Are 248 firearms enough?

I know a guy who had 3 FN FAL's and he put some banned flash suppressor on all three, the ATF came to his house and confiscated all three. He had to put different flash suppressors on all three but he got all 3 back. I remember he had to pay over $2000 for the privilege.
I dont get your point,,

the 2nd A doesnt allow such violations of peoples rights,,
 
Is 248 guns and one million rounds enough? I don't know, but 11 machine guns and some grenades are definitely not allowed in California.

This guy was apparently prohibited from owning firearms, at least in Cali., and will be looking at some serious time.



Depends.....do you want 249......250?
 
You know, I tried being civil.

You're insufferable.
sounds more like youre a fucking idiot,,
in one thread youre asking if we have enough ammo to kill a chinese military if they attack us and in another youre advocating for taking ammo and guns away from a guy that had enough for himself and several others,,

so fucking idiot sounds like a good discription for you,,
 
248 guns?


If we outlawed criminals, dopeheads and crazy people then anyone could own any amount of guns they want and it wouldn't be an issue because our society wouldn't allow those that want to go out and hurt others. When you have a society of decent people then you don't need gun laws.
 
Is 248 guns and one million rounds enough? I don't know, but 11 machine guns and some grenades are definitely not allowed in California.

This guy was apparently prohibited from owning firearms, at least in Cali., and will be looking at some serious time.


Those "gun control" laws worked great, right?
 
Is 248 guns and one million rounds enough? I don't know, but 11 machine guns and some grenades are definitely not allowed in California.

This guy was apparently prohibited from owning firearms, at least in Cali., and will be looking at some serious time.

Ask yourself, "How many hands do I have and how many enemies want to break into my house?".

The first is two and the second answer is less than two. So does someone need more than one or two guns??
 
Ask yourself, "How many hands do I have and how many enemies want to break into my house?".

The first is two and the second answer is less than two. So does someone need more than one or two guns??
of course they need more,,

\that number is for each person to decide and you can go fuck yourself if you dont like it,,
 
Is 248 guns and one million rounds enough? I don't know, but 11 machine guns and some grenades are definitely not allowed in California.

This guy was apparently prohibited from owning firearms, at least in Cali., and will be looking at some serious time.

He's really scared, isn't he?
 
Is 248 guns and one million rounds enough? I don't know, but 11 machine guns and some grenades are definitely not allowed in California.

This guy was apparently prohibited from owning firearms, at least in Cali., and will be looking at some serious time.

If you were to take away the fact that he was prohibited from owning firearms, I wouldn't see a problem with 248 firearms and one million rounds of ammunition.
As for eleven machine guns and some grenades, my personal stance is, as long as you are not committing crimes with them, the law-abiding public should be allowed to own them.
As to why I have what you would consider a radical stance on the latter issue, it's because the Bill of Rights Second Amendment makes it clear that the public can own and carry weapons so that they can form militias and fight to keep their state, FREE.
So, if a corrupt, tyrannical government were to take over a state, then it would be the duty of the private citizens to rise up and forcibly remove the corrupt, tyrannical government leave.
 
I’m almost halfway there but I have no cowboy guns ( Both Real or Historic) and no (Real Deal Hunting Rifles )
 
If you were to take away the fact that he was prohibited from owning firearms, I wouldn't see a problem with 248 firearms and one million rounds of ammunition.
As for eleven machine guns and some grenades, my personal stance is, as long as you are not committing crimes with them, the law-abiding public should be allowed to own them.
As to why I have what you would consider a radical stance on the latter issue, it's because the Bill of Rights Second Amendment makes it clear that the public can own and carry weapons so that they can form militias and fight to keep their state, FREE.
So, if a corrupt, tyrannical government were to take over a state, then it would be the duty of the private citizens to rise up and forcibly remove the corrupt, tyrannical government leave.
I wonder why they dont say why us prohibited from owning guns??
 

Forum List

Back
Top