HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Guns in civilian hands ki... » Reply #8
In the discussion thread: Guns in civilian hands kill people. [View all]

Response to pogglethrope (Original post)

Wed Jun 24, 2015, 12:49 AM

8. .

 

Last edited Wed Jun 24, 2015, 02:13 AM - Edit history (1)


We are well beyond the point where the populace needs to be armed to the teeth to preserve our freedoms. This is the 21st Century. America is vastly different from what it was when the Bill of Rights was passed. We are in no danger of losing our freedoms; the Second Amendment is out-of-date. Although my preference would be to repeal the Second Amendment and leave gun laws strictly up to Congress and the President, chances of repealing it are virtually nil. Therefore, Congress must pass federal laws that limit ownership of firearms -- pushing those laws to the very limits of constitutionality.

You talk about restricting people's right to self defense, then turn right around and say that we aren't in danger of losing our freedoms. I'm confused.


Nobody needs an assault weapon -- and that includes semi-automatic weapons. They can easily be turned into fully automatic weapons with a readily available and inexpensive conversion kit. Semi-automatic and automatic weapons are simply too dangerous to be in private hands. All semi-automatic weapons for private use should be banned: no buyback, no grandfathering of weapons already owned, and no sunset clause. Private individuals must either turn them in to authorities or face criminal charges.

That would be ~50-75% of firearms in use today. It is silly and arbitrary. it makes as much sense as if someone were to suggest a return to muzzle-loader after the invention of the bolt action. Semi-automatics are in common use and have been for more than 100 years. Can you link me to some of these readily available conversion kits? I think I'm pretty knowledgeable about guns, but I've not heard of these. Your suggestion that there be no buyback or grandfathering is not only a poison pill which would prevent such a thing from ever happening, it is also a clear violation of the 5th amendment. Nope, no chance of losing our rights there. No siree!

Currently owned weapons, ammunition magazines, and ammunition quantities above a certain number must be turned in to authorities or destroyed in a timely manner and thereafter their possession in excess will be a crime. (Some gun nuts own dozens if not hundreds of firearms, along with untold thousands of rounds of ammunition. Why do they need so much ordnance?)

What does it mater if I own one gun or 50? How many can I use at once? This just just more arbitrary bullcrap that poisons any attempt and legit gun control. How many rounds would your majesty permit me? Why? Why not Less? Or more? would the people who turn those things in (criminals bent on ill intent never will) be compensated? if not, how would you justify it?

Gun nuts will respond that people outside urban areas keep firearms in their cars or trucks for "roadside emergencies, impromptu plinking, and varmint-hunting opportunities." Yes -- and to have them close at hand when road rage hits. What a crock. Let them go to gun and rifle ranges -- and keep their weapons under lock and key in a controlled environment. Let them keep their weapons in an armory, to be signed out when they want to use them -- with a specified return by date that can be enforced. No more than a couple of weeks or so at a time.

Yep, that's why I carry a gun. Road rage opportunities. You see, I'm just champing at the bit to throw my life away on murder charges. Yuk yuk, that's us ignant gun-nuts! Funny, I carry a gun on me when driving. I've been hit, cut off, nearly assaulted, and given the finger more times than I can count (usually up north interestingly enough), but it never occurred to me to even reach for my gun. Funny. It's almost as if people who follow the laws in the first place and get permits to carry aren't keen on murdering people. It sounds to me like you are projecting your own hostilities based on how you fear you's react if armed.

Gun nuts will claim that private ownership of firearms results in many life-saving defensive uses -- and that those uses are under-reported by "the liberal media." That's simply not true -- neither the alleged magnitude of the number of life-saving incidents nor that the very few that occur are not reported adequately.

Take it up with the CDC. They are the ones who've stated defensive gun uses outnumber killings. That is, unless you don't count a defensive gun use without bloodshed.



Enforcement? Well, for one thing the TSA's role could be expanded to run random checkpoints for firearms -- like those run by local police to deter drunk driving. Anyone caught without proper registration to carry a firearm in a vehicle could be cited for the violation, facing a stiff fine at a minimum and potential confiscation of all weapons in his or her possession at the other end of the spectrum. For egregious violations of the law, jail or prison terms could be specified in the law.

Bush and Bloomberg would be proud. Again, nobody wants to take away your rights. Bullshit. You want to stop and frisk/check people for driving down a road under the pretense that they may be carrying a firearm? Holy fucking police state. Yep, no abridgment of right or civil liberties there.


If it were possible to go beyond what I have proposed and completely eliminate private firearms ownership and possession, I would be all for that. I just don't think that can ever be done. Not in a country as backwards and violent as the United States is.

