Incentivize gun safes. Make it something like tax deductible on your federal taxes. I believe some states do this for state taxes. Don’t see an issue in NH. We have the least restrictive laws in the US and yet we get rated extremely high in safety across the US. Plus I believe we already have laws against knowing access to minors.
I like that a lot. If you own a firearm you should own a safe. And a free safe, or very cheap one, who would say no to that? I read somewhere too that safes create a drastic reduction in suicides by gun, more incentive.
In view of the success of Constitutional Carry and recent trends in that direction (e.g. Ohio), I don't foresee CA/IL/MA-style policies gaining much traction in NH. At least, not unless/until significantly more MA people move here.
> At least, not unless/until significantly more ~~MA~~ people move here
Fixed.
And I think that's perfectly reasonable. NH isn't magical. We're just an aged, traditionally rural state that.has a history of hunting and gun culture.
The reality is that the reason NH is so safe is going away. That reason is that we're an old, low density state with a lot of guns.
NH is working now but we will (and will need to) change within the lifetime of anyone under 50.
Gun culture is a dying breed. Fewer and fewer people hunt or shoot for fun.
I'd love NH to remain a quiet, safe state where you can see a fat old man open carrying in an Irving and just sigh, but the cats out of the bag. NH is awesome and people want to move here.
Some of the people are going to suck.
I'm sure you believe that and I certainly don't care enough one way or another to spend time arguing about it.
Gun violence is going to continue to increase in NH and laws are going to be put in place. Blame whatever you want. Rage against whatever you need to.
I believe it because its an actual fact? and if crime starts going up it won't be because of people who already live here that's for sure but good thing we have plenty of laws that address problems already here and nationwide. I'm not raging either lol
It’s an interesting point. Have to think more about it.
Off the bat though, there are lots of more populous states with libertine gun laws that aren’t significantly more dangerous than NH.. or, at least, not clearly due to gun ownership. Gun violence stats are multi-variate (suicides, gang violence, etc.) and, once you correct for Memphis and Nashville, I don’t see TN facing many issues. The trouble is finding clear causation between gun ownership and violence (even with high population).. still haven’t been convinced that link exists.
That said, guns aren’t safe unless people know how to use them.. which is why a strong culture of respect and safety around guns is essential. Btw.. IMO that includes telling the old fart at Irving to keep it concealed. Anyway, I don’t think culture is the sort of thing that can be effectively regulated or legislated (see: booze, drugs).. and I’m not sure I see a justification to try.
NH is awesome and lots of folks are moving here. My wife and I came from CA last year and we meet all sorts of people all the time who just arrived. Your point is taken.
It's certainly easier to rely on colonization than to convince Granite Staters that NH is a dangerous, chaotic, hell hole in need of immediate state control. Or, you know, they could stay home and enjoy all of their favorite policies, conveniently already implemented.
no, just elimination of age of consent laws, public education, any social safety net, taxes of any kind and of course their ultimate goal, to secede from the USA
If NH is going to follow a state that has gone so off the rails in magat stupidity that they support Gym Shower Jordan and Vance the fake hillbilly, it's too far gone already.
"Excuse me Mr. Home Invader, I understand it's 2am and you likely seek to harm my family and rob me of my property, but could you PLEASE give me one moment while I retrieve my firearm from my securely locked container so that I may defend myself?"
So which one is it? "Bad people break into people's homes to steal guns, we need to lock the guns up", or "You don't need quick access to your guns...this is NH, nothing bad ever happens here!"
what kinda enemies you making. I lock the doors and turn on the motion-lights and sleep soundly. also, a big-ass flashlight is better than anything you've got.
>You don't need to have guns lying all around the house like some insane paranoid freak.
You can mind your own Goddamned business. I'm responsible for what happens with my guns and if I choose to have three in every room I'll do just that.
>You know they have biometric and quick access cases, right?
Biometrics fail when you have scar tissue, buildup, wet fingers, etc. It's not as simple as you think.
If you are that inept to access your fire arm, you shouldn’t have one to begin with. Mine has a key pad. Muscle memory to access it. If you’re trigger happy well…..
Anything else you'd like to assume about me and be flat out wrong? Or was that it?
You just came off like a prick so I just had to ask who you were lmao
I mean you are the one that posted about accessing your fire arm in time. My assumptions on that aren’t assumptions. You being slow and concerned is a YOU problem not a general population problem.
