I hadnt realized how bad the gouging had gotten until yesterday

two fingers said:
I don't know how much ammo anyone here has, nor when they got it. I also said that I DON'T KNOW WHERE THE LINE IS.

English is my only language. But I have a pretty firm grasp on it. If you're offended by what I said, that's on you.
Click to expand...

Yeah...but the problem is your saying there IS a line in the first place.

There isn't.

The only "line" that exists is in the minds of people who, for whatever reason, think OTHERS shouldn't be entitled to what they purchased with their own money...what is now their private property.

If I had $5,000 and decided the writing was on the wall last November and decided to buy/invest in every round I could lay my hands on, who is anybody else to gainsay that?

If I have pallets of ammo in my garage, regardless of when and where I bought it, who is anybody else to say "that's not fair"?

If I want to go out right now with $5,000 and buy up all this ammo at the currently inflated prices (meaning nobody else can buy it from the stores I just cleaned out), who is anybody else to say I can't/shouldn't/don't have the right?
 
Again...for those in back that didnā€™t hear it the first time.

There is no line. You do not get to determine the needs/wants/desires of others. Wanting to do so is tyranny lite. Possibly even tyranny of good intentions which can be the worst of all.

We get it...people want ammo and canā€™t afford it. But they >can< get it. They just donā€™t want to pay the price for it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
GoWolfpack said:
If you think somebody who has a lot of ammo is part of the problem, then you do care.
Click to expand...
"Lots" is a relative term.

Also, I never said anything should be done about it. Nothing should ve regulated. No intervention.

But let's take bullets out of it.

Let's say there was a shortage of steaks. If all of us go out at once and buy 12 steaks, we're all part of the problem. Who eats 12 steaks in a week?

If one person goes out and buys 10,000 steaks, and builds a freezer room to hold them all, he alone is a bigger part of the problem.

Again, where the line is on bullets I have no idea.

I don't think the steak hoarder should be arrested. But he's part of the problem. Period. End of story. If 20,000 people run out and buy 10,000 steaks all 20,000 of them are part of the problem. Period.

Bullets are no different from anything else. If there's a shortage of Ford Mustangs, and you buy 400 Mustangs, you're part of the problem. Period.

I'm not emotional about any of this and don't know why you guys are. I'm neither offended or personally affected in any way by any of you who have 100K rounds of ammo. I have enough for right now and I'm gathering a bit more here and there myself. There will come a time when I'm part of the problem. That doesn't mean I'll stop either.

It's just math and economics.

We might just need a collective unwadding of the panties around here. For a bunch of mostly grown men a certain contingency seems to be unhappy unless they're offended.
 
two fingers said:
"Lots" is a relative term.

Also, I never said anything should be done about it. Nothing should ve regulated. No intervention.

But let's take bullets out of it.

Let's say there was a shortage of steaks. If all of us go out at once and buy 12 steaks, we're all part of the problem. Who eats 12 steaks in a week?

If one person goes out and buys 10,000 steaks, and builds a freezer room to hold them all, he alone is a bigger part of the problem.

Again, where the line is on bullets I have no idea.

I don't think the steak hoarder should be arrested. But he's part of the problem. Period. End of story. If 20,000 people run out and buy 10,000 steaks all 20,000 of them are part of the problem. Period.

Bullets are no different from anything else. If there's a shortage of Ford Mustangs, and you buy 400 Mustangs, you're part of the problem. Period.

I'm not emotional about any of this and don't know why you guys are. I'm neither offended or personally affected in any way by any of you who have 100K rounds of ammo. I have enough for right now and I'm gathering a bit more here and there myself. There will come a time when I'm part of the problem. That doesn't mean I'll stop either.

It's just math and economics.

We might just need a collective unwadding of the panties around here. For a bunch of mostly grown men a certain contingency seems to be unhappy unless they're offended.
Click to expand...
If you have enough now but are still gathering some here and there, you are already part of the problem. At least in your words you are?
 
RetiredUSNChief said:
Yeah...but the problem is your saying there IS a line in the first place.

There isn't.

The only "line" that exists is in the minds of people who, for whatever reason, think OTHERS shouldn't be entitled to what they purchased with their own money...what is now their private property.

If I had $5,000 and decided the writing was on the wall last November and decided to buy/invest in every round I could lay my hands on, who is anybody else to gainsay that?

If I have pallets of ammo in my garage, regardless of when and where I bought it, who is anybody else to say "that's not fair"?

