Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

cliffordu

(30,994 posts)
Sun Jul 22, 2012, 11:06 PM Jul 2012

OK - So let's say we repeal the second amendment.

Allow people handguns with short magazines and bolt action rifles.

Nothing else, no "assault weapons"

Who is going to be responsible for gathering up all those ugly black guns with the bayonet mounts and the suppressors and the big magazines?


How many "gun nuts" would fight to the death? Would their slaughter and the killing of those (10,000? 20,000?, 100,000?) tasked with the removal of said guns be worth it to rid the US of "gun nuts"? (you know, the bloodthirsty small peckered variety so deeply loved here in DU.....)

Are you willing to kill a million people to take ugly guns away? two million?? five million?

What would you use to remove these guns? The military and their firepower? Turned wholesale against the civilian population?

If you use the military, how are they going to restrict movement so guns cannot be smuggled out of areas not yet searched into already 'cleansed' areas??

At gunpoint.

I think banning ugly guns is fine, except that it will solve nothing. That's because once you've banned them, you have to take them away from your neighbors. And that is a whole 'nother thing, amigo.


71 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
OK - So let's say we repeal the second amendment. (Original Post) cliffordu Jul 2012 OP
on the count of three. everyone throw their guns in the river. Tuesday Afternoon Jul 2012 #1
Sensible People Know that nothing can ever really be done. Nt xchrom Jul 2012 #2
Yes, there is something that can be done. jaysunb Jul 2012 #6
How would you stop the smuggling of firearms? permatex Jul 2012 #9
Maybe we should consult the Brits on that jaysunb Jul 2012 #30
It's an island. cherokeeprogressive Jul 2012 #31
stop making ammo? backwoodsbob Jul 2012 #14
LOL ! jaysunb Jul 2012 #28
Perversion? How would ammunition not fall under the umbrella of "arms"? nt OneTenthofOnePercent Jul 2012 #65
Well, maybe so...but jaysunb Jul 2012 #66
A couple of generations down the line will curse your name for demolishing what was Egalitarian Thug Jul 2012 #41
My point exactly n/t jaysunb Jul 2012 #62
There are already millions.. sendero Jul 2012 #45
Plenty of shooters have powder, primers and bullets stockpiled ... spin Jul 2012 #46
many people believe there is no solution possible because there is no solution in sight. LanternWaste Jul 2012 #63
I don't think the military would get involved in this permatex Jul 2012 #3
I believe you are correct. cliffordu Jul 2012 #5
I didn't want to say civil war due to the fear of getting flamed permatex Jul 2012 #7
Just "short magazines and bolt action rifles"? AnotherMcIntosh Jul 2012 #4
'Cause WW1 proved bolt action rifles are incapable of killing large numbers of people. Ready4Change Jul 2012 #15
The .45 automatic is just a semi-automatic firearm ... spin Jul 2012 #50
You know, that's what I think. AnotherMcIntosh Jul 2012 #57
Funny but I just had a discussion with my son in law about the proper use of the terms ... spin Jul 2012 #59
People who love guns enough to fight to death for them are sick. undeterred Jul 2012 #8
How about if the 1st amendment were restricted, would you fight then? permatex Jul 2012 #13
