Stance on gun control
 

It's never occurred to me to ask my fellow "co-workers" here about what their opinions are. We're all from different backgrounds from mostly in North America I think and all we do is essentially cataloging guns in media but...I've never asked anyone about their opinions on gun control and the current climate going on.

I'm forty-eight years old and I have been shooting since I was twelve. All of my adult life I've either been a soldier or a police officer. I am also married and a father (boy and girl - both now young adults). I collect vintage handguns and I'm a Lifetime member with the NRA. I have no solutions and I understand and acknowledge some of the concerns and arguments from the other side. I'm well aware of the carnage that has been caused over the past few years by individuals equipped with high capacity semi-automatic rifles. I also have first hand experience with the carnage that can be caused by a firearm. However banning and prohibiting firearms wouldn't work in the United States if for no other reason then there are too many guns and millions of gun-owners and case law that supports gun ownership (both directly and indirectly) and now the 2nd Amendment has been "incorporated" so that's a whole other can of worms.

I don't like gun control, but at the same time I have dealt directly with people who are dangerous, unbalanced and definitely should not be in possession of a firearm - ever. But banning firearms and going after private citizens will require some serious gerrymandering with the constitution and could lead to some serious blowback. Not all gun owners fit the stereotype of the big-belly blowhard who drinks too much beer and has a backbone of mush. Both sides tend to be intractable and often seem more focused on screaming at each other rather than trying to discuss the issue. But I was more willing to be flexible until 1994 and Clinton's Crime Bill. Suddenly with that thing passing the anti's just wanted more and more and I dug my heels in - hard. I've become more moderate in the past few years, but it comes with conditions. So does this help?

I consider mandatory trigger locks, background checks, and closing loopholes that circumvent such checks in any way to be reasonable. I also don't think civilians not affiliated with law enforcement or government agencies need "machine guns" as the AFT calls them or destructive devices such as grenade launchers. Beyond that, I consider everything else like magazine capacity limits, barrel length, and feature bans to be frivolous because they don't really actually prevent any crime from being committed.

The "gunshow loophole" is a ludicrous term, because I don't know about you guys, I've never bought a gun at a gun show or even online without passing a background check first. They should call it the Craigslist loophole, and I have no idea how they would intend to enforce such a thing.

Same here. Now ,on the other hand, I have purchased several firearms through estate auctions and background investigations are not required. The auction company is merely acting as an agent in the sale of property. Legally it is considered to be a sale between two private citizens and ,so far, the Federal government is not messing with that. The only time that I have had to fill out the federal paperwork was when a longtime pawnshop went out of business in my hometown and I won the bid on my Webley. Since the pawnshop had an FFL the business was following Federal requirements. The last two handguns I've purchased have been at estate auctions. I don't see estate auctions being viewed as an "easy" way for badguys to obtain guns. The bidding can get pretty intense and the auction company has you provide information before you can get a number - which you need to enter into a bidding. I'm a collector and I can tell you that a typical lowlife will get steamrolled if they think they can obtain that Colt Python or even an Astra .357 magnum for just a few hundred bucks.

I'm 29. Have spent the last 12 years in uniform of some sort for my country. Have a bunch of pretty ribbons, too.

And I think the BATFE is a bunch of corrupt jack booted thugs and should be disbanded yesterday.

I actually support the NFA '34, and would happily write a check to the IRS for a tax stamp, but don't think the BATFE should be involved.

The Hughes Amendment to the FOPA '86 is un-Constitutional and a threat to National Security.

I think that if I sell a rifle to Joe down the street the Government shouldn't give a damn.

However, making FFLs run background checks before new guns are sold is reasonable. However, I would do away with the paperwork. Too much potential for abuse.

I don't think safe storage and mandatory trigger lock laws are a joke; but, if Ruger wants to give me a trigger lock with every gun I purchase, cool beans.

^ This I'm with in a nutshell, more-or-less.

That said, I have have a lengthy post that draws from many discussions I've had over the last few years. It'll be an amalgamation of a few types of posts Ive made elsewhere. Total TL;DR territory here, so forewarned and all that.

