Have you got a gun/would you kill someone?

I think the actual number of people saying this is higher than you think. But regardless, enve the ones that aren't seem to generally support far more significant gun control measures than the ones you're talking about. When questioned it's all background checks and bump stocks, but it's obvious a lot of people want it to go much further than that.

Some recent high-profile examples: former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens literally says we should repeal the Second Amendment. Rubio points out that a proposal would actually ban all semiautomatic weapons (more on this in a second), and the audience cheers! And liberals pass the video clip around excitedly! President Obama mentions foreign countries with much stricter gun laws as positive examples. Etc.

So yeah, not really hard to figure out where they're getting the supposedly crazy idea that maybe this is the camel's nose under the tent.

Define assault rifle, please.

Agreed, and this is a very important aspect of the debate: how many people seem to give off clear warning signs where nothing is done. It's a good default legislative posture to oppose new laws trying to prevent things that the proper application of existing laws could also have prevented.

Because they do! They are in the business of making guns as easy as possible to buy for anyone and they don’t hide that fact. They oppose any legislation or suggestion that even hints at the tiniest of limitations or reasonable proposal. When confronted with the notion that this creates an environment where gun violence can thrive their answer is well we need to make sure more people have MORE guns then! Whats next when that doesn’t work? We need to make sure everyone has a gun in each hand? We need to make sure everyone walks around pointing their guns at all times just to be safe because keeping it holstered is one step away from confiscation? Hucksters and profiteers of death…

But there is no Anti Rifle Association. The NRA has been operating in a vacuum for years and look where we are now. To see people grumbling about the effects of our ludicrous gun laws as equivalent “rhetoric” doesn’t fly for me.

Kids get shot and die. The NRA does nothing, says nothing and opposes anything politicians suggest in response to the kids getting shot. Do you think its really that extreme for those same kids to feel like the NRA doesn’t care about them? Sure seems to fit the picture. Otherwise prove them wrong. If Zuckerberg can say Facebook did things WRONG and we are willing to work with the government to limit data sharing so people stop getting hurt by it then why cant the NRA do the equivalent? Why must they have a defend guns at all costs mentality every single time?

Remember tons of democrats are also bought and sold by the NRA as well depending on their district. So in primaries those democrats would be the focus of my ire. And yes I would happily support a republican that had a worse NRA rating then a democrat if and when that scenario was to happen. I have sent checks to republicans based on what I felt was them taking a gutsy and admirable stance on certain issues before (not necessarily gun control) and Ive added a note telling them Im a non-Republican who appreciates their thinking on XYZ and as long as they feel that way they have my support and my money. But the bottom line is this question is irrelevant. My concern is changing gun laws. I don’t care who you are. So my voting and donating will correspond accordingly. If both major candidates in an election have bad NRA ratings then I’ll make a judgment based on other factors of course not just look what little letter is next to their name.


You are saying they shouldn’t be putting themselves in the position of being “activists” for their own protection because they engage in hyperbole out of fear. First I would debate what is and what isn’t actually hyperbole. Secondly, Im not advocating that they officially be seen as “Movement Leaders” at the head of some bandwagon. As I stated before, I really worry about them (I actually wrote an open letter to Emma Gonzalez telling her she doesnt neeed to be our Joan of Arc on this and that she can walk away at any time. Its not her burden and she shouldnt let it destroy her because of our expectations.) but I AM glad they are doing what they feel is right. And “hyperbole” or not, they seem amazingly competent and well spoken whenever Ive heard them. More so then a lot of adults Ive heard on both sides.

But more importantly I hardly think alleged “falsehoods and hyperbole” disqualifies them from championing the topic NOBODY ELSE WILL. If you want to correct them on “falsehoods” then please do. That’s how any debate works. But don’t tell them they cant stand up and try to make a change because they are young and scared and not responsible or “experienced” like adults. If you don’t agree with them or don’t want the change they suggest then oppose them. Don’t tell them they shouldn’t talk. Or is this about you genuinely wanting some change but not liking that its kids who seem to be spearheading this right now? And if so who would you want doing that? If the answer is “adults”, than which adults? Because “adults” have tried before and it hasn’t worked.

