r/canadaguns • u/Panjaab1 • 14d ago
News / Politics / Activism How Responsible are Fudds for the Current State of Firearms in Canada?
I recently had a discussion with a fellow PAL holder on some of the new exciting rifles that are coming into the country. To summarize his viewpoint in short, it was that no one needed such firearms as they have no use in hunting. It was reminiscent of the democrat argument of “just buy a shotgun”.
In my experience, the younger generation of enthusiasts view firearms in an opposite light of fudds, where firearms are a means of self defense from tyranny in form of government and intruders.
This got me thinking, how responsible are fudds for our current dire circumstances? I feel that most of us had to become political activists in recent years due to necessity whereas fudds choose to be politically complacent or have been convinced that less freedoms are better.
In some part I feel that we as a community actually deserve the hand that has been dealt. Even on our firearm based sub, I see some comments being massively upvoted that promote limiting our freedoms as Canadians or cope comments because it would mean we are superior to the US.
Would it have always turned out like this?
121
u/MourningWood1942 14d ago
I think the liberals would have done what they did regardless of what the fudds think.
105
u/coniferslav 14d ago
I always hate that argument "You have no need/use for it" Fuck you, I like what I like for my own personal reasons whether its aesthetics, ergonomics or just because I say so. I shouldn't and dont have to justify what I like in this hobby. None of your business what style of firearm I should own, Im just as vetted and responsible to own and enjoy as the next to me at the range.
47
u/Metalock 14d ago
I always just reverse the argument onto their hobby (if I know the person) whenever they pull that garbage, especially to emphasize how crappy the compensation for the "buyback" is
"Why do you need a Jeep for offroading when you can use a Honda Civic?"
"Who needs an expensive mountain bike when you can just use a Big Wheel?"
"Why do you need that compound bow? Can't you just practice archery with a slingshot?"
16
u/IronSack46 14d ago
Why do you need a sports car that can easily break the speed limit when way more people in Canada die of speed related accidents than people die due to firearm accidents and crime combined.
24
u/rangedehinc 14d ago
"Why do you need a big ass house just live in a condo"
6
u/Q-Ball7 In the end, it's taxes all the way down 13d ago
"Why can't you be happy even though you own nothing?"
("If they can't afford bread, can't they just eat cake?" didn't turn out very well for the last ruler who said that. If that is dispersed throughout society through democratic means I can't imagine at all why the people saying that are, statistically, the most terrified by guns.)
9
10
u/Jimbo_Slice1919 14d ago
You have no need to go 300 kph nor is it legal anywhere in this country, but yet people can buy super cars. Should we ban super cars purely because “you have no need”? No and the same can be said in regard to firearms.
Now if this OIC challenge fails… We could very well see something like that happen if that becomes the governments desire.
5
u/fyfnw 13d ago
The government can only do it if we allow them to. Its not going to be easy or fast. But we will win back what they stole from us but it means never giving in to their stupidity.
5
u/Jimbo_Slice1919 13d ago
This is true but this OIC sets a precedent and gives them absolute power (through OICs) if we loose. They could easily put an OIC in place mandating everyone forfeits their ICE vehicles in a buy-back program with capped funds, saying your vehicle needs to meet specific emissions standards. If this OIC challenge fails the courts will have to base future judgements off this case which in turn would result in an OIC being the final word with nothing we can do besides revolt. Hence why they are trying to disarm our population.
20
u/fyfnw 14d ago
Agreed. Firearms is the only thing that we talk like that about. We don't say "Why do you need that Ferrari?" or "Why do you need that big of a house?" or "Why do you need to eat that much?"...
We either live in a free country or we don't. I've gotten very frustrated listen to various discussions on MSM where the representatives of the firearms community don't push back strong enough against those talking points. Similarly, when they like to say "self defense is not a valid reason to own a firearm" and everyone just nods and quickly moves past it. We have ceded that ground of the argument and we need to reclaim it back.
6
5
9
u/Panjaab1 14d ago
The CCFR does a good job of representing the use of firearms in self defence. I think that’s the first step of actual gun rights or atleast that direction.
-2
u/AnOblongBox 14d ago
I mean I wouldn't be 100% opposed to a luxury firearms tax (like we have for vehicles in some provinces) if we could have full auto..
7
u/oversky_1437 13d ago
Why are you compromising? What does a tax do besides punish legal gun owners?
