Sensible Gun Safety

[ggait]

Reagan, Bush 1 and Bush 2 all supported the federal awb.

Lots of normal non crazy republicans did back that n the day.

The kinds of folks that I used to vote for but who now are ex communicated from the gop.

[NattyBohChamps04]

New Frontier: "You were a split second away from having your head blown off by a Republican with an AR. Here's a new AR lower to commemorate the event!"

You can't write this kind of craziness.

[jhu72]

New Frontier: "You were a split second away from having your head blown off by a Republican with an AR. Here's a new AR lower to commemorate the event!"

You can't write this kind of craziness.

[NattyBohChamps04]

York County man fired 100 shots at police car after road rage incident, officials say



Seems excessive

[Seacoaster(1)]

Another neat development, thanks to your Supreme Court!!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2 ... rt-ruling/

"A federal appeals court ruled on Tuesday that Minnesota’s ban preventing residents ages 18 to 20 from carrying handguns in public is unconstitutional, upholding a district-court decision that said the Second Amendment right to bear arms should apply to all adults in the state.

The decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit could soon allow Minnesota residents to apply to carry handguns in public once they turn 18, removing an age restriction the state imposed in 2003.

In its arguments, the three-judge panel referred to a Supreme Court decision from June 2022 saying law-abiding Americans have a right to carry a handgun outside their home for self-defense.

“Minnesota has not met its burden to proffer sufficient evidence to rebut the presumption that 18 to 20-year-olds seeking to carry handguns in public for self-defense are protected by the right to keep and bear arms,” the judges wrote Tuesday.

Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison (D) said in a statement to The Washington Post that he was “extremely disappointed” in the ruling. The state is deciding how to proceed, his statement said, but residents under 21 won’t be allowed to apply for handguns until the appeals process has concluded.

In his statement, Ellison said the ruling was especially “troubling” because it came three days after a 20-year-old fired shots from his father’s AR-style rifle at former president Donald Trump’s rally in Butler, Pa., according to federal investigators.

“The people of Minnesota want and deserve solutions that reduce shootings and improve public safety,” Ellison’s statement said, “and today’s ruling only makes that more difficult.”

The ruling stemmed from a complaint three gun rights groups filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota in June 2021, arguing that young adults should be allowed to publicly carry handguns.

Rob Doar, the vice president of government affairs for the Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus, one of the plaintiffs, told The Post he was happy with Tuesday’s ruling.

“They’re going to go through the same background check and all of the same requirements,” Doar said about state residents ages 18 to 20. “Why should they be denied their right?”

After the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in June 2022, multiple gun laws were upended across the country. The ruling said U.S. gun laws must align with “history and tradition,” a stipulation that has left some courts confused.

Adam Kraut, the executive director of the Second Amendment Foundation, another plaintiff in the Minnesota complaint, said there are many people ages 18 to 20 who want a handgun for self-defense.

“It’s encouraging to see yet another court correctly apply the nation’s history and tradition and come to that conclusion,” Kraut, whose organization is based in Bellevue, Wash., told The Post about Tuesday’s ruling.

In March 2023, U.S. District Judge Katherine Menendez struck the Minnesota law that prevents residents ages 18 to 20 from publicly carrying handguns. The state appealed, and Menendez stayed her ruling until the appeals process was resolved.

Minnesota argued to the appeals court that people under the age of 21 aren’t competent to make responsible decisions with guns and that they pose a danger to themselves and others, the judges wrote in Tuesday’s ruling. The appeals court said the state didn’t provide enough evidence to support that claim. It also said the Second Amendment doesn’t specify an age limit, so all adults should be protected.

If Minnesota’s ban is lifted, 10 states and D.C. will still require its residents to be 21 or older to publicly possess a handgun — barring exceptions — according to the Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence. There have been 18 mass killings in the United States this year, according to a count by The Post, which classifies a mass killing as a shooting in which four or more people die, excluding the perpetrators."

[NattyBohChamps04]

Another neat development, thanks to your Supreme Court!!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2 ... rt-ruling/

"A federal appeals court ruled on Tuesday that Minnesota’s ban preventing residents ages 18 to 20 from carrying handguns in public is unconstitutional, upholding a district-court decision that said the Second Amendment right to bear arms should apply to all adults in the state.

The decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit could soon allow Minnesota residents to apply to carry handguns in public once they turn 18, removing an age restriction the state imposed in 2003.

The constitution clearly state "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

It doesn't state "the right of the people 21 and over to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"

Logically this means anyone under the age of 18 should be able to legally buy and carry guns, right? Wonder how far they'll go...

[WaffleTwineFaceoff]

Another neat development, thanks to your Supreme Court!!

18-20 year olds still have to pass the Federal background check system to acquire a handgun. And then the Minnesota state handgun permit requirements - which remain unavailable to the until the appeals process plays out.

USA has 29 constitutional carry states, and legal owning and carrying 18-20 year olds are rarely perpetrating criminal acts.

The criminal violence bloodbath in the 18-20 year old age group is almost exclusively the domain of perpetrators who don't obey laws, and don't own their firearms legally. You know, the 18 & 19 year old "adolescents" padding out the numbers of the "guns are the leading cause of death in children and young adults in America" claim.

[njbill]

Why cut it off at 18? Why not let 12-year-olds have guns? No, make that five-year-olds. Why not let them carry guns in schools?

This is insane. I won’t live long enough, but I’m fully confident that things will dramatically turn around sometime down the road, starting with the reversal of Heller.

[WaffleTwineFaceoff]

Why cut it off at 18? Why not let 12-year-olds have guns? No, make that five-year-olds. Why not let them carry guns in schools?

This is insane. I won’t live long enough, but I’m fully confident that things will dramatically turn around sometime down the road, starting with the reversal of Heller.

Gonna call specious sophistry on your first sentence.

And what's insane? The statistics regarding WHO perpetrates criminal gun violence are clear. For each slice of the criminal gun violence pie (MPS, gang/drug/inner city, family annihilations) there are clear research based mitigation solutions which don't involve trampling on a right of the law abiding among us.

What is insane is how little attention our politicians give to strategies which could really make a difference, because they are so busy pandering to their base with "Do something" sound bite virtue signaling and vilification of their political opponents and opposing party. Keeps us right where they want us, stuck in a WWI style trench war which is going nowhere and accomplishing not much. And the band played on...

I hope I'll live long enough for our leaders to stop grandstanding and start doing the right thing, not "something". Wouldn't that be a novel thing!

[MDlaxfan76]

Why cut it off at 18? Why not let 12-year-olds have guns? No, make that five-year-olds. Why not let them carry guns in schools?

This is insane. I won’t live long enough, but I’m fully confident that things will dramatically turn around sometime down the road, starting with the reversal of Heller.

Gonna call specious sophistry on your first sentence.

And what's insane? The statistics regarding WHO perpetrates criminal gun violence are clear. For each slice of the criminal gun violence pie (MPS, gang/drug/inner city, family annihilations) there are clear research based mitigation solutions which don't involve trampling on a right of the law abiding among us.

What is insane is how little attention our politicians give to strategies which could really make a difference, because they are so busy pandering to their base with "Do something" sound bite virtue signaling and vilification of their political opponents and opposing party. Keeps us right where they want us, stuck in a WWI style trench war which is going nowhere and accomplishing not much. And the band played on...

I hope I'll live long enough for our leaders to stop grandstanding and start doing the right thing, not "something". Wouldn't that be a novel thing!

You've avoided the cut-off question. Why not 12, why not 5? Why not in schools?
Why 18?

Is this really just an inner city sort of problem?
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/ ... e-00092413

And your 'strategies'?

[njbill]

Waffle. It’s called sarcasm. I guess you missed that.

[Kismet]

Why cut it off at 18? Why not let 12-year-olds have guns? No, make that five-year-olds. Why not let them carry guns in schools?

This is insane. I won’t live long enough, but I’m fully confident that things will dramatically turn around sometime down the road, starting with the reversal of Heller.

Gonna call specious sophistry on your first sentence.

And what's insane? The statistics regarding WHO perpetrates criminal gun violence are clear. For each slice of the criminal gun violence pie (MPS, gang/drug/inner city, family annihilations) there are clear research based mitigation solutions which don't involve trampling on a right of the law abiding among us.

