Sensible Gun Safety

[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 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.

Like I said, they don't have to give them up entirely if they don't want to do so.

But don't get caught waving them around, shooting them off publicly...and you won't be able to get one easily and go off on a suicidal shooting spree.

This only happens IF we as a society decide that we want to reverse the trajectory on mass shootings, want our kids to grow up in a safer world than the path we're currently on. Won't be perfect, but it will be better.

Let's not let 'perfect be the enemy of good'.

[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??

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.

Then what the hell do you mean? The vibe I have been getting on this forum is these weapons need to go away. Some food for thought that might burst your bubble. Where do you put these secure facilities and rifle ranges? There isn't a town near where I live that doesn't have strict regulations regarding the discharge of firearms. I think they are referred to as zoning ordinances. I can see the outrage in every community when someone tries to get a permit to establish a safe fire secure rifle range. How do you overcome that little fly in the ointment MD or is it more "brick wall" thinking on my part. Interesting idea and concept MD in theory it will never work in the real world.

[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.

Like I said, they don't have to give them up entirely if they don't want to do so.

But don't get caught waving them around, shooting them off publicly...and you won't be able to get one easily and go off on a suicidal shooting spree.

This only happens IF we as a society decide that we want to reverse the trajectory on mass shootings, want our kids to grow up in a safer world than the path we're currently on. Won't be perfect, but it will be better.

Let's not let 'perfect be the enemy of good'.

This could be one of those rare monumental occasions. We have finally stumbled onto common ground. I agree with you a 100%. I think the criteria for purchasing one of these weapons should include a wide variety of hoops to jump through and that process should take as long as it takes.

[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.

Then what the hell do you mean? The vibe I have been getting on this forum is these weapons need to go away. Some food for thought that might burst your bubble. Where do you put these secure facilities and rifle ranges? There isn't a town near where I live that doesn't have strict regulations regarding the discharge of firearms. I think they are referred to as zoning ordinances. I can see the outrage in every community when someone tries to get a permit to establish a safe fire secure rifle range. How do you overcome that little fly in the ointment MD or is it more "brick wall" thinking on my part. Interesting idea and concept MD in theory it will never work in the real world.

Yup, you can't put an outdoor range in every backyard, but indoor ranges are pretty common and don't need to be a nuisance. The issue with outdoor is not only the noise, but the stray bullets. Indoor both can be contained. I'd bet there's an indoor range within 15 minutes of where you live, cradle, there certainly is where I live, and in the program that I'm describing, good old capitalism would solve for these issues.

The other factor I'd note on where ranges currently are is the sense in many communities that ranges and gun stores attract certain sorts of folks who go around brandishing their weapons...folks don't like that...

[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??

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.

Then what the hell do you mean? The vibe I have been getting on this forum is these weapons need to go away. Some food for thought that might burst your bubble. Where do you put these secure facilities and rifle ranges? There isn't a town near where I live that doesn't have strict regulations regarding the discharge of firearms. I think they are referred to as zoning ordinances. I can see the outrage in every community when someone tries to get a permit to establish a safe fire secure rifle range. How do you overcome that little fly in the ointment MD or is it more "brick wall" thinking on my part. Interesting idea and concept MD in theory it will never work in the real world.

Yup, you can't put an outdoor range in every backyard, but indoor ranges are pretty common and don't need to be a nuisance. The issue with outdoor is not only the noise, but the stray bullets. Indoor both can be contained. I'd bet there's an indoor range within 15 minutes of where you live, cradle, there certainly is where I live, and in the program that I'm describing, good old capitalism would solve for these issues.

The other factor I'd note on where ranges currently are is the sense in many communities that ranges and gun stores attract certain sorts of folks who go around brandishing their weapons...folks don't like that...

Where I live the nearest indoor range is in Bergen NY. The place is called the Firing Pin. Correction, was the firing pin. The place had a bad fire over the winter. This is were my son goes to shoot. It is a handgun range about 30 meters long. You can't shoot AR 15 weapons there. The range is not long enough for that. There ain't a lot of ranges that I know of where you can safely fire your pea shooters. You need at least 300 meters in distance or have constructed a berm tall enough and deep enough to contain the bullets fired. There are a few rod and gun clubs locally but they are not AR15 friendly. If you own one of these weapons you likely have friends that own land out in the boonies.

[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??

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.