Sure Im sure many people think that. But maybe they also are giving a new perspective on something that’s been said before by politicians or adult survivors. Maybe having your 12th grader say “someone my age shouldn’t be allowed to buy an AR-15” is much more personal than if a 50 year old is saying it. And frankly did you listen to ANY of those speeches they made? Some of them were fantastic. The notion that they were incoherent is mystifying to me. Im not sure what you watched. Im as dubious and jaded as the next guy about the average person, child OR adult and these kids made some pretty impressive speeches to me. And I believe in their passion. And Im not trying to use them. Just impressed with them completely.

Are we getting into a debate about abortion? Are you making assumptions on my opinions of abortion based on the political leanings apparent in my opposition of our current gun policies?

Again, if you disagree with points they are making counter them. Treat them as you would any other “activist” who has a point of view. If they site bad stats, point that out. If they get worked up and emotional respond to them the same way you would to an adult that gets worked up and emotional.

Time will tell. Course if you look at the breakdown of under 30 voters in the past few elections you certainly wouldn’t disagree that the democratic candidate usually received a higher percentage of the youth vote. Yes people can grow more conservative over time but all you have to be is 18 to vote. Not 48. And I feel like the social media savvy of this particular generation makes them an interesting group to observe and see what they do and how they effect things. They are moving SO much faster than any generation I can remember before and that’s partially because of technology.

Im happy to dig them up. I understand your point about too general or purposefully misleading questioning leading to people saying YES far to easily but the one about “background checks” has actually been asked multiple different ways and the ranges are still always pretty high. http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/...ecks-all-gun-/ breaks that down pretty well if you want to have a look.

So do you know of any sources that say the vast majority of people do NOT want background checks then? Or even a tiny majority? Or any of those gun issues? Or any sources that talk about citizens being fully on board with NRA rhetoric on the issue at all? I would genuinely love to look those over. And if there aren’t any than what are we supposed to think?

Sure, all that. Credit is cheap. But he wont get my VOTE unless he makes a serious change in his views. Im not interested in being “magnanimous”. Im interested in getting someone in place who will make sane gun laws at this point.

But they’ve never been willing to compromise before! That’s the point! FINALLY they are hemming and hawing and saying well… ok maybe… and you have the first glimpses of some reforms set in place in Florida. Don’t act like ANYTHING like that has happened in DECADES. And they are changing their mind because they are now fearing for their political lives JUST LIKE THEY DID WITH THE NRA. So again the tactic of absolutism that the NRA has been living by for all that time WORKS. And the notion that now that the other side is trying it is somehow unfair to these “compromisers” is absurd. Why weren’t they compromising all along? I bet you can guess why…

__________________
Farewell and adieu to you fair Spanish ladies...

@I. Rex

Thanks for your reply to my questions.

I have another question for you.Ifyou were in charge of U.S. gun laws and could make or change any gun law....what laws or changes would you make?....and why?

That's irrelevant. You defended extremist rhetoric by suggesting the NRA plays dirty and the gun control lobby hasn't, so it's okay for them to start. I'm saying this isn't true, it's been happening the whole time. The idea that they (the other guys!) are winning because our side is too decorous and civilized is pretty much always a pleasing fiction, and it is in this case, too.

No joke, this was actually going to be my next question for you: what happens when we implement the "common sense" regulations and mass shootings still take place? I see the slogan for a lot of this is "Never Again," which sure seems to imply that any regulation would be theoretically justified, and more would be deemed necessary if and when that happened, right?

Probably because you use an innocuous word like "grumbling" as if it were a fair summation of "why do you like dead kids?"

No, because kids are bad at moral calculation and appreciating the complexities of even day to day life, let alone law and precedent. No idea why you're asking me this question, though. Did I say their feelings were invalid, or surprising?

I certainly think this, but that's not what I'm saying to you, specifically, no. What I'm saying to you is that people (and I guess you're one of them) should stop elevating them because they think it'll be politically useful to do so. It's cynical, it's probably counterproductive (both on this issue and to discourse in general), and it's hard to imagine it's good for them. It stands to reason a lot of them have PTSD, and I'm pretty skeptical that the clinically accepted method of dealing with that is in the warm, therapeutic embrace of cable news.