What is insane is how little attention our politicians give to strategies which could really make a difference, because they are so busy pandering to their base with "Do something" sound bite virtue signaling and vilification of their political opponents and opposing party. Keeps us right where they want us, stuck in a WWI style trench war which is going nowhere and accomplishing not much. And the band played on...

I hope I'll live long enough for our leaders to stop grandstanding and start doing the right thing, not "something". Wouldn't that be a novel thing!

Kindly elaborate on any of those strategies you mention.

[a fan]

Why cut it off at 18? Why not let 12-year-olds have guns? No, make that five-year-olds. Why not let them carry guns in schools?

This is insane. I won’t live long enough, but I’m fully confident that things will dramatically turn around sometime down the road, starting with the reversal of Heller.

Gonna call specious sophistry on your first sentence.

And what's insane? The statistics regarding WHO perpetrates criminal gun violence are clear. For each slice of the criminal gun violence pie (MPS, gang/drug/inner city, family annihilations) there are clear research based mitigation solutions which don't involve trampling on a right of the law abiding among us.

What is insane is how little attention our politicians give to strategies which could really make a difference, because they are so busy pandering to their base with "Do something" sound bite virtue signaling and vilification of their political opponents and opposing party. Keeps us right where they want us, stuck in a WWI style trench war which is going nowhere and accomplishing not much. And the band played on...

I hope I'll live long enough for our leaders to stop grandstanding and start doing the right thing, not "something". Wouldn't that be a novel thing!

As a reminder, I told you that it's on your pro-gun crew to do something about it. No one else can do something, and I'm confident you know why: your crew has TOLD your leaders in the Republican party to do nothing, and to kill all bills. So that's what happens.

And the more you dig your heels in, the worse the response will be when Dems gain power....and they will, someday. And you'll regret not taking the simple, reasonable steps to signal to America that the pro-gun lobby isn't insane.

Pretty confident I want the same things that you do......this isn't the way to get it. IMHO, of course.

[WaffleTwineFaceoff]

Why cut it off at 18? Why not let 12-year-olds have guns? No, make that five-year-olds. Why not let them carry guns in schools?

This is insane. I won’t live long enough, but I’m fully confident that things will dramatically turn around sometime down the road, starting with the reversal of Heller.

Gonna call specious sophistry on your first sentence.

And what's insane? The statistics regarding WHO perpetrates criminal gun violence are clear. For each slice of the criminal gun violence pie (MPS, gang/drug/inner city, family annihilations) there are clear research based mitigation solutions which don't involve trampling on a right of the law abiding among us.

What is insane is how little attention our politicians give to strategies which could really make a difference, because they are so busy pandering to their base with "Do something" sound bite virtue signaling and vilification of their political opponents and opposing party. Keeps us right where they want us, stuck in a WWI style trench war which is going nowhere and accomplishing not much. And the band played on...

I hope I'll live long enough for our leaders to stop grandstanding and start doing the right thing, not "something". Wouldn't that be a novel thing!

As a reminder, I told you that it's on your pro-gun crew to do something about it. No one else can do something, and I'm confident you know why: your crew has TOLD your leaders in the Republican party to do nothing, and to kill all bills. So that's what happens.

And the more you dig your heels in, the worse the response will be when Dems gain power....and they will, someday. And you'll regret not taking the simple, reasonable steps to signal to America that the pro-gun lobby isn't insane.

Pretty confident I want the same things that you do......this isn't the way to get it. IMHO, of course.

My crew? It's on us? My crew is law abiding and responsible gun owners. Roughly 50% of us being Democrats and Independents (and 73% of our households having a gun). That the crew you're referring to?

Folks, plenty of my posts previously over the past year or more in this thread go "granular" on the various "gun violence scourge" issues.

What I've generally found here is posting my opinions on such things spurs a circular path right back to where I started.

How do I arrive at my opinions in the "America & Guns" category?

1) I hear a claim, read an article, listen to a politician, etc. 2) I question if the claim(s) is/are genuine, valid, and applicable, 3) I head down the research rabbit hole with a hopefully open and curious mind, and 4) I emerge with my take on that issue that I am confident makes sense to me.

