? Plus, wouldn’t the good guys with guns stop the bad guys with guns? If it works in schools, why not in Congress?
 

You two are funny lol. I m guessing it is a law and law abiding gun owners have no problems following the law. 

But why is making a law to make the White House and Capitol gun free zones okay but schools and municipalities that do so are mocked and ridiculed? Do you not see the hypocrisy in that? I’m willing to bet that you can’t make an appointment to meet with Wayne LaPierre at NRA headquarters while concealed or open carrying either. Why is that? What are they afraid of?
 

Write a letter to the secret service and ask them.  Let me know what they say. 

I certainly understand why the VP attendance would make it gun free.  The more interesting question is whether a normal convention, minus a principle, would also be gun free.  Someone mentioned that the NRA HQ is gun free.  Do we know that to be true?

But if these guys walked the walk... there'd be no restrictions.

Bottom line: hypocrisy at a very humerous level (if it wasn't so pathetic).

It isn’t hypocrisy because they are playing by the secret service s rules. Del you are really stretching on this one. 

Can we get clarification on the NRA headquarters' policy?

Found this on the Google machine......

https://www.quora.com/Is-it-true-that-visitors-to-NRA-headquarters-are-not-allowed-to-carry-guns-If-so-why

my2hands

It's not a stretch... its hypocrisy 

The argument being made by a TON of pro-gun folks is that "gun free zones" are a problem in theory and in reality and invite trouble... and that only more armed people are the answer, because people can and will break the rules so we need good guys packing to deter/stop the bad guys... anytime a shooting happens in a "gun free zone" the pro gun crowd screams about it to the high heavens... and now when you have someone important show to speak to the NRA the pro gun crowd shrugs their shoulders and says ask the secret service...

Hilarious 

mcgruff10

my2hands said:

It's not a stretch... its hypocrisy 

The argument being made by a TON of pro-gun folks is that "gun free zones" are a problem in theory and in reality and invite trouble... and that only more armed people are the answer, because people can and will break the rules so we need good guys packing to deter/stop the bad guys... anytime a shooting happens in a "gun free zone" the pro gun crowd screams about it to the high heavens... and now when you have someone important show to speak to the NRA the pro gun crowd shrugs their shoulders and says ask the secret service...

Hilarious 

Stop. Are you guys actually serious on this argument?  It is apples and oranges and you know it. The Vice President will have plenty of security that will beat the shit out of us with their pinky finger. Gun free zones are notorious soft targets with little to no protection. 

mace1229

mcgruff10 said:

my2hands said:

It's not a stretch... its hypocrisy 

The argument being made by a TON of pro-gun folks is that "gun free zones" are a problem in theory and in reality and invite trouble... and that only more armed people are the answer, because people can and will break the rules so we need good guys packing to deter/stop the bad guys... anytime a shooting happens in a "gun free zone" the pro gun crowd screams about it to the high heavens... and now when you have someone important show to speak to the NRA the pro gun crowd shrugs their shoulders and says ask the secret service...

Hilarious 

Stop. Are you guys actually serious on this argument?  It is apples and oranges and you know it. The Vice President will have plenty of security that will beat the shit out of us with their pinky finger. Gun free zones are notorious soft targets with little to no protection. 

Yeah I can’t honestly tell if they are being serious or not with their argument.
like they are surprised you can’t just walk into thebwhitehouse armed? They have to be joking.
Besides the VP is never in a gun free zone. He will have some of the country’s best trained and heavily armed surrounding him.
when has anyone ever been allowed near the president or VP armed?

Thirty Bills Unpaid

Bentleyspop said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

mcgruff10 said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

mrussel1 said:

mcgruff10 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

mcgruff10 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

mace1229 said:

mcgruff10 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

oftenreading said:

Oh, the irony.

The NRA bans guns at their upcoming convention while Mike Pence is in attendance.

https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/entry/nra-convention-bans-guns-to-protect-mike-pence-parkland-survivors-jaws-drop_us_5ae4f225e4b04aa23f239924

It's almost like they're admitting that, despite a whole convention hall of presumably "good guys with guns", someone might still manage to commit violence. 

I believe they become a gun free zone for their convention and headquarters every year, every day, respectively. Their hypocrisy has been around for quite sometime.

In the article it says the secret service put these restrictions in place. 

Pretty much anywhere the president or VP go is a gun free zone. I don’t know why anyone is surprised an NRA convention with the VP is not an exception to that.
and as you pointed out, it was the secret service who required this. Although I think it’s a good idea, NRA seems like that had nothing to do with that decision.

So no guns around important people? Just regular people? 

Yea, I thought having everyone armed was the best way to ensure safety? Why can’t you bring your gun into the White House or Capitol building? Being a law abiding and “responsible” gun owner and all? Plus, wouldn’t the good guys with guns stop the bad guys with guns? If it works in schools, why not in Congress?
 

