HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Confiscate most guns in t...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 01:01 PM

 

Confiscate most guns in the country, and how it could be done

All guns must be licensed or would be considered illegal and a felony crime. There would be a grace period where people could voluntarily surrender their guns and get some form of monetary compensation, perhaps a tax break. After the grace period ended, hard-ass strict laws and rules would go into effect. In order to get a gun license, a full background investigation would be undergone and conducted, including a mental evaluation by a medical professional. Any warning signs or shaky background elements would disqualify the person from getting the gun license. And to procure a license would have to be for legitimate reasons such as necessary hunting or being in the military and having a weapon or being in some kind of security service or other kinds of reasons. You couldn't just own a gun "for the hell of it". Violations of having an unlicensed gun would be fully prosecuted and a serious offense.

Don't tell me it couldn't be done, because it could be. We went to the moon for gods sake, we could begin a gun round up and be successful. It would take time, but it would not be an impossible task.

115 replies, 7272 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 115 replies Author Time Post
Reply Confiscate most guns in the country, and how it could be done (Original post)
quinnox Dec 2012 OP
ProgressiveProfessor Dec 2012 #1
quinnox Dec 2012 #4
ProgressiveProfessor Dec 2012 #10
librechik Dec 2012 #2
quinnox Dec 2012 #5
kdmorris Dec 2012 #15
Thinkingabout Dec 2012 #103
kdmorris Dec 2012 #112
rDigital Dec 2012 #17
quinnox Dec 2012 #20
rDigital Dec 2012 #26
quinnox Dec 2012 #32
Saboburns Dec 2012 #63
quinnox Dec 2012 #67
Trunk Monkey Dec 2012 #49
mike_c Dec 2012 #76
Hoyt Dec 2012 #31
rDigital Dec 2012 #33
Hoyt Dec 2012 #34
rDigital Dec 2012 #35
ThatPoetGuy Dec 2012 #39
rDigital Dec 2012 #61
CTyankee Dec 2012 #45
rDigital Dec 2012 #53
CTyankee Dec 2012 #85
atreides1 Dec 2012 #74
CTyankee Dec 2012 #86
musical_soul Dec 2012 #68
rDigital Dec 2012 #70
musical_soul Dec 2012 #80
DesMoinesDem Dec 2012 #83
cali Dec 2012 #29
Lizzie Poppet Dec 2012 #62
kdmorris Dec 2012 #23
geek_sabre Dec 2012 #3
quinnox Dec 2012 #6
alcibiades_mystery Dec 2012 #18
quinnox Dec 2012 #25
Trunk Monkey Dec 2012 #51
alcibiades_mystery Dec 2012 #65
jeff47 Dec 2012 #88
cherokeeprogressive Dec 2012 #71
alcibiades_mystery Dec 2012 #81
jeff47 Dec 2012 #89
AlexSatan Dec 2012 #96
jeff47 Dec 2012 #100
AlexSatan Dec 2012 #101
jeff47 Dec 2012 #106
AlexSatan Dec 2012 #107
jeff47 Dec 2012 #108
AlexSatan Dec 2012 #114
Ghost in the Machine Dec 2012 #110
jeff47 Dec 2012 #111
hack89 Dec 2012 #43
alcibiades_mystery Dec 2012 #66
hack89 Dec 2012 #75
AlexSatan Dec 2012 #95
Recursion Dec 2012 #99
jeff47 Dec 2012 #87
white_wolf Dec 2012 #7
quinnox Dec 2012 #9
ProgressiveProfessor Dec 2012 #12
rDigital Dec 2012 #19
quinnox Dec 2012 #22
NickB79 Dec 2012 #109
CTyankee Dec 2012 #48
white_wolf Dec 2012 #56
jeff47 Dec 2012 #90
Taverner Dec 2012 #8
shraby Dec 2012 #11
Common Sense Party Dec 2012 #77
Lizzie Poppet Dec 2012 #13
cali Dec 2012 #14
alcibiades_mystery Dec 2012 #16
rrneck Dec 2012 #21
rDigital Dec 2012 #28
ThatPoetGuy Dec 2012 #41
CTyankee Dec 2012 #50
rrneck Dec 2012 #58
dkf Dec 2012 #60
Throd Dec 2012 #24
ProgressiveProfessor Dec 2012 #27
Hoyt Dec 2012 #36
ProgressiveProfessor Dec 2012 #42
Hoyt Dec 2012 #52
ProgressiveProfessor Dec 2012 #64
Hoyt Dec 2012 #73
quakerboy Dec 2012 #97
ProgressiveProfessor Dec 2012 #98
rDigital Dec 2012 #30
Lurker Deluxe Dec 2012 #40
ProgressiveProfessor Dec 2012 #44
baldguy Dec 2012 #46
Throd Dec 2012 #84
Logical Dec 2012 #37
quinnox Dec 2012 #38
Logical Dec 2012 #47
quinnox Dec 2012 #55
Logical Dec 2012 #72
Travis_0004 Dec 2012 #91
Logical Dec 2012 #92
musical_soul Dec 2012 #54
mike_c Dec 2012 #78
musical_soul Dec 2012 #82
mike_c Dec 2012 #93
peacebird Dec 2012 #57
quinnox Dec 2012 #59
bluestateguy Dec 2012 #69
Recursion Dec 2012 #79
Carnage251 Dec 2012 #102
Fire Walk With Me Dec 2012 #94
TheKentuckian Dec 2012 #105
Carnage251 Dec 2012 #104
rdking647 Dec 2012 #113
Nevernose Dec 2012 #115

Response to quinnox (Original post)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 01:25 PM

1. Highly improbable

It would start with Constitutional changes and take quite some time to flow down, assuming of course they are not stopped cold in the courts.

