larger than laser pointers, but not always. If you live directly in front of an airport and planes fly over you to land, then a laser pointer like that could be a problem.

The sad thing is, most of those incidents are quite intentional. People actually aim at the cockpits deliberately.

I remember my brother complaining years ago about the scarcity and climbing price of ammo. Reloading supplies as well. He told me people were ordering it by the Crate, not the case. I asked him why and he told me Obama! We don't talk anymore.

If you think for a New York Minute that the LGBTQ community as a whole will give a rat's ass you are on some good stuff. There will be some what will be very vocal agitators(the usual suspects), but the overwhelming majority could care less. These are people who think that (as a rule) that Hillary Clinton is the second coming of Dorothy Gale and are resistant to any type of critical thinking. Sure they will be horrified but as long as it does not impede their lives in some direct fashion (what no cocktails?), they'll spend a few minutes tut tutting about it, but ultimately conclude that it's THOSE people's fault and if that bar just hadn't been so SOMETHING it would never have happened.
The secret underbelly of the community is the huge amounts of racist and classist thinking present and that will play a role in how the LGBTQ community parses this. There is a huge wedge of that cultural pie that demands the expression of white male masculine privilege and anything outside of it is dismissed. Ask a drag queen the reception they get outside of drag when they say what they do. Or how lesbians, trans people and people of colour are summarily dismissed from the table.

This is a horror. The access to these weapons of Death have to stop, but if you expect the LGBTQ community to step up? Prepare to be disappointed. It's like herding cats at the best of times.

Personally, I couldn't care less what a bunch of slaveholders wanted for this country. But if we're going to go by their "intentions," then that was to provide state militias with armed bodies, in order to put down domestic rebellions (primarily slave rebellions), not enable them.

Right-wing gun fanatics have it all upside down. The amendment was never meant to protect their "right" to topple the government. No government is ever going to set things up that way. It was to protect the government itself, in lieu of a standing military, which many hoped to avoid via those state militias.

In reality, since we no longer have those militias, the amendment should be null and void. It serves no purpose now, and we're only one of two nations with such an amendment. We don't need special amendments to purchase a billion different things, like cars, food, home appliances, etc. etc. We don't need one for guns, either. But since we're stuck with it for now, we need to stop letting it control us via massive, grotesque misreadings. The "right" to keep and bear arms has been inflated beyond all recognition.

I do have a problem w/people owning guns that could not possibly be used for any reasonable civilian purpose. As Wesley Clarke once said--back when he was more trustworthy--"If you want access to military weapons, we've got a place for you in the US military."

I also have a problem with the lack of background checks.

When people on the left talk about "gun nuts," they never, ever refer to all gun owners. They are specifically referring to people who have earned the label, and they realize that this label doesn't fit for the majority of gun owners.

I think you're projecting your fears onto others, and reading all kinds of phantom things into this discussion.

Don't you dare tell me what I think or whether I'm sincere. I actually was being 100% sincere, but you are so emotionally invested in your guns you can't see it, I guess. As I said, I have considered owning my own gun, and the reason I haven't acted on it is inertia mixed with lack of trust in my mental state from day to day.

My brother in law is a big-time, very responsible and environmentally conscious hunter. I'm good with him and his guns.

My grandfather always owned guns for his entire life.

My rhetorical question was not extremist - it was trying to set an outside limit to try to get you to admit that everyone has limits and to begin a discussion of those limits. Obviously, you either don't have any limits, in which case, yes, I'd probably call you a gun nut, or else you refuse to - IN GOOD FAITH - have a conversation about solutions that MIGHT include putting limits on certain types of weaponry, or else making more stringent rules for who could buy said weaponry.

I'll try again. Surely, you must agree that obviously mentally unstable people should not be allowed to own assault weapons with high-magazine capacities, right?

Unlike many on the left, I don't feel strongly that all guns are bad. I've shot guns and lived with people who owned them. But I do think that both sides should be willing to at least discuss possible solutions and limitations without having the fucking second amendment thrown into their faces at every turn. All of our other BOR rights have limitations. It's only the second that we cannot even DISCUSS limiting, right?

I think it should be clear which of us is insincere here.

I am a former Marine (60 years ago) and a lifelong target shooter. I own two .22 target rifles and an antique .38 Special Colt Police Positive which are locked in a gun safe. I no longer own any rifles larger than these because I'm old and my eyesight isn't what it once was, because ammo is too expensive, and because I shoot for the pleasure of my skill not for the big explosion. I have never been interested in hunting. I am always appalled at the emotion this subject brings up.

Limits on magazine quantity, ammo specifications, and bore size are legitimate. As is so often pointed out, you really must be a poor shot or really like hamburger to hunt deer with an AR15. Semi-automatic weapons are for use by soldiers and policemen. Large caliber weapons are no problem until you get up to anti-tank weapon sizes so far as I can see. Ammo such as armor piercing needs to be regulated because no one other than police or military have any legitimate need for such loads.

As Lookout said, there really are people who love guns who call themselves "gun nuts". I think I have been a moderate gun nut for most of my life beginning with my boyhood love of cowboy movies and my appreciation of precision machining. The difference between my gun-nuttiness and that of the mass-shooters making the news is that I don't think of myself as omniscient or justified to the point of murder for my beliefs; nor do I think of guns as being some sort of street fight equalizer or power wand. Some of us have need of concealed pistols, but that need used to be confined to shop owners who took their receipts to the bank night depository and not to casual coffee drinkers in Starbucks. That is, there was an identifiable, explicable case for carrying a weapon. There are also responsible gun collectors. We have become so polarized by the NRA, fright-mongers, continuing massacres, and publicity campaigns on all sides that rational discussion has become very difficult. Witness this thread.

I would like to suggest a couple of subjects for your consideration and thought: use loaded words and phrases such as "gun nut" with qualifiers that differentiate between innocent hobbyists and wild-eyed fanatics--it fits for both, unfortunately; put your sensitivities on the back burner until you ascertain what the writer/speaker really means; don't assume you are the target; be polite--watch out for replies that use a blunt word or phrase where a slightly more polite word or phrase will do, e.g., "I disagree" or "Are you sure?" instead of "BULLSHIT!" I have seen more instances of anger and intemperate speech here lately than since I first came here in March. Let's tone it down a little and give each other the benefit of the doubt.

Should be BHO not BSH.. Spell check or brain fart? Who noes.

I don't think that should be required to discuss possible solutions.

If a gun owner, without a shitty attitude (I know they exist, because I'm related to some) were to say, oh, that's not really the issue, this other thing is what would make a difference. That would be helpful.

But with any defensive gun owner, they can never say - this other thing would make a difference.

Because to them, there are no things that could possibly be worth compromising on to save lives.

Every single gun owner is a law-abiding owner until they aren't. Some people want to find ways to limit the carnage while still protecting rights. Some don't.

You've given me another reason to finally buy my gun, so I'm authorized to join a discussion on them. (although it would only be a handgun, so I guess I'm STILL not allowed to have an opinion. It would be a pointless comment from a pointless non-assault rifle owner, right?)

Sometimes, I wish you guys could see your behavior as it looks to a largely non-interested party like myself. This isn't a big issue for me, and honestly, if people would stop massacring other people, I'd be happy to never have a single conversation about it. We have bigger problems.

Ban all weapons that can or do use them. Ban all weapons that can be made to use them.

Limit all legal guns to those with just internal chambers, and limit those chambers to six, max. Limit all legal guns with internal chambers to those which you MUST load by hand, one bullet at a time.

License and register all guns. No exceptions. Require the adaptation of "smart gun" tech as soon as it's doable.

End the ban on government research into gun violence. Change that to requiring it on an ongoing basis.

Buy back the now illegal weaponry on a national scale. Melt them down. Give gun owners two years to give up those now illegal weapons. If they ignore this, they become felons and lose their designation as "law abiding citizens." No confiscation or jail time for those who ignore the new law, unless they commit crimes with guns, obviously. But it would be on their record. It would go against them when trying to find a job or a loan, etc. etc. All they need to do to escape from all of that is to sell back their weapon for a good price.

The above would easily conform with the Second Amendment AND save countless lives.