Sensible Gun Safety

[runrussellrun]

Here's a proposed solution.

Make it harder to get an assault weapon than it is to vote.

Both are rights -- both can be regulated.

That is not a solution. It is an idea, that may lead to a solution.

Define "harder" ......

Like, for example, how one becomes a legal. licensed lawyer in the state of Colorado ? that kind of "hard". any fool can pass a BAR exam, but, it becomes "harder" for those that suffer from economic bigotry. can't afford, the .....wait for it MANDATORY spending of well over $100K on college......just to be able to read the law. Like honest Abe Lincoln.

you can register , online, to vote, in your state.

What is the process , to order, say, the standard Remington 870 PUMP shotgun, and have one delivered to ones home, in Colorado?

Your path, is, a good one. Many states , have a "waiting period" for voting, aka, registration deadlines. this is a good point.

assume we get to the point where any smokeless powder ammo guns, regardless of capacity, will be banned. Does that mean, the murder rate in Baltimore will go down? I sure hope so.

that pig cops won't shoot up the wrong people, serving warrants for a hundred dollars worth of pot. well, if NO one has guns, the cops won't need then either. right? we going full England ? F that......


Meanwhile, wallstreet grifters laugh all their way to ACK.....

[PizzaSnake]

Same discussion after every one of these tragedies, and they are indeed very sad and hard to understand.
Anyone got any solutions though?

SImple.

Get the people like you and https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=8HqyEHqEYhoHolmes and Cradle together, and have YOU craft the gun restrictions. And craft them in a way that really sticks it to illegal use and storage of guns.

From there? Put together real funding for mental health in America.

Do those two things? The libs will back off. But what we've been doing is---absolutely NOTHING. Not even token changes to either guns or mental health. What message does that send to people who are sick of this insanity?

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=8HqyEHqEYho

[runrussellrun]

https://i.imgur.com/Ao32ppR.jpg



... interesting ...

What do we type in, to prove more of your lies wrong.......

Assuming these are state legislatures.

What part of the law, will make it "harder" for people to vote?

a photo ID ? like a vaxx passport for covid, that kind of "hard"

we are SO done with you infotainment liars.....


can't defend the claim?

don't post

Huh ~ did ya say something?

No, I didn't say anything, I typed it. or wrote it. It is called the written language, not spoken language.

throughout time, all but the unfortunate mute had little difficulting speaking. Writing?

We took great strides in this wonderful, ever changing, country of ours, to make our citizens literate. That means, that they can Read and WRITE, as well as speak.

you, posted something that WROTE that there are 100 laws in the kitchen, that will make it "harder" to vote.

you continue to offer zero evidence.

If this is how you want to leave your mark in the world, have at it. Others will like to solve problems, use the good, change or eliminate the bad.

What is your objective, in these posts? fun ?

[cradleandshoot]

Same discussion after every one of these tragedies, and they are indeed very sad and hard to understand.
Anyone got any solutions though?

SImple.

Get the people like you and Holmes and Cradle together, and have YOU craft the gun restrictions. And craft them in a way that really sticks it to illegal use and storage of guns.

From there? Put together real funding for mental health in America.

Do those two things? The libs will back off. But what we've been doing is---absolutely NOTHING. Not even token changes to either guns or mental health. What message does that send to people who are sick of this insanity?

I'm not a gun person a Fan as you might describe them. I do have a question for you. If the US bans 30 round detachable AR15 type magazines how long before you think people in other countries see a huge business opportunity? Hell 30 round magazines for our rifles could become the biggest export out of China via the Mexican border. If the gubmint can't stop marijuana from crossing the border by the ton you think they will do better at stopping large capacity magazines from coming in? If there is a market for them in America then there is money to be made. Where liberals see faux safety smugglers will see money to be made. Who do you think wins here?

[Brooklyn]

What is your objective, in these posts? fun ?

Well, it certainly gets a charge out of you, pal.

[runrussellrun]

Same discussion after every one of these tragedies, and they are indeed very sad and hard to understand.
Anyone got any solutions though?

SImple.

Get the people like you and Holmes and Cradle together, and have YOU craft the gun restrictions. And craft them in a way that really sticks it to illegal use and storage of guns.