Feel free. I don't see how some of it's even arguable, though, and my first instinct is not to bother arguing with anyone who can contort their views enough to convince them it is.

I think this is one of those things that can't be separated from whether or not you like the content of their speech. Personally, I heard a lot about them before actually hearing them speak, and when I finally did, I was genuinely stunned at how vapid and simplistic most of it was. It's mostly cheap political theater and the sort of facile, why-doesn't-the-world-just-do-this-man reductive platitudes that pretty much every high schooler engages in.

I think there's a massive amount of frustration on the gun control side, and they're talking themselves into these kids as possible saviors because, well, they're desperate for saviors. Maybe they're right this time, but if so I think it'll be largely coincidental to that impulse.

That's exactly what I'm doing, and exactly what I was doing when you suggested I should go easy on them because they're "frightened kids."

"Other stuff hasn't worked" isn't a defense of this, is my point, unless you're willing to do basically anything to achieve the gun control you want and the kids are just a means to that end. Which is certainly what it sounds like.

That's usually a pretty safe assumption, but no. You keep suggesting that the NRA is some weird outlier, influencing law in a way out of step with public opinion, and I'm saying: not really, the same thing happens with abortion. It's not unique. I'm not even sure if it's rare.

The two issues are strikingly similar in a legislative/public opinion sense. Both are life-and-death, both have interest groups that profit from something and who reflexively reject nearly all restrictions on it, both have fairly strong support for their general position, while polls show huge majorities objecting to individual components on the edge of each issue, which somehow still don't become law.

I'm not going to disagree that all this is possible, but people have been pretending some liberal wave is coming for literally decades based only on the observation that young people are pretty liberal, so it seems pretty obvious that people become more conservative as they age. So I'm simply pushing back against the "wrong side of history" framing that progressives often use to try to shame or scare people into changing their minds. Like elevating victimized children to exploit the optics of arguing with them, it's essentially an attempt to bypass the debate rather than win it, which seems to be a disproportionately progressive pitfall.

I don't doubt it at all, but I suspect with some phrasings even being asked implies to the listener that we don't have any. And I was totally in support of this, too, until I got curious as to why on earth someone might oppose it, and read around a little and quickly realized the only way to do this would be to ban private sales, or else register every single gun owner. This wasn't obvious to me when I first heard the idea, and I don't think it's obvious to people being asked for a poll, either.

You can simply think the polls on specific issues like this are not actually dispositive. I absolutely do not claim that most people are against background checks (which we already have, and which wouldn't have even prevented the last, what, half-dozen shootings?). I claim that "85% of the electorate wants this policy" isn't really true.

By definition anyone who starts compromising was not compromising before. So congrats, you've just advanced a negotiating posture that directly incentivizes people not to compromise, in the same post where you repeatedly wonder why this interest group won't give an inch.

I'll echo this, I would also like to know. I'll piggyback on this to reiterate my question about the definition of "assault rifle," too.

I think it's a hallmark of any complex issue that it's easy to point out problems but hard to design workable solutions, and I can't think of a better way to demonstrate this than to ask people who want change to start describing what that change would have to look like, on paper.

Im definitely no expert on guns and I would ultimately defer to RATIONAL FAIR MINDED experts on the matter. (Which eliminates the NRA). But some obvious things that might help could include (irrelevant of the current unconstitutionality of any of these measures of course):

• A liability insurance requirement for every gun purchased just like we have with cars.
• Bulk gun sales limitations across the board.
• A federally mandated waiting period for gun sales across the board (mostly for
suicides).
• FULL background checks federally enforced in all states including gun show sales and
internet sales and sales between or gifts from private citizens (and ANY seller must
obtain a license to sell or gift their gun).
• Implementation of a comprehensive national gun registration system.
• The banning of high capacity magazines.
• Reimplementation of the 1994 assault weapons ban
• Allow government research on the health effects of gun use (the NRA currently has
coerced legislators to actually ban the use of government funds to researcher, track
and study the health effects of gun use and ownership, a policy so ridiculous that even
the politician that originally wrote the bill wants it repealed)
• Also abolish ALL doctor gag order laws in regards to guns (yes the NRA even got
politicians to ban doctors from talking to their patients about guns… even if they’ve
been shot with one…)
• Change minimum age requirements for gun purchase and gun use.
• A federal law mandating firearm locking devices/storage rules.
• In connection with that, I would also pour money into smartgun research, something the
NRA has stifled but could really make a difference in many of these school shooting
cases where kids get their parents guns not to mention the many accidental shootings
in the home by young kids who come across guns in the home and kill themselves or
their siblings with them.


