Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 01-14-2020, 08:53 AM
WildBlueYonder is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: TheWildBlueYonder
Posts: 1,085

I'll give it a shot in here...2nd amendments rights


If this is where it belongs

Why would anyone (any majority) want to give up their weapons?

I dont have a gun but I sure dont think they have a right to shoot down the amendment in spite of for what the reason it was originally created.

Our congress sure isnt working the way the creators of the principle wanted or conceived. (maybe not so much of a good example)

When I hear about gun control, gun confiscation, I just shake my head in confusion, how can it even happen?

__________________
I'm up in the Wild Blue Yonder, of course :

Last edited by WildBlueYonder; 01-14-2020 at 08:55 AM. Reason: fix a word
  #2  
Old 01-14-2020, 08:57 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 36,438
Are you asking about a hypothetical situation in which over 50% of the population own guns, and the proposal in front of them is whether to outlaw all the guns they own? Or are you asking why gun owners sometimes support various gun control proposals (which may not affect their own gun ownership)? Or something else?
  #3  
Old 01-14-2020, 09:05 AM
WildBlueYonder is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: TheWildBlueYonder
Posts: 1,085
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
Are you asking about a hypothetical situation in which over 50% of the population own guns, and the proposal in front of them is whether to outlaw all the guns they own? Or are you asking why gun owners sometimes support various gun control proposals (which may not affect their own gun ownership)? Or something else?
Sorry about that

Its the occasional news coverage that discusses how there may be gun control/confiscation could be in our future. Also how the lawmakers think or even can have discussions about it. (taking all guns from the citizens)
__________________
I'm up in the Wild Blue Yonder, of course :
  #4  
Old 01-14-2020, 09:17 AM
Hamlet is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Where the Wild Things Are
Posts: 14,652
Quote:
Originally Posted by WildBlueYonder View Post
Its the occasional news coverage that discusses how there may be gun control/confiscation could be in our future. Also how the lawmakers think or even can have discussions about it. (taking all guns from the citizens)
You seriously have no ability to understand why people would support any gun control legislation? The idea that maybe limiting a weapons ability to kill dozens of people in a few seconds might save a few lives is so completely beyond your understanding that it is a foreign concept altogether? The idea that the government can, and has, restricted access to items that can cause great harm to other citizens, is so fantastical to you that you have no ability whatsoever to understand, let alone agree with it?

Alrighty then. I suspect you won't get much out of yet another gun control thread then. I do think the complete inability to even grasp a differing opinion will not serve you well in the future. Good luck with that.
  #5  
Old 01-14-2020, 09:18 AM
DCnDC's Avatar
DCnDC is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: The Dueling Grounds
Posts: 13,279
Quote:
Originally Posted by WildBlueYonder View Post
Its the occasional news coverage that discusses how there may be gun control/confiscation could be in our future. Also how the lawmakers think or even can have discussions about it. (taking all guns from the citizens)
I'm certain we'd all love to see your cites for this and their sources.

Frankly, the only people "discussing" confiscation are paranoid right-wing fools who believe almost anything they're told as long as it conforms to their already twisted anti-government worldview, and the Republican politicians who have encouraged them to think this way so they can take advantage of their ignorance to maintain their eroding grip on power.
  #6  
Old 01-14-2020, 09:20 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 36,438
Quote:
Originally Posted by WildBlueYonder View Post
Sorry about that

Its the occasional news coverage that discusses how there may be gun control/confiscation could be in our future. Also how the lawmakers think or even can have discussions about it. (taking all guns from the citizens)
Confiscation seems very unlikely -- only a relatively tiny portion of politicians and the public appear to be in favor of this, AFAICT. As far as gun control, which proposals are you concerned about? Background checks (which already exist, though some want to expand) are gun control -- are you worried about them? There are existing restrictions and limitations on fully automatic weapons -- do those concern you? Or are you fine with existing gun control legislation, but oppose anything further?

This is such a broad topic that I recommend being specific about what proposals you're concerned about.
  #7  
Old 01-14-2020, 09:22 AM
MrDibble's Avatar
MrDibble is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Cape Town, South Africa &
Posts: 27,149
Quote:
Originally Posted by WildBlueYonder View Post
Why would anyone (any majority) want to give up their weapons?
Because they no longer want or need them.
  #8  
Old 01-14-2020, 09:31 AM
Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 27,436
Quote:
Originally Posted by WildBlueYonder View Post
Why would anyone (any majority) want to give up their weapons?
Perhaps you are thinking of your community where maybe a majority of people own guns. Nationally, only 30 percent of Americans own guns, and 43 percent of people live in a household where someone owns a gun.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/264932/...-own-guns.aspx

But, there's basically zero chance that there is going to be any kind of mass round-up of guns in any of our lifetimes. What you're probably hearing is pro-gun zealots who want to instill fear in people who don't follow issues very closely -- something like,

"Hey, let's conduct some research to see if there's a way to reduce the amount of gun violence in our country."
"YOU'RE COMING FOR OUR GUNS, YOU GUN-GRABBERS!!!!"
  #9  
Old 01-14-2020, 09:57 AM
BeepKillBeep is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Canada
Posts: 2,956
I'm still confused about what is being asked/discussed. The OP and the clarification (post #3) are vague and unclear.