From there? Put together real funding for mental health in America.

Do those two things? The libs will back off. But what we've been doing is---absolutely NOTHING. Not even token changes to either guns or mental health. What message does that send to people who are sick of this insanity?

the only part of what you wrote , that is "simple", is understanding what you mean by "America". the rest? far from simple.

US Constitution has ZERO definition of what 'armed means". Therefore, one could argue that there is zero need for regulation.....at ALL. from there, you can get into layers. Is a drone, dropping a ballon down an exhaust system, pipe, or into a water way.....delivered by untrackable drones, a "weapon" ? FAA regulates them, so, what, nothing to worry about?

Why is it, the root of the problem, mental problems and issues.......never the first issue?

Some, could make the claim, that a POTUSA signing prison reform, affecting African Americans way more.....but the economic poor overall......was part of the "mental health" for our countries citizens. Any POTSUA sign, such legislation...say...oh, in the past few years ?

You seriously making the claim that mental health was the ONLY part of all the massive budget increases that occurred in the past few years, that did NOT go up? Maybe, we don't need another $100 million study............just maybe.

NOPE.........your side wants the rules. Propose them.

If Donald J Trump has access to nuke weapons, so should I . Doesn't seem so crazy, does it.


For me, any authority that has weapons, and the ability to access "my property", enforcing easements, prevent commerce, etc. like, say, pipelines on tribal lands......or, sending amazingON strike busters, aka, natiional guard with machine guns....nope....sorry. Armed the same.

If the Denver police have pistol style shotguns, does that include the lethal rubber bullets automatic guns ?

our public school system let us down, once again, with this Boulder kid. Willing to bet his HIGH school football budget is bigger than the mental health staff the kids have access too. Including, that useless DARE cop, mostly either banging the kids, or selling stuff to them.

yeah, AFAN......simple.


Might have taken a little bit longer to revolt, but we'd be speaking english , if we hadn't.


wait....a minute.....

[a fan]

Same discussion after every one of these tragedies, and they are indeed very sad and hard to understand.
Anyone got any solutions though?

SImple.

Get the people like you and Holmes and Cradle together, and have YOU craft the gun restrictions. And craft them in a way that really sticks it to illegal use and storage of guns.

From there? Put together real funding for mental health in America.

Do those two things? The libs will back off. But what we've been doing is---absolutely NOTHING. Not even token changes to either guns or mental health. What message does that send to people who are sick of this insanity?

I'm not a gun person a Fan as you might describe them.

What I mean is: people who know what the F they are talking about when it comes to guns.

I think in the context you are thinking of, I am also a "gun person". I am pro gun. Most folks out here I know hunt and/or fish. I don't want to stop that.

That said? I stopped learning about guns at age 16. I don't know what I'm talking about, and haven't fired a gun in decades.

I do have a question for you. If the US bans 30 round detachable AR15 type magazines how long before you think people in other countries see a huge business opportunity? Hell 30 round magazines for our rifles could become the biggest export out of China via the Mexican border.....

You just explained exactly why I want someone like you to help to craft any legislation. Because I have no idea what you are talking about, and neither
do liberals who have never so much as held a gun, let alone fired one.

[njbill]

There will be a futile attempt at banning assault rifles that will never fly as long as there is a 2nd amendment.

Not true. The Second Amendment does not protect assault rifles.

And by the way, you do realize that the Supreme Court never held that the Second Amendment protects individual gun ownership until 2008. In the full history of the country, it is essentially a brand new right, created by the activist conservatives on the Supreme Court in one of the most wrongheaded decisions in the court’s history.

Justice Stevens in his dissent articulated in a powerful and scholarly opinion why the Second Amendment does not protect an individual’s right to own a gun.

The simplistic answer is that the Bill of Rights was designed to protect rights the citizens of the young country thought might be infringed upon by their government, based in large part on English history. Everyone back then owned a gun, and no one was concerned the government would interfere with gun ownership. No one thought there was a need to have a constitutional amendment to protect individual gun ownership. That’s why the Second Amendment was never intended to apply to individuals.

I may not live long enough to see Heller overruled, but I hope my daughter does.

