Biden vs Gun Owners

[VikingsGuy]

Tactical Chad will still be shooting up dryers, he’ll just have to load his magazines more often if it ever comes to that.

OK - I got the Fudd reference, but where did "tatical Chad" come from (other than Ben's earlier post)?

 

[MTGomer]

maybe we should listen more to those ...e-bikers

I will GoFundMe and bake sale every drop of money conservation needs for the rest of my life before choosing this.

 

[MTLabrador]

Tactical Chad will still be shooting up dryers, he’ll just have to load his magazines more often if it ever comes to that.

Good thing he has a Punisher skull hat and an Uncle Mike's leg holster, really shaves time off those reloads.

 

[MTGomer]

People tend to forget the racist roots in modern gun control as well

Worth reading again.

 

[Ben Lamb]

OK - I got the Fudd reference, but where did "tatical Chad" come from (other than Ben's earlier post)?

I made it up. It's one of my skills: designing sick new t-shirts, coining new internet phrases.

I'm basically an influencer without any pro-deals.

 

[VikingsGuy]

I made it up. It's one of my skills: designing sick new t-shirts, coining new internet phrases.

I'm basically an influencer without any pro-deals.

This must stick - we must all flood the internet with "Tactical Chad" references.

 

[Ben Lamb]

This must stick - we must all flood the internet with "Tactical Chad" references.

And his wife, Kombat Karen?

 

[longbow51]

And I have yet to see the Trial Lawyer's lobbyists agree to even the tiniest of compromises - they are more absolutist than the 2A and Roe folks - and they spend a hell of a lot more money making sure they get their way. So if you and I won't solve this pragmatically for the world, then I guess there is no hope

Happy to know, that as I think was prophesied, the Viking will lie down with the Lamb and fix tort law.

 

[ImBillT]

Randy has allowed people to show their true colors for an unusually long time on this thread. I like it.

As for no 2A bills passing the senate with fewer than 60 votes...that only lasts as long as Schumer wants to stick to the current rules. I’m unaware of any reason that he can’t change senate rules and allow a bill to pass 51-50.

My primary hope is that there are enough Dems in the house who won’t mess with 2A things that the narrow Dem majority won’t get much through the house.

 

[ImBillT]

Fudd = casual gun owner, primarily owns firearms for hunting.
Owns 2-3 shot shotguns and 3-4 shot bolt-action hunting rifles, 44 magnum revolver...no high capacity magazines.
Has no interest in other types of firearms, especially high capacity magazines, machine guns, etc.
Derived from the cartoon character Elmer Fudd.

PR funds = Pittman Roberson funds derived from 11% excise tax on firearms, ammo, etc. so they do come from ammo sales to kill that bird or cow elk.

I am a "Fudd". All my hunting partners are "Fudds".

I’m making a general point, and not accusing you of being on one or other side of the issue.

I probably qualify as a Fudd myself. I do not own any semi-auto rifles or any high capacity magazines, no do I have any particular interest in doing so. That said, I very much believe that they should be allowed, and I can imagine absolutely no benefit to banning them. I further find it to be very unwise and naive for myself or any other Fudd to believe that banning any sort of currently legal firearm or magazine will not eventually lead to a limitation of Fudd rights as well. The Left has been going from point A to point B one step at a time on a number of issues for my entire lifetime and I can no longer bring myself to believe that one more step toward the edge of the cliff is okay simply because I’m not yet at the front of the line. I will therefore support the right of others to purchase and own firearms, that I have no personal interest in owning, with no further restrictions.

Unfortunately, I suspect that I am in the minority, and expect most gun owners to see some form of restrictions put in place and think to themselves that no harm was done, because their personal preferences were not violated.

 

[Cogreeny]

I’m making a general point, and not accusing you of being on one or other side of the issue.

I probably qualify as a Fudd myself. I do not own any semi-auto rifles or any high capacity magazines, no do I have any particular interest in doing so. That said, I very much believe that they should be allowed, and I can imagine absolutely no benefit to banning them. I further find it to be very unwise and naive for myself or any other Fudd to believe that banning any sort of currently legal firearm or magazine will not eventually lead to a limitation of Fudd rights as well. The Left has been going from point A to point B one step at a time on a number of issues for my entire lifetime and I can no longer bring myself to believe that one more step toward the edge of the cliff is okay simply because I’m not yet at the front of the line. I will therefore support the right of others to purchase and own firearms, that I have no personal interest in owning, with no further restrictions.

Unfortunately, I suspect that I am in the minority, and expect most gun owners to see some form of restrictions put in place and think to themselves that no harm was done, because their personal preferences were not violated.

 

[BenInMT]

Hah Tacticool Chad and Combat Karen, Gravy Seals and members of the elite Meal Team Six. now available as collectible figurines! Includes “I need a haircut“ protest sign.

