Once again, how would the pro-gun control people get rid 300 million guns at this point?

[Logical]

The Nevada shooting is horrible and tragic. But at this point how will you rid this country of 300 million guns when over a million more are sold every month?

Serious question!

The reason I am in favor of the right to own guns has nothing to do with a militia paranoia or with a fear of the government trying to take over. It is only because there is no way to stop the criminals from being armed, so regular citizens should also have the right to own guns to defend themselves.

If you have a solution I would love to hear it.

[ChandlerJr]

1. Pass a law, make them illegal.

I'm sure the law abiding citizens of this country would voluntarily turn them all in.

[Logical]

4. LOL, and then who will be the only armed people? Think hard!

[Starboard Tack]

79. That's what happened in the UK and it worked.

There will always be a few who want to take the risk, but if you look at the numbers, they speak for themselves. I think we should be able to own guns, but I'd be more than happy to give up that right if it would achieve a similar result. It goes without saying that you cannot expect the public to forgo their firearms as long as cops routinely carry them.

[Tejas]

153. 163,000 UK knife crimes (yeah, that worked REAL well)

http://sob.apotheon.org/?p=1323

2006

•In England and Wales alone — discounting Scotland — there were over 163 thousand knife crimes.





Let me guess, you'd suggest banning edged weapons too?

[Starboard Tack]

188. Aren't stats wonderful?

UK 277 stabbing deaths in 2008, the worst in 30 years. Not good.
UK 42 gun related deaths in 2008

US 12,632 firearm homicides in 2008. Outrageous.

Conclusion. It is much easier to shoot someone than stab them.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

193. Wrong conclusion

and you are looking at the wrong data.

First off, comparing raw numbers is pointless. We have ~325 million people, the UK about 60 million. Massive difference in numbers.

Second, they may have only had 42 gun related deaths, but are you any less dead if stabbed? They had fewer murders overall before they outlawed guns. You'll note also stabbing deaths went UP.

[Starboard Tack]

194. So let's add UK gun deaths and knife deaths.

That's 325 total
Now multiply that by 5 equals about 1,600
Now that makes combined UK deaths about one eighth US gun homicides.

UK gun deaths include suicides too.

How about them apples.

You are never going to win this one. Sorry.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

195. In terms of raw homicide numbers

No, the UK is lower.

However, their overall crime rate is higher. http://www.nationmaster.com/compare/United-Kingdom/United-States/Crime

The other thing you seem to be overlooking is, the UK has historically been much much lower than the United States. Totally different culture, even though we speak similar languages. Comparing the two really doesn't work.

Overall, the UK ranks as the 6th worst nation in the world for crime. Care to guess where the US ranks? I'll give you a hint...it is better than 6th...and that's even with suicide being counted in the crime rate. The US has a higher suicide rate, by the way. You remove suicide from the rankings, and you'd likely see the US even further down the list...like 10th or so would be my guess.

[GreenStormCloud]

163. The UK never had a lot of guns to begin with. N/T

[Starboard Tack]

190. Smarter than they look aren't they? Sold them all to us.

Sell'em to the bloody yanks. Let'em shoot each other. Silly buggers.

[oneshooter]

31. How would you pay for them? That pesky Fifth Amendment !

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Eminent_domain

The owner of the property that is taken by the government must be justly compensated. When determining the amount that must be paid, the government does not need to take into account any speculative schemes that the owner claims the property was intended for use in. Normally, the fair market value of the property determines "just compensation". If the property is taken before the payment is made, interest accrues (though the courts have refrained from using the term "interest"

Ok then, How do you plan paying for them?

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[Starboard Tack]

86. If they were banned, then they would no longer have a fair market value.

And that would be just tough shit for those who build their own arsenals.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

89. Doesn't QUITE work that way.

Simply making them illegal doesn't change the intrinsic value, and does not magically do away with 5th Amendment protections.

[Starboard Tack]

93. Their intrinsic value has no bearing, only their fair market value, which would be zero.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

98. Sorry but again, you're wrong.

Value still matters. Simply claiming something is illegal does not magically dismiss the fact that it was legal when purchased. The government would be obligated to grandfather in existing stocks or pay for what they managed to confiscate. I say "managed to" because they'd very likely only get a small amount before the government ran out of people willing to attempt to take them.

[Starboard Tack]

100. It may matter to you, but illegal goods have no official market value.

The reality is that mass confiscations would be highly unlikely. If certain weapons were prohibited, then there would, most likely, be an amnesty period in which to turn them in. After that, you keep them at your own risk. I was in the UK during such an amnesty in the mid 60s. Went very smoothly. People turned in all kinds of weapons, no questions asked. Those who kept them faced a mandatory five years if caught. One live round without a gun would get you the same. Worked amazingly well.

Of course, there's nothing wrong with a "buy back" program either.

[X_Digger]

104. UK != US

Why do you think such previous laws have 'grandfathered' existing stocks? Because to declare an existing, legally acquired item of property as illegal would constitute a 'taking' under the fifth amendment, requiring government compensation.

See the Volktead Act or the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

108. Once again,

Yes, they DO have a value.

The 5th Amendment forbids such actions as you describe. Not just makes it difficult, but flat fucking forbids it. If what you suggest had any merit, it would utterly destroy the concept of any private property. All that would need be done is for government to make X illegal, and all of a sudden, anyone who owns X, no longer has anything of value and must give it to government.