I will start by saying that as JCordell has loosed his heels over time, I've actually dug mine in more in recent years. Part of it is me being a young man but much of it is because I see where a lot of the discussion and sentiment is heading and it doesn't bode well for gun owners. Since the Crime Bill it's clear the 'other side' believes bans and infringement will work and will take an mile for every inch they are given to make it happen. What's more is they've quite successfully placed a negative stigma on gun-inclined folks. As said, not all or even most gun owners are beer-bellied rednecks. Unfortunately perception these days has many thinking otherwise, and perception is really the name of this type of game. Just as perception tells us the majority of police are racist thugs looking to gun down poor unarmed blacks every single chance they get, which I know isn't the case and I'm honestly not really a pro-police fellow myself.

Most times I've tried to speak about 'gun control' and my anxieties about it and wanting to own firearms, instead of understanding or even acknowledgement I instead get called a paranoid pussy and so on. The few times I talk about 'reasonable control' steps that don't involve wholesale bans on entire types and categories of firearms I've been shot down less on the merits of my points and more with ad hominems. Too many on the opposition focus too often on the perceived worst angles ('gun show loophole') which rarely apply to most cases and issues of gun violence, as well as things like firearm aesthetics and function that really have no relevance. Such focus in my estimation really only serves to further demonize guns and those inclined to them, rather than work out any of the issues at hand. Why? Simple, because it's simple and easy to do that, while actually tackling the myriad issues at hand here is difficult. Very difficult.

Gun ownership and possession has been climbing for years, while violent crime has been declining. The other side likes throwing out such outrageous figures like '32,000 people die every year from guns', forgetting to note most of those deaths are from suicide, and most of the wrongful (non-justified) deaths are done by gangs and criminals, and not nuts who shoot up places with ARs. But such details don't aid their narrative.

The 'loophole' point is one that is all but totally baseless. Saying that gun shows and Internet sales are responsible for gun violence is like saying that bartenders are responsible for underage drinking. Most underage drinking is done by kids who either steal the alcohol or have someone of age buy it for them. However no one in the opposing argument will even admit this when it comes to gun violence.

Mainly the thing is too many people, especially on the 'other' side, ignore the myriad social/socioeconomic issues that are at the root of most of these incidents and keep talking about guns, despite the fact killing, even mass-murder has been around far longer than firearms. Again, that's easy. They don't want to take the more difficult route and propose any real solutions to the factors that lead people to violence. (To be fair, many on 'our' side don't want to, either). We have a supposed WAR on drugs, they are 'illegal' - yet more people die of overdose every year than are killed by guns, that's not even considering indirect deaths caused by 'illegal' drug use (Prohibition worked so well back in its day..). We as a society need to stop scapegoating "things" for causing attitudes and actions.

And whenever anyone makes the point that guns make it easier to kill people, can't help but scoff - Just go back to what Timothy McVeigh did, and explain to me how difficult it is to fill a vehicle with commonly used products that are much easier to get than a gun - within seconds over 160 people including over 20 children were dead. Bottom line again is that where there is an evil will, there will be an evil way, we need to reduce the evil will instead of focusing on the way.

Finally, as I have said elsewhere, bearing arms is a right - And at certain level a right just isn't meant to be sensible or reasonable. And making it so lessens its inherent power which will spread to other rights. JCordell again noted this quite well. Now does this mean I think any Joe or Jane Citizen should be able to go into a shop and walk out with a Minimi no questions asked? No. Ignoring the fact that didn't/doesn't really happen anyway, most controls and regs we have in place are quite adequate, if anything we have some that are more irksome and infringing than they are helpful and could be done away with. Locks I don't think are any solution but wouldn't mind them if they had to be implemented, that's not something that can be misapplied and abused so much. Enhanced checks might actually have an effect, but even then I'm skeptical and that can be abused. Though I admit much of it's a mental health issue, I'm wary of putting much focus on that, it leads to a slippery slope - Which the anti side would love to exploit. And frankly that's real problem I have - Those on the 'anti' side will exploit what they can to diminish if not nullify the 2nd Amendment. They want and demand more than locks and checks, they are willing to sacrifice liberty for security (which is really only perception of security, but as I said that's the game), and have convinced many others that's ok - I just can't abide that, and don't.