[runrussellrun]

What is your objective, in these posts? fun ?

Well, it certainly gets a charge out of you, pal.

Charged, as in "angry" ?

I find human nature curious. Interesting. the human mind and spirit.


Perhaps, others mental capacity to problem solve, is a lofty goal. Shame on me .

I, for one, would like to STOP republican efforts, if in fact, they are trying to make it harder to vote. I want to help stop it. That is why I am asking for further information. I don't think it is cool.

I also, don't think, your post, is factually, accurate.

yeah......lots of that going around these days. The ones usually screaming the loudest are getting away with what they doth protest. For phuckes sake, I old my really old Aunt, yesterday....to just stop.... just STOP IT. (she was complaining about the spring breakers, maskless...fear porn )

I reminded her.....the US Senate had just approved the former Boston mayor for Sect. of Labor. At the height of the pandemic, with full indoor mask orders.......this guy said, phucke that, I am at a bar, gettin drunk....let me take a selfie, with strangers...maskless.

and ,when, the local infotainment HAD to quickly cover the story......this lame arese cried "poor judgement".

So, a 19 year old, locked up for the past year, is NOT allowed to use poor judgement (spring breakers )

but, the current Secretary of Labor, IS allowed to have poor judegement. horrible judgement......


talk about SIMPLE........it doesn't get any simpler than this example.

[runrussellrun]

There will be a futile attempt at banning assault rifles that will never fly as long as there is a 2nd amendment.

Not true. The Second Amendment does not protect assault rifles.

And by the way, you do realize that the Supreme Court never held that the Second Amendment protects individual gun ownership until 2008. In the full history of the country, it is essentially a brand new right, created by the activist conservatives on the Supreme Court in one of the most wrongheaded decisions in the court’s history.

Justice Stevens in his dissent articulated in a powerful and scholarly opinion why the Second Amendment does not protect an individual’s right to own a gun.

The simplistic answer is that the Bill of Rights was designed to protect rights the citizens of the young country thought might be infringed upon by their government, based in large part on English history. Everyone back then owned a gun, and no one was concerned the government would interfere with gun ownership. No one thought there was a need to have a constitutional amendment to protect individual gun ownership. That’s why the Second Amendment was never intended to apply to individuals.

I may not live long enough to see Heller overruled, but I hope my daughter does.

What does it protect? Name , which "arms" the 2nd protects. go on. (oh, right, ignore function )

can't support a claim>

don't post it.

Supremes are the bane to any descent positive growth of this nation, with their bought for rulings.

just curious, how does justice stevens define a "regulated militia". One could assume, a govt. regulates a militia?

To me, the militia is to gun control as tax dodges were to Al capone. All for having regulated "militia's", and needing to belong to one in order own a firearm.

Humans, need to belong. Feel, like the belong. To something.....oh, well...you guys have all the answers.

Just more finger pointing......

[Peter Brown]

Ironically the weapon this guy used is the Ruger mini 14 variant that was the FLP acceptable version of the AR15. I posted this a long time ago. The mini 14 and the AR15 are basically the same weapon. The caliber is 5.56 and the specs are almost exactly the same in terms of performance. In the world of you brain damaged liberals the Ruger weapon does not look as mean or intimidating. The effing caliber is the same as an AR15. The performance specs are exactly the same. You candy ass liberals drew false comfort in thinking the Ruger Mini 14 didn't look mean and nasty like an AR15 rifle does. Look at the caliber of the round liberals
5.56 or .223 is the same effing round no matter what weapon it is fired from. They were designed to kill people. The advantage of the 5.56 round is they are lighter and a grunt can carry more bandoliers of them into a combat situation. How effing stupid and ignorant are some of you people?

In the matter of guns, liberals are not as stupid as commonly believed; arguments over calibers, stocks, and specs are completely irrelevant to them (they'll drag you into it, but they don't actually care about the small talk).

Here's what you need to realize about liberals: they want your guns (by "you", I mean law-abiding Americans); everything else is noise.