Do you really not see the gaping hole in your logic?

[Starboard Tack]

123. What you say makes a lot of sense. However, it isn't always how it works.

Ask the poor folk in West Virginia who got dispossessed by mountaintop removal. Ask those who invested in freon. Of course, it doesn't mean you property no longer has value, just not official market value. There will always be a black market value for those willing to take that risk.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

135. Lets take a look at that shall we?

Ok - mountain top removal mining was done by private entities to land which they privately owned. Sucks that people lost a view, but the plain fact is, the companies owned the land.

Freon, or more specifically, R-12 refrigerant, was phased out of use over time to allow existing stocks to be utilized. The conversion process took much less time than anticipated by the initial regulations and the stuff was out of widespread use pretty quick.

[Starboard Tack]

140. I have friends and family in WV who would strongly disagree with you.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

141. They can disagree all they want

but facts are facts. It wasn't the government which forced the land to be taken or made the land illegal to own. Your equivalency fails.

They are also welcome to disagree with me that 2+2=4, but don't expect me to give their disagreement any importance.

[sylveste]

180. illegal goods have no official market value

really? why do people get charged with tax stamp violations when they arrested selling illegal drugs? how can you tax something with no value?

[Starboard Tack]

184. Never heard of that one. But it has nothing to do with "Fair market value"

[Name removed]

173. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[spin]

52. Make all guns illegal. Ask citizens to turn them in. Watch what happens. (n/t)

:popcorn:

[Kennah]

72. Probably nothing, unless the cops went knocking on doors ...

... and then let the fun begin. When I say fun, what I really mean is shitstorm.

[Starboard Tack]

88. What do you think will happen?

Do you think all the "good guys" will suddenly become the "bad guys"?

[We_Have_A_Problem]

90. In short...

Yes. At least most. You'd end up with a lot of dead cops and there are far more gun owners who won't give them up than there are people willing to try to take them.

[Starboard Tack]

95. That's a pretty sad indictment of the most "law abiding" of our citizens.

Do you think they would shoot the cops if the cops themselves were unarmed, as in the UK? Remember the huge British bloodbath? I think that even the gunslingers of Texas would be hesitant to shoot the unarmed.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

96. I dont see it that way

I see it as a fair assessment of how the typical American would react were our current government to reenact the conditions which sparked the Revolutionary War.

If cops were to attempt to confiscate firearms while unarmed, what would happen is a lot of laughing in their face and slammed doors. The second one of them stupidly tried to breach a door, all of them would end up dead and they wouldn't go out unarmed anymore.

Make no mistake my friend. Taking guns by force in this country would cause a bloodbath - and most of it would be the blood of government thugs.

[Starboard Tack]

101. I think you live in a fantasy, but you have a vested interest in the proliferation of guns.

You depend on criminals using guns for your business venture to succeed. So your views are far from objective. I don't subscribe to the politics of fear, selling fear, or profiting from fear. It is parasitical and predatory and on a par with snake oil.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

102. Excuse me?

I absolutely do NOT depend upon criminals using guns. I resent the accusation.

My views though are based quite firmly in historical fact.

If you don't think there are more people in the US who would resist having their firearms confiscated than the government has people who would be willing to try to take them, by all means, feel free to live in ignorance.

Simple math, on the other hand, should tell you that if even 1% of the law abiding gun owners refused to turn them in, they would outnumber law enforcement by several orders of magnitude.

[Starboard Tack]

106. How would you be able to sell your Pistol Pads without criminals using guns?

[We_Have_A_Problem]

109. WTF are you talking about?

Pistol Pads?

I'm honestly at a complete loss. I have no idea to what you're referring, and I don't sell or market anything.

[Starboard Tack]

110. Oops, my bad. Had you confused with another poster.

Must be my oldtimers kicking in. Sincerest apologies.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

112. Apology accepted for the confusion

Not for the fact that you are accusing someone of deliberately marketing to criminals.

[Starboard Tack]

128. No, he isn't marketing to criminals. He is marketing fear.

I'd equate it with breeding and distributing roaches in order to sell poison. No roaches. No poison sales.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

133. Ironically...

it is not fear of criminals which likely causes people to purchase a Pistol Pad, but fear of something bad happening if they left a gun unsecured.

In other words, they're doing what you want them to do, and purchasing a tool which facilitates it, and you STILL aren't happy with it.

[Starboard Tack]

137. I thought you didn't know what a Pistol Pad was. Looked it up, did ya?

Just another piece of bullshit gun paraphernalia. Happy with it? Why would I be happy with fools buying handguns? Let alone someone showing how to make them "safe"? What a scam. Like those fashionista fanny pack holsters that nobody will ever recognize, unless they happened to see an ad for one in a toter magazine. Oh, I forgot, only law abiding toters read those things. LOL

You guys are a hoot.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

139. Yeah I looked it up.

Is there a problem with that?

I wanted to know what I was being accused of selling. I like to at least have a clue about the issue I'm addressing.

Seriously man - do you ever give yourself whiplash from all the direction changes?

