The same way any other illicit possession is confiscated.
Talk about shifting goal posts but most of that spending was on the presidential race. They were tiny compared to the teaparty.
I am very happy their side lost in that race but what would you expect an advocacy group to do? put their head in the sand? Obliviously you can’t claim that spending caused massive influence though so what is your point.
Obama won.
A search of homes of those who have publically stated their views on the subject. A search of the NRA membership rolls. Informants. Confiscations of open carry, stop and frisk of people that look like they might be carrying.
Can you think of a similar instance where hundreds of millions of a thing had been in circulation and then were made illegal and the government confiscated them? I’m sure that there probably are some cases but I can’t think of any off hand.
Call me when that happens.
Confiscations work just like they worked in other countries.
When you limit the permitting of something to those who are proven to be law abiding the people who tend to have them tend to be…law abiding.
Confiscations are done though directed letters and threats to those people who will mostly comply with those demands because they are…law abiding.
Note: this is also why this tends to not reduce crime that much because the criminals don’t comply and most murders are criminals killing other criminals. (Not that their lives are any less valuable but it is reality)
Just because it hasn’t been done before doesn’t automatically mean that it would be hard or easy. It just means we have no prior knowldege to base an answer on.
Since the three people that I mentioned come from the US Senate, the US House of Representatives, and the Iowa House of Representatives, they are representative of a larger group. Terms like “anti” and “gun grabber” are quite appropriate when describing them and others who feel the same.
I personally use the term “anti” to mean anyone who is actively trying to curtail my rights either through trying to change what it is that I can legally own, adding new hoops to jump through to own them, or blaming my ownership of same for the most recent tragedy du jour. If anti is not an appropriate term, please educate me on what is.
No, but then I’m not the one who thinks that registration can or will lead to confiscation. Aside from being political suicide, it’s horrifyingly impractical.
Ben Sargents salute to the NRA in general, and Mr. LaPierre in particular.
Well, sure, these methods could work, if you’re okay with eliminating not only the second amendment but also the fourth, and quite possibly weakening the first and fifth as well.
This is a good question that hasn’t really been answered yet. I can’t speak for everyone but I think a big part of it is to make the prospect of confiscation so difficult that it is simply not attempted, not necessarily to enable a foreseen and planned-for law-breaking in the event that a confiscatory law is enacted. But the stance that it should be possible to hide law-breaking from the state is not a controversial once in this country, or should not be; the principle that privacy and security of the individual trump the state’s interest in prosecuting crimes is embodied in the fourth and fifth amendments in the bill of rights.
However, doubtless there are many (possibly millions) who simply have no intention of complying with such a law, and would prefer therefore that it be unenforceable. More unenforceable than it would be already, that is.
Hey, I’m not o.k. with eliminating any amendment-I was just asked how a government could possibily go about doing such a thing without benefit of an official registration of firearms. If you are going to start out with a silly proposal that the government is going to ignore the Supreme Court, the 2nd Amendment and the nice little NRA nestegg they currently have going on as soon as they have a gun registration in place then, well…
I think my regime was overly complicated for a message board post (and thought as much halfway through, but by then I was too committed to abandon it.) But my philosophy is “comprehensive gun control.” I don’t believe in all or nothing, I think if all we can get is say, owner licensing that requires a safety course and a background check, that’s a good law. If we can later make it so no one can transfer a gun except through an FFL, that’s a good law. I think my idea is the end-state, not the first step. Realistically much of it is politically impossible now. But I do believe you could start us down that path, by focusing not on banning specific guns (which my proposal does not do) but getting gun control and specifically gun owner control passed, incrementally.
