Skip to main content
Help Center Community Shop

Comments

22 comments

Date Votes
  • Horse Plains Drifter
    Does not sound very freedom like to me. Maybe some people don't want to own a firearm. Maybe some people don't want to own an AR15. They sure aren't the end all to firearms. They're ok for kids, and girls I suppose, but they just fire pip squeak little cartridges. What if somebody wants a real rifle like an M1A?
    0
  • Mobuck
    I think the idea with the AR 15 is for some cross fit with the common military weapons. A "militia" armed with rifles compatible with military standard ammo, magazines, and commonality of operation would be a better plan than "Joe and Fred" with a 8x57 Mauser and a 6.5 Jap.
    In reality, it's not much more than posturing but there's a message in there for the "namby pamby coasties"-- "this is not YOUR country, it's OUR country and some of us aren't ready to let you toss it away'.
    0
  • chiefr
    Mobuck wrote:
    I think the idea with the AR 15 is for some cross fit with the common military weapons. A "militia" armed with rifles compatible with military standard ammo, magazines, and commonality of operation would be a better plan than "Joe and Fred" with a 8x57 Mauser and a 6.5 Jap.
    In reality, it's not much more than posturing but there's a message in there for the "namby pamby coasties"-- "this is not YOUR country, it's OUR country and some of us aren't ready to let you toss it away'.





    My thoughts exactly.
    A far more proactive approach to the gun/freedom hating DEMOCRATs that want to use their bully pulpit population centers to force their repressive laws and opinion on the rest of us.
    I for one am really impressed with New Mexico's "Second Amendment sanctuary county" laws. No more tail wagging the dog like we see going on with West Coastal DEMOCRAT states.
    0
  • Ditch-Runner
    its just a BS law made up tossed in the face of the left to try and prove how far out there want to be laws and regulations are
    they know it would never be passed ( wife and I were just talking about it )
    same with the sanctuary cities and states claiming to not follow federal gun laws .. sure sure , just more BS
    show me a dealer in one of those areas who will sell a firearm or machine gun , suppressor or any firearm governed by the federal boys to anyone with out the paperwork ,, than call me back
    0
  • Missouri Mule K30
    No Problem Here.

    The Militia Act of 1792
    0
  • Mobuck
    "Males 18 to 35 years of age"
    No one in my family in that age group. IMHO, they'd get a much more effective class of shooters by going with 35 to 65 years old. We're too old to run so we have to stand and fight.
    0
  • babun
    Mobuck wrote:
    "Males 18 to 35 years of age"
    No one in my family in that age group. IMHO, they'd get a much more effective class of shooters by going with 35 to 65 years old. We're too old to run so we have to stand and fight.

    +35/65

    Would only work for youngsters if there was an Iphone app that drops empty mags and cocks the gun.
    :shock:
    0
  • us55840
    Chief Shaway wrote:

    Looks like "stirring the pot" IMO.

    1. If required, the state would have to buy/give them to residents.........or it would be no different than FORCED INSURANCE LIKE OBAMACARE.

    2. I'm confident, not all residents of Missouri SHOULD have a firearm even if they can pass the NICS check.

    3. No requirement to complete a firearm safety course?

    :?:
    0
  • Chief Shaway
    Quick&Dead wrote:
    Chief Shaway wrote:

    Looks like "stirring the pot" IMO.

    1. If required, the state would have to buy/give them to residents.........or it would be no different than FORCED INSURANCE LIKE OBAMACARE.

    2. I'm confident, not all residents of Missouri SHOULD have a firearm even if they can pass the NICS check.

    3. No requirement to complete a firearm safety course?

    :?:

    How is posting a link to a pro-gun piece of legislation ?stirring the pot ??

    So, you should have to complete a safety course to excercise your 2nd Amendment Right?
    0
  • Horse Plains Drifter
    I think he means introducing that bill is "stirring the pot".
    0
  • us55840
    I think he means introducing that bill is "stirring the pot".


    YOU GOT IT!
    0
  • us55840
    Chief Shaway wrote:
    Quick&Dead wrote:
    Chief Shaway wrote:

    Looks like "stirring the pot" IMO.

    1. If required, the state would have to buy/give them to residents.........or it would be no different than FORCED INSURANCE LIKE OBAMACARE.

    2. I'm confident, not all residents of Missouri SHOULD have a firearm even if they can pass the NICS check.

    3. No requirement to complete a firearm safety course?

    :?:

    How is posting a link to a pro-gun piece of legislation ?stirring the pot ??

