(02-16-2018 03:45 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  And they have more guns today than before they passed their law.

Poor statistic. Australia's population has increased 33% in the last 20 years. There were four less guns per 100 people in Australia in 2016 than in 1996 (25% decline).

(02-16-2018 04:01 PM)westsidewolf1989 Wrote:  

(02-16-2018 03:45 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  And they have more guns today than before they passed their law.j

Poor statistic. Australia's population has increased 33% in the last 20 years. There were four less guns per 100 people in Australia in 2016 than in 1996 (25% decline).

Not a poor statistic if the claim is that the law produced a dramatic decrease. But what is more significant is that the trend in actual gun violence is almost exactly the same before and after.

Don't you think for the sake of our children we need to do something? After 9/11 we did something. But every new school shooting makes children more scared of their safety, and do you think children even know what the Bill of Rights is? They think something that happened before they were born is ancient history.

Ban AR-15's from private individuals. Limit weapon purchases or ammunition purchases. Create a master database. Just do something besides prayers and condolences tweets from politicians who a week ago were touting their endorsement from the NRA.

I'd also like to see Federal money earmarked for Defense Spending and Homeland Security used to secure our schools. Last summer, I know the elementary school where my kids attended put in glass doors which limit access for most people to the school during school hours. I assume FBISD paid for this. I'd rather the school districts be using their money on teachers and supplies, and building new facilities, rather than having to use money on security-related measures.

(02-16-2018 04:06 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  Don't you think for the sake of our children we need to do something? After 9/11 we did something. But every new school shooting makes children more scared of their safety, and do you think children even know what the Bill of Rights is? They think something that happened before they were born is ancient history.
Ban AR-15's from private individuals. Limit weapon purchases or ammunition purchases. Create a master database. Just do something besides prayers and condolences tweets from politicians who a week ago were touting their endorsement from the NRA.
I'd also like to see Federal money earmarked for Defense Spending and Homeland Security used to secure our schools. Last summer, I know the elementary school where my kids attended put in glass doors which limit access for most people to the school during school hours. I assume FBISD paid for this. I'd rather the school districts be using their money on teachers and supplies, and building new facilities, rather than having to use money on security-related measures.

I think we absolutely have to do something. And I think people like the NRA do a major disservice by opposing everything. That route will lead ultimately to a hysterical reaction where something really really draconian becomes possible.

I think the focus needs to be on doing things that have proved to work. The “gun control” measures that have focused on guns typically haven’t.

(02-16-2018 04:21 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-16-2018 04:06 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  Don't you think for the sake of our children we need to do something? After 9/11 we did something. But every new school shooting makes children more scared of their safety, and do you think children even know what the Bill of Rights is? They think something that happened before they were born is ancient history.
Ban AR-15's from private individuals. Limit weapon purchases or ammunition purchases. Create a master database. Just do something besides prayers and condolences tweets from politicians who a week ago were touting their endorsement from the NRA.
I'd also like to see Federal money earmarked for Defense Spending and Homeland Security used to secure our schools. Last summer, I know the elementary school where my kids attended put in glass doors which limit access for most people to the school during school hours. I assume FBISD paid for this. I'd rather the school districts be using their money on teachers and supplies, and building new facilities, rather than having to use money on security-related measures.

I think we absolutely have to do something. And I think people like the NRA do a major disservice by opposing everything. That route will lead ultimately to a hysterical reaction where something really really draconian becomes possible.

I think the focus needs to be on doing things that have proved to work. The “gun control” measures that have focused on guns typically haven’t.

So what exactly are other countries doing differently that have proven to work so well? It's not like other places have as intense of an epidemic of people shooting up crowds.

(Part sarcasm, part legitimate question--most discussion of this centers on the correlation between lack of gun deaths and gun control legislation without explicating any causation; I'm curious as to what insights you have.)

I do believe part of it's the media attention provided to the killer in whatever situation (as I mentioned in an earlier post). I also think we'd do well if we had extra hurdles to jump through based on previous offenses (e.g. domestic violence). But I welcome other insights.

