Sensible Gun Safety

[PizzaSnake]

cradle, making these weapons illegal nationally, coupled with a national buyback program, will separate the law abiding citizens who simply want to go hunting with a rifle or have a handgun for personal protection from the nutcases who want to use military-style assault weapons for... assault.

Automatically, these weapons won't be legal in "open-carry" areas, rather they will immediately be seen as a violation of law.

It will change the culture of what is acceptable, much less attractive.

I've suggested that a smart compromise would be allowance of these weapons at well regulated gun ranges, with secure storage there only. But any possession away from those ranges would be illegal.

One problem with what you propose. The serious hard core gun fanatics will never go for it. The biggest drawback is making criminals out of millions of gun owners with the stroke of a pen. These folks are not bullchitting you when they say you'll have to pry their guns out of their cold dead fingers. If that is the road you think the government should travel down then good luck with that. I can only see the chitstorm that will arise when any government official proposes a nation wide ban. In the real world MD that is never going to happen. The gun culture and the love of firearms is too deeply ingrained in our culture. IMO the best option for starters is making it very tedious to go through the process of purchasing a high powered semi automatic weapon. That being said there are 50 different states that view this issue totally differently. You will not find any common ground in what Texas thinks is prudent as opposed to what New York thinks.

We've already done it and it worked, cradle. On a national basis.

It won't eliminate all of these weapons overnight, but those who wish to not be criminals will either turn them in "buy-back" or store and use them at the gun range. Big boon to gun range businesses, there will be many more...but they can be regulated for safety procedures etc.

I don't expect the national government to be going door to door, but when someone is suspected of committing a crime and a warrant is obtained, the illegal possession will have legal consequences. These can be escalatory in terms of #'s of weapons, sale to others, use in public areas, etc. A simple fine for the one weapon someone "forgot" but had well secured. But those are unlikely to ever be an issue if the person never uses it publicly or doesn't commit some other crime and then be subject to a warrant. It's only going to be the flagrant offenders and/or perpetrators of other crimes (eg drug or human trafficking).

But no brandishing in public, no shooting off one's porch...that draws attention and a response with real teeth.

Culture change takes time, but we can bend this thing.

Trick is stopping the spread of certain ideas (Scalia’s insane interpretation of 2A) to next generation. If you can do that, self-correcting system.

Some here might say the same for other unorthodox ideas. Unfortunately, or perhaps fortunately, none of us will persist unto that day.

[Typical Lax Dad]

Atta boy. Make sure it's only to those who don't already have a (12) gun though.
They gotta be part of the militia too, we need everyone armed.

I would require what’s under current ownership to be declared and taxed. Not taking it away. Just won’t let it be passed along to a new owner. Let some one “use it” and they commit a crime using it, the original owner is being prosecuted as an accessory and we raise the penalty. Going to take a while to burn off supply and effect culture but the country ain’t going away anytime soon….play the long game. May take 50 years but so what…

IMO proposing a tax for owning a weapon will go over like a fart in church. The first question to be asked is why am I being taxed for choosing to use my second amendment right. I believe you were already taxed once when you purchased the weapon. I do see the logic. You have to pay every year if you want a fishing license. I don't think anyone is thinking of taxing your fishing pole as well?

This is why I give you two guns….instead of taxing you each year, I would collect a registration fee each year instead. Like a car registration.

[MDlaxfan76]

cradle, making these weapons illegal nationally, coupled with a national buyback program, will separate the law abiding citizens who simply want to go hunting with a rifle or have a handgun for personal protection from the nutcases who want to use military-style assault weapons for... assault.

Automatically, these weapons won't be legal in "open-carry" areas, rather they will immediately be seen as a violation of law.

It will change the culture of what is acceptable, much less attractive.

I've suggested that a smart compromise would be allowance of these weapons at well regulated gun ranges, with secure storage there only. But any possession away from those ranges would be illegal.

One problem with what you propose. The serious hard core gun fanatics will never go for it. The biggest drawback is making criminals out of millions of gun owners with the stroke of a pen. These folks are not bullchitting you when they say you'll have to pry their guns out of their cold dead fingers. If that is the road you think the government should travel down then good luck with that. I can only see the chitstorm that will arise when any government official proposes a nation wide ban. In the real world MD that is never going to happen. The gun culture and the love of firearms is too deeply ingrained in our culture. IMO the best option for starters is making it very tedious to go through the process of purchasing a high powered semi automatic weapon. That being said there are 50 different states that view this issue totally differently. You will not find any common ground in what Texas thinks is prudent as opposed to what New York thinks.

We've already done it and it worked, cradle. On a national basis.

It won't eliminate all of these weapons overnight, but those who wish to not be criminals will either turn them in "buy-back" or store and use them at the gun range. Big boon to gun range businesses, there will be many more...but they can be regulated for safety procedures etc.

I don't expect the national government to be going door to door, but when someone is suspected of committing a crime and a warrant is obtained, the illegal possession will have legal consequences. These can be escalatory in terms of #'s of weapons, sale to others, use in public areas, etc. A simple fine for the one weapon someone "forgot" but had well secured. But those are unlikely to ever be an issue if the person never uses it publicly or doesn't commit some other crime and then be subject to a warrant. It's only going to be the flagrant offenders and/or perpetrators of other crimes (eg drug or human trafficking).

But no brandishing in public, no shooting off one's porch...that draws attention and a response with real teeth.

Culture change takes time, but we can bend this thing.

Trick is stopping the spread of certain ideas (Scalia’s insane interpretation of 2A) to next generation. If you can do that, self-correcting system.

Some here might say the same for other unorthodox ideas. Unfortunately, or perhaps fortunately, none of us will persist unto that day.

yes, the Constitutional issues need to be addressed, but I think the suggestions I'm making would fall within the current rulings.

And they could bend the culture...of course, this only happens if there's such an outcry from these mass shootings that the politicians are overwhelmed by it, so already cultural momentum.

[PizzaSnake]

cradle, making these weapons illegal nationally, coupled with a national buyback program, will separate the law abiding citizens who simply want to go hunting with a rifle or have a handgun for personal protection from the nutcases who want to use military-style assault weapons for... assault.

Automatically, these weapons won't be legal in "open-carry" areas, rather they will immediately be seen as a violation of law.

It will change the culture of what is acceptable, much less attractive.

I've suggested that a smart compromise would be allowance of these weapons at well regulated gun ranges, with secure storage there only. But any possession away from those ranges would be illegal.

One problem with what you propose. The serious hard core gun fanatics will never go for it. The biggest drawback is making criminals out of millions of gun owners with the stroke of a pen. These folks are not bullchitting you when they say you'll have to pry their guns out of their cold dead fingers. If that is the road you think the government should travel down then good luck with that. I can only see the chitstorm that will arise when any government official proposes a nation wide ban. In the real world MD that is never going to happen. The gun culture and the love of firearms is too deeply ingrained in our culture. IMO the best option for starters is making it very tedious to go through the process of purchasing a high powered semi automatic weapon. That being said there are 50 different states that view this issue totally differently. You will not find any common ground in what Texas thinks is prudent as opposed to what New York thinks.

We've already done it and it worked, cradle. On a national basis.

It won't eliminate all of these weapons overnight, but those who wish to not be criminals will either turn them in "buy-back" or store and use them at the gun range. Big boon to gun range businesses, there will be many more...but they can be regulated for safety procedures etc.

I don't expect the national government to be going door to door, but when someone is suspected of committing a crime and a warrant is obtained, the illegal possession will have legal consequences. These can be escalatory in terms of #'s of weapons, sale to others, use in public areas, etc. A simple fine for the one weapon someone "forgot" but had well secured. But those are unlikely to ever be an issue if the person never uses it publicly or doesn't commit some other crime and then be subject to a warrant. It's only going to be the flagrant offenders and/or perpetrators of other crimes (eg drug or human trafficking).

But no brandishing in public, no shooting off one's porch...that draws attention and a response with real teeth.

Culture change takes time, but we can bend this thing.

Trick is stopping the spread of certain ideas (Scalia’s insane interpretation of 2A) to next generation. If you can do that, self-correcting system.

Some here might say the same for other unorthodox ideas. Unfortunately, or perhaps fortunately, none of us will persist unto that day.

yes, the Constitutional issues need to be addressed, but I think the suggestions I'm making would fall within the current rulings.

And they could bend the culture...of course, this only happens if there's such an outcry from these mass shootings that the politicians are overwhelmed by it, so already cultural momentum.

Speaking of constitutional issues, we might get some explication from SCROTUS (Supreme Court Republican of the US) regarding the 14th Amendment. Won’t that he exciting!?!?

[Typical Lax Dad]

cradle, making these weapons illegal nationally, coupled with a national buyback program, will separate the law abiding citizens who simply want to go hunting with a rifle or have a handgun for personal protection from the nutcases who want to use military-style assault weapons for... assault.

Automatically, these weapons won't be legal in "open-carry" areas, rather they will immediately be seen as a violation of law.

It will change the culture of what is acceptable, much less attractive.

I've suggested that a smart compromise would be allowance of these weapons at well regulated gun ranges, with secure storage there only. But any possession away from those ranges would be illegal.

One problem with what you propose. The serious hard core gun fanatics will never go for it. The biggest drawback is making criminals out of millions of gun owners with the stroke of a pen. These folks are not bullchitting you when they say you'll have to pry their guns out of their cold dead fingers. If that is the road you think the government should travel down then good luck with that. I can only see the chitstorm that will arise when any government official proposes a nation wide ban. In the real world MD that is never going to happen. The gun culture and the love of firearms is too deeply ingrained in our culture. IMO the best option for starters is making it very tedious to go through the process of purchasing a high powered semi automatic weapon. That being said there are 50 different states that view this issue totally differently. You will not find any common ground in what Texas thinks is prudent as opposed to what New York thinks.

We've already done it and it worked, cradle. On a national basis.

It won't eliminate all of these weapons overnight, but those who wish to not be criminals will either turn them in "buy-back" or store and use them at the gun range. Big boon to gun range businesses, there will be many more...but they can be regulated for safety procedures etc.

I don't expect the national government to be going door to door, but when someone is suspected of committing a crime and a warrant is obtained, the illegal possession will have legal consequences. These can be escalatory in terms of #'s of weapons, sale to others, use in public areas, etc. A simple fine for the one weapon someone "forgot" but had well secured. But those are unlikely to ever be an issue if the person never uses it publicly or doesn't commit some other crime and then be subject to a warrant. It's only going to be the flagrant offenders and/or perpetrators of other crimes (eg drug or human trafficking).

But no brandishing in public, no shooting off one's porch...that draws attention and a response with real teeth.

Culture change takes time, but we can bend this thing.

Trick is stopping the spread of certain ideas (Scalia’s insane interpretation of 2A) to next generation. If you can do that, self-correcting system.

Some here might say the same for other unorthodox ideas. Unfortunately, or perhaps fortunately, none of us will persist unto that day.

yes, the Constitutional issues need to be addressed, but I think the suggestions I'm making would fall within the current rulings.

And they could bend the culture...of course, this only happens if there's such an outcry from these mass shootings that the politicians are overwhelmed by it, so already cultural momentum.

Speaking of constitutional issues, we might get some explication from SCROTUS (Supreme Court Republican of the US) regarding the 14th Amendment. Won’t that he exciting!?!?

You forgot the “M”.

[PizzaSnake]

cradle, making these weapons illegal nationally, coupled with a national buyback program, will separate the law abiding citizens who simply want to go hunting with a rifle or have a handgun for personal protection from the nutcases who want to use military-style assault weapons for... assault.

Automatically, these weapons won't be legal in "open-carry" areas, rather they will immediately be seen as a violation of law.

It will change the culture of what is acceptable, much less attractive.

I've suggested that a smart compromise would be allowance of these weapons at well regulated gun ranges, with secure storage there only. But any possession away from those ranges would be illegal.

One problem with what you propose. The serious hard core gun fanatics will never go for it. The biggest drawback is making criminals out of millions of gun owners with the stroke of a pen. These folks are not bullchitting you when they say you'll have to pry their guns out of their cold dead fingers. If that is the road you think the government should travel down then good luck with that. I can only see the chitstorm that will arise when any government official proposes a nation wide ban. In the real world MD that is never going to happen. The gun culture and the love of firearms is too deeply ingrained in our culture. IMO the best option for starters is making it very tedious to go through the process of purchasing a high powered semi automatic weapon. That being said there are 50 different states that view this issue totally differently. You will not find any common ground in what Texas thinks is prudent as opposed to what New York thinks.

We've already done it and it worked, cradle. On a national basis.

It won't eliminate all of these weapons overnight, but those who wish to not be criminals will either turn them in "buy-back" or store and use them at the gun range. Big boon to gun range businesses, there will be many more...but they can be regulated for safety procedures etc.

I don't expect the national government to be going door to door, but when someone is suspected of committing a crime and a warrant is obtained, the illegal possession will have legal consequences. These can be escalatory in terms of #'s of weapons, sale to others, use in public areas, etc. A simple fine for the one weapon someone "forgot" but had well secured. But those are unlikely to ever be an issue if the person never uses it publicly or doesn't commit some other crime and then be subject to a warrant. It's only going to be the flagrant offenders and/or perpetrators of other crimes (eg drug or human trafficking).

But no brandishing in public, no shooting off one's porch...that draws attention and a response with real teeth.

Culture change takes time, but we can bend this thing.

Trick is stopping the spread of certain ideas (Scalia’s insane interpretation of 2A) to next generation. If you can do that, self-correcting system.

Some here might say the same for other unorthodox ideas. Unfortunately, or perhaps fortunately, none of us will persist unto that day.

yes, the Constitutional issues need to be addressed, but I think the suggestions I'm making would fall within the current rulings.

And they could bend the culture...of course, this only happens if there's such an outcry from these mass shootings that the politicians are overwhelmed by it, so already cultural momentum.

Speaking of constitutional issues, we might get some explication from SCROTUS (Supreme Court Republican of the US) regarding the 14th Amendment. Won’t that he exciting!?!?

You forgot the “M”.

Ah, Supreme Court Republican of the United Magat-ry?

I stand corrected.

[cradleandshoot]

cradle, making these weapons illegal nationally, coupled with a national buyback program, will separate the law abiding citizens who simply want to go hunting with a rifle or have a handgun for personal protection from the nutcases who want to use military-style assault weapons for... assault.

Automatically, these weapons won't be legal in "open-carry" areas, rather they will immediately be seen as a violation of law.

It will change the culture of what is acceptable, much less attractive.

I've suggested that a smart compromise would be allowance of these weapons at well regulated gun ranges, with secure storage there only. But any possession away from those ranges would be illegal.

One problem with what you propose. The serious hard core gun fanatics will never go for it. The biggest drawback is making criminals out of millions of gun owners with the stroke of a pen. These folks are not bullchitting you when they say you'll have to pry their guns out of their cold dead fingers. If that is the road you think the government should travel down then good luck with that. I can only see the chitstorm that will arise when any government official proposes a nation wide ban. In the real world MD that is never going to happen. The gun culture and the love of firearms is too deeply ingrained in our culture. IMO the best option for starters is making it very tedious to go through the process of purchasing a high powered semi automatic weapon. That being said there are 50 different states that view this issue totally differently. You will not find any common ground in what Texas thinks is prudent as opposed to what New York thinks.

We've already done it and it worked, cradle. On a national basis.

It won't eliminate all of these weapons overnight, but those who wish to not be criminals will either turn them in "buy-back" or store and use them at the gun range. Big boon to gun range businesses, there will be many more...but they can be regulated for safety procedures etc.

I don't expect the national government to be going door to door, but when someone is suspected of committing a crime and a warrant is obtained, the illegal possession will have legal consequences. These can be escalatory in terms of #'s of weapons, sale to others, use in public areas, etc. A simple fine for the one weapon someone "forgot" but had well secured. But those are unlikely to ever be an issue if the person never uses it publicly or doesn't commit some other crime and then be subject to a warrant. It's only going to be the flagrant offenders and/or perpetrators of other crimes (eg drug or human trafficking).

But no brandishing in public, no shooting off one's porch...that draws attention and a response with real teeth.

Culture change takes time, but we can bend this thing.

So you think a nationwide ban by the federal government will pass muster when it winds up which it most certainly will in front of the SCOTUS? The right of the people to keep and bear arms not being infringed creates a huge bar to cross. You think your side really wants to fight this battle at this point in time? I wish your peeps were as hard-line when it comes to stopping the flow of fentanyl into the country. I already know what your gonna say. Well Cradle that is a fight for some other day. In the words of John Fogarty SOMEDAY NEVER COMES but you already know that now don't you? FTR and I could be wrong people were still able to purchase assault weapons even during the Brady ban. I use to peruse the gun counter at Dicks and Gander Mountain and I remember some variety of these rifles still for sale. I know they didn't suddenly vanish from the gun cases. I'll dig into it a little deeper.
It didn't take much digging MD. The assault weapons ban you speak of banned and I emphasize this... CERTAIN TYPES of Semi automatic weapons. A little fact that you left out. King Andy tried the same thing with the SAFE ACT in NYS. The folks at Ruger made and are still making big money from the sales of their mini 14. Those sales have been off the charts. You already know the magic ingredient in the Ruger weapon IT DOES NOT REMOTELY RESEMBLE AN AR 15. Performance and ballistic wise it is the same God damn rifle that can still be purchased with the former King of NYS approval. How can you effectively ban a weapon type that you struggle to define? Well you can try but then it gets complicated. Well MD the gubmint decided a number of years back than banning booze would be a good thing for the nation. Refresh my memory how that worked out at the end of the day. Alcohol is not even protected by the Constitution like fire arm ownership is.

[SCLaxAttack]

Let's just give up.

That seems to be the game plan. You have any solutions don't be afraid to chime in. The only game plan that I am hearing and reading about revolves around the banning of firearms.

