Fleet Farm takes on gun control
Posted at 10:55 AM on January 11, 2013
by Bob Collins
(54 Comments)
A lot of businesses don't like to get into political fights and alienate any segment -- even a minor segment -- of their customers.
Fleet Farm isn't one of them.
Comments (54)
Huh. He left out some of that amendment. Funny.
Man, a little honesty would be nice.
This spokesman, like the NRA seemed to "forget" the preamble of the 2nd A, you know, the part that says " a well regulated militia..." and apparently if the words are not spoken (or included on the fresco on the NRA headquarters), they don't exist or have meaning.
This video is so misleading it should be on a list of awards. A shotgun will be much more lethal at close range of course, but at 100 yards, not so much. A high powered rifle will fire rounds that travel at 800 fps(or more) for over a mile, so which is more destructive at distance. One is a rifle the other a shotgun, not really equivalent, except in the minds of some
This idiot probably argues that gun rights have contracted under Obama, but gun rights have expanded at a federal level over the past 8 years. This point seems to be glossed over by the gunnuts, somewhat of an inconvenient truth for them I guess. But when has honesty been part of the discussion.
For the anti-people people.....
The term "well regulated" means that the members of the militia (able bodied adult citizens) have trained together as a militia, proficient in firearms use, close order drills, marching, combat, and other skills a militia needs to protect the country against threats from without or within.
In other words, "well regulated" means "well trained".
It has nothing to do with government regulations restricting firearms use.
You have the audacity to call others "idiot", and you display your own ignorance with statements like a high powered rifle round travels at 800 fps. Goodness gracious, son, you would be hard pressed to load a rifle round that moves that slow. Most are between 2,000 and 3,000 fps, and you can created handloads that go over 4,000 fps.
Education would go a long way towards maturity. One would find that guns are not the problem. Liberal Nation is.
In the essays I've read on the term "well regulated" (and the ones I've read have suggested it means well trained and disciplined), it also pointed out that the intent of the 2nd Amendment in addition to the obvious, was meant to keep a check on the standing army.
How is that possible in today's world?
On Facebook, most of my gun-owning friends are posting that the 2nd amendment is a check against treason, and they're suggesting -- as I read last night -- that "we're already there."
That brings up the question? Who gets to decide that? Who gets to determine that the actions of, say, a standing army constitute treason and the use of arms against them is justified? How will this be done?
As I read my Facebook timeline, some people are ready to go at it. Are they wrong under the 2nd Amendment?
I'm confused by the contrived experiment. They claim they're using a "duck gun" but then opt to use 00 buck shot and show it is more dangerous than the Huldra but then make the argument that the Huldra is neccessary to protect yourself if public safety is distant. There are many other contradictory thoughts shared as well.
I used to be a fan of Fleet Farm (and even buy ammo from them) but this horrible twist of logic makes me question how much money I'll be spending there in the future.
I am no friend of original intent as an argument for almost anything. But I will grant that "a well regulated Militia" means a well-trained, able-bodied, adults, etc. the whole phrase - A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State - qualifies the rest of the amendment. It makes no sense otherwise. And he and others don't skip it just to save time.
They didn't write "a well-regulated Media, being necessary to the security of a free State.
But the government already restricts firearms, so what is your point, that they are not able to make further restrictions in the future. That logic is dubious at best.
Of course Congress can enact further regulations, but what would be best is if the President would use Executive Order
to take the guns away - you can almost hear the gunnuts heads exploding thinking about this
I missed the 1 in front of the 8, but to your point, a rifle bullet travels a great distance, a shotgun with duck load not so much.
Sigh... such distortion of the real issues in all of this.
First, ya, he left off part of the second amendment, which doesn't help his point.
Second, he makes a valid point that it's not the gun that is the problem per se. The same ammo that you load in an AR-15 can be used in other, more "traditional hunting" style guns. And shotguns are amazingly deadly at close range. Which is why a lot of self-defense people I've talked to actually suggest shotguns for home defense. Middle of the night, you're more likely to hit with a shotgun than a single bullet.