And thats just a top of the head list of things Id like to see looked into. Of course LOTS of study and research is necessary too.

Ill get to the larger post later but just to touch on this briefly, Im not at all interested in getting into a technical debate about the difference between an "assault rifle" and a "semi automatic carbine" or whatever. As noted in my list to Citizen I would be happy having the 1994 Assault Weapons ban back in effect as a starting point. And as you may know it either specifically identified weapons by specific make and model or by specific characteristics that slightly varied according to whether the weapon was a pistol, rifle, or shotgun. There was a lot of loopholes in that law that kept it from being as effective as it should have but things have only gotten worse since it sunsetted in 2004. And clearly the crazies and mass shooters have some obsession with AR-15s for some reason so maybe it would at LEAST help there. I know the gun heads like to argue that that model isnt even really all that dangerous (!) compared to other guns but it seems to be the weapon of choice in these terrible events these days.

Yeah, no rush and all that re: the other post, respond in your own time. And I'll reply in kind if you want to try to chop these down in length a bit.

Anyway, briefly:

I don't see how someone can advocate restricting gun ownership while being uninterested in the "technical debate" of differences between them.

The way I saw one gun rights advocate put it was: "tell me how the guns you want to ban differ from the guns you don't want to ban." This is quite possibly the most reasonable request imaginable, but it gets brushed off like some kind of rhetorical trick or incidental detail. It isn't. It's, like, the one question you absolutely must ask and answer before proceeding with any meaningful legislation.

Loophole kinda makes it sound like there's some obvious provision they forgot to include, but the reality is that the definitions were largely arbitrary and/or aesthetic (we still see shadows of how superficial this stuff is when people quietly move from talking about "assault rifles" to "assault-style rifles," which is basically a meaningless term), and I'm not sure it could have been otherwise. The hard reality is that pretty much any ban like this is either going to:

a) not ban guns people can use in mass shootings or
b) ban simple hand guns, too.

I don't currently have a gun at this time. That is, while I do own several guns, which I grew up shooting in the 1980s, they are still back in Arizona where I grew up, under the care of my mother. I currently live in Massachusetts, and until recently, my interest in target shooting and other gun-related activities wasn't a part of my life.

That said, my wife and I have recently sort of gotten back into the activity with some military and ex-military friends of ours. We will both be taking our LTC class tomorrow from 1-5 PM. I doubt either of us will become regular concealed carry people, as I don;t see a need to walk around my small-ish town carrying a firearm, but we do want to own at least one pistol for home defense, and going to gun range to fire off a few. My wife really seems to enjoy it, and dammit if she isn't a crack shot, as well.

Not sure how I would react in a situation during which our lives were threatened, but i would like to think I would at least attempt to defend my family with whatever means were necessary. If someone was shooting at me, I would probably shoot back. I haven;t seen in that situation though, so who knows.

I've no interest in debating gun control on this here forum, so I will refrain from commenting there. I will however say that I am pretty much a center-right (Yes Yoda, it finally happened) leaning libertarian, and my wife is pretty much a right wing ****lord.

We are both pretty heavily into defending freedom.

__________________

We will definitely continue to disagree here. I think its fairly obvious that the power curve on the gun issue has been occupied by the Godzilla that is the NRA for decades and there has been no equivalent on the other side.