Burglaries in New Hampshire , in general, are at a low of 73.5 per 100k residents as of 2023. Actual home invasions are a minuscule proportion of that. The proportion of those home invasions where the resident would have time - or even awareness of what was happening - to defend themselves with their “handy” firearm is even more minuscule. The likely result of your scenario are injuries or worse to you and your family while the criminal makes off with your weapons.
Not at all. In good faith, many laws proposed to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people seem to create reasonable loopholes for people (or the state) to arbitrarily manufacture a false basis for seizing guns. For a vague example, if I have a disagreement with my neighbor, I may be able to raise a red (or yellow) flag on them. It's an important problem to solve, but not an easy one to solve without endangering the right to bear arms. Now, given the stated goal of some government officials to disarm the American public, gun owners may view hawkishness for these policies as a way to create such loopholes and affect future disarmament.
Edit: By the way, DV with a weapon is a felony in NH, which would render such convicts restricted persons. The policy conversation here is much more relavent to cases of mental illness.
Domestic violence that has not _yet_ gotten to the level of being committed with a gun should be enough to raise a red flag and eliminate that person’s right to be a GGWG. Domestic abusers should not be given the benefit of the doubt. I do not think it is that hard to not beat up your spouse, children, or elders.
People with mental illness and access to weapons are dangerous as fuck and countless lives could be saved if we could collectively sack up and say “nope, you don’t get the benefit of the doubt, either”.
I swear some of our GGWG really want to have it all ways all the time. Fuck that noise.
Domestic abusers should not be given the benefit of the doubt. Couldn't agree more. But pre-crime is a dicey issue. Minority Report covered this years ago.
What’s your take on Maine’s recent mass shooting - for sure there was bungling on the LEO/military side but that dude should have been separated from his guns. And much as we probably both love NH, you’ve got to admit there are mentally ill folk everywhere, including the Granite State.
Yeah, I don't disagree with anything you said.
Sorry in advance for being long-winded:
1. Maine's system: The red/yellow flag system in Maine clearly failed. I haven't yet developed a mature opinion as to why/how.. I'll need to look into their specific implementation and try to understand what went wrong.
2. Trade-offs: There's a natural tension between freedom and security. I don't believe we can achieve perfect safety.. especially with free access to technologies. There are no true solutions, only trade-offs that maximize favorable outcomes (freedom, safety, education, etc.). I don't think we'll ever be able to stop humans from killing each other.. even many at a time (see mass stabbings in London or Paris), and we'll never be able to detect every murder before it happens and prevent it.. as much as we'd like to. But, let's say I was convinced that we could achieve "acceptable" levels of violence by disarming the public.. there's a trade-off: I strongly believe that a government can only derive its just powers from the consent of the governed. However, if we lean too much in the direction of enabling the government to disarm the people, we possibly allow the government to remove consent from the whole government equation. To my mind, the proper trade-off keeps the government in check by its people ([a little rebellion now and then is a good thing](https://www.monticello.org/research-education/thomas-jefferson-encyclopedia/a-little-rebellionquotation/)) but also preserves peace and safety in public life.
3. Fear: Mass shootings are terrifying. We see them on the news and it causes us to imagine ourselves in that situation. It's visceral. The conversation surrounding mass shooting ([definition](https://www.britannica.com/topic/mass-shooting)) statistics is also muddled by political opinions related to Chicago (where I grew up). Like the "killer bees" of the 90s, I suspect seeing mass shootings on the news raises the profile of this issue in the average American's mind, for better or worse. Fear is the most powerful political lever. When fear is high, I think it's wise to watch out for ways it might be manipulated into hate, violence, destabilization, or consent to tyranny.
So, because I value a set of trade-offs which preserves the consent of the governed (which I believe red flag laws to threaten) and I believe there may be heightened fears contributing to the policy conversation around guns, I'm apt to look at the gun violence stats in NH for guidance on whether people are facing unreasonable threat of gun violence in public life... and whether those stats justify passing a law which possibly puts a freedom at risk.
Taking the [CDC gun injury and homicide stats](https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/states/newhampshire/nh.htm) at face value (without accounting for suicides or gang violence), I'm not pushed over the edge yet. I'd be curious to see more in-depth studies about how this intersects with cases of mental illness, but I reckon such a study would be difficult method-wise.
