• If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership  The benefits pay for the membership many times over.

Being pro-gun also means being pro-responsibility: We must oppose HB102

mikeyp

NES Member
Joined
Feb 6, 2012
Messages
14,511
Likes
29,550
Location
Plymouth
Feedback: 1 / 0 / 0
Fudd's gonna Fudd


Like so many Montanans, I grew up with a rifle in one hand and a shotgun in the other.
I converted my love of shooting into a 25-year career in the firearms industry. I helped build an iconic international gun company. I sold millions of guns. I've won awards, even been a finalist for the “Firearms Industry Person of the Year,” which is the industry’s highest honor. It’s an award that has also been bestowed on firearms royalty like Charlton Heston and Bill Ruger.

I've got a long history with guns, but I never forgot the lessons that my father taught me. “Be safe, be responsible, guns can take a life in an instant.”

As a boy, I learned the rules in hunter’s safety class and I followed the mandated safety procedures before every single gun industry event. House Bill 102 does away with this kind of common sense. If enacted, people without any permit could carry concealed guns into bars and college campuses across our state. Of course the sponsors of the bill mandate that permits are required around their offices in Helena, but not for the rest of us. Safety is important, but I guess it's only important for them.

I know first hand that we need to minimize the likelihood of violence, not increase it. This spring my young son was attacked in Kalispell by armed “Second Amendment patriots” at a local peaceful demonstration. They used their guns to frighten and intimidate. I stepped in to defend my son and it slowly diffused, but the situation could have gone very wrong. I shudder to think what might have happened if alcohol or the emotion of late night college parties would have been involved.
I am among the many Montanans who own and appreciate guns, but I also know that citizens of our state understand we must also be advocates for responsibility. Montana boasts of a wonderful common sense and deep down all of us know that protecting our rights also means avoiding extremist policies that only increase the likelihood of bloodshed. Montana House Bill 102 will not make us safer. It is not a pro-gun bill. It is an anti-responsibility bill.

I believe strongly in the Second Amendment, I own plenty of guns, I shoot with my boys every chance I get and I believe in the right to protect my family. But I also believe in responsibility, safety, training and common sense. This bill is the equivalent of waving flames over open gasoline; the sort of action every ranch kid like me knows is reckless.

Permitless concealed carry, guns on college campuses and in bars? These are policies that make gun tragedy more likely and there is nothing patriotic about that.
 
He's a c***. He doesn't support 2A, he supports fishing and hunting.

The Hunters’ Election: “We Think This Is the Most Important Election for Sportsmen in Our Lives”
“Biden and the Democrats are not going to take away your guns, period,” says Busse, who recently stepped down as vice president for sales at Kimber Firearms and serves on the national Sportsmen and Sportswomen for Biden committee. “The other side wants you to believe that guns are crosses—that they have that sort of deep religious significance. I love my guns, too, but I don’t for a minute think that they’d be taken away if Biden is elected.”
 
What he really meant to say was: My son and I were at a BLM riot and felt threatened by the other side and we need to disarm them.
I have a ccw and you can't, so there. I'm more smarter and important than you, if you don't agree with my liberal ideals.

These people keep saying Biden is not going to take away our guns.
Then why is it Biden and the left keep saying we are indeed going to take away your guns?

What is it some mental jedi mind game? Is it yes, we are or no, we are not? Because they keep saying yes, we are! [rofl2]
 
Last edited:
This clown's idea of a patriot must be from watching a football game.
Every fudd knows the 2A was always intended for protection against tyrannical wildlife!:mad:
 
Last edited:
@mikeyp,

I 'liked' that you brought this article up. Things are getting interesting and it is good to know about them... thanks.
~Enbloc


PS. You might want to put that cut & paste in quotes. At, first I thought you wrote the body of it... 🤪

"Reckless Men Built this Country, while fearful Men profited from their Hard Work..."
 
This spring my young son was attacked in Kalispell by armed “Second Amendment patriots” at a local peaceful demonstration. They used their guns to frighten and intimidate. I stepped in to defend my son and it slowly diffused, but the situation could have gone very wrong. I shudder to think what might have happened if alcohol or the emotion of late night college parties would have been involved.


I am sure this "happened". A guy that is anti 2, hunter only guy, since 2007 on record happens to have an indecent like that.
 
Last edited:
Seriously though, this guy has been outspoken and in the media with his anti bullshit since 2004 at least, and he just retired from a senior position at Kimber in July?
 
BLM and no one was attacked. Pussy a**h***

 
So nothing happened and it was a a horrible incident ?
No one got shot or hurt. Ermagawd.
Sounds like his kid was part of a group that was starting shit and got backed down.
The very reason most folks have guns .
 
@mikeyp,

I 'liked' that you brought this article up. Things are getting interesting and it is good to know about them... thanks.
~Enbloc


PS. You might want to put that cut & paste in quotes. At, first I thought you wrote the body of it... 🤪

"Reckless Men Built this Country, while fearful Men profited from their Hard Work..."

1611701111287.png
 
People like Busse are all blind to the “slippery slope” argument. DO NOT want to get into the whole gay marriage thing, but I do like Jeff Jacoby’s take on the fact that the libs always deny that we’re starting down a “slippery slope”:

"In 1989, as Massachusetts lawmakers were about to enact a law barring discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, the Boston Globe assured its readers that the bill wouldn't legalize gay marriage or confer on same-sex couples the right to marriage-like civil unions. "Nor does passage of the bill put Massachusetts on a 'slippery slope' toward such rights." Yet when the SJC ruled that same-sex couples could not be barred from marrying, as UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh has noted, "part of its reasoning rested on the Legislature's decision to ban sexual orientation discrimination." That slope was slippery, after all."

Same is true when we say that universal background checks will lead to registration will lead to confiscation and the Fudds/libs deny it all saying we’re worrying about a nonexistent “slippery slope" The Fudds are going to Fudd and the libs are going to lib.
 

take a look at the fourth bullet point down in Conservation and Outdoor Group Leaders section.
 
As much as I shit on Krapber, from what I understand this guy quit the company this summer anyways....
 
Back
Top Bottom