Possible...yes, likely...not in several generations.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProgressiveProfessor (Reply #1)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 01:32 PM

4. the gun culture would take time to change but

 

in time, as the severe penalties hit home, and people realized the government wasn't fucking around as hard core gun neighbors went to prison, the culture would start to change and eventually could become a relatively gun free culture as kids were raised in the new environment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to quinnox (Reply #4)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 01:42 PM

10. You minimize the legal hurdles which are massive

You would have better success with a social stigma approach. My firearms students who are mostly GLBTs have had to deal with stigma issues, but they overcame them in favor of their own personal safety.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to quinnox (Original post)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 01:29 PM

2. There would be the added benefit of thousands of angry freepers dying while resisting confiscation

at least that is how they imagine it would happen. Although I guess they wouldn't necessarily think of it as a positive result. That's just me. And of course I'm just kidding.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to librechik (Reply #2)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 01:34 PM

5. if a few Waco style confrontations/occurances happened, then so be it

 

it would be high profile and demonstrate the government wasn't kidding about this new policy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to quinnox (Reply #5)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 01:46 PM

15. Waco was an incredible tragedy that should not be repeated

Especially not to make a point. By being OK with the death of thousands of people and a repeat of Waco "a few" times, you sink to their level. Seriously, I thought DU was better than this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kdmorris (Reply #15)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 08:57 PM

103. Waco ending was chosen by David Korash, the starting of fires was at his orders.

He had a very sick mind and abused those who stayed except the children did not have the opportunity to leave on their own, this is way different.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thinkingabout (Reply #103)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 09:05 AM

112. I know that

But there is no excuse to be OK with "a few" other David Koresh's choosing the same fate for their children. It is absolutely no different. The children were innocent and it doesn't matter who took their lives or caused their death.

You obviously don't think that it's OK for 21 children to burn to death because their leader was a whack job. So, why did you post this as if it was different? Is that better or different in any way than 20 children dying to gunfire? The death of 20 children is the death of 20 children, who are completely innocent and at the mercy of the adults around them. I take exception to "joking" around about hoping that "a few" more David Koresh's instigate "a few" more Wacos to keep their guns from being confiscated.

I will never be OK with "a few more" Wacos just to prove that the US Govt is serious about gun control. The death of 20 children - NO MATTER WHO CAUSED THEIR DEATHS - is a terrible thing to be OK with.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to quinnox (Reply #5)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 01:50 PM

17. 25 children were murdered at Waco. Cool plan. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rDigital (Reply #17)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 01:52 PM

20. I'm not endorsing Waco, just being prepared for the reality that some of

 

the militia types would probably force a confrontation like this. Its regrettable, but a likely scenario to happen.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to quinnox (Reply #20)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 02:04 PM

26. Regrettable? Does that mean acceptable instead of absolutely horrifying? Killing more children? nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rDigital (Reply #26)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 02:07 PM

32. no, it would be a terrible event but the blame would of course be placed squarely

 

on the militia types or crazed paranoid government haters that provoked such a confrontation. I would hope they would at least have the decency to evacuate their kids before doing something like this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to quinnox (Reply #32)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 02:46 PM

63. You've dug yerself a hole.

Stop digging.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Saboburns (Reply #63)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 02:51 PM

67. I think my answers have clarified what I meant and have been reasonable

 

I disagree with your comment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to quinnox (Reply #20)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 02:33 PM

49. not endorsing Waco

 

Yes actually, you are

thanks for making DU suck

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trunk Monkey (Reply #49)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 03:11 PM

76. a "gun enthusiast" speaks....

Thank YOU for making DU suck.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rDigital (Reply #17)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 02:06 PM

31. Law enforcement gave Koresh 51 days to surrender. Instead, he continued hugging his guns and raping


children. I have no sympathy for him.

But I agree with you that no one should be shot reducing the supply of lethal weapons in our country.

Surely all those so-called "law-abiding, responsible gun owners" that you guys tell us about would give them up voluntarily if that is what society decided is best.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #31)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 02:08 PM

33. What about the 25 dead kids? No sympathy for them either.... Disgusting. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rDigital (Reply #33)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 02:09 PM

34. All you care about is your guns. Be honest.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #34)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 02:09 PM

35. No.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rDigital (Reply #35)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 02:18 PM

39. Refusing to be honest? No surprise.

Please don't exploit children's deaths so soon after you helped cause more children to die.

