Sensible Gun Safety

[MDlaxfan76]

I won’t make folks scroll through a quote chain, but waffle, that’s my proposal. Limit storage and usage of weapons specifically designed for war to well regulated ranges. You challenged that as impossible, I say it’s entirely possible with private enterprise filling the demand. Your position is that’s impossible. I call, BS.

No one needs these weapons in their home. You can’t hunt with them in your home ( and it’s a terrible weapon for hunting) and you sure as heck don’t need them for”protection”. Choose another weapon.

Nope, no one in an urban or suburban setting can use these weapons For any purpose, much less “fun” in their home. You think it’s too difficult to travel to use it, don’t use it.

To me, You sound more like shill for the gun manufacturers lobby than someone actually believing what you write.

I think there all sorts of compromises that the solid majority of responsible gun owners are more than willing to make. But you are in the minority who take an absolutist position for any government restrictions, and yes, that’s an extremist position.

[WaffleTwineFaceoff]

Many here sound like shills for the anti-gun and anti-2A movement - right down to the talking points proffered. In my research over the years and ongoing, I've endeavored to look at both sides of the issues, arguments, and claims. I've mentioned it's a bit of a hobby and a passion. Books, videos, podcasts, research papers, legal treatises, social media scrums, politicians, lobbying organizations, etc. etc. are all places I regularly visit to see what's up, what's new, and where we're at. When I emerge from the rabbit hole, I've made my determinations and fashioned my beliefs based on what I've learned peeking behind the curtains of both sides as they ply their narrative bolstering trades.

The things I share here have passed my version of the smell test, and the things I disagree with here are done so with at least my most earnest attempt at seeking facts impartially, and accepting those which are not in agreement with my beliefs and biases. Am I perfect? No.

But on numerous of the most contentious topics, I am perfectly clear that the mainstream talking points are so far off the mark in terms of finding solutions that one must assume both sides are okay with waging a perpetual partisan trench war that is going nowhere. You said follow the money. The academics, scholars, lawyers, politicians, lobbyists, media and lobbying organizations love this never ending stalemate, and the money it hoovers in on both sides of that muddy and bogged down front line.

Washington Post did a survey a few years ago. One-third of AR owners indicated self-defense as their primary ownership purpose. The beauty of the rifle is it can serve multiple purposes for the same owner, all valid (because we don't need proof of "valid" to exercise a right, right?).

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/i ... un-owners/

Fear not, folks. If the time comes when our lawmakers make a law, and our highest court upholds that law, and that law tells me to hand in "Item X", I will not be holing up at my mountain hideaway tweeting "Come and get it" and "From my cold, dead hands". I will be complying with that law. Why? I'm a law abiding citizen who obeys laws. I have a spouse, kids, extended family, community based connections, business associates, friends, acquaintances, and my fellow countrymen and women whom I've never met to consider when I wake up and look in the mirror.

[a fan]

Many here sound like shills for the anti-gun and anti-2A movement - right down to the talking points proffered. In my research over the years and ongoing, I've endeavored to look at both sides of the issues, arguments, and claims. I've mentioned it's a bit of a hobby and a passion. Books, videos, podcasts, research papers, legal treatises, social media scrums, politicians, lobbying organizations, etc. etc. are all places I regularly visit to see what's up, what's new, and where we're at. When I emerge from the rabbit hole, I've made my determinations and fashioned my beliefs based on what I've learned peeking behind the curtains of both sides as they ply their narrative bolstering trades.

The things I share here have passed my version of the smell test, and the things I disagree with here are done so with at least my most earnest attempt at seeking facts impartially, and accepting those which are not in agreement with my beliefs and biases. Am I perfect? No.

But on numerous of the most contentious topics, I am perfectly clear that the mainstream talking points are so far off the mark in terms of finding solutions that one must assume both sides are okay with waging a perpetual partisan trench war that is going nowhere. You said follow the money. The academics, scholars, lawyers, politicians, lobbyists, media and lobbying organizations love this never ending stalemate, and the money it hoovers in on both sides of that muddy and bogged down front line.