In closing, basically I'm not hip on 'gun control' for the most part, and I stand firm on that. I freely admit some people shouldn't be allowed guns, ever, but the overwhelming majority of 'gun control' proposals I've seen don't really effect anything to that end. Locks? Eh. Mag limits? Inane. Bans on semiautomatic rifles? Absurd. Now there are some things I could deal - Deeper checks and even training prerequisites I would be fine with, among maybe some other things. I would deal even more If I didn't feel they would be abused and exploited to the point of infringement by the powers that be, simple as that. I hate being so obstinate and distrustful here but I didn't get this way in a vacuum. For all my yakkin' I really don't have many solutions or suggestions, at least not some that would be liked or abided by most. I wish I did, though.

It's good to know where some of you stand.

At least the most extreme so far is one of you thinking we lowly civilians shouldn't have "machine guns" or believe that there is such a thing as the gun show loophole.

I personally don't support a lot of gun control laws, including importation bans other than the scandal with Norinco in the 90s that lead to the ban on their guns.

A person in law enforcement or military is the same type of people who are just plain civilians. We should not be denied the right to have most weapons that the military has, which only limits us to cost since the average person can't really afford an Abrams or a Destroyer. I fine most limits such as short barrel weapons to be pointless and pretty much most laws to be an infringement of our rights. I believe it is our duty as good people to protect each other and not just simply hand over our freedoms for the sake of "safety"

Any form of gun control is an infringement on the 2nd. I should be able to go buy a factory new Norinco Type 56 from my LGS or even through the mail, full auto and all, with no extra hassle



Feinstein for jail, 2k16

Gonna stir the pot a little here, just keep in mind I'm coming at this from a non-American perspective. I'm 30, I've been in the Canadian army reserve for 10 years (including a tour to Afghanistan), I ran the gun counter at a Cabelas for 5 years, I'm now an investigator for an insurance company (which incidentally involves a lot more contact with organised crime than you'd think). I've been a shooter and gun collector since I was a young teenager and I'd wager that I own more guns than anyone here except the armorers.

I find the older I get, and the more time I spend around "gun people", the more moderate I get. Working 5 years at the gun counter did a lot to open my eyes about how many idiots and yahoos out there own guns, and 9 months in Kandahar showed me what a society that has NO gun control really looks like.

Is there any reason an intelligent, responsible gun owner shouldn't be able to own whatever they want? Not really, no. But the reality is there's no real legal way to distinguish the responsible people for the irresponsible ones - just because you've never been convicted of a criminal offense does not mean you're responsible enough to own a machine gun.

There are plenty of things I don't like about our gun laws, but I'm actually very in favor of licensing firearms owners. Guns aren't the problem, the people who have them can be. I know that it would never fly in the States, but the fact that in Canada you need to have a license to buy or possess a firearm or ammunition is, I think, the main reason we don't have nearly the same problem with mass shootings as you do. If you're unable to pass a 6 hour safety course and unwilling to fill out a background check form, I don't want you to have a gun.

We used to have registration of long guns, which I think was a waste of time and money. It never really bothered me on a personal level, it took 5 minutes on the RCMP website to register a rifle, but I'm glad we got rid of it as a cost-saving measure. We still register handguns, which I'm still pretty indifferent to - it's not that much of a hassle on me personally and the rate of handgun ownership here is low enough that I doubt it costs much.

We don't have handgun carry in Canada, which frankly doesn't bother me. I've carried a gun enough that it doesn't hold much excitement for me anymore. I've spent all of my life living and working downtown in one of our most violent cities and never felt the need for a gun on my person, and sold plenty of guns to people I've very glad AREN'T able to carry one on my bus to work.