Third, he completely ignores the fact that despite putting "45 projectiles down range", the gun only shot 5 times, that's 5 targets with maybe some potential for hitting a couple more by accident. If you have a rifle clip with 25 bullets in it, you're quite capable of shooting 25 people with deadly effect. You never need to shoot 25 times to take down a deer, or to incapacitate an attacker in your home. Large magazines are a serious issue with these guns.
I'm a liberal, but I enjoy guns. Target shooting is a ton of fun and takes some serious skill. But I would have no qualms about having to go through a highly scrutinized license process to purchase a gun. If I have to go through a training class, register in a database, get medical clearance, have my ammo limited etc, fine. I don't have an issue with that.
Ranting on about tyranny of government, and doing what amounts to whining about people taking our stuff away, just makes people who like guns look like idiots.
From Heller (Scalia writing for the Court)
Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152–153; Abbott333. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489–490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2 Kent *340, n. 2; The American Students’ Blackstone 84, n. 11 (G. Chase ed. 1884). Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment , nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.26
Time to stop shopping Fleet Farm
Thank you, Fleet Farm.
I know your history, how you are a family business of long standing and several generations, how you have worked for the good of the American Citizen, and our Constitution.
Thank you. I will be shopping more at Fleet Farm in the future.
For those pointing out rifle vs shot gun - the point was to show both can kill. And at close range the shot gun is better. Why was that the point? Because the statement of the congressman. This whole video was in response to congressman Nolan's statement.
"He didn’t need an assault weapon in order to shoot a duck", Nolan quipped.
This is one of the silliest "tests" I've ever seen. Claiming that 5 shotgun shells are more damaging and hence in need of regulation than 25 rounds from a semi-auto rifle is just intellectually dishonest. It totally ignores range, muzzle velocity and a host of other factors. I'm not a hunter, but I sure don't think those shotgun shells were packed with bird shot. "00" size is buckshot, you know, for shooting bucks. They keep calling it a duck gun while firing rather different ammo.
Fleet Farm, as a Minnesota boy, I've loved you but I won't be shopping at your stores any more if you're going to pull stunts like this. Bonus points for forgetting the first part of the 2nd Amendment, you know, about the "well regulated militia". Double bonus points for raising the specter of Chinese Communist style gun control.
Rather than risking eye damage from incoming spittle in the returning rants, I'll let that well known gun nut, Hubert Humphrey do my talking for me:
"Certainly one of the chief guarantees of freedom under any government, no matter how popular and respected, is the right of citizens to keep and bear arms.
This is not to say that firearms should not be very carefully used, and that definite safety rules of precaution should not be taught and enforced.
But the right of citizens to bear arms is just one more guarantee against arbitrary government, one more safeguard against tyranny which now appears remote in America, but which historically has proved to be always possible"
Senator Hubert H. Humphrey (D) Minn.
As to the predictable promise of boycott by Twin City leftists, Mills Fleet Farm is quaking in their rubber boots, probably. But ya have to admire their brass...(gun nut pun).
The line about the stabbings in China reminded me of a part of the "Untouchables" movie where Sean Connery says (paraphrasing) "They pull a knife, you pull a gun. They send one of yours to the hospital, you send one of theirs to the morgue."
@Scott: There were a couple of other aspects of the "test" that add to the silliness. The first is that they used different shooters. That was the one thing it should have been easy to control. Also they didn't show the entire rifle shell so you don't get a sense of how big the explosive charge might be.
@TJSwift,
Are you saying that the 2nd A is absolute. It is certainly not, like the 1st, there are constitutionally protected restrictions on speech, freedom of expression etc.
Oh, and remember, when HHH said that, the 2nd had not yet been incorporated, that didn't happen until Heller, long after his death, so though a lovely sentiment, it was not the law of the land.
When HHH was alive, the 2nd amendment did not need to be "incorporated." Or "interpreted."
You see, way back then Citizens had the general intelligence to know what words meant.
