Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
‘Military-Style’ Firearms Aren’t Protected By Second Amendment, Court Rules
#75
(02-27-2017, 12:27 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Because it is a collection from my dad and myself that has happened over time and is a result of hunting in Pennsylvania where semi-autos weren't allowed for hunting. This will be the first year that they are allowed for hunting and since that was our primary use of the firearms, that was what we had. Now, this isn't to say I haven't seriously considered an auto-loader pistol, and still do to this day, and have owned them in the past (Ruger Mk II). I have fired all sorts of things at the range and think a G36, an M4, an MP5, and even a Barrett are fun as hell to shoot (it's nice knowing the owner of TSSI with his collection), I just have no practical purpose for them. I can make an argument for a semi-automatic pistol or two, though, because my wife handling my Blackhawk .357 magnum or Super Blackhawk .44 magnum just isn't happening.

Must resist* dick joke. 

*Bfine, by resist I don't mean I'm going to physically fight Matt's dick in a bare knuckle street fight. 





Messages In This Thread
RE: ‘Military-Style’ Firearms Aren’t Protected By Second Amendment, Court Rules - oncemoreuntothejimbreech - 02-27-2017, 12:40 PM

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 3 Guest(s)