Sensible Gun Safety

[Kismet]

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.

It's a wedge issue for them - they are not and will never bee interested in any ideas however good they are.

[3rdPersonPlural]

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.

It's a wedge issue for them - they are not and will never bee interested in any ideas however good they are.

They eventually won't have a choice, so I propose that gun owners self regulate and accept liability (with adequate insurance) for their dangerous toys.

Just like owners of Dragsters and other race cars do. But instead of 'a regulatory body', Gun Owners get to call their regulators 'their Militia'. Constitution honored. Bad actors hobbled. Gun banners silenced. Win/Win for all

[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.

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.

Incorrect my man, Andy did it to cater to his base which is predominantly anti gun. I can only speak for my state but if your not in power politically you can propose any type of suggestions for improving gun laws you like but they will fall on deaf ears. FTR just about every gun organization in NYS tried to get their perspective and suggestions entered into the discussion my man. They were soundly ignored. Without the political power to be included in the discussion your not talking about a level playing field.

[a fan]

Incorrect my man, Andy did it to cater to his base which is predominantly anti gun. I can only speak for my state but if your not in power politically you can propose any type of suggestions for improving gun laws you like but they will fall on deaf ears. FTR just about every gun organization in NYS tried to get their perspective and suggestions entered into the discussion my man. They were soundly ignored. Without the political power to be included in the discussion your not talking about a level playing field.

What did they want that they didn't get?

Waffle is talking about solutions that are indirect solutions....mental health etc.. Did the pro-gun guys ask for that? Or as for better safety standards?

[WaffleTwineFaceoff]

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.

Wait, I’m confused. Keeping and bearing arms is a Constitutionally protected RIGHT. This wish list assumes downgrading and mistreating that right as a privilege. Hmmm. We’re going to need a constitutional amendment for your desired downgrade. Lucky you, our government does have a procedural framework in place to allow just that. Until that time, however, your list is moot. Appreciate the effort, sentiment, sincerity, but, sorry, hard pass. I think you’ll find about 85,000,000 (low end estimate) of your fellow countrymen and women feeling the same as I do. I get to jump through a hundred hoops, spending time and money, to end up right where I already am: a responsible, law abiding citizen gun owner. Just to be clear, myself and my firearms aren’t part of the problem other posters here are now suggesting it’s my responsibility - and that of my “crew” - to fix.

In a more recent post on this thread, you write "I propose that gun owners self regulate and accept liability (with adequate insurance) for their dangerous toys." I'm not sure how you came up with guns as toys, but I propose that my current self regulation is beyond adequate while at the same time being none of your business. I'm sharing some numbers below to illustrate my point.

How do many responsible gun owners feel? Like every time they bring forth data and strategies which could make a real difference, and provide unifying common ground, they get poked in the eye with a stick and are told they have a sickness, or are extremist, or they like carnage, especially kids, especially at schools. Get poked enough times, by people who are reasoning with emotion not facts, and, well, you stop dialoguing because there doesn’t seem to be any real or sincere interest in problem mitigation.

Let’s take a quick fact based look at how I come up with the outlandish claim guns and gun owners aren’t situated at the root cause and thus solution set for the violence perpetrated with guns problem in America. I’ll utilize the most recent data available about criminal gun murder, and all murder, in America. Can we agree that in terms of violence, murder is the most extreme manifestation?

2023 estimates are as follows: 85,000,000 firearm owners in America. 400,000,000 firearms owned. 25,000,000 AR platform rifles owned (1 of every 16 firearms).

2023 FBI statistics (made public a month ago) on Mass/Active shooting events: 143 incidents. 105 victims. 16 of the incidents had AR present.

2023 murder in total in America: ~20,000 utilizing every method from hammers to fists, knives to handguns to long guns. All long guns (bolt action rifles, shotguns, Semi-automatic rifles including ARs) account for less than ~500 murders every year - year in and year out.

That’s the data, let’s crunch the numbers.

