Freedom Convoy

[ferraiolo1]

The first post was a political bait. Sooo all of them


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[theblet]

Page 1 I would say

 

[TNRamGuy]

Was there a topic?

 

[Mountain Whiskey]

Was there a topic?

Yes. We were seeing how much kool-aid JB could chug.

 

[jloops]

I’m surprised how many responses that clown has gotten when all of his posts appear to be just gas lighting. He’s probably sitting in his mom’s basement smoking crack with Hunter while having a good laugh.

 

[Mountain Whiskey]

I’m surprised how many responses that clown has gotten when all of his posts appear to be just gas lighting. He’s probably sitting in his mom’s basement smoking crack with Hunter while having a good laugh.

Partying with Hunter!

 

[Mountain Whiskey]

Halloween at JB's house.

 

[theblet]

He will be missed

 

[CrazyWorld]

Maybe, but arbitrary magazine capacity restrictions aren't the answer. Pretending that regulation on vehicles justifies regulation on firearms isn't the answer either.

But you know that...

I'd just like you to admit this is more about making sure people can't buy guns you don't think they should have than about anyone's safety. That's what it's always about and you aren't clever or unique in hiding behind kids to push it.

I think you are wrong......I believe we need further restrictions and you and I will never agree to that.....people will be safer with stronger restrictions. As for gun ownership......you are incorrect......I think people should be able to buy guns....I do.....but capacities should be limitied......I also believe that I will never have my guns taken away......the NRA hype and fear is total BS. Your comment about hiding behind kids is cute......it's like saying the founding fathers wanted us to have unrestricted guns and that they understood today's current issues.

 

[CrazyWorld]

So like I said you prefer only alternative facts that suit your opinion. Any facts that disprove your opinion are labeled "misleading".

Mirror mirror on the walll.......looks like HSKR has taken a fall.

 

[ferraiolo1]

Hey all…I’m just curious how many pages would I need to go back in this thread to find the original topic. Any ideas?

Kill it please


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[CrazyWorld]

Halloween at JB's house.
View attachment 123953

How do you confuse Moutain Whiskey? You don't.....he was born that way.

source: http://www.jokes4us.com/politicaljokes/republicanjokes.html

 

[CrazyWorld]

Yes. We were seeing how much kool-aid JB could chug.View attachment 123945

Or how much bleach MW injected.

 

[CrazyWorld]

I’m surprised how many responses that clown has gotten when all of his posts appear to be just gas lighting. He’s probably sitting in his mom’s basement smoking crack with Hunter while having a good laugh.

I don't hang with Hunter or Donny Jr.......both are clowns and do drugs.

 

[SnowBlaZR2]

I think you are wrong......I believe we need further restrictions and you and I will never agree to that.....people will be safer with stronger restrictions. As for gun ownership......you are incorrect......I think people should be able to buy guns....I do.....but capacities should be limitied......I also believe that I will never have my guns taken away......the NRA hype and fear is total BS. Your comment about hiding behind kids is cute......it's like saying the founding fathers wanted us to have unrestricted guns and that they understood today's current issues.

You can think whatever you want, but you have yet to support the assertion that "people will be safer" with something like an arbitrary ban on standard capacity magazines. You're arguing with emotion, and you aren't ever going to convince anyone who doesn't "feel" what you feel. If the statistics supported anything you have to say, you'd have provided them by now.

I'm sure you do believe people should be able to buy some guns. That's why I explicitly limited my statement to "guns you don't think they should have." You're fine with everyone having the guns you have, because you find them useful. You seem to draw the line at anything you personally deem as unnecessary. That's not how our rights work, thankfully.

The Founding Fathers had enough forethought to understand that they needed to remain technology neutral. By the way, I really hope this is where you start rattling off some talking point about muskets or nuclear weapons.

Either way, I'm still not sure why you're on this "unrestricted guns" kick. Are you honestly under the impression that firearms aren't restricted? You sound like one of those people who thinks I can walk into a gun shop and buy a rifle as easy as I'd buy a Snickers.

 

[SnowBlaZR2]

Kill it please


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Nah.

 

[HSKR R/T]

Mirror mirror on the walll.......looks like HSKR has taken a fall.

This comment makes no sense, but coming from you, shouldn't have expected any less.

 

[Mountain Whiskey]

This comment makes no sense, but coming from you, shouldn't have expected any less.

Yea, I haven't read any "sense" posted by him yet.

 

[Shots]

Just think how many more people would die each year in car accidents without all the restrictions placed on manufacturers and applicable enforced laws......thanks for making my point.

Look at you, pretending firearms are unregulated.

......but current laws are not adequately enforced and new regulations are needed for sure. The key is enforcement......

And the same argument could be made for automobile safety, which was my point. Yes cars are regulated and we're all safer because of it. Likewise, guns are also regulated and we're all safer because of it.
At what point do you stop regulating though? At an all out ban, or so heavily regulated that everyone must do/have (or nobody can do/have) whatever is being regulated? No, that's not the answer either.
I certainly don't think it should be a free for all (with guns or cars). However, proposed regulations on anything should have something substantial to back them. Using the capacity limit as an example. What specifically lead you to believe that limiting rounds will help? Is there something about reload times which would significantly increase a potential victim's chance of escape, is it because you believe the assailant would only carry 10 total rounds, or is there something else? How did you get to the number 10? Was this based on studies that show 11 rounds or more are needed to kill multiple people, or is it an arbitrary number that "sounded" good or was proposed by some other source? If it just sounded good, then that's an okay place to start a study. That would be similar to the government saying they want to reduce the maximum speed limit to 45 nationwide. Why 45? Did a study show 46+ caused more deaths, or did it sound good? Do a study to see if there's some merit to the proposal, but don't snap to that regulation without justification.

I'm not opposed to researched, studied and supported regulations. I'm just saying the government can't control everything, nor should they. Somewhere along the line, that means they shouldn't be imposing regulations.
And to bring the thread full circle for SpeedyV. That includes mask mandates, which is why the convoy and this thread started.

Hey all…I’m just curious how many pages would I need to go back in this thread to find the original topic. Any ideas?

No need to go back at all, it's been here all along. And now you only need to look up a line or two.

 

[CrazyWorld]

You can think whatever you want, but you have yet to support the assertion that "people will be safer" with something like an arbitrary ban on standard capacity magazines. You're arguing with emotion, and you aren't ever going to convince anyone who doesn't "feel" what you feel. If the statistics supported anything you have to say, you'd have provided them by now.

I'm sure you do believe people should be able to buy some guns. That's why I explicitly limited my statement to "guns you don't think they should have." You're fine with everyone having the guns you have, because you find them useful. You seem to draw the line at anything you personally deem as unnecessary. That's not how our rights work, thankfully.

The Founding Fathers had enough forethought to understand that they needed to remain technology neutral. By the way, I really hope this is where you start rattling off some talking point about muskets or nuclear weapons.

Either way, I'm still not sure why you're on this "unrestricted guns" kick. Are you honestly under the impression that firearms aren't restricted? You sound like one of those people who thinks I can walk into a gun shop and buy a rifle as easy as I'd buy a Snickers.

You make many incorrect assumptions in your post....BTW....thanks for your permission to think whatever you want.......I feel much better. Almost everything you say can be applied to your comments.....you argue with emotion.....you aren't going to convince anyone who doesn't feel what you feel.....you personally draw the line at anything you want......etc.....
As for the founding fathers......how do you know what they thought.....total BS......I believe they were smart men who would adjust their thinking to modern day problems if they were still alive......something you seem to have difficulty doing. I love the Snickers comment......you emotional guy you.