Here is a post of yours from 8-29-15 on another BGP thread. In it, you paint quite a different picture:

**********

"Yesterday I had three pistols, a shotgun and a big ole evil AR with three loaded magazines sitting beside it and 10 rounds of shotgun ammo (5 slugs and 5 buckshot) sitting on my couch and coffee table for several hours plus my son had a fourth pistol in his pocket...guess what none of them killed anyone or even shot at anyone."

**********

Not my AR...I do own several pistols, a small caliber rifle and a shotgun or two. The evil ole AR is not owned by me now nor was was it then.

 

No where close to the Tens of Thousands you talked about invest either...some were family heirlooms, a couple were gifts and 2 of them I think I actually bought.

 

BTW the AR is owned by the Local Sheriff's Department and isn't privately owned.

You tend to employ the "you don't know anything ..." line when you get frustrated and have little to say. It's a cheap fallback position.

 

Do you not see the irony of the post you just made? I mean seriously, you just don't get it. Did the firearms involved in this recent terrorist act fire themselves or was somebody pulling the trigger? I'll leave you to work that one out on your own.

I find it ludicrous that you hold your right to bear arms in more regard than your fellow citizens rights to live.

 

I find it ludicrous that you want to throw away the constitution/bill of rights.

 

As in per round? Or fire as many rounds in as little time. The purpose of a semi automatic is to inflict as much damage on the widest amount area. Kinda like shotgun shells gone wild. Speaking of which, isn't the sawed off shotgun illegal for just that reason? That it magnified the damage?

 

I could take a pistol and fire 100 rounds in no time at all.

 

Should we take pistols away from people too?

Not my AR...I do own several pistols, a small caliber rifle and a shotgun or two. The evil ole AR is not owned by me now nor was was it then. We just had it with us at the target range that day.

Your shift from braggadocio to humility took me by surprise. I'm afraid my ignorance is showing again: Does one need a permit or such to borrow someone else's AR?

I find it ludicrous that you want to throw away the constitution/bill of rights.

You have a constitutional right to bear arms, not necessarily possess an AR-15. There is a difference.

Your shift from braggadocio to humility took me by surprise. I'm afraid my ignorance is showing again: Does one need a permit or such to borrow someone else's AR?

No permit needed for that gun at all it was not Full Auto, it was a semi automatic Bushmaster that a deputy sheriff going to the range with me that day had. We were cleaning our firearms when I made that post.

 

Actually, I don't know whether they should or not. I have no idea what their legitimate purpose may be, so I don't have that info to consider.

 

There are plenty of purposes.

 

Self defense from crazy people.

 

Home defense.

 

Fun.

Do you not see the irony of the post you just made? I mean seriously, you just don't get it. Did the firearms involved in this recent terrorist act fire themselves or was somebody pulling the trigger? I'll leave you to work that one out on your own.

You overlook the rat-a-tat-tat availability factor.

You have a constitutional right to bear arms' date=' not necessarily possess an AR-15. There is a difference.[/quote']

 

Again, you keep proving all my points. It's not about guns, it's about the guns you dems trust the peasants to own.

You overlook the rat-a-tat-tat availability factor.

 

You overlook the you have no clue of what you're talking about factor

Again, you keep proving all my points. It's not about guns, it's about the guns you dems trust the peasants to own.

Since when could pheasants fire back? Oh, never mind, you said peasants.

I think a lot of the problem is that RTS and JD have tens of thousands of dollars tied up in guns-bombs-bullets, including weapons similar to those used at San Bernardino and Colorado Springs. Which is why they're employing the denigration-by-ignorance schtick. I might be wrong but I don't think I am.

I am a new member to this site and am very surprised that a poster could accuse another member of owning a bomb! This is silly rhetoric, and the problem I have with his posts.

You overlook the you have no clue of what you're talking about factor

There you go again ... nothing to say ... using the "no clue" line. For someone who's around guns as much as you are, one does expect a little more "expertise" to shine through. But, sigh, all we get are cliches and sophomoric put-downs.

I am a new member to this site and am very surprised that a poster could accuse another member of owning a bomb! This is silly rhetoric, and the problem I have with his posts.

"Guns, bombs, bullets" is a throw-away line I used with my cousin, who used to sell ammo for a living. When people asked him what line of work he was in, he would say: "Guns, bombs and bullets." If I have offended, I apologize. No harm intended.