If I take the question literally, it could happen by a law being passed, perhaps requiring a constitutional amendment. In practice, this is unlikely to happen. At least in the USA, other countries such as New Zealand, Australia, Canada, etc. are heading in the direction of less firearms in the hands of the public.

Last edited by BeepKillBeep; 01-14-2020 at 09:57 AM.
  #10  
Old 01-14-2020, 10:40 AM
Euphonious Polemic is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 12,668
Someone with mental health issues would not want to give up their weapons.
Sometimes we might have to make them for the good of the greater community, because they are not capable of operating them safely.

There are times when it's better for a group to give up individual freedom for the safety of the group as a whole; this is an anathema to a large segment of the population that values individual rights over group rights,even when it leads to worse outcomes. This is the USA in a nutshell.

Also, we have a lobby organization that is focused on money. They exist to spread misinformation.

We also have a party who has a PR campaign of "vote for me because those other guys want to grab all your guns" And people believe this bullshit.
  #11  
Old 01-14-2020, 10:42 AM
Euphonious Polemic is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 12,668
Quote:
Originally Posted by WildBlueYonder View Post

Its the occasional news coverage that discusses how there may be gun control/confiscation could be in our future.
This has no basis in reality. This "news coverage" is propaganda, designed to get you to vote for politicians from one particular party.

That's all. It's bullshit for the gullible masses.
  #12  
Old 01-14-2020, 11:15 AM
BigAppleBucky's Avatar
BigAppleBucky is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Long Island
Posts: 2,383
I hope this is on target enough.

Just spoke last week to a guy who went up to Canada last summer to do some hunting. Had a rifle in his trunk and an NRA sticker on his car. The Canadians held him up a couple of hours at the border before letting him in. They don't like guns coming into their country from the USA.

The effort for sane gun control measures in the USA has been lost. Gun deaths will continue their climb over 40,000 per year. Sadly, it's a hopeless cause.

We proved sanity on this issue did not exist after the Sandy Hook, Newtown CT, massacre. Instead Alex Jones and his ilk claimed it was all fake.
  #13  
Old 01-14-2020, 11:20 AM
BeepKillBeep is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Canada
Posts: 2,956
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigAppleBucky View Post
I hope this is on target enough.

Just spoke last week to a guy who went up to Canada last summer to do some hunting. Had a rifle in his trunk and an NRA sticker on his car. The Canadians held him up a couple of hours at the border before letting him in. They don't like guns coming into their country from the USA.
The probable reason is that gun smuggling into Canada from the USA is a serious issue for us. It is estimated that about half of illegal guns in Canada come from the USA (it used to be much higher). So yeah, the border service takes firearms coming into the country very seriously.
  #14  
Old 01-14-2020, 11:40 AM
Icarus's Avatar
Icarus is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: In front of my PC, y tu?
Posts: 5,472
Quote:
Originally Posted by Euphonious Polemic View Post
This has no basis in reality. This "news coverage" is propaganda, designed to get you to vote for politicians from one particular party.
Yes, if someone is telling you that there are people who are going to confiscate your guns, they are lying to you to get you upset so that you will vote the way they want you to vote and/or send money to them.

It is as simple as that.
__________________
Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge.
- C. Darwin
  #15  
Old 01-14-2020, 01:00 PM
begbert2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Idaho
Posts: 13,807
Quote:
Originally Posted by WildBlueYonder View Post
Why would anyone (any majority) want to give up their weapons?
People could in theory observe the consequences to wider society and decide that it's better for society, other people, their children, and even themselves if strong steps are taken to keep random people from having and keeping guns. It would be a cost/benefit analysis - is it better to have a gun yourself and have a million sickos and incompetents similarly armed, or is it better for yourself and the sickos all to be unarmed? (Or armed with something more reasonable, like katanas.)

Nowadays many people prefer to be armed and have the million sickos and incompetents armed. That's their opinion. I don't share it, and think it's short-sighted and selfish, but it's definitely an opinion people hold.

