America's Gun Violence

brianlux

oftenreading said:

tempo_n_groove said:

oftenreading said:

tempo_n_groove said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

I’m sure this “responsible” gun owner kept his weapons properly stored.

https://apple.news/Awm9fUsbRTHKrUvi65pn0FA

I’m surprised his bail was as low as it was. NRA going to provide gratis defense?

How is a person dealing in illegal activities responsible?  That seems to be your catchphrase for this page as you appear to attach one to each thread you do, yes you have a pattern.

Why would the NRA defend this person?  That just doesn't make sense...  

Why wouldn’t the NRA defend him (not financially, but morally)? They have made it clear that they see restrictions in gun ownership as unconstitutional, unreasonable and unamerican. The NRA defends outrageous things every day. 

The guy committed felonies, that's why they won't defend him.  He was trafficking/smuggling guns too.

The NRA regularly supports gun rights for felons and opposes removal of guns and is against removing gun access from those convicted of hate crimes. I don’t imagine we’ll ever know their position on this particular situation, but it would not shock me if they declined to censure it. 

I found that hard to believe so went and did a little looking around on-line.  Apparently that is true.  That's crazy.

PJPOWER

brianlux said:

oftenreading said:

tempo_n_groove said:

oftenreading said:

tempo_n_groove said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

I’m sure this “responsible” gun owner kept his weapons properly stored.

https://apple.news/Awm9fUsbRTHKrUvi65pn0FA

I’m surprised his bail was as low as it was. NRA going to provide gratis defense?

How is a person dealing in illegal activities responsible?  That seems to be your catchphrase for this page as you appear to attach one to each thread you do, yes you have a pattern.

Why would the NRA defend this person?  That just doesn't make sense...  

Why wouldn’t the NRA defend him (not financially, but morally)? They have made it clear that they see restrictions in gun ownership as unconstitutional, unreasonable and unamerican. The NRA defends outrageous things every day. 

The guy committed felonies, that's why they won't defend him.  He was trafficking/smuggling guns too.

The NRA regularly supports gun rights for felons and opposes removal of guns and is against removing gun access from those convicted of hate crimes. I don’t imagine we’ll ever know their position on this particular situation, but it would not shock me if they declined to censure it. 

I found that hard to believe so went and did a little looking around on-line.  Apparently that is true.  That's crazy.

Kind of a double edged sword; the more “gun reform” is pushed, the stronger the NRA gets and the more votes you lose from gun owners, and more guns and ammo are sold.  
When democrats are in office and speak of gun control, more and more people start buying them (even as just novelties).
With Trump as president, gun stores are going bankrupt due to the lack of people trying to “get everything they can before they are illegal”.  The blowback from the NRA is less when he banned bump stocks too because the NRA and Trump have a somewhat symbiotic relationship.  If a democrat tries to bring up any gun control what so ever, the NRA has no reason to worry about the blowback and can piss on the proposals all they want.  
If you want true changes (and this is coming from someone that supports firearm ownership rights), then you are going to have to make lobbying from all fronts (pharmaceuticals, gun lobby, etc) go away. 
I would totally support anti-lobbying legislation if it meant politicians could not be purchased by pharmaceutical companies, oil companies, and *fill in the blank*.

Spiritual_Chaos

PJPOWER said:

brianlux said:

oftenreading said:

tempo_n_groove said:

oftenreading said:

tempo_n_groove said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

I’m sure this “responsible” gun owner kept his weapons properly stored.

https://apple.news/Awm9fUsbRTHKrUvi65pn0FA

I’m surprised his bail was as low as it was. NRA going to provide gratis defense?

How is a person dealing in illegal activities responsible?  That seems to be your catchphrase for this page as you appear to attach one to each thread you do, yes you have a pattern.

Why would the NRA defend this person?  That just doesn't make sense...  

Why wouldn’t the NRA defend him (not financially, but morally)? They have made it clear that they see restrictions in gun ownership as unconstitutional, unreasonable and unamerican. The NRA defends outrageous things every day. 

The guy committed felonies, that's why they won't defend him.  He was trafficking/smuggling guns too.

The NRA regularly supports gun rights for felons and opposes removal of guns and is against removing gun access from those convicted of hate crimes. I don’t imagine we’ll ever know their position on this particular situation, but it would not shock me if they declined to censure it. 

I found that hard to believe so went and did a little looking around on-line.  Apparently that is true.  That's crazy.

