# Confiscation of guns: What do gun owners fear exactly? **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [January 10, 2019, 5:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/confiscation-of-guns-what-do-gun-owners-fear-exactly/827510 "2019-01-10T05:53:27Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 10
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2019, 5:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/confiscation-of-guns-what-do-gun-owners-fear-exactly/827510/181 "2019-01-13T17:45:47Z")
Nm ---
**Author:** ![Lumpy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lumpy/32/446_2.png) [@Lumpy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lumpy)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2019, 7:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/confiscation-of-guns-what-do-gun-owners-fear-exactly/827510/182 "2019-01-13T19:38:06Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > If you want to be a member of the National Guard, just go find a recruiter and raise your right hand. That’s all a member of The People has to do. Well, then learn what it really means to be well-regulated, too. > > You do seem to be quite unclear about what the writers of the Constitution meant for a militia to do. They did tell us, though. Please read the entire document, find out, and get back to us. > [@k9bfriender](#): > > 2A did call for a well regulated militia, and it would be the states that are regulating that militia according to the constitution. What do you have against the constitution, that you would limit a state’s constitutional right to regulate its militias? > > The FF’s absolutely thought that the govt should have a monopoly on violence, and granted the states the ability and rights to enforce that. \ Here we go again. The single phrase that the gun control advocates can’t seem to get past: \*\*well-regulated well-regulated well-regulated well-regulated well-regulated \*\*. Despite the fact that time and again cites have been given that, to quote the internet meme, “I do not think it means what you think it means”. To cite (again) just one source: The following are taken from the Oxford English Dictionary, and bracket in time the writing of the 2nd amendment: 1709: “If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations.” 1714: “The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world.” 1812: “The equation of time … is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial.” 1848: “A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor.” 1862: “It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding.” 1894: “The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city.” Yes, I have read the Constitution. And also the entirety of the Federalist Papers and the Anti-Federalist papers. I am familiar with how people spoke and wrote in the latter 18th century, and I’m familiar with the subject matters they debated extensively regarding the ratification of the Federal constitution. What the gun control proponents can’t- or don’t want to?- understand is the original archaic meaning of the phrase well-regulated. Or that for the modern sense in which it’s used the Framers invariably used the term “disciplined” when that was what they wanted to convey. The 2nd Amendment didn’t graciously “grant” the states the “right” to organize the (plural noun) militia. It was to prevent the Federal government from perverting its co-authority with the states over the militia to effect a _de facto_ disarmament. > [@k9bfriender](#): > > No, we complain about how easy it is to get a gun, and how hard it is to take it away from someone who demonstrates violent or negligence tendencies. Well it’s easy to get a gun if you’ve never done anything wrong, on the general principle that people should be free unless and until that freedom is misused. That’s why we have things like trials and competency hearings. Prior restraint, where someone is forbidden to do something because they _may_ commit a wrongdoing is the antithesis of freedom and the most problematic of legal methods. Would you have people forbidden to own guns based on the accusations of a crank neighbor or an angry ex; or profiling based on claims that you can assign an increased statistical risk of misusing firearms based on certain criteria? Gun control in this country is by and large NOT about “sensible regulation”, it’s about the belief that there should be as few guns in private hands as possible, with zero the ideal. Countries like Switzerland have true gun regulation, where it is not in pursuit of discouraging and obstructing as many people as possible from owning guns. Look at Shall Issue carry: it is the simple principle that people who meet the qualifications (sensible regulation iow) cannot arbitrarily be denied a carry permit. The gun control crowd insisted this would be the end of civilized society, that our cities would descend into chaos like an American Mogadishu or Beirut. Too many antis insist that guns are inherently bad things, and unless that changes gun owners are right to be wary of _anything_ that gives the prohibitionists a tool to use. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2019, 7:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/confiscation-of-guns-what-do-gun-owners-fear-exactly/827510/183 "2019-01-13T19:49:31Z")
One theory I’ve heard is that the Second Amendment was part of the compromise with the south. Southern delegates were worried that the federal government might not send troops to support them if there were slave uprisings. So they wanted to make sure that they had the legal right to raise their own local troops if necessary. It makes sense. Most of the other rights in the Bill of Rights addressed specific things that the British had done like closing hostile presses, breaking up meetings, and quartering troops. And the British had also encouraged slave uprisings during the war. Congress, which saw its main enemy as the British Army, didn’t send troops to help defend against these uprisings. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2019, 8:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/confiscation-of-guns-what-do-gun-owners-fear-exactly/827510/184 "2019-01-13T20:05:37Z")