3
13
u/boozefiend3000 14d ago
I remember being at some gunshow, there was this deactivated Thompson on this sellers table. This old fuck with some Mediterranean eurotrash accent asks why anyone needs that to shoot a deer. Just wanted to smack his fuckin face. I can’t stand Fudds
2
u/GinnAdvent 14d ago
I can think of many things to do with a fully functional Thompson. You would turn so many faces in 3 guns competition. Heck, you would turn heads at local range alone. Not to mention the history and craftsmanship.
Oh, did I mention the cost?
5
u/High_rise_guy 13d ago
I used the classic car example with a guy one time. You don’t NEED a classic car. In fact, they’re less safe for the public and yourself. No air bags, power brakes, anti-lock brakes, intermittent wipers, emissions controls, front drum breaks, etc.
3
u/oversky_1437 13d ago
Had one mouthing off like that on my firearms course many years ago and told him I'd vote to ban all firearms out of spite if I ran out of guns I'd like to own. Fuck you cowardly old man.
1
u/Creative-Abandon123 12d ago
If need had anything to do with what we were allowed to own in Canada, nobody would have sports cars and you'd need a special license to get a pickup truck. All art would be banned, you wouldn't be able to buy chips, pop, chocolate, or anything else fun that might also harm you.
38
u/nankerphelge_ 14d ago
"You're the smartest guy I ever met... and you're too stupid to see... he made up his mind ten minutes ago.”
11
5
17
u/jimmythemortician 14d ago
I can remember people getting downvoted here for saying firearms ownership is a right. Those downvotes weren't all Fudds or Boomers.
1
u/hockeyfanatic777 14d ago
Not 100% sure what you mean by that, but I view firearm ownership similar to a driver license. It’s not a right. It’s a privilege. You gotta prove your responsible and deserve it otherwise you shouldn’t have one
10
u/Panjaab1 14d ago
That viewpoint is exactly the problem in my opinion. There are countries such as Switzerland which view it as both assuming the responsibility aspect is proven, but it is part of the constitution.
5
u/hockeyfanatic777 14d ago
There are other countries that do it better, and others that do it worse.
US? Worse. Swiss? Amazing.
Swiss also has a pop of about 9 million. They have an amazing culture, they teach it properly, and safely. Canada.. we still have work to do. The massive influx of immigrants since 2020 hasn’t helped. Swiss have about a quarter of their population as immigrants, but they are from European countries where they respect firearm laws. Unfortunately, and downvote me all you want, Canada has lots of immigrants from countries where they don’t give two shits about our laws and culture. That’s a big part of the issue in my eyes.
But that’s just me, a dumb ole younger middle aged guy from the north
5
u/Significant_Meal9518 13d ago
It is a privilege but it becomes frustrating when the govt can decide the rules we already have in place no longer apply for arbitrary reasons. Many of the guns on the oic meet every legal definition under our current laws. Manufacturers have since released new guns that apply to our laws. How long until they don't?
6
u/jimmythemortician 13d ago
You're wrong and you have it backwards. If the Government wants to restrict your rights, they're the ones who should have the burden to prove why you can't exercise them.
Do you have a right to self defense? To defend your life and the lives of your family? How do you think that actually works?
Just because corrupt governments pass laws, doesn't mean those laws are valid and just. Nazis passed laws making everything they did legal, how did that work out for them?
72
u/Murray3-Dvideos 14d ago
Zero. 100% of the blame falls on Canadians who re-elected Trudeau.
42
30
u/boozefiend3000 14d ago
I know at least 2 Fudds that voted liberal because their guns weren’t affected
24
u/Acceptable_Visit_115 14d ago
The LPC panders to boomers who loves to pull up the ladder because it "doesn't affect us".
Fudds have the same mentality because they think the LPC won't ban their hunting rifles.
Match made in heaven.
5
u/fyfnw 13d ago
To be honest, if the Liberals commited to repealing all their gun bans -- and we actually believed they would -- I would vote for them. I'll vote for any party that will repeal these discriminatory gun bans and leaves us alone. I'm a single issue voter now.
3
u/Acceptable_Visit_115 13d ago
The bans for sure have turned lots of us into single issue voters. But would the Libs repeal anything?
-5
u/amorphoussoupcake 14d ago
As easy as it is to blame the libs, the conservatives barely move the needle when they are in power.