Why only repeal the 2nd? HooptieWagon Jul 2012 #19
The 1st amendment is still completely relevant to our lives Scootaloo Jul 2012 #35
Says you... Mike_Valentine Jul 2012 #61
No you don't Scootaloo Jul 2012 #64
no one said anything about repealing the 4th amendment. unblock Jul 2012 #10
Feds cant stop drug smuggling HooptieWagon Jul 2012 #16
Recommended. NYC_SKP Jul 2012 #11
Woah, there, big fella - cliffordu Jul 2012 #37
I think there will be four groups. HooptieWagon Jul 2012 #12
Perhaps ten years worth of gun deaths per year would be worth it.. Fumesucker Jul 2012 #17
Hmm well I have no interest in repealing any amendments gollygee Jul 2012 #18
I can think of a mass shooting recently that was a "gun person".. Fumesucker Jul 2012 #21
Ah, yes - the extreme presented as the norm. cliffordu Jul 2012 #36
I was responding to this statement.. Fumesucker Jul 2012 #44
Theres about one per year... HooptieWagon Jul 2012 #25
I hope its not the cops picking up guns... HooptieWagon Jul 2012 #20
I'm glad you brought that up.. Fumesucker Jul 2012 #24
Thats an old TV show. HooptieWagon Jul 2012 #26
Yeah, but Andy would be smart enough to keep Barney's battery in his pocket along with the bullet. Fumesucker Jul 2012 #29
What's To Keep The King Of England From Coming Into Your House And Pushing You Around? ChoppinBroccoli Jul 2012 #22
"It will solve nothing" cbrer Jul 2012 #23
"Allow people handguns with short magazines and bolt action rifles." stopped reading there JVS Jul 2012 #27
I was posing a scenario. cliffordu Jul 2012 #34
Actually, it'd be as simple as classing guns along with any other sort of property Scootaloo Jul 2012 #32
"....... you're all Randy weaver at heart...." cliffordu Jul 2012 #39
Read your OP, you cover the fantasy bases pretty well Scootaloo Jul 2012 #42
lol.... cliffordu Jul 2012 #43
Wow, that's a bit melodramatic, don't you think? DirkGently Jul 2012 #33
I never said anything about the 'blood of true patriots'. cliffordu Jul 2012 #40
You're proceeding from false premises. DirkGently Jul 2012 #67
I think the problem is only going to get worse, too. sofa king Jul 2012 #38
It was a guess on Monday... sofa king Jul 2012 #71
Gee, if they're fine, upstanding, law-abiding citizens wouldn't the owners turn them in? baldguy Jul 2012 #47
Some would, some wouldn't Reasonable_Argument Jul 2012 #48
There's an estimated 80 million firearm owners in our nation ... spin Jul 2012 #51
Correction: 8 million criminals with deadly weapons. baldguy Jul 2012 #52
You've made them criminals needlessly Reasonable_Argument Jul 2012 #53
If the law changes, and they don't turn their weapons in, they've made themselves criminals. baldguy Jul 2012 #54
So does my original reply Reasonable_Argument Jul 2012 #55
Do you exceed the legal speed limit? bighart Jul 2012 #58
Do you know the difference between a misdemeanor and a felony? baldguy Jul 2012 #68
So do you suggest arresting them? ... spin Jul 2012 #60
I'm suggesting that law-abiding citizens can be trusted to follow the law. baldguy Jul 2012 #69
Sounds like you would treat them like people that go 10 mph over the speed limit ... spin Jul 2012 #70
You gotta break a few eggs... ileus Jul 2012 #49
So... Reasonable_Argument Jul 2012 #56