If I want to go out right now with $5,000 and buy up all this ammo at the currently inflated prices (meaning nobody else can buy it from the stores I just cleaned out), who is anybody else to say I can't/shouldn't/don't have the right?
Click to expand...
No. You're making it a moral issue. I am not. I am simply saying that economically and mathematically people who have gathered a zillion rounds of ammo in the last year are part of the reason there's a shortage. At no point did I even give an opinion as to the morality of doing so. I don't care what you do. Congrats. I hope your investments pay off.

I never ever said anyone was "wrong" for doing anything.

If there's a hotdogs shortage, and you somehow get your hands on 10,000 hotdogs so you buy them and freeze them, you are part of the reason the shortage lasts. But enjoy your damn hotdogs with my blessing. I really don't care.

The same goes for bullets.

Why the hell is everyone trying to make this a moral issue? I'M NOT.
 
What the written history of a nation is depends upon the victor. In the 1700s were we patriots, or were we insurrectionists? If England won, I bet the books would not say patriots.

Whether someone is gouging (non-legal and generalized term) or not, or hoarding or not, depends on which side of the sales counter you stand. What >I< need and what >you< need may be two very different things.

How is this different than the million posts regarding prices in the BST section? It'll sell, or it won't. If it does it's because the market decided, even if it's just one guy, it was worth the 'cost.'

I also agree: when people buy a million widgets, it'll cause a widget shortage. Not my place to say if they >need< them or not.
 
Last edited:
B00ger said:
There is no line. Itā€™s an extremely simple concept.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Morally you're correct. Economically and mathematically that's a dumb statement.

If there are only 100 Cadillacs in the world, and only one a day being made, and you somehow are able to score 75 Cadillacs, you are part of the reason for the shortage.... MATHEMATICALLY SPEAKING. Saying otherwise is ridiculous. Period.

Morally, I don't give a damn if you have a Caddy fetish and some grandma is unable to get her a new car. That's her problem.
 
Last edited:
two fingers said:
No. You're making it a moral issue. I am not. I am simply saying that economically and mathematically people who have gathered a zillion rounds of ammo in the last year are part of the reason there's a shortage. At no point did I even give an opinion as to the morality of doing so. I don't care what you do. Congrats. I hope your investments pay off.

I never ever said anyone was "wrong" for doing anything.

If there's a hotdogs shortage, and you somehow get your hands on 10,000 hotdogs so you buy them and freeze them, you are part of the reason the shortage lasts. But enjoy your damn hotdogs with my blessing. I really don't care.

The same goes for bullets.

Why the hell is everyone trying to make this a moral issue? I'M NOT.
Click to expand...

You are making it an issue of right/wrong moral/immoral by continuing to question if there is a line because you are inferring that going over some line is wrong or detrimental, and staying below that line is fine and healthy.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
two fingers said:
But let's take bullets out of it.

Let's say there was a shortage of steaks. If all of us go out at once and buy 12 steaks, we're all part of the problem. Who eats 12 steaks in a week?
Click to expand...

Folks who want to eat 12 steaks in a week.

Folks who want to shoot 400 rounds of 5.56, 300 rounds of 9mm or 500 rounds of .22LR in a week....or flip all that ammo for double what they paid, so they can get out of debt for the hard times thatā€™s inevitably coming.

Folks have a multitude of reasons for doing what they do and so long as they are not harming another or anotherā€™s private property, itā€™s really no one elses business what they do.

The only ā€œproblemā€ they are a part of is an imaginary problem, conjured up in the mind of another.
 
Last edited:
two fingers said:
Morally you're correct. Economically and mathematically that's a dumb statement.

If there are only 100 Cadillacs in the world, and only one a day being made, and you somehow are able to score 75 Cadillacs, you are part of the reason for the shortage.... MATHEMATICALLY SPEAKING. Saying otherwise is ridiculous. Period.

Morally, I don't give a damn if you have a Caddy fetish and some grandma is unable to get her a new car. That's her problem.
Click to expand...

No, it isnā€™t. You are inferring there is something inherently wrong with there being a shortage of a good someone has produced. There is no obligation by anyone to create more cadillacs. If someone buys them all, so what.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
B00ger said:
You are making it an issue of right/wrong moral/immoral by continuing to question if there is a line because you are inferring that going over some line is wrong or detrimental, and staying below that line is fine and healthy.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...


Um..... *sigh*.... No I'm not. I never questioned anyone morally. I never speculated about any lines being crossed morally.
 