Words like "right" and "people" and "shall" and "not" and "infringed".
snaaab, with all due respect, the 2nd amendment was incorporated into the constitution of the United States on December 15, 1791. It was the law of the land from that day forward.
Heller merely made it clear enough for leftist revisionists to understand...or so we had hoped.
In any case, it's clear that Hubert understood the intent of the amendment correctly. I'm guessing he could have told you the correct muzzle velocity of a .223 rifle as well.
"Incorporated" in this sense means the application of amendments to the federal constitution against the states. It wasn't until McDonald in 2010 that the 2nd Amendment was found to apply to the states as well as the federal government. You know, states rights and all that.
Why can't they just make the scary gun to look like the more lethal but less visually threatening gun? We bought my dad a very nice gun for Christmas, probably quite a powerful one, but it looks like the kind of thing a dad would use. It will replace his old shotgun, which his dad actually made himself, for whatever that's worth.
That's absolutely fascinating, Neil. Who knew that before 2010 the federal government didn't understand that the US constitution applied to people living in the states?
I guess we're all lucky Minnesota didn't decide to quarter the Red Bulls in Uptown, eh?
So when Fleet Farm issues a statement about their 2nd A interpretation and they forget the prefatory clause because they are either to lazy to have actually read the Amendment, or they don't care, I am unable to decide which is more intellectually dishonest.
Gun rights have expanded, not contracted since the Pres signed law allowing firearms in the National Parks, which previously prevented you from legally possessing a firearm in a park.
You can now roam around in National Parks, scared of the chipmunks and carry a .233 to fend them off.
Name a federal legislation since Obama took office restricting your right to bear arms - I'll wait....
Crickets.
Not to people living in the states, to state governments which have their own constitutions and pass their own laws. It wasn't always the case that the US Constitution prevented states from doing much of anything (except raising armies and minting money, etc). There is a great Wikipedia article about the Incorporation Doctrine and I encourage you to check it out.
So, the states needed Article VI, clause 2 of the US Constitution (aka the Supremacy Clause) explained to them.
I'm less likely to shop at Fleet Farm. If they want to weigh in on the issue, because they have a financial stake in selling ammo and arms, fine. But they shouldn't be manipulative about it. I don't even regularly hunt, but I caught the thing about using Buckshot. And btw -- it isn't the power of the bullet necessarily -- when one hits the right artery or organ, or rips up enough flesh, it does damage. Semi-autos that can fire off enough rounds to kill an entire class of kids do far more damage. I am actually offended that Mills glossed over that.
But Mills caters exactly to that segment. I have had several female friends who have left jobs there because they experienced discrimination. (women do housewares and customer service, men do power tool and outdoors sales). When I go there for tools or building supplies, the salesmen (always men in the tools and building areas) are pretty condescending, often expressing surprise that a female would want to build or repair anything. We only go to Fleet when we can't get the same item at Menard's, Home Depot, Gander Mountain, or Sears. Having said that, it's called "The Man's Mall" up here, and is always packed with guys drawn for exactly the reason your article states.
It looks like Thomas Swift of MinnPost comments renown has recovered from being horribly wrong in his predictions there of the guaranteed passage of the marriage and voter ID amendments, and has resurfaced here to borderline-troll the MPR comments section. Reader beware, he like to bait the "leftists" (one of his favorite terms) and is fluent in sarcasm.
Okay, well the Supremacy Clause only applies when federal and state laws conflict... which isn't exactly the same thing. Regardless, you don't have to agree with it, but the Incorporation Doctrine is a real historical thing. Seems silly to dispute that.
I think the people who think the AR-15 is more dangerous than a 12 Gauge are simply showing how little they know about firearms. The 12 Gauge has the capability to do significantly more damage at both close and long range depending on the shell placed in the gun. People don't know that slugs are extremely dangerous. They should have cut one open so people can get a clear idea of the difference.
I'm definitely more likely to shop there now that they will take a stand.
