It is not meant to be a political stance. It more of a frustrated or cynical stance. Tired of hearing about this stuff if there is no will to act. Doubt any politician is willing to act.

Gun ban
 

Ban all guns. You may need a gun in Alaska, Minnesota or in the northwestern states, but not here in the villages. We only have a few problem bears, few panthers and alligators are regularly removed.

It is not meant to be a political stance. It more of a frustrated or cynical stance. Tired of hearing about this stuff if there is no will to act. Doubt any politician is willing to act.....much less enough to pass legislation.

I am more or less a pacifist, and won't allow guns in my house. I'm ALSO in favor of The People maintaining their right to bear arms, but not unconditionally and without restrictions. Nuclear weapons are arms, but I'm pretty sure civilians aren't allowed to have a few sitting in their basements. There are restrictions already. I'd like to see them updated to include public carry of semi-automatics of any kind, including glock pistols.

I don't think banning semi-automatics is the right way to go about it, mostly for practical reasons: most people who WOULD have them, already have them. You can't forbid someone to buy, what they already own. There are more firearms in this country than there are people in this country. Banning firearms from civilian possession just flat out won't work. Forbidding PUBLIC CARRY is another matter entirely, and much more enforceable. The average AR-15-owner is not going to sling his rifle off the back of his shoulder, if he's not allowed to carry it in public. He might hide it in a case, disassembled so it isn't obviously carrying a rifle. But even that, is enough to drastically reduce the risk of random rifle-owners going nuts and shooting up churches.

There will still be gun violence. The horse left that barn here in the USA in the mid-1900's and the barn has been burned down. But we can better enforce laws that are more easily enforceable, with clear, concise, and consistent consequences for violators, without taking guns away from The People. We can eliminate NEW manufacture of certain weapon types. We can eliminate sales of certain accessories and ammunition. But no - we absolutely should not take guns away from law-abiding citizens just because a few people are unhinged.

I'm grateful that I have the right to NOT own a firearm, and not allow one in my house. I'm grateful that law-abiding citizens have the right to own one. But I also don't feel that anyone should be carrying them - for example - to the town squares for dancing and drinks. Or into Best Buy on Black Friday. Y'know, places where you're likely to see drunk people doing drunk-people things, or crazed people fighting over products or parking spaces. We call that "inviting trouble." I'd like to see common sense laws that reduce "inviting trouble" to a bare minimum.

Last time I fired a gun was in 1982 when I went refrigerator hunting with my grandpa. There was a dump with old cars, refrigerators, bottles and the like behind Rattlesnake Mountain in Reno, Nevada. I do clean them every so often. I had a lot more guns though in 1982 so my grandpa shot with all of them. I sold some of my guns to get out letters in my 224 613 Project. It seemed appropriate. I also had to sell my best art books that really hurt a lot more than pawning the weapons.

Issues
 

There are several issues with your ideas. What if someone goes hunting out in the Everglades, stops in at Walmart for milk and forgets their firearm is strapped to them through the complacency of wearing it on and off for the past weekend? What if rioting starts in downtown Orlando and looting becomes rampant? Can someone wear one for self defense? I could see banning them or checking them in at bars, but then I’ll bet the bar owner has one behind the liquor shelf too.

There is this little thing called the Constitution that gives us our rights... the 2nd amendment is one of those rights... start taking away our rights and you will be living in a 3rd world country. As for the Villages, well, you can always move.

LOL. Ridiculous comparison and proving your point moot:
Singapore is a city state. Probably not a lot of hunting going on there. Or wild roaming dangerous animals.

More importantly, Singapore has one of the lowest crime rates in the world bc they ENFORCE the laws with STRICT and swift punishment. I'll be fine with banning guns here in the US right after they start a program of enforcement and severeness instead of letting criminals wander the streets with weapons and vilifying victims while coddling the perps. Not holding my breath.

Or you can move
 

Or have all the gun owners move.

I'll be on board with that right after they figure a way for criminals to not PUBLIC CARRY. Not holding my breath for that either.

A former home care worker lived in Singapore. Great lady. She said that you could get in big trouble for tossing your gum anywhere in Singapore.

Gun control
 

I like my guns, I’m a responsible owner. No one is taking what I enjoy as the freedom I’ve had since birth. I will continue to own my guns and enjoy the villages life.

I dunno. What if someone goes hunting and forgets to pack their knife and walks through the airport security with their hunting knife strapped to their belt sheath? What if someone golfing wearing cleats forgets to change their shoes and walks over an italian marble floor, shattering the marble? What if someone parks their car and gets out to go shopping but forgot to turn the car off or take it out of drive? What if stupid people do stupid things? Answer: then they get stupid prizes.

Or have the criminals move. Or prosecuted would be a start.

Not sure why anyone who opposes gun ownership would move to a state where permitless carry is legal and then complain about it. There are plenty of gun-unfriendly jurisdictions that would be happy to have gun haters. Chicago, Baltimore, DC and NYC come to mind, but there plenty more.

:bigbow: