Political Discussion Thread (With Rules)

[Toxxus]

8 minutes ago, Sociotard said:

 

Ah, but there are the key words: if they know what they are doing.

 

The law makes it more difficult to make a weapon capable of fully automatic fire. People who want to make their semiautomatic weapon fire at a rate comparable to fully-automatic weapons can still do so, but without being able to buy the tool to make it easy, it is difficult. 'Difficult' directly correlates to 'less people do it'. I like the idea of limiting the number of people simulating fully-automatic fire. Therefore I like this regulation.

 

It doesn't have to absolutely end people simulating fully automatic fire. It only has to reduce the incidence of people simulating fully automatic fire.

 

You realize the level of "know what they are doing" involves folding a belt in half and gripping it with the right amount of slack, right?  As in anyone interested enough in automatic weapon fire (which they know is illegal) is going to get through this level of difficulty in under 30 minutes.  The number of people deterred is going to be right around zero.

 

Also, you may not want to be so comfortable with your constitutional rights being violated because some other items on that list include your freedom of speech, right to due process, protection against being enslaved and so on.

 

I think we're so used to our rights being violated, as a whole, that it barely registers when it happens.

 

How would you feel about a law that prevents you from complaining about political parties or politicians or face felony charges?  Because that's not any different than this silly bump stock ban.

[Badger]

3 hours ago, Ternaugh said:

I still get emails from various local Republican sources, which usually break down into one of the following categories:

 

1. They're gonna take your guns

2. Abortion bad

3. Don't let "them" turn "us" into California

4. Democratic politician x hates [freedom|puppies|religion|little flag lapel pins]

 

The latest ones feature how evil the Democrats are for trying to take away bump stocks after the Las Vegas attack, which completely ignores that Trump signed an executive order to regulate them.

 

Despite, being a conservative, r eally don't care about abortion at all (except late-term abortion unless it is life-threatening).  I've heard too many child abuse cases, though I'd prefer adoption as an option.  Our society seems to favor biological parents past the point of reason.  So, sometimes, it is better the kid isn't born, if that is to be their life.

 

 

 

[Sociotard]

22 minutes ago, Toxxus said:

 

You realize the level of "know what they are doing" involves folding a belt in half and gripping it with the right amount of slack, right?  As in anyone interested enough in automatic weapon fire (which they know is illegal) is going to get through this level of difficulty in under 30 minutes.  The number of people deterred is going to be right around zero.

 

I remain unconvinced. I believe there is some amount of skill in determining "the right amount of slack". I would wager the level of skill required goes up for anything other than a firing range.

 

Quote

Also, you may not want to be so comfortable with your constitutional rights being violated because some other items on that list include your freedom of speech, right to due process, protection against being enslaved and so on.

I think we're so used to our rights being violated, as a whole, that it barely registers when it happens.

 

My rights to own guns has not been infringed. I have no right to own fully automatic weapons. I have no right to add-ons that allow me to simulate such.

 

Quote

How would you feel about a law that prevents you from complaining about political parties or politicians or face felony charges?  Because that's not any different than this silly bump stock ban.

 

Ah, but you speak against yourself. While I do not believe I have the right to simulate fully-automatic fire, you do. You have said that this ban does not prevent anyone from simulating fully automatic fire. To make a comparison, you'd have to say "the government outlaws a tool that makes disseminating political views marginally difficult without actually blocking them" so, I dunno, banning Twitter? Nah, twitter has uses beyond political speech.

[Toxxus]

22 minutes ago, Sociotard said:

My rights to own guns has not been infringed. I have no right to own fully automatic weapons. I have no right to add-ons that allow me to simulate such.

 

Your rights have been infringed since the 2nd Amendment does not constrain the type of arms you may bear (arms, not guns) by firing mode.

 

You technically have the right to any weapon that you can reasonably bear (carry and use).  But you are so used to the constitutionally illegal restrictions that have piled on over the years you don't even notice it.

 

The reality is most of us would be OK with some restrictions.  I don't want a neighbor with bazookas, for example, but I'd like them to change the amendment before creating laws that ignore it.  Mostly because I don't want my other constitutionally protected rights to be violated whenever the government wants to ignore the Bill of Rights.

 

It's the slippery slope of tyranny my friend.