@ erik,
Sure a slug will inflict a ******** of damage, even at distance, but you would not arm your shotgun with a slug for home protection, you would use buckshot. The same holds true for the AR-15, which you would not use for home protection, what of the errant shot piercing an exterior wall, and killing a passerby. So since home protection is out for slugs and rifles, and if you are such a poor shot you need multiple rounds to hit an animal, hunting is out, so then what is there.
Commenters:
You all may not be familiar with NewsCut rules but we don't allow comments to issue proclamations about other commenters. Stick the issue and leave the personalities out of it.
Thank you.
1. That's THE slowest demonstration of the firing of that rifle I've ever seen. Shop Fleet Farm and they'll be playing a video that demonstrates that with practice, it can be fired nearly as fast an an auto - 3 shots per second is totally realistic with practice. I know, I've done it.
2. Thanks to georges for pointing out the nuanced use of "well regulated". With that in mind, how many of today's gun owners fit that description? How many of them belong to a militia that is indeed designed to make them capable of correctly using their firearms? Less than 10% of gun owners even visit a firing range in a given year (that's from DNR and USFWS and NSSF numbers btw). So how are they then part of a 'well regulated militia'?
3. Thanks to Mills FF for demonstrating that buck shot should also be banned - it is already illegal to use for any kind of game (sans fox, coyote, etc. which are not technically game animals).
After my house was burglarized in 1978, I asked the responding police officer what the best weapon was for protection. He said that the most effective close range weapon is a shotgun loaded with 00 buckshot (9 pellets). I asked him about using my deer rifle: to that idea he stated that a high velocity rifle bullet would probably go through every wall in the house and pose a danger hundreds of yards down range.
I've hunted for 48 years; squirrels, ducks, pheasants, grouse, geese, and deer. What good hunters know is that every gun, shotgun and corresponding ammunition load has a specific purpose and is designed to efficiently kill at different ranges. This video comparing the .223 high velocity round and the duck shotgun with a 30 inch barrel, full choke, and loaded with 00 buckshot shows me nothing new. Both will quickly kill a man, but at different distances. One thing for sure, I now know that I won't be shopping at the store off Hwy 212 again.
This was a terrible marketing strategy, and whoever thought it would be a good idea should be fired. Don't use the assault weapon, a few well placed cuss words would maybe make a dent in this fellow's hard head.
I think it is a sad commentary when mental illness is left to the very end of the video. Spend those billions on health care, leave guns in the hands of those who are responsible (i.e. trained in gun safety), and we'll have many fewer tragedies.
My 2 cents.
// Jim G whoever thought it would be a good idea should be fired.
It's (person in the video) the owners Son or Grandson - so thinking firing is out of the question.
Paul, I agree 100% with you. Thank you for bringing it up.
Every one of these recent bloodbaths had two things in common:
1. They were all committed by young men either recently graduated, dropped out of or still in high school.
2. All of those young men had been medicated with psychotropic drugs for many years.
Why are so many of our children being medicated?
Why is the President so reluctant to discuss mental illness, which after all is the root cause of these incidents?
Who would be the decider of this mental illness spectrum? Would being a sullen teen suffice, or do they need to exhibit other tendencies to be of concern. How about the anti-social adult, who otherwise leads an exemplary life, but is tagged ill because they stay to themselves and might seem "kind of creepy".
Mental illness has to be part of this discussion, but man, talk about a slippery slope on what constitutes normal but difficult personalities from being criminal with a grudge and an AR-15.
// BJ It's (person in the video) the owners Son or Grandson - so thinking firing is out of the question.
I know that but his Grandpa has to be at least my age, and smarter than his knucklehead Grandchild. Oh, yes I remembered that my new F-150 was purchased at the Mills Fleet Farm Ford Dealership in Baxter. I know that I can buy one closer to home next time: no sir... you're not getting my business again.
//Why are so many of our children being medicated?
Seung Hui Cho was 23 but, no, we're not going there in this thread. Move along.
TJS, the mental illness argument is interesting.
