Who is saying that they want to take "all of their guns"? Me? Biden? Anyone? Maybe you can point to where I said that asshat?
Who is saying that they want to take "all of their guns"? Me? Biden? Anyone? Maybe you can point to where I said that asshat?
I own all kinds of guns. I’ve been shooting guns all of my life.
FWIW, I own an AR, it’s exhilarating to shoot…. I really don’t need an AR.
FWIW, I own an AR, it’s exhilarating to shoot…. I really don’t need an AR.
Im not going to get in a back and forth with you, but your points are totally illogical. If someone wanted to walk into a crowded club, classroom, etc and take out as many people as possible, they would be better suited doing it with a short barrel semi-automatic shotgun… Something that isn’t even on the radar for the left supposedly
And this notion that it isnt easy to take out dozens of people with a handgun is as equally preposterous
Only criminals had guns in those rooms. Train the kids with guns? The Teachers? .... shoot outs at recess?
Again, I don't care what kind of gun it is or what you call it - if we have to start somewhere, then guns that can take out 50+ people in a matter of minutes should be first on the chopping block.
Please link me to a shooting where one person killed 50 people with a handgun in a few short minutes. I'll wait.
So I don't disagree that guns that inflict that sort of rapid, widespread damage should be more limited.
I think the core of the disagreement for reasonable people on the pro-gun side is right there in your language:
if we have to start somewhere...
...first on the chopping block
Right out the gate, this implies that you don't want to stop at ARs. If there was absolute certainty that restrictions would end at weapons of mass murder, you could get more people on board.
But many feel - just as your post implies - that will only be step one and future pushes will attempt to take more and more rights away.
I was addressing jakefest's post that said we need to take small incremental steps if we're going to get anything done. I think any rational person would consider that step one.
I'm really tired of having to parse language so not to offend gun nuts who falsely believe the gubment wants to take all your guns, but you're damn right that we need to take more steps than that. 80 mass shootings in only two months and of course the Right just wants to play defense. What will it take for you to care more about the lives of children than your toys? Does it have to happen to your family first?
As always, take it easy there fella. I’m not suggesting we do nothing and I don’t really give a shit about ARs. I was pointing out that the conversation breaks down because there are no assurances that is where the regulations will stop.
Again though, you first have to define what an actual assault weapon is.. An AR15 isn’t an assault weapon, an M249 is an assault weapon as one example. AR15’s are single pull, the only argument anyone might have is the clip size so reduce the clip size to the same standard as handguns which is at max is 16. That is a good first start.
Banning them all together isn’t going to work, there are too many people who live and die by the 2nd amendment and you’re asking 99.9% of the population who don’t and won’t break the law to give up something they might hold dear to solve for a small percentage.
Make them really hard to get, limit clip sizes, outlaw bump stocks, ban all automatic weapons (true assault weapon) in every state, etc.
Maybe.
I've lived out west, the midwest, southeast, and northeast, lived in multiple other countries; and made friends all over the place who have given me different perspectives. The point is that I learned to think for myself. Not just follow along with the viewpoint of whomever I was around that year. I chose not to just blindly follow the herd.
I feel sorry for people who live their whole lives in the same bubble. Surrounded by the same people, with the same ideas about everything. Those people are usually the ones calling other people sheep.
Seems fair. I have an AR and there’s nothing special about it other than the capacity. Make them harder to get (for example, like a silencer/suppressor) and limit magazines.
You aren’t going to get people to turn them in, so that’s a non-starter. I’ve only shot mine once and I’d hate for it to bounce out of the boat from a fluke wave.
I don't disagree with any of that, but it seems like some states are actually able to get the blanket "AR15" assault weapon banned - i think 9 or 10 have it banned now? It won't get banned in all states, but as i assume you're a proponent of smaller federal government, it's working exactly how you would prefer it to. however, I personally believe that to see any real change it needs to be enacted federally, but like you said - step by step is the only approach that will work.
i completely agree with that last paragraph and I think that is probably the only true way to make any progress. eventually it may cascade and snowball into true federal change (which once again, is my hope, but I don't speak for everyone), but even if it doesn't then i think some good still may come from it
/end rambling
I won’t argue with this, because it’s valid. I was having fun w/you.
Also, I don’t care what political differences we may have, you chimed in when our pup was struggling, and helped when you didn’t have to.
You’re good in my book.
Lmao. “Parse language as not to offend”. Your arguments are non-starters and completely illogical. We arent offended by your words, just very clearly telling you that your BS can take a hike
Because your anti-gun arguments arguments are just that, empty words and bullshit
I will humor you for a moment and pretend like you are a serious person who cares about the issue.
What do you and the rest of Vanilla ISIS propose as a solution to gun violence?
Vanilla ISIS… Haha nice. Such a serious person.
Get back to me when you’re ready to tackle the real problem instead of being an emotional train wreck and blaming everything on what is essentially a tool. You aren't there yet so i will hang up and listen
I actually want to find a solution here. What are your thoughts on this:
- Enhanced background checks across the board.
- Limit magazines to current handgun regs per Jake’s suggestion (16).
- For semi-auto rifles like ARs, put them in the category of things like silencers/suppressors that require additional permissions, tax stamps, waiting periods, etc.
- No additional restrictions on rifles, shotguns or handguns - memorialized in the same legislation.
- Triple the punishment for anyone convicted of a crime involving a firearm.
