Gun ownership poll

[Butch7999]

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,
the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Seems to us like 99% of Americans are either too illiterate or too lazy
to read that entire sentence and understand the delimiting context of
the clause in the first half. Or maybe it's us, and we're mistaking
the armed forces and police as a well-regulated militia. Bazookas
and tanks for everyone!

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Butch7999

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,
the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Seems to us like 99% of Americans are either too illiterate or too lazy
to read that entire sentence and understand the delimiting context of
the clause in the first half. Or maybe it's us, and we're mistaking
the armed forces and police as a well-regulated militia. Bazookas
and tanks for everyone!

Perhaps you should read the court decisions on the Militia Clause, if you have not. Basically, they don't find it limits the broader right.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Perhaps you should read the court decisions on the Militia Clause, if you have not. Basically, they don't find it limits the broader right.

And perhaps he should also have his full name in his post...unless he is "too illiterate or too lazy to read" the forum rules.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Perhaps you should read the court decisions on the Militia Clause, if you have not. Basically, they don't find it limits the broader right.

I would add that the founders actions and writings also make it abundantly clear that they very much saw it as a right granted to the population.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by G1911

I would add that the founders actions and writings also make it abundantly clear that they very much saw it as a right granted to the population.

From the Supreme Court 2007 Heller decision. Sorry to people who don't like it, and I may not like it myself, but it's the way it is.

Held:
1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a
firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for
traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
Pp. 2–53.
(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but
does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative
clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it
connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.
(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation
of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically
capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in
order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing
army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress
power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear
arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved.
Pp. 22–28.
(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous armsbearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately
followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30.
(d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious
interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals
that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms.
Pp. 30–32.
(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts
and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the
late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.
(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553, nor
Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 264–265, refutes the individualrights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not
limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather
limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by
the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Oh and Michael, by the way, regarding that "extreme" view of when life begins.

The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-212) is a United States law that recognizes an embryo or fetus in utero as a legal victim, if they are injured or killed during the commission of any of over 60 listed federal crimes of violence. The law defines "child in utero" as "a member of the species Homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb."[1]

The law is codified in two sections of the United States Code: Title 18, Chapter 1 (Crimes), §1841 (18 USC 1841) and Title 10, Chapter 22 (Uniform Code of Military Justice) §919a (Article 119a).

[icurnmedic]

I like my guns, some are valuable and its a place to invest. Not to mention, I live in a area where the nearest LEO is likely 10-20 minutes away. No one is around to hear any disturbance much less help.

+1 on the security system , I use SimplySafe at Home, and Ring at work. Both work well.

One of several reasons schools are not well guarded, or can't afford to hire the security personnel, is the government is too busy handing out freebies to those who do not contribute. OR maybe they just have not diverted the funds to the appropriate necessities. You decide.

Life begins at conception, but viable life does not. I am Switzerland when it comes to the abortion thing.

Oh and so much talk about semantics of "pro xxxx"
Why not :
pro-choice= "pro-abortion"
Pro-life= Anti-abortion.

A FWIW dictionary.com defines militia :
noun
a body of citizens enrolled for military service, and called out periodically for drill but serving full time only in emergencies.
a body of citizen soldiers as distinguished from professional soldiers.
all able-bodied males considered by law eligible for military service.
a body of citizens organized in a paramilitary group and typically regarding themselves as defenders of individual rights against the presumed interference of the federal government.

Pretty good discord in this thread.
Thomas

[BobbyStrawberry]

Originally Posted by icurnmedic

One of several reasons schools are not well guarded, or can't afford to hire the security personnel, is the government is too busy handing out freebies to those who do not contribute. OR maybe they just have not diverted the funds to the appropriate necessities. You decide.

Who are "those who do not contribute" and what are they not contributing?

[G1911]

Originally Posted by icurnmedic

I like my guns, some are valuable and its a place to invest.

I don't do this, but Kalashnikov's have outperformed the S&P the last few years. I could sell some of my beater stuff for more than I paid new not that long ago.

[AustinMike]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Oh and Michael, by the way, regarding that "extreme" view of when life begins.

The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-212) is a United States law that recognizes an embryo or fetus in utero as a legal victim, if they are injured or killed during the commission of any of over 60 listed federal crimes of violence. The law defines "child in utero" as "a member of the species Homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb."[1]

The law is codified in two sections of the United States Code: Title 18, Chapter 1 (Crimes), §1841 (18 USC 1841) and Title 10, Chapter 22 (Uniform Code of Military Justice) §919a (Article 119a).