12
u/Murray3-Dvideos 14d ago
Only because the Liberals go absolutely ballistic over any reversals or relaxation in gun control. Its easy to blame the Liberals because they are 100% the source of the problem. Liberals put in the bans, Liberals are the ones threatening to toss us in jail, Liberals are the ones recruiting gun control psychos into their ranks, Liberals have the undemocratically obtained Majority power to remove the bans, but Liberals dont because they are f'ing sumbag Liberals. And YES the slander and hate is 100% warranted. Just look at what they've done to well over a million Canadians...
1
u/amorphoussoupcake 13d ago
Yes and conservatives left the majority of our gun control in place when they are in power.
3
u/fyfnw 13d ago
At this point, it might be easier trying to appeal to the Liberals morally flexible nature and convince them to repeal these bans than "ice skate up hill" trying to get the Conservatives elected.
2
u/Murray3-Dvideos 11d ago
The CPC with a normal "Stephen Harder or Otool style" leader would give Carneys party a real run for its money once Trump is gone. Lots of time between now and then to get rid of PP.
21
u/Ov3rReadKn1ght0wl 14d ago
In many ways, it was the mobilization of funds that helped push back against the G46 Amendment that was included in C21. Fudd organizations like provincial hunting groups are a significant voice for the community as well. The issue is that, because those of a fuddy stripe tend to stay in the fuddy-lane, they are only quick to mobilize when they see something that rolls into it.
This is my assessment as someone who is very much a hunter-first (fudd-adjacent) firearms owner who is often the voice of alert at his organization meetings to bring attention to firearms overreach by the fed. It's not that the full-blown Elmers don't care; it's just that they are very much enjoying their firearms experience with blinders on. By no means are they at fault for the state of things because that agency ball lies firmly at the feet of the LPC and their political ambitions. But I will say, they aren't as quick on the uptake as I would like them to be. One thing they do very well is actually curate a positive image of firearms ownership that is deeply intertwined with conservation concerns, and that's a significant boost in my view.
35
u/VagabondAlbertan 14d ago
For us Canadians saying firearms are for defense or anything like that is the worst fucking thing possible we can say. Like it or not we don't have the right or laws for that to be a thing.
My only problem is all the older people saying that the new bans don't matter or effect them because they can still hunt with their bolt action.
We need everyone regardless of age or usage being on our side
6
9
9
u/TheEnwizener 14d ago
Governments can: -Acknowledge rights. -Support rights. -Violate rights. They cannot grant rights.
8
u/lanteenboy 14d ago
You certainly do have the right to defend yourself with a firearm in Canada and it's been upheld in court, however the use of force must be appropriate to the level of threat and even if it is, one can expect to be charged, so it had better be a matter of last resort.
15
7
u/VagabondAlbertan 14d ago
Keep telling yourself that. The courts are getting more and more stacked against us.
I hope for our sake we never have to be in that position but don't pretend that the government will take your side.
1
-10
u/hockeyfanatic777 14d ago
Hearing the same rhetoric they use down in the states “we need it to protect ourselves from the big bad govt!!!” Is a stupid argument these days. Always has been. And it only gives them more reason to take more and more from us.
We aren’t using these rifles for self defense. We aren’t allowed. Is it stupid? Yup. 👍
But that’s not a valid “reason/excuse”.
I truly don’t think we should be allowed to “shoot people because they are dressed in hoodies on my property” like one person suggested the other day.
The states has an obvious problem.
We don’t have a firearm problem. We have a crime problem. The states has both.
6
u/Panjaab1 14d ago
I am not entirely sure if that “they were wearing hoodies” is applicable as valid reasoning in the majority of the states. Some states have a looser castle doctrine vs others where force requires justification.
https://globalnews.ca/news/12029177/court-of-appeal-sentence-jason-munroe-whitby/
Here is a local example here in Canada as to our legal system working against us. The problem with crown countries and the Canadian charter is “rights” don’t exist as they can be redefined by law. This eventually leads to groups like ours being demonized.
It all boils down to if someone does something bad, why should I be punished for it. Realistically in a free society this should not happen.
4
u/Accomplished_Ruin396 13d ago
The Jason Munroe case isn't a good example of the legal system failing someone for self-defense.
The judge explicitly ruled that him wrestling the gun away and shooting the intruder inside his house was lawful self-defense. The conviction for reckless discharge came specifically from him chasing them out onto the porch and firing at their getaway car as they drove away.