Quote:
Originally Posted by WildBlueYonder View Post
I dont have a gun but I sure dont think they have a right to shoot down the amendment in spite of for what the reason it was originally created.
The only people who really have the right to shoot down the amendment are congress. They don't have the will to do so. It's not going to happen.

Quote:
Originally Posted by WildBlueYonder View Post
Our congress sure isnt working the way the creators of the principle wanted or conceived. (maybe not so much of a good example)
Yes, it's sad that congress has become so infested with intractable and non-compromising republicans that it's unable to function properly and amend away outdated amendments like the second one.

Quote:
Originally Posted by WildBlueYonder View Post
When I hear about gun control, gun confiscation, I just shake my head in confusion, how can it even happen?
Confiscation can't happen.

Minor forms of gun control like trying a little harder to keep people from selling guns to convicted criminals could happen, but won't, because the republicans and gun lobbyists are strongly opposed to anything that even looks like a limit on the sale of guns.
  #16  
Old 01-14-2020, 01:13 PM
WildBlueYonder is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: TheWildBlueYonder
Posts: 1,085
Sorry I came back after a long absence to get the comments I received in this thread-I am not being influenced by anyone to vote for them from either party. I am not a straight ticket voter. If I wanted to post with people who treat others like a few posters in here then I can go back to the dumbasses on Facebook.
__________________
I'm up in the Wild Blue Yonder, of course :
  #17  
Old 01-14-2020, 01:15 PM
Icarus's Avatar
Icarus is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: In front of my PC, y tu?
Posts: 5,472
Quote:
Originally Posted by WildBlueYonder View Post
I am not being influenced by anyone to vote for them from either party.
Respectfully, and I mean this in the kindest way possible, you most certainly are being influenced. You may not think that you are or be aware that you are, but you are.
__________________
Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge.
- C. Darwin
  #18  
Old 01-14-2020, 01:30 PM
Cheesesteak's Avatar
Cheesesteak is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Lovely Montclair, NJ
Posts: 13,867
Quote:
Originally Posted by WildBlueYonder View Post
When I hear about gun control, gun confiscation, I just shake my head in confusion, how can it even happen?
It happens when lots of people want it to happen. With a big enough majority of the people believing that strict gun control is needed for a safe society, gun control will happen.

We aren't really at all close to this situation, but there's nothing standing between our country and gun control but our attitudes about gun control.
  #19  
Old 01-14-2020, 01:34 PM
Acsenray is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 36,647
Quote:
Originally Posted by WildBlueYonder View Post
Sorry about that

Its the occasional news coverage that discusses how there may be gun control/confiscation could be in our future. Also how the lawmakers think or even can have discussions about it. (taking all guns from the citizens)
The only lawmakers who are "discussing" mass confiscation of guns are the ones trying to scare people into voting against their interest. There are people who are in favor of stronger regulation of firearms, but there aren't any major politicians who are advocating mass confiscations.
__________________
*I'm experimenting with E, em, and es and emself as pronouns that do not indicate any specific gender nor exclude any specific gender.
  #20  
Old 01-14-2020, 02:01 PM
Little Nemo is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 83,646
Quote:
Originally Posted by WildBlueYonder View Post
Why would anyone (any majority) want to give up their weapons?
Because they believe they are safer in a society where criminals do not have easy access to guns.
  #21  
Old 01-14-2020, 02:47 PM
Euphonious Polemic is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 12,668
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigAppleBucky View Post
I hope this is on target enough.

Just spoke last week to a guy who went up to Canada last summer to do some hunting. Had a rifle in his trunk and an NRA sticker on his car. The Canadians held him up a couple of hours at the border before letting him in. They don't like guns coming into their country from the USA.
Just to clarify a bit more; It's not that Canada "doesn't like" guns coming into the country. It's just that we have different laws here, seeing as we are a completely different country and all.

Hunters are more than welcome to bring rifles into Canada for sport hunting. They merely have to follow our laws. It's not rocket science.

Protip: It's a poor idea to try to smuggle a weapon across an international border, and then claim you have a "right" to do so in that foreign country. It will not end well for you.
  #22  
Old 01-14-2020, 03:23 PM
Wesley Clark is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 22,835
Do you think people should be able to buy heavy machine guns at walmart? What about sarin gas? Mortars and mortar rounds? Where does weapons control begin and end? It isn't a question of whether we have weapons control, its a question of how far weapons control goes.

For the most part in the US, you can buy pistols, semi auto rifles, bolt action rifles and shotguns fairly easily. You can get a class III permit to buy silencers and machine guns, but a lot of people don't bother with that.