 

 

[archer]

31 minutes ago, Badger said:

 

Despite, being a conservative, r eally don't care about abortion at all (except late-term abortion unless it is life-threatening).  I've heard too many child abuse cases, though I'd prefer adoption as an option.  Our society seems to favor biological parents past the point of reason.  So, sometimes, it is better the kid isn't born, if that is to be their life.

 

 

 

 

I don't care about the abortion issue either. As a member of the party, I supported pro-life language with reasonable exceptions when writing platforms and in floor votes because I was in a political alliance with people for whom that was a major issue. But I wouldn't have walked across the street to take part in an abortion protest.

 

I don't think abortion is a matter which falls under the jurisdiction of the national government. It should be left to state law or in the absence of state law, up to individual choice. If I'd been a member of the US Senate or the House, I would have voted my understanding of the Constitution rather than vote to support my political allies.

 

I've often said that the pro-life people, if they were serious about saving lives, would offer giving up every exception under the sun as part of a deal (rape, incest, life of the mother, unviable fetus, severely deformed fetus, and on and on) except for abortion on demand. That's been where the vast majority of the American public has been on the issue for decades and it would have been politically difficult or impossible for Democrat lawmakers to have turned down that deal (at least until quite recently and perhaps even still today). Whether that's right or not may be up for debate but that's been my longstanding position on the matter.

 

If the deal passed, everyone high fives and goes home with the national abortion rate slashed to a tiny fraction of what it was before. If the deal didn't pass, it would be easy to paint the Democrats as being extremists on the issue and change the national consensus on who should be in office.

 

But the pro-life people were always too much of extremists themselves to settle for slashing the abortion rate to a tiny fraction of what it was and have insisted on allowing a large number of abortions happen for decades until that hoped for mythical day when they will finally get a total victory on the issue.

 

 

 

 

[archer]

5 minutes ago, Toxxus said:

 I don't want a neighbor with bazookas, for example, but I'd like them to change the amendment before creating laws that ignore it.

 

 

Thank You!

 

When the 2nd amendment was written, a private citizen could purchase a ship which could match the best the government owned and put as many cannon on it as he wanted and could afford. So the people who wrote the 2nd amendment were well-aware of how open-ended the amendment was. And they would have welcomed that private ship into the militia forces in case of emergency.

 

The difficult process to amend the Constitution is there to make sure that we have a national consensus as much as possible before we make fundamental changes to our governing document. We've never had a national consensus on limiting the right to keep and bear arms but we could probably come to one if we started with an amendment barring private ownership of armed tanks, ICBM's, bazookas, machine guns,  RPG's (other than HERO), etc.

[Starlord]

 One of my former C.O.'s used to refer to our M16s as weapons of mass destruction.

[archer]

8 minutes ago, Starlord said:

 One of my former C.O.'s used to refer to our M16s as weapons of mass destruction.

 

Yes, but did you ever attack a mass with one?

[Starlord]

Only after the mass attacked us.

[archer]

5 minutes ago, Starlord said:

Only after the mass attacked us.

 

Out of curiosity, was it an even mix of priests, nuns, and altar boys?

 

I understand that in military engagements that different units usually have different characteristics.

[Old Man]

There was a time when I believed that the rights of law abiding gun owners should not be infringed due to the actions of a few crazy people, and that gun ownership was necessary to give the populace a means of resisting government corruption.  That's changed sharply over the past decade.

 

In the first case, the idea that laws shouldn't exist because criminals break laws is a logical fallacy.  Criminals will have bump stocks, therefore bump stocks should be legal.  Criminals steal, therefore stealing should be legal.  Criminals kill, therefore killing should be legal.  It's ridiculous.

 

Second, it's become clear that the Second Amendment is being used as a fig leaf so that gun enthusiasts can keep their toys.  There was a Kenyan Muslim in the White House for eight years and no one took a shot.  There's a Russian mole in the White House now and no one's taken a shot.  "Soap, Ballot, Bullet" is a lie.  NRA zealots don't have the balls.

 

Lastly, bump stocks in particular are a pretty funny hill to die on.  There's no practical reason to own one; accurate fire is impossible with the entire gun jiggling around forward of the grip.  They are literally useful for nothing other than making noise and firing indiscriminately into crowds.  Bump stocks are also egregious examples of the annoying loophole culture that has built up around guns.  It's not a machine gun, it's a bump stock.  It's not a stock, it's an "arm brace."  It's not a sawed off shotgun, it's a "firearm."  We can't be bothered to stick a $0.05 pair of earplugs in our ears, we neeeed suppressors.  Who do these guys think they're fooling?  All they're doing is making it easier for the next mass murderer.