Then what the hell do you mean? The vibe I have been getting on this forum is these weapons need to go away. Some food for thought that might burst your bubble. Where do you put these secure facilities and rifle ranges? There isn't a town near where I live that doesn't have strict regulations regarding the discharge of firearms. I think they are referred to as zoning ordinances. I can see the outrage in every community when someone tries to get a permit to establish a safe fire secure rifle range. How do you overcome that little fly in the ointment MD or is it more "brick wall" thinking on my part. Interesting idea and concept MD in theory it will never work in the real world.

Yup, you can't put an outdoor range in every backyard, but indoor ranges are pretty common and don't need to be a nuisance. The issue with outdoor is not only the noise, but the stray bullets. Indoor both can be contained. I'd bet there's an indoor range within 15 minutes of where you live, cradle, there certainly is where I live, and in the program that I'm describing, good old capitalism would solve for these issues.

The other factor I'd note on where ranges currently are is the sense in many communities that ranges and gun stores attract certain sorts of folks who go around brandishing their weapons...folks don't like that...

Where I live the nearest indoor range is in Bergen NY. The place is called the Firing Pin. Correction, was the firing pin. The place had a bad fire over the winter. This is were my son goes to shoot. It is a handgun range about 30 meters long. You can't shoot AR 15 weapons there. The range is not long enough for that. There ain't a lot of ranges that I know of where you can safely fire your pea shooters. You need at least 300 meters in distance or have constructed a berm tall enough and deep enough to contain the bullets fired. There are a few rod and gun clubs locally but they are not AR15 friendly. If you own one of these weapons you likely have friends that own land out in the boonies.

I had never fired a weapon at an indoor range before. Even with hearing protection the noise level was not pleasant. The clientele shooting next to us were the kind of folks who left me shaking my head.

[NattyBohChamps04]

Where I live the nearest indoor range is in Bergen NY. The place is called the Firing Pin. Correction, was the firing pin. The place had a bad fire over the winter. This is were my son goes to shoot. It is a handgun range about 30 meters long. You can't shoot AR 15 weapons there. The range is not long enough for that. There ain't a lot of ranges that I know of where you can safely fire your pea shooters. You need at least 300 meters in distance or have constructed a berm tall enough and deep enough to contain the bullets fired. There are a few rod and gun clubs locally but they are not AR15 friendly. If you own one of these weapons you likely have friends that own land out in the boonies.

AR-15 is a platform. You can shoot .17 HMR to .50 Beowulf

Lots of indoor ranges allow .223/5.56. The one around the corner here lets you shoot up to .30-06. Indoor ranges just need a proper backstop & walls and ceiling. As you mention most of the clientele are as smart as a bag of hammers. And yeah, double up on the ear pro.

[MDlaxfan76]

I just did a yelp search and found 5 gun ranges within 20 minutes of where I am right now. One was sporting clays only, others all provided handgun and rifle, including AR-15 style instruction and practice.

Strong market demand here in Treasure Coast of Florida, apparently.

Took a look at Baltimore region, more than 20 firearms training and gun range businesses within roughly 40 minutes of where I live in Baltimore County just outside of beltway, 4 or 5 within 20-30. About half of those are training only, not full gun ranges. But plenty of gun ranges within reach. One only sporting clays.

Some of them look more than a bit sketchy, so under my proposal of safe storage and usage of assault-style weapons only at "well-regulated" gun ranges, there would need to be some upgrades...but the market would respond to the demand as well as licensing and oversight. Some of the existing look like they'd be easily prepared for the role and upgrade. I'd expect some professionalism, chain operations, etc to emerge as the primary players in providing these services, but with some independents too.

Branded chains would likely be focused on the importance of being able to locate in or near population centers with a "family-friendly" appeal (with good sound proofing, computer systems, staff) to enable zoning approval, rather than the way some of these places look like they're appealing to the renegade...some of the sketchier actually advertise in ways that are suggestive of illegal activities, though tiptoeing:

From the business
Specialties
We do Firearms transfers, firearms sales ,buy class III machineguns, regulated and non-regulated firearms, buying ammo, can do ammunition disposal ,submit firearms to handgun board for inclustion in Maryland handgun roster. We can provide fired shell casing for new handgun sales,private and dealer. I buy coins gold and silver ,certified and uncertified ,buying large bills($500 and $1000 bills). We will also purchase you good used car let us know what you have, very much like Honda auto's.

History
Established in 2008.

Always had interest in firearms ,machine guns have had several other business interests, have large auto shop seemed like a good fit, and is wish to get into other related such as disaster prep.