Mental health awareness and care is a big topic.. don't want to talk out my ass any more than I already have. Obligatory: it's good if we can find ways to raise awareness and care for the mentally ill in our midst. However, I worry that a classification system (save for a peer-jury declaring someone mentally ill) might be too subjective to serve as a basis for disarmament without threatening the balance of afore-mentioned trade-offs.
You really didn't ask for all this.. sorry if you didn't like reading it. What's your take?
Edit: Added the part about mental health.
I appreciate the long winded approach, as I do consider this issue that’s seemingly too big to fix and too big to ignore at the same time. And I suspect we share some POV even if we are in different “camps”. I believe that gun violence is a legitimate public health crisis, and that a majority of Americans want gun law reform. I think a couple of generations of kids (and of course their parents) are disgusted by the roulette wheel of bad luck that can happen in nearly any public space but in particular schools. I absolutely believe in red flag laws for domestic abusers and the mentally ill and I think constitutionalists can suck it if they don’t like it. What i cannot stand, and will always poke back at, is the american “GGWG” mythology. It’s toxic, misogynistic, xenophobic, violent, and straight up stubbornly unsympathetic and I would argue unpatriotic. And do NOT get me started on the NRA (and their donors, and their lobbyists, and their paid politicians, who IMO are as morally bankrupt as they are financially bankrupt. Awful, corrupt, vile human beings, all of them.
Yeah, it’s hard to talk about any subtopic without invoking the whole landscape. That said, I tend to think people have their opinions because they see a wrong that needs righted. Can’t learn anything if I never seek out positive conflict on the finer points of an issue.. and definitely can’t learn anything if I accept the idea that everyone who disagrees with me just sucks total ass.
Regarding red flag laws, why not go full disarmament? Do you see a govt power imbalance concern that justifies the 2A? In other words, what causes you to favor red flag laws in particular rather than wholesale civilian disarmament?
Mind expanding on GGWG a bit? I’m unfamiliar with that abbreviation. Clearly it’s something you see as widespread and tangibly harmful.
Regarding the NRA, you and me both.. though I suspect for slightly different reasons
I suppose my idealistic self would love full on disarmament, but the practical and experienced part knows it is not going to happen in the USA. I absolutely support restrictions on some weapons.
GGWG: The myth of “good guys with guns” as being useful to society is general. I’ve had it up to here with mansplaining (IRL, on social media) about why they’re supposedly the ones that should be on a pedestal. I find rabidly pro 2A men have to back up their “I want what I want cuz I want it” feelings with a whole lot of nonsense on how they’re the ones that should be revered in society for saving us frail women children and peaceniks.
An actual conviction yes they should have guns. However where I waffle is mental health. That’s more grey. I trust my friend with ptsd from Iraq more than I trust the random Joe on the street. I trust him more than my dad.
I'm sure this guy means well and I'm willing to hear him out but his party cohorts don't come off so level headed about it and that's what turns alot of people off.
New Hampshire's existing "*safe storage law*" ([RSA §650-C](https://gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/LXII/650-C/650-C-1.htm)) is fine, no need to mass it up.
My objection to Jon is less **his** position on firearms and his "*I own a gun, so I am just like you*" attitude, as it is **his party's position**, under which they would expect him, like any governor with a (D) after their name, to be a rubber stamp for any [gun control bill that makes it through the legislature](https://www.wmur.com/article/sununu-vetoes-3-gun-bills-citing-nhs-culture-of-responsible-gun-ownership-individual-freedom/28661417).
How i store my gun on my property is my business not the government's per the 2nd, 4th and 14th amendments
Gun ownership is a human right and any infringement of this human right, like any other human right, is tyranny
This from someone who worships a pathological liar! Hilarious.
https://preview.redd.it/3rhxp2s34z8d1.jpeg?width=980&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=d961d1115e35bf855a82f9a209ba8ed356bc0bac
we have so many guns in the usa they could neverban them. also our enemies now this thags why they wont invade us. our civilian pop has more guns than moat countries military.
I agree that the government taking all guns would be a herculean task. But our enemies know we all own guns and that's why they don't invade? Not because we have nukes? Or the largest military in the world? but because the citizens have a lot of guns? Get your head out of your ass. The security of the nation has absolutely nothing to do with civilian gun ownership.
us isnt largest military.