No, it will never be done because controllers like you always tip your hand like you have here. We go from "Nobody wants to take your guns or curtail your right" to "Random searches of vehicles, full bans, and confiscation of personal property without due process and compensation". If it weren't for folks like you, gun registration may have been done years ago. It will never be, now that people can't hear that without associating it with confiscation, raids on private property, and federal prison for exercising the right we have today. The fact is that nobody trusts the controllers due to crap like this. Personally, I'd like to thank you for protecting my 2nd amendment right in your own round-about, fucked up, police state way.

Make no mistake about it: If the Second Amendment were repealed, guns could be brought under control at the federal level, despite state constitutions that mimic the Second Amendment. That's because of Article VI in the Constitution: "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof ... shall be the supreme Law of the Land...." (Emphasis added.) Article IX and Article X of the Constitution might present a slight obstacle -- but not much of one if we can get a conservative on the Supreme Court replaced by a liberal.

Yep, again, nobody want to fuck with my right. Except the 2nd, 5th, 9th, and 10th, one you get the chance, it seems.

It's time to do something.

Like poison attempts at real gun control for the millionth time by demonstrating your plans to put the constitution through a wood chipper. Brilliant. No really. This enire post has been a brilliantly enlightening look into how far controllers will go to get their way. 4 constitutional protections laid low and counting.

I've said elsewhere that I'm not in favor of repealing the First Amendment the way I'm in favor of repealing the Second Amendment, but I am in favor of amending it to permit hate speech to be controlled better. Hate speech by its very nature is inflammatory and likely to cause violence in the short-term, if not immediately.

Unpopular, vulgar, and hateful, and controversial speech is the only speech that needs special protections. That's what the 1st is for. If everyone liked what I said, nobody would feel like restricting it. 5 rights gutted and counting. Keep it up!

Letís face it -- and most of us feel that way sometimes -- some people don't deserve First Amendment protection. It doesn't seem unreasonable to me for the Constitution to allow Congress to pass laws that reflect the wishes of an overwhelming majority of the people.

A side of tyranny of majority to go with the banning of free speech? What more could a guy want? Thanks for showing everyone your endgame.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to OP Alert abuse Link to post in-thread

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 58 replies Author Time Post
pogglethrope Jun 2015 OP
Cheese Sandwich Jun 2015 #1
Lizzie Poppet Jun 2015 #17
enough Jun 2015 #2
cherokeeprogressive Jun 2015 #3
-none Jun 2015 #4
pogglethrope Jun 2015 #5
EL34x4 Jun 2015 #11
pogglethrope Jun 2015 #12
-none Jun 2015 #38
mythology Jun 2015 #6
beevul Jun 2015 #48
Mr.Squirreleo Jun 2015 #7
pogglethrope Jun 2015 #9
former9thward Jun 2015 #14
Adrahil Jun 2015 #45
LineReply .
linuxman Jun 2015 #8
pogglethrope Jun 2015 #10
linuxman Jun 2015 #15
Telcontar Jun 2015 #28
sarisataka Jun 2015 #37
Telcontar Jun 2015 #44
Spatened Jun 2015 #13
NaturalHigh Jun 2015 #21
Krytan11c Jun 2015 #16
NaturalHigh Jun 2015 #20
tblue Jun 2015 #18
NaturalHigh Jun 2015 #19
PowerToThePeople Jun 2015 #22
Nuclear Unicorn Jun 2015 #27
PowerToThePeople Jun 2015 #30
Nuclear Unicorn Jun 2015 #31
PowerToThePeople Jun 2015 #33
Nuclear Unicorn Jun 2015 #35
PowerToThePeople Jun 2015 #36
Nuclear Unicorn Jun 2015 #40
ileus Jun 2015 #23
Marengo Jun 2015 #24
DanTex Jun 2015 #25
-none Jun 2015 #46
Snobblevitch Jun 2015 #52
Nuclear Unicorn Jun 2015 #26
Lurks Often Jun 2015 #29
Nuclear Unicorn Jun 2015 #34
Lurks Often Jun 2015 #53
Inkfreak Jun 2015 #32
sarisataka Jun 2015 #39
clffrdjk Jun 2015 #41
grossproffit Jun 2015 #42
ileus Jun 2015 #43
mnhtnbb Jun 2015 #47
pogglethrope Jun 2015 #49
Throd Jun 2015 #50
Lizzie Poppet Jun 2015 #54
Nuclear Unicorn Jun 2015 #55
discntnt_irny_srcsm Jun 2015 #51
edgineered Jun 2015 #56
Ghost in the Machine Jun 2015 #57
Sissyk Jun 2015 #58
Please login to view edit histories.