As for your question why would people disarm, you're assuming gun control and disarming are the same thing. Certain forms of gun control like limiting CCW permits, universal background checks and prohibiting guns from being sold to people with violent misdemeanors reduce gun homicide rates without really affecting gun ownership as a whole.

https://www.citylab.com/life/2019/04...search/586363/

Quote:
It’s not just that gun control works—and it does, according to the study—it’s that particular kinds of gun-control measures are significantly more effective than others. In fact, three types of restrictions are most effective, individually and in combination, in reducing the overall homicide rate. They are: universal background checks, bans on violent offenders purchasing guns, and “may-issue” laws (which give police discretion in issuing concealed-carry permits).

Universal background checks are associated with a nearly 15 percent drop in the homicide rate. Measures that prohibit people who committed a violent crime from owning a handgun are associated with an even larger reduction in homicide, 18 percent. Conversely, requiring police to approve concealed-carry permits unless the applicant meets explicitly stated exclusion criteria—so-called “shall-issue” laws—are associated with a nearly 10 percent higher homicide rate. None of the other seven firearm laws had a statistically significant association with the homicide rate when controlling for other factors
As to your question as to why would a nation totally disarm, it depends. Guns from the US flood mexico and are helping cause death in their drug war. If semi auto rifles were illegal here maybe the Mexican death rate would go down.

There is also the fact that small arms generally aren't too useful at fighting against a domestic oppressive government. They had a role in the civil rights era (black people using small arms to hold off the KKK and police), but for the most part it was legislation that improved civil rights in the US, not guns.

Even if the government is totalitarian, things like IEDs seem more effective than small arms at making an occupying force want to leave.
__________________
Sometimes I doubt your commitment to sparkle motion
  #23  
Old 01-14-2020, 04:13 PM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is offline
Champion Chili Chef
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 63,463
Quote:
Originally Posted by WildBlueYonder View Post
Sorry about that

Its the occasional news coverage that discusses how there may be gun control/confiscation could be in our future. Also how the lawmakers think or even can have discussions about it. (taking all guns from the citizens)
You keep linking gun control and gun confiscation as if one were the other. Leaving out gun confiscation, are you opposed to all gun control?
  #24  
Old 01-14-2020, 04:21 PM
glee is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Obama country
Posts: 15,721
Quote:
Originally Posted by WildBlueYonder View Post
Why would anyone (any majority) want to give up their weapons?
Have a look at other democratic countries that do have strict gun control.

Here in England for example, you're not allowed a gun for home defence.
Even our beat police are not armed.
These policies are immensely popular here.
One result of this is that we don't have school shootings.
__________________
Arnold Winkelried:
'glee, I take my hat off to you.... at first I thought you were kidding with your cite but I looked it up and it was indeed accurate. (Still in awe at the magnificent answer)'
  #25  
Old 01-14-2020, 08:00 PM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 16,064
I'm confused at some of the responses saying that nobody wants gun confiscation. President Obama and others on the left have held out Australian gun laws as good examples. That was gun confiscation. Turn them in for money, or else..

Or are we doing the same thing again where we have thirteen pages of back and forth that since some guns are still allowed in Australia then that doesn't count as gun confiscation or a "gun ban"? If so, I would rather not do that again.
  #26  
Old 01-14-2020, 08:22 PM
Boozahol Squid, P.I. is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Durham, NC
Posts: 3,730
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wesley Clark View Post
For the most part in the US, you can buy pistols, semi auto rifles, bolt action rifles and shotguns fairly easily. You can get a class III permit to buy silencers and machine guns, but a lot of people don't bother with that.
You don't need a special permit to buy Title II firearms, there's a $200 fee and an extensive background check (which may not be possible to get in certain jurisdictions) necessary. A Class 3 permit is required by the FFL selling it to you, but isn't required for the buyer.

Quote:
Originally Posted by glee
Here in England for example, you're not allowed a gun for home defence.
Even our beat police are not armed.
These policies are immensely popular here.
One result of this is that we don't have school shootings.
You may not have school shootings, but you have more knife attacks per capita than the US has firearms attacks. Then again, the UK also just has a much lower rate of violent crime altogether, which suggests that there are cultural issues reflected in the US's gun violence issues more than just legalization.
  #27  
Old 01-15-2020, 12:03 AM
RioRico is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Location: beyond cell service
Posts: 1,339
Who to worry about? The current POTUS twice tweeted, Confiscate guns now. due process later. Was he only joking, ha ha?
  #28  
Old 01-15-2020, 01:28 AM
Euphonious Polemic is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 12,668
Quote:
Originally Posted by riorico View Post
who to worry about? The current potus twice tweeted, confiscate guns now. Due process later. was he only joking, ha ha?
iokwardi
  #29  
Old 01-15-2020, 01:42 AM
Little Nemo is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 83,646
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
I'm confused at some of the responses saying that nobody wants gun confiscation. President Obama and others on the left have held out Australian gun laws as good examples. That was gun confiscation. Turn them in for money, or else..