How does paranoia fit into the argument? Is paranoia a mental illness? Is someone who thinks they need a multi-shot automatic weapon for self-defense paranoid?
I grew up on a farm more than 10 miles from the sheriff. We had single shot shotguns for pheasant hunting, the guns were in the house tucked deep into an upstairs closet, the shells were locked in a desk drawer in the machine shed more than 100 yards from the house. The guns were for hunting, we didn’t need them for self-defense AND we didn’t live in fear.
I would like do see a rebuttle from Rick Nolan.
Namely I'd like to see him address the fact that a shop that prides them selves on selling hunting rifles choose to call 00# buck shot as though it were for ducks... The fact that the "duck gun" managed to fire 2 more shells then a gun intended for duck hunting is legally allowed to hold... and that some one who takes longer to aim their shots generally ends up being more accurate (jesse ventura called it gun control.)
There is no such thing as "more deadly" any one who handles a gun should know that if you point the barrel at something, you should be expecting it to die. A 44 and a 22 can both kill you, so can a pellet gun... and if you are dead, there is no concern over exactly how dead you are.
Now... Lets step way back and take a rational approach to things.
Switzerland until recently had both mandatory conscription and issued military assault rifles and ammunition to all members of the military... This means that there was a country out there with weapons in nearly every home... weapons far more effective at releasing bullets then the semi-auto ar-15 shown in the video. They had fewer gun deaths per capita then the USA... This tells me, that the issue isn't entirely gun control.
Now lets consider the wonderful statement about protecting our kids from guns, knives, and bombs, by having armed guards. Exactly how armed guards are going to protect our kids from bombs is a complete mystery to me... Seem like we have soldiers over seas right now who are constantly running into issues with IEDs despite being armed to the teeth... Suicide bombers still manged to blow up after they get shot... Sounds like despite having armed guards we still have plenty of avenues for attacks on schools.
So that brings me back to my first point... we have a different problem. It isn't (just) the guns. We have mental illness issues that are going untreated... and leading to people being shot... But of course we can't treat mental illness (cause it's socialism) that is hard. Instead we look for easy answers... if people get shot, ban the guns... Lets deal with the root cause... Well I'm plenty open to a much larger conversation about guns, the sides of the argument that are being thrown around (both here and every where else I've heard) are just plain crazy, on both sides.
Now as for the conversation about guns... here is my proposal. Gun locks. Ever gun sold should be sold with a fitting lock. It should be required to be on the gun when it leaves the store (some guns may require locks on their case, the quality of the lock, and the case etc. can be worked through) There is no reason any gun owner should leave their guns out unlocked... So lets require people to lock them up, and make sure they are safe from every one except the people who they intend to use those guns. Accidental gun deaths in the home should be a thing of the past, and it's ridiculous that any one can leave these weapons out and children die because of it.
Schools should be gun free zones... My schools were when I was a kid, and I didn't get shot once... remarkably this effort which the video calls a failure seems to have been radically successful most of the time (very few children are actually shot in schools as a percentage of the whole... and when they are it is a tragedy. It makes national news.)
People should be expected to be responsible with guns, and if they can't be, they shouldn't be allowed to have them, and if you are going to quote the second half of the 2nd amendment to that statement I'd expect that you should be just fine with convicted felons carrying guns... and if you aren't you are a hypocrite and aren't welcome to join into an educated conversation about the topic with me.
Now since we've solved the gun problem (which really wasn't related to mass shootings at all) we can move on to tackling the actual difficult issues... Mental health, the violence that is committed every day one way or another against so many people... And the general fact that we can't have an educated conversation in this country with out two groups of people taking two extreme views on a subject which often border on absurdity.
I do not plan to shop a fleet farm in the future thanks to this video... which is a shame because I like fleet farm. I'm disappointed in them on so many levels because of this video... I could support a pro-gun stance.... but this video moves into the realm of propaganda and FUD, I would argue even beyond that of chick fillet, at least they didn't intentionally mislead people this badly. (that honor for that conversation goes to the translators for the NIV version of the bible.)