I posted my thoughts weeks ago. Apologies for laymen's terms. I'm not a gun owner but have shot friends' and relatives' handguns, rifles, and shotguns throughout my life.

Illegal sale of guns - handgun, rifle, or shotgun - that shoot multiple rounds without depressing trigger at every round. Illegal sale of magazines greater than a certain size. (Ten rounds?)

Thirty day licensing process before a firearm can be purchased/transferred. Only a certain number of firearms and magazines can be purchased within a certain time period.

Only a certain number of rounds can be purchased annually from a retail location unless purchased at and immediately used at a licensed range.

Felons cannot own firearms.

Mandatory ANNUAL registration of all firearms. Each firearm brought to licensing location (local police department?) at time of registration. The public deserves to know where all firearms are and every owner should be responsible for knowing the location of the firearms they've registered. Every. Year.

Every firearm should have a trigger lock. Verified at annual registration.

Voluntary federal firearm buy-back. Googling says there are approximately 20M assault-type weapons in the US. An expensive AR-15 style rifle is approx $3600, as low as $2000. Buy them back for $3000 each. That's $60B well spent. Include handguns for $500 each and everything else between $500 and $3000 and watch how many people sell their weapons to the federal government for Christmas money. Make amnesty part of the buy-back program.

Cradle, since posting this quite a few others have chimed in with tweaks and other ideas, but all you've done is comment why some of these attempts at solving the problem will never work. Hence my first comment - Let's just give up.

I responded to your "You have any solutions don't be afraid to chime in" comment, how about you doing the same. Or have you given up?

[cradleandshoot]

Let's just give up.

That seems to be the game plan. You have any solutions don't be afraid to chime in. The only game plan that I am hearing and reading about revolves around the banning of firearms.

I posted my thoughts weeks ago. Apologies for laymen's terms. I'm not a gun owner but have shot friends' and relatives' handguns, rifles, and shotguns throughout my life.

Illegal sale of guns - handgun, rifle, or shotgun - that shoot multiple rounds without depressing trigger at every round. Illegal sale of magazines greater than a certain size. (Ten rounds?)

Thirty day licensing process before a firearm can be purchased/transferred. Only a certain number of firearms and magazines can be purchased within a certain time period.

Only a certain number of rounds can be purchased annually from a retail location unless purchased at and immediately used at a licensed range.

Felons cannot own firearms.

Mandatory ANNUAL registration of all firearms. Each firearm brought to licensing location (local police department?) at time of registration. The public deserves to know where all firearms are and every owner should be responsible for knowing the location of the firearms they've registered. Every. Year.

Every firearm should have a trigger lock. Verified at annual registration.

Voluntary federal firearm buy-back. Googling says there are approximately 20M assault-type weapons in the US. An expensive AR-15 style rifle is approx $3600, as low as $2000. Buy them back for $3000 each. That's $60B well spent. Include handguns for $500 each and everything else between $500 and $3000 and watch how many people sell their weapons to the federal government for Christmas money. Make amnesty part of the buy-back program.

Cradle, since posting this quite a few others have chimed in with tweaks and other ideas, but all you've done is comment why some of these attempts at solving the problem will never work. Hence my first comment - Let's just give up.

I responded to your "You have any solutions don't be afraid to chime in" comment, how about you doing the same. Or have you given up?

I have no personal beef if the government chooses to ban these weapons. I don't have a horse in the race. I do understand why these weapons are so popular. I watched a couple of cop shows last night. Every one of them has cops armed with M4s crashing thru the door into the bad guys house. In case you haven't noticed young people are exposed to these weapons everyday when they watch TV or play video games. You should at least understand why these weapons are so popular with many young people. To them they are really cool they see them used by law enforcement as a tool of the trade. I don't know if you ever watch reruns of old 70s shows. When was the last time you saw Reed and Malloy bust into a room with M4s, ballistic helmets and bullet proof vests? Kids learn what they live, in their world at least for some of them owning an M4 is no different than owning a pair of air Jordans. There is a good chance mommy and daddy will buy them one for their 16th birthday. I would discourage anyone from owning this weapon. I've put more 5.56 rounds down range than most people on this forum. I would be lying if I told you it wasn't a lot of fun. The 5.56 round was designed to do one thing... Kill people with brutal lethality. I'm not a 19 year old paratrooper anymore. This is an issue that both sides of the aisle should have serious conversations about. I think banning these weapons outright isn't a wise idea. It is realistic to come up with strict criteria to prove your worthy of owning this lethal weapon. The vetting process should be intense. I don't think any 18 year old should be able to walk into a gun store, plop your money on the counter and walk out with your rifle in hand. If you want to shoot that badly the Army and the Marines can accommodate you. You will get all the training, discipline and experience you need to understand these weapons are a tool to be used for what you have trained to do. Both of my sons own these AR-15 type weapons. I have told both of them they should get rid of them ASAP. That was a huge no go on my part. They are infatuated with their rifles.

[MDlaxfan76]

cradle, making these weapons illegal nationally, coupled with a national buyback program, will separate the law abiding citizens who simply want to go hunting with a rifle or have a handgun for personal protection from the nutcases who want to use military-style assault weapons for... assault.

Automatically, these weapons won't be legal in "open-carry" areas, rather they will immediately be seen as a violation of law.

It will change the culture of what is acceptable, much less attractive.

I've suggested that a smart compromise would be allowance of these weapons at well regulated gun ranges, with secure storage there only. But any possession away from those ranges would be illegal.

One problem with what you propose. The serious hard core gun fanatics will never go for it. The biggest drawback is making criminals out of millions of gun owners with the stroke of a pen. These folks are not bullchitting you when they say you'll have to pry their guns out of their cold dead fingers. If that is the road you think the government should travel down then good luck with that. I can only see the chitstorm that will arise when any government official proposes a nation wide ban. In the real world MD that is never going to happen. The gun culture and the love of firearms is too deeply ingrained in our culture. IMO the best option for starters is making it very tedious to go through the process of purchasing a high powered semi automatic weapon. That being said there are 50 different states that view this issue totally differently. You will not find any common ground in what Texas thinks is prudent as opposed to what New York thinks.

We've already done it and it worked, cradle. On a national basis.

It won't eliminate all of these weapons overnight, but those who wish to not be criminals will either turn them in "buy-back" or store and use them at the gun range. Big boon to gun range businesses, there will be many more...but they can be regulated for safety procedures etc.

I don't expect the national government to be going door to door, but when someone is suspected of committing a crime and a warrant is obtained, the illegal possession will have legal consequences. These can be escalatory in terms of #'s of weapons, sale to others, use in public areas, etc. A simple fine for the one weapon someone "forgot" but had well secured. But those are unlikely to ever be an issue if the person never uses it publicly or doesn't commit some other crime and then be subject to a warrant. It's only going to be the flagrant offenders and/or perpetrators of other crimes (eg drug or human trafficking).

But no brandishing in public, no shooting off one's porch...that draws attention and a response with real teeth.

Culture change takes time, but we can bend this thing.

So you think a nationwide ban by the federal government will pass muster when it winds up which it most certainly will in front of the SCOTUS? The right of the people to keep and bear arms not being infringed creates a huge bar to cross. You think your side really wants to fight this battle at this point in time? I wish your peeps were as hard-line when it comes to stopping the flow of fentanyl into the country. I already know what your gonna say. Well Cradle that is a fight for some other day. In the words of John Fogarty SOMEDAY NEVER COMES but you already know that now don't you? FTR and I could be wrong people were still able to purchase assault weapons even during the Brady ban. I use to peruse the gun counter at Dicks and Gander Mountain and I remember some variety of these rifles still for sale. I know they didn't suddenly vanish from the gun cases. I'll dig into it a little deeper.
It didn't take much digging MD. The assault weapons ban you speak of banned and I emphasize this... CERTAIN TYPES of Semi automatic weapons. A little fact that you left out. King Andy tried the same thing with the SAFE ACT in NYS. The folks at Ruger made and are still making big money from the sales of their mini 14. Those sales have been off the charts. You already know the magic ingredient in the Ruger weapon IT DOES NOT REMOTELY RESEMBLE AN AR 15. Performance and ballistic wise it is the same God damn rifle that can still be purchased with the former King of NYS approval. How can you effectively ban a weapon type that you struggle to define? Well you can try but then it gets complicated. Well MD the gubmint decided a number of years back than banning booze would be a good thing for the nation. Refresh my memory how that worked out at the end of the day. Alcohol is not even protected by the Constitution like fire arm ownership is.

ugh, brick wall.

Regulation of weapons is definitely Constitutional, and defining the weapons to be included is not actually "hard", as I believe ggait earlier made clear much earlier, as well as others have explained. It's been done before and can be done again, on a national basis. And if the list or definition requires updating, that too can evolve as needed.

Moreover, under my suggested program private citizens can not only "keep and bear arms" (regulated), they can "keep and bear" even assault weapons, at a well-regulated gun range.

We can also regulate the process of purchasing ANY gun, as well as its storage, and the appropriate time and place of its discharge.

All Constitutional, including under the current SCOTUS regime.