Dale Gribble said:
Folks who want to eat 12 steaks in a week.

Folks who want to shoot 400 rounds of 5.56, 300 rounds of 9mm or 500 rounds of .22LR in a week....or flip all that ammo for double what they paid, so they can get out of debt for the hard times thatā€™s inevitably coming.

Folks have a multitude of reasons for doing what they do and so long as they are not harming another or anotherā€™s private property, itā€™s really no one elses business what they do.
Click to expand...

OK, bad example. I was just trying to take bullets off of the table because that seemed to be causing a little PMS.

Eat all the steak you want.

The point is, if there are only 10,000 steaks on Earth to buy, and you buy half of them to freeze, you WILL be part of the reason for an even more severe shortage. Period. End of story. It will prolong the shortage for others. Period. Denying that is utterly ridiculous.


But, AGAIN, I never said that made anyone the devil. I never said you should not buy the steaks (or bullets).



This really is a simple concept. You guys must have somehow avoided economics 101.... or even a decent Home Ec class.
 
Two lines going on right now in my mind.

The line people are waiting in at Academy each week to buy ammo.

The other would be what am I willing to spend on ammo right now.
I had 5 boxes of 45 in my cart the other day. 250 rounds shipped was $256.

That price "crossed my line" of what I was willing to spend so I passed.
 
Last edited:
two fingers said:
The point is, if there are only 10,000 steaks on Earth to buy, and you buy half of them to freeze, you WILL be part of the reason for an even more severe shortage. Period. End of story. It will prolong the shortage for others.
Click to expand...
Socialist Econ 101 - you would be correct. There would only be 10,000 steaks to buy. Limited supply. Shortages as far as the eye can see.
Capitalist Econ 101 - ranchers see that half the available supply has been purchased. Ranchers work to increase the supply because - they're in the business of selling steaks.

There have been and will always be periods of shortages just like there are periods of surplus in a capitalist society but, left free of government intervention, the market will correct itself.

This too will pass. And this too will repeat itself.
 
I've been following this, it's been, ah, interesting...

Only one thing I can add (if I'm allowed, to none in particular) is this. What would you call a supply that isn't bought? A surplus. Who's fault would it be, the buyers for not buying or the suppliers for making too much?
 
Last edited:
RetiredUSNChief said:
And yet...it's "wrong"?

The concept of "right and wrong" hinges on morality.
Click to expand...
When did I say it was "wrong"?

I simply said it factors into there being a shortage. Economically and mathematically that is a fact.

Look, I'm a sarcastic guy. So I'm sure I said something tongue n cheek a few posts ago that set everybody off because it was taken literally. But I have not cast judgements on anyone. Period. At no point have I said anyone was immoral. Period. I'm not mad at anyone. I don't give a damn how many bullets any of you buy. Period.

And, honestly, why some of you are dragging this out is a mystery to me.
 
rdinatal said:
I've been following this, it's been, ah, interesting...

Only one thing I can add (if I'm allowed, to none in particular) is this. What would you call a supply that isn't bought? A surplus. Who's fault would it be, the buyers for not buying or the suppliers for making too much?
Click to expand...

Certainly you're allowed. And it's an excellent question. Outstanding, in fact.

Following this line of reasoning and continuing with the subject of ammo, the reason why there wasn't a "surplus" of ammo prior to the start of this recent run is because the long term demand for ammunition does not support an increase in ammunition production capacity.

What we see is a period of calm, stable consumer demand followed by a period of panic buying driven by changes in political climate.

It's not something the industry can bet millions of dollars on increasing production capacity to support, because the fallow years would be a net loss to them.

And it's ENTIRELY predictable.

So predictable that it's quite obvious to those who have observed it enough to have entered into these discussions before know exactly how to adequately prepare for the next on.

And yet, so many do not.

If the majority of us DID prepare, then these periodic "runs" on the ammo market would be very short lived... because the economics of it would not be sustainable by those making a run on the ammo market.
 
SCshooter57 said:
Socialist Econ 101 - you would be correct. There would only be 10,000 steaks to buy. Limited supply. Shortages as far as the eye can see.
Capitalist Econ 101 - ranchers see that half the available supply has been purchased. Ranchers work to increase the supply because - they're in the business of selling steaks.

There have been and will always be periods of shortages just like there are periods of surplus in a capitalist society but, left free of government intervention, the market will correct itself.