So then why isn't a death certificate issued for each and every miscarriage? Only 7 states and 3 American territories require reporting the death of "(a)ll products of human conception." Twenty-five states require reporting the death if the gestation period is 20 weeks or greater. Twelve states and one territory require reporting the death is the gestation period is 20 weeks or greater and the birth weight is 350 grams or more. You can see the reporting requirements for all the states and territories here:

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/misc/itop97.pdf

Furthermore, we all know laws are fluid. They change depending upon who has the power to craft and pass the laws. So quoting a law, even though it may be current law of the land, means nothing in the context of this discussion. Otherwise, this whole discussion would be moot, no?

[AustinMike]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Oh and Michael, by the way, regarding that "extreme" view of when life begins.

The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-212) is a United States law that recognizes an embryo or fetus in utero as a legal victim, if they are injured or killed during the commission of any of over 60 listed federal crimes of violence. The law defines "child in utero" as "a member of the species Homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb."[1]

The law is codified in two sections of the United States Code: Title 18, Chapter 1 (Crimes), §1841 (18 USC 1841) and Title 10, Chapter 22 (Uniform Code of Military Justice) §919a (Article 119a).

Peter, I've finally had a chance to look at the law you cited and I noticed this, which you omitted:

‘‘(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to permit the
prosecution—
‘‘(1) of any person for conduct relating to an abortion for
which the consent of the pregnant woman, or a person authorized by law to act on her behalf, has been obtained or for
which such consent is implied by law;
‘‘(2) of any person for any medical treatment of the pregnant
woman or her unborn child; or
‘‘(3) of any woman with respect to her unborn child."

So, I'm confused. A fetus is a human being and you can be prosecuted for murder if you cause the death of the unborn fetus. Because the fetus is a human being. But, you can't be prosecuted for murder if it is done during an abortion. Seems like the fetus is a human being worthy of protection except when it's not.

I see it also applies under limited circumstances. From Wiki: "The law applies only to certain offenses over which the United States government has jurisdiction, including certain crimes committed on federal properties, against certain federal officials and employees, and by members of the military. In addition, it covers certain crimes that are defined by statute as federal offenses wherever they occur, no matter who commits them, such as certain crimes of terrorism." Again, it seems like the fetus is a human being worthy of protection except when it's not.

I guess kudos to the "pro-lifers" who wrote that and got it passed. Now they can claim that a fetus is codified by law to be a human being ... except when it's not.

Now to be clear, I understand the reasoning behind the law. And I agree with that reasoning. If a pregnant woman intends to carry the fetus to term, then yes, her unborn fetus was "murdered" and the perpetrator should be punished. I can see where she may think of it as a human being and it should be protected.

But the law also recognizes, without actually saying it, that a pregnant woman who does not want to carry the fetus to term does not think of the fetus as a human being and should not be punished. At least for now.

[Butch7999]

Peter, thanks for the informative clarification. Obviously, if we had a say,
we'd dissent vehemently against the court's tenuous inference. The
ammosexual crowd can be glad we'll never be able to rule on this one.

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

From the Supreme Court 2007 Heller decision. Sorry to people who don't like it, and I may not like it myself, but it's the way it is.

Held:
...
(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but
does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative
clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it
connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.
(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation
of the operative clause. ...

[irv]

Has anyone ever thought about any of this? I know some will think it is conspiracy nonsense but I think they are valid questions that need to be answered honestly.

Where did this Avalde shooter get all his wears?

He was carrying $5-6000 worth of guns, armor and ammo.

How did he get it, poor family and 18 years old. Kid probably hadn’t made $6000 gross in his whole life. How did he get to the gun shop, how did he procure all this stuff. Where did he practice shooting. Did he go to a range or a gravel pit?

All this makes very little sense to me.

[Cliff Bowman]

Originally Posted by irv

Has anyone ever thought about any of this? I know some will think it is conspiracy nonsense but I think they are valid questions that need to be answered honestly.

Where did this Avalde shooter get all his wears?

He was carrying $5-6000 worth of guns, armor and ammo.