In 2023, 0.00000064% of AR owners in America committed a mass/active shooting with their AR rifle. In other words, 99.99999936% of AR owners behaved in a peaceful and law abiding manner with regard to mass/active shootings in America in 2023.

In 2023, blaming EVERY long gun murder in American to ARs (just for fun, and because they are black and scary and Biden suggests you need an F-15 to beat one), we have 0.00002% of AR owners committing murder. In other words, for all long gun murders in America in 2023, 99.99998% were not committed by AR owners.

Let’s do guns in general. Let's blame all ~20,000 murders in America in 2023 on firearm owners - ANY kind of firearm. In doing so, we end up with 0.0002%. In other words, 99.9998% of all gun owners in America did not commit murder in 2023.

Extrapolating murder data to firearms themselves, 99.99995% of all firearms in America were NOT utilized to commit murder in America in 2023.

Based on all of the above, which rings more true? “It’s the guns”. Or “It’s not the guns, so maybe we should focus on other vectors for mitigation of criminal violence and gun perpetrated criminal violence in America”.

****************

Yet, like clockwork, when it was learned the Trump would be assassin utilized an AR, well, let's never let a tragedy go to waste. Renewed calls for AR bans are at a fever pitch. Biden doing his “angry Biden” schtick. Gavin doing his gun Gish gallop with petitions on X. The list of usual suspects goes on. And anyone who doesn’t agree is a sick and twisted and sociopathic extremist. That’s a productive way to move needed dialogues forward!

What’s truly baffling is after Sandy Hook, President Obama put together a task force to assess “What can we do to prevent these types of events?” Joe Biden was on that task force (not sure if he even remembers, to be honest), and I have yet to hear him talk about the “playbook” of action recommendations which resulted, and brought a more coherent multi-discipline approach to the table for mitigation. Hint: specific types of firearms were very low on the totem pole of recommendations, and mostly because:

One strong recommendation was for the press and politicians to stop inspiring AR copy cat usage by NOT doing what they have been doing nearly non-stop for the 11 years since: Vilifying and fetishizing ARs, thus making many who plan to perpetrate mass public shootings purposely choose ARs because they realize doing so will get them more press after they go to the great beyond. Guess we can tear that page out of the playbook. The press and our leaders, with their examples being followed by the populous, are contributing negatively to the issue they are red faced screaming and blaming others for causing. What a sad, shameful irony.

**************

It’s not incumbent on me or “one side” to “do something”. It’s actually incumbent on our leaders to stop with their divisive, toxic, and fruitless base pandering when it comes to ARs and gun ownership in general in America by those law abiding among us.

Folks here do understand the last AWB didn’t prevent ownership, use, or trade in already owned ARs for its decade long duration? No NEW manufacturing could occur during the ban, which by the way listed 600+ specific makes and models of semi-automatic rifles as specifically exempted. At the onset of the ban 1% of guns manufactured in America were ARs. The ban was allowed to sunset because studies by the government itself failed to verify efficacy. Guess who tried to bury those research findings? Today, almost 25% of guns manufactured in America are ARs.

If an AR ban is implemented today, and with 25,000,000 currently in private ownership, what’s the plan? Making ownership a crime this time around? Confiscation? Please refer to my numbers above - those one's that start with 99.999% - and decide if you think the nuclear rift which would ensue would be worth it. Are we ever going to talk about criminals? Or all of the mitigation and off-ramping/interception strategies which are gathering dust while our President threatens law abiding citizens with F-15s?

Maybe, just maybe, when we finally decide to put heads together and go targeted and surgical - focusing on the root causes of criminal violence behaviors for effective solutions - new and brighter days will dawn. The law abiding among us would be mighty grateful, and fully on board with something along those lines.

In the meantime, sorry, I have no interest in jumping through hoops to assuage the fears, enmity, and misguided desire to curb a right I am peacefully and responsibly exercising. None whatsoever. I will make an educated guess about 85,000,000 of my fellow citizens feel similarly. That being said, I acknowledge your right to express your opinion, and respect that opinion, despite my deep seated opposition.