Halifax2TheMax said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

mace1229 said:

mcgruff10 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

oftenreading said:

Oh, the irony.

The NRA bans guns at their upcoming convention while Mike Pence is in attendance.

https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/entry/nra-convention-bans-guns-to-protect-mike-pence-parkland-survivors-jaws-drop_us_5ae4f225e4b04aa23f239924

It's almost like they're admitting that, despite a whole convention hall of presumably "good guys with guns", someone might still manage to commit violence. 

I believe they become a gun free zone for their convention and headquarters every year, every day, respectively. Their hypocrisy has been around for quite sometime.

In the article it says the secret service put these restrictions in place. 

Pretty much anywhere the president or VP go is a gun free zone. I don’t know why anyone is surprised an NRA convention with the VP is not an exception to that.
and as you pointed out, it was the secret service who required this. Although I think it’s a good idea, NRA seems like that had nothing to do with that decision.

So no guns around important people? Just regular people? 

Yea, I thought having everyone armed was the best way to ensure safety? Why can’t you bring your gun into the White House or Capitol building? Being a law abiding and “responsible” gun owner and all? Plus, wouldn’t the good guys with guns stop the bad guys with guns? If it works in schools, why not in Congress?
 

You two are funny lol. I m guessing it is a law and law abiding gun owners have no problems following the law. 

But why is making a law to make the White House and Capitol gun free zones okay but schools and municipalities that do so are mocked and ridiculed? Do you not see the hypocrisy in that? I’m willing to bet that you can’t make an appointment to meet with Wayne LaPierre at NRA headquarters while concealed or open carrying either. Why is that? What are they afraid of?
 

Write a letter to the secret service and ask them.  Let me know what they say. 

I certainly understand why the VP attendance would make it gun free.  The more interesting question is whether a normal convention, minus a principle, would also be gun free.  Someone mentioned that the NRA HQ is gun free.  Do we know that to be true?

But if these guys walked the walk... there'd be no restrictions.

Bottom line: hypocrisy at a very humerous level (if it wasn't so pathetic).

It isn’t hypocrisy because they are playing by the secret service s rules. Del you are really stretching on this one. 

Can we get clarification on the NRA headquarters' policy?

Found this on the Google machine......

https://www.quora.com/Is-it-true-that-visitors-to-NRA-headquarters-are-not-allowed-to-carry-guns-If-so-why

Then they walk the walk!

Thirty Bills Unpaid

mcgruff10 said:

my2hands said:

It's not a stretch... its hypocrisy 

The argument being made by a TON of pro-gun folks is that "gun free zones" are a problem in theory and in reality and invite trouble... and that only more armed people are the answer, because people can and will break the rules so we need good guys packing to deter/stop the bad guys... anytime a shooting happens in a "gun free zone" the pro gun crowd screams about it to the high heavens... and now when you have someone important show to speak to the NRA the pro gun crowd shrugs their shoulders and says ask the secret service...

Hilarious 

Stop. Are you guys actually serious on this argument?  It is apples and oranges and you know it. The Vice President will have plenty of security that will beat the shit out of us with their pinky finger. Gun free zones are notorious soft targets with little to no protection. 

Well hang on a second then.

If the VP has so much awesome security, then what are they worried about? That seems like the step that needs to be taken, yet they go an additional step and remove guns from the equation.

Why do they remove guns from the equation? Because nobody gets shot when there are no guns in the equation.

mcgruff10

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

mcgruff10 said:

my2hands said:

It's not a stretch... its hypocrisy 

The argument being made by a TON of pro-gun folks is that "gun free zones" are a problem in theory and in reality and invite trouble... and that only more armed people are the answer, because people can and will break the rules so we need good guys packing to deter/stop the bad guys... anytime a shooting happens in a "gun free zone" the pro gun crowd screams about it to the high heavens... and now when you have someone important show to speak to the NRA the pro gun crowd shrugs their shoulders and says ask the secret service...

Hilarious 

Stop. Are you guys actually serious on this argument?  It is apples and oranges and you know it. The Vice President will have plenty of security that will beat the shit out of us with their pinky finger. Gun free zones are notorious soft targets with little to no protection. 

Well hang on a second then.

If the VP has so much awesome security, then what are they worried about? That seems like the step that needs to be taken, yet they go an additional step and remove guns from the equation.

Why do they remove guns from the equation? Because nobody gets shot when there are no guns in the equation.

So in turn Democrats should insist that next presidential election cycle that candidates will have no armed protection. I mean gun free zones mean gun free. 