Part of basic firearm safety and responsible ownership is knowing your target and what lies beyond it. Firing off your porch into a residential street at a fleeing car ignores that rule entirely. Stray rounds do not stop just because you are defending yourself, and putting neighbors or their property in the line of fire is not self-defense.
6
u/AndreiHoo 14d ago
1000 percent, these are the same one who told you “nobody needs an Ar15 and the government won’t ban pistol”
And they probably voted liberals too.
12
u/KalashnikovParty 14d ago
I think fudds in general also hurt the firearms cause through their gatekeeping and just general attitude towards those who are interested. My experience at ranges have always been this: Zoomer and millennial gun owners are generally friendly, curious, and happy to see you there. Fudds however act like your presence in their private sport is an insult for whatever reason
3
u/Kaffarov .40 Salt&Walnuts 14d ago
Also share the same experience. The younger generation is a lot more enthusiastic and approachable to what’s out there. Some of the Fudds look bothered or glare in your direction if you’re shooting anything that isn’t manual action.
1
u/Borealbound 14d ago
What about the brass scavengers? I have never seen a young shooter doing that, it’s always some old dude, usually with a dust pan and broom.
7
u/Agonizing-Stroke1812 14d ago
Fudds are the sole reason a lot of gun shops can continue to exist especially in more rural parts. The only ones to blame are those who conjured up these bans in the first place
3
u/iching66 14d ago
The arguement of "they have no use in hunting" so "no one needed such firearms" is kinda ridiculous. That is like saying we shouldn't have Ferraris because no one really needs that much speed or power on the road.
3
u/rangedehinc 14d ago
Well... it is likely fudds are life time lpc voters and gave us both "waves" of trudeaus.
Id say... 100% responsible.
3
u/el-warhorse69 13d ago
I have no use for any of the crappy Turkish .223’s and tactical looking .22Lr’s, but I would love to have an AK, FAL, G3, m14 EBR/crazy horse; until then I’ll just keep collecting guns that put meat in my freezer.
The self defence with a firearm is a huge deal for me, and as a dual citizen from Scotland, I look at their very strict gun laws and wonder why they can have suppressors and we can’t. Hollywood movies obviously played a big part in the decision in Canada. The only stuff assassin quiet would be .22LR with subsonic ammo.
England has a form of castle law, we have some silly equal lesser force type shit that makes me envision fighting a knife wielding intruder in my kitchen like Jack Sparrow. This issue is a big reason I’m toying with becoming an Idaho, Montana resident, plus the never ending liberal rule.
I have fudd friends that claim “why does anyone need that” because I want it? The car analogy up there makes the most sense. I had a BMW that could do 265kmh plus, the highest speed limit is 110, why do you need a car that does that? In BC, 40kmh over the limit and your car gets impounded for a week, so most people keep it under that. Considering any firearm offences carry much harsher and life changing penalties legal gun owners follow the rules and use their firearms safely, whether it was an AR15 or a Bolt action.
Even before Trudeau I thought Canadas rules were too strict, mainly the being a member of range and ATT for pistols and restricted. I would love to able to carry a large caliber pistol for bears while out hunting but again, just another pipe dream.
1
u/waitwhatnothing 1d ago
Hollywood movies might help keep suppressors banned but they’ve been banned since the 30’s, the original reason was likely concerns around poaching.
9
u/Massive_Expression_2 14d ago
Wow. No matter if that's the case or not, trying to divide our community up is a really bad idea. We've got big enough problems as we PAL holders are already a minority. Don't try to divide the minority into splinter groups. Don't go blaming some gun owners for the shit we're in. It's the ANTI gun idiots coupled with politicians latching onto anything that gets them a few more votes.
11
u/boozefiend3000 14d ago
We’re already divided lol Fudds, people participating in the confiscation program. There’s no unity. People are gonna do what they think best benefits them
2
u/powersmoke9494 14d ago
I say "it's a slippery slope, look at the mini 14 for instance, safari rifles. It's only a matter of time before you can only own 1 bolt action and maybe a pump shotgun" the majority of old guys Ive met after having an actual discussion with them kinda get it even if they would never own one.
2
u/AlexFinance 14d ago
0%. Blame it on the left extremists (not many, but there are some) who push for this kind of stuff. I'm not a Liberal voter, but I'd assume two thirds of them probably don't know or care about the restrictive firearm laws that have been pushed on us.
