I am a gun owner (nine) and am not anti-gun. I am anti-assault weapons that were made for military purposes, not hunting.
Monte A. Anderson
Douglas, Wyo.
In other words, Monte, you're ignorant as to the purpose of the Second Amendment and not afraid to show it. If those of us who do not share your arrogant empty-headedness fail, I wouldn't count on holding on to those nine guns you say you own.
And forgive me if I take the story about your son with a grain of salt or two...
7 comments:
"Just don't hurt me or take my guns away and I'll be on your side!!!"
I agree that this guy's story sounds really fishy. I don't know about you, but I smell astroturf.
The guy is just another person that is ignorant of the True intent of our Right. He is getting an enlightenment on the commentary section below the article.
I sure hope this maroon doesn't use a "sniper rifle" for hunting.
After all, bolt-action rifles were designed for military applications, and are still used as such.
Things don't quite add up. His son bought a full-auto receiver kit at a gun show? I don't think so. Maybe a caliber conversion kit. And the "property damage" he equates with the "assault rifle" in the group seems fishy, too.
A drive-by included non-sporting weapons? Could he identify anything? Nope. He tells us what wasn't there, with no indication of what was there.
It's kind of funny that this guy has this particularly convenient set of experiences to draw from. I'm surprised he didn't mention the death of a friend or something. That would've tied it all together so nicely.
Full-Auto kits are readily available at shows and on the net. They usually are missing a key component however. Such as the sear.
Chuckleheads like this are so self-centered, it makes me sick. Just like Kent said a few comments ago.
They also lack the fortitude to stand up to people like the Jr. Senator from New York, using an excuse like she'll only ban "bad" guns.
Post a Comment