Ranting otherwise isn't persuasive.

[cradleandshoot]

Atta boy. Make sure it's only to those who don't already have a (12) gun though.
They gotta be part of the militia too, we need everyone armed.

I would require what’s under current ownership to be declared and taxed. Not taking it away. Just won’t let it be passed along to a new owner. Let some one “use it” and they commit a crime using it, the original owner is being prosecuted as an accessory and we raise the penalty. Going to take a while to burn off supply and effect culture but the country ain’t going away anytime soon….play the long game. May take 50 years but so what…

IMO proposing a tax for owning a weapon will go over like a fart in church. The first question to be asked is why am I being taxed for choosing to use my second amendment right. I believe you were already taxed once when you purchased the weapon. I do see the logic. You have to pay every year if you want a fishing license. I don't think anyone is thinking of taxing your fishing pole as well?

This is why I give you two guns….instead of taxing you each year, I would collect a registration fee each year instead. Like a car registration.

So I have to pay you??? Something sounds fishy here. What is the tax on a single barrel 410 shotgun? It will sure never be mistaken for an assault rifle. Choosing a weapon for home defense is something people should do their homework on. The AR-15 is an incredibly poor choice for the job. That decision should be left to the gun owner. I would like to think that anyone interested in purchasing any weapon would talk to an expert in the field for their opinion.

[cradleandshoot]

cradle, making these weapons illegal nationally, coupled with a national buyback program, will separate the law abiding citizens who simply want to go hunting with a rifle or have a handgun for personal protection from the nutcases who want to use military-style assault weapons for... assault.

Automatically, these weapons won't be legal in "open-carry" areas, rather they will immediately be seen as a violation of law.

It will change the culture of what is acceptable, much less attractive.

I've suggested that a smart compromise would be allowance of these weapons at well regulated gun ranges, with secure storage there only. But any possession away from those ranges would be illegal.

One problem with what you propose. The serious hard core gun fanatics will never go for it. The biggest drawback is making criminals out of millions of gun owners with the stroke of a pen. These folks are not bullchitting you when they say you'll have to pry their guns out of their cold dead fingers. If that is the road you think the government should travel down then good luck with that. I can only see the chitstorm that will arise when any government official proposes a nation wide ban. In the real world MD that is never going to happen. The gun culture and the love of firearms is too deeply ingrained in our culture. IMO the best option for starters is making it very tedious to go through the process of purchasing a high powered semi automatic weapon. That being said there are 50 different states that view this issue totally differently. You will not find any common ground in what Texas thinks is prudent as opposed to what New York thinks.

We've already done it and it worked, cradle. On a national basis.

It won't eliminate all of these weapons overnight, but those who wish to not be criminals will either turn them in "buy-back" or store and use them at the gun range. Big boon to gun range businesses, there will be many more...but they can be regulated for safety procedures etc.

I don't expect the national government to be going door to door, but when someone is suspected of committing a crime and a warrant is obtained, the illegal possession will have legal consequences. These can be escalatory in terms of #'s of weapons, sale to others, use in public areas, etc. A simple fine for the one weapon someone "forgot" but had well secured. But those are unlikely to ever be an issue if the person never uses it publicly or doesn't commit some other crime and then be subject to a warrant. It's only going to be the flagrant offenders and/or perpetrators of other crimes (eg drug or human trafficking).

But no brandishing in public, no shooting off one's porch...that draws attention and a response with real teeth.

Culture change takes time, but we can bend this thing.

So you think a nationwide ban by the federal government will pass muster when it winds up which it most certainly will in front of the SCOTUS? The right of the people to keep and bear arms not being infringed creates a huge bar to cross. You think your side really wants to fight this battle at this point in time? I wish your peeps were as hard-line when it comes to stopping the flow of fentanyl into the country. I already know what your gonna say. Well Cradle that is a fight for some other day. In the words of John Fogarty SOMEDAY NEVER COMES but you already know that now don't you? FTR and I could be wrong people were still able to purchase assault weapons even during the Brady ban. I use to peruse the gun counter at Dicks and Gander Mountain and I remember some variety of these rifles still for sale. I know they didn't suddenly vanish from the gun cases. I'll dig into it a little deeper.
It didn't take much digging MD. The assault weapons ban you speak of banned and I emphasize this... CERTAIN TYPES of Semi automatic weapons. A little fact that you left out. King Andy tried the same thing with the SAFE ACT in NYS. The folks at Ruger made and are still making big money from the sales of their mini 14. Those sales have been off the charts. You already know the magic ingredient in the Ruger weapon IT DOES NOT REMOTELY RESEMBLE AN AR 15. Performance and ballistic wise it is the same God damn rifle that can still be purchased with the former King of NYS approval. How can you effectively ban a weapon type that you struggle to define? Well you can try but then it gets complicated. Well MD the gubmint decided a number of years back than banning booze would be a good thing for the nation. Refresh my memory how that worked out at the end of the day. Alcohol is not even protected by the Constitution like fire arm ownership is.

ugh, brick wall.

Regulation of weapons is definitely Constitutional, and defining the weapons to be included is not actually "hard", as I believe ggait earlier made clear much earlier, as well as others have explained. It's been done before and can be done again, on a national basis. And if the list or definition requires updating, that too can evolve as needed.

Moreover, under my suggested program private citizens can not only "keep and bear arms" (regulated), they can "keep and bear" even assault weapons, at a well-regulated gun range.

We can also regulate the process of purchasing ANY gun, as well as its storage, and the appropriate time and place of its discharge.

All Constitutional, including under the current SCOTUS regime.

Ranting otherwise isn't persuasive.

The founding fathers mention the need for a well regulated militia. How could that possibly include regulating what type of weapons could be owned? You do know there was pretty much only one weapon available. You think they were talking about regulating the only weapon available? You only had one weapon of choice MD. There were muzzle loaders of different calibers. So what weapons were the founding fathers interested in regulating? Think about it while you use your brick wall analogy.

[Typical Lax Dad]

Atta boy. Make sure it's only to those who don't already have a (12) gun though.
They gotta be part of the militia too, we need everyone armed.

I would require what’s under current ownership to be declared and taxed. Not taking it away. Just won’t let it be passed along to a new owner. Let some one “use it” and they commit a crime using it, the original owner is being prosecuted as an accessory and we raise the penalty. Going to take a while to burn off supply and effect culture but the country ain’t going away anytime soon….play the long game. May take 50 years but so what…

IMO proposing a tax for owning a weapon will go over like a fart in church. The first question to be asked is why am I being taxed for choosing to use my second amendment right. I believe you were already taxed once when you purchased the weapon. I do see the logic. You have to pay every year if you want a fishing license. I don't think anyone is thinking of taxing your fishing pole as well?

This is why I give you two guns….instead of taxing you each year, I would collect a registration fee each year instead. Like a car registration.

So I have to pay you??? Something sounds fishy here. What is the tax on a single barrel 410 shotgun? It will sure never be mistaken for an assault rifle. Choosing a weapon for home defense is something people should do their homework on. The AR-15 is an incredibly poor choice for the job. That decision should be left to the gun owner. I would like to think that anyone interested in purchasing any weapon would talk to an expert in the field for their opinion.

[MDlaxfan76]

cradle, making these weapons illegal nationally, coupled with a national buyback program, will separate the law abiding citizens who simply want to go hunting with a rifle or have a handgun for personal protection from the nutcases who want to use military-style assault weapons for... assault.

Automatically, these weapons won't be legal in "open-carry" areas, rather they will immediately be seen as a violation of law.

It will change the culture of what is acceptable, much less attractive.

I've suggested that a smart compromise would be allowance of these weapons at well regulated gun ranges, with secure storage there only. But any possession away from those ranges would be illegal.

One problem with what you propose. The serious hard core gun fanatics will never go for it. The biggest drawback is making criminals out of millions of gun owners with the stroke of a pen. These folks are not bullchitting you when they say you'll have to pry their guns out of their cold dead fingers. If that is the road you think the government should travel down then good luck with that. I can only see the chitstorm that will arise when any government official proposes a nation wide ban. In the real world MD that is never going to happen. The gun culture and the love of firearms is too deeply ingrained in our culture. IMO the best option for starters is making it very tedious to go through the process of purchasing a high powered semi automatic weapon. That being said there are 50 different states that view this issue totally differently. You will not find any common ground in what Texas thinks is prudent as opposed to what New York thinks.

We've already done it and it worked, cradle. On a national basis.

It won't eliminate all of these weapons overnight, but those who wish to not be criminals will either turn them in "buy-back" or store and use them at the gun range. Big boon to gun range businesses, there will be many more...but they can be regulated for safety procedures etc.

I don't expect the national government to be going door to door, but when someone is suspected of committing a crime and a warrant is obtained, the illegal possession will have legal consequences. These can be escalatory in terms of #'s of weapons, sale to others, use in public areas, etc. A simple fine for the one weapon someone "forgot" but had well secured. But those are unlikely to ever be an issue if the person never uses it publicly or doesn't commit some other crime and then be subject to a warrant. It's only going to be the flagrant offenders and/or perpetrators of other crimes (eg drug or human trafficking).