> [@Lumpy](#): > > Yes, I have read the Constitution. And also the entirety of the Federalist Papers and the Anti-Federalist papers. I am familiar with how people spoke and wrote in the latter 18th century, and I’m familiar with the subject matters they debated extensively regarding the ratification of the Federal constitution. What the gun control proponents can’t- or don’t want to?- understand is the original archaic meaning of the phrase well-regulated. Or that for the modern sense in which it’s used the Framers invariably used the term “disciplined” when that was what they wanted to convey. The 2nd Amendment didn’t graciously “grant” the states the “right” to organize the (plural noun) militia. It was to prevent the Federal government from perverting its co-authority with the states over the militia to effect a _de facto_ disarmament. I’m imagining the scene when Antonin Scalia summoned you to his deathbed and spoke the words: _“Dear Lumpy, for the last thirty years I alone have held the power to see into the hearts and minds of the founding fathers and truly know their thoughts. And I have faithfully discharged my sacred duty of passing on their thoughts to America, unsoiled by any feelings or beliefs I myself held. Let God witness that I have never expressed my own opinions but only said those things which the founding fathers would have said had they been able to. But now my time is ending and God has chosen you as the one I must pass this power to. From now until the day you die, you alone will bear the gift of knowing what it is the founding fathers meant and the burden of conveying their thoughts to all others.”_ ---
**Author:** ![Lumpy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lumpy/32/446_2.png) [@Lumpy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lumpy)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2019, 8:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/confiscation-of-guns-what-do-gun-owners-fear-exactly/827510/185 "2019-01-13T20:17:58Z")
ha. ha. Seriously, you do understand that vocabulary changes over centuries? By usage words acquire meanings they didn’t originally have? That’s not magic mind reading, that’s what the words meant at the time. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2019, 8:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/confiscation-of-guns-what-do-gun-owners-fear-exactly/827510/186 "2019-01-13T20:23:19Z")
Yes, I understand language changes over time. So I, as somebody living in the 21st century, will sometimes have difficulty understanding what somebody who was writing in the 18th century meant. Which is why I would never claim that I am absolutely positive that I know what they were thinking. Other people living in the 21st century might also acknowledge this uncertainty. ---
**Author:** ![Fiddle\_Peghead](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fiddle_peghead/32/3506_2.png) [@Fiddle\_Peghead](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fiddle_Peghead)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2019, 8:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/confiscation-of-guns-what-do-gun-owners-fear-exactly/827510/187 "2019-01-13T20:26:18Z")
> [@Tim\_R.Mortiss](#): > > Is it that tough to understand? Primarily two worries: > > 1. They worry that they won’t be able to defend themselves against criminals, who will not respect a gun ban. > > 2. They worry that they won’t be able to defend themselves against overly zealous government agents, who won’t be hampered by a gun ban. > > Basically, they want a level playing field. 1. But do they _really_ feel like this? I’d guess at least a few do. I do know that I’ve known plenty of people who like and own guns, and never once have I known them to carry them around for defense. 2. Pretty much the same idea as 1. Again, not claiming to know, I’d bet that they don’t like the idea of being told by weeny-ass liberals what they can and can’t have, but don’t want to say that, so they come up with excuses like the above. So, any gun owners in this thread who are terrified little man-babies, that are oh, so afraid to venture out into the big bad scary world without their precious firearms? Or am I right? 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2019, 8:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/confiscation-of-guns-what-do-gun-owners-fear-exactly/827510/188 "2019-01-13T20:27:56Z")
And on a separate note, language is not the only thing that has changed since the 18th century. Which means that even if we knew with absolute certainty what the founding fathers were thinking when they enacted the Second Amendment and even if they were choosing the best possible position at the time, it doesn’t mean that the position they held in 1789 is still the best position in 2019. ---