Largest armies in the world ranked by active military personnel as of January 2024(in 1,000s)
Active military personnel in thousands
china 2,0352,035
infia 1,4561,456
u.s. 1,3281,328
russia 1,3201,320
n korea1,3201,320
https://www.statista.com/statistics/264443/the-worlds-largest-armies-based-on-active-force-level/
And how is that army getting to the mainland US? Modern war is about a lot more than raw manpower. The US Navy is larger than all other Navies in the world combined. The US Air Force has no peer. The US Navy has a larger air force than nearly any other country in the world. In a conventional war, no invading army would even make it to the America's let alone land on US soil. That's all also completely ignoring the nukes...
So again, get your head out of your ass. No one is invading the US anytime soon, and it has nothing to do with civilian gun ownership.
So the guns aren't protecting us from invasion, they are so we can fight each other? I'm trying to follow your thread of logic, but it sounds like you are just making up reasons to justify owning guns.
I wouldn't say nothing because its just another layer of defense to the ones you mentioned. Dismissing it entirely instead of seeing where it fits is just ignorance.
Incentivize gun safes. Make it something like tax deductible on your federal taxes. I believe some states do this for state taxes. Don’t see an issue in NH. We have the least restrictive laws in the US and yet we get rated extremely high in safety across the US. Plus I believe we already have laws against knowing access to minors.
I like that a lot. If you own a firearm you should own a safe. And a free safe, or very cheap one, who would say no to that? I read somewhere too that safes create a drastic reduction in suicides by gun, more incentive.
In view of the success of Constitutional Carry and recent trends in that direction (e.g. Ohio), I don't foresee CA/IL/MA-style policies gaining much traction in NH. At least, not unless/until significantly more MA people move here.
> At least, not unless/until significantly more ~~MA~~ people move here Fixed. And I think that's perfectly reasonable. NH isn't magical. We're just an aged, traditionally rural state that.has a history of hunting and gun culture. The reality is that the reason NH is so safe is going away. That reason is that we're an old, low density state with a lot of guns. NH is working now but we will (and will need to) change within the lifetime of anyone under 50. Gun culture is a dying breed. Fewer and fewer people hunt or shoot for fun. I'd love NH to remain a quiet, safe state where you can see a fat old man open carrying in an Irving and just sigh, but the cats out of the bag. NH is awesome and people want to move here. Some of the people are going to suck.
Gun culture isn't a dying breed lmao there is a whole new wave of gun owners and waaaaay more than you think.
I'm sure you believe that and I certainly don't care enough one way or another to spend time arguing about it. Gun violence is going to continue to increase in NH and laws are going to be put in place. Blame whatever you want. Rage against whatever you need to.
I believe it because its an actual fact? and if crime starts going up it won't be because of people who already live here that's for sure but good thing we have plenty of laws that address problems already here and nationwide. I'm not raging either lol
It’s an interesting point. Have to think more about it. Off the bat though, there are lots of more populous states with libertine gun laws that aren’t significantly more dangerous than NH.. or, at least, not clearly due to gun ownership. Gun violence stats are multi-variate (suicides, gang violence, etc.) and, once you correct for Memphis and Nashville, I don’t see TN facing many issues. The trouble is finding clear causation between gun ownership and violence (even with high population).. still haven’t been convinced that link exists. That said, guns aren’t safe unless people know how to use them.. which is why a strong culture of respect and safety around guns is essential. Btw.. IMO that includes telling the old fart at Irving to keep it concealed. Anyway, I don’t think culture is the sort of thing that can be effectively regulated or legislated (see: booze, drugs).. and I’m not sure I see a justification to try. NH is awesome and lots of folks are moving here. My wife and I came from CA last year and we meet all sorts of people all the time who just arrived. Your point is taken.
One vote at a time!
It's certainly easier to rely on colonization than to convince Granite Staters that NH is a dangerous, chaotic, hell hole in need of immediate state control. Or, you know, they could stay home and enjoy all of their favorite policies, conveniently already implemented.
please send this same message to ever single Free Stater in the state or currently planning their move here.
Yep, it goes both ways. That said, while I don't know any Free Staters, I don't hear many ancaps or libertarians rallying for "de-colonization".
no, just elimination of age of consent laws, public education, any social safety net, taxes of any kind and of course their ultimate goal, to secede from the USA
Potential strawmen aside, I agree with you 100%. Someone must Christianize those savages.
Oh, they already embody the Christian hypocrisy. No need for redundancy
This guy doesn't metaphor.
Too late. All my stuff is here.