Meet the Business Owner
Business owner information
Photo of Tim E.
Tim E.
Business Owner
Been a gun enthusiast for my who life just wanted to give it a try and ut has worked.

[Seacoaster(1)]

Learning to live with killers at the restaurant, church, grocery store and school:

https://twitter.com/AdamParkhomenko/sta ... 2549694464

But sure, this should be enough. Third world country.

[Seacoaster(1)]

Thank God, this just in:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va ... year-olds/

“A federal judge in Virginia on Wednesday declared unconstitutional a set of federal laws and regulations that prohibit federally-licensed firearms dealers from selling handguns to people who are 18 to 20 years of age, finding that the measures violated the Second Amendment.

“Because the statutes and regulations in question are not consistent with our Nation’s history and tradition, they, therefore, cannot stand,” U.S. District Judge Robert E. Payne, who sits in Richmond, concluded in a 71-page opinion.

Attorneys on both sides of the case said they expected the Justice Department to appeal the decision and request a stay, which would prevent Payne’s ruling from taking immediate effect while higher courts weigh the case.

Although 18- to 20-year-olds previously could buy handguns in private sales — or have a parent purchase a weapon for them — the decision Wednesday, if left unchallenged, would dismantle a legal framework that for decades has prevented licensed dealers from selling handguns to “to teenagers,” said William T. Clark, an attorney with the Giffords Law Center, which filed an amicus brief in the case calling for the laws at issue to be upheld.
“It’s a significant decision — we disagree with the outcome,” Clark said, adding that “there is compelling scientific evidence showing that teenagers are more impulsive and face unique elevated dangers from firearms.”

Payne, who was nominated to the bench by President George H.W. Bush, repeatedly cited the Supreme Court’s decision in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen, a ruling from the high court’s conservative majority that expanded the right to bear arms last year.

The plaintiff in the Virginia case, John Corey Fraser, was 20 years old when he attempted to buy a Glock 19x handgun from a federally licensed dealer in May 2022 and was turned away, according to the lawsuit he filed last year. He challenged the constitutionality of the Gun Control Act of 1968 and federal regulations from the Bureau of Alcohol, Firearms, Tobacco and Explosives (ATF) that limit the sale of handguns to people over 21 years of age.

“We’re pleased the court ruled in favor of Mr. Fraser and the other named plaintiffs in such well written and thorough decision,” Elliott M. Harding, the attorney for Fraser, said in an email. “Even though it ensures that future buyers can now purchase these firearms in the federal system, one that includes background checks and other requirements, we expect the defendants will appeal. Nevertheless, we remain optimistic that the decision will be affirmed in due course.”

An ATF spokesman said the agency “is unable to comment on litigation.” Justice Department officials did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Janet Carter, senior director of issues and appeals at Everytown Law, which also filed an amicus brief supporting the age restrictions, said: “Not only are guns the leading cause of death for U.S. kids and teens, but research shows us that 18- to 20-year-olds commit gun homicides at triple the rate of adults 21 years and older. The federal law prohibiting federally-licensed firearms dealers from selling handguns to individuals under the age of 21 is not just an essential tool for preventing gun violence, it is also entirely constitutional. The Court’s ruling will undoubtedly put lives at risk. It must be reversed.”

According to the Bruen opinion, written by Justice Clarence Thomas, “constitutional rights are enshrined with the scope they were understood to have when the people adopted them.” Payne wrote in his opinion Wednesday that although the majority age was considered to be 21 at the time of the United States’ founding, the fact that people could join militias at 18 was more compelling.

“It is not at all clear that the age of majority at the Founding is the appropriate measure for measuring the reach of the Second Amendment,” he wrote.
Payne wrote that “no federal appellate court, much less the Supreme Court, has squarely determined that the Second Amendment’s rights vest at age 21” and that “to date, three circuits, the Fifth, Seventh, and Eleventh, have looked at this question head-on and have declined to answer it.”

The judge noted that federal district courts in Louisiana and Pennsylvania, in prior cases, had accepted the Justice Department’s position that 21 years of age was a valid threshold for handgun purchases from federally licensed dealers. He also noted that under current laws and regulations, 18- to 20-year-olds enjoy the right to vote, may enlist in the military, lose their legal protection from the death penalty, and are allowed to possess handguns that their parents or guardians bought for them.