If it had been harder for Koresh to get guns, then those kids you're trying to exploit wouldn't have died that day.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ThatPoetGuy (Reply #39)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 02:42 PM

61. Pot meet kettle. See above. toodles. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rDigital (Reply #33)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 02:30 PM

45. He should never have been able to stockpile those guns in the first place.

It should have to be too damn hard to do it, with hurdles to overcome every step of the way.

But I think it would be best if we just repeal the 2nd Amendment and join civilized societies around the world.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CTyankee (Reply #45)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 02:37 PM

53. Good luck. Get to it. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rDigital (Reply #53)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 03:50 PM

85. will do. and thanks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CTyankee (Reply #45)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 03:07 PM

74. Then what Amendment or laws get repealed next?

I've been hearing this argument for years now...let's repeal the 2nd Amendment! Wonderful idea, but then someone on the opposite side decides that the Voter Rights Act needs to be amended or maybe repeal the 13th or 14th Amendments...

It's a slippery slope to go down...and once begun it might not be able to be stopped!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to atreides1 (Reply #74)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 03:55 PM

86. Oh, haven't you heard? There are already some people who want to repeal the Voting

Rights Act.

I dunno about the 13th and 14th amendment. Haven't heard too much movement on repealing them. But I really don't think the the re-enactment of slavery and abolishing the right to vote for some groups have too much support, or at least none that I know of. I do know that there are people for whom the abolition of the 2nd amendment would be a popular idea, particularly here at DU, judging by comments I have been reading of late.

Then there are the families of people who have been slain due to gun violence. Betcha a bunch of those think abolition of the 2nd A would be a good thing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rDigital (Reply #33)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 02:51 PM

68. Waco was not about guns.

It was a mentally unstable and/or evil man who had messed up followers. Add that to an anxious attorney general, guns really had little to nothing to do with this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to musical_soul (Reply #68)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 02:52 PM

70. OK, so why did Janet Reno go after them? nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rDigital (Reply #70)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 03:24 PM

80. She wanted to solve the problem.......

and truth is it looked bad that these religious nuts kept spitting in her face by refusing to surrender.

Please forgive me. I like Clinton, but I think he messed up big time choosing her. I always thought how they handled Waco was wrong.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to musical_soul (Reply #68)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 03:33 PM

83. You think they sent the ATF in for an unstable man?

Think again. The ATF deals with Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives. Not unstable men and their followers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to quinnox (Reply #5)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 02:05 PM

29. what the fuck?????

gad.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to quinnox (Reply #5)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 02:43 PM

62. It wouldn't be "a few."

Please believe me on this point. There would be massive, widespread, violent resistance to forcible confiscation of weapons. The police are not even remotely adequate to this task. It would require the military...and the military would, in very large numbers, refuse such orders. Today's US military has a markedly conservative flavor and the majority of its members would oppose such laws.

I cannot adequately state what a terrible idea this is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to librechik (Reply #2)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 01:59 PM

23. Funny joke... haha

not...thousands of death "benefits" no one. Your "joke" is inappropriate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to quinnox (Original post)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 01:32 PM

3. Perhaps my reading comprehension skills are lacking

How, exactly, would you confiscate weapons from the likely 80%+ of gun owners who don't "surrender" their weapons for a pittance?

How can that be done?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek_sabre (Reply #3)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 01:35 PM

6. with the full force of law and police agencies cracking down

 

any gun owners could avoid any trouble by complying with the new laws and applying for a gun license.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to quinnox (Reply #6)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 01:50 PM

18. I love how gun people assume all the gun owners will just turn vicious felons

If you pass the law, most people will comply with it. Those who don't can be prosecuted.

The passage of laws does indeed incentivize behavior.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alcibiades_mystery (Reply #18)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 02:01 PM

25. I agree

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alcibiades_mystery (Reply #18)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 02:35 PM

51. If you pass the law, most people will comply with it.

 

How's that working out with drugs?

Seriously, are you ready to bet your country on it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trunk Monkey (Reply #51)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 02:48 PM

65. Yes, I'm willing to experiment with it

The status quo is intolerable, and for all the histrionic melodrama of "betting the country on it," I think I'm right. There was a lot of melodrama about closing the bathhouses ("sexual fascism!" "concentration camps!") during the early years of the HIV/AIDS epidemic, but we did it and were non e worse for wear. We're in another public health epidemic now, and the gun culture crazies will go the way of the bath house crazies: they'll have to change their culture for their own good and for the public health. Let's get some real restrictive gun laws in place and move forward.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trunk Monkey (Reply #51)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 04:00 PM

88. The vast majority don't take illegal drugs.

So it's working rather well, if your goal is to dissuade people from taking drugs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alcibiades_mystery (Reply #18)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 02:57 PM

71. I think the fog of anger over this tragedy has clouded a lot of otherwise excellent minds.

You love how people make assumptions, you say... well you're making one too. A very big assumption indeed. You're assuming enough LEO's will support such a law so as to make it necessary to comply with in the first place. I must respectfully state I don't think that's the case.

