Both sides have talking points, and strategies to counter talking points...
I posit meaningful change has never been achieved by winning the clever quip Olympics.
I thought this was about change and meaningful actions, which demand compromise on both sides.
I thought this was about lives, not winning a gotcha showdown.

Again, come to the table, open and honest and prepared to actually deal with me as a human and not a stereotype, boogeyman, or a caricature, and maybe we can actually accomplish something.

for this Group before you post personal attacks.

was anyone called a delicate flower, owner of a small penis or a criminal in waiting. I asked a valid question, how sophistry helps anyone who truly wants to fix these antagonism and striffe within our party.

this is indeed a personal attack. You came here to pick a fight, and defy the SOP of this Group. Now go on back to your Gungeon buddies and brag about how you really told those grabbers off.

You people are so transparent...

These suggestions appear to work...

I already cheerfully, honestly, call myself a "gearhead who just like them as machines" - sure, very dangerous machines, but ultimately a precision inanimate object that I take immense pleasure in forcing to my will, in terms of accuracy and precision. And, funnily enough, I'm quite in favor of a lot of firearms regulation laws. But as with any double, or even single-edged sword there are a couple bits of "sensible gun control" I don't support.

I do NOT support "universal background checks"...because they don't go far enough.

I support universal FFL (Federal Firearms-dealer License) transfers instead. FFLs record every single sale on a paper form that goes in a bound book, kept on file for 20 years. That makes guns traceable, without being registered - assuming all legal transfers are via FFL, a crime gun's serial number should be tracked from the manufacturer through the sales chain to the last legal owner. Given the pooch that has been repeatedly screwed with even well-intentioned registration, I think it's the best option to give guns a chain of custody without an a priori database of who owns what - which is IMO overkill for criminal justice reasons, assuming the key issue is tracking a gun to its last legal owner. Combine that with a universal FOID card (if you have a CCW it's already a de facto FOID so stuff it) and you know who owns guns, and who was the last legal owner of a given gun...but not exactly who owns what guns, and IMHO that's something even the .gov has no pressing interest in knowing.

And the only other thing I can't ever get behind is an AWB. Principally on "gearheadedness" - the "greatest battle implement ever devised" is legal in (I think) all 50 states, while my heavier, slower-firing, long-range-ONLY deer rifle is illegal in NY, CA, MA, CT and NJ among others, because it has a pistol grip and reloads (just as fast) from the bottom instead of the top. Not to mention rifles are simply a vanishingly small problem for now. Once we all fix the handgun problem, I would be willing to sell-back my one rifle out of my four hunters.

PS - I do expect to be censured. I'm what, only 85% pure?

This Group is for discussing HOW to implement gun control, and not for arguing the NEED for gun control. Your RKBA cold-dead-hands stance is not welcome here.

Again, you people are so transparent.

As I said already, I know I don't pass your purity test - I own firearms, therefore I am The Problem.

You might want to take up with the OP for that opening statement that not all gun owners are unreasonable NRA-driven 2A maniacs; your opinion seems pretty clear that every single one of us are "cold dead hands" enemies that need to be strongly and clearly subjugated. Might suggest the SOP be changed to be a little more intellectually honest, too...IMO it seems to be more "A safe haven for those opposed to the general private ownership of firearms and discussion of means of curtailing it as much as possible." It is pretty apparent that's the group's general position and purpose...I'd say correct me if I'm wrong but I'm neither expect nor want a reply, I have no plans on trying to discuss this further. Ciao, bellas

attempt to infiltrate this Group are the exception to most reasonable American gun owners, and yet you attempt to speak for ALL gun owners. You're not even close to being "representative" of Democratic gun owners, and yes you are a "cold dead hands" vocal minority NRA apologist.

I draw your attention to the second paragraph in the OP:

It is belle, pronounced bell-eh

Masculine plural is belli

So my guess is that it was a weak try to call us all "beautiful girls."

as we all know that only manly men carry guns.

must be so proud.