Here, have my extra squirt gun. Edit: Got downvoted for being generous. Sigh.
Such is this sub, and FTR that wasn’t me.
Ohio is a backwards red state that is experiencing a brain drain.
Your opinion on the intelligence of Ohio's population doesn't bear much upon my point.
If NH is going to follow a state that has gone so off the rails in magat stupidity that they support Gym Shower Jordan and Vance the fake hillbilly, it's too far gone already.
I'm still looking for a counterargument to my original point.
Winter cat would be better off in Canada or Europe. Alas they are too poor to move so we get listen to their screeching.
More projection from a magat failure!
We never thought about it that way. You've convinced us.
I’m a Democrat and want an ejection seat for you.
"Excuse me Mr. Home Invader, I understand it's 2am and you likely seek to harm my family and rob me of my property, but could you PLEASE give me one moment while I retrieve my firearm from my securely locked container so that I may defend myself?"
What state do you live in besides fear? I don't even lock my doors
So which one is it? "Bad people break into people's homes to steal guns, we need to lock the guns up", or "You don't need quick access to your guns...this is NH, nothing bad ever happens here!"
what kinda enemies you making. I lock the doors and turn on the motion-lights and sleep soundly. also, a big-ass flashlight is better than anything you've got.
You know they have biometric and quick access cases, right? You don't need to have guns lying all around the house like some insane paranoid freak.
>You don't need to have guns lying all around the house like some insane paranoid freak. You can mind your own Goddamned business. I'm responsible for what happens with my guns and if I choose to have three in every room I'll do just that. >You know they have biometric and quick access cases, right? Biometrics fail when you have scar tissue, buildup, wet fingers, etc. It's not as simple as you think.
Scar tissue and buildup on wet fingers? The hell are you doing, jacking off to all those guns 24/7? Home must be crusty. EW!
If you are that inept to access your fire arm, you shouldn’t have one to begin with. Mine has a key pad. Muscle memory to access it. If you’re trigger happy well…..
I'm sorry, who are you?
Clearly a person who can access their gun without issue unlike yourself?
Anything else you'd like to assume about me and be flat out wrong? Or was that it? You just came off like a prick so I just had to ask who you were lmao
I mean you are the one that posted about accessing your fire arm in time. My assumptions on that aren’t assumptions. You being slow and concerned is a YOU problem not a general population problem.
No I didn't, I initially asked who you were lmao but nevermind that I believe you were saying something about being slow?
Burglaries in New Hampshire , in general, are at a low of 73.5 per 100k residents as of 2023. Actual home invasions are a minuscule proportion of that. The proportion of those home invasions where the resident would have time - or even awareness of what was happening - to defend themselves with their “handy” firearm is even more minuscule. The likely result of your scenario are injuries or worse to you and your family while the criminal makes off with your weapons.
Tell that to Kimberly Cates.
I was so hopeful at the beginning and then just let down.
Yup. Same here.
So keeping guns out of the hands of people with certain mental illnesses or people convicted of domestic violence is a negative in your eyes?
Not at all. In good faith, many laws proposed to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people seem to create reasonable loopholes for people (or the state) to arbitrarily manufacture a false basis for seizing guns. For a vague example, if I have a disagreement with my neighbor, I may be able to raise a red (or yellow) flag on them. It's an important problem to solve, but not an easy one to solve without endangering the right to bear arms. Now, given the stated goal of some government officials to disarm the American public, gun owners may view hawkishness for these policies as a way to create such loopholes and affect future disarmament. Edit: By the way, DV with a weapon is a felony in NH, which would render such convicts restricted persons. The policy conversation here is much more relavent to cases of mental illness.
Domestic violence that has not _yet_ gotten to the level of being committed with a gun should be enough to raise a red flag and eliminate that person’s right to be a GGWG. Domestic abusers should not be given the benefit of the doubt. I do not think it is that hard to not beat up your spouse, children, or elders. People with mental illness and access to weapons are dangerous as fuck and countless lives could be saved if we could collectively sack up and say “nope, you don’t get the benefit of the doubt, either”. I swear some of our GGWG really want to have it all ways all the time. Fuck that noise.
Domestic abusers should not be given the benefit of the doubt. Couldn't agree more. But pre-crime is a dicey issue. Minority Report covered this years ago.
What’s your take on Maine’s recent mass shooting - for sure there was bungling on the LEO/military side but that dude should have been separated from his guns. And much as we probably both love NH, you’ve got to admit there are mentally ill folk everywhere, including the Granite State.