Thirty Bills Unpaid

mcgruff10 said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

mcgruff10 said:

my2hands said:

It's not a stretch... its hypocrisy 

The argument being made by a TON of pro-gun folks is that "gun free zones" are a problem in theory and in reality and invite trouble... and that only more armed people are the answer, because people can and will break the rules so we need good guys packing to deter/stop the bad guys... anytime a shooting happens in a "gun free zone" the pro gun crowd screams about it to the high heavens... and now when you have someone important show to speak to the NRA the pro gun crowd shrugs their shoulders and says ask the secret service...

Hilarious 

Stop. Are you guys actually serious on this argument?  It is apples and oranges and you know it. The Vice President will have plenty of security that will beat the shit out of us with their pinky finger. Gun free zones are notorious soft targets with little to no protection. 

Well hang on a second then.

If the VP has so much awesome security, then what are they worried about? That seems like the step that needs to be taken, yet they go an additional step and remove guns from the equation.

Why do they remove guns from the equation? Because nobody gets shot when there are no guns in the equation.

So in turn Democrats should insist that next presidential election cycle that candidates will have no armed protection. I mean gun free zones mean gun free. 

I'm not sure how you equate that to a NRA convention?

But yeah... if politicians (from all sides) do not feel like they need to protect the common citizen with common sense gun regulations... then they certainly shouldn't institute 'personalized' ones so they are safe.

They should live by the same standard as the average joe.

mcgruff10

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

mcgruff10 said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

mcgruff10 said:

my2hands said:

It's not a stretch... its hypocrisy 

The argument being made by a TON of pro-gun folks is that "gun free zones" are a problem in theory and in reality and invite trouble... and that only more armed people are the answer, because people can and will break the rules so we need good guys packing to deter/stop the bad guys... anytime a shooting happens in a "gun free zone" the pro gun crowd screams about it to the high heavens... and now when you have someone important show to speak to the NRA the pro gun crowd shrugs their shoulders and says ask the secret service...

Hilarious 

Stop. Are you guys actually serious on this argument?  It is apples and oranges and you know it. The Vice President will have plenty of security that will beat the shit out of us with their pinky finger. Gun free zones are notorious soft targets with little to no protection. 

Well hang on a second then.

If the VP has so much awesome security, then what are they worried about? That seems like the step that needs to be taken, yet they go an additional step and remove guns from the equation.

Why do they remove guns from the equation? Because nobody gets shot when there are no guns in the equation.

So in turn Democrats should insist that next presidential election cycle that candidates will have no armed protection. I mean gun free zones mean gun free. 

I'm not sure how you equate that to a NRA convention?

But yeah... if politicians (from all sides) do not feel like they need to protect the common citizen with common sense gun regulations... then they certainly shouldn't institute 'personalized' ones so they are safe.

They should live by the same standard as the average joe.

Agreed. Fuck this shit. Let s go have a beer in Hawaii. 

Thirty Bills Unpaid

mcgruff10 said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

mcgruff10 said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

mcgruff10 said:

my2hands said:

It's not a stretch... its hypocrisy 

The argument being made by a TON of pro-gun folks is that "gun free zones" are a problem in theory and in reality and invite trouble... and that only more armed people are the answer, because people can and will break the rules so we need good guys packing to deter/stop the bad guys... anytime a shooting happens in a "gun free zone" the pro gun crowd screams about it to the high heavens... and now when you have someone important show to speak to the NRA the pro gun crowd shrugs their shoulders and says ask the secret service...

Hilarious 

Stop. Are you guys actually serious on this argument?  It is apples and oranges and you know it. The Vice President will have plenty of security that will beat the shit out of us with their pinky finger. Gun free zones are notorious soft targets with little to no protection. 

Well hang on a second then.

If the VP has so much awesome security, then what are they worried about? That seems like the step that needs to be taken, yet they go an additional step and remove guns from the equation.

Why do they remove guns from the equation? Because nobody gets shot when there are no guns in the equation.

So in turn Democrats should insist that next presidential election cycle that candidates will have no armed protection. I mean gun free zones mean gun free. 

I'm not sure how you equate that to a NRA convention?

But yeah... if politicians (from all sides) do not feel like they need to protect the common citizen with common sense gun regulations... then they certainly shouldn't institute 'personalized' ones so they are safe.

They should live by the same standard as the average joe.

Agreed. Fuck this shit. Let s go have a beer in Hawaii. 

I'm in!

Halifax2TheMax

Just another “responsible” gun owner, running for office no less.

Shocking Gun Ad By Georgia Gubernatorial Candidate Brian Kemp Backfires - HuffPost https://apple.news/Ae94eeBgDQBuZCNU9eg4kFw
 
Ha, ha funny too.

mace1229

Halifax2TheMax said:

Just another “responsible” gun owner, running for office no less.

Shocking Gun Ad By Georgia Gubernatorial Candidate Brian Kemp Backfires - HuffPost https://apple.news/Ae94eeBgDQBuZCNU9eg4kFw
 
Ha, ha funny too.