As I began this line of inquiry many years ago, when I emerged I became aware of a discouraging trend: What I had learned in my research, which often pointed to a logical direction for mitigation of a particular gun related societal problem, was nowhere to be found in the partisan political and lobbying dialogues and their proposed "solutions". Wait, don't we all want to make progress, regardless of party affiliation? We sure do. But if we aren't going to talk about solutions which target criminal perpetrators (and endeavor to create an environment where such perpetrators are redirected before criminality), then the last thing I want to hear about my rights being put on the table for negotiation "as a sensible and needed solution, and you're an extremist and sick and have a tiny weenie if you don't agree".

I know my prevalence of posting is on gun/2A issues, including recent high profile jurisprudence, but I'll remind folks here I'm a lifelong registered D. I have never - and never will - vote for Trump. MAGA is icky, as are the right of right conservatives with their more religiously zealous idiocy. I should love Vance, as he's about as pro-2A a politician as we have in this great land, but just hard no.

Sorry if my beliefs don't compute with your ideas here regarding party affiliation and gun ownership. If I don't fit into the "pro gun nut MAGA" stereotype box some folks are compelled to apply as some sort proof of righteous high ground, well, sorry not sorry. As if a Democrat can't be pro-gun, and against anti-gun rhetoric and grandstanding? As if a Democrat can't feel comfortable with the recent SCOTUS rulings. We do all realize that registered Democrats, women, and minorities have been the largest categorical increases in gun sales for the past 4 years or so? And what about the tens of millions of law abiding Democrat gun owners who are hiding in plain sight, including those of us living on your block?

This November (as things stand right now) I get to choose between: really crappy D ticket, or really terrible horrible R ticket. Great!

I'm finally coming to a general conclusion that I'm not going to change any minds here by sharing what I've learned and come to believe. I could make 10 points in a post, and the responses I get typically fixate on one point (which utilizes talking points or curated charts from Everytown, Moms Against, NPR, WaPo, Brady, Giffords) to refute and prove (despite so many of them having been refuted and disproved) the point in question. “It's Easier to Fool People Than It Is to Convince Them That They Have Been Fooled.” – Mark Twain. In the meantime, my points that lay out inconvenient truths on the issue under discussion receive...crickets. Not even a grudging acknowledgement. Me engaging in this type of whack-a-mole, you would be correct in pointing out, makes ME the fool.

I'm not endeavoring to dodge poster's specific questions above. Where to begin, really? You name the slice of the "gun violence pizza", and I've likely already - going back in this thread weeks, months, year - shared my research findings and beliefs on that slice in a "for your consideration" manner.

I have been chipping away at putting together some thoughts regarding the whole "here we go again on AR bans" for the Trump Attempt Thread started last Saturday, in response to a query MD made. I'll post after ironing out a few kinks, likely over the weekend.

Most of the thoughts on the "AR" hot button topic have already, you guessed it, been shared by me here before. The statistical realities and mitigation playbook/strategies are well known, and gathering dust while our President threatens law abiding citizens with F-15's versus AR-15 - just the kind of incendiary BS which is counter productive to implementing evidence based intervention and off-ramping solutions, serves to incite the base emotionally, and reinforce a toxic partisan football focus on the WRONG things. Just what we need from our leadership. To wit, just a few days ago:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qUU-Fi3jHUE

I try to be well informed as I make my sincere attempts to sift through the smoke and mirrors to get at root causes, and thus solutions, to America's gun issues. Guns are inanimate objects. Humans aren't. And, imho, until we go human instead of gun, we'll remain stuck.

[a fan]

My crew? It's on us? My crew is law abiding and responsible gun owners. Roughly 50% of us being Democrats and Independents (and 73% of our households having a gun). That the crew you're referring to?

Yes. It's on you.

Who has the expertise? Who knows how the different kind of guns operate? Who knows what gun safety looks like? Who knows how to store them properly? Which group has trained hundreds of thousands of gun owners how to safely and responsibly use their gun.

Your crew. YOU have to get in there, and get the action you want.

You seem to think I'm throwing stones, and I think it's becuase you're looking for a fight. I'm on YOUR side, but I haven't touched a gun since I was a kid and don't know thing one about different types of guns and ammo. You don't want ME crafting legislation.

I'm championing what you want, and telling you how to get it.

