The gigantic logic failure of gun confiscating

[LittleBlue]

Gunners are crazy. They're insane! They shoot up abortion clinics and go postal at their workplace.

So what makes you think millions of insane gun fanatics (as they're so often described on DU) will not resist a law enforcement confiscating their guns? Surely you realize that trying to confiscate arms from millions of gun fanatics can only end one way. Our military and police forces are full of true believers in the 2A, too, which complicates things.

If gun owners are such fanatics, what makes you think they won't violently resist giving up their arms? You're looking at thousands of Ruby Ridge and and Cliven Bundy militia scenarios. I don't mean Cliven Bundy with a thousand followers, it will be militias in every state with millions of followers.

So how will you achieve compliance when millions of heavily armed people won't comply? Because that sounds an awful lot like a civil war.

[etherealtruth]

1. I thought the gun enthusiasts all claim they are law abiding citizens?

Is what they really mean .... they abide by the laws they choose? In that case they are not law aabiding citizens.

[LittleBlue]

3. I'm not talking about what gun fanatics claim

I'm using the logic of those who want confiscations

You can't simultaneously believe they're crazy and gun confiscation orders would be peacefully obeyed. They're either rational and will comply like rational people, or they're crazy and gun confiscation would be met with incredible violence. Which is it?

[etherealtruth]

4. I am coming from the point of the contradiction coming from them

[Politicalboi]

66. Start with ammo

With no ammo they will eventually need bullets. It will take time. No need for massive invasion of gun confiscations. Let the people have time to turn them in. STOP all ammo production NOW, or re-size it for future safe guns. Making crack is illegal, so should making ammo. Eventually sanity will take over.

[Snobblevitch]

67. Laws against ammo have been ruled unconstintutional.

[bkkyosemite]

176. I'm sure the NRA had something to do with that.

[pipoman]

178. No, the Bill of Rights had something to do with that...

[Snobblevitch]

180. The case law that I am thinking of came

from a lawsuit filed by the Minneapolis newspaper against the state of Minnesota. The ruling was that the state could not tax printer's ink because of the 1st Amendment. Ammunition is taxed, but it cannot be taxed so much as to make it unavailable.

[gcomeau]

2. The gigantic logic failure here...

...would be that massive Strawman Fallacy you just constructed. Nobody has argued everyone with a gun is homicidally insane.

Well, except apparently you right here, when you argued they would go on a killing spree and launch a civil war rather than follow the law if such a law were indeed passed. Boy, compelling argument you have there for why we should all be fine and dandy with them all being heavily armed.

[LittleBlue]

5. Have you missed the last year?

Mass shootings happen every day now. They are crazy, according to DU.

You don't even need everyone with a gun to resist. Just 10 percent would be about 10 million people.

So what's your plan for compliance? Because all I see is a bloodbath.

[gcomeau]

6. Nope.

Mass shootings happen every day now. They are crazy, according to DU.

Oh? The people doing the mass shootings, sure.

Are you saying all gun owners have committed a mass shooting in the last year?

Or are you saying "DU says" all gun owners have committed a mass shooting in the last year?

I'd love to see you point me at that claim being made.

You don't even need everyone with a gun to resist. Just 10 percent would be about 10 million people.

So what's your plan for compliance? Because all I see is a bloodbath.

"See it" all you like, every other developped country on earth has managed to somehow enact reasonable gun regulation without disintegrating into civil war. So is your argument American gun owners are inherently many many times more bloodthirsty and treasonous and murder-prone than the citizens of any other nation... and THAT is why we should be ok with them all being heavily armed?

[Eleanors38]

263. ...heh-heh...I think littleblue is addressing a Real issue about controller dialog...

Which includes "no one is coming to take your guns away."



Trying to deny that is like accusing Webster's Collegiate Dictionary of being a rump organization in a survivalist's desert hideout.

[LonePirate]

7. Complete confiscation will likely require a couple of decades; but it is well worth it.

Fifty year old George the Gun Nut may not give up his guns; but 75 year old George the Gun Nut may turn them over if he's in poor health or his caretakers may turn them in for him. Another gun nut's spouse or neighbor may anonymously report them for confiscation. Social and peer pressure once we properly stigmatize gun ownership will also help.

It may take time but confiscation can and will work, especially given how much the millenial generation as a whole hates guns. So many of today's politicians and even numerous people here at DU have no understanding how much America's youngest citizens absolutely despise guns.

[TeddyR]

8. Confiscation will never happen

And has very little support nationally. Hell, it isn't even a majority position on DU.

[LonePirate]

11. There is a poll today here on DU where the partial and full confiscation numbers are about 60%.

Like usual, the DU gun supporters underestimate how much the rest of us hate guns and want them gone.

[cherokeeprogressive]

78. I would never underestimate how much the rest of DU wants guns gone.

However, no DU poll should EVER be compared with the general beliefs of the nation as a whole.

[LonePirate]

88. I certainly agree that DU does not represent the nation as a whole. DU is merely a trendsetter.

Ideas that entrench themselves here on DU often make their way into law or into the prevailing opinion within the country. It can take time; but it happens. I don't see the gun issue as being any different, especially given how millenials and youth dominated social media (Snapchat and Twitter) absolutely abhor guns. We have the winning position here, even if it takes some time.

[cherokeeprogressive]

92. Can you name one for me?

An idea that entrenched itself here at DU and made it into law? Or prevailing opinion country-wide?

[LonePirate]

100. Here are a couple off the top of my head.

1. The realization that W's Iraq War would be a miserable failure.
2. Marriage equality.

I am sure there are others. It seems like marijuana decriminalization is another one (or is on the way to being so).

[Lizzie Poppet]

196. You do realize that DU is a TERRIBLE predictor of national trends, right?

There are many times where I wish it weren't so, but we're outliers.

[Abouttime]

14. Yes it will happen

All we need is a democratic president and 2 seats on the Supreme Court. Make the penalty for firearm possession mandatory time in prison and debilitating fines up to and including total asset forfeiture, people will line up to turn in their guns. In other words, possess a gun and lose both your freedom and your wealth.
Get rid of the guns and the police won't even need them. It's a win win for everyone and an important step in the evolution of American Society.

[TeddyR]

57. So first

Just appointing 2 Supreme Court justices doesn't guarantee you'll get Heller reversed. Despite what you think, the Supreme Court rarely reverses itself and I can't recall any instance when its done so within a decade of a ruling (though there probably is an example somewhere). And maybe you get a justice who simply understands that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms. And the right case has to makes its way to the Supreme Court, which doesn't often happen. Something like 50 years passed between the Heller and the prior Supreme Court decision addressing the Second Amendment.

Second, how many Democratic members of the Senate or House do you think are going to support a law banning firearm ownership? I can't think of a single current elected official calling for a ban on private ownership of firearms. Not a single one, and you think that you are going to somehow get a majority to support confiscation? And if you are going to ban firearms and force people to turn them in then you are going to have to pay for those firearms, which is going to cost hundreds of millions of dollars.

[tularetom]

98. I don't know which Democratic president you think will stick his/her neck out that far

but none of the current candidates will be the one.

Bernie Sanders has consistently opposed confiscation of firearms as a policy matter as well as being totally impractical.

Hillary Clinton lacks the political courage to take such a drastic step. Regardless of how much lip service she gives to wanting to control gun violence, she will never take that much of a risk.

So it won't happen during the next four years.

[Lizzie Poppet]

201. If you did those things, people would indeed line up.

But it sure wouldn't be to turn in their guns...

[TipTok]

10. Mmm... reporting on the neighbors for a victimless offense against the state..

Reminds me of something...

I'm thinking 1940s for some reason... I'm sure it will come to me.

[LonePirate]

13. So you support citizens possessing illegal items that endanger the lives of their neighbors?

[TipTok]

19. How exactly are they endangering the lives of their neighbors?

You described a frail and deteriorating 75 year old man... Do you suspect that he is just going to go out with a bang?

In any case, that wasn't what you described. You suggested that the right thing to do is inform on your neighbors, who have never caused you or anyone harm and by near certain odds never will, over an inanimate object sitting in a closet or a safe or under a bed.

Sounds like a lovely way to live...

[LonePirate]

23. How does the neighbor know if it is safely locked away? What if the neighbor's kids play there?

The risk is too great to take the chance. The days of expecting gun owners to be responsible 100% of the time are over. My right to live outweighs your fetish.

[TipTok]

27. The risk is actually pretty reasonable...

Excessively so...

There are literally hundreds of millions of guns in America and only a miniscule, tiny fraction of them are used in the commission of a crime.

Let's do some math...

Maybe it's just the media reports on mass shootings that have you concerned.

2014 had 383 folks dead from mass shootings. With 300,000,000ish people in America, the odds that you could be one of those folks is literally 1 in a million(ish).

This desire to invade the homes, privacy and shred half of the bill of rights on the way isn't justified by the irrational fear of a few.

I say again... the cure exponentially worse than the disease.

As for your 'What about the children' bit... Educate them and talk to your neighbors... like an adult.

[LonePirate]

29. The cure - saving just 1 life - makes it far more important than the epidemic of gun violence.

You gun lovers have allowed the criminals and the terroristic NRA to dictate gun policy in this country. Some of us have had enough. Your fetish is not more important than my life. Constitutionally enshrined confiscation and bans are the only viable solution.

[TipTok]

40. Ahh.. Just one life...

Any cost is reasonable if it saves just one life right?

Think of how many lives could be saved if we installed government cameras in every room in America with a central monitoring agency. Crime could be drastically reduced. Murders would plummet...

Rights, privacy and independence be damned...

Of course that doesn't count lives saved or crimes stopped or deterred by guns so those people would be SOL.

Oh well.. Just dirty gun humpers right? They probably deserved it...

[EX500rider]

202. "The cure - saving just 1 life - makes it far more important than...."

So we should definitely out law pools then?

Every day, about ten people die from unintentional drowning. Of these, two are children aged 14 or younger. Drowning ranks fifth among the leading causes of unintentional injury death in the United States.

http://www.cdc.gov/HomeandRecreationalSafety/Water-Safety/waterinjuries-factsheet.html

[FrodosPet]

234. I am all for that!

Who in their right mind wants to jump into a toilet?

[GGJohn]

233. Your solution is a lot worse,

you would shred the 2nd, 4th, 5th Amendments just because of your hatred of firearms.
No thanks, it's people like you that scare me far more than terrorists or mass shootings.

[Lizzie Poppet]

240. Confiscation is a "solution" that would kill exponentially more than it saves.

Especially given that it would fail...

[lancer78]

264. Banning abortion

would save 1.5 million lives a year according to the pro-lifers. When would it stop? Do we ban depression meds? Do we ban knives? When would that line of thinking end? I am about to drive somewhere. I have a greater chance of getting killed in the next 10 minutes in a car wreck then I do in a mass shooting by a factor of 1/77.4 (car accident) 1/150,000 (mass shooting).

[mythology]

48. Way to grossly understate the number of deaths from guns

The death total is over 30,000 a year and rising steadily. From 2001 to 2013, over 400,000 people in the U.S. died as a result of guns. Yes some of those are suicide, but given the likelihood of suicide attempts and successful suicides rises dramatically with guns, gun owners own those deaths too.

Talking to your neighbors isn't enough. Do you think that talking to the two people who did this, or the putz who did Charleston would have said "oh yes, I'm about to kill people"? Do you think the idiots who leave their gun in their purse for their kid to pull out in a grocery store in Idaho would admit to being stupid with their guns? Something like 3/4s of people claim to be a better than average driver. I'm guessing people will be just as dumb about estimating how safe they are win guns. Oh wait, I don't have to guess. I can count the 30,000 plus who die from guns every year.

And educating your kids isn't enough. My mom told me never touch the iron and yet I still have a scar from burning my hand on it.

The fear of gun violence isn't irrational. The clinging to your guns in the face of tens of thousands of deaths every year is irrational. They provide no good to society. And correctly reading the second amendment to include all of the words in it, would most certainly not shred the constitution, no matter how much you want to stretch that.

[TipTok]

50. They provide no good to society...

Really?

Tell that to Semantha Bunce... That one was just off the top of my head...

[LonePirate]

51. The gundamentalists only care about guns. Nothing else matters - not even their fellow mankind.

It's about time common sense and empathy dictated gun policy in this country and the only acceptable outcome is a constitutionally enshrined confiscation and ban of all guns.

[TeddyR]

62. You are actually wrong

Here's a Washington Post article from today titled "We've Had a Massive Decline in Gun Violence in the U.S."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/12/03/weve-had-a-massive-decline-in-gun-violence-in-the-united-states-heres-why/?hpid=hp_rhp-top-table-main_violencedecline_wb_400pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory

[valerief]

49. Fact failure. In 2013 in the U.S., 33,636 deaths from firearms. 10.6 deaths per 100,000.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/injury.htm

[TipTok]

52. I was talking about mass shootings since that is what seems to be driving this particular tizzy...

[valerief]

53. But people get killed individually by guns, too. Even moreso than in

mass shootings. Gun control legislation would affect these preventable deaths, too.

[TipTok]

65. Which control measures would that be...?

I think that the real problem with the control crowd is that the vast majority of what they propose is some combination of grossly intrusive, excessively costly, blatantly unconstitutional or utterly ineffective.

They never let a tragedy go to waste and attempt to exploit it to reduce or stop availability to firearms but short of total confiscation (which is a combination of all four things I listed above) and a wall around all of America, an adult with no significant criminal background and no severe documented mental issues will have access.

Some small amount of the population is going to do wicked shit and as far as guns go, that bell has been rung.

[valerief]

198. You're guilty of adverbitis.

And any ammosexual knows what those gun controls are.

Why is there deer hunting? The reason we're told is so that there won't be so many deer, and this controls the spread of disease and deer overpopulation and subsequent deer starvation. Same thing works for guns. If there aren't as many around, there won't be so many deaths by them.

[exboyfil]

73. You can't claim all of the suicide deaths

Also some of the homicides would have happened anyway.

As one example the U.S. suicide rate is 12.1/100,000 while Australia is 10.6/100,000. Roughly half of U.S. suicides are by gun (so about 6/100,000). Australia is about 0.6/1000,000 gun deaths. Assuming all else being equal we could see a reduction of 2/100,000 for U.S. suicides or a 1/3 of the total suicide deaths by gun. Still that would be 6,000 people.

[valerief]

199. And could be you.

[Lizzie Poppet]

197. Some measures would. But all the focus on "assault weapons" and large magazines mostly wouldn't.

The large majority of gun crimes (and almost all gun suicides) are committed with handguns.

[GGJohn]

115. Of which 2/3rd's was suicides.

Better mental health care would drastically reduce that number.

