Anonymous wrote:

I think anything that makes it easy to file multiple rounds quickly should be banned from the common cotsrn possession.

Do you realize this would include a black powder revolver from the 1800's, and an over/under skeet shooting sport shotgun, just to give two examples?

How do plan to effect/enforce your ban?

Since criminal possession of firearms is already banned, what would be different about your ban that would make it effective when the existing ban is not?

I think anything that makes it easy to file multiple rounds quickly should be banned from the common cotsrn possession.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Over react much? A mass shooting was your first thought? Amazing.

Spoken by someone who has never had a loved one or known someone with a loved one involved in a shooting.

Even with open carry prohibited in the District, I've seen it multiple times since Trump was elected.

Anonymous wrote:Over react much? A mass shooting was your first thought? Amazing.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Even with open carry prohibited in the District, I've seen it multiple times since Trump was elected.

One was at 9:30am, white guy parks his pick-up on 19th st nw, just south of M, hops out and leisurely strolls into the 7-Eleven, handgun tucked into the back of his blue jeans. I honestly has to do a double take and look around to see if there were more. Another was on Connecticut Ave, also a hand gun, this time at least in a hoslter.

So, first, we need the laws. Then, we need to enforce them.

People started breaking the open carry law in DC only after Trump was elected? Really? No crime until 2016? Wow, I never knew that.

Anonymous wrote:Even with open carry prohibited in the District, I've seen it multiple times since Trump was elected.

One was at 9:30am, white guy parks his pick-up on 19th st nw, just south of M, hops out and leisurely strolls into the 7-Eleven, handgun tucked into the back of his blue jeans. I honestly has to do a double take and look around to see if there were more. Another was on Connecticut Ave, also a hand gun, this time at least in a hoslter.

So, first, we need the laws. Then, we need to enforce them.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I respect gun ownership, but I draw the line when gun owners believe their right to own weapons trumps anybody else’s right to personal safety and freedom, and frankly I believe that’s where things have has gone in the last decade. I don’t think the second amendment is more important than any other amendment.

I think we both agree on the bolded but are looking at it from different angles. I would like to own a firearm for home defense and the second amendment guarantees that that right shall not be infringed. Not to say that I'm drawing a line in the sand, but my freedoms should be as respected as yours and should not be changed because you disagree.

I take your point, but hope you will allow that the wide interpretation of the 2nd amendment is NOT in line with what the founders envisioned, based on the weapons they had at the time.

I support mandatory mental health screenings for gun owners.

100% agreement.



I believe assault weapons should be banned. There is no reason for ordinary citizens to own these weapons. I believe service members should be required to return them upon leaving the service.

Assault weapons are illegal (and should be). They are defined as weapons with variable rates of fire, both burst and fully automatic modes. Outside of very rare circumstances, they are illegal to be owned by the public. An AR-15 is not an assault weapon. The AR does not stand for Assault Rifle, it stands for ArmaLite, the company that designed it. It is a semi-automatic rifle that, admittedly, is a bit intimidating looking but semi-automatic rifles have been around since the late 1800's. Dick's Sporting Goods, which did quite a bit of posturing about the guns they sold, still allows you to buy semi-automatic rifles online. https://www.dickssportinggoods.com/p/remington-597-semi-automatic-rifle-package-3-9x32mm-scope-15rema597blckwscprif And as far as I'm aware, service members must surrender firearms when discharged.


I think anything that makes it easy to file multiple rounds quickly should be banned from the common cotsrn possession.

I believe there should be a heavy tax on gun ownership over a certain number. Personally i do not think that people should be able to stockpile weapons, but can’t imagine legislation passing that would restrict the number of weapons people could own, so this is a workaround.

Yeah, stockpiling has a real negative connotation, but I agree if your view of it is a stockroom full of weapons. If you pheasant hunt and goose hunt and like to spend time at the trap and skeet ranges, you could end up with 4 or 5 shotguns easily. If you hunt larger game and like to target shoot, two or three rifles isn't out of the question. And a sidearm if you're going to be in bear country. I know it sounds like a lot, but 10 firearms isn't really that much of a stretch... especially with how difficult it is to sell them when you upgrade. As for the taxing of that? Perhaps a tax that is assessed annually/biennially unless you can provide a certificate of training recertification from an accredited vendor. *shrug* I don't know... interesting concept.

No one should be able to have an unsecured or concealed weapon on their person unless they are licensed law-enforcement officer.

I disagree with this, but I will concede that there must be serious need, training and evaluation to obtain a permit. Also annual review of those with permits.

I can allow there may be reasons for some people to have this right but until we have very strict enforcement I would be still be in favor.

Until mental health screening and licensing and securing of weapons is universally enforced, I don’t believe there should be open carry in this country.


Fair enough, but I don't think that the incidents that bring gun control to the foreground are typically by people with licensed firearms.

I think some open carry states are very lax in their regulation and this leads to troubling potential for abuse of the ability to own carry. Also to bullying and to stupidity.

I apologize I did not do a very good job and contain my answers within the quotations, as well as for my typos. I think reasonable people should try to get to know one another and talk about this issue. Guns aren’t going anywhere. We've got a find a middle ground and that takes discussion.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When you hear hoofbeats think horses and not zebras

I never saw a zebra but my neighbor was killed in a mass shooting.

My relatives were killed by planes on 9/11. I don’t panic anytime I hear a plane c

I am sorry for your loss but there is no comparison. How many terrorist attacks have we had compared to mass shootings?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I respect gun ownership, but I draw the line when gun owners believe their right to own weapons trumps anybody else’s right to personal safety and freedom, and frankly I believe that’s where things have has gone in the last decade. I don’t think the second amendment is more important than any other amendment.

I think we both agree on the bolded but are looking at it from different angles. I would like to own a firearm for home defense and the second amendment guarantees that that right shall not be infringed. Not to say that I'm drawing a line in the sand, but my freedoms should be as respected as yours and should not be changed because you disagree.

I take your point, but hope you will allow that the wide interpretation of the 2nd amendment is NOT in line with what the founders envisioned, based on the weapons they had at the time.

I support mandatory mental health screenings for gun owners.

100% agreement.



I believe assault weapons should be banned. There is no reason for ordinary citizens to own these weapons. I believe service members should be required to return them upon leaving the service.

Assault weapons are illegal (and should be). They are defined as weapons with variable rates of fire, both burst and fully automatic modes. Outside of very rare circumstances, they are illegal to be owned by the public. An AR-15 is not an assault weapon. The AR does not stand for Assault Rifle, it stands for ArmaLite, the company that designed it. It is a semi-automatic rifle that, admittedly, is a bit intimidating looking but semi-automatic rifles have been around since the late 1800's. Dick's Sporting Goods, which did quite a bit of posturing about the guns they sold, still allows you to buy semi-automatic rifles online. https://www.dickssportinggoods.com/p/remington-597-semi-automatic-rifle-package-3-9x32mm-scope-15rema597blckwscprif And as far as I'm aware, service members must surrender firearms when discharged.


I think anything that makes it easy to file multiple rounds quickly should be banned from the common cotsrn possession.

I believe there should be a heavy tax on gun ownership over a certain number. Personally i do not think that people should be able to stockpile weapons, but can’t imagine legislation passing that would restrict the number of weapons people could own, so this is a workaround.

Yeah, stockpiling has a real negative connotation, but I agree if your view of it is a stockroom full of weapons. If you pheasant hunt and goose hunt and like to spend time at the trap and skeet ranges, you could end up with 4 or 5 shotguns easily. If you hunt larger game and like to target shoot, two or three rifles isn't out of the question. And a sidearm if you're going to be in bear country. I know it sounds like a lot, but 10 firearms isn't really that much of a stretch... especially with how difficult it is to sell them when you upgrade. As for the taxing of that? Perhaps a tax that is assessed annually/biennially unless you can provide a certificate of training recertification from an accredited vendor. *shrug* I don't know... interesting concept.

No one should be able to have an unsecured or concealed weapon on their person unless they are licensed law-enforcement officer.

I disagree with this, but I will concede that there must be serious need, training and evaluation to obtain a permit. Also annual review of those with permits.

I can allow there may be reasons for some people to have this right but until we have very strict enforcement I would be still be in favor.

Until mental health screening and licensing and securing of weapons is universally enforced, I don’t believe there should be open carry in this country.


Fair enough, but I don't think that the incidents that bring gun control to the foreground are typically by people with licensed firearms.

I think some open carry states are very lax in their regulation and this leads to troubling potential for abuse of the ability to own carry. Also to bullying and to stupidity.

Anonymous wrote:Ok... enough of this civil banter. DCUM will explode if it continues heh

Thank you for expressing your views in a thoughtful manner.