Maybe he maxed out a couple of credit cards? He obviously wasn’t concerned about paying it back or the interest. Someone that knew him told a reporter that Ramos was a huge pothead (marijuana), that has since been scrubbed completely by the media. Just like a certain detail of the Tulsa Oklahoma mass shooting, that is a narrative that the media doesn’t want, it doesn’t fit their agenda.

[Steve D]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

From the Supreme Court 2007 Heller decision. Sorry to people who don't like it, and I may not like it myself, but it's the way it is.

Held:

1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.

(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.

(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.

(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30.

(d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32.

(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.

(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553, nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 264–265, refutes the individual rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54.

Also, here is the CURRENT LEGAL DEFINITION of The Militia:

10 U.S. Code § 246 - Militia: composition and classes

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b) The classes of the militia are—

(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and

(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

32 U.S. Code § 313 - Appointments and enlistments: age limitations

(a) To be eligible for original enlistment in the National Guard, a person must be at least 17 years of age and under 45, or under 64 years of age and a former member of the Regular Army, Regular Navy, Regular Air Force, or Regular Marine Corps. To be eligible for reenlistment, a person must be under 64 years of age.

(b) To be eligible for appointment as an officer of the National Guard, a person must—

(1) be a citizen of the United States; and

(2) be at least 18 years of age and under 64.

So, ALL US citizens over the age of 18, and under the age of 45 (under 64 in certain cases), are members of the US Militia.

As stated above in DC vs Heller, the Supreme Court determined that the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms, is not limited by militia membership.

Therefore, ALL US Citizens of legal age (over 18), have the right to keep and bear arms, and this right "shall not be infringed" upon.

Steve

[earlywynnfan]

Originally Posted by G1911

I would add that the founders actions and writings also make it abundantly clear that they very much saw it as a right granted to the population.

Those the same founders that made it abundantly clear that women aren't equal to men and blacks count as 3/5?

You have spent a lot of words defending the status quo on guns, do you have any suggestions on how to deal with mass shootings? Is anyone who would like to make any changes at all to make gun laws tighter or stricter automatically labeled a "banisher"?

[G1911]

Originally Posted by earlywynnfan

Those the same founders that made it abundantly clear that women aren't equal to men and blacks count as 3/5?

You have spent a lot of words defending the status quo on guns, do you have any suggestions on how to deal with mass shootings? Is anyone who would like to make any changes at all to make gun laws tighter or stricter automatically labeled a "banisher"?

You're right. We should void all of the constitutional liberties we have because the Founder's did not have 2022 values. I'm sure you can see the fallacy here. Debate on a reasonable foundation. 'X individual is guilty of Y, therefore they are wrong on Z' is not reasonable, and I'm sure all of you here would know that immediately if the issue was an unemotional one.

I would say that, when the topic is what the 2nd amendment means, referring to the words and actions of the people who wrote it and voted for it is quite relevant. You may think the 2nd shouldn't exist, and reasonably so, but I don't see how it is not relevant to what it means to refer to the people who authored it.

I am not a fan of the status quo on guns whatsoever. I think the 2nd is frequently infringed, especially in ban-heavy states like California. How many rounds are in my magazine, whether I have a muzzle brake or a compensator or a suppressor screwed on to the end of the barrel, where my rifle has a collapsible stock, whether it has a grip that protrudes below the action and allows my thumb around it, I do not think these are the business of the State.

No, one can support gun control measures that are not actually bans. I am quite aware what "ban" means. With the "lot of words" I have written here, I am sure you can reasonably object to things I have actually said instead of inventing straw men. Let's debate what I have actually said.

I think we should deal with mass shootings by focusing on the people who are guilty, and the causes of violence. I made several posts commenting on this before the derailing. It is not a specific tool, it is a decision people make. People are responsible for their actions. I would support many measures in the mental health realm. I do not support infringing on constitutional rights or banning some/all guns or blaming gunowners for the act of a nutter. I have even said I do not greatly object to background checks, even though there is little to no evidence they actually work. There are something like half a billion guns in this country, disarming the law abiding will not disarm someone hellbent on mass murder, the black market will always exist. It just makes it a little more dangerous for the rest of us.

[G1911]

I would also like to note that the AR-15 sold to civilians is factually NOT an Assault Rifle. This is a term with an actual meeting. The AR-15 you buy at the store does not have a full-auto switch. It is not an assault rifle.

A legally transferable NFA registered M16 from before 1986 is over $40,000 for the lower, last I heard.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Serious about gun control? Repeal the amendment. But, no....

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics...repeal/554540/

[earlywynnfan]

Originally Posted by G1911

You're right. We should void all of the constitutional liberties we have because the Founder's did not have 2022 values. I'm sure you can see the fallacy here. Debate on a reasonable foundation. 'X individual is guilty of Y, therefore they are wrong on Z' is not reasonable, and I'm sure all of you here would know that immediately if the issue was an unemotional one.

I would say that, when the topic is what the 2nd amendment means, referring to the words and actions of the people who wrote it and voted for it is quite relevant. You may think the 2nd shouldn't exist, and reasonably so, but I don't see how it is not relevant to what it means to refer to the people who authored it.

I am not a fan of the status quo on guns whatsoever. I think the 2nd is frequently infringed, especially in ban-heavy states like California. How many rounds are in my magazine, whether I have a muzzle brake or a compensator or a suppressor screwed on to the end of the barrel, where my rifle has a collapsible stock, whether it has a grip that protrudes below the action and allows my thumb around it, I do not think these are the business of the State.

No, one can support gun control measures that are not actually bans. I am quite aware what "ban" means. With the "lot of words" I have written here, I am sure you can reasonably object to things I have actually said instead of inventing straw men. Let's debate what I have actually said.

I think we should deal with mass shootings by focusing on the people who are guilty, and the causes of violence. I made several posts commenting on this before the derailing. It is not a specific tool, it is a decision people make. People are responsible for their actions. I would support many measures in the mental health realm. I do not support infringing on constitutional rights or banning some/all guns or blaming gunowners for the act of a nutter. I have even said I do not greatly object to background checks, even though there is little to no evidence they actually work. There are something like half a billion guns in this country, disarming the law abiding will not disarm someone hellbent on mass murder, the black market will always exist. It just makes it a little more dangerous for the rest of us.

Ok, so you would support (or not object to) background checks. You would support mental health measures, but not if they infringe on constitutional rights.

1) What mental health measures would you support, and how do you see this helping the problem?
2) You appear to be saying any curb on guns/ammo/etc is an infringement on your rights. But we put curbs on our rights in almost every aspect of our lives, for the good of us all. Why would, say, making mandatory gun safety classes before buying a first gun against the constitution, but not taking driver's Ed before getting behind the wheel?

[G1911]

Originally Posted by earlywynnfan

Ok, so you would support (or not object to) background checks. You would support mental health measures, but not if they infringe on constitutional rights.

1) What mental health measures would you support, and how do you see this helping the problem?
2) You appear to be saying any curb on guns/ammo/etc is an infringement on your rights. But we put curbs on our rights in almost every aspect of our lives, for the good of us all. Why would, say, making mandatory gun safety classes before buying a first gun against the constitution, but not taking driver's Ed before getting behind the wheel?

1A) I support liberal reforms to the healthcare system to make care cheaper and affordable or free; including mental care and psychiatrists, so that those who cannot or will not pay the cost or have family to pay the cost may get the help they need, for the good of everyone. I would look into improving access and resources ( something like half the counties in the US have 0 psychiatrists or psychologists, you can’t make people move around but you can incentivize one setting up practice in a previously underserved area). In cases of mental illness, I would look into adjusting HIPAA to allow some compassionate disclosure between a doctor and the family of a mental-problem person. Time and again we see that they are known to have issues, but the family doesn’t really understand just how bad it is.

I’m sure there’s more, but there’s 3 specific lanes I would investigate and see if the data on matches the reasoning.


1B) Because the vast majority of people who do such things have mental problems that are known to some degree to some of the local community. I think that when a horrible action is committed, the perpetrator is guilty, not whichever half of the country I disagree with at the moment. A tool is not sentient, a tool does not make decisions. A tool does not choose to kill a room full of innocent children. A person does. Address the person who is actually guilty instead of political opposition.

2) Any curb factually is, by definition, an infringement. How do you curb a right without infringing on it? One can support this and argue that it is good, but I don’t see how we can reasonably pretend that a new measure curbing guns is not an infringement on guns, a right that we the people still retain at present.

First, I don’t understand the guns classes point from the other side. If one believes that civilian ownership of firearms or certain type of scary looking firearms is dangerous to the community (which seems the logical pre-requisite to supporting gun control), how would this help? Why would they want to train shooters more? Would giving the Uvalde shooter or any other a lesson in firearm safe-handling, maintenance and marksmanship do anything, except possibly make them a little bit better of a shot?