Oh I don’t for a second think mass shootings will stop overnight if we finally had sane reasonable gun laws and regulations in place. We are awash in 300 million guns after all thanks to the insane policies pushed through by the NRA and their toadies and their general marketing campaign of OBAMA’S GONNA TAKE ALL YOUR GUNS!!! BUY LOTS OF THEM NOW!!! But I do think gun deaths (mass shootings are just a drop in the bucket remember) would reduce over time. Suicides. Domestic violence. Accidents. Passion incidents. Gun crime in poor and urban communities. We shouldn’t shrug and say lets do nothing just because common sense doesn’t work perfectly and instantly. Fires still happen despite smoke detectors and fire extinguishers. Should we say “screw it, lets give everyone 10 gallons of gasoline and a pack of matches”.

So you are saying their unsurprising feelings disqualifies them from discussing this topic?

I think this notion is at the heart of this particular discussion we are having. I don’t think we are polar opposites on these feelings though despite your accusation that Im simply using them for political purposes (didn’t realize I had that kind of power). Ive noted a few times now that Im genuinely concerned for their well being considering what they are getting themselves into by opening their mouths on this topic and not shutting up and just being a victim and going away like others have. I applaud them for speaking their mind and their frustration and yes even their emotions on this issue. I applaud them for wanting to make a change because they see no one else doing it. I want them to know I fully support that because Ive ALWAYS supported those ideas. But I worry this will destroy some of them absolutely. I worry they wont be able to handle the vitriol and outright evil they will now be encountering from power players and endless anonymous troglodytes on the internet. And I worry that some fully unstable gun nut will play the pizzagate card because of something they heard on Alex Jones or read on the deep web and will show up on their doorstep spitting and fuming and brandishing a weapon. Similar things happened in Sandy Hook. So I REALLY worry about that… But its not my place to say you are disqualified from speaking about this. You need to delete your Twitter account because millions of other people have decided to add you. You need to refuse any appearance offered by media organizations to speak about your experience and your opinions on the matter. Who am I to do that? Who are you? Their age should not disqualify them from doing what they want. But I will ring my hands every day over the potential of tragedy that comes from being young and in a spot light as big as they are in now. And I will openly tell them you don’t need to do this if you don’t want to. And that you should never think you HAVE to for us. I consider myself a SUPPORTER not a PUSHER despite your accusations to the contrary.

By the way, I feel the same way about Malala Yousafzai too especially now that shes going back home to Pakistan. Do you also think she shouldn’t be acting like an activist for women’s rights in Pakistan? Or does that notion only apply to the gun issue and/or American kids?

See I just don’t see how you get that from some of the things Ive heard from them. Just because you aren’t Abraham Lincoln doesn’t mean you are an incompetent boob of a speech maker. I guess I went in expecting a typical high school book report sort of approach (and some that aren’t in that top group DID talk like that during the initial wave of interviews that happened when media organizations stuck mics in the face of any frantic looking survivor that stumbled out of the school). But the speeches I heard at the rally from some of these kids was levels above anything I would expect from a 10th grader. I will admit its still fully surreal to me to see the Hoggs (David and his little sister) for example on CNN in studio talking to Anderson Cooper like they are part of the normal pundit panel. But even there they don’t sound stupid. They are mostly talking about their feelings and their experiences and I think that’s really valuable.

I pretty much fully agree with this statement. People have been so frustrated for SO long that when something FINALLY seems to be working of course you are going to grab hold of it and get energized by it. Maybe in 20 years when David Hogg writes a book about these heady days and how the pressure caused him to go into some kind of alcoholic spiral in his 20’s and broke up relationships, caused suicide attempts, etc. we will better understand having teenagers as the spear point of a movement so big and so passion educing to millions of people was not the ideal situation. Or maybe he will say my sacrifice was worth it considering kids had been being sacrificed for generations and no one was doing anything about it. Or MAYBE we will be talking to the right honorable Senator Hogg from Florida. Who knows…

No, Im saying you shouldn’t be telling them to be quiet and not involve themselves in this debate because they are young and frightened. Not that you shouldn’t argue with them about their points.

On the edge? Polls show huge majorities supporting COMMON SENSE SIMPLE BABY STEP issues in gun control. What “edge” issues are you hinting at with abortion? Although honestly I have no interest in debating abortion here as I noted before. Nor do I see it as a relevant tie in to the issue about these kids fronting the gun movement. And anyway I see the abortion debate as being pretty equally divided.