2
u/hafetysazard 13d ago
I think the opinion of your average legal gun owner hardly ever mattered in the legislation that affected them.
2
u/China_bot42069 14d ago
could make the same arguement for sports cars, cars with more than 65hp, private ga planes etc. I 100% blame the fudds and the liberals, and the fence sitters in this sub. Ankles up!!
2
u/CenturionV 14d ago
They are a little responsible for splitting the community a bit, but they aren't what keeps gun shops open OR who the government really targeted. The government went after the younger, tactical, 3-gun, style of firearms owners, the ones who actually buy a lot of guns and shoot a ton of ammo (unlike fudds still working on their 20rnd box of 30-06 from '98) because they are the lifeblood of shooting sports in Canada, and the sport was growing rapidly, especially among modern sporting rifle/Pistol users. That was extremely disturbing to the liberal anti-gun crowd and poly. Younger generations have grown up on a steady diet of Call of Duty/Rainbow 6, police/war movies and guntubers and they want those kinds of firearms and that is what the liberals were trying to head-off and they have had a long term de-facto majority on firearms lawmaking (with Bloc/NDP support) to make it happen. It's not really that complicated.
2
1
u/GlockPaperScissorsVR 13d ago
Fudds are definitely partly responsible because most people who want firearms gone, want them all gone because even one in the hands of civillians is a potential risk in their eyes to be used for violence. Fudds think they will be protected because they're "just hunting" with their firearms but once those start getting taken too they'll get no sympathy from anyone. I had this argument all the time with hunters at the shop I worked at as a Gunsmith. United we stand.
1
u/greasygreenbastard 13d ago
Yes, very much they are responsible. Ive met some very B&R oldboys, but by and large, most gun owners over the age of like 50 are fudds.
If they say some fudd-tier statement, just respond back, "That's a nice opinion" and then change the topic or leave the convo. If you are really lookin for a fight, tell them there is quite literally zero reason for anyone to consume alcohol, and that we would save so many lives and healthcare monies if it was all banned.
Also, "exciting rifles"??? Which ones?
1
u/Pyro-Titan4 13d ago
Fudds vote for and perpetuate the absurd firearm restrictions because they don’t care because their sporterized Lee Enfield they bought from the Eatons catalog in 1972 isn’t on the ban list.
They’re also very ignorant of what the buyback means because they don’t cross reference news from different sources and exclusively consume news through main stream bias legacy media that call a GSG 16 an “assault weapon”. I know a couple and they are hopeless.
1
u/nschwart91 13d ago
Its always frustrating when those within our own community or movement don't share our values (see Monty Python the Life of Brian for a good parody of this). At the same time, I don't think using divisive language like fudd helps anyone here. I just re frame their argument around public safety. There's no evidence that semi-automatic rifles with 5-round magazines pose a greater risk to public safety in the hands of licensed and vetted individuals than traditional firearms. Wood stocked semi autos have been operated safely in Canada for over a century - even for hunting.
1
u/Impossible-Green-862 13d ago
Older people love to use guns for hunting and target sports, I don't see why everybody wants to blame them. I find it ridiculous. Work with our fellow gun enthusiasts, not against.
1
u/floppy_breasteses 13d ago
The Fudds have been fighting since before most of us have been alive. Say what you will about them, the fact that you're allowed to own guns at all is likely due to their efforts.
1
u/Dantheislander 13d ago
Had to implies activism has saved anything. Became active to no effect more like. They’ll do what they’re gonna do and everyone will keep posting ‘it fell in the lake’ or ‘nah not me never sureender’.
1
u/Dream_of_Iron_Sheep 9d ago
I think the combination of some jackass smuggling a bunch of guns into the country to commit a mass shooting with proceeded by police incompetency and liberal vote pandering is largely to blame for the current state of our gun laws. Dunno that a single sub-group of gun owners is really the problem lol
1
u/yummybunnybear 9d ago
I know that Poilievre and his party were trying to save guns in this last round of Liberal gun bans, but I didn't like the angle of opposing "hunting rifle bans". This terminology conceded the shifting of the Overton window that the guns are worth saving because they're hunting rifles, implying that if they're not hunting rifles they deserve less sympathy. As a collector I'm the first one to admit that my banned guns are not hunting rifles.