[DMac]

I made this same argument many years back in the old LP days, W-T-F. Said thank god there's no gun problem in this country as we'd all be dead if there were. Given the number of guns in this country and the number of gun deaths annually, it's reasonable to conclude that we are a country of responsible gun owners. Specious. Bottom line is we have way too many phukkin guns this country and they're way too easy to get by any irresponsible moron who wants one (unless you have a medical marijuana card, of course....how phukn stupid is that?) Any time there's mention of controlling guns we get this "right" to bear arms horseschidt, 2A and the militia nonsense. Not that I think we ever will, because of people like you, but we need to find a way to control guns and who can get them in this country. Meanwhile stock up on cans peas, bags of rice, and piles of ammo and an arsenal of guns for when the militia makes its stand. Wayyy too many guns, not enough control of them. 2A, baby....grow and arm the militia!!!

[njbill]

Waffle, you guys trip all over yourselves talking about law abiding gun owners. But then you say if an AR ban or some other type of ban or restriction were to be put in place, that is, enacted into law, all you guys would disobey it. “You’ll have to pry my guns from my cold, dead hands.”

So which is it? Are you law abiding and obey the laws or do you only obey the laws you want to obey? If the latter, you aren’t law abiding.

You aren’t the only one who claims gunowners are “law abiding” citizens. It’s a regular trope of the 2A gang.

[cradleandshoot]

Waffle, you guys trip all over yourselves talking about law abiding gun owners. But then you say if an AR ban or some other type of ban or restriction were to be put in place, that is, enacted into law, all you guys would disobey it. “You’ll have to pry my guns from my cold, dead hands.”

So which is it? Are you law abiding and obey the laws or do you only obey the laws you want to obey? If the latter, you aren’t law abiding.

You aren’t the only one who claims gunowners are “law abiding” citizens. It’s a regular trope of the 2A gang.

Such a ban would likely never be enforceable until the SCOTUS decided on the matter. IMO and I'm not lawyer like you banning these weapons is 100% unconstitutional. Such an extreme measure would open up a Pandoras box of chaos in this country. Is the risk worth the reward in your opinion?

[WaffleTwineFaceoff]

Waffle, you guys trip all over yourselves talking about law abiding gun owners. But then you say if an AR ban or some other type of ban or restriction were to be put in place, that is, enacted into law, all you guys would disobey it. “You’ll have to pry my guns from my cold, dead hands.”

So which is it? Are you law abiding and obey the laws or do you only obey the laws you want to obey? If the latter, you aren’t law abiding.

You aren’t the only one who claims gunowners are “law abiding” citizens. It’s a regular trope of the 2A gang.

And around and around we go. No curiosity and interest in working at the root cause programs that show promise. Rather, a 100% focus on stereotyping, and putting thoughts, words and perceived future actions in someone's mouth.

1) I've never been an NRA member. They lost the plot with the last decade of leadership failures, which I watched unfold more out of curiosity. They are a wounded dinosaur in the dialogues on guns in America. 2) I've never said I would I would disobey any laws. In terms of "law abiding" (why in quotes?), there have been studies where gun owners, in general, are more law abiding than non-gun owners. Less jaywalking, moving violations, etc. 3) Cold dead hands quote...you been putting Bloomberg creamer in your decaf again, sir?

I'm sorry if the sheer number of responsible gun owners is such an overwhelmingly high percentage that the suggestion we come together and focus on finding solutions that don't rely on disarming them is so threatening, and inspires a deep seated need to shoehorn people into a lazy, shoddily constructed, prefabricated stereotype box kits brought to you by people and organizations (the usual suspects) that feel their emotions should dictate their fellow citizen's rights.

And the band plays on while real, enactable, and promising solutions gather dust, as the folks who want to keep the useless and ineffectual "let's fix gun violence" trench war status quo in place howl at the moon.

[3rdPersonPlural]

Waffle, thank you for your thought out and detailed reply to my suggestion. A dialogue is what we need, and slogan-chanting helps no one

You noted:

Maybe, just maybe, when we finally decide to put heads together and go targeted and surgical - focusing on the root causes of criminal violence behaviors for effective solutions - new and brighter days will dawn. The law abiding among us would be mighty grateful, and fully on board with something along those lines.

My proposal doesn't restrict law abiding firearm aficionados from owning and practicing with ANYTHING. Want an RPG? Fine. Just register it to you (like any other asset) and license it (how that works is up to your Gun Club/Militia -- in consultation with their Insurance Carrier, of course), and store it at your club's facility. Notice that the Government is not involved to this point. Uncle Sam only responds to requests from Well Regulated Militias about unhinged or criminal gun owners in that Militias community. The Militia is incented to do this because the Militia is liable for the misuse of its communities weapons, and civil lawsuits suck.

This way EVERYONE can keep and bear whatever arms they want because EVERYONE can belong to a 'Militia' just like the Constitution calls for. If the Militia is needed for defense of the Constitution (as the Constitution assumed), grab your preferred weapon from home (civilian arms kept there) or the Military storage depot at the club and sally forth! If whatever Home-Defense fantasy caused a gun owner to arm up actually comes true, there are guns in the home. Just not DoD weapons. ;D

In the end, responsible Gun Owners are responsible for regulating themselves and weeding out the crazies. What responsible gun owner would object to this if enabled with the resources to accomplish it?

[WaffleTwineFaceoff]

Waffle, thank you for your thought out and detailed reply to my suggestion. A dialogue is what we need, and slogan-chanting helps no one

You noted:

Maybe, just maybe, when we finally decide to put heads together and go targeted and surgical - focusing on the root causes of criminal violence behaviors for effective solutions - new and brighter days will dawn. The law abiding among us would be mighty grateful, and fully on board with something along those lines.

My proposal doesn't restrict law abiding firearm aficionados from owning and practicing with ANYTHING. Want an RPG? Fine. Just register it to you (like any other asset) and license it (how that works is up to your Gun Club/Militia -- in consultation with their Insurance Carrier, of course), and store it at your club's facility. Notice that the Government is not involved to this point. Uncle Sam only responds to requests from Well Regulated Militias about unhinged or criminal gun owners in that Militias community. The Militia is incented to do this because the Militia is liable for the misuse of its communities weapons, and civil lawsuits suck.

This way EVERYONE can keep and bear whatever arms they want because EVERYONE can belong to a 'Militia' just like the Constitution calls for. If the Militia is needed for defense of the Constitution (as the Constitution assumed), grab your preferred weapon from home (civilian arms kept there) or the Military storage depot at the club and sally forth! If whatever Home-Defense fantasy caused a gun owner to arm up actually comes true, there are guns in the home. Just not DoD weapons. ;D

In the end, responsible Gun Owners are responsible for regulating themselves and weeding out the crazies. What responsible gun owner would object to this if enabled with the resources to accomplish it?

Responsible gun owners are responsible for weeding out the crazies? That's some serious blame and responsibility shifting voodoo, sir.

The resources you refer to would accomplish a wholesale violation of rights. Thanks, but no thanks. I've got an idea, though, how about we put those resources into the programs that have shown promise and progress in the various unique "slices of the pizza" of criminal violence perpetrated with guns. What non gun owner would object to that?

And why stop at the second amendment? Let's start at the first amendment and work our way through the whole bunch of those pesky rights.

[MDlaxfan76]

Waffle, you guys trip all over yourselves talking about law abiding gun owners. But then you say if an AR ban or some other type of ban or restriction were to be put in place, that is, enacted into law, all you guys would disobey it. “You’ll have to pry my guns from my cold, dead hands.”

