A stab in the back from Remington -- Money Talks

[Elmo]

It's a tough call. On one end I want them to make a stand, on the other end, I don't want the men and women servicing the our country to use inferior products in the field.

[Five Seasons]

you guys are hilarious. They're a business. They're in it for money, not to protect your feelings. Do you honestly think they make more money from citizens or the govt?

[Mr VJP]

First of all, Obama is reducing the size of the military and shutting down the ground wars in every battle arena in the world, as soon as he can.

Second, what will the military be doing with these rifles if that is the case?

Ever stop to think who the U.S. Special Operations Command is and what they could be directed to do with these rifles by the Commander in Chief?

You may find one of these new Remington rifles being used against US citizens on US soil in the not to distant future. I wonder if Remington is OK with that situation?

[virgil]

Ever stop to think who the U.S. Special Operations Command is and what they could be directed to do with these rifles by the Commander in Chief?

You may find one of these new Remington rifles being used against US citizens on US soil in the not to distant future. I wonder if Remington is OK with that situation?

Right. Lots of examples of that happening. Not just another paranoid rant.

[bbrummon]

I think I am going to skip on Remingtons in the furture. In my life I have purchase 3 870's (2 were wingmasters), 2 700's ( adl and a cdl) and a 541 all new. I don't think they need my money any more.

Bob

[HighlandLofts]

This video says it all, Don't tell me they's never use the guns we buy for them on the people of the US. This soldier says it for you. And look how they confinscated the guns for the residents of New Orleans when they needed them the most. Sorry but they would of has to use their m16s on me if I were living there at the time and my property was high & dry. Guns have other uses then just hunting and target practise, thats why I have & use a conceal carry permit. And then have them knock at your door and dis-arm you so you have nothing to protect yourself & your family, I call bullit on this one guys.

If we can't buy arms for self protection, the Gov shouldn't be able to either-period. If they can't keep up with production then they'll have to add more staff & more manufactureing capabilities.

Why does the Department of Homeland Security need Cilvilian Targets, 7,000 fully autiomatic Rifles, 1.6 billion rounds of Ammo and a stockpile of multi-person caskets? Is there something they have planed in the future? And then stuff all of this gun control down our throats on the state and federal level. Every State in the Union are trying to pass some form of gun control.

I'm not parinoid about all of the theories out there, just well informed and try to stay educated about whats going on.

http://www.infowars....ts-of-children/

[shawnhu]

Highland, don't pay any mind to virgil, he hasn't gotten his dose of attention today so he makes the comments he does to attract attention. Probably skipped his meds today too.

[virgil]

Right Shawn, I'm seeking attention by laughing at paranoid rants insinuating government plans to attack the citizens of the US. Get a grip.

[Mr VJP]

Virgil was also one of the biggest advocates of the theory that the government wasn't trying to take any of your guns away.  He said we were all paranoid about that too!

 

[virgil]

'Taking away' would imply confiscation, which has never been discussed anywhere but in your head.

[Culvercreek hunt club]

'Taking away' would imply confiscation, which has never been discussed anywhere but in your head.

as oppsed to making a weapon illegal and a felony to posess?

 

[virgil]

Culver, not sure what you're saying.  No confiscation.  Guns that were legal to possess prior to the law are still  legal to possess, as far as I've read.  Magazines are a different story.  Private, undocumented sales are also a different story.

[WNYBuckHunter]

'Taking away' would imply confiscation, which has never been discussed anywhere but in your head.

Well, seeing as your "assault weapons" cannot be passed down to your family or sold within NY when you die, it IS in fact confiscation. Feel free to put your head back in the sand though.

[virgil]

Where did you get the part about not being allowed to pass your AR's down to your family?

[WNYBuckHunter]

From the NY SAFE act. Go read it.

[shawnhu]

Where did you get the part about not being allowed to pass your AR's down to your family?

You only like to read and use the parts that suits you and your agenda. Sounds like you have the perfect makings to be the next Cuomo.

[virgil]

I have, and I don't see anything that bans inheritance of legally possessed guns.  Maybe I missed it- that's why I'm asking where you saw it.  Or, did you maybe get it from the same source that gave you that bit about the upstate shooter having just gotten out of a mental institution.  I haven't seen that mentioned anywhere else.

[virgil]

Shawn, if it's there and I missed it, so be it.  I'm asking if it actually is there.  Or, are you ok with just repeating it as fact without knowing one way or the other?

[shawnhu]

Mentally disturbed does not have to mean an individual was recently admitted and released from an institution. No one in their sane minds would go around shooting with the intent to harm or kill another human being, randomly. You sir, would probably fit the bill. <br /><br />Again, don't stray from the topic and go read the new law. Maybe then you might understand what NYS is dealing with. Or are you too stupid to comprehend what's being shoved down your throat?

[shawnhu]

Shawn, if it's there and I missed it, so be it. I'm asking if it actually is there. Or, are you ok with just repeating it as fact without knowing one way or the other?

I've spent many hours reading through the new law. If you are too lazy or too stupid to do it yourself, then it's no ones fault but your own. But that's ok, you will NEVER own an AR. Heck, if it was up to you, you probably wouldn't want to own a gun either. Go back to throwing stones and spears. Might suit you better when the next psychopath has a barrel pointed down your way.

[virgil]

I just asked for WNY to refer to where in the SAFE ACT he saw the part that I missed.  It's not that uncommon in an intelligent debate to ask where someone got their information.  As I said, if I missed it, so be it.  I never said it's not there, just that I didn't see it.  Since you spent so much time analyzing the law, you must surely be able to find it.

[shawnhu]

<br />I just asked for WNY to refer to where in the SAFE ACT he saw the part that I missed. It's not that uncommon in an intelligent debate to ask where someone got their information. As I said, if I missed it, so be it. I never said it's not there, just that I didn't see it. Since you spent so much time analyzing the law, you must surely be able to find it.<br />

<br />Since you spend so much time stirring the pot, surely you must know that the government would NEVER confiscate guns. Wasn't that your statement? So before we slap you in the face with the law, what do you have to say about your confiscation statement? Edited March 14, 2013 by shawnhu

[virgil]

Yes, that was my statement.  Now please show me where there is any mention of confiscation in the law.

[shawnhu]

You must be dumber than I thought if you think I'm going to feed the troll.

[virgil]

What happened to 'slapping me in the face with the law'?