Okay, then please give us the names of some prominent Democratic politicians who want to “confiscate our guns” and provide evidence for this.
If what you’re claiming is true, then it should be very easy to produce.
Oh please.
Provide evidence to support your claim that people on the “pro-gun side” “don’t care in the slightest” if “their own children” are “murdered”.
If what you’re saying is true then it should be very easy for you to provide evidence.
They would be if the courts actually imposed them. For example, in my state armed robbery has a maximum term of 40 years. The typical sentence can be less than 10% of that, with concurrent terms for multiple offenses. Mandatory minimum sentences have no teeth when a majority of the sentence is served as probation.
What good does it do to add more meaningless laws when we are not making people suffer real consequences for violating the laws we already have? It’s like putting braces on false teeth. It doesn’t in any way fix the problem, but it looks like we’ve done something.
WTF?
It’s already been posted!
http://www.infowars.com/video-dianne-feinstein-says-prepare-to-turn-in-your-guns/
I hear her saying “Turn 'em all in,” but in context it is clear that “'em” means assault weapons only.
And you really, really need to stop taking Infowars and Alex Jones seriously. He’s a classic nutcase. Communists are more rational.
Again, we already have the world’s largest incarcerated population proportional to the general. Adding to it would take us in exactly the wrong direction.
Let’s make crime legal then. And make lawful gun ownership that harms no one illegal.
Sometimes I wonder what kind of world I live in…
Kabel - anyone says anything about changing what we have now and you paint them with the “confiscate all guns” crowd. Sorry, dude, but you’re putting gun grabber words into most people’s mouths, including mine.
Hey, we go to universal registration, universal requirements for anyone to sell a gun on legally, ***funding *** for enforcement, and enforced penalties for straw buyers, and then and only then should we look at if that’s “enough” or if more is needed. In parallel, we can also work on mental illness and other contributors. That’s a rationale approach, implement something and enforce it, see if it works, and if it does we’re good. If it doesn’t work, or not well enough, then back to the drawing board.
If the above works to bring US gun violence down to a “reasonable” level. Maybe akin to the UK or other first world nations, then I’m willing to accept we’ve gone far enough. Hell, maybe we need draconian confiscation, but I fully support that is a last resort and hopefully not necessary.
I didn’t see Marley’s note. I’m sorry I shouldn’t have responded to the post and doing so isn’t fair to DT. Would one of the mode mind deleting my post asking Der Trihs to back up his claim?
Already provided video and audio evidence. Cuomo and Feinstein have stated such.
That was an interview on 60 minutes. I stated earlier the context was regarding AWs. They are still “our” firearms.
You think Alex Jones is a reliable source?
What’s next?
Goebbels?
Beyond that Diane Feinstein clearly wasn’t advocating what Jones thinks.
Realize that based on your sources it wasn’t Bin Laden who blew up the Twin Towers but George Bush.
What if US gun violence is not the result of US gun culture, but US violence culture, and all the gun regulations in the world won’t stop us from being more violent than other first-world countries?
Furthermore, the UK has pretty draconian gun laws, including a recent total ban on handguns, including confiscation - late 1990s IIRC. By setting this as your standard you are pretty much guaranteeing the US will end up with a similar policy somewhere down the road, since we will likely never approach the UK’s rate of gun violence without something approaching the UK’s gun laws.
The problem is, you are assigning some special significance to gun violence, as opposed to violent crime in general, and you are not acknowledging that a free society in which gun ownership is permitted has some benefits that may be worth a certain number of deaths per year. Just like we set speed limits at 75 mph even though we would undoubtedly be safer driving at 55.
WTF are you babbling about? The link was only to show the video of this quote:
Dianne Feinstein: “If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States, for an outright ban, picking up [every gun]… Mr. and Mrs. America, turn ‘em all in.”
Did she, or did she not say that? Is that not confiscation?
You very clearly misrepresented what she said.
She didn’t say “every gun” as you clearly claim.
Again, I’d recommend against using 911 truthers as your sources.
Beyond that, I do find it hysterical that someone who trusts 911 truthers is accusing me of “babbling”.
Confiscation is confiscation.
I’d never been on that site a day in my life. It was merely used because the video was on it, AND I was reposting a site that was already posted. Stop being a dick about it!
Heres one from You Tube. Happy?
You probably erred, Ibn Warraq, by saying “want.” Because it’s easy to claim any politician wants something. When it comes to the legislation they are actually introducing and what they expect to do, there’s no gun confiscation and no forced buybacks. There was none of that in the previous AWB, none in the current proposed AWB, and none in the law Cuomo signed last month.