If your guns – that you presumably virtually neverneed to use – are such a ridiculously high priority to you, then your priorities are seriously out of whack. Especially since nobody’s trying to take them from you unless you’re mentally unfit to have them. Or is that the real reason for your “concern?”
Hobbyists don’t need guns at all. And, in order to preserve game species for future generations, hunters should be limited to using Stone Age bows with flint-tipped arrows, spears from the same era, and (in a bow to modernity) Louisville Sluggers, but only for bears over 1/4 of a ton.
As for self-defense, do something useful like learning situational awareness.
Can’t rebut my argument (or won’t, which may be telling), so you lamely try to move the goalposts. Hard to take you seriously after that. What happened in those places isn’t going to happen here anytime soon (at least not with regard to guns). There are plenty of other much more pressing issues that should be higher in your priory list.
BTW in case you didn’t notice, I’m not the person you were talking to a couple comments back.
Riiggghhhhttttt. Ignoring the fact that the distant future is almost completely unpredictable makes people less skeptical. Make sense.
🙄
For those of us grounded in reality, the likelihood of gun ownership being forbidden anytime in the foreseeable future – especially when there are so many millions of people out there with them already – is extremely unlikely.
At the risk of sounding like a “think of the children” argument (which, ironically, that side of the political spectrum loves to misuse), I don’t believe anyone sane wants mentally unfit people to have access to guns.
The strawman, he’s long dead.
That’s hilarious coming from a Canadian where it’s difficult to get or even keep anything other than a pellet gun.
If your guns – that you presumably virtually never need to use – are such a ridiculously high priority to you, then your priorities are seriously out of whack. Especially since nobody’s trying to take them from you unless you’re mentally unfit to have them. Or is that the real reason for your “concern?”
Hobbyists don’t need guns at all. And, in order to preserve game species for future generations, hunters should be limited to using Stone Age bows with flint-tipped arrows, spears from the same era, and (in a bow to modernity) Louisville Sluggers, but only for bears over 1/4 of a ton.
As for self-defense, do something useful like learning situational awareness.
Wow, tell us you don’t understand herd management at all.
Wow, tell us you don’t understand sarcasm at all.
Yes, why don’t you since you don’t know how to use it.
They have in Canada and Australia. Aren’t those the places you keep creaming your pants about, hoping the same policies happen here?
Can’t rebut my argument (or won’t, which may be telling), so you lamely try to move the goalposts. Hard to take you seriously after that. What happened in those places isn’t going to happen here anytime soon (at least not with regard to guns). There are plenty of other much more pressing issues that should be higher in your priory list.
BTW in case you didn’t notice, I’m not the person you were talking to a couple comments back.
See, it’s saying things like that that’s making people like them skeptical.
Riiggghhhhttttt. Ignoring the fact that the distant future is almost completely unpredictable makes people less skeptical. Make sense.
🙄
For those of us grounded in reality, the likelihood of gun ownership being forbidden anytime in the foreseeable future – especially when there are so many millions of people out there with them already – is extremely unlikely.
At the risk of sounding like a “think of the children” argument (which, ironically, that side of the political spectrum loves to misuse), I don’t believe anyone sane wants mentally unfit people to have access to guns.