Just think of the logistics necessary for what is being suggested here. There are over 80 MILLION gun owners in the country. How many LEO's and military personnel are there combined? 5-6 million tops? What will they do, go door to door?

I'm sorry to be argumentive, but DU has some of the most brilliant people I've ever encountered. I certainly pale in the shadow of most. It seems to me though that anger over this inconcievable tragedy has pushed some of them into extreme thinking that simply isn't withing the realm of the reality of the situation.

From everything I've ever learned, the Supreme Court is loathe to revisit what it considers to be settled law. As discompassionate as this sounds, I doubt this is enough to change that.

Please understand I say this with all due respect.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cherokeeprogressive (Reply #71)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 03:27 PM

81. Actually, you're not being respectful

Your initial claim is that my position is "clouded" by "anger," and therefore not rational. That's not respect. It is an out and out insult. I don't respond to you by saying you're just a fanatic and dupe of the gun manufacturers, and then say, well, with all due respect. I should immediately cease conversing with you on that score alone. But, I will say the following:

In a free society, we do not make laws based on whether we think law enforcement officers will enforce them. That's their job: they are not the final arbiters of the laws we make, and the minute they are, we live in a fascist state.

I'm talking about a Woman's Suffrage style Constitutional project - two or three generations of ceaseless activism. Integration seemed impossible in 1925, and Plessy was "settled law." Shit changes. WE change things. That's the essence of progressive government. And shit needs to change. That's for the big stuff.

For the little stuff, we need immediate action to deal with what is obviously a public health crisis. In 1981, the problems of HIV/AIDS ran deeper than simply the amplification effect of the bath houses. The problem was complex and multifactorial and required numerous comprehensive and connected approaches. It was not just the bath houses. But we closed the bath houses, and that helped. A lot. It helped in changing the culture, and helped in changing individual practices, and it slowed the spread of the virus. And don't think there weren't thousands who viewed the closure as an affront to liberty. They slowed closure by three years in the midst of the epidemic, and cost many thousands of people their lives, just as the gun manufacturers and their flunkies are doing today. We are currently in a public health epidemic as serious as that. Of course the problem is multifactorial. Who doesn't know that? That doesn't mean we don't act meaningfully. It means we act in multiple strategic and interconnected ways.

But don't tell me stuff is not "realistic" or "impossible."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cherokeeprogressive (Reply #71)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 04:04 PM

89. Because guns don't use ammunition

nor are they obvious when fired. Why, there's no indication whatsoever that a gun went off, and there's no need for illicit gun owners to get replacement ammunition.

There will be a small number of people who refuse to comply with such a law. There will also be a small number of people who manage to stockpile millions of rounds before such a law goes into effect. But since their numbers are small, such a law will significantly improve the situation.

As for law enforcement refusing to enforce the law, there's already plenty of procedures in place for that. It's not like gun control laws would be the first controversial law.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #89)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 10:11 PM

96. At least ammunition

 

could not come over the border illegally.

We've done a great job ensuring drugs don't....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AlexSatan (Reply #96)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 08:41 PM

100. If the vast majority used illegal drugs, you'd have a point

They don't.

Again, the goal is to make the situation better. Not make the situation perfect.

Drunks still drive. Should we repeal all drunk driving laws a futile? No, that would be monumentally fucking stupid. Because those laws allow us to stop drunk drivers before they kill someone.

Similarly, it's monumentally fucking stupid to not enact any new gun laws because a minority wouldn't comply with the law. The fact that the majority complies would make us all safer.

At this point, I expect you'll leap to the next stupid argument, where the new laws ban all guns. Nobody's talking about that. We're talking about laws such as requiring guns be stored in a gun safe, either at home or at a range if you can't afford your own safe.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #100)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 08:46 PM

101. The problem is that

 

93% of gun crime is committed by illegally gotten guns.

The vast majority of guns are obtained legally.

So, who would be getting that illegal ammunition? Those who are criminals.

So your solution doesn't do much to solve the problem.

And would a gun safe have prevented the most recent tragedy? Unlikely. Most likely the adult kids would have the combo to the safe.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AlexSatan (Reply #101)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 09:37 PM

106. Where do those illegally gotten guns come from?

I'm having a lot of trouble believing you haven't connected these two tidbits:

93% of gun crime is committed by illegally gotten guns.

The vast majority of guns are obtained legally.


"Illegal" guns start as legal guns. Restrictions on legal guns result in restrictions on illegal guns. And restrictions like mandatory gun safes make it much harder to convert that legal gun into an illegal gun.

That's why states with stricter gun control laws have less gun violence. If you were correct, there would be no difference.

Most likely the adult kids would have the combo to the safe.

The kid was 20. It was not legal for him to have unsupervised access to a gun in CT. That happens at 21. As such it's dumb to assume he'd have the combination. Especially when Mom knew he had mental issues. She wasn't willing to buy a safe on her own, but you're assuming a lot that she would give the combo to her mentally ill son if she had been required to get one.