That is a pretty bad ad. Terrible idea to use a gun like that and point it at the kid like its a toy. 

PJPOWER

mace1229 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

Just another “responsible” gun owner, running for office no less.

Shocking Gun Ad By Georgia Gubernatorial Candidate Brian Kemp Backfires - HuffPost https://apple.news/Ae94eeBgDQBuZCNU9eg4kFw
 
Ha, ha funny too.

That is a pretty bad ad. Terrible idea to use a gun like that and point it at the kid like its a toy. 

Seriously stupid, but politicians are not historically known for being positive examples of firearm safety...Remember Biden’s comment about “just shoot the shotgun in the air” to scare a home intruder away and the recent Karen Moulder creating an illegal firearm and recording it on Facebook for all to see...The people making the laws don’t know shit about firearms.

Halifax2TheMax

PJPOWER said:

mace1229 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

Just another “responsible” gun owner, running for office no less.

Shocking Gun Ad By Georgia Gubernatorial Candidate Brian Kemp Backfires - HuffPost https://apple.news/Ae94eeBgDQBuZCNU9eg4kFw
 
Ha, ha funny too.

That is a pretty bad ad. Terrible idea to use a gun like that and point it at the kid like its a toy. 

Seriously stupid, but politicians are not historically known for being positive examples of firearm safety...Remember Biden’s comment about “just shoot the shotgun in the air” to scare a home intruder away and the recent Karen Moulder creating an illegal firearm and recording it on Facebook for all to see...The people making the laws don’t know shit about firearms.

The NRA doesn't know shit about firearms? Too funny!

PJPOWER

Halifax2TheMax said:

PJPOWER said:

mace1229 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

Just another “responsible” gun owner, running for office no less.

Shocking Gun Ad By Georgia Gubernatorial Candidate Brian Kemp Backfires - HuffPost https://apple.news/Ae94eeBgDQBuZCNU9eg4kFw
 
Ha, ha funny too.

That is a pretty bad ad. Terrible idea to use a gun like that and point it at the kid like its a toy. 

Seriously stupid, but politicians are not historically known for being positive examples of firearm safety...Remember Biden’s comment about “just shoot the shotgun in the air” to scare a home intruder away and the recent Karen Moulder creating an illegal firearm and recording it on Facebook for all to see...The people making the laws don’t know shit about firearms.

The NRA doesn't know shit about firearms? Too funny!

The NRA probably does, but the actual politicians that they lobby on behalf of probably do not for the most part (although I’d argue that the pro gun politicians are probably more likely to have firearms knowledge/training than the gun control politicians).  

Halifax2TheMax

Just another “responsible” gun owner.

https://www.boston.com/news/local-news/2018/05/01/vermont-man-charged-with-shooting-a-smoke-detector-to-quiet-it

Thirty Bills Unpaid

Halifax2TheMax said:

Just another “responsible” gun owner.

https://www.boston.com/news/local-news/2018/05/01/vermont-man-charged-with-shooting-a-smoke-detector-to-quiet-it

hahahahaha

I never read the link because the link offered all you need to know. Some dipshit shot a smoke detector to quiet it. It's a new low. An actual Homer Simpson lol:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZuG9kUiRC_I

dignin

PJPOWER said:

mace1229 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

Just another “responsible” gun owner, running for office no less.

Shocking Gun Ad By Georgia Gubernatorial Candidate Brian Kemp Backfires - HuffPost https://apple.news/Ae94eeBgDQBuZCNU9eg4kFw
 
Ha, ha funny too.

That is a pretty bad ad. Terrible idea to use a gun like that and point it at the kid like its a toy. 

Seriously stupid, but politicians are not historically known for being positive examples of firearm safety...Remember Biden’s comment about “just shoot the shotgun in the air” to scare a home intruder away and the recent Karen Moulder creating an illegal firearm and recording it on Facebook for all to see...The people making the laws don’t know shit about firearms.

Who is Karen Moulder? I'm interested to here more about that story.

I do remember a Karen Mallard who destroyed a gun and who you said would be charged, how is that investigation going? Charges imminent?

Halifax2TheMax

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

Just another “responsible” gun owner.

https://www.boston.com/news/local-news/2018/05/01/vermont-man-charged-with-shooting-a-smoke-detector-to-quiet-it

hahahahaha

I never read the link because the link offered all you need to know. Some dipshit shot a smoke detector to quiet it. It's a new low. An actual Homer Simpson lol:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZuG9kUiRC_I

It gets better. After being disarmed by the fire department personnel, he pulled a handgun and demanded his shotgun back, only to be disarmed again by the fire department personnel. I guess they should arm the fire department because only good guys with guns can stop “responsible” gun owners?