For everyone who didn't cast a vote for Hillary, even if you didn't vote for Trump, left it blank, voted for a third party, whatever happens in a Trump presidency the blood is on your hands.

Come what may, deportations, mass killings, walls, mass shootings, may the inaction of many cause the bloodshed of many and may the blood drip in agony for your lifetimes.

Post has attachment
Now that our membership has changed quite a bit, I'm curious where we stand ideologically. In seeking the right balance between public safety and the right of emergency self-defense, what kinds of weapons do you think ought to be legal? Pick the answer that is the closest fit for your views, even if it's not a perfect fit.
22 votes
-
votes visible to Public
0%
No guns, mace or tazers, and few knives
0%
Non-lethal weapons only (mace & tazers)
0%
Rifles/shotguns allowed, handguns banned
18%
Semi-auto allowed, but not full-auto.
82%
The type of weapon is not the point.

Hi Brady, if only we Americans could trust our government on all levels we could possibly find common ground to get bad guns out of the wrong hands. I applaud your efforts for your working hard to create a greater debate .

Post has attachment
I-594 Washington State Gun Control Approved     I-594 Washington State Gun Control Approved

Post has attachment
Hey, Brady says he just added a bunch of members, I figure it's a good time to repost this link.  It's a good thing to have handy when discussing gun control on the internet:

http://reddit.com/r/dgu

Basically, it's a subreddit where people post stories from their local news about defensive gun use.  Generally speaking, you can go there and get a dozen stories from the last week about people all over the US using guns to defend themselves.  It's a "warts and all" site where they also list cases where people are less than responsible (they mark it with "bad form" tag or whatever--like when they chase the criminal out of their house and shoot at the getaway car).

To me, all you have to do is read through a few of the stories and you can immediately see why regular, ordinary, non-extremists need guns to protect themselves from the bad guys.  Plain and simple.  

Hi to the new folks.  I, too, have been silent about the issue. But let me introduce myself.  53, married for 27 years, live in Ottawa area, Canada.  We don't own a gun, won't own a gun ever, and I'd prefer to never have to have a gun. They aren't a large part of the culture of Canada, at all.  I'd likely be able to list on one hand those friends in Canada that have a gun in the neighbourhood of ours that's about 375 houses roughly. Crime just isn't a thing here in semi-affluent Western Quebec residential housing.  For one thing though, drugs are highly tolerated, even by police.  Go figure.  Make the drugs easier to obtain, crime goes down cocks eyebrow  Maybe you Americans could learn something from that wink

That all being said, I don't have a problem, at all, with people that do own a gun for safety, protection and their well-being.  In fact, it was due to a carefully used handgun that a blood bath was prevented in our Parliament a few weeks ago when the Sergent-at-Arms took out a crazed person who aimed to kill a few members of our government, apparently.  Yes, that was a good use of force.  Yes, there are some good uses of force.

My issue is with the people-killing  machines.  As in plural people, spraying out bullets in 1000's of rounds a second.  Why, in hell's name, can a person legally own that type of gun? What is its purpose in their house besides mass murder.  Hunters use rifles with precise shots to take down deer.  Not something I'd do personally, but I'll eat deer meat and moose and not complain. 

I'd like to see some sort of control put on, background checks done extensively and permits for people to own multi-bullet spraying guns i.e. Uzi sub-machine guns for instance (not saying that is a type of gun sold in the U.S. - just explaining what type of gun I am talking about).  Is that so unreasonable a stance?

I just approved a dozen new members. Welcome, newcomers! Please feel free to introduce yourselves and say a little about your background and why you're interested in the topic of guns.

I've been silent for an awfully long time, but I'm going to try bring things back a bit. To that end:

Imagine two adults live in the same household. Both are legally eligible to own firearms. One wants one, and the other is insistent on not bringing a firearm into a home that is, after all, theirs as well.

If they both continually press the issue, should the gun ultimately stay or go? Should the law choose who wins, and who should it choose? Are there other factors to consider?

Post has attachment
They are coming for your guns.

Post has attachment
DinoDad32.com
Wait while more posts are being loaded