Yes. And which side is the CLEAR winner in this bogged down mess?

Your side. Yet you're acting like you're losing. You've won, and it's not a close call. You can get everything short of a Tank here in America.....yet you're acting like any day America is going to take your guns away.

If this was a lacrosse game, the NRA would be up on the gun grabbers 26-2, with the starters pulled after the 1st quarter.

You should be thrilled.

[cradleandshoot]

I won’t make folks scroll through a quote chain, but waffle, that’s my proposal. Limit storage and usage of weapons specifically designed for war to well regulated ranges. You challenged that as impossible, I say it’s entirely possible with private enterprise filling the demand. Your position is that’s impossible. I call, BS.

No one needs these weapons in their home. You can’t hunt with them in your home ( and it’s a terrible weapon for hunting) and you sure as heck don’t need them for”protection”. Choose another weapon.

Nope, no one in an urban or suburban setting can use these weapons For any purpose, much less “fun” in their home. You think it’s too difficult to travel to use it, don’t use it.

To me, You sound more like shill for the gun manufacturers lobby than someone actually believing what you write.

I think there all sorts of compromises that the solid majority of responsible gun owners are more than willing to make. But you are in the minority who take an absolutist position for any government restrictions, and yes, that’s an extremist position.

You are the eternal optimist. Waffle is correct in regards to his position and I believe you know it. There are an estimated 20 million AR 15 type weapons owned by American citizens. You think they share your perspective? You think they need the government regulating where, when and how they can use their rifles? I think mandatory safety training and an age restriction of 21 is probably the closest you will ever get. The government can't even figure out how to deal with ongoing mess in regards to illegal handguns in the hands of teenagers and convicted felons. You expect them to shift gears and start targeting law abiding American citizens who own these weapons legally? The fact that you don't approve of these weapons doesn't give you the right to trample on their 2nd amendment rights.

[MDlaxfan76]

Many here sound like shills for the anti-gun and anti-2A movement - right down to the talking points proffered. In my research over the years and ongoing, I've endeavored to look at both sides of the issues, arguments, and claims. I've mentioned it's a bit of a hobby and a passion. Books, videos, podcasts, research papers, legal treatises, social media scrums, politicians, lobbying organizations, etc. etc. are all places I regularly visit to see what's up, what's new, and where we're at. When I emerge from the rabbit hole, I've made my determinations and fashioned my beliefs based on what I've learned peeking behind the curtains of both sides as they ply their narrative bolstering trades.

The things I share here have passed my version of the smell test, and the things I disagree with here are done so with at least my most earnest attempt at seeking facts impartially, and accepting those which are not in agreement with my beliefs and biases. Am I perfect? No.

But on numerous of the most contentious topics, I am perfectly clear that the mainstream talking points are so far off the mark in terms of finding solutions that one must assume both sides are okay with waging a perpetual partisan trench war that is going nowhere. You said follow the money. The academics, scholars, lawyers, politicians, lobbyists, media and lobbying organizations love this never ending stalemate, and the money it hoovers in on both sides of that muddy and bogged down front line.

Washington Post did a survey a few years ago. One-third of AR owners indicated self-defense as their primary ownership purpose. The beauty of the rifle is it can serve multiple purposes for the same owner, all valid (because we don't need proof of "valid" to exercise a right, right?).

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/i ... un-owners/

Fear not, folks. If the time comes when our lawmakers make a law, and our highest court upholds that law, and that law tells me to hand in "Item X", I will not be holing up at my mountain hideaway tweeting "Come and get it" and "From my cold, dead hands". I will be complying with that law. Why? I'm a law abiding citizen who obeys laws. I have a spouse, kids, extended family, community based connections, business associates, friends, acquaintances, and my fellow countrymen and women whom I've never met to consider when I wake up and look in the mirror.

Yup, and 2/3 of AR-15 owners know that claim of protection is ridiculous.

Listen, I can almost understand the protection claim if one is concerned about a zombie apocalypse or some other sort of apocalyptic or alien invasion dystopian nightmare scenario,but that’s just not sufficient to have millions of these weapons in the hands of people who are unwilling to register them, secure them, and use them only safely. And that is the demand of the extremists.

I used to argue that it makes sense to have such weapons if we needed them to repel an invader, but my well regulated range scenario satisfies that need, just as armories did in an earlier era.

But we now have National Guard in each state, with trained civilian soldiers available to augment formal voluntary military. Lots of weapons, proper training, including organizational discipline and strategy.

I even considered the notion of an armed population being a deterrent to an authoritarian military junta, but I think we’re well beyond that concern, thankfully, though only if we focus on norms and democratic processes as the way we resolve disputes, not the threat of violence.

I see the extremists as all too willing to contemplate armed insurrection.

Thanks for clarifying that you are not in that most extreme cohort.

[MDlaxfan76]

I won’t make folks scroll through a quote chain, but waffle, that’s my proposal. Limit storage and usage of weapons specifically designed for war to well regulated ranges. You challenged that as impossible, I say it’s entirely possible with private enterprise filling the demand. Your position is that’s impossible. I call, BS.

No one needs these weapons in their home. You can’t hunt with them in your home ( and it’s a terrible weapon for hunting) and you sure as heck don’t need them for”protection”. Choose another weapon.

Nope, no one in an urban or suburban setting can use these weapons For any purpose, much less “fun” in their home. You think it’s too difficult to travel to use it, don’t use it.

To me, You sound more like shill for the gun manufacturers lobby than someone actually believing what you write.

I think there all sorts of compromises that the solid majority of responsible gun owners are more than willing to make. But you are in the minority who take an absolutist position for any government restrictions, and yes, that’s an extremist position.

You are the eternal optimist. Waffle is correct in regards to his position and I believe you know it. There are an estimated 20 million AR 15 type weapons owned by American citizens. You think they share your perspective? You think they need the government regulating where, when and how they can use their rifles? I think mandatory safety training and an age restriction of 21 is probably the closest you will ever get. The government can't even figure out how to deal with ongoing mess in regards to illegal handguns in the hands of teenagers and convicted felons. You expect them to shift gears and start targeting law abiding American citizens who own these weapons legally? The fact that you don't approve of these weapons doesn't give you the right to trample on their 2nd amendment rights.

First, those supposed ‘ rights’ do not exist as you claim. Period.
And that is going to get clarified again as the younger generation gains more political power and SCOTUS is reshaped. Prior Supremes had it correct.

But sure, it would be a challenge. So was a ban on sale of assault weapons. But not actually that much of a problem. The younger generation is going to insist on it again as they gain political power…so it’s coming. Just a question of when.

I’m simply suggesting a compromise position that would enable enthusiasts to continue to have their “fun” but to do so with much greater protection of public safety.

And yes, there are a number of common sense measures that would help reduce gun violence. The extremes don’t want to compromise, but as you and I have discussed, this is why politicians who work to actually achieve compromise should be rewarded by voters, not vilified or mocked or abandoned.

This goes across all sorts of issues. Move the ball forward, even if your purist “values” would prefer more faster. Seek common ground and be willing to look through another’s eyes and find ways to address their concerns.

We are seeing Harris explain her pledge to not support a national ban on fracking, despite her clearly recognizing that there are big environmental challenges with fracking. She explained that her views on specific policies have changed, but not her values. She explained that the goals around climate can be addressed in other ways, and that is indeed happening through the legislation they managed to pass, and without a ban on fracking…I suspect that in a longer policy discussion specifically on fracking she’d agree that regulating fracking is important and protection from harm to people in the area is essential, including big penalties for leaks and harm. Real liability. Not a ban but stringent attention.