But no brandishing in public, no shooting off one's porch...that draws attention and a response with real teeth.

Culture change takes time, but we can bend this thing.

So you think a nationwide ban by the federal government will pass muster when it winds up which it most certainly will in front of the SCOTUS? The right of the people to keep and bear arms not being infringed creates a huge bar to cross. You think your side really wants to fight this battle at this point in time? I wish your peeps were as hard-line when it comes to stopping the flow of fentanyl into the country. I already know what your gonna say. Well Cradle that is a fight for some other day. In the words of John Fogarty SOMEDAY NEVER COMES but you already know that now don't you? FTR and I could be wrong people were still able to purchase assault weapons even during the Brady ban. I use to peruse the gun counter at Dicks and Gander Mountain and I remember some variety of these rifles still for sale. I know they didn't suddenly vanish from the gun cases. I'll dig into it a little deeper.
It didn't take much digging MD. The assault weapons ban you speak of banned and I emphasize this... CERTAIN TYPES of Semi automatic weapons. A little fact that you left out. King Andy tried the same thing with the SAFE ACT in NYS. The folks at Ruger made and are still making big money from the sales of their mini 14. Those sales have been off the charts. You already know the magic ingredient in the Ruger weapon IT DOES NOT REMOTELY RESEMBLE AN AR 15. Performance and ballistic wise it is the same God damn rifle that can still be purchased with the former King of NYS approval. How can you effectively ban a weapon type that you struggle to define? Well you can try but then it gets complicated. Well MD the gubmint decided a number of years back than banning booze would be a good thing for the nation. Refresh my memory how that worked out at the end of the day. Alcohol is not even protected by the Constitution like fire arm ownership is.

ugh, brick wall.

Regulation of weapons is definitely Constitutional, and defining the weapons to be included is not actually "hard", as I believe ggait earlier made clear much earlier, as well as others have explained. It's been done before and can be done again, on a national basis. And if the list or definition requires updating, that too can evolve as needed.

Moreover, under my suggested program private citizens can not only "keep and bear arms" (regulated), they can "keep and bear" even assault weapons, at a well-regulated gun range.

We can also regulate the process of purchasing ANY gun, as well as its storage, and the appropriate time and place of its discharge.

All Constitutional, including under the current SCOTUS regime.

Ranting otherwise isn't persuasive.

The founding fathers mention the need for a well regulated militia. How could that possibly include regulating what type of weapons could be owned? You do know there was pretty much only one weapon available. You think they were talking about regulating the only weapon available? You only had one weapon of choice MD. There were muzzle loaders of different calibers. So what weapons were the founding fathers interested in regulating? Think about it while you use your brick wall analogy.

Again with the brick wall.

Are you saying that all of the regulations of "arms" that the Supreme Court has ruled as Constitutional over the past 200+ years, were, in reality, not Constitutional?

And no, there was NOT just one type of "weapon" at the time of the founding...ever heard of cannons?
Of course, if you want to call that a "muzzle loader"...

Bottomline, regulation is very much possible under the Constitution.

But note, under my suggested program, people can continue to "own" guns, including assault rifles, but they have to keep and use them only at a well-regulated gun range. No more brandishing on the street, shooting off the front porch...

[cradleandshoot]

cradle, making these weapons illegal nationally, coupled with a national buyback program, will separate the law abiding citizens who simply want to go hunting with a rifle or have a handgun for personal protection from the nutcases who want to use military-style assault weapons for... assault.

Automatically, these weapons won't be legal in "open-carry" areas, rather they will immediately be seen as a violation of law.

It will change the culture of what is acceptable, much less attractive.

I've suggested that a smart compromise would be allowance of these weapons at well regulated gun ranges, with secure storage there only. But any possession away from those ranges would be illegal.

One problem with what you propose. The serious hard core gun fanatics will never go for it. The biggest drawback is making criminals out of millions of gun owners with the stroke of a pen. These folks are not bullchitting you when they say you'll have to pry their guns out of their cold dead fingers. If that is the road you think the government should travel down then good luck with that. I can only see the chitstorm that will arise when any government official proposes a nation wide ban. In the real world MD that is never going to happen. The gun culture and the love of firearms is too deeply ingrained in our culture. IMO the best option for starters is making it very tedious to go through the process of purchasing a high powered semi automatic weapon. That being said there are 50 different states that view this issue totally differently. You will not find any common ground in what Texas thinks is prudent as opposed to what New York thinks.

We've already done it and it worked, cradle. On a national basis.

It won't eliminate all of these weapons overnight, but those who wish to not be criminals will either turn them in "buy-back" or store and use them at the gun range. Big boon to gun range businesses, there will be many more...but they can be regulated for safety procedures etc.

I don't expect the national government to be going door to door, but when someone is suspected of committing a crime and a warrant is obtained, the illegal possession will have legal consequences. These can be escalatory in terms of #'s of weapons, sale to others, use in public areas, etc. A simple fine for the one weapon someone "forgot" but had well secured. But those are unlikely to ever be an issue if the person never uses it publicly or doesn't commit some other crime and then be subject to a warrant. It's only going to be the flagrant offenders and/or perpetrators of other crimes (eg drug or human trafficking).

But no brandishing in public, no shooting off one's porch...that draws attention and a response with real teeth.

Culture change takes time, but we can bend this thing.

So you think a nationwide ban by the federal government will pass muster when it winds up which it most certainly will in front of the SCOTUS? The right of the people to keep and bear arms not being infringed creates a huge bar to cross. You think your side really wants to fight this battle at this point in time? I wish your peeps were as hard-line when it comes to stopping the flow of fentanyl into the country. I already know what your gonna say. Well Cradle that is a fight for some other day. In the words of John Fogarty SOMEDAY NEVER COMES but you already know that now don't you? FTR and I could be wrong people were still able to purchase assault weapons even during the Brady ban. I use to peruse the gun counter at Dicks and Gander Mountain and I remember some variety of these rifles still for sale. I know they didn't suddenly vanish from the gun cases. I'll dig into it a little deeper.
It didn't take much digging MD. The assault weapons ban you speak of banned and I emphasize this... CERTAIN TYPES of Semi automatic weapons. A little fact that you left out. King Andy tried the same thing with the SAFE ACT in NYS. The folks at Ruger made and are still making big money from the sales of their mini 14. Those sales have been off the charts. You already know the magic ingredient in the Ruger weapon IT DOES NOT REMOTELY RESEMBLE AN AR 15. Performance and ballistic wise it is the same God damn rifle that can still be purchased with the former King of NYS approval. How can you effectively ban a weapon type that you struggle to define? Well you can try but then it gets complicated. Well MD the gubmint decided a number of years back than banning booze would be a good thing for the nation. Refresh my memory how that worked out at the end of the day. Alcohol is not even protected by the Constitution like fire arm ownership is.

ugh, brick wall.

Regulation of weapons is definitely Constitutional, and defining the weapons to be included is not actually "hard", as I believe ggait earlier made clear much earlier, as well as others have explained. It's been done before and can be done again, on a national basis. And if the list or definition requires updating, that too can evolve as needed.

Moreover, under my suggested program private citizens can not only "keep and bear arms" (regulated), they can "keep and bear" even assault weapons, at a well-regulated gun range.

We can also regulate the process of purchasing ANY gun, as well as its storage, and the appropriate time and place of its discharge.

All Constitutional, including under the current SCOTUS regime.

Ranting otherwise isn't persuasive.

You have a lot of ideas. The problem is once they are introduced to the real world they fall to pieces. Do you really think some one is going to pluck down a thousand dollars for his/her dream rifle and hand it over to people he doesn't know at a secure facility for his own protection. Do you ever actually think through some of troublesome little devilish details in your ideas?? Your heart is in the right place but you just don't seem to be in touch with reality as to how they could be implemented. The only way your idea works, and it is not a bad idea in theory can only be accomplished on a voluntary basis.

[cradleandshoot]

cradle, making these weapons illegal nationally, coupled with a national buyback program, will separate the law abiding citizens who simply want to go hunting with a rifle or have a handgun for personal protection from the nutcases who want to use military-style assault weapons for... assault.

Automatically, these weapons won't be legal in "open-carry" areas, rather they will immediately be seen as a violation of law.

It will change the culture of what is acceptable, much less attractive.

I've suggested that a smart compromise would be allowance of these weapons at well regulated gun ranges, with secure storage there only. But any possession away from those ranges would be illegal.

One problem with what you propose. The serious hard core gun fanatics will never go for it. The biggest drawback is making criminals out of millions of gun owners with the stroke of a pen. These folks are not bullchitting you when they say you'll have to pry their guns out of their cold dead fingers. If that is the road you think the government should travel down then good luck with that. I can only see the chitstorm that will arise when any government official proposes a nation wide ban. In the real world MD that is never going to happen. The gun culture and the love of firearms is too deeply ingrained in our culture. IMO the best option for starters is making it very tedious to go through the process of purchasing a high powered semi automatic weapon. That being said there are 50 different states that view this issue totally differently. You will not find any common ground in what Texas thinks is prudent as opposed to what New York thinks.