[GGJohn]

114. So you support Soviet style block wardens? eom.

[friendly_iconoclast]

182. Sounds more like the Stasi's "Inoffizieller Mitarbeiter" to me:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Informal_collaborators_%28East_Germany%29

Informal collaborators (East Germany)

An Informal Collaborator / IM (or unofficial collaborator[1] or, in German, "Inoffizieller Mitarbeiter" or, more colloquially, "Informeller Mitarbeiter"’) was a person in the German Democratic Republic (East Germany) who delivered private information to the Ministry for State Security (MfS / Stasi). In the end there was a network of around 189,000 informants [2] working at every level of society

[virginia mountainman]

22. A 75 year old gun nut..

May not have nothing to lose, and while have no problem making a stand, and simply taking' out anyone who is stupid enough to try, if he/she feels like their civil liberty is threatened..

It's well known that cowards, and old folks, are far more deadly when armed then anyone else.

But that's not a problem, for most.. Practically everyone in their community will agree with them, and the local law enforcement in "fly over" country is just as progun.. So not a problem.

BTW, want me to teach you how to reload ammunition?? When the bans come, we can make some serious amounts of untraceable money!

[LonePirate]

25. My money is on the LEOs when it comes to a showdown with 75 yo George the Gun Nut

If you gun lovers want to fantasize about going out in a blaze of glory because nothing else matters except your guns, then you deserve the consequences (jail time) of any such confrontations.

[virginia mountainman]

28. You are pretending again..

What makes you think most LEO's would do that?? Practically ALL, the ones I know are just as pro gun as I am, and would quit if ordered to do sweeping gun confiscations on "regular folk".

Not only that, our local sheriff, is family, and he is more pro gun than I am..

He is on record on this, and handly won reelection..

Pass what you will, it simply will not apply here..

[MillennialDem]

31. If the local PD won't do it, call in the military.

[virginia mountainman]

32. So....Same thing applies their..

Why don't YOU, do it???

[MillennialDem]

35. Give me a tank and I'll do it. Come out gramps or you get a 105 mm high explosive round

[TipTok]

41. Come on out!

[appal_jack]

46. It sounds like you're the homicidal maniac here.

Virginia Mountainman, myself, and other believers in the full Bill of Rights here are not talking about launching explosives against American citizens. Curiously, in the name of gun confiscation, you are expressing a desire to both possess heavy artillery, and turn it against people who are peaceably keeping small arms in their homes.

Fail.

-app

[virginia mountainman]

77. Sorta of shocking how violent gun control advocates truly are..

Glad they don't have guns, that would be scary..

[MillennialDem]

104. Far less insane than the gun nuts. Just trying to make the country a better place - while

you guys stand by, let kids and adults get gunned down, and shrug your shoulders.

[virginia mountainman]

105. Why? We are not the police, I have not stood by..

I am not responsable for what other people choose to do, I am only responsable for myself.

I will NOT, be punished for their misdeeds.

It is NOT my fault, that your views are rather extreme, and very far outside of the mainstream.

[MillennialDem]

111. Not outside the mainstream for my age. And I've never wrecked my car or hit anyone drag racing, why

should there be laws against it? Why not punish the bad apples who do / are likely to cause damage?

[GGJohn]

119. Yet here you are advocating the same exact thing.

Hypocrisy much?

[cherokeeprogressive]

84. So this is your fantasy then?

Law Enforcement Officers with TANKS? Like in Waco?

[GGJohn]

118. So you're for killing fellow Americans who are refusing to obey

an unconstitutional law?
How very progressive of you.

[GGJohn]

235. You and your attitude is far more dangerous than 75 year old George,

you would murder, that's right, murder, American citizens just because you hate firearms.
You scare me more than any firearm owner or terrorist.

[darkangel218]

251. Wow...

Smh!

[Abouttime]

42. Law enforcement will enforce the laws or lose their jobs

When the guns are confiscated, and they will be sooner rather than later, I believe 99% of Americans will peacefully turn them in. A few radicals and criminals will try to hold on to theirs but they will be made examples of, the penalties need to be so severe that no reasonable person would think of keeping a firearm.

[MillennialDem]

43. Or at very least will keep them in their homes and won't dare take them outside. That alone is

a huge win, in addition to the many who would turn them in.

[GGJohn]

121. See post #117.

What you believe and what reality is are opposite of each other.

[Lizzie Poppet]

186. I think you're utterly mistaken.

If confiscation is attempted at any time in the foreseeable future, it will be a bloodbath. I think you have no idea whatsoever how strongly literally millions of gun owners feel about this issue. If even a tenth of US gun owners resisted, they'd outnumber every LEO in the country by 10 to 1.

Confiscation isn't happening. It's far better to concentrate on solutions that actually have some chance of being implemented.

[Lee-Lee]

192. Have you paid attention to what LE actually thinks?

Sheriff's in CO are openly refusing to enforce the states new gun laws and even challenging them in court.

Sheriff's in NY openly say they won't enforce the new gun control laws.

Many Sheriff's departments and pd's are very supportive of private firearms ownership. My department sent and paid for me to be certified to teach basic handgun and rifle safety courses and offered them for free, and sent me to be certified to teach concealed carry and I did classes for the public using the Sheriff's Department classroom and range facilities. Ohh, and the Sheriff was a Democrat. Welcome to reality in rural America.

You can't force a local or state LE officer to enforce a Federal law. Likewise you can't force any agency to enforce a law if they don't want to make it a priority. It's all up to whoever runs that agency- the precident can be seen right now in the Presidents decision to not enforce or defer action on some immigration issues. The head of the agency said we are using our discretion to not enforce these laws, so they are not.

Try passing confiscation and you will see the same thing on a much more massive scale. And unless the head of the agency is onboard you won't see people fired. Now take a look again at the county by county breakdown from the last election- in every red county you won't see the people in charge going for it, and in far more of the rural blue ones than most here would think.

[Lizzie Poppet]

55. Well for one thing, that's a whole 'nother constitutional issue.

For another, even if we did away with the federal law regarding posse comitatus, the majority of the present US military is markedly conservative (a serious matter in its own right, IMO) and pro-gun. Don't fool yourself into thinking such orders would be followed.

[TeddyR]

70. The military as an institution

Is the most conservative body in the country. And a large majority are gun owners themselves.

[LonePirate]

33. I'm not sure what rural community you live in but the urban LEOs want guns gone.

There are far more urban ones than rural ones.

[virginia mountainman]

38. So, your going to send Richmond cops,

4 hours into the mountains to enforce a gun control law?? *chuckles loudly*

Just how many urban cops do you have?? Answer: not nearly enough..

Now excuse me, I have some brass to clean, and prepare for reloading.

[Abouttime]

45. Faced with the consequences

You will willingly give up your firearms.
There is no real need for firearms in 21st century America anyway. Food is plentiful and cheap, hunting is seen by most Americans as animal cruelty on the same level as animal fighting. When criminals are disarmed the excuse of keeping a firearm for self defense will be little more than academic.
Gun confiscation will be the single greatest thing we as a country could do to improve our well being. Imagine cities without guns? The economic impact would be huge. Crime would plummet and economic activity would begin to thrive in what are now near war zones.
There isn't a down side to this, we need to do it to guarantee our future.

[virginia mountainman]

47. Let me answer that ...

NO, just not NO, but HELL NO....

I will not give up any civil liberties, and I refuse to be punished by the misdeeds of the few. I did not get this far in life by compromising my principles, I will not start now.

[Waldorf]

113. Couldn't have said it better.

+1

[GGJohn]

123. If you truly believe this nonsense,

then you have a serious lack of grasp on reality.

[EX500rider]

203. "Crime would plummet..."

You mean like in places where guns are outlawed or very restricted like Mexico or Jamaica? lol

[GGJohn]

237. When criminals are disarmed?

What fantasy are you living it? Because it sure ain't reality.
Criminals will never be disarmed, they'll always find a way to acquire a weapon, therefore, you want to disarm law abiding citizens and leave them a the mercy of the armed criminals.
What kind of nonsense is this?

[FrodosPet]

239. Archery would be ok though, right?

Hookup with a crossbow and a selection of throwing knives, and you have what you need to ice someone at short to medium household defense ranges.

Swords, pikes, hammers, broken bottles, even a can of hair spray with a lighter can apply deadly force. So, why do people need guns when there are a LOT of ways to kill people without firearms. amiright?

[Lizzie Poppet]

58. I live in a pretty big city...

...and have no reason to believe the average rank-and-file officer is in the least anti-gun. Quite the opposite, in fact (although my contact with cops is almost entirely limited to the range...and the cops that go there are obviously shooting enthusiasts, which most cops aren't). But our informal discussions lead me to believe that the average cop here supports citizen ownership of firearms. Most do feel much like I do, though: there needs to be a better job done of keeping guns out of the hands of criminals.

Again, my direct experience in this is by definition anecdotal, and while I once read that some surveys support my viewpoint, that was years ago, and I don't recall the details. I'll do some research on this...

[GGJohn]

122. Wrong.

Most street cops have no problem with lawful citizens having firearms, it's the chiefs, who are appointed, who are opposed to private ownership.

[Lee-Lee]

193. As someone who was a rural deputy you make me laugh

First, you don't have the legal ability to send urban cops out to rural areas to enforce the law.

Second, no you don't have enough of them to do that. At best you could take 1/4 of an agencies manpower away like that because they still have to police that urban area.

Third, they wouldn't be an effective police force- they wouldn't have a working radio system, they wouldn't have any knowledge of the area, they wouldn't have any logistical backup. They wouldn't have any ability to function unless ten local agency was backing them up.

Fourt, take 1/4 of an urban police force and send them to a rural area and the rural departments will meet them right at the county line and turn them back. The urban cops won't be willing to fight the rural ones and the rural ones wouldn't stand for someone else coming to their community and taking guns from their friends and family there.

It wouldn't ever happen because the urban cops are more than smart enough to say hell no. But if you tried it the rural officers would stand with their neighbors and it would be a fight that ended quickly if the urban cops were stupid enough to try.

My old Sheriff I worked for was a Democrat, and if they tried that in our county I know his orders would be that anyone from an outside agency had not lawful jurisdiction in his county and were to be sent away, and he woodland start deputizing every vet, volunteer firefighter and hunter who volunteered into his own posse (yes the legal ability to form a possee still exists in most areas) and would send anyone who came to try it right back where they came from.

[GGJohn]

117. What makes you think LE will enforce such a ban and confiscation?

LE in states that have recently passed new gun control laws have come out and flat said that they won't enforce those laws.

Hell, in Los Angeles, a very pro gun control city, the grace period for turning in the now banned over 10 round mags has ended, guess how many mags were turned in?
ZERO.
In CO, who passed a 15 round mag limit, just about every Sheriff in that state have said they won't enforce that unenforceable law.
In NY, most upstate Sheriff's and police chiefs have refused to enforce much of the state's new NYSafe Act.

In CT, the new law forcing firearm owners who own "assault weapons" is being widely ignored and not enforced by LE.

So, given all that, what would lead you to believe that LE will enforce any bans and confiscations

[Abouttime]

158. Why?

Give up the guns..
Seriously, they are soul killing

[GGJohn]

159. Why?

Because it's my right as a law abiding American citizen to own firearms.
Why?
Because my firearms provide food for our table.
Why?
Because my firearms keep the predators that go after our livestock in check.
Why?
Because we flat out enjoy shooting our firearms.

Whether you like it or not, the 2A is here to stay and so are firearms.

[Abouttime]

162. The so called 'rights' in the second amendment are tearing our country apart

The majority of Americans are fed up with you gun humpers. Put food on the table? Predators? Those are just excuses to justify the killing and torture of innocent animals, I cannot imagine what kind of 'joy' someone might get by killing a fox or coyote.
I lived for 20 years in a rural area, every winter I had to put up with sickos like you driving the gravel roads with high power rifles looking for coyotes, fox or anything else on 4 legs to shoot. What kind of demented bloodlust inspires this behavior? After I found my beloved dog shot dead in my driveway by a .223 round shot by some insane gun nut from 200 yards away who could not take the time to distinguish her beautiful fawn coat from that of a coyote I decided I had enough. I left the house I'd built in the woods by the river because from the time the first leaves dropped all the way till the snow melted the sound of gunfire was never far off. I lived 10 years in hunters point and I never heard as much gunfire in those 10 years as I would in a single day in the middle of nowhere in the Midwest.
There's many more like me who are completely fed up with our nations sick obsession with firearms!!
We are now the majority and the day will come when we don't hear gunfire.
Seriously, if you're this much of a gun lover maybe you should join the other party, maybe you are a republican after all.

[GGJohn]

163. You can call it a so called right all you want,

but the SCOTUS, the President and the Democrat Party platform disagrees with you and that's all that matters.

[Abouttime]

166. Twenty years ago

The democratic president and party platform were against marriage equality, times change and societies opinions evolve. A gun free society is coming whether you support it or not. I hope you live a long and healthy life and I hope some day you and all the other gun owners in our country willingly give up your instruments of death for the good of all.

[GGJohn]

168. ...

A gun free society is coming whether you support it or not

This country will NEVER be firearm free, but perhaps you should move here:

[Abouttime]

181. Cute

Seriously
Guns like fantasy island belong in the last century. Our country is changing, get with it or get out of the way.

[Brickbat]

128. "Another gun nut's spouse or neighbor may anonymously report them for confiscation. Social and peer

pressure once we properly stigmatize gun ownership will also help."

Good lord, listen to yourself.

[Sissyk]

141. Oh, just wait til you get further down the thread.

I really have to think it is......well, not liberal or democratic.

[TipTok]

9. That's part of the appeal to the control crowd...

You can hear them salivate at the idea of millions of doors being kicked in and gun owners being made to feel the fear that the control crowd feels now.

Logic and actual statistics don't play a part...

[jmg257]

18. Salivating? I think it's more surprise - to be told repeatedly

that millions of "law abiding gun owners" won't hardy be law abiding at all if laws are passed they don't agree with.

To the point of killing anyone attempting to enforce them.

[TipTok]

20. People aren't the sheep you describe them to be...

If the US enacted draconian restrictions on free speech tomorrow or removed all requirements for lawful search and seizure, even in the name of the 'greater good' or 'for the children',you can be sure that the ethical thing to do is to resist.

"It's the law" is a cowardly answer.

Your cure is infinitely worse than the disease.

I suspect there is another side of that coin. In addition to the joy the control crowd would feel at violating millions of gun owning homes, they would love nothing more than to turn a significant portion of the voting populace into non-voting felons. Especially if the majority of them lean right.

A controller's wet dream...