(02-16-2018 04:21 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-16-2018 04:06 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  Don't you think for the sake of our children we need to do something? After 9/11 we did something. But every new school shooting makes children more scared of their safety, and do you think children even know what the Bill of Rights is? They think something that happened before they were born is ancient history.
Ban AR-15's from private individuals. Limit weapon purchases or ammunition purchases. Create a master database. Just do something besides prayers and condolences tweets from politicians who a week ago were touting their endorsement from the NRA.
I'd also like to see Federal money earmarked for Defense Spending and Homeland Security used to secure our schools. Last summer, I know the elementary school where my kids attended put in glass doors which limit access for most people to the school during school hours. I assume FBISD paid for this. I'd rather the school districts be using their money on teachers and supplies, and building new facilities, rather than having to use money on security-related measures.

I think we absolutely have to do something. And I think people like the NRA do a major disservice by opposing everything. That route will lead ultimately to a hysterical reaction where something really really draconian becomes possible.

I think the focus needs to be on doing things that have proved to work. The “gun control” measures that have focused on guns typically haven’t.

After the LV shooting, the NRA promised cooperation on bump stocks.

So far, Congress has declined to act.

(02-16-2018 04:06 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  Don't you think for the sake of our children we need to do something? After 9/11 we did something. But every new school shooting makes children more scared of their safety, and do you think children even know what the Bill of Rights is? They think something that happened before they were born is ancient history.

Ban AR-15's from private individuals. Limit weapon purchases or ammunition purchases. Create a master database. Just do something besides prayers and condolences tweets from politicians who a week ago were touting their endorsement from the NRA.

I'd also like to see Federal money earmarked for Defense Spending and Homeland Security used to secure our schools. Last summer, I know the elementary school where my kids attended put in glass doors which limit access for most people to the school during school hours. I assume FBISD paid for this. I'd rather the school districts be using their money on teachers and supplies, and building new facilities, rather than having to use money on security-related measures.

Should we ban all semi-automatics as well? Stupid as **** to call for a ban of AR-15's and not do that as well. They operate exactly in the same manner. But I guess the term AR-15 just sounds 'extra mean'?

For the record, I have a personal interest in this discussion. All 3 of my kids go to a school that had 2 separate threatening incidents since August 2016.

August 17, 2016 - 19-year-old male alum spray-paints "no one belongs here so tear down this (expletive) place down or I'll kill all of you Thursday." That Thursday was scheduled to be the first day of class for my Pre-K, 3rd grade, and 6th grade kids. I didn't see this in any of the news articles, but the head of school told parents in a meeting that there were weapons in his house, though it was unclear at that point whether they were his or his father's (not that it would have mattered if he started shooting people).

March 29, 2017 - 15-year-old male student snapchats a picture to some of his friends of a bunch of guns laid out on his bed with the message "Don't come to school tomorrow."

So I'm willing to listen to any and all suggestions that can prevent my kids from being murdered while at school. You would think "my" congressman, Steve Scalise, who was shot at a congressional softball practice might also be interested in ways to keep my kids safe.

(02-16-2018 05:39 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(02-16-2018 04:06 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  Don't you think for the sake of our children we need to do something? After 9/11 we did something. But every new school shooting makes children more scared of their safety, and do you think children even know what the Bill of Rights is? They think something that happened before they were born is ancient history.

Ban AR-15's from private individuals. Limit weapon purchases or ammunition purchases. Create a master database. Just do something besides prayers and condolences tweets from politicians who a week ago were touting their endorsement from the NRA.

I'd also like to see Federal money earmarked for Defense Spending and Homeland Security used to secure our schools. Last summer, I know the elementary school where my kids attended put in glass doors which limit access for most people to the school during school hours. I assume FBISD paid for this. I'd rather the school districts be using their money on teachers and supplies, and building new facilities, rather than having to use money on security-related measures.

Should we ban all semi-automatics as well? Stupid as **** to call for a ban of AR-15's and not do that as well. They operate exactly in the same manner. But I guess the term AR-15 just sounds 'extra mean'?

The AR-15 is the poster gun for the antigun movement.

(02-16-2018 05:51 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-16-2018 05:39 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(02-16-2018 04:06 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  Don't you think for the sake of our children we need to do something? After 9/11 we did something. But every new school shooting makes children more scared of their safety, and do you think children even know what the Bill of Rights is? They think something that happened before they were born is ancient history.