Lets review this one more time. "..A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.." Now as a Philly born and bread citizen in the footsteps of our founding fathers in a city which fundamentally understands our history I believe this has been the most misinterpreted amendment in our constitution. Unfortunately, this amendment has lost its meaning over the years. If you read any of the founding fathers writings you would know that the ONLY reason that citizens were given this right was to thwart the British from overrunning our cities. NOT to arm the people for any other purpose. This was a wartime measure and was seen as the best way to fight a more organized, professional and armed militia. That was it - no more, no less. It is not clear where the 'train fell off the rails' on twisting this to let every nut case and crack pot own a gun but we need to revert to what the founding fathers really meant in the context of their times and stop manipulating and distorting the meaning and intent. I am also shocked at these guys using China as an example for anything. The facts are clear - countries that have strict gun regulations have less murders, assaults and deaths. Period. We need to revisit this in a serious way and get back to the true meaning and intent of the 2nd amendment.
At the time the constitution was written the militia was composed of any able bodied male old enough and in good enough shape to fight. Farmers, business men, all walks of life. The only training most had was from hunting which is the training a lot of us have also. They were expected to provide their own gun and ammo, a canteen and eating utensils, clothing and sleeping gear. Things many of us carry with when out hunting or have at home for camping.
The militia is not the national guard as many suggest, the national guards is federally controlled and to tied to the military. The militia is comprised of the citizens who are willing to take up arms to defend this country against enemies foreign and DOMESTIC. Domestic being our own government gone rogue. Look at all the laws that have been passed limiting our freedoms, look at the TSA with the illegal search and seizures. The TSA that hasn't stopped a single terrorist since it was formed. The TSA that is going beyond its original scope and showing up at football games, train stations, and bus stations.
The Department of Homeland Security has bought 1.4 billion rounds, most of it hollow point ammunition. Who do you think they plan to use it on?
Why don't you tell us?
You people making an argument about the shell used in the shotgun and the size of the shell in the .223 are missing the point - which GUN is more dangerous and which would be more accurate for self defense - talk about twisting words
Also, Supreme Court case in 2008 District of Columbia v Heller affirmed that the 2nd Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
Again, and Still, these prestitutes are counting on the average mentality of American’s reactionary public, to distract from any form of reality and strip any remaining shadow of our constitution and civil liberty's...in the name of "protection" of our children.
I am not an advocate of guns, do not have guns. But that does not preclude the importance of solving the root of a problem rather than taking swings at the branches. We have a society who MUST work 2 and 3 jobs per household to maintain payments for a borrowed "middle class". The banks are DELIGHTED we can no longer raise our own children. There's no way. We in unmerika, have to be on the job every day, all day, so that we can show our neighbors how much cargo you purchased. That’s what our priorities are, not our families, not our children...we give our lives to our banks, and ignore our children...So, our government, with the aid of these prestitutes, get a bunch of reactionaries all swinging at the branches, so that they all remain confused and divided, while the banks tip toe every dollar into off shore accounts.
So, keep on borrowing money you big bunch or reactionaries...you really don't need civil liberties, you are a slave 60 hours a week anyway, what the hell would you do with liberties? You are too stupid to see how the prestitutes are using your reactionary blather to disguise, distract, and divide us all.
Shame on you MPR, you and Faux Noise are one and the same!
Man, this is a weird thread.
At the high school I went to, we would bring our shotguns (and ammo) to school on fall days, so that we wouldn't have to go home and get them after school in order to hunt at the duck slough 1/4 mile away from the school.
No one has ever been shot at this school.
Also, we made all kinds of weapons in shop class. Knives, crossbows, long bows, swords, etc.
No one has ever been stabbed, or arrowed, at this school.
Also, nearly every boy, from 3rd grade up, carried a pocketknife at all times, in school and out.
The teachers, of course, knew all about our carrying weapons in class. And approved. Sometimes a male teacher would play mumbly-peg with us at recess.
No one was ever stabbed at this public school.