**Author:** ![thelurkinghorror](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7c8e57/32.png) [@thelurkinghorror](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/thelurkinghorror)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2019, 8:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/confiscation-of-guns-what-do-gun-owners-fear-exactly/827510/189 "2019-01-13T20:39:13Z")
> [@septimus](#): > > Got it. Alternate facts. Alternate words. Mexico will pay for the Wall. > > It all fits together. This isn’t a thread about Trump, and doesn’t have anything even peripherally to do with him, so I’m not sure why you need to bring him up. > [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > I’ve asked before and never received an answer: Where else in any religion or religious writings or code of ethics can one find a right to gun ownership presented as a right, fundamental or not? Isn’t it found \*only \*in the 2nd, and only by a contorted and highly questioned reading that dates only from the last few decades? The Constitution presents only legal rights, under a code of law created by humans, not natural ones, so where does that “God-given” stuff really come from? Thank you for asking earnestly. It is not my opinion, hence the scare quotes, just a stock phrase that comes up often. People were more religious back then, even though Jefferson was very heterodox. It was the phrasing people used. [/QUOTE] > [@k9bfriender](#): > > There are no natural rights, other than the right to gravity and the electromagnetic force(weak and strong too, but just try exercising _those_ rights). Everything else is something that one (or more) human being has allowed another human being to do. I get what you are saying and don’t disagree, but they are rights in the philosophical sense. > [@](#): > > The founding fathers felt, at the time when the constitution was written, that the rights that they granted with the bill of rights were the appropriate rights to cover the population and the times. They did not prohibit states from making laws restricting gun ownership, as they knew that that would simply interfere with the state’s ability to “well regulate” its militia. I’m not sure about that first part, I don’t see how it’s permission for regulation, but they were very serious about the independence of states. But with regard to “well regulated,” it clearly means well trained, not about any regulations. ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2019, 8:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/confiscation-of-guns-what-do-gun-owners-fear-exactly/827510/190 "2019-01-13T20:40:48Z")
> [@Lumpy](#): > > \ Here we go again. The single phrase that the gun control advocates can’t seem to get past: \*\*well-regulated well-regulated well-regulated well-regulated well-regulated \*\*. Despite the fact that time and again cites have been given that, to quote the internet meme, “I do not think it means what you think it means”. To cite (again) just one source: > The following are taken from the Oxford English Dictionary, and bracket in time the writing of the 2nd amendment: > > 1709: “If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations.” > > 1714: “The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world.” > > 1812: “The equation of time … is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial.” > > 1848: “A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor.” > > 1862: “It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding.” > > 1894: “The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city.” > > Yes, I have read the Constitution. And also the entirety of the Federalist Papers and the Anti-Federalist papers. I am familiar with how people spoke and wrote in the latter 18th century, and I’m familiar with the subject matters they debated extensively regarding the ratification of the Federal constitution. What the gun control proponents can’t- or don’t want to?- understand is the original archaic meaning of the phrase well-regulated. Or that for the modern sense in which it’s used the Framers invariably used the term “disciplined” when that was what they wanted to convey. The 2nd Amendment didn’t graciously “grant” the states the “right” to organize the (plural noun) militia. It was to prevent the Federal government from perverting its co-authority with the states over the militia to effect a _de facto_ disarmament. You completely missed the entirety of the point. First, as you say, well regulated means disciplined, that’s not archaic, that’s obvious. You also forget that the third word of that phrase is “militia” which has a very specific definition defined in the constitution. It was not 2A that calls for a militia, it is Article 1, section 8. That is what defines what a militia is, and what is responsibilities are. 2A then recognizes the need for a militia, and prevents the federal government from passing laws that would interfere with the states ability to raise one. You also miss the fact that the founders did not prohibit states from restricting gun rights, and many states did so with not a even a single tweet from them. You have ducked that point on several occaisons, and just ignoring it doesn’t make it go away. Do you think that the FF’s would have wanted states to not have a right to make gun laws? If you think that, then why do you think that they didn’t? The states were worried about the fed not allowing them to raise militias as the saw fit, to do important things like commit genocide on the natives and put down slave uprisings, and if the fed changed its mind on those things, then the states wouldn’t much appreciate it. So, the fed cannot tell the states how to regulate guns in their borders. That was the intent of the FF’s. Not to protect the right of an individual to have a gun, but to protect the right of a state to make gun laws as they saw fit. > [@](#): > > Well it’s easy to get a gun if you’ve never done anything wrong, on the general principle that people should be free unless and until that freedom is misused. That’s