Ban AR-15's from private individuals. Limit weapon purchases or ammunition purchases. Create a master database. Just do something besides prayers and condolences tweets from politicians who a week ago were touting their endorsement from the NRA.

I'd also like to see Federal money earmarked for Defense Spending and Homeland Security used to secure our schools. Last summer, I know the elementary school where my kids attended put in glass doors which limit access for most people to the school during school hours. I assume FBISD paid for this. I'd rather the school districts be using their money on teachers and supplies, and building new facilities, rather than having to use money on security-related measures.

Should we ban all semi-automatics as well? Stupid as **** to call for a ban of AR-15's and not do that as well. They operate exactly in the same manner. But I guess the term AR-15 just sounds 'extra mean'?

The AR-15 is the poster gun for the antigun movement.

I have a world of respect for people who call for the actual explicit change of the 2nd Amendment, or for anti-gun people who call for a ban using legal means and legal process. That is the fabric of our ordered society.

I have zero respect for comments relating to bans of 'AR-15's' or 'assault weapons', as it just points out the vapidity of much of the noise. Apologies FB, sorry for being harsh.

If we as a society are going to have a reasoned discussion on gun issues, it helps when one side of the debate isnt calling essentially for banning elf magic (assault weapons, a term that means zero) or calling for banning one model of gun that has the same fing functional characteristics as every fing semiatomatic produced since 1955.

Again, apologies FortBend for calling that statement out.

A couple things.

Interesting USA Today article on the AR-15. They note the copy-cat nature of these massacres, so to some extent, I understand the argument that the AR-15 itself isn't the full problem, but that it has become the "gun of choice" for these horrible people because that is what other shooters before them used. But the article also notes that the AR-15 is the most popular rifle in America, with over 8 million of them in circulation.

Also of interest to me was the list at the bottom of the article of mass shootings where an AR-15 was used. None between 1984 - 2007, and the assault weapons ban, which included the AR-15, was in place from 1994-2004. I would be curious to see a graph of the number of AR-15s (or assault weapons generally) in circulation in the USA by year. Obviously, there were always quite a few floating around before the ban and undoubtedly more than trickled in during the ban (criminals-gonna-criminal), but I'm guessing that number spiked after the assault weapons ban expired.

Any thoughts on how to address the fact that the vast majority of mass shootings are committed by men and a strong majority by young men?

Interesting NBC article by a trauma surgeon (and avid hunter) talking about how an AR-15 compares to a handgun and a typical hunting rifle .

I'm fine with not making the AR-15 itself a boogeyman, but there is a certain class of currently legal weapons that make it easier to kill a lot of people in a short amount of time. It would be less dangerous to have someone crazy running around with a typical handgun and a typical hunting rifle than it would an AR-15 (or similar) with a high capacity clip.

(02-16-2018 03:25 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-16-2018 03:05 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-16-2018 02:59 PM)baker-13 Wrote:  

(02-16-2018 02:46 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-16-2018 01:49 PM)baker-13 Wrote:  For sure. As I explained in my background, I don't know enough about shooting to necessarily know if these things will definitely work. That's part of why I'm mentioning them--so that people with more experience can pass on useful information (like this--I appreciate the response).

Not gonna lie, part of the inspiration for the ammo limit was Chris Rock's bit about it.

I agree with your assessment on mental health, though I'd note that most people with mental health issues are not necessarily a danger to themselves or others (and that bringing up mental health as a thing to address in these situations, while important, helps stigmatize mental illness).

My worry there would be the potential for doc-shopping to find someone who will clear you regardless of whether your status has actually changed. Similarly, if it was strictly governmental, there'd be the chance for never getting off, like you mentioned (which is why I don't agree with no-fly-list/no-guns laws unless the process of getting off said list changes). Possibly a three-person panel, supervised by an Article III court? That seems like it might have its own procedural issues, though.

Any thoughts on the NFA-like legislation?

I realize my offering for mental health issues is weak, but I cannot think of any other actions to take other than bringing in mental health professionals. Otherwise we would be be just taking reports that "my neighbor is crazy, and you should lock him up". Either that, or we would just have a list of people who have already snapped once.