So your solution doesn't do much to solve the problem.

Your argument against it is utterly pitiful. You seem to think illegal guns appear out of thin air.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #106)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 10:44 PM

107. Can you support that claim?

 



"That's why states with stricter gun control laws have less gun violence. If you were correct, there would be no difference."

In 1976, Washington, D.C. enacted one of the most restrictive gun control laws in the nation. The city's murder rate rose 134 percent through 1996 while the national murder rate has dropped 2 percent.

Among the 15 states with the highest homicide rates, 10 have restrictive or very restrictive gun laws.

Maryland claims to have the toughest gun control laws in the nation and ranks #1 in robberies and #4 in both violent crime and murder.268 . The robbery rate is 70% more than the national average.

In 2000, 20% of U.S. homicides occur in four cities with just six percent of the population New York, Chicago, Detroit, and Washington, D.C. most of which have/had a virtual prohibition on private handguns

Washington, D.C.'s 1976 ban on the ownership of handguns (except those already registered in the District) was not linked to any reduction in gun crime in the nation's capital.

New York has one of the most restrictive gun laws in the nation and 20% of the armed robberies.

In analyzing 10 different possible reasons for the decline in violent crime during the 1990s, gun control was calculated to have contributed nothing (high imprisonment rates, more police and legalized abortion were considered the primary factors, contributing as much as 28% of the overall reduction). - Understanding Why Crime Fell in the 1990s, Steven Levit, Journal of Economic Perspectives, Winter 2004

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AlexSatan (Reply #107)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 12:36 AM

108. Because Washington DC is a state

and doesn't suffer from having VA's lax gun laws 5 minutes away.

Btw, you managed to post an awful lot of stats, yet you didn't manage to post an awful lot of sources.

As for mine, point 9 in this article.

You're free to explain how we manage to shoot each other to death far more than, say, Canadians. Or Europeans. Or anywhere else in the developed world. You know, countries where there are strict gun control laws - according to you, they should be suffering the same rate of gun violence, because gun control laws do nothing. Yet they aren't.

Also, you probably need to look up the definition of "death". Neither robbery nor "violent crime" are death.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #108)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 09:37 AM

114. I appreciate the data

 

Unfortunately in point 9, it doesn't appear to break out suicide from homicide. This is a big distinction in my book and can severely distort the data.

Yes, we do shoot each other a lot more than Canadians but also Switzerland. And their gun ownership (percent of population who own guns) is in the ballpark of ours but yet their homicide by gun rate is much lower (close to that of Canada)

On the other hand Mexico has a much, much lower ownership rate but 3 times higher homicide by gun rate.

As for the difference between death and violent crime, yes there is a difference but both are bad and should be minimized.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #100)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 02:05 AM

110. " Because those laws allow us to stop drunk drivers before they kill someone."

Please come explain that to my two kids, plus my niece & nephew, who have lost 7 friends to drunk drivers in the past 3 years. Four of them (5 actually, since one girl was pregnant) were killed in one car... minding their own business, coming home from the lake, where they had spent the day swimming and hanging with friends.. when they were hit head-on by a speeding drunk driver who didn't have a license due to multiple other arrests for DUI. I don't recall right offhand whether the vehicle he was driving was stolen, or just "borrowed without permission" (the same as stolen, in my book).

Are you interested in having this talk about "those laws allow us to stop drunk drivers before they kill someone." with my kids??

Thanks in advance,

Ghost

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ghost in the Machine (Reply #110)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 03:14 AM

111. Because my post said laws were 100% effective in all cases.

Please point to where I said laws were 100% effective.

Alternatively, you could actually pay attention to what I wrote, since the primary thrust was making the situation better and not perfect.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to quinnox (Reply #6)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 02:28 PM

43. Because politicians and elected sheriffs and judges in red states

will fall right in line? All those RW cops are not going to look the other way?

Pull the other one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #43)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 02:49 PM

66. They weren't going to enforce integration either

Until they had to.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alcibiades_mystery (Reply #66)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 03:07 PM

75. It will never get to that point fortunately

the courts will never allow it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to quinnox (Reply #6)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 10:09 PM

95. Great idea!

 

That has worked wonderfully with drugs...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to quinnox (Reply #6)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 09:49 AM

99. That worked great with cocaine and marijuana, too (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek_sabre (Reply #3)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 03:58 PM

87. Ammunition sales.

Guns don't work very well without bullets. So those illegal guns are going to result in ammunition purchases.