So which is it? Are you law abiding and obey the laws or do you only obey the laws you want to obey? If the latter, you aren’t law abiding.

You aren’t the only one who claims gunowners are “law abiding” citizens. It’s a regular trope of the 2A gang.

Have you seen ANY credible suggestions from Waffle to reduce gun deaths in America?

I haven't.

And we won't, because that ain't what Waffle actually cares about.

3rd actually attempts to put out a whole series of well-defined, specific measures that overall simply transfer the risk of mis-use to the owners of the guns that bear such risk, ala insurance against mis-use of cars, etc. With all sorts of credible specifics that are consistent with 2A.

Doesn't mean 3rd's ideas are necessarily the 'best' ideas, but it's a serious attempt at presenting specifics.

So, Waffle resorts to specious 2A arguments, with no real offer of credible alternative approaches.

Thus, the conversation is one-sided, no matter how many pages Waffle takes up.

[Kismet]

Didn't we just have a situation where a 20YO (with no criminal record and thus presumably "law-abiding") used his law-abiding father's legally owned AR-15 Style assault rife to fire 8 high velocity rounds into a crowd and at a Presidential candidate and former President?

Not to even mention the legal purchase of over 100 rounds of ammunition for same weapon the day of the shooting.

[njbill]

Waffle, you guys trip all over yourselves talking about law abiding gun owners. But then you say if an AR ban or some other type of ban or restriction were to be put in place, that is, enacted into law, all you guys would disobey it. “You’ll have to pry my guns from my cold, dead hands.”

So which is it? Are you law abiding and obey the laws or do you only obey the laws you want to obey? If the latter, you aren’t law abiding.

You aren’t the only one who claims gunowners are “law abiding” citizens. It’s a regular trope of the 2A gang.

Such a ban would likely never be enforceable until the SCOTUS decided on the matter. IMO and I'm not lawyer like you banning these weapons is 100% unconstitutional. Such an extreme measure would open up a Pandoras box of chaos in this country. Is the risk worth the reward in your opinion?

I am assuming the law would be constitutional. Without checking, I’m not sure the extent to which the 1990s AR ban was tested in court. I know it didn’t get to the Supreme Court. My guess is lower courts upheld it.

Granted that under this supreme court, who knows what they would do with an AR ban.

My point, primarily directed at waffle, is that if ARs were banned, would he turn his in? That is, would he obey the law? I don’t mean that in an accusatory fashion, just a question.

It is my impression, right or wrong, that a lot of the gun folks only want to obey the gun laws that they agree with, and that many would not obey gun laws they don’t agree with.

[njbill]

Waffle, you guys trip all over yourselves talking about law abiding gun owners. But then you say if an AR ban or some other type of ban or restriction were to be put in place, that is, enacted into law, all you guys would disobey it. “You’ll have to pry my guns from my cold, dead hands.”

So which is it? Are you law abiding and obey the laws or do you only obey the laws you want to obey? If the latter, you aren’t law abiding.

You aren’t the only one who claims gunowners are “law abiding” citizens. It’s a regular trope of the 2A gang.

Have you seen ANY credible suggestions from Waffle to reduce gun deaths in America?

I haven't.

And we won't, because that ain't what Waffle actually cares about.

3rd actually attempts to put out a whole series of well-defined, specific measures that overall simply transfer the risk of mis-use to the owners of the guns that bear such risk, ala insurance against mis-use of cars, etc. With all sorts of credible specifics that are consistent with 2A.

Doesn't mean 3rd's ideas are necessarily the 'best' ideas, but it's a serious attempt at presenting specifics.

So, Waffle resorts to specious 2A arguments, with no real offer of credible alternative approaches.

Thus, the conversation is one-sided, no matter how many pages Waffle takes up.

Agreed.

Yes, 3rd has some interesting, thought-provoking ideas. At first blush, I would be an agreement with a lot of them.