Liberals don't care about the murders-by-gun in cities like Baltimore; their goal is not to remove those guns. Their target is the law-abiding hunter, the self-defense heroine, and the recreational sportsman. Any symbol of freedom, independence, and American strength is the overarching target by today's Democrat/liberal. Guns, monuments, history, family units, books, speech, science, capitalism itself...those are the targets. Their aim is to wreck America.

Understand that fundamental law and you'll understand all else, plus you'll save a ton of online time.

Only 'dip my toe here' every so often...mostly to see what's going on with the Hounds.

But when a situation like Boulder erupts, I can guess nearly every liberals' post, here or Twitter or any place really. They'll tell you they are 'hunters' and 'don't want to take your guns', but man, I've been hunting my entire life, all over America and the world, and I promise you I have yet to meet one hunter who is liberal or frankly even a Democrat. Democrats don't want you to enjoy hunting or the freedom of self-defense; they want your guns and they want your freedom...they do not like you, and they are scared of your agency, especially when you have guns. Full stop. Every hear a liberal bemoan inner city gun culture (with far more murders) like they do the much more rare mass shooter? Ever wonder why that is?

So when I hear a few liberals say (and as predictable as the sunshine tomorrow) that they are 'hunters' and 'not coming for your guns', if you're a smart man, you'll understand that they mean the complete opposite. They hate what has made America great, and more importantly, they won't stop until they ruin it. Realize that and save yourself some heartache.

[Brooklyn]

Ironically the weapon this guy used is the Ruger mini 14 variant that was the FLP acceptable version of the AR15. I posted this a long time ago. The mini 14 and the AR15 are basically the same weapon. The caliber is 5.56 and the specs are almost exactly the same in terms of performance. In the world of you brain damaged liberals the Ruger weapon does not look as mean or intimidating. The effing caliber is the same as an AR15. The performance specs are exactly the same. You candy ass liberals drew false comfort in thinking the Ruger Mini 14 didn't look mean and nasty like an AR15 rifle does. Look at the caliber of the round liberals
5.56 or .223 is the same effing round no matter what weapon it is fired from. They were designed to kill people. The advantage of the 5.56 round is they are lighter and a grunt can carry more bandoliers of them into a combat situation. How effing stupid and ignorant are some of you people?

In the matter of guns, liberals are not as stupid as commonly believed; arguments over calibers, stocks, and specs are completely irrelevant to them (they'll drag you into it, but they don't actually care about the small talk).

Here's what you need to realize about liberals: they want your guns (by "you", I mean law-abiding Americans); everything else is noise.

Liberals don't care about the murders-by-gun in cities like Baltimore; their goal is not to remove those guns. Their target is the law-abiding hunter, the self-defense heroine, and the recreational sportsman. Any symbol of freedom, independence, and American strength is the overarching target by today's Democrat/liberal. Guns, monuments, history, family units, books, speech, science, capitalism itself...those are the targets. Their aim is to wreck America.

Understand that fundamental law and you'll understand all else, plus you'll save a ton of online time.

Only 'dip my toe here' every so often...mostly to see what's going on with the Hounds.

But when a situation like Boulder erupts, I can guess nearly every liberals' post, here or Twitter or any place really. They'll tell you they are 'hunters' and 'don't want to take your guns', but man, I've been hunting my entire life, all over America and the world, and I promise you I have yet to meet one hunter who is liberal or frankly even a Democrat. Democrats don't want you to enjoy hunting or the freedom of self-defense; they want your guns and they want your freedom...they do not like you, and they are scared of your agency, especially when you have guns. Full stop. Every hear a liberal bemoan inner city gun culture (with far more murders) like they do the much more rare mass shooter? Ever wonder why that is?

So when I hear a few liberals say (and as predictable as the sunshine tomorrow) that they are 'hunters' and 'not coming for your guns', if you're a smart man, you'll understand that they mean the complete opposite. They hate what has made America great, and more importantly, they won't stop until they ruin it. Realize that and save yourself some heartache.

Hey Petey. As everyone knows you right wingers all spread hysteria by saying Clinton and Obama would take away your guns but they never did. Instead it was your heroes Reagan and Bush, Jr who did. So don't worry too much over the current hysteria your fellow right wingers are spewing today.