[virginia mountainman]

30. I feel absolutely no need to obey laws against the US Bill of Rights..

I really don't care what a suit, in a far of city says, he is powerless to enforce the law, so why bother?

[upaloopa]

37. Who decides what is constitutional in your world?

[virginia mountainman]

39. Not you. EOM

[LonePirate]

54. Once we repeal the 2A, it's no longer part of the Bill of Rights

Besides, your gun fetish is not more important than my right to be alive.

[virginia mountainman]

56. So....

Does nothing to change the fact that I have them, my neighbors have them, and we will keep them... Really don't care what a suit says in a far off city.

If you want them so bad, why don't YOU come and get them from us?

[LonePirate]

59. You sound exactly like the type of person who shouldn't possess a gun.

Gun bans and confiscations cannot come soon enough. Anyone who thinks their guns are more important than the lives of their fellow citizens is not someone whose opinion deserves my respect.

[virginia mountainman]

61. I'm not the one fixated on my firearms..

You are..

All I am saying, is that YOU, or anyone else, simply cannot have them..

[LonePirate]

63. When we finally enact bans and confiscations, you can turn them over or go to jail. Your choice.

If you would rather be in jail without your guns than be outside of jail without them, I am sure there's a DA out there who would gladly indulge you.

[virginia mountainman]

69. I will do neither..

It is up to the local powers that be, to decide, my mind has been made up for years on this... BTW, the Commonwealth's attorney (we don't have DA's) is a close childhood friend of mine, we are going out next week...Want me to ask him about "gun confiscation" ?

[LonePirate]

72. How surprising! A gunner who supports violence. Nothing matters except guns, huh?

[TipTok]

103. You are the ones with the gleam in your eye...

.. When talk of door to door searches and neighborhood informants comes up.

Of course you leave the violence to someone else. Wouldn't want to harm a hair on your head.

[virginia mountainman]

109. Nope, I do not, where do you get that from?

Or is your imagination running away again. DUDE, your the one obsessing, not me.

[treestar]

204. Is this why you feel you are above

The law? Wow. What other laws that you think are unconstitutional have you or woukd you disobey?

[virginia mountainman]

210. It simple..

If they can write the law, it is up to them to enforce it.

[TeddyR]

68. Repealing the Second Amendment

Is complete fantasy. I don't think you understand what is involved in changing the Constitution. It only takes 13 states to block ANY change to the Constitution, regardless of what the federal government does. Off the top of my head, here are the states who would never approve repeal: Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia.

[LonePirate]

81. Repeal is a good 30-50 years away, barring a major shift. But you underestimate young Americans.

Millenials and true progressives abhor guns and those numbers only increase with each of these mass murders. There is changing of the guard coming to America, even if it is a few decades away. I was born in the 70s and I fully expect a repeal of the 2A to happen in my lifetime. The trends are undeniable.

[TeddyR]

99. I was born in 69

And would be shocked if one happens in my lifetime. Without trying to be too confrontational (I agree with the vast majority of views on this website, but certainly oppose confiscation), I think you overestimate the support for a ban. I couldn't find anything more recent, but here's a link to a 2013 Gallup poll that shows handgun bans are opposed by the vast majority (at least 60%) of every single demographic. http://www.gallup.com/poll/165563/remains-divided-passing-stricter-gun-laws.aspx

Only 27% of 18-34 year olds supported a ban on handguns and only slightly more than 1 in 3 Democrats.

[Hangingon]

208. My grand sons enjoy shooting and hunting.

So do their friends. The Sunday sports page is full of young hunters. These are young people in middle school, high school and university.

There is great skepticism about confiscation. How about a demo project? Confiscate ALL guns in Chicago. Let's see if the effort is successful and who has the guns.

[GGJohn]

125. Don't forget Arizona, my state.

He's fantasizing if he truly there is going to be a repeal of the 2A and then bans and confiscations.
He's definitely not connected to reality.

[GGJohn]

124. "Once we repeal the 2A, it's no longer part of the Bill of Rights"

LOL, just what makes you think you are anywhere near having 2/3rd's of the Congress and 3/4 of the states to enact a repeal of the 2A?

[lancer78]

265. That is wrong

The right to own firearms would then fall under the 9th Amendment. Just like the right to travel is.

[LonePirate]

266. Good luck getting state laws past an explicit Constitutional ban on them.

[lancer78]

267. you suggested

Just repealing the 2nd amendment. If you just do that then guns are still not banned by the Constitution. You must be thinking about the 10th. I am talking about the 9th that protects rights not enumerated in the Constitution.

[Elmergantry]

101. Yep the Gun-Grabbing Brown Shirts

know doubt get orgasmic at the thought!

[maxsolomon]

12. Your feewings sound hurt, or is it your gun's feewings that are hurt?

No one's coming for your Precious, Gollum.

People are just upset about mass murders and they're venting.

[LittleBlue]

15. I own one gun and rarely ever fire it

[sibelian]

80. What a magnificent counter-argument, I can feel myself getting smarter reading every word.

That thing about the "feewings"!!! ho ho ho! I'm laughing lots and lots.

[maxsolomon]

82. what is the proper way to deal with gish galloping hypotheticals

in your learned opinion?

and use big words. I can look them up.

[sibelian]

91. Gallop along, my dear!

Whyever not. If you think it's ridiculous, why not say so, it doesn't sound ridiculous to me in the slightest. US has lots of gunz. People like them. People do not care whether or not other people think they are silly for liking them. They just like them and have them and that's it.

Most gun owners aren't mass murderers. That's just true.

[gratuitous]

16. Well dang, that's it

Nothing to be done. Again. I'm going to have to get accustomed to a mass shooting every day, because there's no way the United States can do what every other civilized country on the planet can do. Oh well. Hope it's not my office or my kids' school or my friend's church that's the next target.

Unless hope is ineffective, too.

[Crunchy Frog]

17. So it's your position

that we should allow our government to be held hostage by threats of extreme violence, or civil war, by law abiding gun fetishists?

And yes, I see these sorts of veiled threats on DU every time there's a mass shooting/quite frequently.

What other groups do you think should threaten civil war as a means to getting their own way?

[LittleBlue]

21. It isn't my position at all

It is the position of those who want to confiscate weapons that gun owners are both crazy enough to resist gun control but sane enough to comply with a gun confiscation law.

That doesn't make sense to me

[Dirty Socialist]

24. Gun Control Yes. Confiscation No.

I am for gun control and even a buyback program, but I am not for confiscating guns. That is going too far, IMO.

[reddread]

190. BAN manufacture, sales and importation

thats how you do it.
disarm the law breakers in government, their mercenaries and the police.
take those guns away from proven killers first.
start prosecuting war criminals or gtfo of everyone's "inalienable" rights.
i miss that word FREEDOM.
its completely extinct in this country
as far as the 99% are concerned.

[FrodosPet]

241. We need at least a half million more police officers for this job then

It would probably be a good idea to get a couple hundred more Coast Guard cutters, and a LOT more port police and homeland security inspectors going through every cargo container to stop the illegal importation of firearms as well.

[reddread]

243. it cant be done. it cannot be done. but you can not condone, and laws set the tone

a bunch of cops shooting to kill set the tone now. Thats got to stop.
the supply cannot be.
simply because any hard up shooter can machine or 3d print what he needs.
maybe not the belgian monster mass mayhem makers, but a certain amount of carnage can always be created,
if you really want it.
its the atitude, not the proximity, that makes innocent people suitable targets.
our government does it to innocent sovereign foreign citizens with illegitimate fraudulant justifications
and they do it to people in the US all the time.
it aint the guns deciding people should die.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

26. Well, that would quickly sort out the real law abiding citizens from the criminals, wouldn't it? nt

[virginia mountainman]

34. Just like marijuana legalization..

It still against federal law...Not to mention sanctuary cities...

