The Liberal Gun Club Forum

[quote="Merkwuerdigliebe"]Establish a list of firearms that people can own with no restrictions. This includes six or eight shot revolvers, pistols capable of no more than eight shots ever, single shot rifles of any variety, and shotguns.

For any other weapons require the individual to obtain and maintain liability insurance. This liability insurance can either be individual policies, or policies obtained by gun clubs to cover all firearms purchased by the membership.

Require the gun industry to subsidize only the policies obtained by gun clubs. Put some rules on what constitutes a properly functioning and recognized gun club. Things like quarterly meetings and each member must attend at least one meeting every six months. Keeping a locally maintained and managed inventory of weapons owned by the membership. Require that ownership of the weapon passes to the gun club if a member resigns and doesn't immediately obtain a private liability policy.

Final piece is a system of Federally funded civilian Marshalls with police powers. One Marshall for every 1,000 gun club members, who is nominated by the gun clubs themselves. Organize it along the lines of the Civil Air Patrol. These Marshalls would be responsible for communicating Government programs and policies to the local gun clubs and ensure that each gun club was being operated as required. They wouldn't keep any records on ownership but would have the power to confiscate firearms in a defined list of circumstances and pass the firearm to the gun club for disposition.[/quote]
[quote="Merkwuerdigliebe"]The 2A has been ruled by SCOTUS as not being an absolute right, but it is subject to reasonable restrictions. The 2A is well serviced by a list of firearms that can be owned without restrictions and without requiring any form of registration other than an background check on the purchaser to ensure they are not felons, on the terrorist watch list (why are Replublicans against this?), or adjudicated as mentally incompetent.

I draw a line at weaponry that is of a distinctly military orientation. And I'm not saying that those weapons should not be owned by the general public. But it is the duty and right of society itself to ensure that that class of weaponry is owned and maintained responsibly and that is a reasonable restriction.

Now you might make the argument that, well you can do a lot of damage with an eight shot revolver/pistol. This is true. But a Paris or San Bernardino style of attack would not be possible without military class weaponry. You can mow down large groups of people in a minimum amount of time with military weapons. That is what they are designed to do. An eight shot revolver/pistol would force frequent pauses to reload. These pauses give the police time to respond. We go from an entire incident of 34 people dead or injuried in 5 minutes flat to one where it would take significantly longer and provide opportunities for the victims to take action as well.

What we need to wrap our minds around is that we are at war today. Our homeland and population are being threatened today. Are we going to handle it by arming every citizen (there are actually enough firearms in circulation today to provide every citizen with a weapon...) or are we going to make it harder for hostile individuals to kill a great number of people?

You don't need an 18 round Glock to defend yourself unless you can't shoot. You need a well trained individual that take someone out with one well aimed centerline shot at 10 yards.

And the last point I want to address are rampant patterns of irrational thought among many of the 2A crowd. It is irrational to think that the Federal Government is an enemy of the people. I am a retired Federal Employee and actually I am deeply insulted by the suggestion that my Federal career was spent in some wild eyed conspiracy to do harm to the American public. I think it is something to be vigilant about, and the activities of Agency's like the N*A (web crawler naming ) are something that need effective and diligent oversight.

Even if the Feds are out to get us and can talk all the police organizations, the military, and all the Federal employees into this plan -- what are 100,000 people with ARs going to do about it? Yeah, you can do asymmetric warfare but that will not stop them. Say what you want about Iraq or Vietnam for that matter. When the U.S. committed to forces on the ground, the adversary was totally pwned.[/quote]

• -Mandatory insurance, which would be ripe for abuse.
  -Placing gun clubs, already often fighting for their existence thanks to nimbys, more in the line of fire by putting the burden of policing individuals on them. It's not hard to tell how that would end.
  -Support for the government keeping secret lists such as the terrorism watch list, something many on the left were supposedly against until 12/2/2015.
  -A system of rules based on placing blame with a gun or type of gun--particularly its appearance--using the concept of "military orientation" or "military class." This didn't make sense in 1994 and doesn't now, but gun prohibitionists are still pushing it.
  -Hiding behind "war" to push gun restrictions.
  -The "you don't need" argument--someone's arbitrary idea of what others can't have based on what he/she thinks others don't need. No thanks.
  -Suggesting people should't be armed to <whatever extent> because a) government is benevolent and b) government can kill the non-compliant easily anyway. The average gun owner, regardless of what he/she posts on Arfcom, is not going to war with the government, and if government is so omni-capable, then they don't need to be worried about people with ARs anyway.