[ggait]

What does it protect? Name , which "arms" the 2nd protects. go on. (oh, right, ignore function )

It protects exactly what Scalia's majority opinion says it protects. Go read it.

Scalia's core holding (activist and wrong imo) is that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

But such right can be regulated. Including the regulation of certain types of dangerous and unusual weapons. Scalia specifically upholds US v. Miller on that score (which upheld the ban on machine guns). FYI, Heller dealt with restrictions on hand guns and is understood to only extend to traditional common weaponry.

SCOTUS has not moved to expand Heller since 2008. So an AWB is perfectly legal under current law. You are perfectly free to litigate if you feel an AR-15 should be considered common weaponry covered by Heller. But since SCOTUS has repeatedly declined to hear that case, your litigation is probably going to fail.

Any other questions?

[dislaxxic]

It was a simple question...leave it to run-at-the-mouth-russell to mangle the issue beyond recognition, sorta AKA Hannity/Carlson and those types.

That Cradle finds the run-at-the-mouth response a +1 is not surprising.

Again, simple question: how does enhancing background checks infringe on 2nd amendment rights??

..

[MDlaxfan76]

Ironically the weapon this guy used is the Ruger mini 14 variant that was the FLP acceptable version of the AR15. I posted this a long time ago. The mini 14 and the AR15 are basically the same weapon. The caliber is 5.56 and the specs are almost exactly the same in terms of performance. In the world of you brain damaged liberals the Ruger weapon does not look as mean or intimidating. The effing caliber is the same as an AR15. The performance specs are exactly the same. You candy ass liberals drew false comfort in thinking the Ruger Mini 14 didn't look mean and nasty like an AR15 rifle does. Look at the caliber of the round liberals
5.56 or .223 is the same effing round no matter what weapon it is fired from. They were designed to kill people. The advantage of the 5.56 round is they are lighter and a grunt can carry more bandoliers of them into a combat situation. How effing stupid and ignorant are some of you people?

In the matter of guns, liberals are not as stupid as commonly believed; arguments over calibers, stocks, and specs are completely irrelevant to them (they'll drag you into it, but they don't actually care about the small talk).

Here's what you need to realize about liberals: they want your guns (by "you", I mean law-abiding Americans); everything else is noise.

Liberals don't care about the murders-by-gun in cities like Baltimore; their goal is not to remove those guns. Their target is the law-abiding hunter, the self-defense heroine, and the recreational sportsman. Any symbol of freedom, independence, and American strength is the overarching target by today's Democrat/liberal. Guns, monuments, history, family units, books, speech, science, capitalism itself...those are the targets. Their aim is to wreck America.

Understand that fundamental law and you'll understand all else, plus you'll save a ton of online time.

Only 'dip my toe here' every so often...mostly to see what's going on with the Hounds.

But when a situation like Boulder erupts, I can guess nearly every liberals' post, here or Twitter or any place really. They'll tell you they are 'hunters' and 'don't want to take your guns', but man, I've been hunting my entire life, all over America and the world, and I promise you I have yet to meet one hunter who is liberal or frankly even a Democrat. Democrats don't want you to enjoy hunting or the freedom of self-defense; they want your guns and they want your freedom...they do not like you, and they are scared of your agency, especially when you have guns. Full stop. Every hear a liberal bemoan inner city gun culture (with far more murders) like they do the much more rare mass shooter? Ever wonder why that is?

So when I hear a few liberals say (and as predictable as the sunshine tomorrow) that they are 'hunters' and 'not coming for your guns', if you're a smart man, you'll understand that they mean the complete opposite. They hate what has made America great, and more importantly, they won't stop until they ruin it. Realize that and save yourself some heartache.

Hey Petey. As everyone knows you right wingers all spread hysteria by saying Clinton and Obama would take away your guns but they never did. Instead it was your heroes Reagan and Bush, Jr who did. So don't worry too much over the current hysteria your fellow right wingers are spewing today.

Ahhh Petey's back.
I'd say 'welcome back' but really these sorts of posts are so far out on the fringe the only thing they provide is perhaps a glimpse into the overlapping world of Q and white supremacy and gun nuts. MAGA nuttery.