If they can take a stand, and get away with so can we.. They get to pick which laws to obey, we get the same...

[sibelian]

86. How much bigger do you want the prison population in the US to get?

Right now it's not great.

Also, criminalising hugh swathes of the population for participating in a process that the founding documentation of their nation has promised then as a right since year dot.... hmmmmmmm. That's not a good thing.

I think the idea is to prevent violence, yes?

So, the law says - "no guns". The guys say -"beg your pardon sir, I am keeping my gun." The law says - "No you're not." The guys say - "shoot me, then." The law says "OK, bang, bang."

Thats not really preventing violence, is it?

Let's say even that they wound most of them and arrest them. I can't see that cuffing up thousands of injured guys and sticking them in jumpsuits and steel cages for owning an instrument that begets violence can really be thought of as prevention of violence. Sounds more to me like arresting lots of people for MAYBE being violent one day.

That's actually just pure evil, isn't it?

[MindPilot]

36. Not only that, but people who want guns will still get them.

If you try to prohibit something that a lot of people want, all that happens is a black market gets created.

As bloody and ruthless are the black markets which have been created to supply booze, drugs, and sex, the firearms black market will be worse by orders of magnitude.

Plus, there is no enumerated Constitutional right to possess drugs, sex or booze.

Any attempts at confiscation will simply be a self-fulfilling prophecy for the gunners, proving at least to them why they needed firearms in the first place.

I don't pretend to know what the answer is, but I can tell you confiscation and prohibition ain't it.

[951-Riverside]

44. "you think they won't violently resist giving up their arms?" ...I absolutely expect it

but good luck getting anyone to support you after massive gun related attacks on a scale we've never seen before. I'm sure a bunch of militia yahoos wearing tactical vests and threatening to kill law enforcement who try to take their illegal guns will go over real well right after attacks where hundreds of people are killed and wounded (its going to happen since firearms are so readily available in this country).

Our military and police forces are full of true believers in the 2A, too, which complicates things.

Except they're always the first ones getting killed and wounded by "true believers in the 2A".

So how will you achieve compliance when millions of heavily armed people won't comply?

Sorry but threatening to kill law enforcement if they try to take your toys doesn't work anymore

Just ask the Davidians at Waco how that worked out.

[virginia mountainman]

60. You think the people will have sympathy for cops...

.. kicking down the doors of people who have done absolutely no harm to anyone..

Start confiscating guns, you will see..

[951-Riverside]

74. Absolutely.

When there are major attacks and untold numbers are killed by firearms and the economy is crippled because people are afraid to shop, go to work, deliver goods, etc there will be overwhelming support for a total ban.

The moment that happens and your toys are made illegal you're going to have to choose between giving up your toys or committing acts of terrorism against the American people and law enforcement.

Start confiscating guns, you will see..

If you seriously want to become terrorists and kill over your banned guns then so be it but you lose either way.

I guess the question for you "Mountainman" is: When firearms are banned, are you going to obey the law or kill people?

Well?

[virginia mountainman]

75. Not up to me..

Totally up to the Suits in far away cities, to decide how to proceed, it is THEIR problem, not mine.

If they are silly enough to pass that law and try, anything is possible.

[Elmergantry]

102. Molon Labe

Apparently it has been forgotten was caused the opening salvo of the Revolutionary War.

[951-Riverside]

108. When all else fails, threaten violence and war

...yeah, great strategy to win people over. oh wait, you don't have to win anyone over when you've got your "gurns".

By the way, you guys may want to choose a different slogan because history will tell you that King Leonidas (The source of Molon Labe) was not only outnumbered but lost then got his head chopped off and his body crucified.

Molon Labe?

[Elmergantry]

110. Well I'm not the one

Proposing to shoot tank rounds into grandpas house to get his gun am I? Sounds like that is what people here are proposing to do because "all else failed". Here in this thread we are seeing people showing their inner totalitarian.

BTW Leonidas and his men gave their lives for something bigger than themselves. His sacrifice bought precious time for the Greeks.

[951-Riverside]

112. Well, in that instance the Davidians were barricaded and firing on law enforcement

who legally and lawfully obtained a warrant to arrest cult leader David Koresh and if I remember correctly they murdered 4 ATF agents.

Now if grandpa wants to become the next Chris Dorner or David koresh by firing on law enforcement who are performing a lawful duty of confiscating ILLEGAL firearms, they have to respond regardless of his age.

Of course I don't expect a firearm ban to be instant and I think people should be allowed to surrender them over a period of 2 years but after that, the diehards who are caught with a firearm or use one during the commission of a crime should face felony charges with mandatory minimums.

There's no need go get out in shootouts with anyone either, just identify the very few diehards, obtain an arrest warrant and wait until they go to work or shopping and pick them up. Its not like they're going to pick up a bag of cheetos from the local store in an armored vehicle and a rifle at the ready.

And none of this prevents you from immigrating to a country with lax gun laws (if you so choose).

[Elmergantry]

161. Again spoken like a totalitarian.

Obey the State, no matter how unjust the law. Round up the Jews per the law. If anyone resists, then blow them away, its the LAW! Beat and water hose that Rosa Parks, she was violating the LAW!

[EX500rider]

206. "And none of this prevents you from immigrating to a country with lax gun laws"

And none of this prevents you from immigrating to a country with strict gun laws......like Mexico....lol

[951-Riverside]

207. Considering most of Mexico's guns come from the US

...not sure how that helps your cause.

[EX500rider]

209. So strict guns laws do squat to keep out guns?

Who'd guessed...

Jamaica's homicide rate is 10x worse then the US and we don't share a border.

[951-Riverside]

215. Point being they get most of their guns from us...

Who'd guessed?

but no matter what I say gun-nuts going to keep rubbing and humping those guns and grasping at straws to justify having them.

[EX500rider]

217. And is the US the only gun producer in the world?

Why is the Jamaican rate so high since they are a island?

[951-Riverside]

218. "Hey Jamaica has crimes so gimmie muh gerns!"

Something is seriously wrong when you have to compare yourself to Jamaica and Mexico to justify having your toys.

[EX500rider]

219. It's a fairly obvious point that outlawing guns in those countries did nothing..

....to keep guns out of the hands of criminals or to make them a peaceful paradise.

[GGJohn]

126. It's not the firearm owners threatening violence,

it's those that want forced confiscation that's threatening violence against firearm owners, as evidenced by some posts in this very thread.

[The_Casual_Observer]

64. Ban the sale & distribution of bullets and the means to make bullets.

Then they can bare all the goddamn arms they want.

[virginia mountainman]

76. Can't do that, that technology is almost 150 years old,

You going to "un-invent" something? BTW, thanks for creating a nice black market for me, and my friends, we already make our own ammunition!

[MindPilot]

79. So you are going to ban lead, fire and brass?

Along with most machine shop tools, and I guess somehow regulate the precursor chemicals to make gunpowder. Oh you're going to need to ban any powder-actuated tools as well.

[The_Casual_Observer]

87. Yeah that's right the whole fucking thing!

[virginia mountainman]

214. LOL that statement alone shows just how poorly you understand.......

....the subject at hand..