You want people to not carry concealed, saying it is sneaky and dishonest. Then you want them to not carry openly because it incites a breach of peace. You want people to be held to keep their guns at home, then you complain they don't store them adequately enough. When someone stores them adequately, you complain that the seller of devices to enable safe storage is merely making a living on fear...

I'd have some respect for you if you had simply stated you don't like guns and don't want people to own them. This constant moving of the goalposts and redefining the argument has gotten old though, and whatever respect I may have given you is gone.

[Starboard Tack]

145. LOL I'm impressed at your trying to keep up with me. It must be tough.

If you want to win a war, always try to keep the enemy confused. But, seriously, these are different battles. Guns, as many often say, are not the problem, but rather the behavior of those who use them. I confess my ignorance about gun issues prior to participating in this forum, which I stumbled upon by chance. So, clearly, my enlightenment on the issues id a work in progress.
As I became more and more aware of the issues, I realized that there is an insidious madness afoot in this nation and we are all (or most of us) victims of it, regardless of which side of the issue we stand. And there are many sides.
I grew up with guns, not a lot of them, but enough to know how to use them and respect them. Hunting, target practice, that kind of thing. Not handguns. They had no purpose, except to kill humans.
Now, i hear people who want them in schools, churches, bars, restaurants, you name it. This strikes me as sheer lunacy.
Maybe you've missed some of my earlier posts, but my position has changed very little. I have no tolerance for the toting of guns in public places. CC is sneaky and dishonest. OC is honest, but plain stupid. A shotgun or other long gun (not semi-auto or auto) for hunting or home protection is fine. No high capacity. Believe it or not, most people share my views on this. The gunners themselves have blown it by always wanting more sophisticated weaponry, enabling loonies like Loughner and the recent Carson City shooter to kill and injure so many. Then we have the Texas crazies who think it's OK to shoot people in the back for theft. If we shot all the thieves, there would be precious few people left and they would all be liars, because I wouldn't believe anyone who claimed to have never taken anything that didn't legally belong to him, even if it was just a parking space.

[friendly_iconoclast]

155. This illustrates your problem: You insult a group of people, but expect that they won't oppose you.

The problem with that approach is that it's far too late to get the horse back in the barn. There are just too many gun owners
who won't accept the idea that what they've been using legally for years needs to be banned because of others' misuse- and they
vote.

High-capacity magazines have been used since the Civil War (Spencer and Henry rifles), and semi-automatic rifles for civilian
use since 1905 (a John M. Browning design).

The Brady Campaign has maybe 55,000 members, while 80 million or so Americans own guns. Math trumps ideology.

[X_Digger]

161. Don't buy into the framing..

Eleven rounds is not 'high capacity'.

[Starboard Tack]

170. Hey, I don't blame you for being pissed. I would be too.

Fact is though, a handful of assholes have screwed things up for you, not the Brady bunch, but a bunch of gun freaks who went too far. Just the same way a bunch of assholes on 9/11 screwed things up for everyone. Tried traveling by air recently?

[Tejas]

157. I'm trying to keep up with your hairbrained idea of

commanding lawful American citizens to either throw away billions of dollars worth of personal property...or go to prison.


In the meantime, what do you propose to do about criminals who could care less about your stupid law?

[Starboard Tack]

177. Hey. Easy come easy go and criminals don't get a pass.

And I don't command anyone.

[pipoman]

171. Only a coward won't fight for his/her civil rights/liberties...

especially without an amendment...good luck with that, even DU GD wouldn't agree with screwing with the 2nd. Do I need to post the proof? Oh, OK...









You loose..

[Starboard Tack]

191. Let us know how it works out for you.

[spin]

111. Some people would turn their firearms in but many would not ...

Many of the people who had decided to keep their firearms would store some in PVC pipe. Some people already have.

Bury a gun and ammo
for 15 years
(and be assured everything still works when you dig it up)

By Charles Wood

Back in the early 1990s the outlook for the nation in general and gun owners in particular seemed rather grim to many people. A few years earlier in 1986, Congress had banned civilians from owning newly manufactured machine guns. There was ever more strident talk of banning semi-automatic weapons or so called assault weapons. Many of us regarded a semi-automatic rifle as the foundation of a home defense battery. Many of us believed that more laws banning ever more types of guns were imminent. About that time I acquired a Ruger Ranch Rifle through a private sale. I decided to stash it away in a safe place just in case my worst fear was to materialize, another gun ban.

First order of business was to decide how I would prepare the gun for long-term storage and where I would store it. I decided that for maximum security I needed to bury it. This would keep it safe from all but the most determined government goons. I set about finding an appropriate location. I live in a fairly remote, wooded rural area in the northeast. One day as I was walking in the woods I noticed a hemlock tree had blown down and been uprooted by a recent windstorm. There was a small crater about eight feet across and three feet deep where the root ball had been torn out of the ground. It occurred to me that this would be a good spot for my rifle.

***snip***

So if you think it is necessary, you can store a rifle safely for long periods in harsh environments. A little attention to detail, some scrounged materials, and a few dollars in supplies are all it takes.
http://www.backwoodshome.com/articles2/wood115.html

When the government decided to confiscate all the firearms that were not turned in, they would encounter resistance. Obviously, the average gun owner would be unable to stand up to a SWAT team. Some gun owners who had committed no other crimes would be executed in their homes by the police when they resisted. The news would anger other gun owners, who would decide to launch a counterattack against the government. A few gun owners would engage in guerrilla warfare and the result would be a serious disruption of our society. Remember we have given many of our citizens excellent military training and they could use the tactics of the enemies they fought against in foreign hell holes against our government.