[PizzaSnake]

Waffle, you guys trip all over yourselves talking about law abiding gun owners. But then you say if an AR ban or some other type of ban or restriction were to be put in place, that is, enacted into law, all you guys would disobey it. “You’ll have to pry my guns from my cold, dead hands.”

So which is it? Are you law abiding and obey the laws or do you only obey the laws you want to obey? If the latter, you aren’t law abiding.

You aren’t the only one who claims gunowners are “law abiding” citizens. It’s a regular trope of the 2A gang.

Such a ban would likely never be enforceable until the SCOTUS decided on the matter. IMO and I'm not lawyer like you banning these weapons is 100% unconstitutional. Such an extreme measure would open up a Pandoras box of chaos in this country. Is the risk worth the reward in your opinion?

I am assuming the law would be constitutional. Without checking, I’m not sure the extent to which the 1990s AR ban was tested in court. I know it didn’t get to the Supreme Court. My guess is lower courts upheld it.

Granted that under this supreme court, who knows what they would do with an AR ban.

My point, primarily directed at waffle, is that if ARs were banned, would he turn his in? That is, would he obey the law? I don’t mean that in an accusatory fashion, just a question.

It is my impression, right or wrong, that a lot of the gun folks only want to obey the gun laws that they agree with, and that many would not obey gun laws they don’t agree with.

And this is the key. Ours is a system based on voluntary compliance. When enough people start being uncooperative, all bets are off.

I wonder how close, exactly, mayhem lies?

[cradleandshoot]

Waffle, you guys trip all over yourselves talking about law abiding gun owners. But then you say if an AR ban or some other type of ban or restriction were to be put in place, that is, enacted into law, all you guys would disobey it. “You’ll have to pry my guns from my cold, dead hands.”

So which is it? Are you law abiding and obey the laws or do you only obey the laws you want to obey? If the latter, you aren’t law abiding.

You aren’t the only one who claims gunowners are “law abiding” citizens. It’s a regular trope of the 2A gang.

Such a ban would likely never be enforceable until the SCOTUS decided on the matter. IMO and I'm not lawyer like you banning these weapons is 100% unconstitutional. Such an extreme measure would open up a Pandoras box of chaos in this country. Is the risk worth the reward in your opinion?

I am assuming the law would be constitutional. Without checking, I’m not sure the extent to which the 1990s AR ban was tested in court. I know it didn’t get to the Supreme Court. My guess is lower courts upheld it.

Granted that under this supreme court, who knows what they would do with an AR ban.

My point, primarily directed at waffle, is that if ARs were banned, would he turn his in? That is, would he obey the law? I don’t mean that in an accusatory fashion, just a question.

It is my impression, right or wrong, that a lot of the gun folks only want to obey the gun laws that they agree with, and that many would not obey gun laws they don’t agree with.

I don't disagree with you. I think the vast majority of owners of AR 15 rifles will never willingly turn them in. There are also many major cities in the USA that violate the law by declaring their cities as " sanctuary cities" So such a precedent when it comes to ignoring the law has already been established. They are thumbing their noses and making a mockery of immigration law they disagree with. Are you fine with that?

[njbill]

I’m a little stale on the subject of sanctuary cities, but my understanding was the premise behind that was that the locals weren’t going to do the job of the feds. Also, there were lots and lots of humanitarian, truly heart wrenching stories of immigrants who hadn’t broken any laws, yet were being deported, breaking up families, even ruining lives. I have no problem whatsoever with deporting the no good lawbreakers. (I’m talking serious laws, not jaywalkers.)

[WaffleTwineFaceoff]

Waffle, you guys trip all over yourselves talking about law abiding gun owners. But then you say if an AR ban or some other type of ban or restriction were to be put in place, that is, enacted into law, all you guys would disobey it. “You’ll have to pry my guns from my cold, dead hands.”

So which is it? Are you law abiding and obey the laws or do you only obey the laws you want to obey? If the latter, you aren’t law abiding.