[libdem4life]

71. Oh boy, here we go again. Red States vs. Blue States. I grew up in the country where a .22 was a

method to get food. Yes, hunting deer and such was the status quo...during season. As the minister's family, we did not kill game, but we gained a big part of our meat, as such. These folk were not Waco type...they were our parishioners. We kept chickens for eggs and meat.

Lord, how it's changed...and in the country, not so much.

Also, anyone who approached was either invited or suspect. That's the rural life. The city has descended and changed that relationship. It's a cultural challenge...how we get through it, I don't know.

[kiva]

83. When women got the right to vote,

many people expected them to clean up politics...unfortunately, they didn't.

When Harry Truman desegregated the military in the late 1950s, many people expected riots and violence...didn't happen.

When the Las Vegas Strip desegregated in the 1960s, people said southerners would stop coming to Vegas and the city would dry up and blow away...it didn't.

Political experts for much of the twentieth century said that the next time a presidential candidate won the electoral vote but lost the popular vote, that would be end of the Electoral College...very, very, unfortunately that didn't happen.

So I have stopped believing in 'common wisdom' - honestly, I do not believe that all gun owners would hunker down and shoot it out with the police or military. Would some? Maybe, but how many? 10,000? 20,000? 100,000? Right now about 30,000 Americans die every year. If 150,000 chose to shoot it out and were killed, that's five years' worth of gun deaths to solve the problem, and the children growing up today wouldn't have to worry about being gunned down in their schools or at the mall or at work.

[ileus]

85. If the LEO's poked them all full of holes, it would be win-win.

No more guns, and no more GOP.


If they form militias then uncle sam just sends in the drones and heavy armor, if they won't comply with the law, the law will fix them.


In the end we'll have them right where we want just like in 1865.

[sibelian]

94. Right, so KILLING LOTS OF OTHERWISE INNOCENT PEOPLE

because they own the same INSTRUMENT used by murderers and terrorists and whatnot is OK because they vote for the wrong political party.

OK, this site has jumped the shark.

I was under the impression that the reason we didn't like guns was because of violence? And that we wanted rid of guns to reduce violence? I'm not seeing that idea very clearly in your response.

[ileus]

95. They're not innocent...they're the enemy if they're breaking the law.

Plus we don't like their politics.

[sibelian]

96. Oooookidokey then, you draw up laws to bring about excuses to kill your enemy.

THAT'S NOT GOING TO GO DOWN WELL.

[Oneironaut]

89. To be perfectly honest, I think they would all give their guns up without a fight.

Even the hardcore "militia" types (actually, especially these types) would give their guns up on the first demand. I don't think confiscating guns is a good idea, though. I don't think it would help anything.

[Waldorf]

116. After Sandy Hook Connecticut instituted some pretty strick new gun laws. Google what the

percentage was who complied. It was around 10%.

[hollowdweller]

90. We will never have gun confiscation in the US. At least not in our lifetime.

First the Heller decision says gun ownership is an individual right.

Now it remains to be seen if the courts rule that some specific weapons can be banned, but not going to happen.

Here's how I see it.

The two things they could do to help is:

#1 Anybody who has any sort of mental treatment has to get a pass from their treating physician before they can legally purchase a gun.

#2 We need to raise the bar on owning high capacity non hunting weapons. We don't need to ban them, but we need to either tax them or make them more like a machine gun, where there is more expense and red tape to owning them. I don't think we need to go back and confiscate any weapons or tax them, just going forward. Very few mass shootings with real machine guns. Reason is harder and more expensive to buy.

However I doubt we see it happen. Right now not enough people feel unsafe to demand action. There was more support for gun control in the 70's 80's even 90's because the violent crime rate was higher. Right now the only people who vote the gun issue are people who don't want ANY gun control.

Also I believe with the electorate so closely divided and Clinton making guns such an issue that it will alienate rural dems. Hillary will lose the presidency, we will have a republican president and congress because the dems are focusing on cultural issues more than economic fairness issues.

[HuckleB]

93. Some scumbags will resist. So what?

We have 30,000 plus gun deaths a year in this country. It's got to stop.

Take away the guns. That's logical.

[GGJohn]

129. Of which 2/3rd's are suicides.

Take away the guns? Are you volunteering to come and take them away?
Or are you just another keyboard commando who will rely on others with guns to do your dirty work?

[HuckleB]

137. Oh, goodie. More actual keyboard commando nonsense.

I am a health care provider on the front lines. Cut the crap.

It's time to save lives. This is a massive health care issue.

[GGJohn]

138. I could care less if you're the Pope,

I'm asking you a question, will you volunteer to be on the confiscation teams that go door to door?
Or will you rely on others with guns to enforce your confiscation?

[HuckleB]

144. I could care less what you think. Period.

Your red herring "questions" change nothing.

If you want to ensure that the deaths keep coming, you keep up this kind of BS.

If you want to stop people from dying, you cut the crap.

[GGJohn]

147. Just as I thought,

another one who won't be honest about confiscation.

[HuckleB]

149. Derp.

I actually put myself in harms way every day at work.

You are clueless.

[GGJohn]

150. I actually put myself in harms way for over 40+ years before I retired.

WTF does that have to do with my question?

[HuckleB]

152. I doubt that very, very much.

You would not be so clueless, if that were true. If it is true, then you learned absolutely nothing on the job, and that's really sad, for you.

Now you can crawl back into your little cave. No one cares.

[GGJohn]

153. And I very seriously doubt that you've EVER put yourself in danger in your life.

You have no idea what I did in the Army do you.

Now, again, are you just another keyboard commando who will rely on others to do your bidding?

[HuckleB]

154. Blah. Blah. Blah.

It's likely that you weren't even in the Army.

You like to talk a lot. That says all anyone needs to know about you.

Now, you can be one of the three or four people I block. You've earned that. Be proud.

[GGJohn]

155. Your refusal to answer the question, then accuse me of lying, then running away

says all I need to know about you.

[Lizzie Poppet]

200. Quite a piece or work, that one.

But gun threads in GD always get like this, which is why they used to be all but banned in GD. That was a good policy, and it should be reinstated. These threads accomplish fuck-all save sowing dissent and hate among DU'ers.

[treestar]

205. Sure I will go

Are you admitting that I'm going to get killed ?

[GGJohn]

211. Not by me,

but there's a distinct possibility that there would be violence against a confiscation try.
I can say with near certain confidence that most street cops would refuse or look the other way, and don't count on the military jumping in, first, it would be illegal, and second, the military has a distinct RW flavor to it these days.

But I'm not in the least bit concerned, wholesale confiscation will never happen in this country.

[FrodosPet]

242. Do you support putting the earliest efforts at confiscation in African American communities?

The reality is that African Americans are more likely to be shot by another person of color than they are either a police officer or a rural white.

Would you then support the first focus of disarmament being inner cities?

[Rex]

97. We are in trouble because millions sit around in paranoia, waiting for a self-fufilling prophecy

to come to fruition.

[librechik]

106. NOBODY is suggesting gun confiscation

that didn't happen in Australia. It can't happen here.

In Australia, the government bought guns from citizens who volunteered them. Because in Oz, the people have a tradition of working together to solve problems, MANY guns were volunteered.

As a direct result, no mass killings in Australia for at least 16 years.

