The Liberal Gun Club Forum

DispositionMatrix wrote: Mon Sep 09, 2019 1:35 pm The Falmouth Gun Safety Coalition is back, proposing the same ban.
Mass. measure should tackle guns’ semiautomatic mechanism

Re “Even in Massachusetts, there’s room to do more on gun violence” (Editorial, Sept. 1): Boston Police Commissioner William Gross knows all too well that there is more that can be done in Massachusetts to address the epidemic of gun violence. His proposal to allow for fines, fees, and the potential to impound a vehicle involved in gun trafficking makes good sense and could reduce the number of firearms in circulation on our city streets.

One addition to the omnibus bill your editorial endorses would be a ban on the sale and use of any rifle, handgun, or shotgun that contains a semiautomatic mechanism (allowing the firearm to discharge spent rounds automatically and load new, live rounds automatically with each pull of the trigger). Such a ban also avoids Second Amendment challenges, since it doesn’t affect guns per se, but rather the inclusion of a mechanism that allows them to be capable of inflicting human casualties on a scale that tragically has become all too common.

The Falmouth Gun Safety Coalition has been advocating for the passage of this proposal for some time, and we are persuaded that such a ban would be an important step in the fight against gun violence.

His proposal to allow for fines, fees, and the potential to impound a vehicle involved in gun trafficking makes good sense and could reduce the number of firearms in circulation on our city streets.

senorgrand wrote: Mon Sep 09, 2019 2:22 pm Are they comming for your guns...yes, yes they are.

senorgrand said:

Are they comming for your guns...yes, yes they are.

max129 wrote: Mon Sep 09, 2019 2:28 pm

senorgrand said:

Are they comming for your guns...yes, yes they are.

Why, Oh Why did I take all my guns with me in a canoe on Crater Lake?

Who knew canoes can tip over and you lose everything?

Who knew it is the deepest lake in the US?

Now what do I do?

Bang wrote: Fri Jun 14, 2019 6:28 am

YankeeTarheel wrote: Sun Jun 09, 2019 6:40 pm

senorgrand wrote: Sun Jun 09, 2019 5:48 pm oh, they are coming for all your liberties, they will just start with your guns.

No, they are already coming after all your liberties. Guns will be last, not first.

Trump and the ReThuglicans are attacking EVERY right BUT 2A. From freedom of speech, press and religion, to rights of the accused. The minority in the House is even trying to prevent certain negative words being used to describe Trump or his cronies--like "liar"!

Don't take my word for it, use your eyes: They won't let liberals keep their guns.

In what way is Trump not coming after guns? He banned bump stocks by decree. He has openly voiced support for an assault weapon ban. He's actively pushing for red flag laws, and I quote "take the guns first, due process later." And now he's talking about banning suppressors. If that's not coming for guns, I don't know what is.

max129 wrote: Mon Sep 09, 2019 4:00 pm Gun Buy Back:

200,000 million guns at an average of $500 is $100 billion dollars (1/7th of the annual Military Defense budget)

The average of $500 is probably a bit too low, and 200 million guns is FAR less than the anti-gun crowd ands to get out of the hands of private citizens. My $100 billion number is the very low end of the direct cost of a buy back - add in a few billion for administration.

And I am K9s on this - any such program will have a major issue with SCOTUS.

K9s wrote: Mon Sep 09, 2019 10:41 pm

max129 wrote: Mon Sep 09, 2019 4:00 pm Gun Buy Back:

200,000 million guns at an average of $500 is $100 billion dollars (1/7th of the annual Military Defense budget)

The average of $500 is probably a bit too low, and 200 million guns is FAR less than the anti-gun crowd ands to get out of the hands of private citizens. My $100 billion number is the very low end of the direct cost of a buy back - add in a few billion for administration.

And I am K9s on this - any such program will have a major issue with SCOTUS.

They always seem to think $50 is the right price for gun buybacks. It is enough to get someone to turn in grandpas old rifle they inherited (or stole) if they need to pay for groceries that month.

I really don't know why these candidates get away with such a ridiculous proposal. It does tell me that GOP isn't serious, though. Instead of arguing the obvious problems (especially cost), they argue as if it were actually possible. It means that it is just a wedge issue that both sides use to make money.

TrueTexan wrote: Tue Sep 10, 2019 12:02 pm The amount of money that would be needed to entice people to sell their guns in a buyback program would require stop funding for the WALL and severely cut the defense budget. So it won't happen. The idea the government would fo a search and seizure of your property to get your guns is just ludicrous. The courts along with the majority of Americans would not stand for such a gross violation of the fourth amendment.

Beto wrote:Hell yes we’re going to take your AR-15, your AK-47 . . .

K9s wrote: Thu Sep 12, 2019 11:31 pm Well, I was heartened that when the rest of the pack were vowing to pass the AWB or worse, Bernie simply claimed he would stand up to the NRA.

Chances of another AWB in 2021 are high now. Don't say it was a big surprise when it happens.

I only hear the "weapons of war" talk from white liberals and some older black women here. I understand that some POC fear the redneck white guys open carrying long guns. Some POC are very quiet about the issue.

Anyone else mostly hearing it from liberal WASPs?