And come on...the extreme pro-gun folks are 100% in the Republican party, just as the "ban all guns" extremists are in the Dem party. This is hardly news. OF COURSE Dems can be pro-gun, and R's can be for more restrictions.

How about this: picture what new gun legislation would look like if your crew didn't have a seat at the table. Think about what might happen.

As opposed to: YOU are at the wheel of the ship, and working with others to craft solutions, whatever they may be.


I'm just trying to help. Obviously I doing a horrible job of communicating that intent.

[cradleandshoot]

My crew? It's on us? My crew is law abiding and responsible gun owners. Roughly 50% of us being Democrats and Independents (and 73% of our households having a gun). That the crew you're referring to?

Yes. It's on you.

Who has the expertise? Who knows how the different kind of guns operate? Who knows what gun safety looks like? Who knows how to store them properly? Which group has trained hundreds of thousands of gun owners how to safely and responsibly use their gun.

Your crew. YOU have to get in there, and get the action you want.

You seem to think I'm throwing stones, and I think it's becuase you're looking for a fight. I'm on YOUR side, but I haven't touched a gun since I was a kid and don't know thing one about different types of guns and ammo. You don't want ME crafting legislation.

I'm championing what you want, and telling you how to get it.

And come on...the extreme pro-gun folks are 100% in the Republican party, just as the "ban all guns" extremists are in the Dem party. This is hardly news. OF COURSE Dems can be pro-gun, and R's can be for more restrictions.

How about this: picture what new gun legislation would look like if your crew didn't have a seat at the table. Think about what might happen.

As opposed to: YOU are at the wheel of the ship, and working with others to craft solutions, whatever they may be.


I'm just trying to help. Obviously I doing a horrible job of communicating that intent.

Federal and State governments ultimately make gun laws. I doubt they consider any input from law abiding gun owners. NYS proved that when King Andy rammed his SAFE Act down the throats of the residents of his state. He never once asked for input from law abiding gun owners. It was his way or the highway. When the dust finally settled you can still purchase a 5.56 millimeter rifle in NYS, it just has to look in a manner that doesn't look too scary to the average person. No AR 15 replicas but you can buy a Ruger mini 14 all day long. Oddly enough despite different appearance they perform exactly the same and have the same maximum effective range.

[a fan]

My crew? It's on us? My crew is law abiding and responsible gun owners. Roughly 50% of us being Democrats and Independents (and 73% of our households having a gun). That the crew you're referring to?

Yes. It's on you.

Who has the expertise? Who knows how the different kind of guns operate? Who knows what gun safety looks like? Who knows how to store them properly? Which group has trained hundreds of thousands of gun owners how to safely and responsibly use their gun.

Your crew. YOU have to get in there, and get the action you want.

You seem to think I'm throwing stones, and I think it's becuase you're looking for a fight. I'm on YOUR side, but I haven't touched a gun since I was a kid and don't know thing one about different types of guns and ammo. You don't want ME crafting legislation.

I'm championing what you want, and telling you how to get it.

And come on...the extreme pro-gun folks are 100% in the Republican party, just as the "ban all guns" extremists are in the Dem party. This is hardly news. OF COURSE Dems can be pro-gun, and R's can be for more restrictions.

How about this: picture what new gun legislation would look like if your crew didn't have a seat at the table. Think about what might happen.

As opposed to: YOU are at the wheel of the ship, and working with others to craft solutions, whatever they may be.


I'm just trying to help. Obviously I doing a horrible job of communicating that intent.

Federal and State governments ultimately make gun laws. I doubt they consider any input from law abiding gun owners. NYS proved that when King Andy rammed his SAFE Act down the throats of the residents of his state. He never once asked for input from law abiding gun owners. It was his way or the highway. When the dust finally settled you can still purchase a 5.56 millimeter rifle in NYS, it just has to look in a manner that doesn't look too scary to the average person. No AR 15 replicas but you can buy a Ruger mini 14 all day long. Oddly enough despite different appearance they perform exactly the same and have the same maximum effective range.

You just proved my point.

If Waffle crew doesn't step up to provide solutions.......Andy and the like will do it for them.

Which path does Waffle prefer?

[cradleandshoot]

My crew? It's on us? My crew is law abiding and responsible gun owners. Roughly 50% of us being Democrats and Independents (and 73% of our households having a gun). That the crew you're referring to?

