testtest

Why You Should Remain Inside.

Snake45 said:
I know nothing about Gov. Parson. Please explain to us why you allege he is "racist." (The word has been so abused in recent years that it now says more about the person who says it than the person about whom it is said.) :oops:
Click to expand...
He’s not. Oak tree apparently thinks that pardoning those Morons was a slap in the face to the BLM mob who were coming through their private neighborhood after breaking a gate to get in. Those morons were in fact pardoned though because they were about the only people Kim Gardner tried to prosecute other than the former governor. One dude was on video shooting a guy in a car and she dropped the charges citing lack of evidence. Meanwhile she indicted a sitting governor with zero evidence, later being spanked for ethics violations, albeit too late, the guys career was ruined. Guess which one of these two cases involved a white guy? Gardner was eventually removed from office for gross dereliction of duty. Anyway, castle protected the two morons but Gardner indicted them anyway. Parsons pardoned them to avoid another racist railroad job by Gardner. At best, the female moron was guilty of brandishing as there was a photo showing her dumb ass pointing a ( inoperable) gun at someone. Yes they’re morons. No they shouldn’t have went outside. Nevertheless SYG and Castle applied.
 
Snake45 said:
I know nothing about Gov. Parson. Please explain to us why you allege he is "racist." (The word has been so abused in recent years that it now says more about the person who says it than the person about whom it is said.) :oops:
Click to expand...
I'm not going to go into the details but my statement is based on my one experience with him when he was a sheriff's deputy in a MO hillbilly county.
 
WARNING:
SEXIST STATMENT: Snowflakes do not read the state of CA. has determined that you might melt and get cancer.
I still say that if Patricia McCloskey, had been a young, good-looking, sweetie, instead of homely as a stump fence, at least half of the gun community that was finding fault with her actions would have been defending her to the hilt. ;) :LOL: :devilish:
 
bc22wm said:
WARNING:
SEXIST STATMENT: Snowflakes do not read the state of CA. has determined that you might melt and get cancer.
I still say that if Patricia McCloskey, had been a young, good-looking, sweetie, instead of homely as a stump fence, at least half of the gun community that was finding fault with her actions would have been defending her to the hilt. ;) :LOL: :devilish:
Click to expand...
No, stupid is stupid
I would have just looked at the picture longer before calling her stupid
 
bc22wm said:
WARNING:
SEXIST STATMENT: Snowflakes do not read the state of CA. has determined that you might melt and get cancer.
I still say that if Patricia McCloskey, had been a young, good-looking, sweetie, instead of homely as a stump fence, at least half of the gun community that was finding fault with her actions would have been defending her to the hilt. ;) :LOL: :devilish:
Click to expand...


I doubt that. At least around here. I guess it depends on who exactly we allow to consider themselves part of the gun community. No one I know didn't immediately say she was an idiot and no one I know didn't also agree that they should have stayed in their house. At a minimum until or unless someone began vandalizing their property. Same with Rittenhouse. I don't know anyone who believes he exercised good judgement going wandering the streets during a riot. His actions were clearly and provably self defense, but the fact remains he should never have been there in the first place.
 
Bassbob said:
I doubt that. At least around here. I guess it depends on who exactly we allow to consider themselves part of the gun community. No one I know didn't immediately say she was an idiot and no one I know didn't also agree that they should have stayed in their house. At a minimum until or unless someone began vandalizing their property. Same with Rittenhouse. I don't know anyone who believes he exercised good judgement going wandering the streets during a riot. His actions were clearly and provably self defense, but the fact remains he should never have been there in the first place.
Click to expand...
Very nice point that isn't expressed enough. My friends/group express opinions that our few non gun (daily carry and rapid ability to purchase) friends (about 4/5 which is their right and glad they feel they can express it) but all fairly avid hunters find surprising. They often assume that we will side with the stupidity. I always tell them 1 stupid act by a gun owner makes my job much harder trying to defend what I believe is mine and your rights. We probably spend as much or more time talking about the non sense than a positive action. Hope I understood your statement correctly and was able to accurately add the views from my shooting group
 
If you remain inside how do you stop someone from throwing a Molotov cocktail through a window? That would change the dynamics of the situation dramatically.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top