Well if that were true we wouldn’t have legal marijuana or gay marriage or interracial marriage or civil rights at all for that matter. No my friend, human cultural issues tend to move from a conservative (slavery, only men able to vote, school integration, etc.) point of view over time to a more progressive one I have found. Ironically, this can happen at the same time that conservativISM is flourishing and conservaTIVES are being elected over progressives because it tends to be glacial. So I think there will come a time when a certain generation will look in history books and say my god was it REALLY legal for an 18 year old to buy an AR-15? Was it REALLY illegal for doctors to talk about the effects of guns to their patients?? Did we REALLY allow the Russians to elect a reality TV personality and failed businessman to be President despite the now widely known revelation that he chocked a prostitute to death in the Green Room with a Forbes magazine because she wouldnt… oh sorry Im getting ahead of myself.

Get serious. The NRA hasn’t even allowed a debate since Brady caught them off guard after the Reagan shooting with his zealous push for gun law reform. And you blame the progressive for this one now? You said yourself earlier that it was “both sides” that have resorted to rhetoric which I don’t even agree with. Why is it now that the people who want reasonable gun laws and haven’t been listened to for decades are now ones being tricky and playing dirty ball? I still don’t understand this notion that if kids get mad and say they want to vote out NRA supporters and people who have felt that way all along say “yeah!” they are somehow being disingenuous and attempting to win the (non)debate (which is code for break the NRA strangle hold on our representatives) by “using” “brain washed” children.

Or have anyone that wants to make a private sale obtain a license to do so. Doesn’t violate the 2nd Amendment.


You say that like it’s a bad thing.

But many of those questions shown there note what amounts to essentially UNIVERSAL background checks. Not the loop hole ridden system we have in place now. And 85% (some polls as high as 90%) DO say they want this.

This logic doesn’t work for me. Their incentive is not losing votes or being publicly pilloried for having a stance on guns that seems to counter the feelings of the majority of those they represent. If overpowering NRA money requires putting them in a metaphoric arm bar until they scream mercy then so be it. That’s on them. Not on the fed up constituents who are doing it to them.

While this debate has been mostly civil and you're obviously a reasonable and intelligent guy, as the discussion goes on there seem to be more and more instances where you repeat something back to me different from the way I said it. And usually, the disagreement seems to be based entirely on the part that's different or exaggerated. Here are some examples:

"People who want reasonable gun laws" is obviously not a fair description of "people who say the NRA likes dead kids" even if you think dead kid rhetoric is justified. I'm explicitly questioning the method, so you obviously can't just swap in a more easily defensible thing in your response. It'd be like if I responded to everything you said about the NRA by acting as if you'd said it about "law-abiding gun owners."

Same problem as above: you're implying that I criticized these kids for "[getting] mad" or "[saying] they want to vote out NRA supporters." I criticized them for saying these people don't care about dead kids and laying into the people actually trying to compromise with them. I also never used the phrase "brain washed," even though you've put it in quotes.

Now, I've already got most of the rest of my reply written up (and I left out other examples because they were more an unexplained shift in topic than a change in something I'd personally said), and I'll almost always find time to carry on substantive/polite discussions as long as the other person cares to, but some of these misrepresentations seem pretty blatant, and my time budget for conversations like that is considerably low, so I'd like to address this before continuing.

If we still had our country house in the Catskills Mountains of New York State & we lived there year-round, most probably I would buy a gun. Where I live now in Connecticut we have a fully alarmed home & the cops would be here in a heartbeat. In the country our house was 7 miles from town with no security system. I would take lessons & be fully trained in how to handle a gun. I would never want to take someone’s life, but rather him than me.

Not a single one of these statements makes any sense.

What is your point?

Doesn’t India have nuclear weapons? Is this because Indian men feel impotent? Just asking.

You think America is a superpower because we have guns?