jaysunb

(11,856 posts)
6. Yes, there is something that can be done.
Sun Jul 22, 2012, 11:19 PM
Jul 2012

STOP making them or the ammunition, Since making and exporting them is the #1 business in this country, it kinda solves the problem.

You got em...keep em, but there ain't gonna be any more.

A couple generations down the line will thank us.

 

permatex

(1,299 posts)
9. How would you stop the smuggling of firearms?
Sun Jul 22, 2012, 11:22 PM
Jul 2012

We can't even stop the smuggling of drugs and immigrants. Criminals will always be able to get guns. The black market will always fill a need.

jaysunb

(11,856 posts)
30. Maybe we should consult the Brits on that
Mon Jul 23, 2012, 12:07 AM
Jul 2012

With only 58 total gun deaths last year, seems they may have at least minimized this "smuggling you speak of.

 

backwoodsbob

(6,001 posts)
14. stop making ammo?
Sun Jul 22, 2012, 11:25 PM
Jul 2012

obviously you dont realize those evil black rifles come in pretty much every caliber now.To stop making evil black rifle ammo you would pretty much ban every rifle ammo in make today which would be in violation of the 2nd

jaysunb

(11,856 posts)
28. LOL !
Mon Jul 23, 2012, 12:02 AM
Jul 2012

The perversion of the Second Amendment is such a sick joke until I seriously doubt there's anything said, spoken or privately thought that would NOT be a violation of said law.

 

OneTenthofOnePercent

(6,268 posts)
65. Perversion? How would ammunition not fall under the umbrella of "arms"? nt
Mon Jul 23, 2012, 04:02 PM
Jul 2012

That'd be like saying published or printed materials are protected under free speech but owning a publishing or printing equipment is not.

jaysunb

(11,856 posts)
66. Well, maybe so...but
Mon Jul 23, 2012, 05:58 PM
Jul 2012

The stature itself has been perverted. Period.

The founders could not have forseen the 300 million population and the "militia" is more commonly known today as the National Guard.

This new reading is less than 30 years old. It's a perversion of the original intent.

 

Egalitarian Thug

(12,448 posts)
41. A couple of generations down the line will curse your name for demolishing what was
Mon Jul 23, 2012, 02:08 AM
Jul 2012

left of this nation's economy. Before you get behind this notion, please look at how large a part of our national economy comes from being the world's largest arms dealers. When it comes to Merchants of Death, nobody even comes close to us.

One of the very few instances where "We're #1" is still valid.

sendero

(28,552 posts)
45. There are already millions..
Mon Jul 23, 2012, 06:02 AM
Jul 2012

.. stopping now would accomplish nothing other than possibly raising the price a bit. I can hear the mass murderer now - "I was going to buy an AR15 to kill people but they are too expensive now, I guess I'll get a kitchen knife".

spin

(17,493 posts)
46. Plenty of shooters have powder, primers and bullets stockpiled ...
Mon Jul 23, 2012, 06:07 AM
Jul 2012

and have the necessary equipment to and ability to make their own ammo. It's actually quite easy to do. I made my own rounds for 20 years.

Firearms don't wear out if they have some reasonable care. There's an estimated 300 million firearms in our nation. I have several firearms that have had thousands and thousands of rounds fired through them and they still look new and function perfectly.




 

LanternWaste

(37,748 posts)
63. many people believe there is no solution possible because there is no solution in sight.
Mon Jul 23, 2012, 01:55 PM
Jul 2012

I imagine many people believe there is no solution possible merely because there is no solution in obvious sight, and then state that opnion as an absolute.

 

permatex

(1,299 posts)
3. I don't think the military would get involved in this
Sun Jul 22, 2012, 11:13 PM
Jul 2012

you would probably have a massive revolt in the services if they were ordered to fire on Americans refusing to turn over their weapons, also, I think you would see the majority of street cops refusing to do same, there would be massive civil disobedience, you would probably see a wholesale turnover in the legislative and executive branchs.
There would be complete chaos in the country.

 

permatex

(1,299 posts)
7. I didn't want to say civil war due to the fear of getting flamed
Sun Jul 22, 2012, 11:19 PM
Jul 2012

but yeah, your right, after Kent State, I just don't see the military firing on civilians again, oh I'm sure some individual members would but other members would make quick work of them.
Most street cops would tell their superiors, if ordered to enforce confiscation, to go fuck themselves.

 

AnotherMcIntosh

(11,064 posts)
4. Just "short magazines and bolt action rifles"?
Sun Jul 22, 2012, 11:14 PM
Jul 2012

Last edited Mon Jul 23, 2012, 07:30 AM - Edit history (1)

You're right that banning "ugly guns" would not solve anything.

Even banning .45 automatics (a type of "automatics" that some people might favor banning) would not solve anything.

Ready4Change

(6,736 posts)
15. 'Cause WW1 proved bolt action rifles are incapable of killing large numbers of people.
Sun Jul 22, 2012, 11:29 PM
Jul 2012

Or we should restrict weapons to only black powder, as the American Civil War demonstrated how humans are completely impervious to that type of weapon.