Of course, the government would order the military to quell any resistance. Realistically, it is questionable if the military would follow such orders and shoot American citizens who have committed no crime except for owning banned firearms. Remember that many in the military come from families who own firearms. The military might instead decide to overthrow the government.

It is also quite possible that some areas of our nation might decide to secede from the union.

25 States Considering Sovereignty Legislation
Feb 23, 2009

***snip***

One might think the movement started in the South, but it did not; it is New Hampshire leading the pack. Apparently for the past few days this has been on talk radio, which shows how far television has to go to catch up apparently with the old-fashioned forms of communication. But the Internet, not to be outdone, has websites devoted to the cause of sovereignty, whom right-wing talk radio uses as justification for talk about secession.. Here is one about the State of New Hampshire with Bill HCR 6. It is apparently just one of a number of states that has decided it could break away from the Federal government.

These are some of the reasons cited by some of these states and their proposed legislation:

“I. Declaring Involuntary Martial Law over any of the 50 States
II. Any kind of "domestic Draft" (Obama's Service Corps)
III. Any kind of required service of Minors (Youth Brigades)
IV. Surrendering any power delegated or not delegated to any corporation or foreign government. (UN Millenium Declaration, which Obama supports.
North American Union/SPP agreement.
UN Carbon Taxes)
V. Any act regarding religion; further limitations on freedom of political speech; or further limitations on freedom of the press. (Fairness Doctrine)
VI. Any attempt to further restrict the the Right to Bear Armsemphasis added


Read more: http://digitaljournal.com/article/267681#ixzz1XHzHTepr

Knowing a good number of gun owners, what I mentioned would happen is not a fantasy. In the end it is possible that the government would be able to arrest and imprison many gun owners. They may even be able to squash the resistance. However the amount of bloodshed and the damage to our society would be very severe.

It may be easy to disarm counties such as Great Britain were there are few firearms and firearm owners. It's entirely different to attempt to confiscate all firearms in a nation that has well over 300,000,000 such weapons and 80,000,000 firearm owners. We also have a well established and deeply rooted gun culture and a deep distrust of government.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

120. Pretty much...

Anyone who thinks gun owners would just roll over and say "Sure thing! Take them! Anything to make people feel safer!" is seriously deluding themselves.

I know a fair number of gun owners as well, and I don't believe a single one of them would hand over their guns without a fight. They may turn in one or two throw-away pieces, but the remainder, rest assured, will have been lost in a boating accident or sold to someone's brother's friend who then moved away to one of them states out west or up north...

[Starboard Tack]

134. I think you are missing the point.

Banning is not confiscation. Confiscation is the "fear" word. Making certain weapons illegal means "get caught with one at your own risk". I'm sure there are many guns secreted in Britain. But nobody is toting, because that gets you more time than burglary and if a burglar totes, they virtually throw away the key. They just took guns out of the equation, which was a very smart move.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

136. Not missing the point at all...

Banning effectively IS confiscation.

Rest assured my friend, such an act would result in an outcome you do not want.

[Starboard Tack]

142. Banning handguns and semi-automatic long guns would make me very happy.

What outcome would upset me more than the status quo? Even with enforced confiscation, it shouldn't take more than a couple of years. If less than 20,000 deaths result during that time, then we will be way ahead of the game, and will only get better from there on, as we approach a semblance of a civilized society. If Texas wants to secede, we can just put a fence around it.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

143. At least you finally admit it

So you basically want the people to only have access to bolt-action, pump-action and single shot long guns. Got it.

I assure you - you'd face FAR more than 20,000 deaths. Count on it. You'd be lucky if it were only 10 times that.

I'd love to know from where you pulled that 2-year number. It would take more than that to figure out who owned them.

[Starboard Tack]

146. You don't have to figure out who owns them until you see them.

If they keep them buried, they aren't in use. Millions would be handed in during amnesties. You'd be surprised how many people would rather get on with their lives rather than die or go to prison.
What's wrong with a lever action Winchester hunting rifle or double barrel shotgun. Great weapons for hunting or home defense.

Any deaths would be those of criminals. I'm interested in protecting the innocent, not helping criminals.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

147. Just because you don't personally see a use for something

does not mean others are as myopic.

Lets take your hunting rifle example. Great tool for hunting, not so great for home defense. Why? Here's a partial list:

Requires 2 handed operation.
Power - even the lightest commercially available loads will penetrate not only the bad guy, but the walls behind, and very possibly your next door neighbor's walls as well.
Length presents a greater danger of a homeowner being disarmed
Length also prevents ease of movement and rapid target acquisition in low light
Lever action is slow and difficult for some older or weaker people to use. Requires moving the firearm and limits usability when used from cover.
Limited (3-5) round ammunition capacity and not easily reloaded (you said hunting, which implies a small capacity magazine)
Weight requires more strength than someone may have - even with a polymer stock they weigh substantially more than a .38spl.