[Old Man]

10 minutes ago, archer said:

 

Out of curiosity, was it an even mix of priests, nuns, and altar boys?

 

I understand that in military engagements that different units usually have different characteristics.

 

Sutherland Springs was one pastor, seven other men, ten women (one of whom was pregnant), and eight kids including an 18-month-old.  Plus 20 injured including a five-year-old who was shot five times and spent a year in the hospital.

[Starlord]

17 minutes ago, archer said:

 

Out of curiosity, was it an even mix of priests, nuns, and altar boys?

 

I understand that in military engagements that different units usually have different characteristics.

 

Dunno, but I doubt there were many Catholics working for Saddam Hussein at the time.

[Toxxus]

7 minutes ago, Old Man said:

All they're doing is making it easier for the next mass murderer.

 

This is a very commonly used and incredibly weak argument for gun control.  It doesn't change the nature of the 2nd amendment and it represents an incredibly tiny, tiny percentage of gun deaths.

 

More people die from being punched to death in America than shot with automatic weapons.  More than all rifles, in fact.

 

If gun control were actually important it would be aimed at pistols and would have to include all of them.

 

If gun control were actually about saving lives it would be forgotten entirely until we dealt with the things that massively, massively kills us in comparison (heart disease, smoking, obesity, cancer, medical mistakes, motor vehicle accidents, etc.).

 

Gun control is about 1 thing and 1 thing only - disarming the public.  When it comes to disarming the citizens Gandhi says no and Hitler says yes.  Pick a team.

[Pattern Ghost]

4 hours ago, Toxxus said:

It's such a stupid regulation.  If you know what you're doing you can use a leather belt as a bump stock.  I hate these rules for two reasons 1-  They don't work - at all.  2-  They violate the 2nd amendment. 

 

Try shooting over a window ledge at a steep downward angle with that method. The fact is that bump stocks make bump firing far easier than other methods, and that the intent is clearly an end run around NFA regulations.

[Sociotard]

1 hour ago, archer said:

When the 2nd amendment was written, a private citizen could purchase a ship which could match the best the government owned and put as many cannon on it as he wanted and could afford. So the people who wrote the 2nd amendment were well-aware of how open-ended the amendment was. And they would have welcomed that private ship into the militia forces in case of emergency.

Sort of. Pre-14th amendment, the Bill of Rights was mainly seen as a restriction on the Federal government

Examples

Quote

Alabama: An Act to Suppress the Use of Bowie Knives: Section 2. June 30, 1837: And be it further enacted , That for every such weapon (Bowie Knife , sold or given, or otherwise disposed of in this State, the person selling, giving or disposing of the same, shall pay a tax of one hundred dollars, to be paid into the county Treasury; and if any person so selling, giving or disposing of such weapon shall fail to give in the same to his list of taxable property, he shall be subject to the pains and penalties of perjury.

So that's a tax of over $3000 for a bowie knife. But at least it isn't Tennessee, where you could face time.

 

Quote

Tennessee:  Act of Jan. 27, 1838, chap. 137 at 1837-1838 Tenn. Pub. Acts 200: That if any merchant, . . . shall sell, or offer to sell . . . any Bowie knife or knives, or Arkansas tooth picks . . . such merchant shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and shall be fined . . . and imprisoned.

 

 

And Georgia added in some classes of gun with their Bowie Knife ban

Quote

Georgia: Act of Dec. 25, 1837, 1837 Ga. Laws 90. § 1: it shall not be lawful for any merchant, or vender of wares or merchandize in this State, or any other person or persons whatsoever, to sell, or offer to sell, or to keep or have about their person or elsewhere, any of the hereinafter described weapons, to wit: Bowie, or any other kind of knives, manufactured and sold for the purpose of wearing, or carrying the same as arms of offense or defense, pistols, dirks, sword canes, spears etc., shall also be contemplated in this act, save such pistols as are known and used, as horseman’s pistols, etc.

 

Sorry, I find it endlessly amusing that early America was less concerned with cannons and more with Crocodile Dundee's "NOYFF!"

 

Oh, but on to cannons. They didn't generally ban them outright, but they did put restrictions on them. Well, I guess I wouldn't call an Oath of Loyalty a restriction, but I imagine, if it were tried today, some pro-gun people would.

Quote

Pennsylvania: 1779 Pa. Laws 193, An Act. . . for disarming persons who shall not have given attestations of allegiance and fidelity to this state, § 4. And whereas it is very improper and dangerous that persons disaffected to the liberty and independence of this state shall possess of have in their keeping, or elsewhere, any firearms, or other weapons used in war, or any gun powder, § 5. That from and after the passing of this act, the lieutenant or any sub lieutenant of the militia of any county or place within this state, shall be, and is hereby empowered to disarm any person or person who shall not have taken any oath or affirmation of allegiance to this or any other state and against who information on oath shall be given before any justice of the peace that such person is suspected to be disaffected to the independence of this state, and shall take from every such person any cannon, mortar, or other piece of ordinance, or any blunderbuss, wall piece, musket, fusee, carbine or pistols, or other firearms, or any hand gun; and any sword, cutlass, bayonet, pike or other warlike weapon, out of any building, house or place belonging to such person. 

 

There could also be assorted safety restrictions, mandating where and how such things could be stored. Frankly, not so unlike modern proposals (that get rejected) to require guns be stored in a safe.

Quote

Massachusetts: 1782 Mass. Acts 119 An Act in Addition to the Several Acts Already Made for the prudent Storage of Gun Powder within the Town of Boston, Chap. 46, § 1:  “That all Cannon, Swivels, Mortars, Howitzers, Cohorns, Fire Arms, Bombs, Granades, and Iron Shells of any Kind, that shall be found in any Dwelling House, Out House, Stable, Barn, Store, Ware House, Shop, or other Building, charged with, or having in them any Gun Powder, shall be liable to be seized by either of the Firewards of the said Town : And upon Complaint made by the said Firewards to the Court of Common Pleas, of such Cannon, Swivels, Mortars, or Howitzer, being so found, the Court shall proceed to try the Merits of such Complaint by a Jury ; and if the Jury shall find such Complaint supported, such Cannon, Swivel, Mortar, or Howitzer, shall be adjudged forfeit, and be sold at public Auction.

 

 

 

1 hour ago, Toxxus said:

The reality is most of us would be OK with some restrictions.  I don't want a neighbor with bazookas, for example, but I'd like them to change the amendment before creating laws that ignore it.  Mostly because I don't want my other constitutionally protected rights to be violated whenever the government wants to ignore the Bill of Rights.

I absolutely agree that the "any item you can personally carry and use" interpretation would be foolhardy. Recoilless Rifles? Grenade Launchers? Some Mortars? No good.  I am intrigued by how open you are to "repeal and replace" for the 2nd.  What wording would you be open to?

[Sociotard]

14 minutes ago, Toxxus said:

 

This is a very commonly used and incredibly weak argument for gun control.  It doesn't change the nature of the 2nd amendment and it represents an incredibly tiny, tiny percentage of gun deaths.

More people die from being punched to death in America than shot with automatic weapons.  More than all rifles, in fact.

 

This is true.

 

If gun control were actually important it would be aimed at pistols and would have to include all of them.

It was tried and ruled unconstitutional. We can't have that one.

 

If gun control were actually about saving lives it would be forgotten entirely until we dealt with the things that massively, massively kills us in comparison (heart disease, smoking, obesity, cancer, medical mistakes, motor vehicle accidents, etc.).

First, that isn't an either or. Legislating against the one does not preclude legislating against the other.  Besides that there is an odd, irrational feature in the human mind, that threat of accident or disease always gets less of a response than threat of violence. It doesn't matter how much less likely violence is, or how much less severe the effect. It isn't rational, but it is baked into our poor little ape brains.  Sorry, it is here to stay.

[Toxxus]

5 minutes ago, Sociotard said:

1 hour ago, Toxxus said:

The reality is most of us would be OK with some restrictions.  I don't want a neighbor with bazookas, for example, but I'd like them to change the amendment before creating laws that ignore it.  Mostly because I don't want my other constitutionally protected rights to be violated whenever the government wants to ignore the Bill of Rights.

I absolutely agree that the "any item you can personally carry and use" interpretation would be foolhardy. Recoilless Rifles? Grenade Launchers? Some Mortars? No good.  I am intrigued by how open you are to "repeal and replace" for the 2nd.  What wording would you be open to.

 

I would have to put some serious though into that.  Off the cuff - I think I'd like it to be in range of each person in "The People" to be on par with an infantry soldier.

So, melee weapons, pistols, select fire rifles - all good.

 

I'm much less good with heavy artillery and anti-vehicle grade weapons.

 

I'd also be OK with some mandatory training and education on safe use.  I'm in Texas and our concealed carry permits require fingerprinting, background check, training and passing a certain score at a gun range.

 

All of it seems reasonable to me.

 

We agree completely on mortars. 

 

One of the big problems I have with aggressive gun control is that it puts the disabled, elder and women at severe disadvantage when dealing with criminals.  Even the CDC clocks in the number of defensive gun uses at more than 10x the rate of homicides.

I can't see taking away weapons from some would be killers at the cost of many, many more women and children becoming victims.

[Pattern Ghost]

I think the biggest problem with most weapons laws is that they aren't actually effective in addressing the issue they claim to be addressing, and lawmakers know this. I think for some, the goal is simply political currency. For others, particularly private organizations, the end goal is total disarmament, with incrementalism being the tool, so any regulation is good enough. I don't find either of these motives particularly savory.

 

Sociotard mentioned early knife laws, such as bans on Bowie knives. The thinking there is the same as the bans on switchblades: They're the weapons of thugs, so they need to be banned. I'm pretty sure that these laws have never actually reduced the amount of thuggery, but, hey, the government did something.

 

 

[archer]

18 minutes ago, Pattern Ghost said:

I think the biggest problem with most weapons laws is that they aren't actually effective in addressing the issue they claim to be addressing, and lawmakers know this. I think for some, the goal is simply political currency.

 

 

 

I notice this a lot when there's a mass shooting then lawmakers in response rush to introduce gun restriction bills which would have had no effect on the shooter's ability to get a gun if the bill had already been law. The goal of the legislation obviously wasn't to stop that kind of shooting from ever happening again because the law would have had zero effect on that kind of shooting.

 

In the words of Rahm Emanuel, Obama's former Chief of Staff, “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste. And what I mean by that is an opportunity to do things that you think you could not do before.”

[Pattern Ghost]

1 hour ago, Old Man said:

It's not a stock, it's an "arm brace."  It's not a sawed off shotgun, it's a "firearm."  We can't be bothered to stick a $0.05 pair of earplugs in our ears, we neeeed suppressors.  Who do these guys think they're fooling?  All they're doing is making it easier for the next mass murderer.

 

I'm going to break these down for the less gun-savvy folks so they know what we're talking about, and also express an opinion on each. (AKA, step one of how to start a fight on the Internet. )

 

The National Firearms Act (NFA): These are all references to NFA regulated items. Note that the NFA doesn't ban these things, and after a lengthy wait, a background check, and paying $200 for a tax stamp, anyone can own them. The NFA just makes it a bit more difficult. But not as difficult as, say, getting any gun in Canada or New  Zealand.

 

Stocks/Arm Braces: Short Barreled Rifles (SBR; barrels under 16"/overall length  under 26") are regulated by the NFA. Likely because of the Tommy Gun being a stereotypical gangster weapon, but don't quote me on that. Kind of a silly regulation, IMO. It's not likely to have any impact on mass murder, IMO.

 

Anyway, there are these things called AR pistols. Take an AR-15 or similar rifle, and remove the shoulder stock, and you'll find that it has a tube sticking out of the rear of the receiver. (It houses part of the recoil system) If you manufacture an AR-15 with no stock, and just the tube sticking out the rear, then it's considered a pistol and can have a shorter than 16" barrel. So, those were a thing for a while, but you couldn't legally shoulder the tube, and if you did, it was awkward. Along comes a company with a product designed to help a one armed person brace the weapon. This brace is kind of shaped like a stock. The ATF ruled that this device was OK, but that you couldn't shoulder it or it would make your AR pistol (or whatever rifle-ish pistol; they come in other flavors) into an SBR. Then they ruled that it was OK to shoulder them. Then they ruled that you couldn't shoulder them. And they're currently back to it being OK to shoulder a brace. So, the "brace" is functionally a stock, but not technically a stock. So, at the moment, you can have a SBR without ponying up the tax stamp money or waiting nearly a year for approval. Until one's used in a mass murder, then you can expect the ruling to change.

 

 

Sawed off Shotgun is a "Firearm." This is the same thing as the SBR/Brace deal. Due to the way things are measured, if you have a shotgun with a certain style of grip (not a pistol grip), and it has a certain overall length, then it's not a Short-Barreled Shotgun, it's just a "weapon" as far as NFA regs/ATF is concerned. These are basically novelties. They do let you have a shorter than usual shotgun, but they're unpleasant and difficult to shoot. They're a weapon for an expert, and most mass shooters or thugs wouldn't have the ability to use them to do any more significant damage than any other legal weapon, IMO. I think the things pose a greater risk to the shooter (creating hamburger hand by sticking your hand in front of the shorter barrel) than other weapons, so I'm not too concerned if criminals can easily get one.

 

 

Suppressors vs Ear Plugs. I won't bother to pony up the $200 for a tax stamp or pay the high price for a suppressor, but might get one if they were off the NFA. IMO, they aren't going to make life any easier for a mass shooter. They don't silence a weapon completely. They have a functional use outside of criminal activity. They're required in some countries which otherwise have strict gun control.  I can throw on some ear muffs if I have time, and my electronic muffs enhance my hearing as a bonus. But my wife won't have any muffs on. For people who live in the country and can shoot in their backyard, like Hickock45 in the video above, they can provide a respite for neighbors and livestock. Hunters who are doing pest control of various kinds that might involve making consecutive kills can benefit from suppressors. At the end of the day, taking suppressors off the NFA won't cause blood in the streets, IMO. But you can still get them relatively easily with a wait and what has today become a small fee. So, I'm kind of neutral on these.

 

Frankly, I think most NFA-regulated items are there for the same reasons as switchblades and Bowie knives being banned, and not really for any practical reasons.

 

EDIT: I should add that there's another perceived advantage to Braced Pistols: Legally, they're pistols. In many states, the concealed carry permit allows you to carry a loaded pistol in your car. A loaded rifle is pretty much a non-starter in most states I think. (Likely an anti-poaching measure more than public safety one.) So, a braced pistol lets you functionally have a loaded rifle ready for deployment in your vehicle with a concealed carry license. (And if that last sentence sounds a bit . . . off . . . to you, that's why I didn't mention it in my original draft. If I'm in a car, and I encounter a situation that requires a rifle, I'm driving away. Car > rifle.)

 

 

[Pattern Ghost]

5 minutes ago, archer said:

In the words of Rahm Emanuel, Obama's former Chief of Staff, “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste. And what I mean by that is an opportunity to do things that you think you could not do before.” 

 

You know, that sounds quite evil and Machiavellian, but it's not exactly wrong either. I don't think either party is above taking advantage of a good crisis.

[archer]

7 minutes ago, Pattern Ghost said:

 

I'm going to break these down for the less gun-savvy folks so they know what we're talking about, and also express an opinion on each.

 

 

Thank you for that. I knew most or all of that at one point or another but my memory isn't what it once was.

[Badger]

2 hours ago, Starlord said:

 

Dunno, but I doubt there were many Catholics working for Saddam Hussein at the time.

 

Don't know about exact denominations, but I think there were a couple of Christians in his government.

[Badger]

2 hours ago, Sociotard said:

Sort of. Pre-14th amendment, the Bill of Rights was mainly seen as a restriction on the Federal government

Examples

So that's a tax of over $3000 for a bowie knife. But at least it isn't Tennessee, where you could face time.

 

 

 

And Georgia added in some classes of gun with their Bowie Knife ban

 

Sorry, I find it endlessly amusing that early America was less concerned with cannons and more with Crocodile Dundee's "NOYFF!"

 

Oh, but on to cannons. They didn't generally ban them outright, but they did put restrictions on them. Well, I guess I wouldn't call an Oath of Loyalty a restriction, but I imagine, if it were tried today, some pro-gun people would.

 

There could also be assorted safety restrictions, mandating where and how such things could be stored. Frankly, not so unlike modern proposals (that get rejected) to require guns be stored in a safe.

 

 

 

I absolutely agree that the "any item you can personally carry and use" interpretation would be foolhardy. Recoilless Rifles? Grenade Launchers? Some Mortars? No good.  I am intrigued by how open you are to "repeal and replace" for the 2nd.  What wording would you be open to?

 

Have you seen a Bowie knife, it's a pretty damn big knife.