I don't like that we can't own .25s, .32s or short barreled handguns, I think that's foolish and arbitrary. I don't like that I can only shoot handguns on a range (or some tactical rifles if I actually owned any), I think it's way safer to be shooting 9mm in the bush than .30-06. Our laws relating to tactical rifles in general are also arbitrary and convoluted to the point of being unenforceable. I'm glad we don't have your destructive devices law - I own a 14.5mm anti-tank rifle that qualifies as such in the States and I think it's the last gun in my collection a criminal would want. We can ship guns across the country without involving a dealer, I never understood the point behind that one.

But mostly I don't like the loud and aggressive gun culture that's becoming more and more prominent here and from what I can see in the States. Guns are my hobby, you might even say my passion, but they're not my identity. I don't like that more and more being a gun owner seems to come packaged with a whole set of unrelated conservative social and political viewpoints. I think the loud "no compromise", "from my cold dead hands" rhetoric is completely unproductive and mostly just scares people who might not care about gun control into thinking we're all a bunch of irrational aggressive rednecks who probably shouldn't have guns.

No offense to Canadian gun owners, but there is a distinction between the "gun culture" of America compared to Canada. I don't believe the mentalities are the same on a fundamental level. With the US, its very founding was partly over the problems of government oversight without representation, and even involving confiscation of arms from the people. A permanent point on the Constitution was made solely for this situation. It's designed to be very clear cut.

To a lot of people, having guns is mostly a hobby, but people tend to forget that your right to own guns is guaranteed by the Constitution and shouldn't be taken for granted. The protection of our rights has to be loud and aggressive because the opposition are just as loud and aggressive in how they want to paint guns being evil things and think that somehow they can just be wished away with fairy dust. The people who seek more strict gun controls don't know guns, don't own guns, nor do they want to understand guns. They just see "Oh that looks scary", let's ban it.


Also to compare western countries like the US and Canada to the Stan and Iraq is like comparing the Ming Dynasty to the Zulu. We're talking about completely different environments, cultures, history and people with almost nothing alike. We're talking about a people that's still heavily influenced by their ass backwards religion that it goes deep into any form of government.

The middle east has mostly been a shit hole for a long time. Sure, spots of civilization and great culture has popped up in the ancient past, but other than the Persian Empire and the following golden age that has brought things like coffee and the number ZERO, the middle east never been a place of evolving moral standards and civilization.

It's not gun control that solves the crime problems of America. If it does work, LA, Chicago and New York City would be some of the safest cities in America, but they are not. Just this passed week, over 50 people were killed as a result of crime in Chicago and that city has some of the strictest gun laws in America.

The problem that I have with the 2nd amendment, is that it is really not very clear cut at all. In fact, to me at least, it is very ambiguous to whom the right is being bestowed. To me the wording "a well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" would seem that the right to bear arms is only protected if you are part of a regulated Militia. This was also the opinion of the US Supreme Court until 2008 when they ruled that it also applied to individuals (in a split 5-4 decision).

Having said this I am against any additional forms of gun control in the US. This isn't because I think gun control is in and of itself a bad thing, but it just wouldn't work due to the history/culture of the USA and the huge amount of firearms that are already in circulation.

Most of the people of the period went into great details on what the 2A actually meant and all of them say it's the people's rights to protect themselves, be it from anyone who wish you harm or a government that wishes to oppress you.

The 2A is in 2 parts. The first is establishment of a militia which is different from an actual state controlled military and it needs to be regulated to protect a free state. The second part specifically mentions people, their right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

To keep, meaning to have - to own, possess.
To bear, meaning to carry around, open or otherwise.


I think that is the point established that whoever is the people is, they have the right to keep and bear arms.

That seems pretty clear to me.


What I think should be set into law is harsh consequences for being irresponsible.

I just don't think full auto firearms serve any practical purpose to the average civilian. Nothing to do with being "lowly" or not.

Practical or not shouldn't factor into the equation when discussing Constitutional rights.

Is there any room for common sense though? You can make the argument that machine guns cost a lot of money so legal ones are not used for crimes, but this is only because they are in very limited supply due to the NFA. With a universal lack of any gun control, there would be companies making POS machine pistols for $300 which would definitely do more harm than good.

The problem is when you start on that path of so called "common sense", it's a slippery slope that goes deeper.

During the time when the 2A was written, the founding fathers were well aware of advancing tech of the era. Repeating guns were an idea and the concept of a gun that can shoot faster than one shot at a time was the dream of all gun makers and soldiers of the time. Now, could they have actually thought of machine guns and planes? Perhaps not, but I believe they'd understand how it does not effect what the average free American can have. Remember, the British wanted to confiscate all firearms from the colonists and ban use and it didn't matter what type of gun. All guns.


The fact that there's many cases outside the US where heavily restricted gun control have given birth to small illegal shops all over the place making easy to make machine guns. One case was in Australia. Brazil is another and the Philippines.

You need to understand what kind of people live in America. If anything, the more restrictions we kept passing in America, the larger coverage of deaths with guns seemed to take place following.


And about machine guns in civilian hands. You know how many retired military people are in the US? I think most of them are perfectly trained to handle select fire weapons and again, this goes back to the Right to Bear Arms applies to all arms.

What we should focus at with laws is making the penalty for irresponsible actions and crime with firearms harsher.

You cant make the argument though that if one sub-set of the population can be trusted with a type of weapon then it should be available to everybody else. If you make the argument that only those people than the Government deems can be trusted with a weapon can have it, then surely this would go strongly against the universal right to keep and bear arms would it not?

Honestly, I also don't buy the argument that the founding fathers had any idea where firearms technology, society or the world as a whole was going to be 200+ years into the future. A couple of centuries from now we could have practical shoulder fired railguns and plasma rifles that can blast straight through a building, do you think it would be reasonable for anybody to walk into a gun store and buy one of them?

Yes, I believe we should have phasers as well. They still falls under arms. The more we let governments restrict certain things, the more power we give over to them and then what can we have? Or decides it? You? Me? Or people who don't know who don't know us but makes a bunch of assumptions that we can't be trusted with certain things. That's not a good mindset for governing or a free country.

Hell, we have means of destroying buildings and punching holes through walls that ISN'T using a weapon. Enough fertilizer will do that for you.

Hell, the NFA wasn't passed until the 1930s and by that time, we had machine guns, short barrelled weapons, etc for years up to that point on guess what kind of people use them in crime? People who are committing crime.

I already said that the found fathers might not have predicted actual machine gun, but they are aware of the then current advancing tech of their era and constantly promote the idea that citizens should have arms equal to the military in the event of oppression and tyranny because they just fought a war of Independence that proved that very point.

It's not about actual trust because regulations alone means there is no trust to begin with. It's assumption that the people will do wrong and a rule needs to be set down in case. That's not a very honest thing.

These types of laws don't actually work. You like a lot of others don't trust the vast majority of people with their own responsibility and believe ink on paper will prevent them from doing crime.


I might need actual training to use a machine gun, but I sure as hell don't want to pay for a tax stamp and wait a year for additional background checks to get one and then can't take it out of my state without additional paper work and then keep it even more guarded than my other guns. I want a suppressor on my guns to protect my ears, not again, pay 200 dollars for a stupid stamp and wait for someone else to prove I'm a law abiding American citizen.

I am willing to compromise.

Remove SBSs, SBRs, and suppressors form the NFA. Disband the BATFE. The IRS can get my money and the FBI can run a back ground check.

Keep the tax stamp for machine guns but repeal the Hughes Amendment.

The Founding Fathers didn't expect the internet, either. Does the first amendment not cover it?

Maybe it is just my rather dim view on humanity, but I will freely admit that I don't trust most people. I also do not think that gun control will necessarily prevent people from intending to commit crime, but if it is possible to limit the scope or severity of a crime then I think it is something that is worth looking at.

Another big difference in our opinions is that I think it is totally reasonable that police and military forces are allowed to use weapons that civilians do not have access to. I am a British firearms officer, and in order for me to carry and use the weapons that I do I was vetted, trained, tested, and am held constantly accountable for my actions. This is not the case with the man on the street. From a more selfish point of view, I do a job that on occasion puts me in harms way, and am happier in the knowledge that 99.99% of the time I am better armed and equipped than the other guy.