Or are we doing the same thing again where we have thirteen pages of back and forth that since some guns are still allowed in Australia then that doesn't count as gun confiscation or a "gun ban"? If so, I would rather not do that again.
How about we instead discuss what Obama said?

He said "When Australia had a mass killing, I think it was in Tasmania about 25 years ago, it was just so shocking to the system, the entire country said, 'We're going to completely change our gun laws.' They did and it hasn't happened since."

In the same interview, he went on to say "New laws need to respect the traditions of gun ownership in the US. The question is just, 'Is there a way of accommodating that legitimate set of traditions with some commonsense stuff that prevents a 21-year-old who is angry about something or confused about something, or is racist, or is deranged, from going into a gun store and suddenly is packing and can do enormous harm?'"

In a subsequent interview, Obama said, "We know that other countries in response to one mass shooting have managed to craft laws that almost eliminate mass shootings. Friends of ours, allies of ours, Great Britain, Australia, countries like ours. So we know there are ways to prevent it."

Nowhere in this do I see Obama calling for gun confiscation. He's saying we should enact some form of gun control while specifically saying he does not want to abolish gun ownership.

So I see this as yet another attempt to scare gun owners with a threat that doesn't exist.
  #30  
Old 01-15-2020, 02:08 AM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 16,064
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
How about we instead discuss what Obama said?

He said "When Australia had a mass killing, I think it was in Tasmania about 25 years ago, it was just so shocking to the system, the entire country said, 'We're going to completely change our gun laws.' They did and it hasn't happened since."

In the same interview, he went on to say "New laws need to respect the traditions of gun ownership in the US. The question is just, 'Is there a way of accommodating that legitimate set of traditions with some commonsense stuff that prevents a 21-year-old who is angry about something or confused about something, or is racist, or is deranged, from going into a gun store and suddenly is packing and can do enormous harm?'"

In a subsequent interview, Obama said, "We know that other countries in response to one mass shooting have managed to craft laws that almost eliminate mass shootings. Friends of ours, allies of ours, Great Britain, Australia, countries like ours. So we know there are ways to prevent it."

Nowhere in this do I see Obama calling for gun confiscation. He's saying we should enact some form of gun control while specifically saying he does not want to abolish gun ownership.

So I see this as yet another attempt to scare gun owners with a threat that doesn't exist.
It sounds to me, with very little implication or reading between the lines, that he is speaking with approval of gun laws in Australia and the UK while saying that he will let you keep granddaddy's old squirrel gun
  #31  
Old 01-15-2020, 02:54 AM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 20,448
Quote:
Originally Posted by DCnDC View Post
I'm certain we'd all love to see your cites for this and their sources.
I'd certainly like to see a cite for this claim by you, DCnDC.
  #32  
Old 01-15-2020, 07:23 AM
DCnDC's Avatar
DCnDC is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: The Dueling Grounds
Posts: 13,279
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
I'd certainly like to see a cite for this claim by you, DCnDC.
https://lmgtfy.com/?q=gun+confiscation

I looked through to page 15 and still didn't see any legit news sites. Saw a whole lot of breitbart, washingtonexaminer, and crap like www.nraila.org and www.gunconfiscation.com.

Willing to bet the "occasional news coverage" the OP was referring to was from one of these sites, but I guess we'll never know because the OP never provided any cites at all.
  #33  
Old 01-15-2020, 08:27 AM
Jasmine's Avatar
Jasmine is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Chicagoland
Posts: 2,457
Quote:
When I hear about gun control, gun confiscation, I just shake my head in confusion, how can it even happen?

First of all, there has never been, nor will there ever be any government effort to confiscate all the citizen owned guns in this country. That is an NRA led right wing scare tactic designed to panic people and close their minds to any and all efforts to establish sane gun control.

Why are you shaking your head in confusion? Cars are registered; drivers are trained and licensed; proper use of automobiles is required and enforced. Does that confuse you? Do you not see the need for sane control? Right now, I can drive to Indiana, attend a "gun show", buy heavy weaponry with cash out of a suitcase, be tracked by zero paper work, and drive back to Chicago and sell them clandestinely with no way to be tracked. You see no need to close loopholes like that?


Read this and tell me if you are still "shaking your head in confusion" when you're done:

What the data says about gun deaths in the U.S.

Quote:
In 2017, the most recent year for which complete data is available, 39,773 people died from gun-related injuries in the U.S., according to the CDC. This figure includes gun murders and gun suicides, along with three other, less common types of gun-related deaths tracked by the CDC: those that were unintentional, involved law enforcement or whose circumstances could not be determined. It excludes deaths in which gunshot injuries played a contributing, but not principal, role. (CDC fatality statistics are based on information contained in death certificates.)
__________________
"The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance -- it is the illusion of knowledge."
--Daniel J Boorstin
  #34  
Old 01-15-2020, 08:28 AM
Great Antibob is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 5,467
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
It sounds to me, with very little implication or reading between the lines, that he is speaking with approval of gun laws in Australia and the UK while saying that he will let you keep granddaddy's old squirrel gun
To put a rather thick point on it, in Australia and the UK, they DID keep their granddaddy's old squirrel guns.

Gun ownership rates are fairly high in Australia compared to other developed nations and still higher than most Asian nations in the UK. It's not a matter of "still" owning some guns. Australians own a LOT of guns compared to most nations. But certainly not assault style rifles and a very limited number of shotguns.

The notion either nation confiscated guns in the manner feared by the loons is completely unsupported by the facts. It is totally at odds with reality.

Seems like you are fighting both letter and spirit of what Obama, for one, said on the matter.

Last edited by Great Antibob; 01-15-2020 at 08:30 AM.
  #35  
Old 01-15-2020, 09:34 AM
LAZombie is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Posts: 365
Quote:
Originally Posted by Icarus View Post
Yes, if someone is telling you that there are people who are going to confiscate your guns, they are lying to you to get you upset so that you will vote the way they want you to vote and/or send money to them.

It is as simple as that.
I never thought gay marriage would legalized.
I never thought men would be allowed to use the female bathrooms.
I never thought we would have de facto open borders and sanctuary cities.
You get the picture. The unthinkable has happened.

Total gun confiscation is a certainly a possibility.

Remember first they take away your second amendment rights so they can take away your first amendment rights.
  #36  
Old 01-15-2020, 09:40 AM
Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 27,436
Believing you would imply that free speech cannot exist in any country that doesn't have more guns than people. I find that...
  #37  
Old 01-15-2020, 10:25 AM
Cheesesteak's Avatar
Cheesesteak is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Lovely Montclair, NJ
Posts: 13,867
Quote:
Originally Posted by LAZombie View Post
Remember first they take away your second amendment rights so they can take away your first amendment rights.
There aren't enough rolleyes in the world for this turd of a comment.

You forgot to mention that Stalin and Hitler confiscated guns.
  #38  
Old 01-15-2020, 10:36 AM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 20,448
Perhaps I am a pedant after all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DCnDC View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus
Quote:
Originally Posted by DCnDC
I'm certain we'd all love to see ... [emphasis by sgs7]
I'd certainly like to see a cite for this claim by you, DCnDC.
https://lmgtfy.com/?q=gun+confiscation
Your LMGTFY was not responsive to the cite I requested.
  #39  
Old 01-15-2020, 10:38 AM
Babale is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,130
Quote:
Originally Posted by LAZombie View Post
I never thought gay marriage would legalized.
I never thought men would be allowed to use the female bathrooms.
I never thought we would have de facto open borders and sanctuary cities.
You get the picture. The unthinkable has happened.

Total gun confiscation is a certainly a possibility.
Threads like this one, and especially posts like this one, have convinced me that we SHOULD be pushing for comprehensive bans on guns, including confiscation. The pro-gun viewpoint is so detached from reality ("de facto open borders" - do you have a cite for this?) that taking their paranoid whining into account is pointless. They will fight us tooth and nail to prevent "common sense gun control" from passing; so why pander to them in the first place?

Quote:
Remember first they take away your second amendment rights so they can take away your first amendment rights.
This is the most ridiculous statement I have ever read. It would be hillarious, if it wasn't terrifying.
  #40  
Old 01-15-2020, 11:50 AM
control-z is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Virginia
Posts: 13,080
The US Constitution was written for very good reasons and I don't think we should accept any infringement of our constitutional rights. The 2nd, 4th, and 5th amendments are routinely violated and we should not accept that.

The second amendment is indeed very important. Every human should have the right to defend themselves. For those that argue that citizens shouldn't own weapons the government has, the government serves the people, not the other way around. The government is of the people, by the people, and for the people. "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." "the people" is all of us. You can choose to exercise that right or not, but do not try to take that right away from other people just because of your fears or opinions.
  #41  
Old 01-15-2020, 12:20 PM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 16,064
Quote:
Originally Posted by Great Antibob View Post
To put a rather thick point on it, in Australia and the UK, they DID keep their granddaddy's old squirrel guns.