Yes. It's on you.

Who has the expertise? Who knows how the different kind of guns operate? Who knows what gun safety looks like? Who knows how to store them properly? Which group has trained hundreds of thousands of gun owners how to safely and responsibly use their gun.

Your crew. YOU have to get in there, and get the action you want.

You seem to think I'm throwing stones, and I think it's becuase you're looking for a fight. I'm on YOUR side, but I haven't touched a gun since I was a kid and don't know thing one about different types of guns and ammo. You don't want ME crafting legislation.

I'm championing what you want, and telling you how to get it.

And come on...the extreme pro-gun folks are 100% in the Republican party, just as the "ban all guns" extremists are in the Dem party. This is hardly news. OF COURSE Dems can be pro-gun, and R's can be for more restrictions.

How about this: picture what new gun legislation would look like if your crew didn't have a seat at the table. Think about what might happen.

As opposed to: YOU are at the wheel of the ship, and working with others to craft solutions, whatever they may be.


I'm just trying to help. Obviously I doing a horrible job of communicating that intent.

Federal and State governments ultimately make gun laws. I doubt they consider any input from law abiding gun owners. NYS proved that when King Andy rammed his SAFE Act down the throats of the residents of his state. He never once asked for input from law abiding gun owners. It was his way or the highway. When the dust finally settled you can still purchase a 5.56 millimeter rifle in NYS, it just has to look in a manner that doesn't look too scary to the average person. No AR 15 replicas but you can buy a Ruger mini 14 all day long. Oddly enough despite different appearance they perform exactly the same and have the same maximum effective range.

You just proved my point.

If Waffle crew doesn't step up to provide solutions.......Andy and the like will do it for them.

Which path does Waffle prefer?

I don't think I proved your point. King Andy didn't ask for anyone's input or advice when he signed the SAFE Act. Your point was for law abiding and conscientious gun owners to have a say in new gun laws. How does that happen my man when the person /persons writing the new gun laws exclude the opinions and suggestions from people who think differently than them? Are you telling me that in these instances exclusion is a good thing? Your opinion and suggestions don't mean diddly if they are not asked for.

[3rdPersonPlural]

I posted this here in 2019 and I still think it's a really good and workable idea.

Responsible Gun Aficionados regulate their community of Gun Owners and have real responsibilities as well as real authority.

The Government stays out unless invited in by the local gun club/militia

Transfering. licensing, and registering firearms ends no more complicated than it is for automobiles.

Every community has a state funded and militia managed range where members can hone their skills and show off their collections of military hardware.

I actually thought about this a little bit:

If you want to be a good guy with a civilian firearm:

1. You register your civilian ‘home defense’ weapon(s)

a. How? The ballistic fingerprint of each of your guns needs to be registered with your local police through your local militia (club), and State and National law enforcement needs to have access to this
b. Why? Because when a bullet is found lodged in someone, or casings are found near where he was shot, the police should have a way to find out who shot him. Shooting people should not be a Constitutionally protected pastime.
c. Isn’t that expensive? Yup. But it is the cost of separating the responsible gun owners from the nuts with guns.

2. You re-license them periodically

a. How? Confirming the ballistic fingerprint. It’s like registering your car periodically. This is the cost of having an appliance that can actually kill people
b. Why? With frequent usage, a ballistic fingerprint changes. Let’s keep current.

3. 3. You insure them for liability

a. How? Just like your car or your boat. If it can harm people, you need to be insured against claims. If you have other assets you know how this works.
b. Why? I suspect that if someone is fixing to shoot someone and knows that he’ll be found liable because it is his firearm, he might just kick the guys ass instead. If his firearm goes missing, he’ll report it stolen so he can waive liability PDQ.

4. You keep your home defense weapons at home

a. Why? I have no problem with a guy having a pistol or shotgun to defend his abode. I get nervous when a guy with a pistol takes it out with him to give him courage.
b. If you are a jewel dealer or security operator, sure, you can bring your home defense system with you. With insurance costs and such it might just be cheaper to hire a bodyguard. I dunno, but I don’t want oblivious people wandering around posing as responsible gun owners because they are paranoid.

5. If your insurance or registration lapses, you have to turn your firearm in to the local militia.

a. Yeah, if you’re an irresponsible gun owner, you should not keep guns. Even the most ardent NRA guy agrees with this.

6. You pay a steep tax on bullets you bring home.

a. Bullets you shoot at the range or during militia (club) training are tax free, but bullets you bring home or buy online have a dollar-apiece tax. The underlying cost of the projectile is more, too, as
b. the bullet manufacturer has liability if the bullet is sold to an owner of an unregistered weapon. This should increase the customer oversight from the bullet manufacturers

7. If you shoot a bad guy in your home, using a properly registered and fully licensed firearm, no one will confiscate your firearm or drag you though the mud more than if you had stabbed him. Firearms as a home defense option are respected option.

If you want to be a good guy with military Firearms


1. You register your military weapon

a. How? The ballistic fingerprint of each of your guns needs to be registered with your local police through your local militia (club), and State and National law enforcement needs to have access to this
b. Why? Because when a bullet is found lodged in someone, or casings are found near where he was shot, the police should have a way to find out who shot him. Shooting people should not be a Constitutionally protected pass-time.

2. You re-license them periodically

a. How? Confirming the ballistic fingerprint. It’s like registering your car periodically. Cost of having an appliance that can actually kill people
b. Why? With frequent usage, a ballistic fingerprint changes. Let’s keep current

3. You insure them for liability

a. How? Just like your car or your boat. If it can harm people, you need to be insured against claims.
b. Why? I suspect that if someone is fixing to shoot someone and knows that he’ll be found liable because it is his firearm, he might just kick the guys ass. If his firearm goes missing, he’ll report it stolen so he can waive liability PDQ.

4. You keep your military firearm at a licensed gun club sponsored by your local militia

a. We need some sort of oversight. But not government oversight. Responsible oversight by the local responsible gun owners is less objectionable than Federal oversight.
b. I’d rather have a board of local firearm aficionados disarm a group of evil-doers than a crew of federal agents. Keep it local. If oversight lags, the local militia is by default responsible and after their insurance pays out, their premiums will rise and the club fees go up and their officials may have to be recycled. Nobody wants higher fees. No official wants to get recycled.

5. You pay a steep tax on bullets you bring home.

a. Bullets you shoot at the range or during militia (club) training are tax free, but bullets you bring home or buy online have a dollar-apiece tax. The underlying cost of the projectile is more, too, as
b. the bullet manufacturer has liability if the bullet is sold to an owner of an unregistered weapon. This should increase the customer oversight from the bullet manufacturers

If you are a bad guy who uses guns:


a) Whenever someone is shot by an unregistered weapons, the full weight of the State and Federal law enforcement assets are brought in.
b) Any ‘understanding’ you have with local cops and legislators no longer matters.
c) Your operation, if you are also a bad guy commercially, is likely to be compromised.
d) Your financial assets are impounded and made available to the courts.
e) Using an unregistered firearm to shoot someone puts you in jeopardy of RICO prosecution
f) Your local militia is interrogated as to why they didn’t register your operation as an exempt group. Or register you. Now you have responsible gun owners and probably the NRA asking questions along with the law enforcement teams.

If you are a good guy who objects to the oversight:

a. Your local militia (gun club) is tasked with bringing you to heel. This is not much different than your local NHRA rep refusing to let you run a Stock Demon on a sanctioned DragStrip. If your car runs the quarter in under 10 - you need a roll cage. If you have a civilian weapon - you need to register it.
b. At least the first line of inquiry is not the government or some NGO like “Moms of School Shootings”.
c. Will this work? Well, the Porn industry, which has the First Amendment as umbrella cover, went ahead and ‘self regulated’ to keep Gummint regulators from stepping in. The ammo-sexuals need to see the handwriting on the wall, and re-establish Militias to regulate responsible gun hobbyists.