That sort of nuanced approach should be rewarded by voters, though it’s frustrating to both sides of such debates.

But that’s good governance.

[cradleandshoot]

It becomes problematic when someone wants to dictate to another person what type of weapon they should be allowed to have for home defense. IMO an AR-15 type will get the job done. It would never be my first choice because the effective lethal range is farther than most people can see. An Ithaca deer slayer 12 gauge pump with rifled slugs is an extremely effective home defense weapon. If you have never fired a 12 gauge rifled slug your in for an eye opening experience indeed. The bottom line, much to MD lax fans chagrin, is the weapon you have trained with and are comfortable using is the correct weapon for your needs. My wife at 5 foot six and 130 pounds would be a danger to herself with a 12 gauge in her hands. I made my choice and I put a lot of thought into it.

[MDlaxfan76]

It becomes problematic when someone wants to dictate to another person what type of weapon they should be allowed to have for home defense. IMO an AR-15 type will get the job done. It would never be my first choice because the effective lethal range is farther than most people can see. An Ithaca deer slayer 12 gauge pump with rifled slugs is an extremely effective home defense weapon. If you have never fired a 12 gauge rifled slug your in for an eye opening experience indeed. The bottom line, much to MD lax fans chagrin, is the weapon you have trained with and are comfortable using is the correct weapon for your needs. My wife at 5 foot six and 130 pounds would be a danger to herself with a 12 gauge in her hands. I made my choice and I put a lot of thought into it.

Sorry, no one needs an AR-15 for home defense and yes any gun ownership should require adequate training on handling the specific weapon as well as responsible ownership.

[cradleandshoot]

It becomes problematic when someone wants to dictate to another person what type of weapon they should be allowed to have for home defense. IMO an AR-15 type will get the job done. It would never be my first choice because the effective lethal range is farther than most people can see. An Ithaca deer slayer 12 gauge pump with rifled slugs is an extremely effective home defense weapon. If you have never fired a 12 gauge rifled slug your in for an eye opening experience indeed. The bottom line, much to MD lax fans chagrin, is the weapon you have trained with and are comfortable using is the correct weapon for your needs. My wife at 5 foot six and 130 pounds would be a danger to herself with a 12 gauge in her hands. I made my choice and I put a lot of thought into it.

Sorry, no one needs an AR-15 for home defense and yes any gun ownership should require adequate training on handling the specific weapon as well as responsible ownership.

What weapon someone decides on for home protection is none of your damn business. Pretty arrogant of you to want to decide that for them. The 2nd amendment gives them the right to choose whatever weapon works best for them. This may come as a shock to you but responsible, law abiding, tax paying Americans really don't need your input.

[MDlaxfan76]

It becomes problematic when someone wants to dictate to another person what type of weapon they should be allowed to have for home defense. IMO an AR-15 type will get the job done. It would never be my first choice because the effective lethal range is farther than most people can see. An Ithaca deer slayer 12 gauge pump with rifled slugs is an extremely effective home defense weapon. If you have never fired a 12 gauge rifled slug your in for an eye opening experience indeed. The bottom line, much to MD lax fans chagrin, is the weapon you have trained with and are comfortable using is the correct weapon for your needs. My wife at 5 foot six and 130 pounds would be a danger to herself with a 12 gauge in her hands. I made my choice and I put a lot of thought into it.

Sorry, no one needs an AR-15 for home defense and yes any gun ownership should require adequate training on handling the specific weapon as well as responsible ownership.

What weapon someone decides on for home protection is none of your damn business. Pretty arrogant of you to want to decide that for them. The 2nd amendment gives them the right to choose whatever weapon works best for them. This may come as a shock to you but responsible, law abiding, tax paying Americans really don't need your input.

Not sure why you choose to be so exercised about this topic.

You are in the minority of Americans, indeed the minority of gun owners, who interpret the 2nd Amendment that way.

And I think we all have a right to voice our political views. No?