It is a rather bleak assessment, but everything I see leads eventually to a complete ban on guns by the State. Whether it is a limit on ownership, a limit on accessories, a limit on ammo, all the limits inexorably lead to a total ban. Not once have i heard anybody say, let's do this, but I promise it will stop there, because that is enough. What I do hear is more of the same, followed by even more. Stronger background checks, more registration, more restrictions, and someday they will reach the goal of a gunless america. i won't be around, and my kids and grandkids have no guns, so I guess it won't affect my family.

I hear people say, what does a 19 year old kid(or anybody) need an AR-15 for? Well, who is the authority that will define the things a 19 year old kid(or anybody) needs, and limit him to only those those things he needs? I am not a fan of the people who want to tell us what we need and outlaw the things we merely want.

While I'm not a fan of them, either, I think there needs to be a balance between desires. Yes, a 19-year-old might want an AR-15 and we shouldn't legislate just based on what they don't need, but 17 kids probably wanted to live, too.

There are countries that have a robust hunting culture and don't have a similar epidemic of mass shootings. I personally lean toward doing the things they've done to minimize things like this.

It won't prevent all of them. But it might get us closer to having less than 1 school shooting a week, when this year alone we're at about 2.5 a week.

As they say: Don't let perfect be the enemy of good.

Lord have mercy, is that what you think I said????

I will restate it for you:

This country is slowly but inexorably progressing to a strict and complete gun ban. Every step taken to "reduce" or stop these incidents is leading there. If my countrymen don't care, I don't care.
\
Not a damn word about perfect.

OO, I never said you said anything about perfect. I was adding on to the bolded section.

I addressed your slippery slope comment in another reply.

If the FBI had gotten off their asses, that’s all it would have taken to stop this. No gun controls, but taking prudent actions regarding bad people.

(02-16-2018 05:47 PM)mrbig Wrote:  For the record, I have a personal interest in this discussion. All 3 of my kids go to a school that had 2 separate threatening incidents since August 2016.

August 17, 2016 - 19-year-old male alum spray-paints "no one belongs here so tear down this (expletive) place down or I'll kill all of you Thursday." That Thursday was scheduled to be the first day of class for my Pre-K, 3rd grade, and 6th grade kids. I didn't see this in any of the news articles, but the head of school told parents in a meeting that there were weapons in his house, though it was unclear at that point whether they were his or his father's (not that it would have mattered if he started shooting people).

Not on point, but: at first I read the bolded sentence as the headmaster having an arsenal at his house. There have been teachers at the school whom I remember fondly and can imagine having their own arsenals (top of that list would be legendary geography teacher Frank Cernicek, who had fought in the Czech resistance), but I've never thought of any of the headmasters that way. :)

OK, now back to serious discussion.

(02-16-2018 06:27 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-16-2018 03:25 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-16-2018 03:05 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-16-2018 02:59 PM)baker-13 Wrote:  

(02-16-2018 02:46 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I realize my offering for mental health issues is weak, but I cannot think of any other actions to take other than bringing in mental health professionals. Otherwise we would be be just taking reports that "my neighbor is crazy, and you should lock him up". Either that, or we would just have a list of people who have already snapped once.

It is a rather bleak assessment, but everything I see leads eventually to a complete ban on guns by the State. Whether it is a limit on ownership, a limit on accessories, a limit on ammo, all the limits inexorably lead to a total ban. Not once have i heard anybody say, let's do this, but I promise it will stop there, because that is enough. What I do hear is more of the same, followed by even more. Stronger background checks, more registration, more restrictions, and someday they will reach the goal of a gunless america. i won't be around, and my kids and grandkids have no guns, so I guess it won't affect my family.

I hear people say, what does a 19 year old kid(or anybody) need an AR-15 for? Well, who is the authority that will define the things a 19 year old kid(or anybody) needs, and limit him to only those those things he needs? I am not a fan of the people who want to tell us what we need and outlaw the things we merely want.

While I'm not a fan of them, either, I think there needs to be a balance between desires. Yes, a 19-year-old might want an AR-15 and we shouldn't legislate just based on what they don't need, but 17 kids probably wanted to live, too.