That's not to say such a law will be 100% effective, but it doesn't have to be to make a very large difference.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to quinnox (Original post)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 01:36 PM

7. How do you get around the courts?

I'm sorry, but purely from a legal perspective I don't see how this would work. The current SCOTUS would strike it down in a heartbeat.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to white_wolf (Reply #7)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 01:40 PM

9. my OP is predicated on the idea of the constituiton question already being decided

 

in favor of strict gun controls. I'm not arguing for a total ban. If the court struck down some of my provisions, then of course it would not work and would fall apart.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to quinnox (Reply #9)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 01:43 PM

12. When one starts in fictional territory indeed all things are possible

How about something really cool like warp drive instead?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProgressiveProfessor (Reply #12)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 01:51 PM

19. I'm not a Doctor Jim, I'm a pool man! nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProgressiveProfessor (Reply #12)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 01:57 PM

22. I'm merely speculating and saying it could happen

 

Whether it ever does is an open question. I hope it does, frankly. People might eventually reach a breaking point with these gun massacres happening so often and a new social movement could arise, along the lines that I'm speculating about.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to quinnox (Reply #9)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 12:44 AM

109. The SC has already ruled that the 2A is an individual right

And has set precedent against many forms of gun control on the premise people have the right to own firearms for self-defense in the Heller case of 2008.

Hell, just before the school shooting, the 7th US Appeals court struck down Chicago's ban on concealed carry as violating an individual's right to bear arms in self-defense due to the Heller precedent: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/16/illinois-concealed-carry-_1_n_2311130.html

So, it's no longer a question of whether or not the constitutional questions will be answered. They already largely were answered. Virtually every one of your suggested provisions would create a potential Supreme Court fight, and precedent isn't on your side.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to white_wolf (Reply #7)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 02:33 PM

48. Then I guess we'd better start nominating SC justices that are on our side. Change the

court. Then clean up the guns. And start the process to repeal the 2nd Amendment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CTyankee (Reply #48)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 02:39 PM

56. Now that I can get behind.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to white_wolf (Reply #7)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 04:06 PM

90. Remind the courts that "well regulated militia" appears in the 2nd amendment

You write the laws such that you regulate the militia. Requiring training courses, refresher courses, mental health evaluations, stringent storage requirements, and so on.

That's just part of keeping your militia well-regulated.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to quinnox (Original post)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 01:38 PM

8. If we quit the war on drugs and Afpak, we could do this

 

Don't get me wrong, it would be a HUGE HUGE HUGE undertaking

And I'd be lying if I were to say there wouldn't be a few casualties

But we have an apparatus in place that can detect whether you are growing pot within your walls - if we can do that, we can find guns.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to quinnox (Original post)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 01:43 PM

11. That would probably work as well as the war on drugs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to shraby (Reply #11)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 03:11 PM

77. One small difference being guns are an enumerated Constitutional right.

Guns aren't.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to quinnox (Original post)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 01:45 PM

13. Only issuing licenses to security personnel or subsistance hunters?

That dooms any such plan to failure right there, I suspect. It would in effect prohibit gun ownership for at least a hundred million or so Americans. Such a prohibition, if not actively and aggressively enforced, would be a joke. People would ignore it, and the main result would be an enormous barrier between law enforcement and millions of Americans. It would create a barrier to cooperation with the police that was not there before.

Active enforcement caries its own set of problems, and they're even worse. For one thing, do not for even a moment think it wouldn't be forcibly resisted. It would be, period. I'd also caution against thinking that the police are even remotely up to the task of forcible confiscation. They are vastly outnumbered and for the most part outgunned. The "us vs the world" insular police culture probably means they'd try to carry out such orders against fellow Americans...but they'd fail

That leaves the military. Assuming that you started with repealing posse comitatus, you'd still be faced with the fact that the US military these days has a noticeably conservative leaning to it. The majority of is members would oppose disarmament of US citizens and if ordered to do so, I have no doubt vast numbers would refuse. US military training and discipline, while effective, very deliberately avoids creating cop-like insularity (because that leads to things like coups and military juntas...). Under such circumstances, this would fragment the military. You would have to figure out a way to fundamentally change US military culture, and that would likely be the work of at least a generation.

That moon launch you mention is a simple task compared to what you propose, frankly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to quinnox (Original post)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 01:45 PM

14. no, it couldn't be done as you lay out. It's just a fantasy.

first of all, you have to get laws passed. And if you think the laws you propose have a snowball's chance of passing, you're living in fantasyland.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to quinnox (Original post)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 01:48 PM

16. Correct, but this is a women's suffrage type Constitutional project

It can be done, and it likely will be done, but it will be a long struggle on the order to two generations. The gun nuts, like those who opposed women's suffrage in 1848, seem to have the upper hand now, but they have no future.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to quinnox (Original post)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 01:55 PM

21. If it takes more than one election cycle it won't work.

Any politician that proposes firearm confiscation will be handed a one way bus ticket to the political wilderness, and more than one will take their entire party with them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rrneck (Reply #21)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 02:05 PM

28. Precisely. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rrneck (Reply #21)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 02:24 PM

41. NRA propaganda.

More than half of Americans, according to Pew, want to see stricter gun control. And that was before we reached this tipping point.

Most Americans are sick to death of children dying so you can keep your toys.

Before the tipping point, we already saw the NRA rendered powerless in this election; we already saw more than 90% of avid gun supporters voting Republican.

If 93% of avid gun supporters can't defeat a Democrat, then 100% won't either; the numbers of avid gun supporters are actually fairly small.