Say, lets just box every individual into a nice box with walls made of NERF foam. We can all communication through the interwebs, suck food from hoses in the walls, and no one will ever be hurt again. That'll be the life.

spin

(17,493 posts)
50. The .45 automatic is just a semi-automatic firearm ...
Mon Jul 23, 2012, 06:19 AM
Jul 2012

and is also one of the more popular style pistols on the market today. Many gun manufacturers make versions of this timeless handgun.

M1911 pistol

The M1911 is a single-action, semi-automatic, magazine-fed, recoil-operated handgun chambered for the .45 ACP cartridge,[1] which served as the standard-issue side arm for the United States armed forces from 1911 to 1985. It was widely used in World War I, World War II, the Korean War, and the Vietnam War. The M1911 is still carried by some U.S. forces. Its formal designation as of 1940 was Automatic Pistol, Caliber .45, M1911 for the original Model of 1911 or Automatic Pistol, Caliber .45, M1911A1 for the M1911A1, adopted in 1924. The designation changed to Pistol, Caliber .45, Automatic, M1911A1 in the Vietnam era.[1] In total, the United States procured around 2.7 million M1911 and M1911A1 pistols in military contracts during its service life. The M1911 was replaced by the M9 pistol as the standard U.S. sidearm in the early 1990s, but due to its popularity among users, it has not been completely phased out. Modern M1911 variants are still seen in use by some units within the U.S. Navy and U.S. Marine Corps...emphasis added
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1911_pistol
 

AnotherMcIntosh

(11,064 posts)
57. You know, that's what I think.
Mon Jul 23, 2012, 07:28 AM
Jul 2012

What about all those 30-round "clips" or 50-round "clips" which seem to scare some people?

If you are going to explain the obvious with respect to "automatic" pistols, maybe you'll want to take the time to also explain the obvious that automatic pistols carry magazines, not clips. People don't need to be afraid of 30-round or 50-round clips for automatic pistols. Only some revolvers such as the S&W 625 take clips, and even then the number of rounds per clip is greatly limited in comparison to the number of rounds that can be carried in many magazines.

spin

(17,493 posts)
59. Funny but I just had a discussion with my son in law about the proper use of the terms ...
Mon Jul 23, 2012, 08:11 AM
Jul 2012

clip and magazine.

I find it sad that many experienced shooters call a magazine a clip.

Another example is the difference between a bullet and a cartridge.


For terminology questions, I prefer the “NRA Firearms Sourcebook.” This outstanding effort on the part of the American Rifleman Technical staff tells us that a bullet is a “non-spherical projectile for use in a rifled barrel...” and a cartridge is “a single round of ammunition consisting of case, primer and propellant with one or more projectiles.” In other words, a bullet is the part of a cartridge that goes sailing downrange to do its work. The terms are not interchangeable and should be used for their specific and individual meanings.
http://www.americanrifleman.org/blogs/bullets-and-cartridges/


undeterred

(34,658 posts)
8. People who love guns enough to fight to death for them are sick.
Sun Jul 22, 2012, 11:22 PM
Jul 2012

Being in love with weapons is just not a healthy, normal way of being in the world.

 

permatex

(1,299 posts)
13. How about if the 1st amendment were restricted, would you fight then?
Sun Jul 22, 2012, 11:25 PM
Jul 2012

Who said anything about love for our weapons? Why does someone always bring up this strawman?

 

HooptieWagon

(17,064 posts)
19. Why only repeal the 2nd?
Sun Jul 22, 2012, 11:39 PM
Jul 2012

We can repeal the 19th also. Im sure women wouldn't cause much of a stir. Nobody fights when a constitutional right is taken away.

<sarcasm> warning... because some peep are so dense.

 

Scootaloo

(25,699 posts)
35. The 1st amendment is still completely relevant to our lives
Mon Jul 23, 2012, 01:13 AM
Jul 2012

So long as there are people, there is a clear need for them to be able to have freedom of their opinion.