why we have things like trials and competency hearings. Prior restraint, where someone is forbidden to do something because they _may_ commit a wrongdoing is the antithesis of freedom and the most problematic of legal methods. Would you have people forbidden to own guns based on the accusations of a crank neighbor or an angry ex; or profiling based on claims that you can assign an increased statistical risk of misusing firearms based on certain criteria? Do you consider that you have to have applied for, taken, and passed a diver’s test before you are allowed to drive to be prior restraint? But yeah, if your crank neighbor is threatening you because your tree dropped a branch on his azaleas, wouldn’t you be more comfortable knowing that steps have been taken to reduce the threat that he poses to you and your family? In any case, it is also very, very easy to get a gun if you _have_ done something wrong. You can be prohibited from owning a gun, and all that means is that you don’t acutally go to the counter of the gun store to buy your gun. (Aside: If I were at my local gun shop, looking at a particular gun, and while I am out thinking about it [it’s a $950 gun, not an impulse buy], someone asks me if I would be interested in that same model of gun, but for only $250. If I were to buy it, and later it turned out to be stolen, would I have any liability?) > [@](#): > > Gun control in this country is by and large NOT about “sensible regulation”, it’s about the belief that there should be as few guns in private hands as possible, with zero the ideal. Strawman, pure and simple. That is not the position that we are taking, that is not the position that the vast majority of those for sensible regulation are taking. It is a completely dishonest tactic to keep claiming that we are in favor of something that we are not. If you insist on only talking about the most extreme of gun control advocates, then we will have little choice but to point out the most extreme of gun users. I’ll take Feinsten over Paddock, if I have to make a choice, would you? > [@](#): > > Countries like Switzerland have true gun regulation, where it is not in pursuit of discouraging and obstructing as many people as possible from owning guns. And I consider Switzerland to be a viable model for us to move towards. They have a high rate of gun ownership, but very little gun violence and accidents. > [@](#): > > Look at Shall Issue carry: it is the simple principle that people who meet the qualifications (sensible regulation iow) cannot arbitrarily be denied a carry permit. You are conflating. Are you claiming that switzerland has shall issue carry? > [@](#): > > The gun control crowd insisted this would be the end of civilized society, that our cities would descend into chaos like an American Mogadishu or Beirut. Too many antis insist that guns are inherently bad things, and unless that changes gun owners are right to be wary of _anything_ that gives the prohibitionists a tool to use. ---
**Author:** ![Fiddle\_Peghead](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fiddle_peghead/32/3506_2.png) [@Fiddle\_Peghead](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fiddle_Peghead)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2019, 8:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/confiscation-of-guns-what-do-gun-owners-fear-exactly/827510/191 "2019-01-13T20:55:36Z")
> [@Lumpy](#): > > First of all, to actually repeal the Second Amendment there would have to be an enormous shift in American society, with gun owners reduced to a negligible minority and the overwhelming supermajority of Americans being willing to actively support the measure. There is an ever-growing support for gun control in this country. I contend that it is far from obvious that an _enormous_ shift would have to happen among the American populace at large for the 2nd Amendment to be repealed, but an enormous shift in the number of politicians across the states that would be willing to vote for it. Now, I am not talking about anything like this happening in a few years, or even a decade. But I do not think twenty years or the like is necessarily out of the question, given current trends in gun control support and generally liberal ideas. Being that we are not in GD, I want to make clear that of course I have no hard evidence for that. But Lumpy’s contention does not seem to me to be so evident. ETA: Note that I am only talking about repeal, not complete banning of guns. ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2019, 9:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/confiscation-of-guns-what-do-gun-owners-fear-exactly/827510/192 "2019-01-13T21:00:50Z")
> [@Lumpy](#): > > Too many antis insist that guns are inherently bad things, and unless that changes gun owners are right to be wary of _anything_ that gives the prohibitionists a tool to use. Missed the edit. How many is too many? Do you know how many there are, and in what proportion to the numbers that simply want some sort of sensible controls? As long as there is a single gun control advocate that advocates for a complete gun ban, gun owners should be correct to resist having a reasonable discussion about how we can improve public safety? 2, 5, 10? What is the number that you say is too much, precisely? ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2019, 9:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/confiscation-of-guns-what-do-gun-owners-fear-exactly/827510/193 "2019-01-13T21:11:23Z")
Many of you gunners regarded guns as the most important issue in the 2016 Presidential Election; and voted for Trump. Are gun rights still the most important political issue facing the USA today? Would you still vote for Trump? ---