__________________
I’m here only on Mondays, Wednesdays & Fridays. That’s why I’m here now.

My reference there was to your assertion that people (adults, me, or in your word “progressives”) who embrace and support these kids are “attempting to bypass the debate” by doing so. WE are the people who want reasonable gun laws. I wasn’t referring to any of the kids making statements you may find over the top but to the supporters of those kids who you say are undermining the debate by supporting them. Hope that’s clearer. And I did find it a little insulting that you think progressives are generally debate avoiders and tricksters and conservatives less so. Ive found the opposite to be true but, as you’ve already noted, this may also be one of those things that depends on whether or not you support the point of view of the debater.

I guess my point is I don’t see that statement as being the absurd rhetoric that you insist it is when its directed at the NRA and their cronies from whom ive heard truly despicable statements. When its directed at Rubio? Yeah that’s probably different but was it directed at Rubio? And if so what was the context? Did they say “youd rather see us dead” or more like “you are showing that you are more concerned with gun rights then children’s rights”. Which is true in my book.

Well the brain washing part is something Ive heard commonly now from people who oppose these kids. “Brainwashed” and “crisis actors”. That’s why I put it in a second set of quotes right after the first quote and didn’t mash them together because Im pretty sure you did say “use” or “using” so it does need to be in quotes but if I put “brain washed” without quotes right after that it would look like I was calling them brain washed (clearly we need actual quotes and air quotes options!). So the effect ended up looking clunky. Didn’t mean to imply you had specifically used that term though.

Fair enough. I hope my replies make sense and you don’t see as further “misrepresenting”. I actually thought I tried to show the nuance and conflict I feel in my position over these kids. Not simply parrot some contrary point of view to your comments just for the sake of it. And I can also be a very rambling and stream of consciousness type of debater.

@I. Rex

Sorry I didn't get back sooner, I was swamped with work...Good reply, thanks!...That doesn't mean I agree on all points that you made, but I can see you put some time and thought into your response

I don't have a reply for everything you said but I will post a few of my thoughts:

That's interesting, I've never heard of that suggesting before. Can't say I'm personal in favor of it, but it's interesting.

I'd think that would have already been a law. True story. At Christmas time I was shipping items and wrapping them in insert ads the kind that come in the mail telling you a certain store has great sales. One of the ads was from Cabela's sporting goods and it was a two page spread of guns. Nothing wrong with that. But one of the ads caught my eye it was a special price on AR-15s AND it said in the ad, no limit on sale purchases. That struck me as odd. It's not illegal, but how many AR15s does one person need to buy at one time? Image if someone bought 100 AR15s and the ammo to go with them. One might think were supplying a small army.
I believe most gun laws are per state, but yeah I would agree on a waiting period and a deep background check on all gun purchases.

Yes to background checks for sales to strangers, but I would be oppose to licenses for a father to past down an old heirloom gun to his son.
As a would-be libertarian I'm opposed to that. Once the government knows who has guns, it becomes easy for them to seize them all.

Wasn't that already done? Or maybe it was just in my state?

If I remember right that banned the importation of foreign made assault weapons, but not American made ones. Seems kind of unfair and protectionist to me.
Yeah I would go for 21 across the board for gun and ammo purchase.

I already do that, but I wouldn't mandate it unless their were minors in the house, then I would agree.

Quick bump to say sorry, this fell on the back burner (last few days have been busy), will try to reply soon, and I appreciate that last response.

Woops, forgot to reply to Citizen myself!

Yeah I don’t get that either. And I don’t get the obsession with that particular gun by these mass shooters. Is it really just about it being a “black” gun that’s cool among the gun crowd? Ive been told by gun people that theres not really anything in particular about it that would put it head and shoulders above all other guns. Im told it’s a solid target shooting gun, easy to handle and is sometimes used for hunting which I also don’t really get. Wouldn’t the high-velocity bullets damage the animals meat? Or do these hunters not care about utilizing the meat of the animal? Im not a hunter so I have no idea.

I have no issue with work arounds if you are passing down (or even selling) an antique gun or something on that level. Certainly guns where it’s the monetary value of the gun that’s the issue and not if it can actually be used. But if you want to give your arsenal of AR-15’s or Glocks or something to your son I don’t see that as much different than a straw purchase. Just because they are related doesn’t make it any more safe. What if your son is mentally unstable? Or has a history of domestic violence? Remember Adam Lanza killed 20 1st graders with a gun his gun enthusiast mother gave him ready access to.