Gun ownership rates are fairly high in Australia compared to other developed nations and still higher than most Asian nations in the UK. It's not a matter of "still" owning some guns. Australians own a LOT of guns compared to most nations. But certainly not assault style rifles and a very limited number of shotguns.

The notion either nation confiscated guns in the manner feared by the loons is completely unsupported by the facts. It is totally at odds with reality.

Seems like you are fighting both letter and spirit of what Obama, for one, said on the matter.
Again, I don't want to get into the thirteen page back and forth about whether Australia "banned guns" or "confiscated guns."

But you admit that as I own an AR-15, an Australian gun law would ban that type of gun and cause that gun of mine to be confiscated. Any semi-auto shotgun: same. There is no misleading on that point.

Now you may be all for that, but let's not pretend that an Australian-style law would require the surrender of many types of rifles, shotguns, and pistols that Americans currently possess in their homes. Some of the others that the government would graciously allow us to keep would require memberships in shooting clubs and the like.

For as much as you claim that our side is misleading, I claim that your side is misleading because the implication is that you would leave everything as is but only take away the guns that NRA radicals own. That is simply not the case.
  #42  
Old 01-15-2020, 12:28 PM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is offline
Champion Chili Chef
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 63,463
Quote:
Originally Posted by WildBlueYonder View Post
If this is where it belongs

Why would anyone (any majority) want to give up their weapons?

I dont have a gun but I sure dont think they have a right to shoot down the amendment in spite of for what the reason it was originally created.

Our congress sure isnt working the way the creators of the principle wanted or conceived. (maybe not so much of a good example)

When I hear about gun control, gun confiscation, I just shake my head in confusion, how can it even happen?

What makes this thread different from all the other threads on the subject?
  #43  
Old 01-15-2020, 01:32 PM
Great Antibob is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 5,467
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
Now you may be all for that, but let's not pretend that an Australian-style law would require the surrender of many types of rifles, shotguns, and pistols that Americans currently possess in their homes.
"would not"?

Yes, the shotguns (or nearly all of them) and some the rifles. Definitely NOT, as you put it, "grandpa's squirrel gun", unless he was hunting squirrels with an AR-15, which seems unlikely.

Handguns under .38 are mostly fine (assuming licensing). Over that can be done but much more difficult.

For the most part, Australians voluntarily gave their guns up, with a few holdouts who simply kept them at home and rarely use them (I'm also fine with this).

From my cite, Australians still own more guns per capita than most developed nations. The idea there was a draconian confiscation is still at deep odds with reality.

They also restrict licensing to people who do not have a criminal background or a history of mental illness (2 things people in the US actually support for gun ownership, much less licensing, but has never passed due to NRA lobbying).

Admittedly, if these sorts of measures were passed in the US, it would affect me to the tune of a couple handguns (mine are mostly under 0.38) and a couple shotguns. I don't own any assault style rifles (got close a few times though) and a few bolt-actions would be fine. I have a handgun license, and I imagine licensing would not be made too difficult for people who gave already jumped a few hurdles. I consider it an acceptable cost.

Last edited by Great Antibob; 01-15-2020 at 01:36 PM.
  #44  
Old 01-15-2020, 01:41 PM
Cheesesteak's Avatar
Cheesesteak is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Lovely Montclair, NJ
Posts: 13,867
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
For as much as you claim that our side is misleading,
What's misleading, and it's a fine point to be sure, is the idea that my side wants to take away your guns.

It suggests that my goal is to ensure that you don't own an AR-15, when I really only want to ensure that some mentally unstable 21 year old doesn't have access to an AR-15 when he goes back to his old high school or a movie theater or church to make something horrible happen.

If you can stop that 21 year old... I don't care if you have 100 AR-15's stashed in your basement. Decorate your lawn with the fucking things.

The point about Australia and the UK is that they HAVE stopped that 21 year old, and we haven't. Does your side have a solution to this problem?
  #45  
Old 01-15-2020, 01:55 PM
Boozahol Squid, P.I. is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Durham, NC
Posts: 3,730
Quote:
Originally Posted by Great Antibob View Post
Yes, the shotguns (or nearly all of them) and some the rifles. Definitely NOT, as you put it, "grandpa's squirrel gun", unless he was hunting squirrels with an AR-15, which seems unlikely.
Why would hunting squirrels with an AR-15 be unlikely? The AR-15 makes a great varmint rifle: they're compact, accurate, with low recoil, and they fire a round that has a reduced risk of overpenetration but is less likely to maim (but not kill) its target than something firing, say, a .22LR.
  #46  
Old 01-15-2020, 01:58 PM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 16,064
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheesesteak View Post
What's misleading, and it's a fine point to be sure, is the idea that my side wants to take away your guns.

