Space is typically the primary concern though it is possible to build an indoor range for rifles. You would need the ability to ensure that a bullet could not go though or past the intended target and do any damage. For a rifle to mean much you’d probably want at least 300 yards to fire down and most of the places I shoot give 10’ fire lanes so assuming 10 lanes (which would be a small range) you’re looking at 2-2.5 acres. The indoor ranges are typically sound proofed so as not to bother the neighbors while the outdoor ones are located far enough away to not annoy people.
Not sure what that has to do with your initial statement of:
Repeals of the 2nd, Confiscation of all firearms, door to door searches and confiscation, prison time for any gun owners, suing all gun companies out of busines-ya know, common sense gun control!
Because, until recently, gun control has not heavily impinged upon the 2nd. Then, Chicago, DC and San Francisco more or less banned handguns and even keeping a gun for home defense. Now that there was a major infringement on the 2nd, SCOTUS reacted by Heller, in 2008. So, yeah, Heller is indeed a recognition of the second amendment to be a fundamental right.
On gun ranges. Some cities are not that urban and even allow hunting etc inside the limits, but everyone agrees that safety considerations forbid discharging a firearm in your usual Urban setting.
Why? To them it is generally a low priority. I am in favor of many things I don’t “implore” my Representatives and Senators to do. In fact , my Congressman is a drooling seditious trumpian moron, who won by 200 votes, so all I will implore him to do is get out.
Most cities that I know of do not permit the discharge of any firearms within the city limits, except perhaps at target ranges, or in limited circumstances, small urban hunts on the outskirts where there are not any buildings but is technically in the city.
Where are these cities that you are worried about where people can target practice on Main Street?
There’s nothing that says people have to shoot their guns where they live. If I want to go hunting it’s a couple of hours drive at a minimum, and there would be countless people who live in one place (like a city) and like to shoot recreationally somewhere else, be that a range, family/friend property, or public land where it’s legal.
Normal people do not actively lobby to change laws which don’t generally affect them or would inconvenience them.
What you’d probably find is that proposals for a “no straw purchase” law wouldn’t be objected to (provided they had exceptions for things like providing a gift to a family member or selling on behalf of a deceased estate/person who can’t handle their affairs etc) by those people. You’re not going to see millions of “Middle America” gun owners suddenly deciding they want straw purchases banned and actively lobbying their political representatives to make that happen.
Unless something new is announced about it, I think we’ve said everything that can reasonably be said and now we’re just rehashing the gun control debate.
No, IMHO he is hinting that there is no such thing as a reasonable gun owner . And that reasonable gun owners don’t vote, etc. We voted Joe Biden in, with Joe’s reasonable gun ideas. Now that was not the only reason of course, but if the Dems had nominated one of the candidates that suggested door to door gun confiscation, I am sure he would have lost.
We can live with and support reasonable restrictions, ones that try to keep guns out of the hands of bad guys without banning our own. Mind you- I am not a gun nut- I have two guns- a old .22 rifle my dad gave me and my service pistol. My objections to most gun control laws come on the following:
I am a small l libertarian, and laws that do nothing to reduce violent crime, while impinging on the rights of otherwise law abiding citizens are anathema.
And, I am with the ACLU and such laws must have due process.
I do not think agreeing with Joe Biden and the ACLU makes me a card carrying NRA nut.
But a lot of laws proposed and even (like this San Jose law)- pass, despite that fact they fail on both counts.
The San Jose law, with it’s insistence on buying impossible insurance is simply an attempt to ban all guns in San Jose, although I do not doubt that Police will be exempted, as they always are in CA. (If assault guns are so evil, why are police and retired police allowed to own them? It is not like they ain’t some bad actors among the police- several of the Jan 6th insurrectionists were police, for example).
It is a bad law. It is why even reasonable gun owners don’t trust gun laws. I mean, look at the OP- San Jose CA gun tax law is a positive first step to rational gun ownership- i.e. the total outlawing of all civilian guns is a positive first step. If banning all guns is a positive first step, what the hell comes as the second step?
Then I guess we’ve been arguing two different points. IMO he was hinting that we never hear from the reasonable gun owner.
I happen to believe that a large percentage of gun owners are reasonable, but because of their complacency (not sure that is the right word) with the status quo, they are mostly silent on the issue of gun regulation reform. And in part because of that silence, there has been no movement on that issue in a generation.
I also happen to believe that the San Jose law is unreasonable as well as unenforceable.
I interpreted his comment to mean “There are no reasonable gun owners, because none of this allegedly huge group are advocating for changes to a status quo which doesn’t bother them one way or the other”.
I meant that if reasonable gun owners are this huge group they have been wholly ineffective at letting common sense gun laws get passed.
So, either this alleged group does not exist (and what evidence do we have beyond some polls that they do) or, they exist but are shockingly useless at getting their wishes advanced when it comes to gun regulation.
My personal belief is that they do exist but gun regulation is simply not important to them so the 6% trump the 94%.
People wanting gun regulation have been around for decades.
For you to suggest you are really a reasonable gun owner who would support common sense gun regulation BUT there was this one person on the internet who just forced you to side with the NRA and vote for Trump and McConnell is nonsense.
You are trying to pretend to be a nice-guy who was FORCED into a shitty position because someone on the internet bugged you. Absurd.
People wanting gun regulations have been around for a long time and not really changed much in that time. If you want to find someone to disagree with you won’t have to look hard. You can easily find the fringiest of the left all the way to the fringiest of the right and everything in between with an easy Google search and then claim you’d be all reasonable if it were not for THOSE people.
To suggest I could sway the 94% to jump ship into the 6% camp really overstates my ability at persuasion. I think anyone who does so was just looking for an excuse and already had their mind made up.
I agree and it is pretty unremarkable. Debate on any issue is decided at the extremes because those are the only people who care enough to call, email, march, and give money.
Take any issue, say abortion. You’ve got one side that feels very strongly in a woman’s right to choose and another side that is very strongly against abortion. But the vast, overwhelming swath of people in the middle really don’t care one way or the other. Sure, if you get into a discussion with it at a party, they may lean one way or the other, and they certainly have an opinion, but however that issue shakes out, they wouldn’t do more than maybe read an article about it.
By definition people in the middle are in the middle because it isn’t that important to them. How many marches have you seen with thousands of people demanding a moderate solution to something? I’ve never seen a sign that says “Make the Rich Pay Slightly More in Taxes and Slightly Reduce Government Spending! Now!”