This too will pass. And this too will repeat itself.
Click to expand...
Wrong again. Socialism is all about CONTROLLING who can buy what and when, as well as who can manufacturewhat at what price. I never suggested any such controls.

And there will always be a "bounce back" period. If you buy up half the supply of steaks (from my earlier example), you are extending the bounce back period. That is a simple fact. I'm not saying you SHOULDN'T buy. I'm simply stating that if there's a shortage, and one person, or a small group of people, buy up a large percentage of the existing supply, and continue to do that is manufacturing output grows, the shortage will be extended. That's it. That's all I'm saying.

The amount of time it takes for manufacturers to catch up with demand is longer if the demand stays the same. PART of that equation is people buying huge amounts of ammo. PART of that equation is a zillion new gun owners all of whom want "some" ammo. I'm not judging them either.

Again, you guys are WAY over complicating things. My concept is simple, and factual. Take the moral end of it out (which I did) and it's not even up for debate. It just is.

The same thing happened with toilet paper. Again, buy all the damn toilet paper you want. This isn't about morality. But when supplies first started coming back, people went to several stores and bought their limit for days at a time. I knew lots of people who did that. That alone extended the amount of time it took for manufacturing to catch up with demand. Period. That's exactly what happened. I was prepared. I had plenty. I'm not judging anyone who went out and bought their limit for days at a time. I'm simply saying that those people extended the shortage. They extended the length of time it took for manufacturing to catch up. Period. End of story.

This is getting a bit worrisome. To be sure I'm not talking over your heads here.
 
two fingers said:
Wrong again. Socialism is all about CONTROLLING who can buy what and when, as well as who can manufacturewhat at what price. I never suggested any such controls.

And there will always be a "bounce back" period. If you buy up half the supply of steaks (from my earlier example), you are extending the bounce back period. That is a simple fact. I'm not saying you SHOULDN'T buy. I'm simply stating that if there's a shortage, and one person, or a small group of people, buy up a large percentage of the existing supply, and continue to do that is manufacturing output grows, the shortage will be extended. That's it. That's all I'm saying.

The amount of time it takes for manufacturers to catch up with demand is longer if the demand stays the same. PART of that equation is people buying huge amounts of ammo. PART of that equation is a zillion new gun owners all of whom want "some" ammo. I'm not judging them either.

Again, you guys are WAY over complicating things. My concept is simple, and factual. Take the moral end of it out (which I did) and it's not even up for debate. It just is.

The same thing happened with toilet paper. Again, buy all the damn toilet paper you want. This isn't about morality. But when supplies first started coming back, people went to several stores and bought their limit for days at a time. I knew lots of people who did that. That alone extended the amount of time it took for manufacturing to catch up with demand. Period. That's exactly what happened. I was prepared. I had plenty. I'm not judging anyone who went out and bought their limit for days at a time. I'm simply saying that those people extended the shortage. They extended the length of time it took for manufacturing to catch up. Period. End of story.

This is getting a bit worrisome. To be sure I'm not talking over your heads here.
Click to expand...
I get what you're saying. Panic creates/prolongs the shortage.

Some of us refuse to participate in the panic and plan our lives accordingly. Sounds like maybe you do too.
 
Last edited:
two fingers said:
When did I say it was "wrong"?

I simply said it factors into there being a shortage. Economically and mathematically that is a fact.

Look, I'm a sarcastic guy. So I'm sure I said something tongue n cheek a few posts ago that set everybody off because it was taken literally. But I have not cast judgements on anyone. Period. At no point have I said anyone was immoral. Period. I'm not mad at anyone. I don't give a damn how many bullets any of you buy. Period.

And, honestly, why some of you are dragging this out is a mystery to me.
Click to expand...

Here's what you said that I initially commented on:

If you have 50 rolls of toilet paper, you are prepared. If you have 500 rolls, you are hoarding and part of the problem.

I don't know what the number is for any given caliber of ammo, but there's a number where you flip from prepared to hoarding, and part of the problem.

If you're saying there's a problem, then you're saying there's something wrong.

And if you're saying people who are hoarding are part of the problem, then you are saying that THEY are wrong.

Saying that you don't know what exactly constitutes "hoarding" doesn't change that.

And I can see this is getting under your skin in your responses. Don't let it. By far, the vast majority of people on this site are of the same mind on a great many subjects and issues. Where we differ isn't necessarily a catastrophic event. We just differ and it sparks (sometimes heated) discussions.

Certainly, I'm not upset with you over this.
 
RetiredUSNChief said:
Here's what you said that I initially commented on:

If you have 50 rolls of toilet paper, you are prepared. If you have 500 rolls, you are hoarding and part of the problem.

I don't know what the number is for any given caliber of ammo, but there's a number where you flip from prepared to hoarding, and part of the problem.

If you're saying there's a problem, then you're saying there's something wrong.

And if you're saying people who are hoarding are part of the problem, then you are saying that THEY are wrong.

Saying that you don't know what exactly constitutes "hoarding" doesn't change that.

And I can see this is getting under your skin in your responses. Don't let it. By far, the vast majority of people on this site are of the same mind on a great many subjects and issues. Where we differ isn't necessarily a catastrophic event. We just differ and it sparks (sometimes heated) discussions.

Certainly, I'm not upset with you over this.
Click to expand...
This was also what I was primarily responding to in spirit, though I may not have quoted/done it properly. The persistent desire to claim that there is a magical number somewhere that flips someone from just being prepared to hoarding. There is no magic number, we all have the freedom to decide that on our own.
 
I don't have a problem with a seller charging the current market value.

What I don't like is people saying "there's no such thing as gouging."
I don't like absolutes like that, it's stupid. Absolutely. :p

For years, when people talked about big tech censoring conservatives, and how we need regulation in that field, I'd say, " They are a private company, the 1st amendment doesn't apply. They can do what they want, and people can make alternative spaces."
Then, I saw what happened to Gab and Parler, and banning political candidates. And outright going against Section 230.

That's when I realized that absolutes like I had said were foolish. The government intervention, in Section 230, allowed this to flourish, and the government ineptness, in reforming it, allows it to get worse.

I don't think we are seeing gouging in these cases. But I think it's foolish for someone to say, "there's no such thing as gouging." It's possible, and sticking our head in the sands doesn't take away the possibility.
 
B00ger said:
The persistent desire to claim that there is a magical number somewhere that flips someone from just being prepared to hoarding. There is no magic number, we all have the freedom to decide that on our own.
Click to expand...

I would say that's only conditionally true. There are practical limits to the accumulation of any commodity.
 
Matt.Cross said:
I would say that's only conditionally true. There are practical limits to the accumulation of any commodity.
Click to expand...
Says who? If I have the space/capacity/means to accumulate whatever I want, then so be it. If, perhaps, my accumulation becomes a detriment to my neighbors physically then perhaps. But if I want 10,000 rolls of hand sanitizer in my garage, thats my business.
 
B00ger said:
Says who? If I have the space/capacity/means to accumulate whatever I want, then so be it. If, perhaps, my accumulation becomes a detriment to my neighbors physically then perhaps. But if I want 10,000 rolls of hand sanitizer in my garage, thats my business.
Click to expand...
It's logic, not an opinion. You made my point very well yourself in terms of space/capacity/means. However, you might have all those things in excess of your ability to retain, defend, and/or fully utilize your commodity (or commodities), which means that part of your store (which is actually useless surplus) is missing from circulation to the detriment of the market at large.

So for instance if you stockpile large quantities of ammo while regularly shooting, the above wouldn't really apply because you're supplying a constant demand. On the other hand, if you're stockpiling more ammo than you could possibly ever move, retain, defend, or store to a prudently useful purpose, that surplus of resources is not only not benefitting you, but it's also not benefitting a larger market. Whether or not stockpiling beyond usefulness is moral or immoral is irrelevant, logically speaking it is both stupid and detrimental to the larger market, and I think that's the point our friend was trying to make.
 
two fingers said:
If you have 50 rolls of toilet paper, you are prepared. If you have 500 rolls, you are hoarding and part of the problem.

I don't know what the number is for any given caliber of ammo, but there's a number where you flip from prepared to hoarding, and part of the problem.
Click to expand...
Heck I know a guy that has 30,000 rounds of 9mm. He's a prepper and makes money when he sells it.
 
Matt.Cross said:
It's logic, not an opinion. You made my point very well yourself in terms of space/capacity/means. However, you might have all those things in excess of your ability to retain, defend, and/or fully utilize your commodity (or commodities), which means that part of your store (which is actually useless surplus) is missing from circulation to the detriment of the market at large.