    So, you should have to complete a safety course to excercise your 2nd Amendment Right?

    Some sort of 'safety instruction' would be beneficial considering the large number of air heads sucking oxygen these days.....even if it's 'this end is where the bullet comes out.'
    :D
    0
  • Chief Shaway
    I, myself, would rather see legislation proposed that was pro gun versus a proposed bill to ban guns.
    That?s why I said, a good deal.
    YMMV.
    0
  • Don McManus
    A law that mandates the individual to pay for something they do not want is anti-liberty and does nothing to further the cause of our 2nd Amendment rights.

    Stupid legislation, even if some mistakenly believe that it is 'pro-gun' does nothing positive and is nothing more than childish political posturing.

    Similar to a President who claims 'We will never be a Socialist Country' while he attempts to strong-arm an auto manufacturer into keeping open plants that the company does not wish to keep open.
    0
  • Mr. Perfect
    I will never understand the support for anti-liberty I see on this forum. Never. This bill is utter trash where liberty is concerned. What makes you folks want to limit liberty like you do? Is freedom too dangerous for you? Are you scared?
    0
  • Horse Plains Drifter
    Mr. Perfect wrote:
    I will never understand the support for anti-liberty I see on this forum. Never. This bill is utter trash where liberty is concerned. What makes you folks want to limit liberty like you do? Is freedom too dangerous for you? Are you scared?

    Many posters here who claim to be pro constitution/freedom/liberty are no better than the antis they so hate. They are only pro freedom as long as it's something THEY agree with. This becomes very evident when the legalize pot threads come up.
    0
  • Marc1301
    Mr. Perfect wrote:
    I will never understand the support for anti-liberty I see on this forum. Never. This bill is utter trash where liberty is concerned. What makes you folks want to limit liberty like you do? Is freedom too dangerous for you? Are you scared?
    +1
    0
  • Mobuck
    Sounds like a bunch of forum members should take the "New Zealand route" and just turn in your guns before the inevitable confiscation.
    Better yet, ship those guns to Missouri so we can equip OUR MILITIA.
    Sure, it's posturing but from a different perspective than the "left coast" anti-gun position.
    0
  • Don McManus
    Mobuck wrote:
    Sounds like a bunch of forum members should take the "New Zealand route" and just turn in your guns before the inevitable confiscation.
    Better yet, ship those guns to Missouri so we can equip OUR MILITIA.
    Sure, it's posturing but from a different perspective than the "left coast" anti-gun position.

    Different does not mean better.

    Were a similar law proposed by the leftists, I would only look at the stupidity of the premise and dismiss it.

    Can you point to anything actually good about the proposed legislation?
    0
  • babun
    Mr. Perfect wrote:
    I will never understand the support for anti-liberty I see on this forum. Never. This bill is utter trash where liberty is concerned. What makes you folks want to limit liberty like you do? Is freedom too dangerous for you? Are you scared?

    Many posters here who claim to be pro constitution/freedom/liberty are no better than the antis they so hate. They are only pro freedom as long as it's something THEY agree with. This becomes very evident when the legalize pot threads come up.

    +1
    The 2nd Amendment tells the GOVERNMENT what it can do and not do.
    I don't want or need a group of politicians telling me what to own/carry/shoot.

    "Any government big enough to give you everything you need, is big enough to take away everything
    you have"
    0
  • Mr. Perfect
    Mobuck wrote:
    Sounds like a bunch of forum members should take the "New Zealand route" and just turn in your guns before the inevitable confiscation.
    Better yet, ship those guns to Missouri so we can equip OUR MILITIA.
    Sure, it's posturing but from a different perspective than the "left coast" anti-gun position.

    You must be referring to all the ones who want to limit freedom and support this horse hockey.
    0
  • guntech59
    Mr. Perfect wrote:
    I will never understand the support for anti-liberty I see on this forum. Never. This bill is utter trash where liberty is concerned. What makes you folks want to limit liberty like you do? Is freedom too dangerous for you? Are you scared?

    Many posters here who claim to be pro constitution/freedom/liberty are no better than the antis they so hate. They are only pro freedom as long as it's something THEY agree with. This becomes very evident when the legalize pot threads come up.

    Noticed that, too, didja? ;)
    0

Please sign in to leave a comment.

Recent Activity