Ah. There lies the root cause of differing views my good friend.

As an American I want the Federal/State/Local cops to be wary that I may be as well, if not better armed than them. They protect and serve me, not the other way around.

That last part has always been used in reverse to defend why we should have all the cool toys.

Not just the Hughes Amendment, but the 86 ban and the Gun Control Act as well. Also lift importation bans on foreign made rifles. I want me a G36 and if I need a stamp for it, let me not wait a whole year for it. Just do another complete background check. To make the scared people happy, just have me do a double background check. There is literally no point in the months and months of wait process.


Also, from the cops I know and the guys who are former cops, the training level and general mentalities of guns for the average LEO is abysmal. Lack of practice and training and good mindset has lead to more accidents in law enforcement than with civilians...and we're supposed to trust our lives to these people.

Please keep in mind that all of our civil liberties come with restrictions, many in the name of public safety. You can't falsely yell fire in a crowded theater in the name of freedom of speech, you can't have more than one wife in the freedom of religion, and exigent circumstances overrides your fourth amendment rights.

And let's not forget that many of the current restrictions on machine guns were put in place by that commie gungrabber Ronald Reagan.

Being able to marry more than one spouse actually is one of those specifically laws that isn't tied to freedom of religion. It's just a law based on a mostly Christian country. I mean, gay marriage was recently passed, and that's pretty much against Christianity.

The 4th Amendment protects from unwarranted searches. Probable cause needs to happen before the search is legal and any evidence found can hold up in court, otherwise, they can be thrown out. The 4th protects you from just having being searched without cause and that's all.

The yelling fire is only not protected by the 1st amendment if it is a false claim. You can't just yell fire and expect to be protected. That's why the consequences for being irresponsible with your rights is the point, not restricting your rights to begin with. It makes penalties for abusing them that affects things.

You can have your grenade launchers, but the moment you use it not in a justified action, then harsh punishment for endangerment/injuries/death is on your.

Criminals will break the law, but fewer will dare to do it if it becomes a felony and it is made impossible to be thrown out in court, or charges dropped easily for deals. It's already illegal to commit cold blooded murder, but what needs to happen if life-death penalties for committing them, not slaps on the wrists.

Just recently a politician brought a gun on school grounds, got arrested, and then got probation only...for a crime that would have taken away his rights and his guns. He got a slap on a wrist for breaking the law.

I see where Nyles is coming from and even agree to a point, but again, that heel-digging attitude didn't come out of nowhere. While I agree that I too don't like the stigma being placed there as he mentions, keep in mind just where it's being applied from.

I find it rather hypocritical and disingenuous that many on the 'pro-gun' side (which I'll admit are mainly right-leaning) are being demanded to be so accepting in other social and civil issues from the 'other' (left-leaning) side while also being demanded to allow the further chipping away at rights and privileges they care about. Again, our attitude didn't come in a vacuum. Liberty is a door that swings both ways. I've no problem with individual freedoms - I want gays to be married if they want, people to worship as they please (or not), and so on - Yet I can't enjoy my firearms rights as-is (when things are already quite irksome in spots)? Bah.

Bans and many other gun control proposals reek of the same flawed, if not absurd mentality used in applying the War on Drugs. And we know how well that's gone. The Drug War just doesn't fuckin' work in its intended purpose and has lead to a whole culture of abuse and shitting on the citizenry. Much more serious 'gun control' will lead down the same path, all in the same or similar canned excuses of 'common sense', 'public safety', and so on.

Meh, I think I'm repeating myself and as I've said my piece and stand by it I will only repeat that I would consider some stronger measures IF I didn't feel they would be abused by those Excalibur speaks of that wish to ban away anything they find objectionable. It's not like I'm unwilling to accept some restrictions, as indeed there are some limitations on other rights. But for the most part, I believe what is present is plenty enough - short of things like some mandatory training/familiarization I'm really just reluctant to accept them. c552, I share that same distrust, in fact even moreso than you do. But things like bans ignore if not disavow the very concept of trust, automatically assuming it can't be attained. Like Ex I agree that's just a crummy mentality to go with.

