Hiding their weapons because they think the government is going to take them is just plain paranoid. They’ve been believing this propaganda for so long they won’t admit it never has happened and never will.Sort of like outlawing abortion. I can’t imagine how they are going to carry it out.

Especially Missouri. This state is as gunny as one can get. There is no way the local law is going to enforce a ban on guns they own and shoot with the people they live with. It won’t happen. So hiding guns is paranoid.

As for hiding some of them just in case one is the target of a red flag law.... first Missouri doesn’t have one and second, I would think they would make the target of said law sign something under penalty of felony stating they have handed over all their guns; making that a very risking thing to do.

I do agree that red flag laws should have stiff penalties for false claims. False reports to the police should not be tolerated.

...having an issue with the police having an exemption to a semi-auto ban, is it implies gun ownership can stop police abuse, which itself implies guns can be used to stop police violence.

I can’t envision a single scenario where that would end well for anyone. I can’t see police back- up showing up and then asking “ok, did you all abuse and violate the shooter’s civil rights” before deciding which side they will be on.

As far as everything else, well it is hard for me to say “your state has to follow a federal law we want you to even if some states have ignored federal laws they see as unjustifiable.”

What you seek to counter are not arguments but rather 'apologetics', justifications for guns.

A common theme seen in gunners (so-called) arguments is the suggestion that gun restriction laws will not work because (so-called) law-abiding gun owners will break the laws.

Point 1: Good point. I don't want cops assigned to neighborhood patrols or traffic duty armed with an AR-15. I'm still on the fence about whether cops assigned to any non-tactical duty should be unarmed or armed only with a revolver.

Point 2: I think "assault weapon" bans are a bad idea and the term "assault weapon" is meaningless. I'm thinking, other than import/export restrictions, there should be no federal drug laws. If a state deregulates pot, the feds have no voice.

Point 3: If the feds would stop fighting a major war on drugs in multiple countries, maybe they wouldn't need to depend on the local PD and the county sheriff to do them favors and do their job for them. Local law enforcement isn't really trained for that work.

Registration: I don't believe in registration. TRO and other red flag subjects should have 24 hours to surrender restricted weapons or be charged appropriately when/if found in possession. I don't believe in federal red flag laws. Red flag laws should be at the state level.

Welcome to DU and the group.

If a red state has to recognize a same-sex marriage under the Full Faith and Credit Clause (Article IV, Section 1: Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State), then blue states have to recognize the concealed carry permit and legal ownership of a citizen from a non-gun-grabbing state.


I think anything that makes it easier for law-abiding citizens to own and carry firearms is good, and the people who want to restrict firearms (with the exception of those convicted of violent crimes and/or under a TRO) to be no better than, and deserving the same scorn as, racists and homophobes.