Who pays for all of this? Well, the responsible gun owners end up paying for it all, right? But I’ll bet that the taxpayers will be happy to write a big check to help make this shooting nightmare go away. Let’s pass a bill that:


1. Establishes and funds a ‘Local Militia’ in every community of 100,000 or so. This includes a free shooting range, tax-exempt bullets to shoot, a registration facility, a Military Firearm storage facility (armory), a computerized registration system, and a paid board along with salaried managers.

a. This militia is responsible for registering and accounting for every firearm in their district. Military Firearms must be kept at the militia armory. Owners who refuse to comply with the Militias directives must be referred to government authorities. The militia is to be the voice of responsible gun owners.
b. The militias fixed costs are covered by a legislated federal bill
c. Unaffiliated local dealers may remain open, of course, but must comply with Militia directives as per sales registration and licensing of all weapons in inventory. License transfers are monitored by the Militia Board.
d. A local militia must be responsible for (and insured against)

i. All firearms in their district
ii. All gun shows in their district
iii. Unlicensed weapons in their district
iv. Un-taxed ammo sales in their district

e. Insurance costs are covered by member fees.

2. If society crumbles then the Militia may release all armory weapons to members in good standing to resist, defend, or whatever. If society hasn’t crumbled after all, the insurance policies of the Militia and the individual members who went out and shot people will cover liabilities and the premiums. As well militia dues, will have to go up to cover the costs. People who drop off the rolls will be investigated.

3. If a militia member (by default, a gun owner or people with access to their weapons) starts to go off the rails, The Militia brass must disclose this to the government authorities. Such disclosure will trigger investigations, but will transfer liability from the militia to the individual member.

[a fan]

My crew? It's on us? My crew is law abiding and responsible gun owners. Roughly 50% of us being Democrats and Independents (and 73% of our households having a gun). That the crew you're referring to?

Yes. It's on you.

Who has the expertise? Who knows how the different kind of guns operate? Who knows what gun safety looks like? Who knows how to store them properly? Which group has trained hundreds of thousands of gun owners how to safely and responsibly use their gun.

Your crew. YOU have to get in there, and get the action you want.

You seem to think I'm throwing stones, and I think it's becuase you're looking for a fight. I'm on YOUR side, but I haven't touched a gun since I was a kid and don't know thing one about different types of guns and ammo. You don't want ME crafting legislation.

I'm championing what you want, and telling you how to get it.

And come on...the extreme pro-gun folks are 100% in the Republican party, just as the "ban all guns" extremists are in the Dem party. This is hardly news. OF COURSE Dems can be pro-gun, and R's can be for more restrictions.

How about this: picture what new gun legislation would look like if your crew didn't have a seat at the table. Think about what might happen.

As opposed to: YOU are at the wheel of the ship, and working with others to craft solutions, whatever they may be.


I'm just trying to help. Obviously I doing a horrible job of communicating that intent.

Federal and State governments ultimately make gun laws. I doubt they consider any input from law abiding gun owners. NYS proved that when King Andy rammed his SAFE Act down the throats of the residents of his state. He never once asked for input from law abiding gun owners. It was his way or the highway. When the dust finally settled you can still purchase a 5.56 millimeter rifle in NYS, it just has to look in a manner that doesn't look too scary to the average person. No AR 15 replicas but you can buy a Ruger mini 14 all day long. Oddly enough despite different appearance they perform exactly the same and have the same maximum effective range.

You just proved my point.

If Waffle crew doesn't step up to provide solutions.......Andy and the like will do it for them.

Which path does Waffle prefer?

I don't think I proved your point. King Andy didn't ask for anyone's input or advice when he signed the SAFE Act. Your point was for law abiding and conscientious gun owners to have a say in new gun laws. How does that happen my man when the person /persons writing the new gun laws exclude the opinions and suggestions from people who think differently than them? Are you telling me that in these instances exclusion is a good thing? Your opinion and suggestions don't mean diddly if they are not asked for.

Simple answer: Show me one piece of proposed legislation from the Pro-Gun crowd. Just one.

You can't. There aren't any. They're not proposing ANY solutions to the problems.....they've got money, and they've got lobbyists. Where are their proposed bills?

They don't present any......so Andy does it for them.

I can assure you that there are tons of things the Pro-Gun folks can propose that the Dems and the libs would sign up for in a heartbeat.....spending on mental health. Gun safety classes. Rules surrounding proper storage of guns and ammo. Increased penalties for stealing guns....and that's just off the top of my head. I'm sure Waffle has plenty of ideas.

3rdpersonplural just listed a ton of good ideas.