 

[VikingsGuy]

Biden Signs Executive Order Allowing People To Keep Their Guns As Long As The Barrel Is Tied In A Knot

WASHINGTON D.C.—In what Democrats are calling a "brilliant compromise for gun safety," President Biden has signed an executive order allowing everyone to keep as many guns as they want-- as long as the barrels are tied in a knot.

babylonbee.com

 

[MTGomer]

Gun Regulation Survey

Answers are below but come with conditional caveats. Mainly, I can change my answer on one if another number ("higher level") was implemented. I found I can argue both sids of a lot of these pretty strongly, but they end up being tied to others. 0. YES , the government may limit my access to...

www.hunttalk.com

Hunters and gun owners are the biggest threat to hunting and gun owning.
Just like killing beautiful animals behind a high fence for a high price, threatens our ability to hunt free range elk, folks that want to ban the most common guns or that want to put legacy industry businesses like Midway and Brownells out of business and make it a crime to order ammo online and are willing to use the fact that they casually hunt between colonoscopies as some sort of cred for their position will advance the cause of gun control against us much faster than some babbling lady that thinks ghost guns shoot 50 clips a second.

 

[EKYHunter]

I’m making a general point, and not accusing you of being on one or other side of the issue.

I probably qualify as a Fudd myself. I do not own any semi-auto rifles or any high capacity magazines, no do I have any particular interest in doing so. That said, I very much believe that they should be allowed, and I can imagine absolutely no benefit to banning them. I further find it to be very unwise and naive for myself or any other Fudd to believe that banning any sort of currently legal firearm or magazine will not eventually lead to a limitation of Fudd rights as well. The Left has been going from point A to point B one step at a time on a number of issues for my entire lifetime and I can no longer bring myself to believe that one more step toward the edge of the cliff is okay simply because I’m not yet at the front of the line. I will therefore support the right of others to purchase and own firearms, that I have no personal interest in owning, with no further restrictions.

Unfortunately, I suspect that I am in the minority, and expect most gun owners to see some form of restrictions put in place and think to themselves that no harm was done, because their personal preferences were not violated.

You are exactly right. I’m amazed that lots of folks seem to ready to give away their rights one little piece at a time.

 

[JLS]

I probably need a haircut too, but I’m nowhere near Tactical Chad’s skill levels.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

This is based on the same concept of holding tobacco companies liable for how they market their products, not that people use them. Manufacturers are often held to standards, especially if they make things that can have serious health issues, in how they market those items. This stems from the actions taken by big tobacco to deny the science behind lung cancer & other health risks & their attempts to aggressively market harmful products to children.

It's a similar situation that most other industries have to live with but the firearms manufacturers have been able to keep themselves out of this situation due to the influence of NRA lobbyists, etc.

More a comment on the subject than directly to your comments.

Hard no on companies liability. If your product malfunctions under normal use and harms people you should be held liable... see Remington safeties.

I'm not 100% how I feel about marketing... but if your marketing a lawful use of your product Adds about home defense, and then guns being used for a school shooting...no.

I personally hate the "Tobacco" example, also seen it will oil and gas and it's equally as dumb.

Firearm manufactures have played fast and loose with marketing and good taste, and used scare tactics to drive up sales. I'm not sure if that breaks any law. False advertising? Slander?

 

[Pmacc60]

My question is for those who support Biden’s plan is why do you think giving up freedom is a good idea? I seriously want to know why you think law abiding people are responsible for how unlawful people act? Vikings guy you even started that it wasn’t even questioned until the 60’s and 70’s, so where did we go wrong as a nation? It blows my mind that my grandpa at 10 could walk into the hardware store and buy a single shot .22 and no one bat an eye? Or how you could order firearms and have them shipped to your house and we didn’t have the problems we have today? So obviously pandering to the left and giving in isn’t helping the situation. Every time there is one of these “discussions“ it’s always about us making concessions. Just like concealed carry it should be a nation wide thing just like driving and if it was really about safety then people would want a standard that was followed for everyone. But it‘s not. Also look at the other thread with the 30 question, there are people who think you shouldn’t be able to buy ammo online?

Well said !

 

[Pmacc60]

I’m making a general point, and not accusing you of being on one or other side of the issue.

I probably qualify as a Fudd myself. I do not own any semi-auto rifles or any high capacity magazines, no do I have any particular interest in doing so. That said, I very much believe that they should be allowed, and I can imagine absolutely no benefit to banning them. I further find it to be very unwise and naive for myself or any other Fudd to believe that banning any sort of currently legal firearm or magazine will not eventually lead to a limitation of Fudd rights as well. The Left has been going from point A to point B one step at a time on a number of issues for my entire lifetime and I can no longer bring myself to believe that one more step toward the edge of the cliff is okay simply because I’m not yet at the front of the line. I will therefore support the right of others to purchase and own firearms, that I have no personal interest in owning, with no further restrictions.

Unfortunately, I suspect that I am in the minority, and expect most gun owners to see some form of restrictions put in place and think to themselves that no harm was done, because their personal preferences were not violated.

No I think more of us agree with you ! I know I agree 100% and think you stated the point extremely well.

 

[SAJ-99]

some babbling lady that thinks ghost guns shoot 50 clips a second.

Opposite ends of the spectrum. The babbling old lady on one side and the not-one-single-law, conspiracy-believing crowd on the other.