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?
:smack::smack:
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)
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.
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.
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.
Because they no longer want or need them.
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.
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!!!”
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Because they believe they are safer in a society where criminals do not have easy access to guns.