There are countries that have a robust hunting culture and don't have a similar epidemic of mass shootings. I personally lean toward doing the things they've done to minimize things like this.

It won't prevent all of them. But it might get us closer to having less than 1 school shooting a week, when this year alone we're at about 2.5 a week.

As they say: Don't let perfect be the enemy of good.

Lord have mercy, is that what you think I said????

I will restate it for you:

This country is slowly but inexorably progressing to a strict and complete gun ban. Every step taken to "reduce" or stop these incidents is leading there. If my countrymen don't care, I don't care.
\
Not a damn word about perfect.

OO, I never said you said anything about perfect. I was adding on to the bolded section.

I addressed your slippery slope comment in another reply.

I don't think of it as a slippery slope - more as an inevitable progression. probably sometime in your lifetime (there I go making assumptions about your age again) you will see the repeal of the second amendment and/or the complete outlawing of guns for the private citizen. If not your lifetime, the lifetime of your grandchildren(another assumption). The population wants to be protected from each other, and they will get what they want.

(02-16-2018 07:14 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-16-2018 06:27 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-16-2018 03:25 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-16-2018 03:05 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-16-2018 02:59 PM)baker-13 Wrote:  While I'm not a fan of them, either, I think there needs to be a balance between desires. Yes, a 19-year-old might want an AR-15 and we shouldn't legislate just based on what they don't need, but 17 kids probably wanted to live, too.

There are countries that have a robust hunting culture and don't have a similar epidemic of mass shootings. I personally lean toward doing the things they've done to minimize things like this.

It won't prevent all of them. But it might get us closer to having less than 1 school shooting a week, when this year alone we're at about 2.5 a week.

As they say: Don't let perfect be the enemy of good.

Lord have mercy, is that what you think I said????

I will restate it for you:

This country is slowly but inexorably progressing to a strict and complete gun ban. Every step taken to "reduce" or stop these incidents is leading there. If my countrymen don't care, I don't care.
\
Not a damn word about perfect.

OO, I never said you said anything about perfect. I was adding on to the bolded section.

I addressed your slippery slope comment in another reply.

I don't think of it as a slippery slope - more as an inevitable progression. probably sometime in your lifetime (there I go making assumptions about your age again) you will see the repeal of the second amendment and/or the complete outlawing of guns for the private citizen. If not your lifetime, the lifetime of your grandchildren(another assumption). The population wants to be protected from each other, and they will get what they want.

I really doubt that. Our country is far too rural, and hunting and self protection are far too engrained in our being for there to be a complete repeal of the second amendment, which results in the loss of all abilities for someone to own a gun legally.

And one persons "inevitable progression" is another's "slipper slope." Both lead to the suggestion that nothing should be implemented because of the inevitable outcome.

(02-16-2018 07:47 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-16-2018 07:14 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-16-2018 06:27 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-16-2018 03:25 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-16-2018 03:05 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  As they say: Don't let perfect be the enemy of good.

Lord have mercy, is that what you think I said????

I will restate it for you:

This country is slowly but inexorably progressing to a strict and complete gun ban. Every step taken to "reduce" or stop these incidents is leading there. If my countrymen don't care, I don't care.
\
Not a damn word about perfect.

OO, I never said you said anything about perfect. I was adding on to the bolded section.

I addressed your slippery slope comment in another reply.

I don't think of it as a slippery slope - more as an inevitable progression. probably sometime in your lifetime (there I go making assumptions about your age again) you will see the repeal of the second amendment and/or the complete outlawing of guns for the private citizen. If not your lifetime, the lifetime of your grandchildren(another assumption). The population wants to be protected from each other, and they will get what they want.

I really doubt that. Our country is far too rural, and hunting and self protection are far too engrained in our being for there to be a complete repeal of the second amendment, which results in the loss of all abilities for someone to own a gun legally.

And one persons "inevitable progression" is another's "slipper slope." Both lead to the suggestion that nothing should be implemented because of the inevitable outcome.

I think of it as a staircase, in which steps up can happen, but steps back never happen. Say we get a 7 day waiting period. Which do you think the next step will be - 10 days or 3 days.

We are on a one way track. Whether we slip down it or climb up it is irrelevant. Call it the Super escalator for all I care.