The 2nd amendment, however, is obsolete; we no longer rely on citizen militia for defense, and even if we did, your gun collection would not amount to much in a modern war.

However, your statement is flawed; the 1st amendment is not absolute.

 

Scootaloo

(25,699 posts)
64. No you don't
Mon Jul 23, 2012, 03:56 PM
Jul 2012

Truly, honestly, you don't rely in your second amendment rights any more than you rely on your third amendment rights - in all honesty you're more likely to need the third amendment than the 2nd, and that's saying a bit.

The reason is, we do not use the citizen militia system for for defense anymore. The bell in your town will not ring, and you will not be expected to pick up your gun and rush to a rendezvous point to defend the town against Indians, the British, space aliens, whatever. It won't happen.

That is the crux of the 2nd amendment. It's there for purposes of national defense, an addendum to Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution. We have national and domestic defense covered by the military branches and by the police (Well... ideally by the police, these days, they seem more of something that needs to be defended AGAINST...)

The entire premise behind the 2nd amendment is defunct. It's the product of the early United States' paranoia and distrust of standing armies (and not, as some would have you believe, distrust of the government.) In fact, if you flipped back to Article 1, section 8, you'll see there is zero provision for a standing army; a Navy, but no army. it relies on calling the militia to defend on land. This is just not the case anymore; you should know, judging by your avatar.

Now an argument could be made that the army - all the branches of the military in fact, and police forces - are in fact the militia. However, if we make this argument, we have to realize that the arms you carry are provided to you by the service you are part of. You are not required to pick up your own weapons and bring them with you after you enlist. That feature of the amendment is defunct as well.

What you are doing when you play with your gun is exercising a common-law right to property. Same thing you do when you cook a meat loaf or hang a bird feeder. It's your right, but it's not the 2nd amendment.

unblock

(51,974 posts)
10. no one said anything about repealing the 4th amendment.
Sun Jul 22, 2012, 11:24 PM
Jul 2012

nevermind that repeal of the 2nd amendment is much more of a gun-lover's strawman than a serious position advocated by those on the gun control side. yes, there are a few out there, but we all know they'll get nowhere.

but let's say for argument's sake that the 2nd amendment were somehow repealed and then a law was passed banning possession of guns. the 4th amendment would still prohibit searches without probable cause, so guns you keep hidden in your house are fine. it would become impossible to (legally) buy more guns, and perhaps more ammo (although of course a black market would instantly appear).

moreover, police forces and prosecutors use discretion all the time in determining who to actually go after. for instance, virtually everyone speeds, but they usually only ticket those who are overly fast or overly black. similarly, they wouldn't even try to go after everyone, they would prioritize the more eggregious gun possession cases along with all the other criminal activity.


as a practical matter, they'd likely go for a slow starvation approach -- just let the ammo run out and focus efforts on keeping the black market in check.

it wouldn't work 100%, of course, but law enforcement isn't 100% effective at anything.

 

HooptieWagon

(17,064 posts)
16. Feds cant stop drug smuggling
Sun Jul 22, 2012, 11:31 PM
Jul 2012

So they sure as hell wont stop ammo smuggling. Ammunition will be a lot more expensive, but with people not able to go to a range or just plink, they'll use much less.

 

HooptieWagon

(17,064 posts)
12. I think there will be four groups.
Sun Jul 22, 2012, 11:24 PM
Jul 2012

1) There will be a small number who say "i dont use this, and dont need it" and turn their guns in.
2) There will be another small group of collectors, who will render their firearms inoperable so they can continue to own and display them.
3) There will be a group of convicted felons who already own their weapons illegally.. So no change.
4) The remaining group, the vast majority, will simply hide their guns. Even if it were possible to do a massive house to house search, the vast majority wont be found. All kinds of French and Channel Islanders buried their guns in the yard or hid them behind walls when the Germans showed up. Maybe they'll stay hidden, maybe they'll end up sold on the black market, who knows?