For the record, I personally interpret the 2A similarly to Excalibur. I also agree with him that the bigger thing is that more uniform and harsher penalties should be applied to those that break firearms regs and laws. I've read only a small percentage of failed background checks on sales are even prosecuted, which is absurd given we have two if not three whole federal law enforcement agencies that can be involved in that, one supposedly dedicated to that specifically. Granted checks can fail for ridiculous reasons, again, I'm hesitant to trust to gov't there as well. Nonetheless, when serious laws are broken, that's indeed not something that should warrant a mere wrist-slapping. Firearms laws are serious. Or at least they should be.

I agree having the right means having the responsibility - And while I concede that is partly on the user and requires due diligence on their part (again, why I've little problem with checks and training) that has to include backing it up with stiff penalties and the willingness to use them on those that willfully shirk that responsibility.

Eh, just adding a scant bit to some already good and fair thoughts. As I said, I've no real solutions. All I really have is a lot of worry about my rights (not just 2A) being pissed on from other people's misplaced outrage and overbearing sensibilities.

With all the regs now and with the recent ATF shit about a specific ingredient in Smokeless Powder...it's only going to get worse.


I would like baby steps to taking down a lot of the laws like most NFA items. SBRs, SBSs, suppressors first. Import restrictions can also be a part of the 2A. Preventing arms from reaching civilians is part of infringement, but of course the ban of weapons trade with China is partly because the CCP is an asshole regime. I wouldn't give them 1 cent no matter how I want to shoot their QBZ rifles

We will never get rid of NFA. Part of me wants to see it changed (repeal Hughes, remove silencers, SBRs, SBS and AOWs) but I know once they get in there that they will bump the price of a tax stamp.

Unfortunately, I think if a certain administration takes power, they will try to add semi-autos to the NFA as well.

I know that this topic has been dead for over 6 years, but in light of recent developments in both the U.S. and Canada (i.e., handgun sales freeze/ban), I found myself reflecting again on this old post that Nyles wrote:

Not sure if Nyles is still active, but curious to hear his thoughts in 2022, since 2016 was almost another era ago at this point.

(For the record: I also agree with about 80% of what Nyles wrote in this post, though I never weighed in at the time.)

I found myself nodding a lot. Getting older does moderate your views, and now sending kids into schools with lockdown drills sticks in the back in my mind.

I'm also curious, what violent Canadian city is he referring to?

At 37, I don't have kids yet, but that's next on the agenda for me. (I just got engaged - again - last year.) I'm curious to see how parenthood will shape me. Certainly, I expect that it means I'll take gun storage particularly seriously.

I certainly have had my frustrations with many on the pro-RKBA right for many years now, but that's not a new thing (even 20 years ago, I had my annoyances with them, some of which I've expressed on this forum). For almost my entire life, my politics have never been a perfect fit for the community.

I also think Stan raised another good point in 2016: Some of the "gun culture" attitudes in this country do have roots in a siege mindset that comes from treatment by the left. For my part: I do find it disgusting that liberals who will vehemently oppose stereotyping of their favorite "protected classes" (race, gender, sexual orientation, etc.) as the highest evil have precisely zero guilt about doing the same to gun owners.

It was unpopular with some here last time I said this, but I still believe trigger locks of some type, even just the bike chain type that you loop through the action, are a reasonable legal requirement. Are they foolproof? No, no security system of any kind is, but they're not priced out the ass like a multi-gun safe and it at least shows a concerted effort to prevent a firearm from being used if taken by an unauthorized party.

Agree about the siege mentality. Plus, the whole "my way or the highway" attitude that both sides have these days is going to get them nowhere fast, regardless of the agenda.