“would be” eh? So its not too late to save you then? And I have to say ive always found the argument that we should have crazy gun laws because theres that chance that the government will come and take all our guns, as kind of… I don’t know… paranoid? And silly? Yeah, I get it. We had a revolution against our King just a few short centuries ago and you never know when that kind of thing just might spark up again. But I don’t see it on the horizon no matter what the kooks said about Obama. And anyway, if the military has decided to ignore the Constitution, declare martial law and attack its own citizens they are going to assume EVERYONE they face is potentially armed, not pick all the houses that don’t show up on the registration list and waltz in without a precaution. And furthermore, even if you have a small arsenal of weaponry at your finger tips its just not going to make a difference when the military has helicopter gun ships… and tanks… and missiles… and a drone army that could reduce your compound to saw dust if they didn’t feel like holding back. But good luck with your hunting rifle! Me? I’ll be putting that money into a vehicle so that when the government gestapo come marching, I can high tail me and my family to Canada. And this despite the fact that I have to register my vehicle also, something everyone seems to think is fine while registering guns is crazy talk.

Theres like 8 states that have size limits on magazines. Which in my opinion makes the restriction largely worthless because theres still so many places where you can buy it legally. Im for it on a federal level.

Well there was an import ban on foreign made semi-automatic weapons in 1989 during the first Bush presidency. So once the 1994 assault weapons ban went into place the ban on those same foreign weapons was extended with the law and certain domestically made guns were added to the ban list by specific make and model. And it added a complex definition of what would be banned exactly (it also banned some semi-auto pistols and shot guns) based on particular features like folding stocks, bayonet mounts, grenade launchers, etc.

I dont, and I dont like it. Loathe it to be exact.

__________________
My Favorite Films

This has been debunked so many times, I am surprised it still comes up. This stance shows a complete misunderstanding of how our military functions, as well as a complete misunderstanding of the type of people that are in our military. The military is sworn to protect and defend The Constitution of the USA, not a tyrannical government if one happens to take over. Our own military isn't going to launch missiles on our own cities. Now that is crazy talk.

Try to understand that the military, which is comprised of (mostly right leaning, AKA against big government) citizens that are just people, just Americans. Once you are done with basic training, the military is just like a job. It is not the gestapo. They are not radical loyalists to a tyrannical government. I have personally asked many, many people I know, in all branches of the military, what would happen if the proverbial **** hit that fan, and every single one of these people has stated that they would not only turn their own weapons on the tyrants, but they would actively arm the citizenry against the oppressive power.

Let's look at a real-world example that actually happened: The Ceausescu revolution in Romania. During this conflict, there was a loyalist secret police force, called The Securitate, as well as the military. In the early stages, the military were at first helping the tyrant, but very soon after, changed sides to help the citizens, and after a few days, opened their weapons stores to the oppressed citizenry and began arming them. This was a communist army in a communist occupied country that turned on the state after they were asked to attack their own citizens.

The US military is sworn to defend freedom and the US Constitution. They are not secret police, and they most certainly aren't communists.

I will end this post with a couple of quotes from some military friends and family:

Patrick Wood (Sergeant, US Army): "If anything ever goes does down, you know where I live, and I have a rifle ready for you."

Chris Errington (Airborne, US Army): I am a constitutional defender, first and foremost. I defend my family first and freedom second. I do not compromise in that regard.

I dunno, maybe these guys are outliers, but I doubt it.

No I fully agree that the vast majority of sane military members would never go full SS on US citizens which is kind of the point of I dont understand why people have this paranoid worry that we need to stock up weaponry to fight the government when it inevitably turns on us. My description was simply an exploration of our chances if that scenario were to actually happen in theory.

I can see that angle. And just for the record, I am not getting my gun license to go full Rambo on the government, but more so for going to the range etc. My wife really enjoys it, as well.

And just remember, when thinking about this stuff, always try to keep in mind The 7 Never-to-be-Forgotten Principles of Government:

Here