How? If you don’t know where they are how do you confiscate them?
Confiscation is obviously dependent on registration. At the very least, it makes it much easier and somewhat likely to succeed. Do you seriously dispute this?
The very first post after mine, too-using both code words in the same sentence, at that!
Tell me something-have you ever had anyone grab, or even attempt to grab, a gun out of your hands? Do you know anyone who has had this happen to them? Do you think that it is possible that some might want to have some control on how and when weapons are handled in this country without wanting to ban them, or are they all part of this conspiracy?
I’m not going to answer for him, but I think the real question here is “so what?” Are you going to keep your guns even if they’re outlawed? If so, what does that say about you as a “law-abiding” gun owner?
Post #99. If you aren’t even going to read the thread I don’t know how we can help you.
There is no “conspiracy”. Sure, some people just want “reasonable” gun control that falls short of an outright ban. (Most of them are usually ignorant about definitions of things like “assault weapons” and don’t know what they’re talking about though.)
But it’s not a conspiracy to say that there are people out there who genuinely do want to ban and confiscate guns and don’t agree with an individual right to own guns. There are people on this board who have posted that and politicians who have said that.
It’s not a conspiracy. It’s just reality. Some people want to ban guns. We join the NRA to fight them.
You still claiming to not be anti-gun by the way? What a joke.
So I will oppose any efforts at registration and confiscation. That’s what.
Where ever did those goal posts move to?
You said that
, and I disagreed with that statement. Now you say that
…which I agree with. If the U.S. Government ignored the will of The Supreme Court(and the will and lobbying money of the gun lobby) and decided to try and confiscate as many firearms as possible, however, I doubt the lack of a prior formal registration of said firearms would cause them them to think twice before attempting to do so.
I copied your words.
I had family who lost their guns post Katrina. They got some of them back, rusted and unusable. The rest are sitting in someone’s safe I am sure. I know you read the threads here and you have the nerve to tell me that the term “anti” doesn’t fit someone like a der trihs, BobLibDem, Yogosoth, etc? Do you think those types only exist in the ethereal region of the SD? How about Ms. Feinstein hereself:
I cannot think of a better term for her than “anti” or “gungrabber”, using her own words to support the title. One that I am sure she, Carolyn McCarthy, and many others are quite proud of too.
I haven’t moved any goalposts. I’m simply trying to figure out what it is that you believe.
You disagree with this:
“confiscation is impossible without prior registration”
Yet agree with this:
“At the very least, it makes it much easier and somewhat likely to succeed.”
Do you believe that confiscation would not be likely to succeed without registration? That would move towards making it impossible, right?
It’s been pointed out to you many times that the gun lobby doesn’t have lobbying money of any unusual amount. They spend less than many other industries and companies.
You can continue to just ignore this point because obviously you have no response, but you should remember that we’re trying to fight ignorance here not wallow in it.
Um, okay. What about the question I asked?
That’s like saying that someone who robs liquor stores isn’t a robber because others rob banks. A great amount of the NRA’s success IS due to lobbying efforts, and it doesn’t matter if someone else spends more on something unrelated to guns-what matters is that they vastly overspend any and all of their opponents. If their great strength wasn’t in their lobbying, they wouldn’t spend great amounts of money(again, compared to any and all of their opponents) lobbying, would they? Your argument is silly, and an insult to other posters.
I prefer not to answer.
If A is easier if B is done, it is not the same thing as saying that A is impossible if B isn’t done-it only means that A is harder if B isn’t done.
No, their opponents aren’t able to raise the money, that is the only reason they don’t spend it.
If you claim that $2.2M (the amount the NRA spent on lobbing last year) is ‘great amounts of money’ is just silly.
Adding to my previous post, here is local politician spouting off. If the term “gun grabber” does not apply, please let me know what is a more appropriate term:
Analogy fail. Robbing is robbing. Both a liquor store robber and a bank robber are robbing.
Lobbying is lobbying. Both the NRA and the Oil industry do lobbying. No one is disputing that.
What’s in dispute is that the NRA does a unusually large amount of spending on lobbying and this gives them undue power and influence. This is your claim and it simply isn’t true. I’ve given cites and clearly stated the facts numerous times and you are simply repeating your false claim over and over while ignoring the evidence.
No. What matters is that they have dedicated members who write letters, send emails and vote in favor of gun rights. This is what makes them powerful, not lobbying dollars.
They don’t spend great amounts of money. They spend money entirely in line with other industries and companies.
The fact that there isn’t a lot of money in the anti-gun lobby effort is just an indication of how unpopular the idea of banning guns is. This is a symptom, not a cause.
I didn’t mean to insult you. But it’s correct for me to point out that by ignoring reality and arguing for something that clearly just isn’t true you are hardly helping to fight ignorance.
It’s harder to the point of it being impossible to succeed.
Once again-they outspent their opponents by a vast amount, which is what works in the long run.
But that $2.2 million isn’t the whole story, is it? What about the almost $19 million they spent on(and against) candidates throughout the country? Source.
So you say.
I’m legitimately curious. How would a confiscation without prior registration work?
IF an individual says that he or she would grab guns, then that individual can be called a gun grabber. It’s the broad across-the-board applying of labels I am objecting to, It falsely implies a singleness of purpose and attitude to people that may disagree with you on this subject for various reasons. I could easily find examples out in the world of violent nuts that claim they did what they did for God And Country, but if I were to use the label “gun nut” to address any general group here, even after pointing out the doings of said violent nutcase, I would be wrong to do so.