Kind of a double edged sword; the more “gun reform” is pushed, the stronger the NRA gets and the more votes you lose from gun owners, and more guns and ammo are sold.  
When democrats are in office and speak of gun control, more and more people start buying them (even as just novelties).
With Trump as president, gun stores are going bankrupt due to the lack of people trying to “get everything they can before they are illegal”.  The blowback from the NRA is less when he banned bump stocks too because the NRA and Trump have a somewhat symbiotic relationship.  If a democrat tries to bring up any gun control what so ever, the NRA has no reason to worry about the blowback and can piss on the proposals all they want.  
If you want true changes (and this is coming from someone that supports firearm ownership rights), then you are going to have to make lobbying from all fronts (pharmaceuticals, gun lobby, etc) go away. 
I would totally support anti-lobbying legislation if it meant politicians could not be purchased by pharmaceutical companies, oil companies, and *fill in the blank*.

Can "supporting firearm ownership rights" and "stricter gun control" go hand in hand? If not, why?

PJPOWER

Spiritual_Chaos said:

PJPOWER said:

brianlux said:

oftenreading said:

tempo_n_groove said:

oftenreading said:

tempo_n_groove said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

I’m sure this “responsible” gun owner kept his weapons properly stored.

https://apple.news/Awm9fUsbRTHKrUvi65pn0FA

I’m surprised his bail was as low as it was. NRA going to provide gratis defense?

How is a person dealing in illegal activities responsible?  That seems to be your catchphrase for this page as you appear to attach one to each thread you do, yes you have a pattern.

Why would the NRA defend this person?  That just doesn't make sense...  

Why wouldn’t the NRA defend him (not financially, but morally)? They have made it clear that they see restrictions in gun ownership as unconstitutional, unreasonable and unamerican. The NRA defends outrageous things every day. 

The guy committed felonies, that's why they won't defend him.  He was trafficking/smuggling guns too.

The NRA regularly supports gun rights for felons and opposes removal of guns and is against removing gun access from those convicted of hate crimes. I don’t imagine we’ll ever know their position on this particular situation, but it would not shock me if they declined to censure it. 

I found that hard to believe so went and did a little looking around on-line.  Apparently that is true.  That's crazy.

Kind of a double edged sword; the more “gun reform” is pushed, the stronger the NRA gets and the more votes you lose from gun owners, and more guns and ammo are sold.  
When democrats are in office and speak of gun control, more and more people start buying them (even as just novelties).
With Trump as president, gun stores are going bankrupt due to the lack of people trying to “get everything they can before they are illegal”.  The blowback from the NRA is less when he banned bump stocks too because the NRA and Trump have a somewhat symbiotic relationship.  If a democrat tries to bring up any gun control what so ever, the NRA has no reason to worry about the blowback and can piss on the proposals all they want.  
If you want true changes (and this is coming from someone that supports firearm ownership rights), then you are going to have to make lobbying from all fronts (pharmaceuticals, gun lobby, etc) go away. 
I would totally support anti-lobbying legislation if it meant politicians could not be purchased by pharmaceutical companies, oil companies, and *fill in the blank*.

Can "supporting firearm ownership rights" and "stricter gun control" go hand in hand? If not, why?

Of course they can...and they do.  The reason it doesn’t usually work that way is the legitimacy of the “give an inch, take a mile” concern.  Yes, RESPONSIBLE gun owners do not want to be turned into criminals via legislation, and the whole “all gun owners are responsible until they are not” crap sure isn’t changing any minds.  Most gun owners do not fully align with the NRA’s stance, but see them as a necessary evil due to the aforementioned lobbying politics, probably in the same way pharmacists see the pharmaceutical lobbyists.

Spiritual_Chaos

PJPOWER said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

PJPOWER said:

brianlux said:

oftenreading said:

tempo_n_groove said:

oftenreading said:

tempo_n_groove said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

I’m sure this “responsible” gun owner kept his weapons properly stored.

https://apple.news/Awm9fUsbRTHKrUvi65pn0FA

I’m surprised his bail was as low as it was. NRA going to provide gratis defense?

How is a person dealing in illegal activities responsible?  That seems to be your catchphrase for this page as you appear to attach one to each thread you do, yes you have a pattern.

Why would the NRA defend this person?  That just doesn't make sense...  

Why wouldn’t the NRA defend him (not financially, but morally)? They have made it clear that they see restrictions in gun ownership as unconstitutional, unreasonable and unamerican. The NRA defends outrageous things every day. 

The guy committed felonies, that's why they won't defend him.  He was trafficking/smuggling guns too.

The NRA regularly supports gun rights for felons and opposes removal of guns and is against removing gun access from those convicted of hate crimes. I don’t imagine we’ll ever know their position on this particular situation, but it would not shock me if they declined to censure it. 

I found that hard to believe so went and did a little looking around on-line.  Apparently that is true.  That's crazy.