Lets consider your double-barrel shotgun:
Requires 2 handed operation
Recoil may be excessive for smaller users
Quite capable of penetrating beyond the target without extremely careful load selection.
Shot weight which does not over penetrate may not penetrate enough.
Length - same issues as bolt action rifle.
Even more limited ammunition capacity combined with an inherently slow reloading process
Weight again - still far heavier than a small revolver.

Even when those weapons were state of the art, people still recognized the utility of a smaller gun which could be kept close by as a last-chance option or for those who may have only had one arm.

Yes, you're probably right - millions would be handed in. As I said, many gun owners would turn in a throw-away or two (that's what Jennings and Bryco are for, right?) but the bulk of their weapons would have been lost in a boating accident or sold to a friend's brother's cousin 3 states away named Bob or Bill or Jimmy.

[Starboard Tack]

150. Smaller non-lethal options exist. Mace, pepper spray, tasers etc.

I'm sure S&W would come up with something if pressed.
Show me an effective, but less lethal handgun and I might go with it.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

151. So would I....

however, as of right now, nothing exists which is as effective as a handgun and falls into the "less than lethal" category.

I would also expect the police to carry it exclusively long before I would accept the idea of having to use it instead of a firearm.

[spin]

144. Gun owners would believe the banning would eventually lead to confiscation ...

First you would have to get laws passed that ban "certain weapons". Considering that for two years Democrats had control of both houses of Congress and the Presidency and that idea was never even proposed, the chances of getting any new ban passed is very low.

If you did get a ban passed, Democrats would quite possibly lose a lot of close elections in the future and be replaced with members of the ultra conservative Tea Party. Passing such laws would be political suicide for many good Democrats. Of course a few Democrats who live in gun unfriendly areas of the country would survive, but they might be the minority party in both houses and a Tea Party candidate might be sitting in the Oval Office.

Of course the ban would be challenged in court and could rise to the Supreme Court. Unless the makeup of the Supreme Court had changed and become more liberal, the ban would likely be declared unconstitutional.

I fully agree that anyone who has a record of being a violent felon caught carrying a firearm illegally should face a LENGTHY prison term. That might discourage felons from carrying firearms and stop a lot of shootings that occur because some fool "disrespected" another fool. All too often a violent criminal gets a light slap on the wrist when he is caught packing heat.

What are the weapons that you would ban and why? Please take the time to reply to this question. I am interested in your answer.

[Starboard Tack]

149. What are the weapons that you would ban and why?

I would rather say what guns I would permit, because I believe this would significantly reduce the number of deaths and injuries caused by firearms to an "acceptable" level.
Shotguns, single or double barrel. Bolt action or lever action rifles. Winchester comes to mind.
Anything else would require very restrictive permit based on demonstrated need.

Those who want more than that are free to join the military, or just get over themselves.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

152. I would ban none.

Neither the gun, nor the technology it uses, is the problem. The problem is the criminal, and until human nature changes dramatically, we're going to have those with us.

If you want that level of state control over the people, by all means, move. There are plenty of nations which subscribe to your beliefs.

[oneshooter]

165. Winchester has been out of business for 5= years. Need to keep up with the times. n/t

[Starboard Tack]

175. Maybe you need to let them know, because they don't seem to be aware of it.

Need to keep up with the times.
http://www.winchesterguns.com/

2011 Fall Model 70 Free Ammo Promotion

[spin]

169. You didn't mention handguns ...

Of course I oppose your views on long guns. Surprisingly, I don't own any of the long guns you would ban. I do have two bolt action rifles and a double barreled shotgun. My son in law, who lives in the same house, has a lever action 30-30 which he loves.

However, if I move into the country, I may want to buy a semi-auto rifle for hunting deer and hog. I'm considering an AR-10. I might also buy a pump action shotgun which you would ban. Both of these weapons could also prove useful for home defense in a very rural area.

The Deer Camp Companion--Remington R-25

When it comes down to it, Remington knows hunting rifles. And it also knows what hunters want. Recognizing the growing demand in big-game sporting circles for the AR-pattern rifle Remington developed the R-25, an AR chambered in .308 Win., 7 mm-08, and .243 Win.

The R-25 features a flat-top upper receiver and matching gas block that makes it easily adaptable to mounting optics. A Mossy Oak Treestand camouflage finish on the majority of its parts combined with a free-floated aluminum fore-end ready to accept Picatinny rails makes the R-25 perfect for the modern medium- to big-game hunter.

The R-25 proves that the AR can be a capable big-game hunting rifle. And the legitimacy of the Remington brand has helped expand the overall popularity of this style of firearm. MSRP: $1,567
http://www.fieldandstream.com/photos/gallery/hunting/2009/05/fs-picks-25-best-ar-style-rifles?photo=16#node-1001327451

Would you allow semi-auto pistols or revolvers?

[Starboard Tack]

176. "Would you allow semi-auto pistols or revolvers? "

Unfortunately not. I feel as pissed off as you, but there are too many assholes out there that ruin it for everyone else. Public safety trumps personal desire for me. Sorry. Same for handguns. Bummer.

[spin]

181. So it does appear to me that you would prefer gun control laws...

that would be similar to but stricter than the gun laws in Canada.