Fumesucker

(45,851 posts)
17. Perhaps ten years worth of gun deaths per year would be worth it..
Sun Jul 22, 2012, 11:31 PM
Jul 2012

After the first few thousand died futilely under artillery fire and helicopter gunship attacks I think the rest would come along quietly..

I doubt you'd have to kill more than fifty thousand, tops..

















gollygee

(22,336 posts)
18. Hmm well I have no interest in repealing any amendments
Sun Jul 22, 2012, 11:31 PM
Jul 2012

Or banning all guns.

Maybe some guns.

Anyway, I would not expect people to turn them in. I guess I'd just like it so people couldn't easily walk into any gun shop anywhere and legally buy anything they want and then go on a killing spree. Even if it made them harder to get, or made it so people had to know where to go, it might stop someone who is not an expert on guns but is going a little off kilter and wants to cause a lot of damage quickly.

How many people who go on these killing sprees are gun experts? It seems like I keep reading about people who just start amassing guns only when they come up with a plan to kill a bunch of people. I don't see gun collectors in the news. I see college and high school kids who are getting them very easily, not off the black market.

But yeah in the end I know it's not practical. It's just hard to see this stuff going on over and over again with no solutions.

Fumesucker

(45,851 posts)
44. I was responding to this statement..
Mon Jul 23, 2012, 05:55 AM
Jul 2012
How many people who go on these killing sprees are gun experts?


ETA: I only had to go back about two months to find an example..
 

HooptieWagon

(17,064 posts)
25. Theres about one per year...
Sun Jul 22, 2012, 11:56 PM
Jul 2012

Out of 100 million gun owners. Dont know about the others, but in this case it appears the guy started buying his guns after he decided to go on a murderous rampage. He also booby-trapped his apartment with homemade napalm, apparently just anyone can go right up to a gas station and buy gasoline, no questions asked.

 

HooptieWagon

(17,064 posts)
20. I hope its not the cops picking up guns...
Sun Jul 22, 2012, 11:48 PM
Jul 2012

They'll go in the wrong house, and shoot Aunt Bea sleeping on the sofa.

Fumesucker

(45,851 posts)
24. I'm glad you brought that up..
Sun Jul 22, 2012, 11:52 PM
Jul 2012

You see Barney was a damn deputy sheriff and Andy only let him have one bullet and then only sometimes because Andy knew damn well that most people can't be trusted with more than one bullet..

Fumesucker

(45,851 posts)
29. Yeah, but Andy would be smart enough to keep Barney's battery in his pocket along with the bullet.
Mon Jul 23, 2012, 12:07 AM
Jul 2012

I can just imagine Barney Fife with a fucking tazer, that could be an epic routine..

Shoots himself in foot with tazer, can't let go of button, starts foaming at mouth and acting even more spastic than normal.



Actually I think Andy Taylor had some gentle wisdom and I think keeping Barn's bullet safe was one of the prime examples of that wisdom, I wish more chiefs of police were like him and less like the one in that Dirty Harry flick..

ChoppinBroccoli

(3,764 posts)
22. What's To Keep The King Of England From Coming Into Your House And Pushing You Around?
Sun Jul 22, 2012, 11:50 PM
Jul 2012

(Simpsons reference).

JVS

(61,935 posts)
27. "Allow people handguns with short magazines and bolt action rifles." stopped reading there
Mon Jul 23, 2012, 12:02 AM
Jul 2012

Nobody is going to repeal the second amendment to go after just one type of gun. There's already precedent for banning certain types of guns without going through all the trouble of an amendment.

cliffordu

(30,994 posts)
34. I was posing a scenario.
Mon Jul 23, 2012, 01:12 AM
Jul 2012

Too bad you didn't read the rest.

"Nothing ensures ignorance like contempt prior to investigation."

Good luck with everything, though!

 

Scootaloo

(25,699 posts)
32. Actually, it'd be as simple as classing guns along with any other sort of property
Mon Jul 23, 2012, 12:47 AM
Jul 2012

As in, you have a right to own property, but it is not an absolute, unlimited right.