You aren’t the only one who claims gunowners are “law abiding” citizens. It’s a regular trope of the 2A gang.

Have you seen ANY credible suggestions from Waffle to reduce gun deaths in America?

I haven't.

And we won't, because that ain't what Waffle actually cares about.

3rd actually attempts to put out a whole series of well-defined, specific measures that overall simply transfer the risk of mis-use to the owners of the guns that bear such risk, ala insurance against mis-use of cars, etc. With all sorts of credible specifics that are consistent with 2A.

Doesn't mean 3rd's ideas are necessarily the 'best' ideas, but it's a serious attempt at presenting specifics.

So, Waffle resorts to specious 2A arguments, with no real offer of credible alternative approaches.

Thus, the conversation is one-sided, no matter how many pages Waffle takes up.

How right you are. Oh, wait, my first post here in November of last year included the following:

If we can set aside the collective emotional enmity for AR-15 rifles for just a few minutes, here’s what we CAN do. After Sandy Hook in 2012, President Obama put together a task force headed by then Vice-president Joe Biden. Representatives included the Attorney General/DOJ, Education Secretary/DOE, Health & Human Services Secretary, and the included the additional presence of FBI and other community leaders. In 2013, when their findings were published by the FBI, the key takeaway was a logical definition regarding how a mass shooting/active shooter incidents should be defined, which is as follows: “an incident in which four or more victims are fatally shot in a public location within a 24-hour period in the absence of other criminal activity, such as robberies, drug deals, and gang conflict.” This has been updated to exclude family annihilations. There have been 200 such Mass Public Shooting incidents since 1966. In addition, the development of a nascent deterrence playbook - which incorporated strategies previously identified (some going back decades) with a commitment to new research studies - was set in motion. The goal? Find ways to offramp potential mass shooters in the making BEFORE they are able to enact their horrific mass murders.

One member serving on the Obama commission was now retired FBI Special Agent Katherine Schweit. Quick aside: She’s a female Blue State Democrat voter. As an attorney and special agent she spent nearly five years as the executive responsible the FBI’s active/mass shooter efforts. Since retirement, she has tirelessly researched Mass Public Shootings (utilizing facts, incident reports, and empirical data), lectured, consulted, and authored a book I'd like to recommend titled "Stop the Killing" (now in its second edition). The book unpacks the root causes of Mass Public Shootings, and outlines actionable and effective solutions which have been proven to help reduce these horrific crimes NOT by disarming law abiding citizens of AR-15s, but rather by teaching strategies for OFF RAMPING those on the path toward resorting to such actions.1) See something, say something. 2) taking to task our politicians and media and THEIR ROLE in creating a COPYCAT CONTAGION which inspires potential mass killers (and in many cases AR-15 usage in mass killings). 3) EDUCATING our political, school, and community leaders, and the public at large, to recognize the warning signs (aka LEAKAGE) given off by an overwhelming majority of mass public killers. 4) Addressing the role of mental illness and PHARMACEUTICALS present in a high percentage of mass killers. 5) creating a THREAT ASSESSMENT TEAM infrastructure in America which focuses on prevention and intervention. 6) Implement HARDENING strategies for public places such as churches, schools, and workplaces. These include personnel, training, and physical elements. We know where and why Mass Public Shooter are choosing their venues, which are overwhelmingly gun free zones. The recent Maine shooter chose his venues with care: bars and bowling alleys are by law “gun free zones” in a state with a large percentage of the population carrying concealed. His mentally ill, twisted mind knew all too well exactly where he wouldn’t meet a good guy or gal with a gun (more on that topic coming below). Yet “sensible hardening strategies” meet with a great deal of pushback. There is a growing body of “intercepted incidents” (170 and counting according to the National Institute of Justice and Office of Community Oriented Policing Services database) which attests to the EFFECTIVENESS of these strategies, including an averted event just one week before the most recent Maine incident (which SHOULD have been another MPS averted success story!), and a disturbing credible threat (made by a Cornell engineering student) just last week.