1
u/Gordo_28 9d ago
I think ALL firearms owners and Canadains are responsible. Both for our gun policy and the larger state of the politics in this country in general. We all need to do better. Can't blame the Fudds entirely just cause we're an easy target. (Speaking as a younger hunter here.) And arguably the Tacticool guys are probably equally to blame because Joe public probably thinks you guys look scary with the modern firearms. And that is because Joe public is uneducated. And that is everyone's fault in the gun community that Joe public is so ignorant. Sooo yeah. Idk I think it's all of us.
1
u/6674826959 14d ago
I don’t think Fudds ever wanted this, remember that Fudds had higher test levels than the majority of people under 30 today
1
u/PizzaExisting9878 14d ago
It’s this division within our own ranks that got us to where we are today…..
1
u/Awkward_Cheetah7519 14d ago
Idk man im 23 and im a fudd only exception is my eagle grip charles daly. I personally just like the old stuff I mean even new guns dont have a bolt as satisfying as an old Lee enfield. Old rifles are sturdy and they look awesome
7
u/Borealbound 14d ago
I am older than you, old enough to be your dad if I fathered you as a teenager. I too prefer older guns, but I also wouldn’t stop people from owning anything new or modern, including suppressed SBR’s or pistols with FRT triggers.
3
u/boozefiend3000 14d ago
Liking old guns doesn’t make you a Fudd. A fudd is a hunter who doesn’t give a shit about everyone else getting fucked because their hunting rifle is safe
5
u/Panjaab1 14d ago
Honestly it’s fine if you like to own the old stuff because you like it or think it’s cool etc. What’s not cool is voting in a way/being politically complacent/not advocating for the rights of other firearm enthusiasts to own things you wouldn’t necessarily be interested in owning.
-6
u/Awkward_Cheetah7519 14d ago
Oh man anyone should have the gun they want but I do agree with some of the firearms banned. As much as I would love to own an AK47 I understand why its banned.
4
5
u/Panjaab1 14d ago edited 14d ago
I too understand why an Ak47 is banned. It is seen as a weapon of war and simple minded individuals may feel uncomfortable but this all boils down to black gun=scary. Just because something looks a certain way doesn’t mean it is inherently bad.
Edit: Valmets are a thing
1
u/JohnCitizen2077 14d ago
Being a fudd is a mindset, not that you can't enjoy the classics
It's supporting the gun confiscation, banning anything designed in the past 100 years
If you don't support the confiscation of newer firearms (you know, 80 year old designs), you aren't a Fudd
1
u/Flatfoot8355 13d ago
"Hard times create strong people, strong people create good times, good times create lazy people, and lazy people create hard times."
0
u/Major-Ad-4288 14d ago
if we all get 2 friends to get PAL's and those 2 friends get 2 friends... as one voice we push for 2nd amendment rights. as Canadians we can find a balance that includes the right to bear arms and the responsible and polite Canadian gun culture we already know
1
u/Significant_Meal9518 13d ago
As long as criminals are shooting people legal gun owners will be under attack in this country. Might be a doomer mindset but the facts are the facts.
1
0
u/LeeFrann 13d ago
this is legitimately the fault of the new owners. too many people got licenses too quickly and casual ownership/covetship got to common and we flaunted it on social media and thats what scared the shit out of the government.
2
0
u/Bohdyboy 11d ago
Interesting use of the term "Fudds" when you were asking which ar15s use non proprietary parts just 26 days ago on the ar reddit.
Trying to build an ar part by part would put you solidly in the Fudd category
-3
14d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
6
u/boozefiend3000 14d ago
A fudd is a gun owner that only owns guns to hunt and doesn’t care about bans and other gun owners getting fucked because they know their hunting rifle is safe
-5
•
u/AutoModerator 14d ago
Hi! It looks like your post mentions buying, selling, or linking to retailers/private marketplaces.
Just a reminder to everyone that no offers to buy, purchase, sell are allowed on this sub due to Reddit's community restrictions on firearms transactions. Limit discussion to the items themselves and do not post any direct links to sales or promotions. Referring to legal vendors is allowed as long as links to do not go to retail listings for items. THIS INCLUDES GUN SAFETY EQUIPMENT AND GUN ACCESSORIES: Reddit Admins have banned users for this!
If your post doesn't violate these rules, no action is needed and you can safely disregard this comment.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.