The logical process of it would be grandfathering firearms already in possession, with a payout program for those who wish to voluntarily cede their guns. With this comes a halt in sale of new weapons, and limitations on ammunition purchase (licensing, or some other similar thing.)

I understand gun nuts love the fantasy of the ATF shootout - you're all Randy weaver at heart - but it's very unlikely to play out that way simply becuase it'd be awfully inconveniant.

cliffordu

(30,994 posts)
39. "....... you're all Randy weaver at heart...."
Mon Jul 23, 2012, 01:56 AM
Jul 2012

Really?

I don't own a gun. I could if I wanted to, but I simply do not.

How's that Randy Weaver thingy supposed to work for me, now??

cliffordu

(30,994 posts)
43. lol....
Mon Jul 23, 2012, 02:38 AM
Jul 2012

Nice try, but really, you need a better set of lines.

The bait on the ones you've been using are a little......ripe.....

DirkGently

(12,151 posts)
33. Wow, that's a bit melodramatic, don't you think?
Mon Jul 23, 2012, 01:10 AM
Jul 2012

First, what you describe, whether or not it's a good idea, is not a repeal of the Second Amendment. The only reason to repeal the Second Amendment would be to allow for a complete ban of weaponry of all kinds, so that scenario would make sense as a response to a proposal for that, and nowhere else.

Second, anyone who would fight to the death over "just" having handguns and rifles has serious mental issues, and would probably shed blood over a lot of other things, so I don't think we can base our policies on how they would react. In fact, the implication that we can't change gun laws at all because millions of gun owners "won't allow it," is another problem with the entire conversation. If our current firearms policies have created a class of people who intend to kill us if we don't do what they say, we may as well just get that over with, because that's an intolerable state of affairs.

Last, the entire premise that any kind of firearm restriction = door-to-door "gun grabbing" AND civil war is gun lobby apocalyptic propaganda nonsense. There is no reason to foster that vision other than to rationalize the exact attitude which suggests we have a gun problem in America. So far no one's society has collapsed into ashes because they limited firearms.

I don't have the answers on what we need to do regarding America's gun violence problems. And I'm as sick of these in-the-wake-of-Aurora gun threads -- from either side -- as anyone, but it would be an improvement if these issues could be discussed without declaring that the streets will run red with the blood of true patriots if any attempt is made to do *anything* about these issues.

cliffordu

(30,994 posts)
40. I never said anything about the 'blood of true patriots'.
Mon Jul 23, 2012, 02:06 AM
Jul 2012

A bit melodramatic, don't you think??

"So far no one's society has collapsed into ashes because they limited firearms".


True dat, but no one has ever tried to seize a hundred million of them, either.


"If our current firearms policies have created a class of people who intend to kill us if we don't do what they say, we may as well just get that over with, because that's an intolerable state of affairs."


I have no idea what the fuck you're talking about here. Where did I say or imply that?

the real gist of MY op was to ask the simple question:

What are you willing to do or sacrifice to eliminate the guns?

Would YOU go take guns from people?

DirkGently

(12,151 posts)
67. You're proceeding from false premises.
Mon Jul 23, 2012, 08:53 PM
Jul 2012

If you want to set aside the fact that the example of a restriction you used -- pistols and bolt-action rifles only -- is not that onerous of a change to begin with, you're still left with the false implication that gun owners will fight to the death if they believe their rights are being infringed.

That's 1) unlikely and 2) not a valid basis under which to consider policy. It feels a lot like other pro-gun fallacies having to with the idea that laws just don't work so ... you can't.

Yes we can. And it won't be the end of society, and it won't lead to bloodshed.

And, to the extent someone is inclined to kill people over something as universal as limiting firearms in a civilized country, they're welcomed to go down fighting.