We've already done it and it worked, cradle. On a national basis.

It won't eliminate all of these weapons overnight, but those who wish to not be criminals will either turn them in "buy-back" or store and use them at the gun range. Big boon to gun range businesses, there will be many more...but they can be regulated for safety procedures etc.

I don't expect the national government to be going door to door, but when someone is suspected of committing a crime and a warrant is obtained, the illegal possession will have legal consequences. These can be escalatory in terms of #'s of weapons, sale to others, use in public areas, etc. A simple fine for the one weapon someone "forgot" but had well secured. But those are unlikely to ever be an issue if the person never uses it publicly or doesn't commit some other crime and then be subject to a warrant. It's only going to be the flagrant offenders and/or perpetrators of other crimes (eg drug or human trafficking).

But no brandishing in public, no shooting off one's porch...that draws attention and a response with real teeth.

Culture change takes time, but we can bend this thing.

So you think a nationwide ban by the federal government will pass muster when it winds up which it most certainly will in front of the SCOTUS? The right of the people to keep and bear arms not being infringed creates a huge bar to cross. You think your side really wants to fight this battle at this point in time? I wish your peeps were as hard-line when it comes to stopping the flow of fentanyl into the country. I already know what your gonna say. Well Cradle that is a fight for some other day. In the words of John Fogarty SOMEDAY NEVER COMES but you already know that now don't you? FTR and I could be wrong people were still able to purchase assault weapons even during the Brady ban. I use to peruse the gun counter at Dicks and Gander Mountain and I remember some variety of these rifles still for sale. I know they didn't suddenly vanish from the gun cases. I'll dig into it a little deeper.
It didn't take much digging MD. The assault weapons ban you speak of banned and I emphasize this... CERTAIN TYPES of Semi automatic weapons. A little fact that you left out. King Andy tried the same thing with the SAFE ACT in NYS. The folks at Ruger made and are still making big money from the sales of their mini 14. Those sales have been off the charts. You already know the magic ingredient in the Ruger weapon IT DOES NOT REMOTELY RESEMBLE AN AR 15. Performance and ballistic wise it is the same God damn rifle that can still be purchased with the former King of NYS approval. How can you effectively ban a weapon type that you struggle to define? Well you can try but then it gets complicated. Well MD the gubmint decided a number of years back than banning booze would be a good thing for the nation. Refresh my memory how that worked out at the end of the day. Alcohol is not even protected by the Constitution like fire arm ownership is.

ugh, brick wall.

Regulation of weapons is definitely Constitutional, and defining the weapons to be included is not actually "hard", as I believe ggait earlier made clear much earlier, as well as others have explained. It's been done before and can be done again, on a national basis. And if the list or definition requires updating, that too can evolve as needed.

Moreover, under my suggested program private citizens can not only "keep and bear arms" (regulated), they can "keep and bear" even assault weapons, at a well-regulated gun range.

We can also regulate the process of purchasing ANY gun, as well as its storage, and the appropriate time and place of its discharge.

All Constitutional, including under the current SCOTUS regime.

Ranting otherwise isn't persuasive.

The founding fathers mention the need for a well regulated militia. How could that possibly include regulating what type of weapons could be owned? You do know there was pretty much only one weapon available. You think they were talking about regulating the only weapon available? You only had one weapon of choice MD. There were muzzle loaders of different calibers. So what weapons were the founding fathers interested in regulating? Think about it while you use your brick wall analogy.

Again with the brick wall.

Are you saying that all of the regulations of "arms" that the Supreme Court has ruled as Constitutional over the past 200+ years, were, in reality, not Constitutional?

And no, there was NOT just one type of "weapon" at the time of the founding...ever heard of cannons?
Of course, if you want to call that a "muzzle loader"...

Bottomline, regulation is very much possible under the Constitution.

The only constitutional restrictions that comes to me off the top of my head is the ban on fully automatic weapons circa 1930s. Your getting confused fellow old timer. I'm all for regulating the criteria for the purchase of weapons. I'm against an outright ban because you should realize the chaos and mayhem such an action would produce in this nation. Any idea how this ban would work?? IMO no matter how you look at it it can never be a viable option.
FTR, how many shoulder fired cannons were used by Continental foot soldiers??

[MDlaxfan76]

cradle, making these weapons illegal nationally, coupled with a national buyback program, will separate the law abiding citizens who simply want to go hunting with a rifle or have a handgun for personal protection from the nutcases who want to use military-style assault weapons for... assault.

Automatically, these weapons won't be legal in "open-carry" areas, rather they will immediately be seen as a violation of law.

It will change the culture of what is acceptable, much less attractive.

I've suggested that a smart compromise would be allowance of these weapons at well regulated gun ranges, with secure storage there only. But any possession away from those ranges would be illegal.

One problem with what you propose. The serious hard core gun fanatics will never go for it. The biggest drawback is making criminals out of millions of gun owners with the stroke of a pen. These folks are not bullchitting you when they say you'll have to pry their guns out of their cold dead fingers. If that is the road you think the government should travel down then good luck with that. I can only see the chitstorm that will arise when any government official proposes a nation wide ban. In the real world MD that is never going to happen. The gun culture and the love of firearms is too deeply ingrained in our culture. IMO the best option for starters is making it very tedious to go through the process of purchasing a high powered semi automatic weapon. That being said there are 50 different states that view this issue totally differently. You will not find any common ground in what Texas thinks is prudent as opposed to what New York thinks.

We've already done it and it worked, cradle. On a national basis.

It won't eliminate all of these weapons overnight, but those who wish to not be criminals will either turn them in "buy-back" or store and use them at the gun range. Big boon to gun range businesses, there will be many more...but they can be regulated for safety procedures etc.

I don't expect the national government to be going door to door, but when someone is suspected of committing a crime and a warrant is obtained, the illegal possession will have legal consequences. These can be escalatory in terms of #'s of weapons, sale to others, use in public areas, etc. A simple fine for the one weapon someone "forgot" but had well secured. But those are unlikely to ever be an issue if the person never uses it publicly or doesn't commit some other crime and then be subject to a warrant. It's only going to be the flagrant offenders and/or perpetrators of other crimes (eg drug or human trafficking).

But no brandishing in public, no shooting off one's porch...that draws attention and a response with real teeth.

Culture change takes time, but we can bend this thing.

So you think a nationwide ban by the federal government will pass muster when it winds up which it most certainly will in front of the SCOTUS? The right of the people to keep and bear arms not being infringed creates a huge bar to cross. You think your side really wants to fight this battle at this point in time? I wish your peeps were as hard-line when it comes to stopping the flow of fentanyl into the country. I already know what your gonna say. Well Cradle that is a fight for some other day. In the words of John Fogarty SOMEDAY NEVER COMES but you already know that now don't you? FTR and I could be wrong people were still able to purchase assault weapons even during the Brady ban. I use to peruse the gun counter at Dicks and Gander Mountain and I remember some variety of these rifles still for sale. I know they didn't suddenly vanish from the gun cases. I'll dig into it a little deeper.
It didn't take much digging MD. The assault weapons ban you speak of banned and I emphasize this... CERTAIN TYPES of Semi automatic weapons. A little fact that you left out. King Andy tried the same thing with the SAFE ACT in NYS. The folks at Ruger made and are still making big money from the sales of their mini 14. Those sales have been off the charts. You already know the magic ingredient in the Ruger weapon IT DOES NOT REMOTELY RESEMBLE AN AR 15. Performance and ballistic wise it is the same God damn rifle that can still be purchased with the former King of NYS approval. How can you effectively ban a weapon type that you struggle to define? Well you can try but then it gets complicated. Well MD the gubmint decided a number of years back than banning booze would be a good thing for the nation. Refresh my memory how that worked out at the end of the day. Alcohol is not even protected by the Constitution like fire arm ownership is.

ugh, brick wall.

Regulation of weapons is definitely Constitutional, and defining the weapons to be included is not actually "hard", as I believe ggait earlier made clear much earlier, as well as others have explained. It's been done before and can be done again, on a national basis. And if the list or definition requires updating, that too can evolve as needed.

Moreover, under my suggested program private citizens can not only "keep and bear arms" (regulated), they can "keep and bear" even assault weapons, at a well-regulated gun range.

We can also regulate the process of purchasing ANY gun, as well as its storage, and the appropriate time and place of its discharge.

All Constitutional, including under the current SCOTUS regime.

Ranting otherwise isn't persuasive.

You have a lot of ideas. The problem is once they are introduced to the real world they fall to pieces. Do you really think some one is going to pluck down a thousand dollars for his/her dream rifle and hand it over to people he doesn't know at a secure facility for his own protection. Do you ever actually think through some of troublesome little devilish details in your ideas?? Your heart is in the right place but you just don't seem to be in touch with reality as to how they could be implemented. The only way your idea works, and it is not a bad idea in theory can only be accomplished on a voluntary basis.

ohh, it's "voluntary"...you want to own an assault rifle? Fine, pass the background checks and agree to use them only as allowed at a well-regulated gun range. Want to rent one at the gun range, that's fine too.

Already own one, take it to the gun range for safe keeping. Well-regulated can include insurance requirements.

Or turn it into the buy-back program.

Will there be scofflaws? sure.

And if they're super quiet about it and don't provide reason for a warrant that otherwise discovers their illegal storage of such a weapon, no big deal...but most people who intend to be "law-abiding citizens" will do either the buy-back or the safe storage at the range.

But hey, if you're saying that this will discourage people from put down "a thousand dollars for their dream (assault) rifle", I sure hope so!

No one should consider this their "dream rifle"; that's the problem, people imagining, "dreaming" of being some sort of warrior...let's go shoot up a school or shoot at someone turning around in the driveway...stop those "dreams"

[MDlaxfan76]

cradle, making these weapons illegal nationally, coupled with a national buyback program, will separate the law abiding citizens who simply want to go hunting with a rifle or have a handgun for personal protection from the nutcases who want to use military-style assault weapons for... assault.

Automatically, these weapons won't be legal in "open-carry" areas, rather they will immediately be seen as a violation of law.

It will change the culture of what is acceptable, much less attractive.

I've suggested that a smart compromise would be allowance of these weapons at well regulated gun ranges, with secure storage there only. But any possession away from those ranges would be illegal.

One problem with what you propose. The serious hard core gun fanatics will never go for it. The biggest drawback is making criminals out of millions of gun owners with the stroke of a pen. These folks are not bullchitting you when they say you'll have to pry their guns out of their cold dead fingers. If that is the road you think the government should travel down then good luck with that. I can only see the chitstorm that will arise when any government official proposes a nation wide ban. In the real world MD that is never going to happen. The gun culture and the love of firearms is too deeply ingrained in our culture. IMO the best option for starters is making it very tedious to go through the process of purchasing a high powered semi automatic weapon. That being said there are 50 different states that view this issue totally differently. You will not find any common ground in what Texas thinks is prudent as opposed to what New York thinks.

We've already done it and it worked, cradle. On a national basis.

It won't eliminate all of these weapons overnight, but those who wish to not be criminals will either turn them in "buy-back" or store and use them at the gun range. Big boon to gun range businesses, there will be many more...but they can be regulated for safety procedures etc.

I don't expect the national government to be going door to door, but when someone is suspected of committing a crime and a warrant is obtained, the illegal possession will have legal consequences. These can be escalatory in terms of #'s of weapons, sale to others, use in public areas, etc. A simple fine for the one weapon someone "forgot" but had well secured. But those are unlikely to ever be an issue if the person never uses it publicly or doesn't commit some other crime and then be subject to a warrant. It's only going to be the flagrant offenders and/or perpetrators of other crimes (eg drug or human trafficking).

But no brandishing in public, no shooting off one's porch...that draws attention and a response with real teeth.

Culture change takes time, but we can bend this thing.

So you think a nationwide ban by the federal government will pass muster when it winds up which it most certainly will in front of the SCOTUS? The right of the people to keep and bear arms not being infringed creates a huge bar to cross. You think your side really wants to fight this battle at this point in time? I wish your peeps were as hard-line when it comes to stopping the flow of fentanyl into the country. I already know what your gonna say. Well Cradle that is a fight for some other day. In the words of John Fogarty SOMEDAY NEVER COMES but you already know that now don't you? FTR and I could be wrong people were still able to purchase assault weapons even during the Brady ban. I use to peruse the gun counter at Dicks and Gander Mountain and I remember some variety of these rifles still for sale. I know they didn't suddenly vanish from the gun cases. I'll dig into it a little deeper.
It didn't take much digging MD. The assault weapons ban you speak of banned and I emphasize this... CERTAIN TYPES of Semi automatic weapons. A little fact that you left out. King Andy tried the same thing with the SAFE ACT in NYS. The folks at Ruger made and are still making big money from the sales of their mini 14. Those sales have been off the charts. You already know the magic ingredient in the Ruger weapon IT DOES NOT REMOTELY RESEMBLE AN AR 15. Performance and ballistic wise it is the same God damn rifle that can still be purchased with the former King of NYS approval. How can you effectively ban a weapon type that you struggle to define? Well you can try but then it gets complicated. Well MD the gubmint decided a number of years back than banning booze would be a good thing for the nation. Refresh my memory how that worked out at the end of the day. Alcohol is not even protected by the Constitution like fire arm ownership is.

ugh, brick wall.

Regulation of weapons is definitely Constitutional, and defining the weapons to be included is not actually "hard", as I believe ggait earlier made clear much earlier, as well as others have explained. It's been done before and can be done again, on a national basis. And if the list or definition requires updating, that too can evolve as needed.

Moreover, under my suggested program private citizens can not only "keep and bear arms" (regulated), they can "keep and bear" even assault weapons, at a well-regulated gun range.

We can also regulate the process of purchasing ANY gun, as well as its storage, and the appropriate time and place of its discharge.

All Constitutional, including under the current SCOTUS regime.

Ranting otherwise isn't persuasive.

The founding fathers mention the need for a well regulated militia. How could that possibly include regulating what type of weapons could be owned? You do know there was pretty much only one weapon available. You think they were talking about regulating the only weapon available? You only had one weapon of choice MD. There were muzzle loaders of different calibers. So what weapons were the founding fathers interested in regulating? Think about it while you use your brick wall analogy.

Again with the brick wall.

Are you saying that all of the regulations of "arms" that the Supreme Court has ruled as Constitutional over the past 200+ years, were, in reality, not Constitutional?

And no, there was NOT just one type of "weapon" at the time of the founding...ever heard of cannons?
Of course, if you want to call that a "muzzle loader"...

Bottomline, regulation is very much possible under the Constitution.

The only constitutional restrictions that comes to me off the top of my head is the ban on fully automatic weapons circa 1930s. Your getting confused fellow old timer. I'm all for regulating the criteria for the purchase of weapons. I'm against an outright ban because you should realize the chaos and mayhem such an action would produce in this nation. Any idea how this ban would work?? IMO no matter how you look at it it can never be a viable option.
FTR, how many shoulder fired cannons were used by Continental foot soldiers??

Please read what I write.
You don't see the word "ban" in any of what I'm saying, though that too would be Constitutional. Just like fully automatic weapons.

Regulation of purchase process, storage, and where and when different sorts of weapons can be lawfully used.

[cradleandshoot]

cradle, making these weapons illegal nationally, coupled with a national buyback program, will separate the law abiding citizens who simply want to go hunting with a rifle or have a handgun for personal protection from the nutcases who want to use military-style assault weapons for... assault.

Automatically, these weapons won't be legal in "open-carry" areas, rather they will immediately be seen as a violation of law.

It will change the culture of what is acceptable, much less attractive.

I've suggested that a smart compromise would be allowance of these weapons at well regulated gun ranges, with secure storage there only. But any possession away from those ranges would be illegal.

One problem with what you propose. The serious hard core gun fanatics will never go for it. The biggest drawback is making criminals out of millions of gun owners with the stroke of a pen. These folks are not bullchitting you when they say you'll have to pry their guns out of their cold dead fingers. If that is the road you think the government should travel down then good luck with that. I can only see the chitstorm that will arise when any government official proposes a nation wide ban. In the real world MD that is never going to happen. The gun culture and the love of firearms is too deeply ingrained in our culture. IMO the best option for starters is making it very tedious to go through the process of purchasing a high powered semi automatic weapon. That being said there are 50 different states that view this issue totally differently. You will not find any common ground in what Texas thinks is prudent as opposed to what New York thinks.

We've already done it and it worked, cradle. On a national basis.

It won't eliminate all of these weapons overnight, but those who wish to not be criminals will either turn them in "buy-back" or store and use them at the gun range. Big boon to gun range businesses, there will be many more...but they can be regulated for safety procedures etc.

I don't expect the national government to be going door to door, but when someone is suspected of committing a crime and a warrant is obtained, the illegal possession will have legal consequences. These can be escalatory in terms of #'s of weapons, sale to others, use in public areas, etc. A simple fine for the one weapon someone "forgot" but had well secured. But those are unlikely to ever be an issue if the person never uses it publicly or doesn't commit some other crime and then be subject to a warrant. It's only going to be the flagrant offenders and/or perpetrators of other crimes (eg drug or human trafficking).

But no brandishing in public, no shooting off one's porch...that draws attention and a response with real teeth.

Culture change takes time, but we can bend this thing.