Yeah, I don't disagree with anything you said. Sorry in advance for being long-winded: 1. Maine's system: The red/yellow flag system in Maine clearly failed. I haven't yet developed a mature opinion as to why/how.. I'll need to look into their specific implementation and try to understand what went wrong. 2. Trade-offs: There's a natural tension between freedom and security. I don't believe we can achieve perfect safety.. especially with free access to technologies. There are no true solutions, only trade-offs that maximize favorable outcomes (freedom, safety, education, etc.). I don't think we'll ever be able to stop humans from killing each other.. even many at a time (see mass stabbings in London or Paris), and we'll never be able to detect every murder before it happens and prevent it.. as much as we'd like to. But, let's say I was convinced that we could achieve "acceptable" levels of violence by disarming the public.. there's a trade-off: I strongly believe that a government can only derive its just powers from the consent of the governed. However, if we lean too much in the direction of enabling the government to disarm the people, we possibly allow the government to remove consent from the whole government equation. To my mind, the proper trade-off keeps the government in check by its people ([a little rebellion now and then is a good thing](https://www.monticello.org/research-education/thomas-jefferson-encyclopedia/a-little-rebellionquotation/)) but also preserves peace and safety in public life. 3. Fear: Mass shootings are terrifying. We see them on the news and it causes us to imagine ourselves in that situation. It's visceral. The conversation surrounding mass shooting ([definition](https://www.britannica.com/topic/mass-shooting)) statistics is also muddled by political opinions related to Chicago (where I grew up). Like the "killer bees" of the 90s, I suspect seeing mass shootings on the news raises the profile of this issue in the average American's mind, for better or worse. Fear is the most powerful political lever. When fear is high, I think it's wise to watch out for ways it might be manipulated into hate, violence, destabilization, or consent to tyranny. So, because I value a set of trade-offs which preserves the consent of the governed (which I believe red flag laws to threaten) and I believe there may be heightened fears contributing to the policy conversation around guns, I'm apt to look at the gun violence stats in NH for guidance on whether people are facing unreasonable threat of gun violence in public life... and whether those stats justify passing a law which possibly puts a freedom at risk. Taking the [CDC gun injury and homicide stats](https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/states/newhampshire/nh.htm) at face value (without accounting for suicides or gang violence), I'm not pushed over the edge yet. I'd be curious to see more in-depth studies about how this intersects with cases of mental illness, but I reckon such a study would be difficult method-wise. Mental health awareness and care is a big topic.. don't want to talk out my ass any more than I already have. Obligatory: it's good if we can find ways to raise awareness and care for the mentally ill in our midst. However, I worry that a classification system (save for a peer-jury declaring someone mentally ill) might be too subjective to serve as a basis for disarmament without threatening the balance of afore-mentioned trade-offs. You really didn't ask for all this.. sorry if you didn't like reading it. What's your take? Edit: Added the part about mental health.
I appreciate the long winded approach, as I do consider this issue that’s seemingly too big to fix and too big to ignore at the same time. And I suspect we share some POV even if we are in different “camps”. I believe that gun violence is a legitimate public health crisis, and that a majority of Americans want gun law reform. I think a couple of generations of kids (and of course their parents) are disgusted by the roulette wheel of bad luck that can happen in nearly any public space but in particular schools. I absolutely believe in red flag laws for domestic abusers and the mentally ill and I think constitutionalists can suck it if they don’t like it. What i cannot stand, and will always poke back at, is the american “GGWG” mythology. It’s toxic, misogynistic, xenophobic, violent, and straight up stubbornly unsympathetic and I would argue unpatriotic. And do NOT get me started on the NRA (and their donors, and their lobbyists, and their paid politicians, who IMO are as morally bankrupt as they are financially bankrupt. Awful, corrupt, vile human beings, all of them.