Clearer?

sofa king

(10,857 posts)
38. I think the problem is only going to get worse, too.
Mon Jul 23, 2012, 01:20 AM
Jul 2012

Forget, for the moment, that there is probably still a 500 year old blunderbuss that can be cleaned up and used, and that there are millions of guns already properly stored, packaged, and hidden which will certainly be functional for much of the rest of this century and some of them just as certainly will be functional for hundreds of years.

That's the easy problem.

The hard problem is this: There are thousands of designs and drawings which have been in the public domain for decades, which can already be translated into CAD files.

And there are already three-dimensional printers which can make the parts needed for individual gun designs. It is already happening.

It won't be long before someone creates a 3D printer which can recreate some or all of itself, meaning it will be simple to set up a miniature armory anywhere, one which can grow exponentially to meet demand, one which can make firearms from classic designs, or from new ones, with nearly impossible to identify machining marks (the illicit manufacturer can simply interchange parts in the printers so that none bear the same machining marks).

No high-capacity clips? You can make one in your basement overnight. Want to kill off guns by restricting the manufacture or sale of critical parts of them that wear out, like firing pins or cartridges? Soon, the high school kid down the street can make and sell new ones.

If guns were already banned, we would be in one hell of a mess not dissimilar to our war on drugs (and yes, I'm sure the cartels will be pushing this technology off the bat). But as it happens, our society may be better adapted to the wild-west insanity that awaits than some others where totalitarian governments maintain their power from the barrel of a gun.

Soon, nobody is going to be able to control guns, anywhere, ever again.

So we as a people had better figure out how to control ourselves, how to raise our level of discourse and our ability to peacefully settle our grievances so that violence is less often an option, how to spot those who do not know how to ask for help before they explode in violence, how to take care of each other so that people cannot fall to the level of desperation where they feel the need to take up arms to survive or carve out a better place for themselves in society.

Because if people have to do that, they can, and they will, and nobody can stop that now.

 

baldguy

(36,649 posts)
47. Gee, if they're fine, upstanding, law-abiding citizens wouldn't the owners turn them in?
Mon Jul 23, 2012, 06:11 AM
Jul 2012

And if they wouldn't follow that law, why should we trust them to follow any other?

 
48. Some would, some wouldn't
Mon Jul 23, 2012, 06:14 AM
Jul 2012

A great many people hold their 2nd Amendment right in high esteem and you would have just turned them into felons with the stroke of a pen. Why shouldn't they resist that?

spin

(17,493 posts)
51. There's an estimated 80 million firearm owners in our nation ...
Mon Jul 23, 2012, 06:23 AM
Jul 2012

If 90% of the owners complied and turned their firearms in you would still have 8 million well armed gun owners.

 

baldguy

(36,649 posts)
52. Correction: 8 million criminals with deadly weapons.
Mon Jul 23, 2012, 06:41 AM
Jul 2012

They can't be fine, upstanding, law-abiding & trustworthy citizens if they don't abide by the law.

 

baldguy

(36,649 posts)
54. If the law changes, and they don't turn their weapons in, they've made themselves criminals.
Mon Jul 23, 2012, 06:48 AM
Jul 2012

And my original question stand: If they refuse to follow this law, how can they be trusted to follow any other?

 

baldguy

(36,649 posts)
68. Do you know the difference between a misdemeanor and a felony?
Mon Jul 23, 2012, 09:16 PM
Jul 2012

Do you know why there's a difference?

Do you know which one owning an illegal firearm is treated as?

 

baldguy

(36,649 posts)
69. I'm suggesting that law-abiding citizens can be trusted to follow the law.
Tue Jul 24, 2012, 06:38 AM
Jul 2012

And those who don't follow the law can't be considered to be law-abiding citizens.

spin

(17,493 posts)
70. Sounds like you would treat them like people that go 10 mph over the speed limit ...
Tue Jul 24, 2012, 07:40 AM
Jul 2012

on the interstate.

 
56. So...
Mon Jul 23, 2012, 07:06 AM
Jul 2012

Your answer to this tragedy would be to start and even greater one by having a 2nd Civil War? Very well thought out opinion you have there.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»OK - So let's say we repe...