So you think a nationwide ban by the federal government will pass muster when it winds up which it most certainly will in front of the SCOTUS? The right of the people to keep and bear arms not being infringed creates a huge bar to cross. You think your side really wants to fight this battle at this point in time? I wish your peeps were as hard-line when it comes to stopping the flow of fentanyl into the country. I already know what your gonna say. Well Cradle that is a fight for some other day. In the words of John Fogarty SOMEDAY NEVER COMES but you already know that now don't you? FTR and I could be wrong people were still able to purchase assault weapons even during the Brady ban. I use to peruse the gun counter at Dicks and Gander Mountain and I remember some variety of these rifles still for sale. I know they didn't suddenly vanish from the gun cases. I'll dig into it a little deeper.
It didn't take much digging MD. The assault weapons ban you speak of banned and I emphasize this... CERTAIN TYPES of Semi automatic weapons. A little fact that you left out. King Andy tried the same thing with the SAFE ACT in NYS. The folks at Ruger made and are still making big money from the sales of their mini 14. Those sales have been off the charts. You already know the magic ingredient in the Ruger weapon IT DOES NOT REMOTELY RESEMBLE AN AR 15. Performance and ballistic wise it is the same God damn rifle that can still be purchased with the former King of NYS approval. How can you effectively ban a weapon type that you struggle to define? Well you can try but then it gets complicated. Well MD the gubmint decided a number of years back than banning booze would be a good thing for the nation. Refresh my memory how that worked out at the end of the day. Alcohol is not even protected by the Constitution like fire arm ownership is.

ugh, brick wall.

Regulation of weapons is definitely Constitutional, and defining the weapons to be included is not actually "hard", as I believe ggait earlier made clear much earlier, as well as others have explained. It's been done before and can be done again, on a national basis. And if the list or definition requires updating, that too can evolve as needed.

Moreover, under my suggested program private citizens can not only "keep and bear arms" (regulated), they can "keep and bear" even assault weapons, at a well-regulated gun range.

We can also regulate the process of purchasing ANY gun, as well as its storage, and the appropriate time and place of its discharge.

All Constitutional, including under the current SCOTUS regime.

Ranting otherwise isn't persuasive.

You have a lot of ideas. The problem is once they are introduced to the real world they fall to pieces. Do you really think some one is going to pluck down a thousand dollars for his/her dream rifle and hand it over to people he doesn't know at a secure facility for his own protection. Do you ever actually think through some of troublesome little devilish details in your ideas?? Your heart is in the right place but you just don't seem to be in touch with reality as to how they could be implemented. The only way your idea works, and it is not a bad idea in theory can only be accomplished on a voluntary basis.

ohh, it's "voluntary"...you want to own an assault rifle? Fine, pass the background checks and agree to use them only as allowed at a well-regulated gun range. Want to rent one at the gun range, that's fine too.

Already own one, take it to the gun range for safe keeping. Well-regulated can include insurance requirements.

Or turn it into the buy-back program.

Will there be scofflaws? sure.

And if they're super quiet about it and don't provide reason for a warrant that otherwise discovers their illegal storage of such a weapon, no big deal...but most people who intend to be "law-abiding citizens" will do either the buy-back or the safe storage at the range.

But hey, if you're saying that this will discourage people from put down "a thousand dollars for their dream rifle", I sure hope so!

No one should consider this their "dream rifle"; that's the problem, people imagining, "dreaming" of being some sort of warrior...let's go shoot up a school or shoot at someone turning around in the driveway...stop those "dreams"

I respect your opinion and your passion. You do understand it will never happen in a million years. Stranger things have happened though. There are 100s of millions of these weapons presently in circulation and many, many millions of owners of these weapons that ain't gonna give em up ever.

[Typical Lax Dad]

cradle, making these weapons illegal nationally, coupled with a national buyback program, will separate the law abiding citizens who simply want to go hunting with a rifle or have a handgun for personal protection from the nutcases who want to use military-style assault weapons for... assault.

Automatically, these weapons won't be legal in "open-carry" areas, rather they will immediately be seen as a violation of law.

It will change the culture of what is acceptable, much less attractive.

I've suggested that a smart compromise would be allowance of these weapons at well regulated gun ranges, with secure storage there only. But any possession away from those ranges would be illegal.

One problem with what you propose. The serious hard core gun fanatics will never go for it. The biggest drawback is making criminals out of millions of gun owners with the stroke of a pen. These folks are not bullchitting you when they say you'll have to pry their guns out of their cold dead fingers. If that is the road you think the government should travel down then good luck with that. I can only see the chitstorm that will arise when any government official proposes a nation wide ban. In the real world MD that is never going to happen. The gun culture and the love of firearms is too deeply ingrained in our culture. IMO the best option for starters is making it very tedious to go through the process of purchasing a high powered semi automatic weapon. That being said there are 50 different states that view this issue totally differently. You will not find any common ground in what Texas thinks is prudent as opposed to what New York thinks.

We've already done it and it worked, cradle. On a national basis.

It won't eliminate all of these weapons overnight, but those who wish to not be criminals will either turn them in "buy-back" or store and use them at the gun range. Big boon to gun range businesses, there will be many more...but they can be regulated for safety procedures etc.

I don't expect the national government to be going door to door, but when someone is suspected of committing a crime and a warrant is obtained, the illegal possession will have legal consequences. These can be escalatory in terms of #'s of weapons, sale to others, use in public areas, etc. A simple fine for the one weapon someone "forgot" but had well secured. But those are unlikely to ever be an issue if the person never uses it publicly or doesn't commit some other crime and then be subject to a warrant. It's only going to be the flagrant offenders and/or perpetrators of other crimes (eg drug or human trafficking).

But no brandishing in public, no shooting off one's porch...that draws attention and a response with real teeth.

Culture change takes time, but we can bend this thing.

So you think a nationwide ban by the federal government will pass muster when it winds up which it most certainly will in front of the SCOTUS? The right of the people to keep and bear arms not being infringed creates a huge bar to cross. You think your side really wants to fight this battle at this point in time? I wish your peeps were as hard-line when it comes to stopping the flow of fentanyl into the country. I already know what your gonna say. Well Cradle that is a fight for some other day. In the words of John Fogarty SOMEDAY NEVER COMES but you already know that now don't you? FTR and I could be wrong people were still able to purchase assault weapons even during the Brady ban. I use to peruse the gun counter at Dicks and Gander Mountain and I remember some variety of these rifles still for sale. I know they didn't suddenly vanish from the gun cases. I'll dig into it a little deeper.
It didn't take much digging MD. The assault weapons ban you speak of banned and I emphasize this... CERTAIN TYPES of Semi automatic weapons. A little fact that you left out. King Andy tried the same thing with the SAFE ACT in NYS. The folks at Ruger made and are still making big money from the sales of their mini 14. Those sales have been off the charts. You already know the magic ingredient in the Ruger weapon IT DOES NOT REMOTELY RESEMBLE AN AR 15. Performance and ballistic wise it is the same God damn rifle that can still be purchased with the former King of NYS approval. How can you effectively ban a weapon type that you struggle to define? Well you can try but then it gets complicated. Well MD the gubmint decided a number of years back than banning booze would be a good thing for the nation. Refresh my memory how that worked out at the end of the day. Alcohol is not even protected by the Constitution like fire arm ownership is.

ugh, brick wall.

Regulation of weapons is definitely Constitutional, and defining the weapons to be included is not actually "hard", as I believe ggait earlier made clear much earlier, as well as others have explained. It's been done before and can be done again, on a national basis. And if the list or definition requires updating, that too can evolve as needed.

Moreover, under my suggested program private citizens can not only "keep and bear arms" (regulated), they can "keep and bear" even assault weapons, at a well-regulated gun range.

We can also regulate the process of purchasing ANY gun, as well as its storage, and the appropriate time and place of its discharge.

All Constitutional, including under the current SCOTUS regime.

Ranting otherwise isn't persuasive.

You have a lot of ideas. The problem is once they are introduced to the real world they fall to pieces. Do you really think some one is going to pluck down a thousand dollars for his/her dream rifle and hand it over to people he doesn't know at a secure facility for his own protection. Do you ever actually think through some of troublesome little devilish details in your ideas?? Your heart is in the right place but you just don't seem to be in touch with reality as to how they could be implemented. The only way your idea works, and it is not a bad idea in theory can only be accomplished on a voluntary basis.

ohh, it's "voluntary"...you want to own an assault rifle? Fine, pass the background checks and agree to use them only as allowed at a well-regulated gun range. Want to rent one at the gun range, that's fine too.

Already own one, take it to the gun range for safe keeping. Well-regulated can include insurance requirements.

Or turn it into the buy-back program.

Will there be scofflaws? sure.

And if they're super quiet about it and don't provide reason for a warrant that otherwise discovers their illegal storage of such a weapon, no big deal...but most people who intend to be "law-abiding citizens" will do either the buy-back or the safe storage at the range.

But hey, if you're saying that this will discourage people from put down "a thousand dollars for their dream rifle", I sure hope so!

No one should consider this their "dream rifle"; that's the problem, people imagining, "dreaming" of being some sort of warrior...let's go shoot up a school or shoot at someone turning around in the driveway...stop those "dreams"

I respect your opinion and your passion. You do understand it will never happen in a million years. Stranger things have happened though. There are 100s of millions of these weapons presently in circulation and many, many millions of owners of these weapons that ain't gonna give em up ever.

They will die off. Limit the supply and then burn of the excess as folks die off. You will eventually get down to maybe 150 million guns instead of 325 million.