Kind of a double edged sword; the more “gun reform” is pushed, the stronger the NRA gets and the more votes you lose from gun owners, and more guns and ammo are sold.  
When democrats are in office and speak of gun control, more and more people start buying them (even as just novelties).
With Trump as president, gun stores are going bankrupt due to the lack of people trying to “get everything they can before they are illegal”.  The blowback from the NRA is less when he banned bump stocks too because the NRA and Trump have a somewhat symbiotic relationship.  If a democrat tries to bring up any gun control what so ever, the NRA has no reason to worry about the blowback and can piss on the proposals all they want.  
If you want true changes (and this is coming from someone that supports firearm ownership rights), then you are going to have to make lobbying from all fronts (pharmaceuticals, gun lobby, etc) go away. 
I would totally support anti-lobbying legislation if it meant politicians could not be purchased by pharmaceutical companies, oil companies, and *fill in the blank*.

Can "supporting firearm ownership rights" and "stricter gun control" go hand in hand? If not, why?

Of course they can...and they do.  The reason it doesn’t usually work that way is the legitimacy of the “give an inch, take a mile” concern.  Yes, RESPONSIBLE gun owners do not want to be turned into criminals via legislation, and the whole “all gun owners are responsible until they are not” crap sure isn’t changing any minds.  Most gun owners do not fully align with the NRA’s stance, but see them as a necessary evil due to the aforementioned lobbying politics, probably in the same way pharmacists see the pharmaceutical lobbyists.

Where would the legitimacy of “give an inch, take a mile” come from? What is is based on?

How many countries - with sound gun control - stop their citizens from owning firearms? Why would the US be any different, being a gun-welcoming country and all.

PJPOWER

Spiritual_Chaos said:

PJPOWER said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

PJPOWER said:

brianlux said:

oftenreading said:

tempo_n_groove said:

oftenreading said:

tempo_n_groove said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

I’m sure this “responsible” gun owner kept his weapons properly stored.

https://apple.news/Awm9fUsbRTHKrUvi65pn0FA

I’m surprised his bail was as low as it was. NRA going to provide gratis defense?

How is a person dealing in illegal activities responsible?  That seems to be your catchphrase for this page as you appear to attach one to each thread you do, yes you have a pattern.

Why would the NRA defend this person?  That just doesn't make sense...  

Why wouldn’t the NRA defend him (not financially, but morally)? They have made it clear that they see restrictions in gun ownership as unconstitutional, unreasonable and unamerican. The NRA defends outrageous things every day. 

The guy committed felonies, that's why they won't defend him.  He was trafficking/smuggling guns too.

The NRA regularly supports gun rights for felons and opposes removal of guns and is against removing gun access from those convicted of hate crimes. I don’t imagine we’ll ever know their position on this particular situation, but it would not shock me if they declined to censure it. 

I found that hard to believe so went and did a little looking around on-line.  Apparently that is true.  That's crazy.

Kind of a double edged sword; the more “gun reform” is pushed, the stronger the NRA gets and the more votes you lose from gun owners, and more guns and ammo are sold.  
When democrats are in office and speak of gun control, more and more people start buying them (even as just novelties).
With Trump as president, gun stores are going bankrupt due to the lack of people trying to “get everything they can before they are illegal”.  The blowback from the NRA is less when he banned bump stocks too because the NRA and Trump have a somewhat symbiotic relationship.  If a democrat tries to bring up any gun control what so ever, the NRA has no reason to worry about the blowback and can piss on the proposals all they want.  
If you want true changes (and this is coming from someone that supports firearm ownership rights), then you are going to have to make lobbying from all fronts (pharmaceuticals, gun lobby, etc) go away. 
I would totally support anti-lobbying legislation if it meant politicians could not be purchased by pharmaceutical companies, oil companies, and *fill in the blank*.

Can "supporting firearm ownership rights" and "stricter gun control" go hand in hand? If not, why?

Of course they can...and they do.  The reason it doesn’t usually work that way is the legitimacy of the “give an inch, take a mile” concern.  Yes, RESPONSIBLE gun owners do not want to be turned into criminals via legislation, and the whole “all gun owners are responsible until they are not” crap sure isn’t changing any minds.  Most gun owners do not fully align with the NRA’s stance, but see them as a necessary evil due to the aforementioned lobbying politics, probably in the same way pharmacists see the pharmaceutical lobbyists.

Where would the legitimacy of “give an inch, take a mile” come from? What is is based on?

How many countries - with sound gun control - stop their citizens from owning firearms? Why would the US be any different, being a gun-welcoming country and all.

While we’re just getting started, I am not interested in discussing this with you at all (or any important topics for that matter).  You are literally the reason we cannot have civil discussions on the AMT right now...Maybe take a nap, but consider yourself ignored by me on this topic.  It is already starting here by your lack of substantial response to anything else I commented above.  Thanks for losing my interest in this discussion once again.  Maybe take a nap or something?
I have yet to use the “ignore feature” on anyone here, but you are getting closer and closer to being my first.