[Starboard Tack]

183. It isn't that I would prefer them, but I think it is the most sensible option.

There is always a tipping point when society says "Enough, things are getting totally out of control". I think we are close to that point.
The tipping point in the UK was the Dunblane Massacre in 1996.
There are two ways to approach the problem. The pro-gun solution is to allow more guns in classrooms, churches, bars, restaurants etc. and on the surface it makes some sense and uses the 2A as a Constitutional back-up. I think this solution is a slippery slope towards anarchy. At present, we still live in a relatively affluent, secure society, where only a few people tote guns. If we slip into a major economic depression, which is entirely possible, the whole equation will change and more and more folk will be toting. Any rights we may enjoy today, can be curtailed rapidly during times of social unrest. Make no mistake, the Constitution can be suspended in a heartbeat to maintain social order and despite all the chest thumping, no groups of die hard gun lovers are going to take on the military.
So, I guess what I'm saying is "Be careful what you wish for. Discretion is often the better part of valor."

I don't have a personal stake in this like you do. I don't live in places where there is any crime or guns and rarely visit places with populations larger than a few hundred.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

187. How do you you determine them to be "sensible"?

Gun control simply does not work the way you want to believe it does.

It does not reduce overall crime rates. In fact, it frequently leads to a rise in overall crime as the criminals know their victims are unarmed. That is precisely what has happened in the UK.

It does not magically end murder. Murders still happen with and without guns. Always have, and likely always will.

The existence of a gun in public does not endanger anyone, so you may want to just toss that argument in the round file where it belongs.

No, the Constitution cannot be suspended in a heartbeat.

No, the military is not going to be used against US citizens to take away firearms. Why? Simple - the military itself would likely ignore the order to do so. If it did not, it would rapidly find itself outnumbered and outgunned by a factor of 100 to 1. Most of the military does not fight my friend. The vast bulk of it is support troops, and no, heavy artillery will not be used. The political fallout alone would be deadly to the party in power at the time.

I really do not know where you got the idea that our government could simply disregard the Constitution at will or that the military is made up of mindless automatons and that the people are just stupid sheep, but you REALLY need to get out more. Maybe it is the fact that you rarely deal with more than a few people at a time in small, barely-modern, unsettled areas, but in the real world, life does not work the way you seem to think it does.

[Starboard Tack]

189. " the Constitution cannot be suspended in a heartbeat." Don't kid yourself.

It's called martial law.

Remember Watts and the summer of 1965

Eventually, the California National Guard was called to active duty to assist in controlling the rioting. On Friday night, a battalion of the 160th Infantry, including soldier and future actor Tom Selleck, and the 1st Reconnaissance Squadron of the 18th Armored Cavalry were sent into the riot area (about 2,000 men). Two days later, the remainder of the 40th Armored Division was sent into the riot zone. A day after that, units from northern California arrived (a total of around 15,000 troops). These National Guardsmen put a cordon around a vast region of South Central Los Angeles, and the rioting was largely over by Sunday. Due to the seriousness of the riots, martial law had been declared. Sergeant Ben Dunn said "The streets of Watts resembled an all-out war zone in some far-off foreign country, it bore no resemblance to the United States of America". The initial commander of National Guard troops was Colonel Bud Taylor, then a motorcycle patrolman with the Los Angeles Police Department, who in effect became superior to Chief of Police Parker. National Guard units from Northern California were also called in, including Major General Clarence H. Pease, former commanding general of the National Guard's 40th Infantry Division.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

192. Sigh....

The Governor of a state is fully within his authority to call out the National Guard. That is much of the reason for its existence.

The National Guard is not the same thing as the US military, and a governor declaring martial law for a short time is not the same thing as suspending the Constitution.

You would do well to actually understand these things. What you claimed could be done and what you offered as proof bear zero resemblance to each other.

Marital Law has been declared on a national level a few times, yes, but it has never happened "in a heartbeat". In the time it would take the President and Congress to do such a thing, the people would make it very clear that it would not be tolerated.

[Starboard Tack]

196. LOL

What a dream world you live in. Enjoy.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

197. If you actually have proof to dispute my statements

By all means, present it.

Simply laughing and saying I live in a dream world doesn't cut it.

[Starboard Tack]

200. I think I've made my points. Let me know if something isn't clear to you.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

202. Pretty much all of it.

You claimed the Constitution could be suspended in a heartbeat. You failed to provide proof and instead claimed that a governor calling out the national guard was proof the President could act in a similar manner.

You claimed that the UK's gun laws were proof that gun control works, while ignoring their overall increase in crime.

You've claimed any number of things for which you provide no objective evidence and expect me to simply trust your faith.

You could feel free to clear any or all of this up with something like actual facts.

[jmg257]

204. As James Monroe said, suspending the constitution won't be necessary...

"I am inclined to think that absolute restrictions in cases that are doubtful, or where emergencies may overrule them, ought to be avoided. The restrictions however strongly marked on paper will never be regarded when opposed to the decided sense of the public, and after repeated violations in extraordinary cases they will lose even their ordinary efficacy."


Doesn't take a suspension of the constitution to enact such laws, just takes the will of enough people to vote in enough representatives in the federal congress and enough state legislatures with the balls to pass such laws.

Of course an amendment 1st would be nice (in a constitutional sense), but as the AWB showed, unfortunately is not always necessary. Something along the lines of:

"The people have the right to keep and bear firearms for any lawful purpose; in order to better promote the general welfare, the congress has the power to regulate those firearms, and the manner in which they are kept and borne."