**Author:** ![Fiddle\_Peghead](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fiddle_peghead/32/3506_2.png) [@Fiddle\_Peghead](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fiddle_Peghead)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2019, 9:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/confiscation-of-guns-what-do-gun-owners-fear-exactly/827510/194 "2019-01-13T21:13:19Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > Personally, I’d like to see gun ownership treated as the equivalent of driving and owning a car. People would generally be allowed to own guns. But guns would be regulated and there would be standards which would prohibit ownership in some cases. I was thinking about gun ownership/car ownership before entering this thread, and why it’s widely agreed that car licensing/registration/required driving classes make sense for cars but not guns among gun owners. My theory is that we all pretty much agree we should be able to own cars, and they are necessary for most people in today’s society. But we don’t all agree in the same about the necessity of guns. So, it’s easy for a gun owner to acknowledge that the other side is right about cars, but not about guns. That is, they don’t like being told anything about the guns they own by those that don’t like/approve of them. People have a natural inclination not to like being told what to do, so guns owners rationalize all sorts of things in order to resist. Like the obvious notion that the more guns that are banned, the fewer people that will be harmed by them. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2019, 10:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/confiscation-of-guns-what-do-gun-owners-fear-exactly/827510/195 "2019-01-13T22:24:25Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > I’ve asked before and never received an answer: Where else in any religion or religious writings or code of ethics can one find a right to gun ownership presented as a right, fundamental or not? Isn’t it found \*only \*in the 2nd, and only by a contorted and highly questioned reading that dates only from the last few decades? The Constitution presents only legal rights, under a code of law created by humans, not natural ones, so where does that “God-given” stuff really come from? Read the Declaration of Independence if you really don’t know. The Founding Fathers didn’t feel the need to quote any religious writings - they held that it was self-evident that rights came from the Creator. So that’s where the “God-given” part comes from. You don’t have to believe it, but if you really never got an answer before, now you have it. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2019, 12:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/confiscation-of-guns-what-do-gun-owners-fear-exactly/827510/196 "2019-01-14T00:09:02Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > they held that it was self-evident that rights came from the Creator. The rights listed were life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. \*Not \*gun ownership, which in fact is in direct \*opposition \*to each of these rights held by others. > [@](#): > > So that’s where the “God-given” part comes from. You don’t have to believe it, but if you really never got an answer before, now you have it. The question was _not_ about rights in general. :dubious: Again, the right claimed to be “God-given” is the one to gun ownership. Where does \*that \*come from? What other document or teachings even discuss it positively? What God created it? **Lumpy** , do please read the rest of the Constitution sometime. Lotsa good stuff in there. ---
**Author:** ![postpic200](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/54ee81/32.png) [@postpic200](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/postpic200)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2019, 4:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/confiscation-of-guns-what-do-gun-owners-fear-exactly/827510/197 "2019-01-14T04:37:07Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > There are no natural rights, other than the right to gravity and the electromagnetic force(weak and strong too, but just try exercising _those_ rights). Everything else is something that one (or more) human being has allowed another human being to do. > > The founding fathers felt, at the time when the constitution was written, that the rights that they granted with the bill of rights were the appropriate rights to cover the population and the times. They did not prohibit states from making laws restricting gun ownership, as they knew that that would simply interfere with the state’s ability to “well regulate” its militia. > > To say that the FF’s “recognized” this pre-existing right and enshrined it into law would require that they also prohibited states from restricting guns, and they most certainly did not do that. They made a compromise allowing states to make their own laws, and 2A is only a promise that the fed will not interfere with the states on gun laws, allowing them to set the laws they way they felt was best. Now it is turned around, and the fed interferes with states on gun laws, not allowing states to set the laws the way they feel is best. Anyone for state’s rights should be against 2A restricting states ability to set gun laws. > > We have no rights but the ones that we grant to each other. Rights not enumerated _do not_ exist. > > No, we complain about how easy it is to get a gun, and how hard it is to take it away from someone who demonstrates violent or negligence tendencies. > > That a gun is good at what it does, killing people, is why we should make some effort to make sure that the people holding them will be responsible with them. > > We do have many, many reasonable bounds on speech. If I were to go in public, and say that (your real name here) is a criminal who does these specific criminal acts, and then I call for violence to be taken against you, my speech will be curtailed, do you think it should not be? > > We agree to reasonable restrictions on both speech and guns, so it is not a matter of whether or not reasonable restrictions are acceptable, it is only a discussion about what is reasonable. > > A discussion on what is reasonable is a good discussion to have. An adamant statement that no gun control is reasonable because of 2A is not only wrong from the start, but never leads to any sort of productive discussion. > > It is not banning guns that is the motivation of the vast, vast majority of those in favor of reasonable gun control, so the constant refrain of banning guns is a strawman. > > It is people that should be banned from having guns, based on their demonstrations of responsibility. If you are shooting your gun off in the woods with your friends, and you kill some kid in the back seat of a car driving down the road through the woods, do you think that you should lose the right to have a gun, at least for a little while? > > While there are many who think that a mistake, even though it ended in tragedy and senseless loss for a family, that the person who pulled the trigger is punished enough by knowing what he did, he shouldn’t lose his gun, I personally think that not only should he lose his gun, so should his friends that were also shooting off, as well as anyone else caught firing in public areas without taking the diligence of ensuring that they have a proper backstop. > > People who make threats against the school, their work, their domestic partner, neighbor, or against politicians and public figures should have an easy way to remove them from their guns. It should be a no-brainer that someone making such threats should be heavily restricted from having access to guns, do you disagree with that? > If a criminal really wants a gun, they can get a gun, sure. But if a criminal doesn’t really want a gun, they can still get one very, very easily. You can get a gun off the black market for less than you can in the gun store. > > If that changed, and the supply of guns flooding into the black market slowed down, due to higher restrictions on sales and storage, then guns will be more expensive on the black market, and they will be harder to get ahold of. > > If you really, really want one, then you can always get one. I’d like to see it limited to only those who really really want one, and are willing to go to great expense, effort, and risk, in order to get a gun, rather than simply having a gun because it was cheap and easy to get. > > Drugs are far easier to smuggle than guns, and they have a much, much higher value based on either weight or on volume. They also have a steady market, where you have returning customers over and over, building up a relationship and lowering the perceived risk for both dealer and purchaser, as opposed to gun purchases, that would be more infrequent, and would be a higher risk entailed for both seller and buyer. > > Stopping the flow of guns into the hands of criminals is impossible, you are correct, but drastically slowing the deluge that is available is very doable, so long as we do not insist that the perfect must be the enemy of the good. > > Fewer toddlers shot though, right? > > These are once again objections that you consider the perfect to be the enemy of the good. > > Yes, people can do things if they dedicate themselves to doing them. The problem is, is that right now, they can do these same things on a whim. Putting up barriers to someone’s access to lethal weaponry will dissuade the vast majority from very easily and casually acquiring guns for use in crime will reduce the guns used in crime. > > To object that it will not drop it to zero implies that you do not think that any laws at all should ever be passed or enforced, as no law has ever had 100% compliance. > > The armed forces wouldn’t be attacking because they are ignoring the rights of those fighting, if it came to that, the forces would be attacking because you have carried through with your terroristic threats of making a bloodbath if you don’t get your way democratically. I’m not sure what your point is here. Is it that banning surface to air missiles, RPGs, and heavy machine guns is useless and ineffective? [/QUOTE] I think you missed the point, the IRA managed to get many weapons that were banned, the fact that making something illegal we means it won’t be available is illogical. You also are missing the point the the British fought the IRA for many, many years and yet really didn’t defeat them. Imagine going to the Midwest, then try rounding up all the guns, and fighting people who you don’t know are with or against you? When the enemy look like everyone else, who don’t wear uniforms, who hit and run who will blow up your base and the local population will hide them what do you do, shoot everyone? The fact the murder rate doesn’t really change, pre and post gun ban should tell you the banning guns doesn’t really work when it comes to stopping people from killing each other, or does it make you feel better that someone was beaten to death rather then shot? Laws are only followed by people who obey the law, criminals by definition don’t follow the law. Now look at the compliance in New Jersey and their ban on large capacity magazines, compliance is almost 0, what it did was turn a lot of people in to criminals, who refused to follow