[cradleandshoot]

It becomes problematic when someone wants to dictate to another person what type of weapon they should be allowed to have for home defense. IMO an AR-15 type will get the job done. It would never be my first choice because the effective lethal range is farther than most people can see. An Ithaca deer slayer 12 gauge pump with rifled slugs is an extremely effective home defense weapon. If you have never fired a 12 gauge rifled slug your in for an eye opening experience indeed. The bottom line, much to MD lax fans chagrin, is the weapon you have trained with and are comfortable using is the correct weapon for your needs. My wife at 5 foot six and 130 pounds would be a danger to herself with a 12 gauge in her hands. I made my choice and I put a lot of thought into it.

Sorry, no one needs an AR-15 for home defense and yes any gun ownership should require adequate training on handling the specific weapon as well as responsible ownership.

What weapon someone decides on for home protection is none of your damn business. Pretty arrogant of you to want to decide that for them. The 2nd amendment gives them the right to choose whatever weapon works best for them. This may come as a shock to you but responsible, law abiding, tax paying Americans really don't need your input.

Not sure why you choose to be so exercised about this topic.

You are in the minority of Americans, indeed the minority of gun owners, who interpret the 2nd Amendment that way.

And I think we all have a right to voice our political views. No?

I don't agree that I'm in a minority about this issue. There are around 20 million AR 15 style weapons owned in America. If you want to take a poll of all of those owners I'm fairly certain the vast majority of them would disagree with what you propose. There is a difference between expressing your opinion and insisting that nobody should have a right to own them because you don't like them. Your opinion doesn't supercede the 2nd amendment as written in the constitution.

[youthathletics]

We need guns off the street, but must keep bad people on the street: https://x.com/amuse/status/1830435623448002814

[Typical Lax Dad]

When you combine a healthy regard for 2A and protecting our borders:

https://www.cnn.com/2024/09/02/us/4-peo ... index.html

[Typical Lax Dad]

Guns don’t kill….kids with guns do…

https://apple.news/A0rdIDjMqRXiG6MiIgs5lVA

[Typical Lax Dad]

The real problem is that she didn’t have a gun…

https://www.cnn.com/2024/09/02/us/kara- ... index.html

[cradleandshoot]

Guns don’t kill….kids with guns do…

https://apple.news/A0rdIDjMqRXiG6MiIgs5lVA

So do teenagers driving stolen Kias.

[MDlaxfan76]

It becomes problematic when someone wants to dictate to another person what type of weapon they should be allowed to have for home defense. IMO an AR-15 type will get the job done. It would never be my first choice because the effective lethal range is farther than most people can see. An Ithaca deer slayer 12 gauge pump with rifled slugs is an extremely effective home defense weapon. If you have never fired a 12 gauge rifled slug your in for an eye opening experience indeed. The bottom line, much to MD lax fans chagrin, is the weapon you have trained with and are comfortable using is the correct weapon for your needs. My wife at 5 foot six and 130 pounds would be a danger to herself with a 12 gauge in her hands. I made my choice and I put a lot of thought into it.

Sorry, no one needs an AR-15 for home defense and yes any gun ownership should require adequate training on handling the specific weapon as well as responsible ownership.

What weapon someone decides on for home protection is none of your damn business. Pretty arrogant of you to want to decide that for them. The 2nd amendment gives them the right to choose whatever weapon works best for them. This may come as a shock to you but responsible, law abiding, tax paying Americans really don't need your input.

Not sure why you choose to be so exercised about this topic.

You are in the minority of Americans, indeed the minority of gun owners, who interpret the 2nd Amendment that way.

And I think we all have a right to voice our political views. No?

I don't agree that I'm in a minority about this issue. There are around 20 million AR 15 style weapons owned in America. If you want to take a poll of all of those owners I'm fairly certain the vast majority of them would disagree with what you propose. There is a difference between expressing your opinion and insisting that nobody should have a right to own them because you don't like them. Your opinion doesn't supercede the 2nd amendment as written in the constitution.