Sometimes I wonder if Daniel Boone, Ben. Franklin, or anybody else were suddenly transported to today, if there would be anything they like other than air conditioning.

(02-16-2018 09:07 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-16-2018 07:47 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-16-2018 07:14 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-16-2018 06:27 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-16-2018 03:25 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Lord have mercy, is that what you think I said????
I will restate it for you:
This country is slowly but inexorably progressing to a strict and complete gun ban. Every step taken to "reduce" or stop these incidents is leading there. If my countrymen don't care, I don't care.
Not a damn word about perfect.

OO, I never said you said anything about perfect. I was adding on to the bolded section.
I addressed your slippery slope comment in another reply.

I don't think of it as a slippery slope - more as an inevitable progression. probably sometime in your lifetime (there I go making assumptions about your age again) you will see the repeal of the second amendment and/or the complete outlawing of guns for the private citizen. If not your lifetime, the lifetime of your grandchildren(another assumption). The population wants to be protected from each other, and they will get what they want.

I really doubt that. Our country is far too rural, and hunting and self protection are far too engrained in our being for there to be a complete repeal of the second amendment, which results in the loss of all abilities for someone to own a gun legally.
And one persons "inevitable progression" is another's "slipper slope." Both lead to the suggestion that nothing should be implemented because of the inevitable outcome.

I think of it as a staircase, in which steps up can happen, but steps back never happen. Say we get a 7 day waiting period. Which do you think the next step will be - 10 days or 3 days.
We are on a one way track. Whether we slip down it or climb up it is irrelevant. Call it the Super escalator for all I care.
Sometimes I wonder if Daniel Boone, Ben. Franklin, or anybody else were suddenly transported to today, if there would be anything they like other than air conditioning.

Here’s the way I see it going. At some point we will pass something—say, gun registration. It will be a huge hassle, and some people will decide that keeping their guns is not worth the hassle, but it won’t have any effect on gun violence, because gun registration has never had a significant impact on gun violence. So in a few years the anti-gun crowd will come back with the next step. And again it will have little or no impact except to make gun ownership even more of a hassle. Step by step, we will get to total confiscation. God help us when we reach that point.

(02-16-2018 09:21 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-16-2018 09:07 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-16-2018 07:47 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-16-2018 07:14 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-16-2018 06:27 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  OO, I never said you said anything about perfect. I was adding on to the bolded section.
I addressed your slippery slope comment in another reply.

I don't think of it as a slippery slope - more as an inevitable progression. probably sometime in your lifetime (there I go making assumptions about your age again) you will see the repeal of the second amendment and/or the complete outlawing of guns for the private citizen. If not your lifetime, the lifetime of your grandchildren(another assumption). The population wants to be protected from each other, and they will get what they want.

I really doubt that. Our country is far too rural, and hunting and self protection are far too engrained in our being for there to be a complete repeal of the second amendment, which results in the loss of all abilities for someone to own a gun legally.
And one persons "inevitable progression" is another's "slipper slope." Both lead to the suggestion that nothing should be implemented because of the inevitable outcome.

I think of it as a staircase, in which steps up can happen, but steps back never happen. Say we get a 7 day waiting period. Which do you think the next step will be - 10 days or 3 days.
We are on a one way track. Whether we slip down it or climb up it is irrelevant. Call it the Super escalator for all I care.
Sometimes I wonder if Daniel Boone, Ben. Franklin, or anybody else were suddenly transported to today, if there would be anything they like other than air conditioning.

Here’s the way I see it going. At some point we will pass something—say, gun registration. It will be a huge hassle, and some people will decide that keeping their guns is not worth the hassle, but it won’t have any effect on gun violence, because gun registration has never had a significant impact on gun violence. So in a few years the anti-gun crowd will come back with the next step. And again it will have little or no impact except to make gun ownership even more of a hassle. Step by step, we will get to total confiscation. God help us when we reach that point.

Yep. And when we have confiscated the guns, they will turn to another liberty that cannot be tolerated. My money is on Freedom of Speech.

Can you all clarify what you mean by “confiscate”? I’m assuming you don’t mean that the US would outlaw guns before any country, considering that we have a LONG way to go before that happens, compared to every other country’s gun laws.