I actually love this - sane, smart, reasonable and I think most people would sign off on this in a minute. If I had my wish, I would also add the following:
- Increased liability for gun sellers for failure to follow through on the enhanced background checks.
- An end to the insane permit-less open carry laws
- Required gun safety courses for all new gun owners
- I'd love to see some type of locking mechanism that wouldnt allow a semi-automatic weapon to be used without some type of biometric verification, like a fingerprint or barring that, at the very least, a passcode.
- And this last one will be controversial but I think it's time. Since no average Joe actually needs a semi-automatic and since they so often fall into the wrong hands, I'd like to see a law that requires an owner to store it somewhere, like a shooting range, where it could only be used while onsite. If you're just shooting it for fun anyway then make it the Disney Land of gun ranges where you can live out all your superhero fantasies in one place - but again, you have to leave it there when you leave. I know I'll get incoming on this one but I think it deserves serious consideration.
Thanks for taking the time to put that out there
See we’re close here. It’s frustrating to see sides seemingly so far apart.
I’d agree to your first 3. I don’t know how you do the last 2.
Personal situation - I’m obviously not going to bring my AR in for some biometric trigger. And I don’t care to go to some gun nut Disney land (you will appreciate that Apple autocorrected that to fun but).
I’m going to my FIL’s farm, my good friend’s farm, or the 200 acres I’m about to buy. Zero interest in some communal place with weirdos with shitty facial hair.
Any weapon that holds more than one bullet is semi-automatic by definition, including handguns.....ie, they fire as fast as you can pull the trigger so too broad on 4 and 5. Hunting rifles, .22's, some shotguns, etc
The first 3 I agree with but the idea of biometrics and storing all guns at a gun range, I don't think will fly. Just from a geographic challenge that one might be hard for folks that live very rural and many that are anti-govt won't want to have their weapons indexed and tracked. Maybe you could it get it passed in densely populated cities where gun crime is probably highest but I'm not sure how this cuts down on deaths as people that kill people don't typically follow the rule of law and the daily shootings we don't call mass shootings (like when someone in New Orleans or Chicago shoots 4 or 5 people on a street corner) those guns are never actually registered anyway.
Scotch maybe has the right idea by treating gun crimes like drug crimes back in the 90's with all sorts of lengthy penalties and jail time as one measure. The war on drugs is now the war on guns.
But fundamentally, we agree that guns will never be taken in the United States so the negotiations need to focus on what we can actually achieve and how we make it harder to obtain a gun.
Well said.
2A is really a weird one as it's technically controlled at the federal level but the states actually mandate or impose restrictions or removal of said restrictions. Point taken on smaller federal government and I'm honestly not sure what the right answer is. Even what I think probably wouldn't fly on the right or the left.
To your point though, NJ has banned AR15's by name but you can get weapons that are similar barring they meet certain criteria such as barrel length, no assault grip/stabilizers, no suppressors, etc. I don't disagree with those restrictions for the most part as the average shooter/owner doesn't need those attributes. Well, I personally like having a suppressor as it beats back hearing damage which I have from the military. My own doing, never wore hearing protection in the field. Was always tough to find 30 seconds to shove them in your ears when the shooting started.
As an example, I can buy this gun in NJ and it's compliant - https://hk-usa.com/hk-models/mr762a1/ as it meets barrel length, fixed stock, etc requirements.
It's also important to note that while I technically own a ton of guns and about 8 of them would be illegal in NJ, I don't keep a single one in my house. They are all locked up in a safe at my parents house in Alabama. The only shooting I do these days is at the Orvis lodge in upstate NY when I get invited. My wife has never fired a weapon and my daughters have zero interest.
The police absolutely need expanded power to take guns from people. Just look at the MSU shooter. His dad said, after the shooting, that the shooter had not been the same since his mother died. That is a situation where he should have been able to call the police, have them come to the house and take the guns.
I imagine many parents, relatives, etc. would do this just to reduce their own liability.
He’s doing well now, thx. We hesitated to do so, but we had to put him on anti-seizure medication.
Ours was on it for ~7 years and it controlled it the entire time for the most part. Phenobarbital. It’s the right call.
yes to enhanced background checks
yes to magazine limits
yes to additional requirements and permissions for ARs/similar rifles.
No to no additional restrictions
no to increasing punishment for crimes involving firearms (this will just be used to imprison more people of color for longer).
would like to add insurance and registration requirements for most if not all guns (like cars)
safe storage laws (gun range probably too far, but requiring a safe in a home with children seems reasonable).
red flag laws.
My ultimate goal is to make gun ownership burdensome and restrictive and stop the flow of weapons on the secondary market from getting into the hands of people looking to do bad things. to do that, we need to make legal guns much more difficult to own and find. this might take 50 years +.
Last edited:
I don’t understand the reasoning behind not increasing punishment. We want to keep bad guys with guns off the streets right? I don’t care what color they are.
I also don’t really understand what the insurance justification is. 99% of car owners will be involved in an accident at some point. Insurance manages the cost of damages. 99% of gun owners will go their entire life without a damaging accident. They aren’t at all alike.
How are you going to enforce a safe in a home? Routine in-home police inspections? You should have a safe when you have kids (my handgun is in a biometric safe), but it’s not realistically enforceable.
Take their guns and give them to Ukrainians so they can protect their borders.
If the dad thought the guns should be taken away, why would he need the police? Even if he’s worried about a confrontation, just take them when the kid is out of the house.
Similar threads