I wouldn't be surprised if a higher percentage of AR-15 owners think the 2nd Amendment means they have a right to own, carry, and use their AR-15 wherever and whenever they like, but that may be my bias about what sorts of people, on average, own such weapons in the first place. Many own multiple AR-15's apparently. Only 6% of Americans own one or more AR-15s, about 1-5 or 1-6 of gun owners.

But I said gun owners, and there's lots of polling showing that a majority of gun owners are in favor of common sense gun regulations and don't agree with an absolute right to own any weapon they want.

And gun owners only represent about a third of all American adults.
The two thirds who don't skew heavily in favor of regulating guns. Some even want no gun ownership (other end of extreme).

Again, my compromise position didn't preclude all individual ownership, it just limits where they can be stored and where they can be used. It emphasizes public safety priorities with regulated usage of weapons specifically designed for warfare.

[Typical Lax Dad]

https://www.wmur.com/article/full-video ... d/62009593

[Typical Lax Dad]

https://www.wyff4.com/article/shooting- ... a/62024333

[cradleandshoot]

It becomes problematic when someone wants to dictate to another person what type of weapon they should be allowed to have for home defense. IMO an AR-15 type will get the job done. It would never be my first choice because the effective lethal range is farther than most people can see. An Ithaca deer slayer 12 gauge pump with rifled slugs is an extremely effective home defense weapon. If you have never fired a 12 gauge rifled slug your in for an eye opening experience indeed. The bottom line, much to MD lax fans chagrin, is the weapon you have trained with and are comfortable using is the correct weapon for your needs. My wife at 5 foot six and 130 pounds would be a danger to herself with a 12 gauge in her hands. I made my choice and I put a lot of thought into it.

Sorry, no one needs an AR-15 for home defense and yes any gun ownership should require adequate training on handling the specific weapon as well as responsible ownership.

What weapon someone decides on for home protection is none of your damn business. Pretty arrogant of you to want to decide that for them. The 2nd amendment gives them the right to choose whatever weapon works best for them. This may come as a shock to you but responsible, law abiding, tax paying Americans really don't need your input.

Not sure why you choose to be so exercised about this topic.

You are in the minority of Americans, indeed the minority of gun owners, who interpret the 2nd Amendment that way.

And I think we all have a right to voice our political views. No?

I don't agree that I'm in a minority about this issue. There are around 20 million AR 15 style weapons owned in America. If you want to take a poll of all of those owners I'm fairly certain the vast majority of them would disagree with what you propose. There is a difference between expressing your opinion and insisting that nobody should have a right to own them because you don't like them. Your opinion doesn't supercede the 2nd amendment as written in the constitution.

I wouldn't be surprised if a higher percentage of AR-15 owners think the 2nd Amendment means they have a right to own, carry, and use their AR-15 wherever and whenever they like, but that may be my bias about what sorts of people, on average, own such weapons in the first place. Many own multiple AR-15's apparently. Only 6% of Americans own one or more AR-15s, about 1-5 or 1-6 of gun owners.

But I said gun owners, and there's lots of polling showing that a majority of gun owners are in favor of common sense gun regulations and don't agree with an absolute right to own any weapon they want.

And gun owners only represent about a third of all American adults.
The two thirds who don't skew heavily in favor of regulating guns. Some even want no gun ownership (other end of extreme).

Again, my compromise position didn't preclude all individual ownership, it just limits where they can be stored and where they can be used. It emphasizes public safety priorities with regulated usage of weapons specifically designed for warfare.

Well 20 million AR 15 owners suggests to me they have a right to own and use their weapons. How does your " compromise " define " where they can be stored and where they can be used? If your " compromise " involves government run and regulated firing ranges that poses a deal breaker. How many ranges would be needed? How many people to staff them? How much will it cost? Where do you find the land? You could be talking about hundreds or thousands of range facilities nationwide. The devil is always in the details, it ain't never gonna happen but keep on advocating.