Yeah, Petey, I know a whole lot of hunters (I'm one) who agree that universal background checks make eminent sense and who have no issue with an AR-15 ban, nor do they have this fever world imagination that Dems are some devilish enemy of their right to go hunting or to protect their homes and family or that Dems do not care about gang violence, whether in cities or elsewhere. Heck, most NRA members are cool with gun regulation.

Personally, I think AR-15's and their like should be limited to licensed gun ranges where they can be used for legitimate sport. I think carrying weapons, hand guns etc, in public environments for 'self-defense' should be eliminated other than in one's own home or in a secured way when traveling to a gun range, hunting trip etc...not the grocery store.

We don't keep hand guns at our home, all shotguns are secured.

[ggait]

Liberals don't care about the murders-by-gun in cities like Baltimore; their goal is not to remove those guns.

False.

For example, the McDonald case was about handguns in Chicago. Mr. McDonald was an avid hunter who had multiple hunting rifles kept legally in his Chicago home. His case was SOLELY about getting a handgun.

#facts

[cradleandshoot]

There will be a futile attempt at banning assault rifles that will never fly as long as there is a 2nd amendment.

Not true. The Second Amendment does not protect assault rifles.

And by the way, you do realize that the Supreme Court never held that the Second Amendment protects individual gun ownership until 2008. In the full history of the country, it is essentially a brand new right, created by the activist conservatives on the Supreme Court in one of the most wrongheaded decisions in the court’s history.

Justice Stevens in his dissent articulated in a powerful and scholarly opinion why the Second Amendment does not protect an individual’s right to own a gun.

The simplistic answer is that the Bill of Rights was designed to protect rights the citizens of the young country thought might be infringed upon by their government, based in large part on English history. Everyone back then owned a gun, and no one was concerned the government would interfere with gun ownership. No one thought there was a need to have a constitutional amendment to protect individual gun ownership. That’s why the Second Amendment was never intended to apply to individuals.

I may not live long enough to see Heller overruled, but I hope my daughter does.

You could be right Jersey. The one thing i do know is that the day any SCOTUS tries to abolish the rights under the second amendment all holy hell will break out in this country. There is only like a bazillion people in this country that hold their right to bare arms sacred to them next to going to church on Sunday. No the irony in that statement is not lost on me. I said it above I am not a gun nut but i understand why people are fanatics about their gun rights. I really don't think that is a fight that even the most hard core liberal wants to pick.

[ggait]

Again, simple question: how does enhancing background checks infringe on 2nd amendment rights??

Simple answer -- pretty much every gun regulation talked about (universal background checks, AWB, etc.) is 110% legal under Heller/McDonald.

TBD if that will change under ACB.

[ggait]

The one thing i do know is that the day any SCOTUS tries to abolish the rights under the second amendment all holy hell will break out in this country.

1. There really isn't an individual right under the 2A. Scalia was plainly wrong in Heller, as the dissenting opinions of Breyer and Stevens (which totally own Scalia) show.

2. But #1 totally doesn't matter. Because the individual "right" recognized by Heller is so small and insignificant. And it has not been expanded by SCOTUS at all.

3. Bottom line, the 2A is basically just a PR device deployed by the NRA as a lobbying tactic.

Just one more stupid Big Lie. But it has been quite effectively deployed. You are a good example. You've actually been convinced that the 2A has some practical significance and that proposed gun regulations would run afoul of the 2A.

All of that is completely and obviously false. Yet you still believe.

[cradleandshoot]

Ironically the weapon this guy used is the Ruger mini 14 variant that was the FLP acceptable version of the AR15. I posted this a long time ago. The mini 14 and the AR15 are basically the same weapon. The caliber is 5.56 and the specs are almost exactly the same in terms of performance. In the world of you brain damaged liberals the Ruger weapon does not look as mean or intimidating. The effing caliber is the same as an AR15. The performance specs are exactly the same. You candy ass liberals drew false comfort in thinking the Ruger Mini 14 didn't look mean and nasty like an AR15 rifle does. Look at the caliber of the round liberals
5.56 or .223 is the same effing round no matter what weapon it is fired from. They were designed to kill people. The advantage of the 5.56 round is they are lighter and a grunt can carry more bandoliers of them into a combat situation. How effing stupid and ignorant are some of you people?