the new law for any number of reasons. Think about that for a second, then think about if a majority of people state disrespecting the law then the state itself is in danger. Gun control in Canada failed because people failed to followed it. Just like the war on drugs failed because people failed to follow it, and Canada gave up, you can’t lock everyone up. Again we are in the age of 3d printing, and while it might not be perfect at this time it’s getting better and better every year as well as cheaper every year. We can print in metal now, so how do you stop that? Easy, the only way to stop that is to stop free speech, there are instructions on how to make cotton powder, plastic explosives, machine gun, bombs, EMP devices, heck with a tiny bit of research you could build a drone to fly a bomb anywhere, while you’re sipping champagne far, far away. So to stop that free speech must end, then that whole 4th amendment, that has to go too, we need to find the 300 million guns and if you have nothing to hide you should object. You see I don’t see it as a gun issue, I see it as a rights issue. If the government can take away any of our rights then they can take them all. ---
**Author:** ![postpic200](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/54ee81/32.png) [@postpic200](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/postpic200)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2019, 4:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/confiscation-of-guns-what-do-gun-owners-fear-exactly/827510/198 "2019-01-14T04:39:26Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > And on a separate note, language is not the only thing that has changed since the 18th century. Which means that even if we knew with absolute certainty what the founding fathers were thinking when they enacted the Second Amendment and even if they were choosing the best possible position at the time, it doesn’t mean that the position they held in 1789 is still the best position in 2019. Then amend the Constitution, easy if you really think you’re right and that people will agree with you, strip the 2nd out of the constitution. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2019, 5:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/confiscation-of-guns-what-do-gun-owners-fear-exactly/827510/199 "2019-01-14T05:08:54Z")
> [@Fiddle\_Peghead](#): > > I was thinking about gun ownership/car ownership before entering this thread, and why it’s widely agreed that car licensing/registration/required driving classes make sense for cars but not guns among gun owners. My theory is that we all pretty much agree we should be able to own cars, and they are necessary for most people in today’s society. But we don’t all agree in the same about the necessity of guns. So, it’s easy for a gun owner to acknowledge that the other side is right about cars, but not about guns. That is, they don’t like being told anything about the guns they own by those that don’t like/approve of them. People have a natural inclination not to like being told what to do, so guns owners rationalize all sorts of things in order to resist. Like the obvious notion that the more guns that are banned, the fewer people that will be harmed by them. It’s possible. But I also think it’s possible that the people who have an absolutist opposition to any form of gun control are that way because the Second Amendment allows them to be. For all practical purposes, they’ve already won the argument before it even begins. So they don’t have to put any effort into winning people over to their side. Suppose I was morally opposed to the idea of speed limits. I believe that God and Natural Law gives every American the right to drive as fast as they choose anywhere they choose. My problem is that a lot of people feel otherwise and speed limits are in effect all over the country. Now I don’t have a Constitutional Amendment that I can point to which says that Congress shall make no law abridging the right to drive as fast as you want. So if I want to eliminate speed limits, I have to do it through the legislative process and that means I have to win over the majority of the general public to my point of view. And that means I have to be nice. I can’t just shout at people and tell them they’re wrong. I have to smile and present my arguments in a friendly manner. I might even have to compromise my ideal of unlimited speed and work on enacting a national 90 mph speed limit. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2019, 5:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/confiscation-of-guns-what-do-gun-owners-fear-exactly/827510/200 "2019-01-14T05:14:49Z")
> [@postpic200](#): > > Then amend the Constitution, easy if you really think you’re right and that people will agree with you, strip the 2nd out of the constitution. The founding fathers inexplicably failed to include a line in the Constitution about how Little Nemo could make changes in it whenever he thought he was right. So I can’t just rewrite the Constitution on my own initiative. And as I’ve said in this thread, I’m not all that worked up about the Second Amendment. I think it’s a mistake but there are other constitutional issues I feel are more important than gun ownership. If other people want to put forth the effort into getting a repeal movement going, I’ll vote for repeal when it gets on the ballot. But I’m not going to spend a lot of my time getting it on the ballot. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/confiscation-of-guns-what-do-gun-owners-fear-exactly/827510.md?page=9) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/confiscation-of-guns-what-do-gun-owners-fear-exactly/827510.md?page=11)