Hunter said:
AZ1182 said:
Depends on where one sits as far as "legal" is being defined as. Not a serial, not legally purchased using the current systems in place, is most likely why this is being done by the ATF.
If anyone get's triggered by what In said, I spoke the message, not an opinion, so simma down please. I did NOT say where I stood on this so that's on YOU and not me for not being able to read critically and instead is doing so, emotionally.
I define a legal firearm as any type of man portable weapon designed to discharge any type of projectile regardless of size, length, caliber, method of propulsion, rate of fire in any fire control position, including full automatic, as legal for any person currently residing within the borders of the united States
I define legal possession of such weapon as any person not currently incarcerated for a crime that involves a specific victim, not including "the state", which is still incarcerated for said crime. Once freed, all rights restored without question or petition!
I fully support the abolition of the ATF simply because the constitution does not prescribe there existence!
Does that sum up what you wanted to say?
The time to grow a pair is now. If you're on the fence cause some meth head may get a gun while real criminals just stole an election right in front of you, and are laughing at you, the real problem is you!
It's time to be ungovernable
You wasted that no nobody. You in effect, got triggered and chose to go on the offensive, at someone that was neither against you nor with you, and was only posting a message from an apolitical point of view.
Good job, buddy.
I suggest next time, you actually read. Slowly. So slow that you can finally figure it out that my post was not taking sides, and only using rationale thought deduction. I even had to type it out that my post was apolitically a message and not my stance, and still I have to explain it to someone. SMH...wow.
Now if you wanted to hear my opinion, how about you actually ask? Because instead of using a manufactured straw man to go off at me, whose "crime" is posting what possibly was happening from an unbiased and insightful POV, you chose to make an assumption based on failed reading comprehension of what I had said.
FYI: I never said it was wrong or right, 'lil fella.
As for where you stand on the issue, I don't give a care where you side on this. Pro or against, you're allowed your opinion. Just as I'm allowed mine. However in this case,
I NEVER GAVE MY OPINION ON IT.
Next time, don't try so hard to war with your own side, or is eating our own a winning strategy for some here? That's a bold move I must say. Let's see how it pans out when a call to action is made and bodies needed, and see who shows up and whom does not. Hint, now is not the time to fight people over self imagined slights that never occurred.