“If the Court were to exclude 18-to-21-year-olds from the Second Amendment’s protection, it would impose limitations on the Second Amendment that do not exist with other constitutional guarantees,” the judge added. “It is firmly established that the First, Fourth, Fifth, Eight, and Fourteenth Amendments vest before the age of 21. … Like these other rights, the Second Amendment’s protections apply to 18-to-20-year-olds. By adopting the Second Amendment, the people constrained both the hands of Congress and the courts to infringe upon this right by denying ordinary law-abiding citizens of this age the full enjoyment of the right to keep and bear arms unless the restriction is supported by the Nation’s history. That is what Bruen tells us.”

Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., who voted with the Bruen majority, wrote in a concurring opinion last year: “Our decision, as noted, does not expand the categories of people who may lawfully possess a gun, and federal law generally forbids the possession of a handgun by a person who is under the age of 18 … and bars the sale of a handgun to anyone under the age of 21.”

Payne, in his opinion, wrote that the Bruen majority directs courts to conduct a historical analysis in weighing handgun restrictions.

“Justice Alito did not conduct a historical analysis,” Payne wrote. “Because that observation is in a concurrence and is a cursory comment at that, the Court notes it but gives it no analytical weight.”

[Typical Lax Dad]

Learning to live with killers at the restaurant, church, grocery store and school:

https://twitter.com/AdamParkhomenko/sta ... 2549694464

But sure, this should be enough. Third world country.

The problem is that there aren’t enough good guys with guns in that commercial.

[jhu72]

Learning to live with killers at the restaurant, church, grocery store and school:

https://twitter.com/AdamParkhomenko/sta ... 2549694464

But sure, this should be enough. Third world country.

The problem is that there aren’t enough good guys with guns in that commercial.

... they should have had C&S in the ad, He could have shown us all how it should be done.

[DMac]

Thank God I got the under the desk for nuclear attack training in grade school.
Add this video to that and I should be able to survive most any mass shooting or
nuclear attack, am thinkin' I'm in pretty good shape in that respect. Oh, and I've
got a gun too so when the time to overrun the government comes I can be a soldier
in the militia. Really thinkin' I've got it all pretty much under control.

How many years (goes years earlier than the date of this thread), how many pages
of this discussion and how much has really changed?

[Typical Lax Dad]

Thank God I got the under the desk for nuclear attack training in grade school.
Add this video to that and I should be able to survive most any mass shooting or
nuclear attack, am thinkin' I'm in pretty good shape in that respect. Oh, and I've
got a gun too so when the time to overrun the government comes I can be a soldier
in the militia. Really thinkin' I've got it all pretty much under control.

How many years (goes years earlier than the date of this thread), how many pages
of this discussion and how much has really changed?

On the first page of the thread in 2018:

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/20 ... be-banned/

[cradleandshoot]

Learning to live with killers at the restaurant, church, grocery store and school:

https://twitter.com/AdamParkhomenko/sta ... 2549694464

But sure, this should be enough. Third world country.

The problem is that there aren’t enough good guys with guns in that commercial.

... they should have had C&S in the ad, He could have shown us all how it should be done.

If we are both in the same restaurant I'm thinking you would make a great human shield... that is how I roll.

[OCanada]

Inductive reasoning which you are trying to use usually leads to bad end results. It is not binary issue.

Killing with an AR 15 is a very different action than killing with a knife or truck from the perp’s POV

The GOP has blocked fed funded research into guns for a reason. They know what it would reveal.

[PizzaSnake]

Learning to live with killers at the restaurant, church, grocery store and school:

https://twitter.com/AdamParkhomenko/sta ... 2549694464

But sure, this should be enough. Third world country.

The problem is that there aren’t enough good guys with guns in that commercial.

... they should have had C&S in the ad, He could have shown us all how it should be done.

If we are both in the same restaurant I'm thinking you would make a great human shield... that is how I roll.

If I see you in public with a weapon I see you as a threat.

[Typical Lax Dad]

https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/17/politics ... index.html

SCOTUS must not have read on this site that nothing can be done about weapons in this country.

[jhu72]

https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/17/politics ... index.html

SCOTUS must not have read on this site that nothing can be done about weapons in this country.

SCOTUS majority is a bunch of cowards. They have royally fu*ked things up and now go into hiding. Betcha they are going to do the same thing on the abortion issue. When the Mifepristone ban finally lands on their desk, they are going to refuse to take it up.

[DMac]

Just watched 20/20, a year in Uvalde. Mighty tough stuff. 21 dead but the damage goes way beyond that.
What's changed since that one, and the one before that, and the one before that......?
We want our guns at pretty much any cost and we can find ways to justify it. Need more laws (they haven't
done jack).