In the matter of guns, liberals are not as stupid as commonly believed; arguments over calibers, stocks, and specs are completely irrelevant to them (they'll drag you into it, but they don't actually care about the small talk).

Here's what you need to realize about liberals: they want your guns (by "you", I mean law-abiding Americans); everything else is noise.

Liberals don't care about the murders-by-gun in cities like Baltimore; their goal is not to remove those guns. Their target is the law-abiding hunter, the self-defense heroine, and the recreational sportsman. Any symbol of freedom, independence, and American strength is the overarching target by today's Democrat/liberal. Guns, monuments, history, family units, books, speech, science, capitalism itself...those are the targets. Their aim is to wreck America.

Understand that fundamental law and you'll understand all else, plus you'll save a ton of online time.

Only 'dip my toe here' every so often...mostly to see what's going on with the Hounds.

But when a situation like Boulder erupts, I can guess nearly every liberals' post, here or Twitter or any place really. They'll tell you they are 'hunters' and 'don't want to take your guns', but man, I've been hunting my entire life, all over America and the world, and I promise you I have yet to meet one hunter who is liberal or frankly even a Democrat. Democrats don't want you to enjoy hunting or the freedom of self-defense; they want your guns and they want your freedom...they do not like you, and they are scared of your agency, especially when you have guns. Full stop. Every hear a liberal bemoan inner city gun culture (with far more murders) like they do the much more rare mass shooter? Ever wonder why that is?

So when I hear a few liberals say (and as predictable as the sunshine tomorrow) that they are 'hunters' and 'not coming for your guns', if you're a smart man, you'll understand that they mean the complete opposite. They hate what has made America great, and more importantly, they won't stop until they ruin it. Realize that and save yourself some heartache.

Hey Petey. As everyone knows you right wingers all spread hysteria by saying Clinton and Obama would take away your guns but they never did. Instead it was your heroes Reagan and Bush, Jr who did. So don't worry too much over the current hysteria your fellow right wingers are spewing today.

Ahhh Petey's back.
I'd say 'welcome back' but really these sorts of posts are so far out on the fringe the only thing they provide is perhaps a glimpse into the overlapping world of Q and white supremacy and gun nuts. MAGA nuttery.

Yeah, Petey, I know a whole lot of hunters (I'm one) who agree that universal background checks make eminent sense and who have no issue with an AR-15 ban, nor do they have this fever world imagination that Dems are some devilish enemy of their right to go hunting or to protect their homes and family or that Dems do not care about gang violence, whether in cities or elsewhere. Heck, most NRA members are cool with gun regulation.

Personally, I think AR-15's and their like should be limited to licensed gun ranges where they can be used for legitimate sport. I think carrying weapons, hand guns etc, in public environments for 'self-defense' should be eliminated other than in one's own home or in a secured way when traveling to a gun range, hunting trip etc...not the grocery store.

We don't keep hand guns at our home, all shotguns are secured.

I am sort of in agreement with you MD... only sort of. I am all for universal background checks. With the technology today if you want to make a purchase at your local gun show that background check should take about 5 minutes. I use to enjoy going to the local gun show. That was not so much for the weapons but for some of the memorabilia you could find there. I bought a K-Bar knife that belonged to a paratrooper that jumped on D day with the 82nd, my unit. In moving from here to there I lost it and it still bothers me today not knowing what I did with it. I would never have a concealed carry permit because I am not the type of person to go to Wegmans packing heat. I am not even a fan of handguns. The one rifle I have is safely stored away and I have no ammo for it. My security system is a baseball bat in the closet by our front door. I don't hunt myself but I admire those folks that do. I love venison to no end. I am a huge wuss, I could not shoot a deer or any other animal. I don't even like squishing spiders for my wife. My only issue is the rare instance of rats moving in under my shed. A pellet gun disposes of them quickly but I don't like having to kill them. I will always be on the side of people who choose to enjoy their 2nd amendment rights. I know a ton of them and not a damn one of them would ever misuse a firearm or use one in a reckless manner.