And our kids keep dying because of you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ThatPoetGuy (Reply #41)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 02:35 PM

50. Yes, let's not let this propaganda go unchallenged. Onward!

Our society needs to keep up with more modern, humanistic and enlightened ones. We should emulate those and rewrite our constitution accordingly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ThatPoetGuy (Reply #41)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 02:40 PM

58. Stricter gun control and confiscation are two different things.

Can you do it with 75% of Democrats?


http://www.gallup.com/poll/150353/self-reported-gun-ownership-highest-1993.aspx

Edit to add: Note the trend.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ThatPoetGuy (Reply #41)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 02:42 PM

60. Ah stricter gun control means confiscation of most guns. Glad you have clarified that.

 

I own no guns so I have no vested interest, but I don't think gun owners are going to roll over and give you their guns. That's a fantasy. Just like the fantasy you can keep women from having abortions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to quinnox (Original post)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 02:00 PM

24. I have firearms that nobody knows about.

I doubt I'm the only one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Throd (Reply #24)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 02:05 PM

27. You can build your own ARs with unregistered receivers and there is no Federal requirement to

register them or in many states.

The other thing that few outside the shooting community understand is the interchangeability of the upper receivers. That the same rifle with the same look and feel can go from .22LR up to .50Beowolf would cause heads to explode.

I have preached to all sides to understand the details since the details are important and matter. Few seem to care or listen.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProgressiveProfessor (Reply #27)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 02:10 PM

36. And you guys tell us gun lovers are "law-abiding and responsible." Apparently, you don't even


believe that BS.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #36)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 02:24 PM

42. Nothing I said was illegal in the least nor irresponsible

Its bubbas like you who know little to nothing about the tech or laws that get so bent out of shape over perfectly legal things and miss the key points.

I have lost track of how many times I have urged you to learn something about the topic, but you continue to wallow in your ignorance and then you make foolish posts like the prior one.

Unregistered AR lower receivers are legal under certain circumstances. BATF opinion supports that. AR upper receivers are not required to be registered in any state, are many are not serialized. They can be configured to shoot different calibers off of the same lower receiver. Been that way since the beginning and is one of the reasons the AR is so popular is it modularity.

Nothing illegal nor irresponsible about any of the above.

Yes there are irresponsible people with guns. Most of them would fail a background check. It starts with street thugs. Look to where the issues really are.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProgressiveProfessor (Reply #42)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 02:36 PM

52. That the problem with a lot of gun folks -- Things can be legal, but immoral.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #52)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 02:48 PM

64. Nothing there is immoral either

Its older tech operating well within the law.

We have had AR like weapons in civilian hands since WWI. We have not had any where near this level of violence until recently. What has changed? How do we get back to where we were?

To claim some sort of immorality here places you in the company of those who claim taking God out of schools caused the shooting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProgressiveProfessor (Reply #64)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 03:02 PM

73. No. I think most people realize guns contributed greatly to this tragedy.

Only those who live by guns, seem in denial. Heck, even some of the staunchest Gungeoneers realize it's time to bite the bullet and do something.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProgressiveProfessor (Reply #42)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 04:49 AM

97. The clear implication of your words

Is that all these law abiding good folk who own guns would not chose to remain law abiding if that meant not owning guns.

That all these responsible gun owners would turn around and make their own guns if their factory built supply ran out due to becoming illegal.

It seems to me that a person who only follows the laws that happen to suit them is not exactly a paragon of law abidingness.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to quakerboy (Reply #97)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 09:44 AM

98. I and others have pointed out the fallacy of collection squads

Some here have even suggest vigilante action.

My point is it will be hard if people choose not to cooperate. Not unlike the war on drugs

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Throd (Reply #24)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 02:06 PM

30. You're just one of tens of millions. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Throd (Reply #24)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 02:23 PM

40. Guns no one knows about is not even the beginnnig of the problem.

I am a first class machinist, with a pretty much funcional shop in my garage. All it would take is a set of prints ...

A medium sized shop with CNC machines could crank out parts faster than you could count them. True military weapons would be out there in a matter of weeks. The laws now make it so people would not risk being in possession of a fully automatic weapon, the punishment just isn't worth it. As soon as the penalty for having a bolt action 30-06 and a full blown M16 are the same, M16's will be on the streets.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lurker Deluxe (Reply #40)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 02:28 PM

44. Good barrels require specialized tooling to do the rifling

The rest of it can be done on a CNC machines with very little hand fitting required. The AR design was done that way to lower costs. With some of the newer 3D printing technology, it may get even easier.

The real issue is and remains the level of violence in society. We have had these kind of weapons in civilian hands since WWI, but no where near the level of violence. Somehow I don't think its just the inanimate machines to blame.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Throd (Reply #24)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 02:31 PM

46. Then you're part of the problem.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to baldguy (Reply #46)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 03:46 PM

84. How?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to quinnox (Original post)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 02:13 PM

37. So you are saying "self defense in my home" would not be a valid reason? Or target shooting?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Logical (Reply #37)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 02:17 PM

38. I have not considered all details

 

such as recreational sports like target shooting. I'm thinking that would be ok, provided the gun owner passed the licensee requirements.