"I was just at a press conference the other day talking about the need for increased gun control. I don't think anybody believes it's a magic formula. Clearly, though, there is an obvious common-sense consensus in this country that guns should not be falling into the hands of people who should not be having them," Sanders said.

He supports Democratic legislation to bar people on the no-fly list from owning guns - which failed in a Senate vote last Thursday - and said the U.S. should expand instant background checks. Sanders also advocates ending a loophole that allows people to buy certain guns at gun shows without passing a background check, banning assault weapons, and preventing people from legally buying guns and passing them onto criminals.

In addition to measures that apply to gun ownership directly, Sanders called for a "revolution in mental health" to make sure that people who are suicidal or homicidal are able to get help.

Sanders defended his support for a 2005 bill that granted legal immunity to gun manufacturers.

CDFingers wrote:Well, this being a Bernie thread, I thought I'd pull it back from certain irrelevancy. Here is Bernie today on CBS.

"I was just at a press conference the other day talking about the need for increased gun control. I don't think anybody believes it's a magic formula. Clearly, though, there is an obvious common-sense consensus in this country that guns should not be falling into the hands of people who should not be having them," Sanders said.

He supports Democratic legislation to bar people on the no-fly list from owning guns - which failed in a Senate vote last Thursday - and said the U.S. should expand instant background checks. Sanders also advocates ending a loophole that allows people to buy certain guns at gun shows without passing a background check, banning assault weapons, and preventing people from legally buying guns and passing them onto criminals.

In addition to measures that apply to gun ownership directly, Sanders called for a "revolution in mental health" to make sure that people who are suicidal or homicidal are able to get help.

Sanders defended his support for a 2005 bill that granted legal immunity to gun manufacturers.

link:

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/sanders-gun ... r-attacks/

He's trying to walk the line while leaning to the left.

CDFingers

DispositionMatrix wrote:[quote="Merkwuerdigliebe"]Establish a list of firearms that people can own with no restrictions. This includes six or eight shot revolvers, pistols capable of no more than eight shots ever, single shot rifles of any variety, and shotguns.

For any other weapons require the individual to obtain and maintain liability insurance. This liability insurance can either be individual policies, or policies obtained by gun clubs to cover all firearms purchased by the membership.

Require the gun industry to subsidize only the policies obtained by gun clubs. Put some rules on what constitutes a properly functioning and recognized gun club. Things like quarterly meetings and each member must attend at least one meeting every six months. Keeping a locally maintained and managed inventory of weapons owned by the membership. Require that ownership of the weapon passes to the gun club if a member resigns and doesn't immediately obtain a private liability policy.

Final piece is a system of Federally funded civilian Marshalls with police powers. One Marshall for every 1,000 gun club members, who is nominated by the gun clubs themselves. Organize it along the lines of the Civil Air Patrol. These Marshalls would be responsible for communicating Government programs and policies to the local gun clubs and ensure that each gun club was being operated as required. They wouldn't keep any records on ownership but would have the power to confiscate firearms in a defined list of circumstances and pass the firearm to the gun club for disposition.

Merkwuerdigliebe wrote:The 2A has been ruled by SCOTUS as not being an absolute right, but it is subject to reasonable restrictions. The 2A is well serviced by a list of firearms that can be owned without restrictions and without requiring any form of registration other than an background check on the purchaser to ensure they are not felons, on the terrorist watch list (why are Replublicans against this?), or adjudicated as mentally incompetent.

I draw a line at weaponry that is of a distinctly military orientation. And I'm not saying that those weapons should not be owned by the general public. But it is the duty and right of society itself to ensure that that class of weaponry is owned and maintained responsibly and that is a reasonable restriction.

Now you might make the argument that, well you can do a lot of damage with an eight shot revolver/pistol. This is true. But a Paris or San Bernardino style of attack would not be possible without military class weaponry. You can mow down large groups of people in a minimum amount of time with military weapons. That is what they are designed to do. An eight shot revolver/pistol would force frequent pauses to reload. These pauses give the police time to respond. We go from an entire incident of 34 people dead or injuried in 5 minutes flat to one where it would take significantly longer and provide opportunities for the victims to take action as well.

What we need to wrap our minds around is that we are at war today. Our homeland and population are being threatened today. Are we going to handle it by arming every citizen (there are actually enough firearms in circulation today to provide every citizen with a weapon...) or are we going to make it harder for hostile individuals to kill a great number of people?

You don't need an 18 round Glock to defend yourself unless you can't shoot. You need a well trained individual that take someone out with one well aimed centerline shot at 10 yards.

And the last point I want to address are rampant patterns of irrational thought among many of the 2A crowd. It is irrational to think that the Federal Government is an enemy of the people. I am a retired Federal Employee and actually I am deeply insulted by the suggestion that my Federal career was spent in some wild eyed conspiracy to do harm to the American public. I think it is something to be vigilant about, and the activities of Agency's like the N*A (web crawler naming ) are something that need effective and diligent oversight.

Even if the Feds are out to get us and can talk all the police organizations, the military, and all the Federal employees into this plan -- what are 100,000 people with ARs going to do about it? Yeah, you can do asymmetric warfare but that will not stop them. Say what you want about Iraq or Vietnam for that matter. When the U.S. committed to forces on the ground, the adversary was totally pwned.

• -Mandatory insurance, which would be ripe for abuse.
  -Placing gun clubs, already often fighting for their existence thanks to nimbys, more in the line of fire by putting the burden of policing individuals on them. It's not hard to tell how that would end.
  -Support for the government keeping secret lists such as the terrorism watch list, something many on the left were supposedly against until 12/2/2015.
  -A system of rules based on placing blame with a gun or type of gun--particularly its appearance--using the concept of "military orientation" or "military class." This didn't make sense in 1994 and doesn't now, but gun prohibitionists are still pushing it.
  -Hiding behind "war" to push gun restrictions.
  -The "you don't need" argument--someone's arbitrary idea of what others can't have based on what he/she thinks others don't need. No thanks.
  -Suggesting people should't be armed to <whatever extent> because a) government is benevolent and b) government can kill the non-compliant easily anyway. The average gun owner, regardless of what he/she posts on Arfcom, is not going to war with the government, and if government is so omni-capable, then they don't need to be worried about people with ARs anyway.

EdC wrote:

Merkwuerdigliebe wrote:

rascally wrote:]
<snipped for bandwidth again>
You don't need an 18 round Glock to defend yourself unless you can't shoot. You need a well trained individual that take someone out with one well aimed centerline shot at 10 yards.

Ok, so cops should have only revolvers then, right? They are the "well trained" professionals, unlike the rest of us prols, and should be able to take down a bad guy with one well placed centerline shot. Of course, police shootings usually involve only one or two rounds to take down the criminal, and these well trained professionals never miss.

Merkwuerdigliebe wrote:

DispositionMatrix wrote:[quote="Merkwuerdigliebe"]Establish a list of firearms that people can own with no restrictions. This includes six or eight shot revolvers, pistols capable of no more than eight shots ever, single shot rifles of any variety, and shotguns.

For any other weapons require the individual to obtain and maintain liability insurance. This liability insurance can either be individual policies, or policies obtained by gun clubs to cover all firearms purchased by the membership.

Require the gun industry to subsidize only the policies obtained by gun clubs. Put some rules on what constitutes a properly functioning and recognized gun club. Things like quarterly meetings and each member must attend at least one meeting every six months. Keeping a locally maintained and managed inventory of weapons owned by the membership. Require that ownership of the weapon passes to the gun club if a member resigns and doesn't immediately obtain a private liability policy.

Final piece is a system of Federally funded civilian Marshalls with police powers. One Marshall for every 1,000 gun club members, who is nominated by the gun clubs themselves. Organize it along the lines of the Civil Air Patrol. These Marshalls would be responsible for communicating Government programs and policies to the local gun clubs and ensure that each gun club was being operated as required. They wouldn't keep any records on ownership but would have the power to confiscate firearms in a defined list of circumstances and pass the firearm to the gun club for disposition.

Merkwuerdigliebe wrote:The 2A has been ruled by SCOTUS as not being an absolute right, but it is subject to reasonable restrictions. The 2A is well serviced by a list of firearms that can be owned without restrictions and without requiring any form of registration other than an background check on the purchaser to ensure they are not felons, on the terrorist watch list (why are Replublicans against this?), or adjudicated as mentally incompetent.

I draw a line at weaponry that is of a distinctly military orientation. And I'm not saying that those weapons should not be owned by the general public. But it is the duty and right of society itself to ensure that that class of weaponry is owned and maintained responsibly and that is a reasonable restriction.

Now you might make the argument that, well you can do a lot of damage with an eight shot revolver/pistol. This is true. But a Paris or San Bernardino style of attack would not be possible without military class weaponry. You can mow down large groups of people in a minimum amount of time with military weapons. That is what they are designed to do. An eight shot revolver/pistol would force frequent pauses to reload. These pauses give the police time to respond. We go from an entire incident of 34 people dead or injuried in 5 minutes flat to one where it would take significantly longer and provide opportunities for the victims to take action as well.

What we need to wrap our minds around is that we are at war today. Our homeland and population are being threatened today. Are we going to handle it by arming every citizen (there are actually enough firearms in circulation today to provide every citizen with a weapon...) or are we going to make it harder for hostile individuals to kill a great number of people?

You don't need an 18 round Glock to defend yourself unless you can't shoot. You need a well trained individual that take someone out with one well aimed centerline shot at 10 yards.

And the last point I want to address are rampant patterns of irrational thought among many of the 2A crowd. It is irrational to think that the Federal Government is an enemy of the people. I am a retired Federal Employee and actually I am deeply insulted by the suggestion that my Federal career was spent in some wild eyed conspiracy to do harm to the American public. I think it is something to be vigilant about, and the activities of Agency's like the N*A (web crawler naming ) are something that need effective and diligent oversight.

Even if the Feds are out to get us and can talk all the police organizations, the military, and all the Federal employees into this plan -- what are 100,000 people with ARs going to do about it? Yeah, you can do asymmetric warfare but that will not stop them. Say what you want about Iraq or Vietnam for that matter. When the U.S. committed to forces on the ground, the adversary was totally pwned.

[/size]
Well you deserve credit for having hit several of the key ideas, buzzwords, and phrases some of us have come to know and not love.

• -Mandatory insurance, which would be ripe for abuse.
  -Placing gun clubs, already often fighting for their existence thanks to nimbys, more in the line of fire by putting the burden of policing individuals on them. It's not hard to tell how that would end.
  -Support for the government keeping secret lists such as the terrorism watch list, something many on the left were supposedly against until 12/2/2015.
  -A system of rules based on placing blame with a gun or type of gun--particularly its appearance--using the concept of "military orientation" or "military class." This didn't make sense in 1994 and doesn't now, but gun prohibitionists are still pushing it.
  -Hiding behind "war" to push gun restrictions.
  -The "you don't need" argument--someone's arbitrary idea of what others can't have based on what he/she thinks others don't need. No thanks.
  -Suggesting people should't be armed to <whatever extent> because a) government is benevolent and b) government can kill the non-compliant easily anyway. The average gun owner, regardless of what he/she posts on Arfcom, is not going to war with the government, and if government is so omni-capable, then they don't need to be worried about people with ARs anyway.

I have no doubt there is support for your proposals though, so you've come to the right place.

And here is my issue with 2A absolutists. What measures would you suggest that would work to help? Other than an outright free-for-all with everyone armed to the teeth in every possible venue, the 2A absolutists have no positive suggestion. Only an opinion about what will not work (ie any efforts will abridge our rights). They might come up with some nebulous suggestion about enforcing current laws (since they work so well now as hobbled as they are), or to increase efforts at identifying mental illness (but don't ask them to pay for any programs).

Merkwuerdigliebe wrote:

EdC wrote:

Merkwuerdigliebe wrote:

rascally wrote:]
<snipped for bandwidth again>
You don't need an 18 round Glock to defend yourself unless you can't shoot. You need a well trained individual that take someone out with one well aimed centerline shot at 10 yards.

Ok, so cops should have only revolvers then, right? They are the "well trained" professionals, unlike the rest of us prols, and should be able to take down a bad guy with one well placed centerline shot. Of course, police shootings usually involve only one or two rounds to take down the criminal, and these well trained professionals never miss.

That use to be the case. They only had revolvers until about the early 80's. I guess we didn't have law and order until the 80's when the police got the needed 16 shots to take down one perp.

And here is my issue with 2A absolutists.

begemot wrote:

And here is my issue with 2A absolutists.

I can't think of even one 2A absolutist on this forum. You should visit other gun forums for points of reference.

Inquisitor wrote:

begemot wrote:

And here is my issue with 2A absolutists.

I can't think of even one 2A absolutist on this forum. You should visit other gun forums for points of reference.

I can think of one or two

Inquisitor wrote:

begemot wrote:

And here is my issue with 2A absolutists.

I can't think of even one 2A absolutist on this forum. You should visit other gun forums for points of reference.

I can think of one or two

Merkwuerdigliebe wrote:

DispositionMatrix wrote:[quote="Merkwuerdigliebe"]Establish a list of firearms that people can own with no restrictions. This includes six or eight shot revolvers, pistols capable of no more than eight shots ever, single shot rifles of any variety, and shotguns.

For any other weapons require the individual to obtain and maintain liability insurance. This liability insurance can either be individual policies, or policies obtained by gun clubs to cover all firearms purchased by the membership.

Require the gun industry to subsidize only the policies obtained by gun clubs. Put some rules on what constitutes a properly functioning and recognized gun club. Things like quarterly meetings and each member must attend at least one meeting every six months. Keeping a locally maintained and managed inventory of weapons owned by the membership. Require that ownership of the weapon passes to the gun club if a member resigns and doesn't immediately obtain a private liability policy.

Final piece is a system of Federally funded civilian Marshalls with police powers. One Marshall for every 1,000 gun club members, who is nominated by the gun clubs themselves. Organize it along the lines of the Civil Air Patrol. These Marshalls would be responsible for communicating Government programs and policies to the local gun clubs and ensure that each gun club was being operated as required. They wouldn't keep any records on ownership but would have the power to confiscate firearms in a defined list of circumstances and pass the firearm to the gun club for disposition.

Merkwuerdigliebe wrote:The 2A has been ruled by SCOTUS as not being an absolute right, but it is subject to reasonable restrictions. The 2A is well serviced by a list of firearms that can be owned without restrictions and without requiring any form of registration other than an background check on the purchaser to ensure they are not felons, on the terrorist watch list (why are Replublicans against this?), or adjudicated as mentally incompetent.

I draw a line at weaponry that is of a distinctly military orientation. And I'm not saying that those weapons should not be owned by the general public. But it is the duty and right of society itself to ensure that that class of weaponry is owned and maintained responsibly and that is a reasonable restriction.

Now you might make the argument that, well you can do a lot of damage with an eight shot revolver/pistol. This is true. But a Paris or San Bernardino style of attack would not be possible without military class weaponry. You can mow down large groups of people in a minimum amount of time with military weapons. That is what they are designed to do. An eight shot revolver/pistol would force frequent pauses to reload. These pauses give the police time to respond. We go from an entire incident of 34 people dead or injuried in 5 minutes flat to one where it would take significantly longer and provide opportunities for the victims to take action as well.

What we need to wrap our minds around is that we are at war today. Our homeland and population are being threatened today. Are we going to handle it by arming every citizen (there are actually enough firearms in circulation today to provide every citizen with a weapon...) or are we going to make it harder for hostile individuals to kill a great number of people?

You don't need an 18 round Glock to defend yourself unless you can't shoot. You need a well trained individual that take someone out with one well aimed centerline shot at 10 yards.

And the last point I want to address are rampant patterns of irrational thought among many of the 2A crowd. It is irrational to think that the Federal Government is an enemy of the people. I am a retired Federal Employee and actually I am deeply insulted by the suggestion that my Federal career was spent in some wild eyed conspiracy to do harm to the American public. I think it is something to be vigilant about, and the activities of Agency's like the N*A (web crawler naming ) are something that need effective and diligent oversight.

Even if the Feds are out to get us and can talk all the police organizations, the military, and all the Federal employees into this plan -- what are 100,000 people with ARs going to do about it? Yeah, you can do asymmetric warfare but that will not stop them. Say what you want about Iraq or Vietnam for that matter. When the U.S. committed to forces on the ground, the adversary was totally pwned.

[/size]
Well you deserve credit for having hit several of the key ideas, buzzwords, and phrases some of us have come to know and not love.

• -Mandatory insurance, which would be ripe for abuse.
  -Placing gun clubs, already often fighting for their existence thanks to nimbys, more in the line of fire by putting the burden of policing individuals on them. It's not hard to tell how that would end.
  -Support for the government keeping secret lists such as the terrorism watch list, something many on the left were supposedly against until 12/2/2015.
  -A system of rules based on placing blame with a gun or type of gun--particularly its appearance--using the concept of "military orientation" or "military class." This didn't make sense in 1994 and doesn't now, but gun prohibitionists are still pushing it.
  -Hiding behind "war" to push gun restrictions.
  -The "you don't need" argument--someone's arbitrary idea of what others can't have based on what he/she thinks others don't need. No thanks.
  -Suggesting people should't be armed to <whatever extent> because a) government is benevolent and b) government can kill the non-compliant easily anyway. The average gun owner, regardless of what he/she posts on Arfcom, is not going to war with the government, and if government is so omni-capable, then they don't need to be worried about people with ARs anyway.

