You have to admit, the Nazis would not have started WWII if they didn’t have any guns.
I see trees of green, red roses, too, I see them bloom, for me and you…
So, um.. do you like pizza…I mean, did you measure, or what?
They were Germans, they could start a war with Jello.
Yeah, but it’s not like Jello could put up much of a fight.
I’d argue with you, but you’re having so much fun by yourself.
Clearly you have never tried nailing it to a tree!
So, lets get specific. Post a link to one federal bill that included language for the confiscation of guns from law abiding citizens.
ETA: and it would be nice if you highlight the language or part that discussion the proposed confiscation activities.
It would fight better than the French.
I think Hitler wouldn’t have been nearly so grumpy if he’d had some good tribble luvin.
They do sells gun and ammo at some Walmarts, right?
Not about the eating! Its just that with their shrill, piping cries when being mounted on the stick, it sounds like you’re impaling Nancy Grace. Gotta love that, amirite?
Gun confiscation is largely paranoia on the part of gun nuts because it would require the national political climate to start approximating California (where confiscation DID occur). It is also fantasy on the part of anti-gun folks who propose ideas and plans that only make sense if confiscation is contemplated.
It’s because ad hominem is suspended regarding pro gun supporters during any gun debates. Live with it.
That was my point. There are crazy anti-gun people like the OP described. And there are crazy pro-gun people. The crazies on both sides have no interest in reasonable conversation.
A reasonable conversation will happen between the reasonable pro-gun people and the reasonable anti-gun people.
Good luck with that.
There is a strange strain of American exceptionalism that insists that things like single payer health care or gun control or gay marriage cannot possibly work in the U.S.A. despite having worked quite nicely in lots of other countries.
The reasonable people will have their conversation, and be told that while it works in practice it can’t possibly work in theory.
Well the first step is admitting you have a problem 
So, when has it worked? We had the Assault Weapons Ban for 10 years. I didn’t work. We have had states implementing their versions of the Assault Weapons Ban for nearly 25 years (specifically, California). How has that worked out for them?
We have the National Firearms Act of 1934, the Gun Control Act of 1968, the so-called Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986, the import ban by Executive Order (1989), and the Uniform Firearms Act or equivalent in every state in the Union, not to mention the myriad of local gun control, some of which has been overturned but the majority of which still stands.
We need tighter laws? The laws are already tight. Enforce them. You want universal background checks? Let’s do it. What else is left, the same proposals that didn’t work when they were first tried? Outright bans? That will never pass any sort of scrutiny in the courts. As amply demonstrated, if the first idea you come up with is the Assault Weapons Ban you’ve already failed.
It’s not exceptionalism. It’s “common sense”, to coin a phrase. Common sense dictates that when something doesn’t work the first time, it’s not going to work the second, third, fourth or fifth time. How is it that the laws you want are “common sense”, yet you refuse to use any yourself?
You are absolutely convinced you can cut a cake into neat slices.
But you are told that cutting cakes with a knife is dangerous, so you have to start with a spatula.
Also, that you don’t want to waste a perfectly good cake practicing, so you need to start with a fake foam rubber cake.
Also, slices are unAmerican; you should cut it into concentric circles of varying thicknesses but equal surface areas.
Naturally, you fuck up this process, thus proving that you never have been, and never will be, able to cut a cake, for all of time.
I’ve taken the liberty of enlarging and emphasizing parts of this cogent observation.
There is immediately an attempt to rebut the observation:
Quod Erat Demonstrandum.
Ehh. Give Airman some credit here. I can think of no countries that have attempted to create/first-time implement strict gun control/ownership laws with widespread pre-existing gun ownership and a modern economy to deal with. So, in that sense, the US is somewhat exceptional.