The single most important action we can take to stop Mass Public Shootings is SEE SOMETHING, SAY SOMETHING. Yet this “off-ramping superpower” is not a part of the public consciousness. How could it be when we’re so busy vilifying inanimate objects? In interview after interview of persons who knew a mass public shooter and sensed something was “off”, they mention the fact that by “saying something” they felt like they would betray the person in crisis. Sadly, this mindset has prevented these “early warning radar detection opportunities” from initiating an off-ramping sequence. Estimates suggest up to 90% of Mass Public Shootings could be averted, which speaks volumes about how far sideways the public mass public shooting discourse has gone. Why aren’t our political leaders, academics, lobbying groups, and the public demanding policies which focus on the creation of a public awareness campaigns which encourage better understanding and safe reporting avenues which would jump start broad utilization of this powerful intervention tool?


But, please, be condescending and wrong in one post. Or snarky in my query on today's Kamala Thread where I referenced some posts I had seen, asked for some insights from some of our more deeply invested political wonks, and you start your reply off with... "I don't want to be disrespectful in tone or substance, but that's not a well informed post." Here I was thinking "there is no such thing as a stupid question" still applied here in 2024. But apparently not for those amongst us who are the self-appointed arbiters of such things.

Sorry if you're butt hurt that I don't feel your plan to sequester AR usage to ranges is an earnest if completely misguided non starter. You do realize your suggestion is tantamount to discrimination by both economic resources and demographics (ie: you okay with the poor and minorities and women your plan will effectively discriminate against?).

Under your mandates this woman, her husband, and unborn child would potentially have lost their right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/ho ... 5-n1076026

But you've made it clear there are no valid reasons for AR ownership, be it for self defense, varmint and small game hunting, invasive animal control by ranchers and farmers and homeowners, or just plain target shooting fun. Nope. Not valid.

And all 25mm Americans who own them are MAGA tacticool wanna be Ruby Ridge guns as male anatomy proxy fetishists. After all, that's what Bloomberg's army of lobbyists and politicians and researchers who love juicy grants if their policy based evidence making furthers the narrative will have you...feeling.

For the poster talking about would be assassin and dad's AR, how about we focus on his mental health, his mental health professional parents, and what pharmaceuticals he might have been on, in addition to weapon, whether AR or scoped hunting rifle or one of his IED devices. Where is the "Bipartisan waiving of hippa protections for live or dead perpetrators of assassination or mass public shootings act"? Let's get it passed. That way we can begin to understand how America's mental health epidemic and powerful big pharma drugs are fueling an environment where the sickest among us are acting out in the most visibly sick and shocking manner? Anyone on either side of this issue take issue with that? Page. Playbook.

Specious arguments cut both ways, gentlemen. The great thing about this place is it's a bastion of old school privilege, so regardless of social and societal ills we tussle over as keyboard warriors, most of us will never come within a country mile of experiencing first-hand the dark side of criminal gun violence. I've experienced it first hand, and recounted that experience here.

Be well

[cradleandshoot]

I’m a little stale on the subject of sanctuary cities, but my understanding was the premise behind that was that the locals weren’t going to do the job of the feds. Also, there were lots and lots of humanitarian, truly heart wrenching stories of immigrants who hadn’t broken any laws, yet were being deported, breaking up families, even ruining lives. I have no problem whatsoever with deporting the no good lawbreakers. (I’m talking serious laws, not jaywalkers.)

The law is still the law. My understanding is that sanctuary cities include all types of illegals. They won't allow CBP or ICE to enforce valid arrest warrants even when they know where the bad actors are. It is also not uncommon for local authorities to not notify CBP and ICE when bad actors who are illegals are released from custody. If the the people in charge in DC would do their job and update immigration law to the year 2024 there would be no issue with the non violent illegals. That seems to an impossible dream If I can steal a song from The Man of LaMancha.