I have no doubt there is support for your proposals though, so you've come to the right place.

DispositionMatrix wrote:

Merkwuerdigliebe wrote: And here is my issue with 2A absolutists. What measures would you suggest that would work to help? Other than an outright free-for-all with everyone armed to the teeth in every possible venue, the 2A absolutists have no positive suggestion. Only an opinion about what will not work (ie any efforts will abridge our rights). They might come up with some nebulous suggestion about enforcing current laws (since they work so well now as hobbled as they are), or to increase efforts at identifying mental illness (but don't ask them to pay for any programs).

Not wanting a draconian gun prohibition regime comprised mostly of feel-good measures already championed by disarmament enthusiasts is not equivalent to 2A absolutism. Not needlessly imposing one's will upon others in order to achieve a result other than the one claimed is a pretty good example (though stated in negative terms) of a positive suggestion. I'll have to agree to disagree entirely with both your suggestions and replies and leave this to those who find some of the content of this thread more convincing.

senorgrand wrote: I don't consider myself a 2A absolutist, but I am pretty pro 2A. Here are just SOME of the things that would help:
1) Universal not-for-profit healthcare
2) Ending the Drug War
3) Ending racist police practices
4) Changing our attitudes about mental health
5) Stop giving publicity murderers publicity

I'd also like to point out that there are more guns in American than at any other time in history, yet violent crime is down to a 50-year low.

rockyriverleather wrote:Well, I've watched this Bernie centric topic go from alas and alack, to I'm voting Republican, to basically a progressive anti gun initiative. Time for all the OT conversations to start their own new topics. There's at least 20 potential ones here in these comments.

Merkwuerdigliebe wrote:Progressive anti-gun? Not from what I saw (or said). There has got to be some things we can advocate for that won't be the end of the world.

rockyriverleather wrote:Well, I've watched this Bernie centric topic go from alas and alack, to I'm voting Republican, to basically a progressive anti gun initiative. Time for all the OT conversations to start their own new topics. There's at least 20 potential ones here in these comments.

ArmedAndLiberal wrote: There was already a topic specifically about Bernie's stance on guns. http://www.theliberalgunclub.com/phpBB3 ... =1&t=33083
Since then many more have been started for some reason, so I can see people not being too concerned with maintaining the integrity of yet another thread about Bernie being against guns.

rockyriverleather wrote:In the end I could care less, if there have been others who have written on similar topics.

ArmedAndLiberal wrote:

rockyriverleather wrote:In the end I could care less, if there have been others who have written on similar topics.

You have inspired me. Now I want to go make another topic about Bernie's desire to punish gun owners with party line restrictions. How about a new one each day? You just cannot have too many.

Inquisitor wrote:

begemot wrote:

And here is my issue with 2A absolutists.

I can't think of even one 2A absolutist on this forum. You should visit other gun forums for points of reference.

I can think of one or two

ArmedAndLiberal wrote:

Merkwuerdigliebe wrote:Progressive anti-gun? Not from what I saw (or said). There has got to be some things we can advocate for that won't be the end of the world.

There is. It is called "root cause mitigation" by those who have already posted about it more times than I care to remember in other threads, despite your assumption a couple of those those same people are 2A absolutists for not going into detail about it here. It is great that you want to ban or restrict your way to a paradigm that would still have no affect on violence, but there are a few of us here who simply do not buy into the idea that prohibitions are the answer.

In offering support, I think you would get significantly better play for your proposals above on DailyKos where there is a large contingent of people very interested in anything having to do with prohibiting guns. They will not be keen to discuss shooting sports with you though. That is better to do here.

rockyriverleather wrote:Well, I've watched this Bernie centric topic go from alas and alack, to I'm voting Republican, to basically a progressive anti gun initiative. Time for all the OT conversations to start their own new topics. There's at least 20 potential ones here in these comments.

There was already a topic specifically about Bernie's stance on guns. http://www.theliberalgunclub.com/phpBB3 ... =1&t=33083
Since then many more have been started for some reason, so I can see people not being too concerned with maintaining the integrity of yet another thread about Bernie being against guns.