I don’t think this will ever go anywhere as a result as neither of the main factions really wants it. It is not something that greatly disturbs me, I do think it is unconstitutional, that it probably punishes poor citizens by adding yet another fee and cost, but I am a big fan of classes for people who were not born into the gun community or brought in by friends who have taught them carefully. I greatly support choosing to seek professional or knowledgeable help when one is new to it. Safe handling, marksmanship, proper care and maintenance, these are goods that firearms owners (and anyone who wants to learn) should know. I have taught many myself.


I am against curbing/ infringing any constitutional right. I like the Bill of Rights. I think an individual has the right to say or do things others don’t agree with and live their life in their own way without the interference of the State. It was just a few years ago that this made me mostly a liberal (guns have been exempted for decades from the old liberal norm, that the right of the individual is paramount to an imaginary right by one’s neighbors to not have to deal with ideas or people or things they don’t like).

[Steve D]

Originally Posted by earlywynnfan

Ok, so you would support (or not object to) background checks. You would support mental health measures, but not if they infringe on constitutional rights.

1) What mental health measures would you support, and how do you see this helping the problem?
2) You appear to be saying any curb on guns/ammo/etc is an infringement on your rights. But we put curbs on our rights in almost every aspect of our lives, for the good of us all. Why would, say, making mandatory gun safety classes before buying a first gun against the constitution, but not taking driver's Ed before getting behind the wheel?

1. I'm really not sure about what mental health measures could be enacted. HIPAA makes it difficult, if not impossible, for medical records to be released/shared. Perhaps something along the lines of if you have a specific diagnosis from a qualified mental health practitioner, a simple statement can be shared that the person should not have access to weapons; without sharing the details of the diagnosis. The doctor could put the bottom-line diagnosis, such as "John Doe suffers from schizophrenia." This could be put in the NICS System.

2. I personally have no problem with a requirement for a person to attend a gun safety class. One problem is this: say a person receives a threat of death from an ex-partner. We all know the problems with restraining orders - they do NOT work! So, the person goes out and wants to buy a gun for self-defense. Do they have to go through a gun safety class? Do they have to wait a certain number of days before actually getting the self-defense tool (aka gun)? Meanwhile, the ex has a weapon and the means to use it against the victim; and the victim is hamstrung by "the system", with no way to defend him/herself.

3. We need to bring God back into the family!

4. We need to bring responsible parenting back into the family!

5. We need to get rid of all the violent video games that are plaguing society!

6. We need to have actual security in all schools, 12th grade and below!

Steve

[Steve D]

Originally Posted by G1911

You're right. We should void all of the constitutional liberties we have because the Founder's did not have 2022 values. I'm sure you can see the fallacy here. Debate on a reasonable foundation. 'X individual is guilty of Y, therefore they are wrong on Z' is not reasonable, and I'm sure all of you here would know that immediately if the issue was an unemotional one.

I would say that, when the topic is what the 2nd amendment means, referring to the words and actions of the people who wrote it and voted for it is quite relevant. You may think the 2nd shouldn't exist, and reasonably so, but I don't see how it is not relevant to what it means to refer to the people who authored it.

I am not a fan of the status quo on guns whatsoever. I think the 2nd is frequently infringed, especially in ban-heavy states like California. How many rounds are in my magazine, whether I have a muzzle brake or a compensator or a suppressor screwed on to the end of the barrel, where my rifle has a collapsible stock, whether it has a grip that protrudes below the action and allows my thumb around it, I do not think these are the business of the State.

No, one can support gun control measures that are not actually bans. I am quite aware what "ban" means. With the "lot of words" I have written here, I am sure you can reasonably object to things I have actually said instead of inventing straw men. Let's debate what I have actually said.

I think we should deal with mass shootings by focusing on the people who are guilty, and the causes of violence. I made several posts commenting on this before the derailing. It is not a specific tool, it is a decision people make. People are responsible for their actions. I would support many measures in the mental health realm. I do not support infringing on constitutional rights or banning some/all guns or blaming gunowners for the act of a nutter. I have even said I do not greatly object to background checks, even though there is little to no evidence they actually work. There are something like half a billion guns in this country, disarming the law abiding will not disarm someone hellbent on mass murder, the black market will always exist. It just makes it a little more dangerous for the rest of us.

+1
Steve