After that, wouldn't take much to write a law or 2 that could restrict the firearms the people can legally keep and bear, and how they do so. Like all crimes, make the penalties stiff enough, and people will cough 'em up or if real chance-takers keep 'em hidden forever. Either way would work to severely limit the firearms available (not all - just a lot).

[Starboard Tack]

207. You seem to be in a state of denial. Here are the facts.

MARTIAL LAW
"In the United States, there is precedent for martial law. Several times in the course of our history, martial law of varying degrees has been declared. The most obvious and often-cited example was when President Lincoln declared martial law during the Civil War. This instance provides us with most of the rules for martial law that we would use today, should the need arise."
There have been many instances of the use of the military within the borders of the United States, such as during the Whiskey Rebellion and in the South during the civil rights crises, but these acts are not tantamount to a declaration of martial law. The distinction must be made as clear as that between martial law and military justice: deployment of troops does not necessarily mean that the civil courts cannot function, and that is one of the keys, as the Supreme Court noted, to martial law.
http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_mlaw.html

UK GUN CONTROL
Gun control in the UK obviously works to save lives. 42 gun deaths a year is statistically insignificant. Knife crimes and other crime have no bearing on this. Crimes in the US and UK are reported very differently. A knife crime in the UK could be possession of a switchblade or gravity knife or a razor blade. Knife laws are the strictest of any Western Nation, because those who would inflict injury do not have access to guns. Logically, knife deaths are high and that is why I added them to gun deaths, in fairness to your argument. The sum of both knife and gun deaths is 420, only 10% being gun deaths. Imagine how much higher that figure would be if guns were available.

None of this is based on faith, just facts.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

209. NONE of the examples you presented

indicated suspension of the Constitution "in a heartbeat".

You'll note also, most of them involved outright armed insurrection and the South involved the blatant violation of civil rights by a number of states. Even THOSE events did not justify martial law according to your link.

Simply put ST, you're wrong. Accept it. The Constitution cannot be suspended on a whim.

[Starboard Tack]

211. It wouldn't be on a whim.

It would be locally suspended if people decided to revolt against the government and the law. Once the laws are passed, those who violently opposed the law would be subject to arrest and if they resisted, could well be subject to martial law. It won't happen nationally and it may never happen, but it could.

I see you've dropped the US good, UK bad argument. Had no legs.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

212. Oh good God...

Local implementations of martial law are not a suspension of the Constitution.

The laws you propose would NEVER pass. Not in this life or the next.

I never had the US Good - UK Bad argument. It was you presenting the UK Good - US Bad view.

[Starboard Tack]

213. Any implementation of martial law suspends certain rights.

That is the whole point of it. You may not have experienced it personally, but it doesn't make it less true. It is irrelevant whether it is local or national, imposed by a governor or president or congress. They all have the power and from time to time exercise it. Armed insurrection would be a good reason. We are talking hypothetically, so don't get your knickers in a twist.
You made a fatuous argument that gun control failed to reduce crime in the UK. That statement is on a par with saying the sale of air conditioners helps global warming.

[beevul]

203. Banning is time release confiscation, Plain and simple. N/T

[Starboard Tack]

208. Right and your point is?

It's like hunting is time release massacre.

[beevul]

215. Well, hey at least you admit you were um...dishonest...

Well, hey at least you admit you were um...dishonest, when you wrote:




Banning is not confiscation.


"It's like hunting is time release massacre."

The goal of hunting is NOT to "kill them all". Everyone knows that. So do you.


The goal of BANNING, on the other hand, is to eliminate them all. Everyone knows that. So do you.


Theres a word for intentionally making that sort of comparison, though I reckon I don't need to spell it out. Its obvious enough for anyone that pays attention without me doing so.


Did you really think doing so was clever or something?

Did you? Really?

[Starboard Tack]

216. Do you really not know the difference between the two words.

Banning something means prohibiting it. Making it illegal. If you own it, then you own something subject to being confiscated. That does not imply there would be mass confiscations of weapons by hordes of "blue meanies". You would have ample time to hand in your illegal weapons. If you decide not to, then you would be breaking the law and subject to having them confiscated, should you be caught with them.

Nothing clever about it. But for now, you can relax, at least until the sanity kicks in.

[Atypical Liberal]

182. Absolutely.

Registration of firearms is the line in the sand that I have vowed I would not cross.

Through no action of my own, I would be made a criminal by the passage of any law requiring registration of firearms, as I would not comply.

[SteveM]

113. Why, I'm ready right now! Oh, wait, I thought you meant...

:smoke: :beer:

[nineteen50]

2. Sounds like a great sales pitch for the gun industry.

[Logical]

5. Still waiting for your intelligent answer!

[cleanhippie]

81. So you have no intelligent response to the OP at all?

No ideas, no plan. Just a fear of guns?

[HockeyMom]

3. Take away the ammo

All those guns will be useless without ammo.

[Logical]

7. Well, I bet there are 2 billion rounds of ammo in homes now.

[PavePusher]

24. And what about home garage machine-shops?

Turning new brass is a pain in the ass to set up, but once you have a few machines configured...

Bullets and powder are trivial exercises by comparison.