It suggests that my goal is to ensure that you don't own an AR-15, when I really only want to ensure that some mentally unstable 21 year old doesn't have access to an AR-15 when he goes back to his old high school or a movie theater or church to make something horrible happen.

If you can stop that 21 year old... I don't care if you have 100 AR-15's stashed in your basement. Decorate your lawn with the fucking things.

The point about Australia and the UK is that they HAVE stopped that 21 year old, and we haven't. Does your side have a solution to this problem?
But point of fact, you do want to take away (at least) some of my guns.

The rest of your post, at first glance, seems to say you don't but you place the impossible condition on me to police 320 million people. And because I cannot do that, you should take away my AR-15, even though nobody will use it to shoot anyone.

So, how is it misleading to say that you want to take away at least some of my guns? I mean, you'll kindly leave me some, or one, or who knows how many or under what conditions I can keep them; you aren't the spokesperson for all that.

But you are saying here that you would take at least some of my guns. That's not misleading to say it.
  #47  
Old 01-15-2020, 02:01 PM
DrCube is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Caseyville, IL
Posts: 7,535
Quote:
Originally Posted by Euphonious Polemic View Post
This has no basis in reality. This "news coverage" is propaganda, designed to get you to vote for politicians from one particular party.

That's all. It's bullshit for the gullible masses.
I oppose gun control and support gun rights more than most people. Nevertheless, EP is correct. Your rights to arm and defend yourself have never been better observed and protected. Anybody who tells you differently is selling something. Gun control proponents have been fighting a losing battle since the Assault Weapons Ban passed a generation ago.
  #48  
Old 01-15-2020, 02:02 PM
RioRico is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Location: beyond cell service
Posts: 1,339
The USC 2nd Amendment authorized a well-regulated civilian militia, rather than a standing army, to defend against invasion and insurrection. With a massive full-time military establishment, that excuse is obsolete.

The USC 2nd Amendment authorizes Americans (citizens? residents? visitors? terrorists?) to keep and bear arms. Doesn't specify WHAT armaments. Numerous arms are already banned. We mostly don't get to carry spring stilettos or switchblades, morningstars, or backpack nukes - and don't aim pocket lasers at aircraft. The 2nd COULD be interpreted to allow slingshots, pocket knives, brass knuckles, and nothing more.

A firearms "ban" in America is irrelevant because anyone with a 3D printer can whip-up something that shoots. The cat is out of the barn, folks. Public possession of firearms may be controlled, but that's about it. Firearms are here to stay - till ubiquitous AI cop-drones target suspected gun-carriers. Don't handle your cellphone suspiciously, boy.
  #49  
Old 01-15-2020, 02:22 PM
Cheesesteak's Avatar
Cheesesteak is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Lovely Montclair, NJ
Posts: 13,867
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
But point of fact, you do want to take away (at least) some of my guns.

So, how is it misleading to say that you want to take away at least some of my guns? I mean, you'll kindly leave me some, or one, or who knows how many or under what conditions I can keep them; you aren't the spokesperson for all that.

But you are saying here that you would take at least some of my guns. That's not misleading to say it.
You almost got it. Saying I "would" take away your guns is different than saying I "want to" take away your guns. "Want to" implies that the taking away of your guns is the goal, when your ownership of guns is a non issue. It's not about you, has never been about you, and will never be about you. It's about that other person, the deranged person who wants a high capacity semi-automatic rifle so he can kill dozens of people. I "want to" make sure he can't get his hands on that rifle. If you can make THAT happen while you keep owning your own guns, I'm 100% OK with that.



Quote:
The rest of your post, at first glance, seems to say you don't but you place the impossible condition on me to police 320 million people. And because I cannot do that, you should take away my AR-15, even though nobody will use it to shoot anyone.
I don't think that word means what you think it means. When I describe something as "impossible" it won't already have been done by a couple dozen countries.

It's only impossible if you refuse to do the things that makes it possible.
  #50  
Old 01-15-2020, 04:26 PM
BeepKillBeep is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Canada
Posts: 2,956
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
...my AR-15, even though nobody will use it to shoot anyone.
I'm quite certain Nancy Lanza would have said the same thing all the way up to December 13th, 2012. You cannot know that. You don't think so, certainly. You don't hope so, certainly. But you cannot know that. The only way your AR-15 can never be used to shoot somebody is if it is a pool of melted slag.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:20 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017