Spiritual_Chaos

PJPOWER said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

PJPOWER said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

PJPOWER said:

brianlux said:

oftenreading said:

tempo_n_groove said:

oftenreading said:

tempo_n_groove said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

I’m sure this “responsible” gun owner kept his weapons properly stored.

https://apple.news/Awm9fUsbRTHKrUvi65pn0FA

I’m surprised his bail was as low as it was. NRA going to provide gratis defense?

How is a person dealing in illegal activities responsible?  That seems to be your catchphrase for this page as you appear to attach one to each thread you do, yes you have a pattern.

Why would the NRA defend this person?  That just doesn't make sense...  

Why wouldn’t the NRA defend him (not financially, but morally)? They have made it clear that they see restrictions in gun ownership as unconstitutional, unreasonable and unamerican. The NRA defends outrageous things every day. 

The guy committed felonies, that's why they won't defend him.  He was trafficking/smuggling guns too.

The NRA regularly supports gun rights for felons and opposes removal of guns and is against removing gun access from those convicted of hate crimes. I don’t imagine we’ll ever know their position on this particular situation, but it would not shock me if they declined to censure it. 

I found that hard to believe so went and did a little looking around on-line.  Apparently that is true.  That's crazy.

Kind of a double edged sword; the more “gun reform” is pushed, the stronger the NRA gets and the more votes you lose from gun owners, and more guns and ammo are sold.  
When democrats are in office and speak of gun control, more and more people start buying them (even as just novelties).
With Trump as president, gun stores are going bankrupt due to the lack of people trying to “get everything they can before they are illegal”.  The blowback from the NRA is less when he banned bump stocks too because the NRA and Trump have a somewhat symbiotic relationship.  If a democrat tries to bring up any gun control what so ever, the NRA has no reason to worry about the blowback and can piss on the proposals all they want.  
If you want true changes (and this is coming from someone that supports firearm ownership rights), then you are going to have to make lobbying from all fronts (pharmaceuticals, gun lobby, etc) go away. 
I would totally support anti-lobbying legislation if it meant politicians could not be purchased by pharmaceutical companies, oil companies, and *fill in the blank*.

Can "supporting firearm ownership rights" and "stricter gun control" go hand in hand? If not, why?

Of course they can...and they do.  The reason it doesn’t usually work that way is the legitimacy of the “give an inch, take a mile” concern.  Yes, RESPONSIBLE gun owners do not want to be turned into criminals via legislation, and the whole “all gun owners are responsible until they are not” crap sure isn’t changing any minds.  Most gun owners do not fully align with the NRA’s stance, but see them as a necessary evil due to the aforementioned lobbying politics, probably in the same way pharmacists see the pharmaceutical lobbyists.

Where would the legitimacy of “give an inch, take a mile” come from? What is is based on?

How many countries - with sound gun control - stop their citizens from owning firearms? Why would the US be any different, being a gun-welcoming country and all.

While we’re just getting started, I am not interested in discussing this with you at all (or any important topics for that matter).  You are literally the reason we cannot have civil discussions on the AMT right now...Maybe take a nap, but consider yourself ignored by me on this topic.  It is already starting here by your lack of substantial response to anything else I commented above.  Thanks for losing my interest in this discussion once again.  Maybe take a nap or something?
I have yet to use the “ignore feature” on anyone here, but you are getting closer and closer to being my first.

Thank you for leading by example. XOXO

PJPOWER

Spiritual_Chaos said:

PJPOWER said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

PJPOWER said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

PJPOWER said:

brianlux said:

oftenreading said:

tempo_n_groove said:

oftenreading said:

tempo_n_groove said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

I’m sure this “responsible” gun owner kept his weapons properly stored.

https://apple.news/Awm9fUsbRTHKrUvi65pn0FA

I’m surprised his bail was as low as it was. NRA going to provide gratis defense?

How is a person dealing in illegal activities responsible?  That seems to be your catchphrase for this page as you appear to attach one to each thread you do, yes you have a pattern.

Why would the NRA defend this person?  That just doesn't make sense...  

Why wouldn’t the NRA defend him (not financially, but morally)? They have made it clear that they see restrictions in gun ownership as unconstitutional, unreasonable and unamerican. The NRA defends outrageous things every day. 

The guy committed felonies, that's why they won't defend him.  He was trafficking/smuggling guns too.

The NRA regularly supports gun rights for felons and opposes removal of guns and is against removing gun access from those convicted of hate crimes. I don’t imagine we’ll ever know their position on this particular situation, but it would not shock me if they declined to censure it. 

I found that hard to believe so went and did a little looking around on-line.  Apparently that is true.  That's crazy.

Kind of a double edged sword; the more “gun reform” is pushed, the stronger the NRA gets and the more votes you lose from gun owners, and more guns and ammo are sold.  
When democrats are in office and speak of gun control, more and more people start buying them (even as just novelties).
With Trump as president, gun stores are going bankrupt due to the lack of people trying to “get everything they can before they are illegal”.  The blowback from the NRA is less when he banned bump stocks too because the NRA and Trump have a somewhat symbiotic relationship.  If a democrat tries to bring up any gun control what so ever, the NRA has no reason to worry about the blowback and can piss on the proposals all they want.  
If you want true changes (and this is coming from someone that supports firearm ownership rights), then you are going to have to make lobbying from all fronts (pharmaceuticals, gun lobby, etc) go away. 
I would totally support anti-lobbying legislation if it meant politicians could not be purchased by pharmaceutical companies, oil companies, and *fill in the blank*.

Can "supporting firearm ownership rights" and "stricter gun control" go hand in hand? If not, why?

Of course they can...and they do.  The reason it doesn’t usually work that way is the legitimacy of the “give an inch, take a mile” concern.  Yes, RESPONSIBLE gun owners do not want to be turned into criminals via legislation, and the whole “all gun owners are responsible until they are not” crap sure isn’t changing any minds.  Most gun owners do not fully align with the NRA’s stance, but see them as a necessary evil due to the aforementioned lobbying politics, probably in the same way pharmacists see the pharmaceutical lobbyists.

Where would the legitimacy of “give an inch, take a mile” come from? What is is based on?

How many countries - with sound gun control - stop their citizens from owning firearms? Why would the US be any different, being a gun-welcoming country and all.

While we’re just getting started, I am not interested in discussing this with you at all (or any important topics for that matter).  You are literally the reason we cannot have civil discussions on the AMT right now...Maybe take a nap, but consider yourself ignored by me on this topic.  It is already starting here by your lack of substantial response to anything else I commented above.  Thanks for losing my interest in this discussion once again.  Maybe take a nap or something?
I have yet to use the “ignore feature” on anyone here, but you are getting closer and closer to being my first.

Thank you for leading by example. XOXO

You are welcome. XOXO

tempo_n_groove

PJPOWER said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

PJPOWER said:

brianlux said:

oftenreading said:

tempo_n_groove said:

oftenreading said:

tempo_n_groove said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

I’m sure this “responsible” gun owner kept his weapons properly stored.

https://apple.news/Awm9fUsbRTHKrUvi65pn0FA

I’m surprised his bail was as low as it was. NRA going to provide gratis defense?

How is a person dealing in illegal activities responsible?  That seems to be your catchphrase for this page as you appear to attach one to each thread you do, yes you have a pattern.

Why would the NRA defend this person?  That just doesn't make sense...  

Why wouldn’t the NRA defend him (not financially, but morally)? They have made it clear that they see restrictions in gun ownership as unconstitutional, unreasonable and unamerican. The NRA defends outrageous things every day. 

The guy committed felonies, that's why they won't defend him.  He was trafficking/smuggling guns too.

The NRA regularly supports gun rights for felons and opposes removal of guns and is against removing gun access from those convicted of hate crimes. I don’t imagine we’ll ever know their position on this particular situation, but it would not shock me if they declined to censure it. 

I found that hard to believe so went and did a little looking around on-line.  Apparently that is true.  That's crazy.

Kind of a double edged sword; the more “gun reform” is pushed, the stronger the NRA gets and the more votes you lose from gun owners, and more guns and ammo are sold.  
When democrats are in office and speak of gun control, more and more people start buying them (even as just novelties).
With Trump as president, gun stores are going bankrupt due to the lack of people trying to “get everything they can before they are illegal”.  The blowback from the NRA is less when he banned bump stocks too because the NRA and Trump have a somewhat symbiotic relationship.  If a democrat tries to bring up any gun control what so ever, the NRA has no reason to worry about the blowback and can piss on the proposals all they want.  
If you want true changes (and this is coming from someone that supports firearm ownership rights), then you are going to have to make lobbying from all fronts (pharmaceuticals, gun lobby, etc) go away. 
I would totally support anti-lobbying legislation if it meant politicians could not be purchased by pharmaceutical companies, oil companies, and *fill in the blank*.

Can "supporting firearm ownership rights" and "stricter gun control" go hand in hand? If not, why?

Of course they can...and they do.  The reason it doesn’t usually work that way is the legitimacy of the “give an inch, take a mile” concern.  Yes, RESPONSIBLE gun owners do not want to be turned into criminals via legislation, and the whole “all gun owners are responsible until they are not” crap sure isn’t changing any minds.  Most gun owners do not fully align with the NRA’s stance, but see them as a necessary evil due to the aforementioned lobbying politics, probably in the same way pharmacists see the pharmaceutical lobbyists.

I agree with you.

TY

Meltdown99

Spiritual_Chaos said:

PJPOWER said:

brianlux said:

oftenreading said:

tempo_n_groove said:

oftenreading said:

tempo_n_groove said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

I’m sure this “responsible” gun owner kept his weapons properly stored.

https://apple.news/Awm9fUsbRTHKrUvi65pn0FA

I’m surprised his bail was as low as it was. NRA going to provide gratis defense?

How is a person dealing in illegal activities responsible?  That seems to be your catchphrase for this page as you appear to attach one to each thread you do, yes you have a pattern.

Why would the NRA defend this person?  That just doesn't make sense...  

Why wouldn’t the NRA defend him (not financially, but morally)? They have made it clear that they see restrictions in gun ownership as unconstitutional, unreasonable and unamerican. The NRA defends outrageous things every day. 

The guy committed felonies, that's why they won't defend him.  He was trafficking/smuggling guns too.

The NRA regularly supports gun rights for felons and opposes removal of guns and is against removing gun access from those convicted of hate crimes. I don’t imagine we’ll ever know their position on this particular situation, but it would not shock me if they declined to censure it. 

I found that hard to believe so went and did a little looking around on-line.  Apparently that is true.  That's crazy.

Kind of a double edged sword; the more “gun reform” is pushed, the stronger the NRA gets and the more votes you lose from gun owners, and more guns and ammo are sold.  
When democrats are in office and speak of gun control, more and more people start buying them (even as just novelties).
With Trump as president, gun stores are going bankrupt due to the lack of people trying to “get everything they can before they are illegal”.  The blowback from the NRA is less when he banned bump stocks too because the NRA and Trump have a somewhat symbiotic relationship.  If a democrat tries to bring up any gun control what so ever, the NRA has no reason to worry about the blowback and can piss on the proposals all they want.  
If you want true changes (and this is coming from someone that supports firearm ownership rights), then you are going to have to make lobbying from all fronts (pharmaceuticals, gun lobby, etc) go away. 
I would totally support anti-lobbying legislation if it meant politicians could not be purchased by pharmaceutical companies, oil companies, and *fill in the blank*.

Can "supporting firearm ownership rights" and "stricter gun control" go hand in hand? If not, why?

Yes.  Canada has good firearm laws that still allow hunters or gun owners the right to their hobbies keeping people safe.  What gun laws do not prevent are ILLEGAL guns which in Canada are the bulk of the gun problems.  Toronto has quite the gun problem now.  My sister lives in Toronto, a very nice neibhourhood, a nice condo building...she was exiting her building a couple of weeks back and there was a triple shooting near her building resulting in 2 deaths...happened when she was asleep totally unaware until she left.  

Spiritual_Chaos

Meltdown99 said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

PJPOWER said:

brianlux said:

oftenreading said:

tempo_n_groove said:

oftenreading said:

tempo_n_groove said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

I’m sure this “responsible” gun owner kept his weapons properly stored.

https://apple.news/Awm9fUsbRTHKrUvi65pn0FA

I’m surprised his bail was as low as it was. NRA going to provide gratis defense?

How is a person dealing in illegal activities responsible?  That seems to be your catchphrase for this page as you appear to attach one to each thread you do, yes you have a pattern.

Why would the NRA defend this person?  That just doesn't make sense...  

Why wouldn’t the NRA defend him (not financially, but morally)? They have made it clear that they see restrictions in gun ownership as unconstitutional, unreasonable and unamerican. The NRA defends outrageous things every day. 

The guy committed felonies, that's why they won't defend him.  He was trafficking/smuggling guns too.

The NRA regularly supports gun rights for felons and opposes removal of guns and is against removing gun access from those convicted of hate crimes. I don’t imagine we’ll ever know their position on this particular situation, but it would not shock me if they declined to censure it. 

I found that hard to believe so went and did a little looking around on-line.  Apparently that is true.  That's crazy.

Kind of a double edged sword; the more “gun reform” is pushed, the stronger the NRA gets and the more votes you lose from gun owners, and more guns and ammo are sold.  
When democrats are in office and speak of gun control, more and more people start buying them (even as just novelties).
With Trump as president, gun stores are going bankrupt due to the lack of people trying to “get everything they can before they are illegal”.  The blowback from the NRA is less when he banned bump stocks too because the NRA and Trump have a somewhat symbiotic relationship.  If a democrat tries to bring up any gun control what so ever, the NRA has no reason to worry about the blowback and can piss on the proposals all they want.  
If you want true changes (and this is coming from someone that supports firearm ownership rights), then you are going to have to make lobbying from all fronts (pharmaceuticals, gun lobby, etc) go away. 
I would totally support anti-lobbying legislation if it meant politicians could not be purchased by pharmaceutical companies, oil companies, and *fill in the blank*.

Can "supporting firearm ownership rights" and "stricter gun control" go hand in hand? If not, why?

Yes.  Canada has good firearm laws that still allow hunters or gun owners the right to their hobbies keeping people safe.  What gun laws do not prevent are ILLEGAL guns which in Canada are the bulk of the gun problems.  Toronto has quite the gun problem now.  My sister lives in Toronto, a very nice neibhourhood, a nice condo building...she was exiting her building a couple of weeks back and there was a triple shooting near her building resulting in 2 deaths...happened when she was asleep totally unaware until she left.  

In Sweden there are no problems owning guns either, and like you guys there are plenty of hunters here hunting moose, deer and such. I don't think anyone consider the government taking a mile when deciding on an inch. We have regulations to keep guns in check. Because it is common sense to do so.

But @PJPOWER once didn't realise people could hunt in Sweden (even with our country being roughly 70% covered by forest) when defending US view on guns so I think he is a bit shy to discuss it again. But that is okey.

And yes, our problem here are also illegal guns. Coming in from the Balkans etc. I guess somewhat similar problems to Canada. 

PJPOWER

Spiritual_Chaos said:

Meltdown99 said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

PJPOWER said:

brianlux said:

oftenreading said:

tempo_n_groove said:

oftenreading said:

tempo_n_groove said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

I’m sure this “responsible” gun owner kept his weapons properly stored.

https://apple.news/Awm9fUsbRTHKrUvi65pn0FA

I’m surprised his bail was as low as it was. NRA going to provide gratis defense?

How is a person dealing in illegal activities responsible?  That seems to be your catchphrase for this page as you appear to attach one to each thread you do, yes you have a pattern.

Why would the NRA defend this person?  That just doesn't make sense...  

Why wouldn’t the NRA defend him (not financially, but morally)? They have made it clear that they see restrictions in gun ownership as unconstitutional, unreasonable and unamerican. The NRA defends outrageous things every day. 

The guy committed felonies, that's why they won't defend him.  He was trafficking/smuggling guns too.

The NRA regularly supports gun rights for felons and opposes removal of guns and is against removing gun access from those convicted of hate crimes. I don’t imagine we’ll ever know their position on this particular situation, but it would not shock me if they declined to censure it. 

I found that hard to believe so went and did a little looking around on-line.  Apparently that is true.  That's crazy.

Kind of a double edged sword; the more “gun reform” is pushed, the stronger the NRA gets and the more votes you lose from gun owners, and more guns and ammo are sold.  
When democrats are in office and speak of gun control, more and more people start buying them (even as just novelties).
With Trump as president, gun stores are going bankrupt due to the lack of people trying to “get everything they can before they are illegal”.  The blowback from the NRA is less when he banned bump stocks too because the NRA and Trump have a somewhat symbiotic relationship.  If a democrat tries to bring up any gun control what so ever, the NRA has no reason to worry about the blowback and can piss on the proposals all they want.  
If you want true changes (and this is coming from someone that supports firearm ownership rights), then you are going to have to make lobbying from all fronts (pharmaceuticals, gun lobby, etc) go away. 
I would totally support anti-lobbying legislation if it meant politicians could not be purchased by pharmaceutical companies, oil companies, and *fill in the blank*.

Can "supporting firearm ownership rights" and "stricter gun control" go hand in hand? If not, why?

Yes.  Canada has good firearm laws that still allow hunters or gun owners the right to their hobbies keeping people safe.  What gun laws do not prevent are ILLEGAL guns which in Canada are the bulk of the gun problems.  Toronto has quite the gun problem now.  My sister lives in Toronto, a very nice neibhourhood, a nice condo building...she was exiting her building a couple of weeks back and there was a triple shooting near her building resulting in 2 deaths...happened when she was asleep totally unaware until she left.  

In Sweden there are no problems owning guns either, and like you guys there are plenty of hunters here hunting moose, deer and such. I don't think anyone consider the government taking a mile when deciding on an inch. We have regulations to keep guns in check. Because it is common sense to do so.

But @PJPOWER once didn't realise people could hunt in Sweden (even with our country being roughly 70% covered by forest) when defending US view on guns so I think he is a bit shy to discuss it again. But that is okey.

And yes, our problem here are also illegal guns. Coming in from the Balkans etc. I guess somewhat similar problems to Canada. 

Stop being dense.  Just because you didn’t understand what I was saying and choose to stick with the narrative in your head doesn’t make it true...but I’m betting this isn’t the first time you’ve heard that.

Spiritual_Chaos

PJPOWER said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

Meltdown99 said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

PJPOWER said:

brianlux said:

oftenreading said:

tempo_n_groove said:

oftenreading said:

tempo_n_groove said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

I’m sure this “responsible” gun owner kept his weapons properly stored.

https://apple.news/Awm9fUsbRTHKrUvi65pn0FA

I’m surprised his bail was as low as it was. NRA going to provide gratis defense?

How is a person dealing in illegal activities responsible?  That seems to be your catchphrase for this page as you appear to attach one to each thread you do, yes you have a pattern.

Why would the NRA defend this person?  That just doesn't make sense...  

Why wouldn’t the NRA defend him (not financially, but morally)? They have made it clear that they see restrictions in gun ownership as unconstitutional, unreasonable and unamerican. The NRA defends outrageous things every day. 

The guy committed felonies, that's why they won't defend him.  He was trafficking/smuggling guns too.

The NRA regularly supports gun rights for felons and opposes removal of guns and is against removing gun access from those convicted of hate crimes. I don’t imagine we’ll ever know their position on this particular situation, but it would not shock me if they declined to censure it. 

I found that hard to believe so went and did a little looking around on-line.  Apparently that is true.  That's crazy.

Kind of a double edged sword; the more “gun reform” is pushed, the stronger the NRA gets and the more votes you lose from gun owners, and more guns and ammo are sold.  
When democrats are in office and speak of gun control, more and more people start buying them (even as just novelties).
With Trump as president, gun stores are going bankrupt due to the lack of people trying to “get everything they can before they are illegal”.  The blowback from the NRA is less when he banned bump stocks too because the NRA and Trump have a somewhat symbiotic relationship.  If a democrat tries to bring up any gun control what so ever, the NRA has no reason to worry about the blowback and can piss on the proposals all they want.  
If you want true changes (and this is coming from someone that supports firearm ownership rights), then you are going to have to make lobbying from all fronts (pharmaceuticals, gun lobby, etc) go away. 
I would totally support anti-lobbying legislation if it meant politicians could not be purchased by pharmaceutical companies, oil companies, and *fill in the blank*.

Can "supporting firearm ownership rights" and "stricter gun control" go hand in hand? If not, why?

Yes.  Canada has good firearm laws that still allow hunters or gun owners the right to their hobbies keeping people safe.  What gun laws do not prevent are ILLEGAL guns which in Canada are the bulk of the gun problems.  Toronto has quite the gun problem now.  My sister lives in Toronto, a very nice neibhourhood, a nice condo building...she was exiting her building a couple of weeks back and there was a triple shooting near her building resulting in 2 deaths...happened when she was asleep totally unaware until she left.  

In Sweden there are no problems owning guns either, and like you guys there are plenty of hunters here hunting moose, deer and such. I don't think anyone consider the government taking a mile when deciding on an inch. We have regulations to keep guns in check. Because it is common sense to do so.

But @PJPOWER once didn't realise people could hunt in Sweden (even with our country being roughly 70% covered by forest) when defending US view on guns so I think he is a bit shy to discuss it again. But that is okey.

And yes, our problem here are also illegal guns. Coming in from the Balkans etc. I guess somewhat similar problems to Canada. 

Stop being dense.  Just because you didn’t understand what I was saying and choose to stick with the narrative in your head doesn’t make it true...but I’m betting this isn’t the first time you’ve heard that.

Okey. George Lucas.

Meltdown99

Somewhere in the US, this group is heading off to go hunting...lol

mcgruff10

Meltdown99 said:

Somewhere in the US, this group is heading off to go hunting...lol

Remember you can only use one at a time.  

tempo_n_groove

Meltdown99 said:

Somewhere in the US, this group is heading off to go hunting...lol

Group?  That was one dude that owned all of those!

Halifax2TheMax

mcgruff10 said:

Meltdown99 said:

Somewhere in the US, this group is heading off to go hunting...lol

Remember you can only use one at a time.  

I’m willing to bet there’s a picture of some “responsible” gun owner shooting more than one or two firearms at a time floating around YouTube and/or the interwebs, maybe even three or four.

tempo_n_groove

Halifax2TheMax said:

mcgruff10 said:

Meltdown99 said:

Somewhere in the US, this group is heading off to go hunting...lol

Remember you can only use one at a time.  

I’m willing to bet there’s a picture of some “responsible” gun owner shooting more than one or two firearms at a time floating around YouTube and/or the interwebs, maybe even three or four.

I've managed to use two but they were both pistols.  No images available...

mcgruff10

Halifax2TheMax said:

mcgruff10 said:

Meltdown99 said:

Somewhere in the US, this group is heading off to go hunting...lol

Remember you can only use one at a time.  

I’m willing to bet there’s a picture of some “responsible” gun owner shooting more than one or two firearms at a time floating around YouTube and/or the interwebs, maybe even three or four.

Explain to me how someone could fire three of four separate firearms at that same time.  

Spiritual_Chaos

tempo_n_groove said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

mcgruff10 said:

Meltdown99 said:

Somewhere in the US, this group is heading off to go hunting...lol

Remember you can only use one at a time.  

I’m willing to bet there’s a picture of some “responsible” gun owner shooting more than one or two firearms at a time floating around YouTube and/or the interwebs, maybe even three or four.

I've managed to use two but they were both pistols.  No images available...

Did that in GoldenEye.