... down and disarm.

even that's a tough challenge in this environment.

There would be a test. Skipping class today.

It's can be yes for most and no for some. I won't play your getcha game.

I believe however the focus is misdirected. There is too much attention paid towards the low support but big headline items such as bans. It wastes too much political capital for too little return.

I believe we should start with the low hanging fruit that has broad support such as universal background checks and red flag laws. They will also likely have a greater effect on reducing gun violence than the more controversial items. Get those past then look at additional measures.

Now a counter question. Do you support the position of the Gun Control Reform Activism group? It has been stated in some form in every election since 2014 such as this from 2016-

Did you really think I wouldn't check on that "endorsed two Republicans for Senate"?

Yes, for some reason, she apparently did, but that isn't the whole story is it? I stopped checking as soon as I found out one of the Republicans was the shopworn Mr. Kirk who was running against Tammy Duckworth. You know Tammy---has an "F" grade from the NRA and says she is "proud of it".

Why in the world anyone would choose Kirk over Duckworth is beyond me.

So, no, absolutely not. I do not support the stated "position" of the group. Neither do many of the posters on the RKBA forum, but for different reasons.

Why anyone on this board would support a Republican over Senator Duckworth. Gifford's group is single issue and of course may do as they please but that endorsement did leave me scratching my head.

Yet I do find it odd that this group is the one who is called NRA apologists and called out in purity tests while our zealously anti-gun group has repeatedly told us it is "worth it" to vote for Republicans. They go unchallenged in this position despite DU's TOS. I wonder if it is felt the McConnell led senate was worth it, as a stepping stone.

By comparison I have never seen a DU "gun humper" promote voting for a Republican over any pro-guncontrol Democrat.

As a responsible gun owner, I resent the NRA and how they have become since the 60s. We need the CDC to monitor gun violence, we need a national registry, we don't need high capacity magazines. I have no respect for any hunter who uses a semiautomatic - they are lousy shots if they have to use a lead pump.

Last edited Sun May 2, 2021, 06:57 AM - Edit history (1)

A lever action can put rounds down range almost as quickly if one is so inclined. Granted, the semiauto can be reloaded considerably faster...but given that the vast majority of hunters usually fire only one or two shots when hunting a big game animal, what's unsporting about the semiauto?

I can imagine similar conversations taking place in 1910 ("No hunter needs a scope! That's just cheating!) and 1885 (No hunter needs a repeater! They're just lead pumps!)

Like it or not, the AR-15 is one of the most popular hunting rifles in America, and will be only more so for the next few decades.

I'll be going hog hunting with my friends later this year. I plan on using a Bushmaster AR-15 chambered in 6.8mm SPC. On the other hand, I could take my M1A SOCOM in .308. I could also go really old-school and use a Swedish Model 96 Mauser in 6.5 Swedish which is 114 years old and shoots like a dream. It's been sporterized (something I normally can't stand) but someone did a really nice job on it, cutting it down to 17" with a Mannlicher-style stock. I bought it at a gun show for only $200 around ten years ago, and it came with a Leupold scope!
'
Decisons, decisions....

...not avoided.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/10028123984#post28

Why are so many people automatically adding an apostrophe to names and words that end with an "s"? It's annoying. No apostrophe in Giffords.

Don't you agree?

If, however they are mere opinionating for the purpose of showing superiority in knowledge not so much. That crosses the line from adding to the conversation and simple pontificating or in this case 'gunsplaining' by throwing in useless 'facts' for self aggrandizement.

My opinion YMMV.

...some educational commentary seems quite "germane" to the observer.

And since we're about that, the Second Amendment has nothing to do with hunting.

...about firearms OR hunting....

The Garand is a 1942 Winnie and the flinter is a 50cal longrifle. BOTH were considered military rifles in there times.

Out, for now. Need one to complete the quadfecta.

I count 8 individual points noted in the text to which you linked. I can support some of them and I will detail below which and why or why not. I apologize for the likely long winded reply to follow and thank you in advance for your attention and consideration but mostly thanks for starting this discussion.

PLCAA:

My short answer- I am in favor of the concept expressed in the law but having the existing fragmented case law upon which it is based codified as legislation I feel is unnecessary. I am in favor of mom and pop enterprises in any area of business competing with chains and franchises. That includes gun shops. I do believe that small businesses have been defendants in lawsuits simply because they were parties in the chain of custody of a gun between its manufacture and an accidental or deliberate injury involving the gun and not because they actually failed in due diligence or acted criminally.

I agree. Even the Heller decision clarified that the RKBA is subject to reasonable regulation.

I am, in general, against a new AWB. I have read no convincing description relating any functional combination of attributes that make an AR-15 type rifle (or others) banworthy. Feel free to plaintify your reasons in support.

Federal law has never required and has prohibited private firearm owners from accessing the FBI's National Instant Criminal Background Check System. Private sales, by federal law, require no NICS BGC. I favor making a BGC available to any private seller via local law enforcement financed by federal grants.

I agree that every gun should be manufactured and sold with a safety lock making it inoperable.

AFAIK an ID is required for proof of residence for all sales from federal firearm licensees. An NICS report listing to proceed with the sale is also required. The safety test or course completion should be at the state's option and their enforcement.

passed by congress would take.

Sorry that I didn't notice what forum this was when I posted. There are always various viable options with their own tradeoffs of costs and benefits, and this group knows them a lot better than I do. Fwiw, in today's environment I don't worry that we could "go too far" by any reasonable standard. What we do manage to battle past the Republicans, however flawed, will at least part of what a very large majority of Americans want.

More important issues to worry about. Besides we all know it is a bone for a particular Dem constituency that has no chance of passing.

It is simply not the business of anyone as to who I make love to, what substances I put in my body, what kind of art I create or consume or what I have in my house or on my person for defense of life, liberty, and property.

As with drugs and motor vehicles, if anyone else on the planet has it, or has ever had it, I want the ability to have it too if I desire.

The *only* thing related to gun grabbing that I will support is that there are some crazy people who shouldn't have them; pretty much the same people who shouldn't drive, vote, or breed.

Other than that, I care not in the least who has what, where, or why until they *ACT* in such a manner as to deprive another person of life, liberty, or property.

Obviously, I am going to vote blue, no matter who; but I'll disarm once the last GQP asshole does, not before.

anyone" what firearms you choose to possess, but somehow it is your "business" who gets to vote or "breed".

You don't look for a parachute after you've bailed out; you don't put on a condom after she's pregnant; and, we shouldn't wait until someone has shot up a Walmart or a first grade classroom before we decide they should not be allowed to buy a firearm.

I could not possibly care less.

I hope the Supreme Court throws out the 1934 and 1968 gun control acts and finds an absolute right for any citizen to own or carry anything anywhere except for the private property of those who forbid it.

As with speech or drugs, the fact that someone else may misuse something has not, nor will it have the slightest bearing on the prohibitions or restrictions I will support.

I vote blue.

I strongly doubt you have the slightest clue as to what an anarchist is, but I don't expect much of gun haters.

As I said, the sadder you get, the happier I will be. Gun control is inherently racist and fascist.

I vote for the Democrat in the race, if that helps your reading comprehension any.

Since you're on the losing end of history as well as logic please assume away. Anyone who can't understand what "Shall not be infringed" means is unlikely to understand any other phrase in English.

I do really wish to read of your weeping, wailing, and gnashing of teeth and cries for court-packing when SCOTUS throws out pretty much all gun-grabbing laws. I shall really relish the pain of the people who think it their business what I carry , every bit as much as the anguish of any other fascists when their desire for control is quashed.

Let me guess: you also get the sadz when a burglar, robber, rapist, or carjacker is sent to their just reward by an armed citizen, right?

That's not a compliment.

One of the best compliments I've gotten.

For more detail see: https://www.democraticunderground.com/1172210447#post7

of gun-grabbers.

It is not based on any facts, evidence, reality, or logic.

And it is entirely antithetical to Freedom and Liberty.

What is your motive for asking?