So for instance if you stockpile large quantities of ammo while regularly shooting, the above wouldn't really apply because you're supplying a constant demand. On the other hand, if you're stockpiling more ammo than you could possibly ever move, retain, defend, or store to a prudently useful purpose, that surplus of resources is not only not benefitting you, but it's also not benefitting a larger market. Whether or not stockpiling beyond usefulness is moral or immoral is irrelevant, logically speaking it is both stupid and detrimental to the larger market, and I think that's the point our friend was trying to make.
Click to expand...

And my point is that you do not get to assert that anything that belongs to me is, or is not benefiting me.

You do not get to decide if something is useful to me.

You can have an opinion that it isnā€™t. But you have no weight of truth behind it. You, or anyone else, are not the arbiter of ā€œusefulnessā€ or ā€œneedā€ to anyone.

Watch your self on this, because the logic you are dipping into is the >exact< logic that anti-gunners use when they claim you donā€™t need an AR...a pistol is just fine...you donā€™t need a high cap ghost gun magazine...6 shots is all you need. You donā€™t need 1,000 rounds of ammo to defend your home, a double barrel shotgun is just fine.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
If the leftist authoritarian currently occupying the NC AGā€™s office is not currently fining ammo outlets in NC over this alleged price gouging I think itā€™s safe to say that the arguments here alleging ammo price gouging are largely moot.

Now that this is settled, Iā€™m gonna take a nap.
 
B00ger said:
And my point is that you do not get to assert that anything that belongs to me is, or is not benefiting me.

You do not get to decide if something is useful to me.

You can have an opinion that it isnā€™t. But you have no weight of truth behind it. You, or anyone else, are not the arbiter of ā€œusefulnessā€ or ā€œneedā€ to anyone.

Watch your self on this, because the logic you are dipping into is the >exact< logic that anti-gunners use when they claim you donā€™t need an AR...a pistol is just fine...you donā€™t need a high cap ghost gun magazine...6 shots is all you need. You donā€™t need 1,000 rounds of ammo to defend your home, a double barrel shotgun is just fine.
Click to expand...

I totally agree with you, but that's not how I read it. I read it regarding accumulating widgets can be 'not' beneficial and can be harmful if one lacks whatever the supporting resource is; not regarding deciding if you need it or value in its' use.

I know I am babbling: for example, if you want 10,000 steaks, that's fine. Have 10,000 steaks. If you don't have a freezer or capacity to store, the accumulation is not beneficial. I did not read into it anything more.

Your points, I am on board with and agree.
 
B00ger said:
And my point is that you do not get to assert that anything that belongs to me is, or is not benefiting me.
Click to expand...

Sure I do, it's freedom of speech, and I doubt you want to take that from me. It's a fair point though, and well taken. I don't want to be dictated to either. My point is that freedom requires responsibility, and other people are free to judge whether or not your choices are responsible. They are not free to dictate your choices or actions.
B00ger said:
You do not get to decide if something is useful to me.
Click to expand...
Couldn't agree more. Doesn't mean I can't understand that something isn't useful to you.


B00ger said:
You can have an opinion that it isnā€™t. But you have no weight of truth behind it.
Click to expand...

That's also conditional, and subjective.


B00ger said:
You, or anyone else, are not the arbiter of ā€œusefulnessā€ or ā€œneedā€ to anyone.
Click to expand...

Couldn't agree more.


B00ger said:
Watch your self on this, because the logic you are dipping into is the >exact< logic that anti-gunners use when they claim you donā€™t need an AR...a pistol is just fine...you donā€™t need a high cap ghost gun magazine...6 shots is all you need. You donā€™t need 1,000 rounds of ammo to defend your home, a double barrel shotgun is just fine.
Click to expand...

I hold my opinion in the interest of making sure that folks have an adequate supply of means for their defense, not for taking anything away. I've merely pointed out that an opposing opinion had some validity, I don't see how your pejorative comparison is warranted.
 
Matt.Cross said:
Sure I do, it's freedom of speech, and I doubt you want to take that from me. It's a fair point though, and well taken. I don't want to be dictated to either. My point is that freedom requires responsibility, and other people are free to judge whether or not your choices are responsible. They are not free to dictate your choices or actions.

Couldn't agree more. Doesn't mean I can't understand that something isn't useful to you.




That's also conditional, and subjective.




Couldn't agree more.




I hold my opinion in the interest of making sure that folks have an adequate supply of means for their defense, not for taking anything away. I've merely pointed out that an opposing opinion had some validity, I don't see how your pejorative comparison is warranted.
Click to expand...
In short, you have an opinion. It is worth what it costs others.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom