Kentucky Armory Club

WLJ wrote:Okay guys, anything else that needs to be said?
The 90 days part may or not be CNN BS. We shall see

President Donald Trump is expected to announce that he will be signing a ban on bump stocks that gives Americans 90 days to hand them over or otherwise dispose of them.

CNN reports that Trump is now preparing to sign the ban and it will outlaw the firearm accessories without a grandfathering option. CNN quotes a source that indicates “members of the public will be given 90 days to turn in or otherwise discard their bump stocks.”

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2018 ... n-them-in/

Really like to know how they plan on enforcing a ban on a piece of plastic


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

ssracer wrote:

WLJ wrote:Okay guys, anything else that needs to be said?
The 90 days part may or not be CNN BS. We shall see

President Donald Trump is expected to announce that he will be signing a ban on bump stocks that gives Americans 90 days to hand them over or otherwise dispose of them.

CNN reports that Trump is now preparing to sign the ban and it will outlaw the firearm accessories without a grandfathering option. CNN quotes a source that indicates “members of the public will be given 90 days to turn in or otherwise discard their bump stocks.”

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2018 ... n-them-in/

Really like to know how they plan on enforcing a ban on a piece of plastic.

I strongly suspect that virtually all of the window-lickers who own these things are Trump supporters.

If and when he tells them to give them up, they'll gladly comply with their Tangerine Tyrant.

Problem solved.

Last election it was either Trump or Hillary.
Let me know when you find a viable candidate who's views mesh 100% with yours and is guaranteed 100% never to do anything you disagree with.
Trump is running somewhere around 80-90% with me.

WLJ wrote:Last election it was either Trump or Hillary.
Let me know when you find a viable candidate who's views mesh 100% with yours and is guaranteed 100% never to do anything you disagree with.
Trump is running somewhere around 80-90% with me.

Why can’t I hate Trump and Clinton equally?

Because I do.

Frailer wrote:

WLJ wrote:Last election it was either Trump or Hillary.
Let me know when you find a viable candidate who's views mesh 100% with yours and is guaranteed 100% never to do anything you disagree with.
Trump is running somewhere around 80-90% with me.

Why can’t I hate Trump and Clinton equally?

Because I do.

You don't hate HRC just a little bit more?

WLJ wrote:

Frailer wrote:

WLJ wrote:Last election it was either Trump or Hillary.
Let me know when you find a viable candidate who's views mesh 100% with yours and is guaranteed 100% never to do anything you disagree with.
Trump is running somewhere around 80-90% with me.

Why can’t I hate Trump and Clinton equally?

Because I do.

You don't hate HRC just a little bit more?

Not especially. They’ve both crossed the point of no return with me. Neither of them have any standards of ethics, which is my #1 requirement in a president.

rustynuts wrote:Yep. They did. I guess I'll burn my last pair of Levi's.

I just won't buy their stuff but me wearing something that nobody will even be able to tell isn't a big deal. Especially since they already got my money, I will use the product up.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

ssracer wrote:

WLJ wrote:Okay guys, anything else that needs to be said?
The 90 days part may or not be CNN BS. We shall see

President Donald Trump is expected to announce that he will be signing a ban on bump stocks that gives Americans 90 days to hand them over or otherwise dispose of them.

CNN reports that Trump is now preparing to sign the ban and it will outlaw the firearm accessories without a grandfathering option. CNN quotes a source that indicates “members of the public will be given 90 days to turn in or otherwise discard their bump stocks.”

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2018 ... n-them-in/

Really like to know how they plan on enforcing a ban on a piece of plastic


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

The same way they do with drugs.

Oh wait

So what 2 old regulations did he get rid of for this one new one?

Orange Man Bad!

Frailer wrote: I strongly suspect that virtually all of the window-lickers who own these things are Trump supporters.

Do you always have to insult someone when u make a post?

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

Frailer wrote:

WLJ wrote:

Frailer wrote:

WLJ wrote:Last election it was either Trump or Hillary.
Let me know when you find a viable candidate who's views mesh 100% with yours and is guaranteed 100% never to do anything you disagree with.
Trump is running somewhere around 80-90% with me.

Why can’t I hate Trump and Clinton equally?

Because I do.

You don't hate HRC just a little bit more?

Not especially. They’ve both crossed the point of no return with me. Neither of them have any standards of ethics, which is my #1 requirement in a president.

Word.

Moral principles are what screwed this country up with the previous admin.

New York Senate Bill Would Require $1 Million Liability Insurance Policy for Gun Owners
https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2018/ ... un-owners/

§ 2353. FIREARM OWNERS INSURANCE POLICIES. 1. ANY PERSON IN THIS STATE WHO SHALL OWN A FIREARM SHALL, PRIOR TO SUCH OWNERSHIP, OBTAIN AND CONTINUOUSLY MAINTAIN A POLICY OF LIABILITY INSURANCE IN AN AMOUNT NOT LESS THAN ONE MILLION DOLLARS SPECIFICALLY COVERING ANY DAMAGES RESULTING FROM ANY NEGLIGENT OR WILLFUL ACTS INVOLVING THE USE OF SUCH FIREARM WHILE IT IS OWNED BY SUCH PERSON. FAILURE TO MAINTAIN SUCH INSURANCE SHALL RESULT IN THE IMMEDIATE REVOCATION OF SUCH OWNER’S REGISTRATION, LICENSE AND ANY OTHER PRIVILEGE TO OWN SUCH FIREARM.

Hey, I got a better idea, how about requiring thugs to purchase thug insurance?

WLJ wrote:New York Senate Bill Would Require $1 Million Liability Insurance Policy for Gun Owners
https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2018/ ... un-owners/

§ 2353. FIREARM OWNERS INSURANCE POLICIES. 1. ANY PERSON IN THIS STATE WHO SHALL OWN A FIREARM SHALL, PRIOR TO SUCH OWNERSHIP, OBTAIN AND CONTINUOUSLY MAINTAIN A POLICY OF LIABILITY INSURANCE IN AN AMOUNT NOT LESS THAN ONE MILLION DOLLARS SPECIFICALLY COVERING ANY DAMAGES RESULTING FROM ANY NEGLIGENT OR WILLFUL ACTS INVOLVING THE USE OF SUCH FIREARM WHILE IT IS OWNED BY SUCH PERSON. FAILURE TO MAINTAIN SUCH INSURANCE SHALL RESULT IN THE IMMEDIATE REVOCATION OF SUCH OWNER’S REGISTRATION, LICENSE AND ANY OTHER PRIVILEGE TO OWN SUCH FIREARM.

Hey, I got a better idea, how about requiring thugs to purchase thug insurance?

I wonder how many insurance companies there are that will insure against negligence and willful acts?

My guess is none.

FWIW after doing a little research it seems this bill has been introduced in at least three previous legislative sessions but has yet to make it out of committee.

Frailer wrote:

WLJ wrote:New York Senate Bill Would Require $1 Million Liability Insurance Policy for Gun Owners
https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2018/ ... un-owners/

§ 2353. FIREARM OWNERS INSURANCE POLICIES. 1. ANY PERSON IN THIS STATE WHO SHALL OWN A FIREARM SHALL, PRIOR TO SUCH OWNERSHIP, OBTAIN AND CONTINUOUSLY MAINTAIN A POLICY OF LIABILITY INSURANCE IN AN AMOUNT NOT LESS THAN ONE MILLION DOLLARS SPECIFICALLY COVERING ANY DAMAGES RESULTING FROM ANY NEGLIGENT OR WILLFUL ACTS INVOLVING THE USE OF SUCH FIREARM WHILE IT IS OWNED BY SUCH PERSON. FAILURE TO MAINTAIN SUCH INSURANCE SHALL RESULT IN THE IMMEDIATE REVOCATION OF SUCH OWNER’S REGISTRATION, LICENSE AND ANY OTHER PRIVILEGE TO OWN SUCH FIREARM.

Hey, I got a better idea, how about requiring thugs to purchase thug insurance?

I wonder how many insurance companies there are that will insure against negligence and willful acts?

My guess is none.

FWIW after doing a little research it seems this bill has been introduced in at least three previous legislative sessions but has yet to make it out of committee.

Well since it seems no will insure you, NO GUNS FOR YOU!

You should of have let Hillary win and none of this would have happened

BREAKING: Trump Administration Announces Bump Stock Ban
https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2018/ ... stock-ban/

WLJ wrote:You should of have let Hillary win and none of this would have happened

BREAKING: Trump Administration Announces Bump Stock Ban
https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2018/ ... stock-ban/

I know *you* were making a joke, but in all seriousness the "at least we don't have Hillary" argument from the Trump-ites is wearing a little thin.

As Dr. Seuss said, "Tyranny is tyranny...whatever the source." (Or words to that effect.)

Frailer wrote:

WLJ wrote:You should of have let Hillary win and none of this would have happened

BREAKING: Trump Administration Announces Bump Stock Ban
https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2018/ ... stock-ban/

I know *you* were making a joke, but in all seriousness the "at least we don't have Hillary" argument from the Trump-ites is wearing a little thin.

As Dr. Seuss said, "Tyranny is tyranny...whatever the source." (Or words to that effect.)

You do realize there was not a third option right? I agree with you but as it stood and as our political system stands there is no third option, just pick from the 2 "they" give us. Needs to change yesterday but thats what it is.

Rem700 wrote:

Frailer wrote:

WLJ wrote:You should of have let Hillary win and none of this would have happened

BREAKING: Trump Administration Announces Bump Stock Ban
https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2018/ ... stock-ban/

I know *you* were making a joke, but in all seriousness the "at least we don't have Hillary" argument from the Trump-ites is wearing a little thin.

As Dr. Seuss said, "Tyranny is tyranny...whatever the source." (Or words to that effect.)

You do realize there was not a third option right? I agree with you but as it stood and as our political system stands there is no third option, just pick from the 2 "they" give us. Needs to change yesterday but thats what it is.

Unfortunately I have a feeling choosing from two sides of the same coin isn’t going to change without the tree of liberty getting some fresh water...it’s been allowed to go on far too long to be changed through less messy methods. But that’s just my opinion.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Rem700 wrote:

Frailer wrote:

WLJ wrote:You should of have let Hillary win and none of this would have happened

BREAKING: Trump Administration Announces Bump Stock Ban
https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2018/ ... stock-ban/

I know *you* were making a joke, but in all seriousness the "at least we don't have Hillary" argument from the Trump-ites is wearing a little thin.

As Dr. Seuss said, "Tyranny is tyranny...whatever the source." (Or words to that effect.)

You do realize there was not a third option right? I agree with you but as it stood and as our political system stands there is no third option, just pick from the 2 "they" give us. Needs to change yesterday but thats what it is.

I'm not talking about what happened two years ago; I'm talking about *now*.

If you voted for Trump in 2016 because you thought he was the only viable option, fine. But if you *continue* to support him regardless of what he does you are--in my opinion--a hypocrite. Or an idiot. Or both.

I voted for Obama in 2008, but after the unconstitutional Affordable Care Act--or, as I call it, "The Tax on Breathing"--I was done with him. My ego is in no way tied to who I voted for in the previous election.

By contrast, there seems to be nothing Trump can do--even things that would have had folks reaching for their torches and pitchforks had Obama done them--that will cause his supporters to bail.

Remember when Trump said "I could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn't lose voters"? It appears he was right.

IF the Dems run Beto or Biden or Michelle against trump....or another Hillary run...

I won't vote for any of those....will you?

Build the wall

Frailer wrote:

Rem700 wrote:

Frailer wrote:

WLJ wrote:You should of have let Hillary win and none of this would have happened

BREAKING: Trump Administration Announces Bump Stock Ban
https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2018/ ... stock-ban/

I know *you* were making a joke, but in all seriousness the "at least we don't have Hillary" argument from the Trump-ites is wearing a little thin.

As Dr. Seuss said, "Tyranny is tyranny...whatever the source." (Or words to that effect.)

You do realize there was not a third option right? I agree with you but as it stood and as our political system stands there is no third option, just pick from the 2 "they" give us. Needs to change yesterday but thats what it is.

I'm not talking about what happened two years ago; I'm talking about *now*.

If you voted for Trump in 2016 because you thought he was the only viable option, fine. But if you *continue* to support him regardless of what he does you are--in my opinion--a hypocrite. Or an idiot. Or both.

I voted for Obama in 2008, but after the unconstitutional Affordable Care Act--or, as I call it, "The Tax on Breathing"--I was done with him. My ego is in no way tied to who I voted for in the previous election.

By contrast, there seems to be nothing Trump can do--even things that would have had folks reaching for their torches and pitchforks had Obama done them--that will cause his supporters to bail.

Remember when Trump said "I could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn't lose voters"? It appears he was right.

Me thinks you lump "everyone" into groups too easily. I agree and am happy and proud of many things Trump has done, at the same time i am against some of what he has done as well. There will never be a politician i agree 100% with (unless it were myself and that aint happening). No one is perfect and no one can understand all sides to all issues. At his core i believe he is doing what he thinks is best for the people and the economy, i could be wrong. But at no time did i feel Obama or Bush did what was right for the people or economy, i think they did what their handlers told them to do.

The bump stock ban i am against wholeheartedly and i think he will realize he hurt his voters with it eventually, but i think it was also one of those issues he might not fully understand the repercussions, or he is playing his 3D chess again and he knows it will get stopped by the SCOTUS. Time will tell.

Frailer wrote:But if you *continue* to support him regardless of what he does you are--in my opinion--a hypocrite. Or an idiot. Or both.

Once again... you can't seem to make an informative post without criticizing or degrading others. Is this a defensive mechanism or are you truly so narcissistic as to believe that you're better than everyone else on here?

I voted for Trump and he's doing EXACTLY what I voted him in for; build the wall, improve the economy, fix one-sided trade deals, resist the squeaky-wheel social justice tactics the left is using, and make America great again. Whatever happens with Russia will be dealt with when all the facts come to light. His tweets are at the very least what's on his mind rather than some prepared version of bullshit we're normally fed. He also supports our troops emphatically.

Those are the qualities I voted for, and in no way do I consider myself a hypocrite. Or an idiot. Or both.