Practical discussion: gun storage

It's just that not all 'GCAs' want to ban all guns. Some actually are interested in gun safety. I just dislike sweeping generalizations.

 

I'm not a fan of generalizations, either; they are never true

 

Sweeping generalizations

 

My wife and I personally have safes, she uses a Minivault, and I have a Multivault. These have finger grooves to make it easy to punch in your code without turning on lights. I have 2 handguns in my safe, my wife has one. We also use Glazer safety slugs in the house to prevent penetrating walls. The rest are locked up in large gun safes that only I know the combinations to. They are written down and kept in our safety deposit box at the bank in case something happens to me.

 

For the most part, I don't like sweeping generalizations either. Yes, I know "GCAs" who are perfectly reasonable people and we're friends even though we disagree on the core issue, and we can have good-natured conversations about it. Those kind of exchanges I actually find rewarding and intellectually stimulating.

Unfortunately, it seems many if not most "GCAs" base their viewpoints on propaganda and falsehoods, and will smear anyone and everyone who doesn't immediately embrace their agenda with the broadest brush possible; denigrating them with the most vile pejoratives available to the English language.... and are then offended when they reap what they sow.

 

it doesn't take much thought to understand the difference.

 

99% of GCAs start off as left-wingers and see GC as a way to attack the right. very few study gun laws and gun violence before becoming GCAs

 

It doesn’t take much thought to realize not every GCA is for banning all guns.

 

many who are- deny it. so I really don't spend much time trying to sort them out since those who currently don't want complete bans are helping facilitate those who do and when their "ultimate steps" don't stop crime, they invariably adopt measures closer and closer to bans.

 

How do you know all of those “many” are denying it?

 

Folks need to teach their children about guns. I grew up in a home with they were always Loaded and out standing in a corner or hanging on a deer footed wall rack. No one ever died at my home.

 

The problem is that GCAs start wanting to ban SOME guns (which by definition makes them a "gun banner", though they angrily deny such) and inevitably push to ban more.

 

because of what they later do. years ago, the odious Sarah Brady came to Cincinnati. She was helping push for a waiting period. I publicly claimed she was a gun banner. She said she never supported any gun ban and she wouldn't support gun bans. She threw a fit when I said she was lying. the measure passed. A year later, the same politicians wanted a semi auto ban. Brady was back there backing it. I played a tape of her denials. My former boss was on city council. He said Ms Brady told the mayor she'd never be back after being embarrassed by my proving her a liar. But she epitomized how gun banners think.

 

Ah...so Brady is your proof that many deny it. For fcuk sake...

 

I have been dealing with gun banners/controllers for over 40 years

how many have you ever heard say

1) well that law didn't stop crime-lets try something else

2) lets repeal that law since it didn't decrease crime

 

And yet you only have one example. You’re paranoid.

 

And yet there are no examples on the part of yourself, absolutely none, to show advocates of greater firearm-related restrictions do not favor firearms prohibitions of any sort.

 

Never claimed to know what is in another persons mind. I’m not the one who makes sweeping generalizations based on paranoia. Therein lies the difference. If you’re going to make a claim ya better damn well back it up with ACTUAL factual data.

 

Favoring of the prohibition of any firearms is evidence of favoring the prohibition of all firearms. One need look no further than the state of California and its extremely broad classification of what firearms amount to so-called "assault weapons" to see proof of such.

 

lets examine your specious argument. when the anti gun Democrats passed a 10 round magazine limit in NY, they claimed they weren't trying to ban lower capacity magazines. Then they passed a law banning anything over 7

In California, there have been years of the creeping crud of gun restrictions. Those passing them always say their crap is not going to lead to further encroachments. when you ignore these facts it means you support the dishonesty of the anti gun movement

 

Are all guns banned in CA and NY? Yes or no?

 

Such is neither of importance nor relevance. According to the united state supreme court, prohibiting the ownership of even a single type of firearm in common use is more than enough to qualify.

 

Actually it is of importance and the whole gun banning thing is what people like you whine about

 

Prohibiting the ownership of a single type of firearm in common use for lawful purposes is sufficient reason to oppose the efforts of GCAs who support such a ban. Why should a violation of a right, no matter how slight it appears to you, be acceptable?

 

The united state supreme court ruled otherwise. According to the legal precedent that has been set, prohibition of even one type of firearm that is in common use, is both unacceptable and unconstitutional under all levels of legal scrutiny.