In the past few months in my city, we've had two road rage incidents in which two sixty something white guys with big guts, mountain man beards and even bigger tempers have opened fire on cars next to them. Fortunately, they didn't kill or hurt the other occupants. We found them in a relatively short time, and they surrendered peacefully. Both are now in jail (or out on bond) and awaiting their day in court. Why did they do this? Because the cars had California plates on them, and our two heroes don't like the large number of Californians moving into Idaho. The occupants of the two victim vehicles were not armed and one of the cars was a rental with California plates. The driver of the rental was a native of Idaho for crying out loud!

Christmas morning, we had two guys get in an argument at a party and one shot the other one in the chest. The victim died from his injury about a week later.

We've had numerous incidents lately in which folks are waving around their legally owned and carried guns at bars, restaurants, sporting events and other social occasions. Usually when they are drunk or high and in a bad mood.

There have been many other occasions in which piss poor judgement and firearms have come together. It's only been the grace of God that I haven't had to shoot anyone. Eighteen months to my retirement. I'm crossing my fingers.

There are some folks who just shouldn't be gun owners. There was a time I wouldn't have said that, but time, age and 22 years as a police officer can change one's beliefs - or at least modify them.

No, I am not in favor of gun banning etc. But there are some who should not own or have access to firearms.

Sadly I think incidents like that, for just as petty or even pettier reasons, are going to rise before they go decrease and it's going to turn out badly for gun owners who don't seek to use their 2A rights to intimidate political and social opposites. I can only hope I live long enough to see some semblance of sanity reestablished within both sides. I'm not optimistic. :(

Therein lies the frustration for reasonable guys like us: Many of us don't terribly like what we see from many on "our side" (i.e., the American right). I also think that many of us are perfectly willing to discuss gun control measures which fall short of banning anything. Unfortunately, for the extreme left, banning AR-15s is more of a reprisal against those on the right that they blame overturning Roe vs. Wade (side note: I'm personally not a pro-life zealot) than it is about public safety.

To Nyles' point from 2016: Gun ownership should not be a person's identity, but given the times that we live in, it's hard not to think of gun ownership as a lifestyle choice. When you own guns, you have to be careful about where you live and what you do at all times. So whether or not we like it, guns are often a pretty big part of our identity by virtue of the risks and life changes that come with ownership. Not everyone takes the responsibility seriously, but for those of us that do, we also feel a sense of siege when anyone tries to illegalize ownership.

Toronto? Seems as though I hear about shootings there all the time. When I was there in 2018, a rapper who is associated with Drake was shot outside of a club (only a few blocks from the AirBnB where my ex and I were staying!)

Googling indicates that Kelowna in B.C. is currently the most violent city in Canada (for 2022).

Every gun law is a stepping stone to further gun laws, with the ultimate goal of complete civilian disarmament. No matter how good intentioned such laws may be, history has shown that once they get rolling the push for further restriction doesn't stop. For everyone one of these incidents on the news (highlighted specifically to turn public opinion against gun rights) of Billy Bob shooting Cletus in a road rage incident, there are thousands of (intentionally) unreported defensive gun uses

I know I know. You make a good point as well.

Understood. I prefer to make a distinction between what I support in theory (i.e., I don't think any and all gun control laws are inherently bad and/or unconstitutional) vs. what I am willing to support given our current meta (i.e., I recognize that in our hyper-polarized society, almost any gun control laws are likely to become a slippery slope to outright bans).

One point that I think needs to be considered and discussed more often by the absolutists on our side: If we say any and all gun control laws are unconstitutional, and oppose them only on that basis, it's only a matter of time before a "Repeal the 2nd Amendment" movement gains steam. There are already a growing number of folks on the left calling for such a repeal now than there were 20 years ago, or even 10 years ago. That is partially a result of the left in this country becoming more radical in general, but it's also a result of many on the right becoming more radical and "in your face" about gun ownership than before.

You are right. And with that then how long before there is a move to repeal other amendments which are just getting in the way of doing things. Maybe not the 1st but the 4th or 5th amendments are a pain in the neck aren't they. I suppose we could repeal the 3rd and nobody would care - until the military started quartering troops on your property because of housing shortages or budget issues.

No easy answers are there.