Self-defense would be tricky, because a lot would try to claim this reason. It would have to be looked at in a hard way, on a case by case basis. If the person was really scared and frightened for their well-being, then it could be granted, but only in certain cases.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to quinnox (Reply #38)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 02:32 PM

47. I think your collection of the current 300 million guns might be harder than you think.....

and the cost would be 90 Billion dollars to buy them back at $300. Most guns cost more than that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Logical (Reply #47)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 02:39 PM

55. It would be a tax break for any returned weapons, not cold hard cash

 

and be conducted by the government. The exact details of what kind of value the weapons would be given is not something really all that important. The weapons would not be given full market value in all probability however.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to quinnox (Reply #55)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 03:00 PM

72. No way they could take guns and not compensate the owner for fair market value.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Logical (Reply #72)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 04:42 PM

91. Its even worse than that.

Lets say you pass a law, and agree to pay 300 per gun turned in. The law doesn't take effect for 90 days. I own a glock that is worth 400. I'm not going to turn it in for 300. I'll sell it. (probably for 600-900 if a law like that passed.

I guarantee there would be people willing to buy guns if a law like this was passed, and I'm willing to bet somebody would not buy a gun with the intent to turn it in 90 days later.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Travis_0004 (Reply #91)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 04:55 PM

92. People are not being realistic at this point. How has removing all illegal drugs worked?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to quinnox (Original post)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 02:37 PM

54. Do you really want cops to be the only ones with guns?

Because I don't.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to musical_soul (Reply #54)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 03:14 PM

78. me either-- take them away from cops, too....

Seriously. Gun violence by police is just as big a problem as gun violence among everyone else. Lock up law enforcement weapons in an armory and open it only when absolutely necessary. But no cops carrying guns around publicly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mike_c (Reply #78)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 03:28 PM

82. So....

How do cops get the criminals when the criminals are insisting on running, are getting overly violent, etc?

I'm not going to say something cheesy like "guns don't kill people, people do."

However, let's face it. People know how to kill before guns. We need to handle people.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to musical_soul (Reply #82)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 06:13 PM

93. with a trudgeon or other non-lethal means....

We've simply gotten used to the notion that cops should carry guns. Nine times out of ten they likely shouldn't. Yes, it's a dangerous profession. Taking away their guns will probably make some folks that shouldn't be cops think twice about it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to quinnox (Original post)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 02:39 PM

57. We have a couple rifles which we need when predators are going after our hens.

I agree assault weapons and the megaround holding clips need to be done away with, but not all guns.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to peacebird (Reply #57)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 02:41 PM

59. that situation would fall under an acceptable gun license

 

I don't see any problem with keeping guns in this case.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to quinnox (Original post)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 02:52 PM

69. Because we don't have enough people in prison

I am all for an adult conversation about guns.

This is not it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to quinnox (Original post)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 03:15 PM

79. Banning drugs has worked out really well

I suggest we repeat that with firearms.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #79)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 08:49 PM

102. +1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to quinnox (Original post)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 06:18 PM

94. I strongly dislike guns, but even more so, the idea that the populace would be unarmed and not the

 

tyrants. Checks and balances, until the day we have created a society which does not require self-defence against the greedy and sadistic.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fire Walk With Me (Reply #94)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 09:26 PM

105. All I tend to hear is we want to turn the screws to a level that won't be tolerated

with an armed populace. Of course there would be mile wide exemptions for "private security" forces, hell, they are apparently indispensable to the US government so the Pinkertons will be able to squeeze unchecked.

Tools available determine tolerance.

6,000 years of history strongly support your position which I see no evidence to disagree with. Evolution does not occur in a lifetime, or if it does I'm not betting on the tiny sample used to support.
Shit, I think the little peace is fixing to fail as is. The shock doctrine crew never rests, they are running test markets already.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to quinnox (Original post)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 09:06 PM

104. It can't be done

I don't like the nra and I always thought that their fear mongering about the govt coming to take people's guns away was crap.

A gun roundup would turn out much worse than alcohol prohibition or the drug war.

There needs to be a push for commonsense gun laws, and not a massive "gun round up" that is surely a wrong and a losing issue that would do nothing but strengthen the nra and gun nuts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to quinnox (Original post)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 09:11 AM

113. until the 2nd amendment goes away it cant be done

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to quinnox (Original post)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 12:46 PM

115. More pragmatic idea: let people keep them

But, in a date twelve months off, make it illegal to buy, sell, trade, manufacture, or import them. Ten years after that, it becomes illegal to buy, sell, trade, manufacture, or import replacement parts. In the meantime there will be horrific mass murders, but within a generation they'll be gone, or most of them will.

We could also just go down the list of gun laws the NRA is opposed to, such as mandatory reporting of lost and stolen firearms, and get a bunch of those through state legislatures. And we could start shaming gun-nuts, constantly asking them why they're so afraid of the world.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread