Unconfigured Ad Widget

Collapse

NFA guns come to Chicago

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • #16
    ja308
    I need a LIFE!!
    • Nov 2009
    • 12660

    One has to wonder how a full auto gun comes to Chicago.
    BTW I think Chicago is a great place to avoid.

    Comment

    • #17
      OlderThanDirt
      FUBAR
      CGN Contributor - Lifetime
      • Jun 2009
      • 5998

      Originally posted by ja308
      One has to wonder how a full auto gun comes to Chicago.
      BTW I think Chicago is a great place to avoid.
      We know they are lying, they know they are lying, they know we know they are lying, we know they know we know they are lying, but they are still lying. ~ Solzhenitsyn
      Thermidorian Reaction . . Prepare for it.

      Comment

      • #18
        sigstroker
        I need a LIFE!!
        • Jan 2009
        • 19859

        Yeah, it looked like an AR. Very unlikely it was a legal gun. Most people with $25,000 guns protect them well.

        Comment

        • #19
          TrappedinCalifornia
          I need a LIFE!!
          • Jan 2018
          • 10328

          Originally posted by ja308
          One has to wonder how a full auto gun comes to Chicago.
          BTW I think Chicago is a great place to avoid.
          According to the Left and the Mayor, it comes from other areas with looser gun laws. It's part of their rationale for demanding greater enforcement in all regions; 'enforcement' meaning a reduction in the guns available to the public. For them, it's not just about...

          Originally posted by OlderThanDirt
          It just shows the fallacy of trying to prevent criminals from getting illegal firearms by going after legal firearm sales and owners.
          It's about how those guns are 'stolen' from legal owners, law enforcement, and even the military. Thus, if the source is eliminated, the end user cannot obtain them.

          The problem is that criminals will always obtain the 'arms' they need or feel they need, regardless of the source. Thus, our argument is that the legal individual should be able to be 'equitably armed' in the same manner that law enforcement argues that they are being 'outgunned' by the criminals. Given that law enforcement doesn't have a positive duty to protect the individual, what's the alternative? We simply become permanent victims, with no option of self defense beyond 'hiding,' throwing books/staplers, begging, and similar?

          Why don't people such as the Mayor, AOC, etc. rely on those means and, instead, demand protection from law enforcement, the National Guard, et al.; i.e., those who are armed?

          Oh... Wait... That's a question one does not ask.

          Comment

          Working...
          UA-8071174-1