[virginia mountainman]

157. That is a factuly incorrect statement on it's face..

What do you think a "mandatory buy back" is?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_buyback_program#Australia

Hillery is on record, as saying the "Australian model is one we need to look at"

[librechik]

165. Thanks for showing me your bad spelling! Don't know any liberals

who would get Hillary, wrong tho.

[JanMichael]

107. how about controlling powder? ormarkers in it? if fertilizer has that, and oc drugs are regulated...

...why not the accelerant?

then the nutty fuckers can attack people with the butt of a handgun which most if them haven't the nuts or ovaries to do. bludgening is not typically a mass killing method.

sadly though the gun humpers that want to off themselves may have to use a knife or pills. that is the unintendend law of consequences. bummer on yhat part....

[Kang Colby]

120. Definition of gun control...

Gun control = empty rhetoric on the Internet. No actual votes in committee.

[1StrongBlackMan]

127. While there certainly are millions of gun owners ...

Maybe even millions of gun enthusiasts ... but I doubt there are millions of gun owners that would form militias and do the ruby ridge/Clive bundy thing.

[GGJohn]

130. If cops started kicking down the doors of lawful Americans looking for firearms, (won't ever happen)

then all bets are off.

[1StrongBlackMan]

131. So why are we talking about what won't happen ...

Who is talking about President Obama coming for your guns ... Besides freeperville and Alex jones?

[GGJohn]

133. I have no idea why,

but several on this site are advocating for the ban and forced confiscation of firearms.
Hell, even one member here is advocating using violence against firearm owners.

But I agree, confiscation will never happen in this country, Pres. Obama has been very fair to firearm owners in this country.

[951-Riverside]

132. Very interesting that you chose to say "lawful Americans" not "lawful firearms"

but course you know if most firearms were ever made illegal to own by civilians, they wouldn't be exactly "lawful" would they?

Right right, I know "1776 will commence", "you ain't takin muh gerns", "this means war" ...blah blah blah. I've heard it before.

[GGJohn]

134. If you truly believe that Americans won't resist this,

then you are truly living in a fantasy.

Perhaps you should move here:

[951-Riverside]

135. The only thing you have left is threatening people with violence over and over and over again

Thanks for proving my point about civilian ownership of firearms.

[GGJohn]

136. I myself have never visited violence on another human since I retired from the Army,

and I've certainly haven't threatened violence on anyone here, nor IRL.
I'm just stating a fact of life, Americans won't roll over for an unconstitutional law as many here think.

[Katashi_itto]

140. So threatening more violence?

“In the last 43 years, more Americans have been shot by another American — shot and killed by another American — than all of America’s soldiers killed in wars in the last 240 years.”

So what the difference?

[GGJohn]

142. I'm threatening violence?

Why, no, I'm not, I'm just stating a fact of life.
But rest assured, firearm owners have nothing to fear via a ban and confiscation, it will never happen in this country.

I'll wager that the majority of those killings were criminal on criminal killings.

[Katashi_itto]

143. Lol! So predictable. So dishonest.

If it's criminals shooting criminals its ok...

Whole lot of criminals

“In the last 43 years, more Americans have been shot by another American — shot and killed by another American — than all of America’s soldiers killed in wars in the last 240 years.”

[GGJohn]

145. I'll thank you to keep your words out of my mouth.

I never said it was ok, I was making an opinion, nothing more.

[Katashi_itto]

146. See #143

[GGJohn]

148. See #145

[Katashi_itto]

151. Not even capable of an original response. See #143

[GGJohn]

156. Again, see post #145. eom.

[Katashi_itto]

160. See #143

[EX500rider]

216. "In the last 43 years, more Americans have been shot by another American...

...than all of America’s soldiers killed in wars in the last 240 years.”

Well that seems unlikely.

1,249,026 war dead.

http://www.militaryfactory.com/american_war_deaths.asp

divided by 43 years is 29,047 dead per year avg...

"According to the FBI, in 2012, there were 8,855 total firearm-related homicides in the US."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States

[beevul]

221. Well I'll be...Its almost like they included suicides, isn't it.

Merely an oversight, rest assured.

[Katashi_itto]

230. Unlikely hmm? Here you go.

Here’s a summary of deaths by major conflict:

War
Deaths
Revolutionary War
4,435
War of 1812
2,260
Mexican War
13,283
Civil War (Union and Confederate, estimate)
750,000
Spanish-American War
2,446
World War I
116,516
World War II
405,399
Korean War
36,574
Vietnam War
58,220
Persian Gulf War
383
Afghanistan War
2,363
Iraq War
4,492
Other wars (includes Lebanon, Grenada, Panama, Somalia and Haiti)
362
TOTAL
1,396,733

Here is a summary. The figures below refer to total deaths caused by firearms:



Years
Firearm-related deaths
1968 to 1980
377,000
1981 to 1998
620,525
1999 to 2013
464,033
2014
(estimated based on rate from 2011-2013)
33,183
2015
(estimated based on rate from 2011-2013)
22,122
TOTAL, 1968-2015
1,516,863


http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/aug/27/nicholas-kristof/more-americans-killed-guns-1968-all-wars-says-colu/

[EX500rider]

231. It's says "Americans shot by another American"

That would rule out suicide and drop your numbers by 2/3.
About 9,000 a year lately like I said.

[Katashi_itto]

232. Lol. still trying to defend your side.

[EX500rider]

244. Suicides are not "American's shooting other American's" per the OP

Plus suicides are as much "gun violence" as jumping off a bridge is "bridge violence".

[Katashi_itto]

245. Lol..rationalize it however you like

[EX500rider]

246. It's not "rationalization" to point out the figures are wrong. Just facts.

[Katashi_itto]

248. I am citing facts, your simply spinning them

Either way. We will eventually come to a tipping point and you won't like it.

[EX500rider]

249. Except it's not a fact.

here's your quote:

“In the last 43 years, more Americans have been shot by another American — shot and killed by another American — than all of America’s soldiers killed in wars in the last 240 years.”

Not true. The overall homicide rate by all means is around 12,000 (12,253 in 2013) The firearm portion of that is around 9,000.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

1,249,026 war dead divided by 9,000= 138 years.

[Katashi_itto]

250. You functionally illiterate?

[EX500rider]

252. Are you mathematically challenged? lol

...I know, math is hard...

[Katashi_itto]

256. See #250

[EX500rider]

257. I'll take that as a yes...lol

I am actually high functioning literate in 2 languages but thanks for asking!

[Katashi_itto]

258. Keep spinning

I just enjoy the fact that a suicide ceases to count in your world. That they also somehow cease to be an American shooting another American (themselves in this case)

[EX500rider]

259. When someone (you in this case) says "Americans who killed OTHER Americans"...

....I do not include suicides since killing other people is known as "murder" or "homicide".

I also don't thing suicide with guns is any more "gun violence" then jumping off a bridge is "bridge violence".

[Katashi_itto]

260. Lol! So predictable. So dishonest.

[EX500rider]

261. Just don't want to own what you wrote & I'm the dishonest one....lol

[Katashi_itto]

262. I stand by what I wrote. Keep spinning

I expect you to dance all over trying to justify yourself.

[EX500rider]

269. So if you say "I drive other American's cars" you mean you drive your own car?

Last edited Thu Dec 10, 2015, 06:00 PM - Edit history (1)

lol.....good one!

Somebody's spinning here but it ain't me.

[Katashi_itto]

270. Keep trying

[branford]

139. How to Create a Gun-Free America in 5 Easy Steps

[ZX86]

164. Confiscate the guns when they're not at home.

You're welcome.