*principal
Kut (had to, he's principled like that)
You to?
*principal
Kut (had to, he's principled like that)
*principal
Kut (had to, he's principled like that)
So it's okay to call the police on a kid getting into a van. Because one drove into a crowd.
There is no anti van movement I am aware of. I don't think there are millions of Americans who've never driven a motor vehicle and have an irrational fear of them.
There IS an anti gun movement. There ARE millions of American who have never held or shot a gun, many with an irrational fear of them who are not necessarily against them.
In a community that just went through what this one did, this kid's actions will move many from the not necessarily against them category to the anti side.
Add ghuns to the esteemed group of the blue-checkmarked lawyer and MSD teacher who claim ignorance of any difference between Kyle Kashuv posting pictures of learning firearm handling and safety at a gun range, under the supervision of his father, and the MSD murderer who posted pictures of his guns while making explicit and implied threats to others.
There is no anti van movement I am aware of. I don't think there are millions of Americans who've never driven a motor vehicle and have an irrational fear of them.
There IS an anti gun movement. There ARE millions of American who have never held or shot a gun, many with an irrational fear of them who are not necessarily against them.
In a community that just went through what this one did, this kid's actions will move many from the not necessarily against them category to the anti side.
I guess you missed the part where I said, It's easy for us, on a gun owners forum 1000 miles away, to look at the kid's post and see that this is not that.
I get it. You get it. But there are people in that community who don't. People who just saw 34 kids shot. Beating them over head with our rights, safe gun handling practices, and the finer points of a real assault weapon vs an AR-15 does NO good.
Well, we need to stop allowing them to set the battlefield.
A car kills you, you are just as dead.
It is still a mass, times a velocity, equals a kinetic energy.
It's only "different" because they say it is, and we let them.
It's only "different" because they drive cars, and are familiar with them. So they stop accepting that vehicles are DANGEROUS. yet they are.
Okay, this is something that belongs on the list-o-stuff that makes you too ignorant to discuss guns. If you say, "But that's different because cars werne't designed to kill people." that makes you too ignorant to join the discussion with the adults. 100 million gun owners use their guns to kill people less often than car owners with cars. Dead is dead.
Okay. I read the first line and I was.. WTF
Then I read the rest.
Guy at work asked me, how many guns do I have.
I said, more than a few, less than a lot. Or something like that.
He said he thought I should only be "allowed" a pistol and a long gun.
I asked him how many cars he had.
4
I said I thought he should only be allowed a car and a truck.
He said, his cars NEVER killed anyone.
I told him, NEITHER HAVE MY GUNS.
Well. I figured we weren't using bold text anymore to say what we're talking about so...
You should know that I use "you" rhetorically very often. Sorry about the ambiguity. Wouldn't want you to be triggered.
Seriously. Yep. That guy is too ignorant to join in a discussion about guns.
I guess you missed the part where I said, It's easy for us, on a gun owners forum 1000 miles away, to look at the kid's post and see that this is not that.
I get it. You get it. But there are people in that community who don't. People who just saw 34 kids shot. Beating them over head with our rights, safe gun handling practices, and the finer points of a real assault weapon vs an AR-15 does NO good.
I don't bold stuff or use purple, so.... I would feel like I am underestimating the brilliance of the INGO participants.
By the way. Please contribute via the link below, to the crowd sourced list-o-ignorant reasons for or against gun control which makes [STRIKE]you[/STRIKE] one* too ignorant to join the discussion.
https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...oo-ignorant-discuss-gun-laws.html#post7509943
* Adjusted phrasing for Act
If something is really nuanced such that it's really likely for my meaning to be taken wrong, I'll use purple. Those are very rare circumstances. Usually if people can't figure it out I'm being sarcastic, or joking, they probably spend their whole life offended.
But I do often bold text if it's not that obvious what I'm referring to. And I meant to bold the reply to Act. Because it's easy to take it to mean the whole post rather than just the guy Act was talking about.
Also. I like to go into great detail about trivial side-issues in threads.
No bold text was used in this reply.
If something is really nuanced such that it's really likely for my meaning to be taken wrong, I'll use purple. Those are very rare circumstances. Usually if people can't figure it out I'm being sarcastic, or joking, they probably spend their whole life offended.
But I do often bold text if it's not that obvious what I'm referring to. And I meant to bold the reply to Act. Because it's easy to take it to mean the whole post rather than just the guy Act was talking about.
Also. I like to go into great detail about trivial side-issues in threads.
No bold text was used in this reply.
Is this really a thing now? How long have members been bolding text from posts they are quoting?