Its a general trend among people who are anti 2nd Amendment to be selective about which rights in the BoR people should get, and who should get each

Hmmm...”right to own slaves” having trouble finding that one

They are about safety and training. They are a multi-faceted organization.

Don’t get me wrong, I don’t own a bump stock and have no desire to own one, but the only reason anyone even cares about them is because one guy used one to shoot a bunch of people one time.

A bump stock doesn’t do anything that plenty of people weren’t already doing with a belt loop and their finger when I was in high school and before they were introduced. They are a novelty, and most people don’t use them if they have any intention of hitting their target.

That said, the legislation that has been…

I realize they are required. My support for the BOR is not limited to only the 2nd Amendment.

On the topic of the first I think the idea of “hate speech” is arbitrary and caprecious and as such should not be excluded from constitutional protection.

My point was that you keep calling it compromise, yet gun owners are being offered nothing in return for accepting more restrictions. That is inherently not compromise, but a concession. Why should they?

Because they never should have been added to begin with; the case of Miller vs. US that upheld their addition to the list stated that since they were not in common use by the military the NFA could require a then prohibitively expensive $200 tax stamp, which was incorrect and misinformed. Had Miller not died before…

Because they’re offered nothing in return. What do they get in exchange for banning bump stocks or raising the age to buy a rifle to 21? Will suppressors, Short-barreled shotguns, and/or short barreled rifles be de-listed from the NFA if this passes? Will post 1986 automatics become transferable? Will the import ban…

Because that’s not all the NRA is about. Another component, and the one I give them money for, is to fight these emotionally driven “common sense” proposals that would do nothing to prevent stuff like this from happening, but would further restrict our rights in the name of “compromise.” It is actually not compromise…

He said he regretted the responsible choice and wants fun now

On paper the 6.2 is faster, but driving both side by side the GMC handles in a much more cumbersome manner, and their torque management is far too aggressive and makes it kind of disappointing.

Has not been my experience with the 3 in my family. They feel about as solid as they did new.
I have one relative with 300,000+ miles on his ‘02, only thing it the AC doesn’t work.

Go test drive one and see. They-and really most pickups now-are worlds different from trucks of 10-20 years ago

The 9 speed is a transaxle, the Rams are RWD and get the 8 speeds which are some of the best transmissions on the market. There are quite a few people posting online with over 300,000 miles on them. Maybe that’s not all that much, but they’ve only been out for 4 years

I didn’t say you did-I never had to do any of those things when I bought any of mine either, and you shouldn’t have to.

They have safety and marksmanship training programs

The thing is that laws are inherently on your honor to follow until you break them and then they are reactive. As emotionally convenient as it is for people to believe that they can ever be truly safe, that’s just simply not the case. There is no actual reason that the guy behind you in line at Taco Bell can’t kill…

You have to get checked by the FBI to buy a car? What state do you live in?

Many of them are the military....