The gun nuts (and I say that word as an owner of many firearms), are obsessed with keeping their preciouses, so in some sense I think minor safety requirements or licensing requirements as long as they are “shall issue” might have a better chance of passing. The true gun nuts will never favor any regulation, but idiotic bills gives the gun nuts a leg to stand on. If you simply argue for a license, that is shall-issue, and only requires you pass a safety course, to buy a gun, that would do some serious societal good and get us on the right path. It’s also much harder to resist, because the only argument is “if we have to be licensed the EVIL GOVERNMENT WILL TRACK US” all the non-gun nuts who have ever had to get a building permit, car license or etc in their life will laugh at that ludicrous argument.
But I do think controlling all types of guns is ultimately important for comprehensive control. If we just got really tough handgun legislation in place, I do think you’d see an increase in shotgun and rifle crimes. Especially since both can be home-modified to be fairly concealable.
Also, I don’t see how my proposal imposed harsh liability.
Re-registering is not a requirement, once you have a license and a weapon registered under that license you are good to go forever. The only exception is a concealed carry license requires you to receive initial training and continuing education. I modeled the continuing education on the firearms training the average police department requires of its officers. If someone wants to carry a gun around to be a police power when the time calls for it they need to be trained like police.
CFP holders don’t want “to carry a gun around to be a police power.” They’re not police. Most are keenly aware of this. They don’t have powers to arrest, they don’t investigate crimes, execute search warrants, etc. They’re just interested in defending themselves, and perhaps those close to them.
I agree that a gun carrier is not police, but I think it can be argued that a responsible open or concealed carry license holder should be as well trained and practiced with firearms as the police - or better considering the record of some forces.
I wasn’t accusing your particular idea of all of those things; I was also talking about many other ideas proposed in this and other threads. Sorry if that was unclear.
Let’s go with the Supremes and the laws of the land, including the 2nd amendment. With all due respect, your interpretation of your rights, should acquiesce to that of the US of A, since I assume you’re a law abiding citizen. Now if the Supremes and congress and the States support your point of view, then I reserve the right to respectfully disagree and try get those laws changed.
But let’s drop “you can pry my dead fingers off my gun” 'cause it’s my inalienable right meme, m’kay?
Me, I’m with Martin Hyde, and think that at a minimum there should be some regulations for gun ownership. Christ, you have to pass a test every so many years to be able to drive a car, I think it’s not unreasonable to require gun owners demonstrate that they are physically and mentally capable of handling a firearm in a responsible manner and knowing what the current laws regarding use are. Any gun owners out there think this is a reasonable request? If it’s not reasonable, then why not?
I’m still waiting for one of the pro guns without limits folks out there to explain the 'well regulated militia" part of the 2nd? That part is usually handwaved away" while focusing solely on the “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
[And I’ve noticed that some folks who speak in a most ignorant fashion, suddenly become grammar Nazis regarding how to interpret the comma’s in both the congressional and States ratified versions. 
]
Currently the Supremes are on my side. As such, not only do I have my own opinions and beliefs, the law of the land is with me too. Anyone who wants to change that respectfully and have a debate, have at it. So far, I’ve been called a psychopath, and even a wannabe murderer in the last 48 hrs around here for owning hi cap mags, and defending that right. That’s not respectful.
And I don’t recall mentioning anything cold or dead.
I have a concealed weapons permit, and regardless of what some on this board think, I don’t think I’m a cop nor do I have an uncontrollable urge to shoot someone while carrying.I have to take training and undergo background checks every five years. I have no problem with the training in my state as it is cheap, accessible, and relatively painless. I would agree to a National required training and increased background checks if they translated to a nationally accepted concealed weapons permit. (win-win)
That has been explained by others to death around here. A search or two will give you all of the threads that you could ever want to disagree with.
There are Coke versus Pepsi, Ginger versus Mary-ann, Barney the Dinosaur versus the Teletubbies Death Match and the ilk up the wazoo.
I can’t read your mind. What’s your take on the “well regulated militia” since that’s part of the 2nd that you hold so dear? NOt being snarky, it’s something I’m truly curious about.
Careful there! That’s starting to sound an awful lot like a “well trained militia.”