Your interpretation of my posts are consistently unique .
Is your argument that until firearms misuse results in the number of casualties inflicted by a terrorist bombing of a plane that it is of no consequence?
It has been stated that the requirement to be armed rests on the freedom to oppose a tyrannical government but all I am seeing is the stockpiling of arms and ammunition in response to social insecurity.
I have already stated that your right to arm yourself is of no consequence to me so fill your boots, your government on the whole makes that easy for you to do.What I am also saying is that I do not wish that state of affairs to be the case in Scotland for reasons I have given ad nauseam. Should you wish to debate that point feel free but I would prefer you did not use that opinion as an excuse for your far right views and Democrat bashing that you are so well known for.
Ah, so you've changed your mind, and now you really do wish to engage in political discussions. It gets terribly confusing when you can't remain at all consistent.
My example of the far greater threat posed by Muslim terror attacks versus firearms attacks was simply to illustrate that you seem only concerned with the number of lives that can be saved by banning guns. Perhaps some future killer will use a Citori over/under, and then you can give up your guns too, instead of simply being willing to sacrifice the guns formerly owned by other gun owners.
You may prefer for me to not engage in Democrat and Libtard bashing, but since they are the ones almost entirely responsible for the attempts to infringe upon the Constitutional Firearms Rights of law abiding citizens, I'm afraid I won't be able to comply with your request. Of course, my distaste for Democrats and Libtards transcends their attempts to outlaw entire classes of guns, ammunition, hunting, etc.
If you find that problematic, you can always go to 16 Gauge Society or Upland Journal. BrentD says he really loves Upland Journal. I guess that's why he spends hundreds of hours here.