As a new Minnesotan, I've always been intrigued about shopping at a Fleet Farm store. But, no more; I will now not be caught dead (no pun intended) in one.
I can imagine the Mills Fleet Farm's PR person is probably going insane right now. Business 101 is to keep your politics to yourself and focus on serving your customers who happen to be of all political stripes.
If you want to stand on your soap box and brag about your political views and paranoia, be prepared for the blow back from those customers who think you sound like a nut and don't visit your store to buy assault rifles.
If I knew this goofball was running the company, I would have stopped shopping there much earlier.
The "goofball" in the Vid is the grandson of the late Original Fleet Farm store founder in Appleton, WI .Also making him the son of Stu Mills jr one of the owners. If you people don't like guns, don't buy them. Its that simple. Guns don't kill ...people do, so ban them. Shoud we ban baseball bats & hammers , because people have killed with them??? And those of you saying you wont buy from Fleet Farm again because of what they said in this vid,booooo hoooo! You are probably the same kind of people that cry about the shape of our country, and yet drive & buy overseas products.
My suggestion to all the liberals who are stating they won't support Fleet Farm anymore just because FF won't get behind the "lets ban guns" movement...I good one word for you GOOD!!! if I were the owner of FF I wouldn't want the business from people who have no respect for the 2nd Amendment. Accepting money from people like that is like accepting drug money.. I would rather stand on principles than sell out to these anti-American irrational libs.
THANK YOU FLEET FARM!
To see people comment that his intent was to say shotguns are more destructive then a .223 rifle, so they should instead regulate them instead is so 180 from the real intent....don't regulate guns to stop people!
For Novac to even say he doesn't need an assault rifle to shoot a duck proves that he is not a hunter and not informed! He goes, went?, hunting to have a photo op to say he is something he's not. Another lie to try and get more votes during the last election. He could have said "deer" or anything you might actually use a rifle for, but he doesn't really know.
Can we call hunt without modern rifles? Yes
Can we get by with magazines that only hold 10 rounds? Yes
If they ban semi-automatic weapons, will it make our kids safer at school? NO
If all criminals came in for background checks before illegally obtaining their firearms, then making that process better might help, but last time I Checked only the law abiding people are submitting to background checks.
Let's make all the people that hold up liquor stores get back ground checks and of course make sure they are licensed to carry a weapon too. They should have no problem complying with the law right? And is he carrying a big black rifle? Yes right! If he is he probably also hunts ducks with it!
A F@#$%^G 22 can kill someone. I don't get what this video is trying to say. What does the damage something can inflict matter when that object kills. I love hunting, shooting, and anything good that has to do with firearms. But why would someone compare a firearn to a firearm in such a arguement? Maybe this went way over my head, and maybe this guy just looked like to much of a douche to watch the video in its intirety. Either way I feel this a mis-representation of of firearms.
| January 2013 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S | M | T | W | T | F | S |
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | ||
| 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 |
| 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 |
| 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | ||
Master Archive
Recent Entries
- The crowdsourced vacation
- 'Phone tapping' is the new birth certificate
- Bad week. Good people
- Military moms and the bond they have
- Bob Dylan's world
- The stuff we throw away (5x8 - 5/24/13)
- Sunday liquor sales: The little bill that can't
- The concealed carry muzzle
- There's Texas and then there's everywhere else
- Tornado damage via satellite
Categories
- Arts
- Aviation
- Crime and Justice
- Disasters
- Economy
- Energy
- Five by 8
- Floods
- Floods 2011
- Health
- History
- Icons
- Life
- Marketing and advertising
- Mary and Bob
- Media
- News
- People doing good
- Politics
- Race
- Regional history
- Religion
- Schools
- Science
- Sports
- Surveys and trivia
- Tech
- The jobs we do
- War
- Weather
- You Should Meet...
Services
- Become a Member
- Member Connect Accounts
- Leadership Circle
- Sustaining Members
- Member Discounts
- Become a Sponsor
- Tax Information
- Planned Giving
- Vehicle Donation
- Donate Stock