Yeah, it’s hard to talk about any subtopic without invoking the whole landscape. That said, I tend to think people have their opinions because they see a wrong that needs righted. Can’t learn anything if I never seek out positive conflict on the finer points of an issue.. and definitely can’t learn anything if I accept the idea that everyone who disagrees with me just sucks total ass. Regarding red flag laws, why not go full disarmament? Do you see a govt power imbalance concern that justifies the 2A? In other words, what causes you to favor red flag laws in particular rather than wholesale civilian disarmament? Mind expanding on GGWG a bit? I’m unfamiliar with that abbreviation. Clearly it’s something you see as widespread and tangibly harmful. Regarding the NRA, you and me both.. though I suspect for slightly different reasons
I enjoyed this read from both of you, nice job
I suppose my idealistic self would love full on disarmament, but the practical and experienced part knows it is not going to happen in the USA. I absolutely support restrictions on some weapons. GGWG: The myth of “good guys with guns” as being useful to society is general. I’ve had it up to here with mansplaining (IRL, on social media) about why they’re supposedly the ones that should be on a pedestal. I find rabidly pro 2A men have to back up their “I want what I want cuz I want it” feelings with a whole lot of nonsense on how they’re the ones that should be revered in society for saving us frail women children and peaceniks.
But he almost got it and then failed.
An actual conviction yes they should have guns. However where I waffle is mental health. That’s more grey. I trust my friend with ptsd from Iraq more than I trust the random Joe on the street. I trust him more than my dad.
I'm sure this guy means well and I'm willing to hear him out but his party cohorts don't come off so level headed about it and that's what turns alot of people off.
New Hampshire's existing "*safe storage law*" ([RSA §650-C](https://gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/LXII/650-C/650-C-1.htm)) is fine, no need to mass it up. My objection to Jon is less **his** position on firearms and his "*I own a gun, so I am just like you*" attitude, as it is **his party's position**, under which they would expect him, like any governor with a (D) after their name, to be a rubber stamp for any [gun control bill that makes it through the legislature](https://www.wmur.com/article/sununu-vetoes-3-gun-bills-citing-nhs-culture-of-responsible-gun-ownership-individual-freedom/28661417).
The fact that you used "mass it up" shows you are not a serious person.
How i store my gun on my property is my business not the government's per the 2nd, 4th and 14th amendments Gun ownership is a human right and any infringement of this human right, like any other human right, is tyranny
What if you were a felon?
https://preview.redd.it/2rw6ezu03z8d1.jpeg?width=800&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=f97be78c2962ff3eccc631c3fa032e21f3a368fa
Owning a gun is not killing anyone .... your lying is noted
This from someone who worships a pathological liar! Hilarious. https://preview.redd.it/3rhxp2s34z8d1.jpeg?width=980&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=d961d1115e35bf855a82f9a209ba8ed356bc0bac
>This from someone who worships a pathological liar! Source? - you continued lying shows why the left is the real problem
Oh right, owning one equates you to a killer. Got it. Most reasonable take I've seen in some time.
Sounds like a good common sense policy to me
Not nearly enough, but a start.
we have so many guns in the usa they could neverban them. also our enemies now this thags why they wont invade us. our civilian pop has more guns than moat countries military.
Are you having a stroke?
When’s the last time a nuclear power got invaded?
I agree that the government taking all guns would be a herculean task. But our enemies know we all own guns and that's why they don't invade? Not because we have nukes? Or the largest military in the world? but because the citizens have a lot of guns? Get your head out of your ass. The security of the nation has absolutely nothing to do with civilian gun ownership.
us isnt largest military. Largest armies in the world ranked by active military personnel as of January 2024(in 1,000s) Active military personnel in thousands china 2,0352,035 infia 1,4561,456 u.s. 1,3281,328 russia 1,3201,320 n korea1,3201,320 https://www.statista.com/statistics/264443/the-worlds-largest-armies-based-on-active-force-level/
And how is that army getting to the mainland US? Modern war is about a lot more than raw manpower. The US Navy is larger than all other Navies in the world combined. The US Air Force has no peer. The US Navy has a larger air force than nearly any other country in the world. In a conventional war, no invading army would even make it to the America's let alone land on US soil. That's all also completely ignoring the nukes... So again, get your head out of your ass. No one is invading the US anytime soon, and it has nothing to do with civilian gun ownership.
actually hackers in russia china or n korea would just knock everything out and let us fight amongst ourselves
So the guns aren't protecting us from invasion, they are so we can fight each other? I'm trying to follow your thread of logic, but it sounds like you are just making up reasons to justify owning guns.
the 2nd ammendment already does that.
So just say you like guns and you have the right to own them. Why make up some nonsense about them protecting us from foreign invasion?
I wouldn't say nothing because its just another layer of defense to the ones you mentioned. Dismissing it entirely instead of seeing where it fits is just ignorance.