The actual difficulty would be primer manufacture. Guess we'd better start by outlawing... basic chemistry.

[spin]

53. I used to reload a box of .38 special rounds up to 30 times.

That's 1500 rounds from 50 cases. Of course these were light target loads.

I would reload .357 magnum cases 5 times and then use a reduced load and reload them another 10 times.

I all need is primers and powder. I can cast bullets if necessary. Many reloaders have a considerable supply of these items stocked away.

[friendly_iconoclast]

56. No can do, it would impinge upon the Second Amendment rights of gun owners

In Star v. Minnesota Department of Revenue the Supremes held that a tax on printer's ink impinged on the First Amendment
rights of newspapers (the "Star"). Same with poll taxes.

[rl6214]

60. I make my own

Got another plan?

[Fumesucker]

6. Lynyrd Skynyrd suggested dumping them in the ocean..

That works for me.

:hi:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sg56EJvw1Do&feature=fvst

[Logical]

9. Good one!

[Katya Mullethov]

17. It was " dump all the people "

"To the bottom of the sea .
Before some old fool come around here ,
and wanna shoot at you or me ."

Even as a child I recognized that as sarcasm , but their idealistic naivete escaped me for a bit longer .

[Ready4Change]

39. The lyrics go...

"So why don't we dump 'em people
To the bottom of the sea.
Before some fool come around here,
Wanna shoot either you or me."

I think it was meant to read "So why don't we dump them, people?" Them being the guns.

[PavePusher]

26. The Brits did that already.

The ungrateful fucks.

[Starboard Tack]

91. Isn't that amazing, they dumped their guns

and we got ours to protect ourselves from becoming like them. Ah, such irony. Maybe we'll catch up in another couple of hundred years.

[Tejas]

158. "to protect ourselves from becoming like them"

Do you have a passport?

[Starboard Tack]

185. Used to have Rodeo. Same thing only with an Isuzu badge

[We_Have_A_Problem]

159. I seem to remember...

...we had a little argument with them about 235 years ago because we didn't WANT to be like them.

You have every right in the world to want to live in a country which does not allow private ownership of weapons except under rigidly controlled circumstances. I applaud you for being so forthright in that conviction.

You also have every right in the world to move to one of those nations. The US has little to no chance of becoming the utopia you seek in your lifetime - or even your grandkids' lifetimes.

[Starboard Tack]

186. My argument is not for me. I'm fine. It's for those who come into contact with the gun culture

[oneshooter]

166. Yea, we supply them with our personal weapons for them to protect there island with.

And when the war is over do they return them? NO, they dump them into the North Sea.

Oneshooter
Armed and livin in Texas

[rfranklin]

8. More guns are needed...everyone must carry!

Just think if everyone in that place had pulled out their pieces and started blasting...It would have been so cool, like the end of Taxi Driver!

[cleanhippie]

82. Fortunately, here in the real world, that doesn't happen.

So I guess it's safe to say you have no ideas at all?

[rfranklin]

92. Now that's a very deep thought...

you must be a member of MENSA.

[cleanhippie]

94. And you're not, that's evident.

So two questions posed to you, and no intelligent responses, only childish quips.

[rfranklin]

99. Wow, you sure have a high opinion of yourself...

you throw out insults and think they are intelligent discussion.

[cleanhippie]

107. Uhm, YOU are the one throwing insults. Perhaps just addressing the topic

Instead of trying to be clever would be better.

Here's your chance. Start over and address the OP with an intelligent response.


Can you?

[cleanhippie]

172. I guess he can't. How expected.

[SteveM]

114. "Bar-ROOM! went the elephant in the cave." nt

[onehandle]

10. Gun Control = 'getting rid of guns'

Sound like somebody is really convinced by GOPNRAFOXNEWS propaganda.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

16. +1

gun control=responsible gun ownership/management (hence the word, "control").

[LAGC]

22. As if that's not your eventual goal.

All baby steps lead to the same end-game...

[onehandle]

25. Vegetarianism and trains running on time lead to jews being shoved in ovens.

Clearly.

[LAGC]

28. Good one.

Be honest with me though, if you had your way, you're get rid of all guns, wouldn't you?

With as many anti-gun articles as you always post?

I think even you know Gun Control doesn't stop gun crime, only getting rid of them all would.

And then we'd have lots more knife-crime instead.

[safeinOhio]

23. +2

It's all black and white when you are dealing in ideology.

[krispos42]

105. Are the gun control laws you want to see passed...

...likely to achieve a specific, stated goal?

Are you simply waging a cultural war against those you dislike?

Are pressing ahead on a social ideology?

[liberal N proud]

11. This thread is nothing more than fishing for a fight.

Now you can reply with a witty remark looking for my answer.

[fascisthunter]

15. .

as someone on DU once said, "Let it sink"....

[Logical]

29. No, that might be the reason you post. But we are not all like you.

[cleanhippie]

83. So you simply HAVE no answer, so instead reply with a witty remark?

[SteveM]

116. ummm, a little projection? Looks like it...

Actually, the OP does present a dilemma to the gun-controller/prohibitionist: How can they effect bans, in the light of failed social engineering like prohibitionism. And yes, I think behind most "controllers" is a prohibitionist who are getting what they can for now, but seek a total ban. They just are honest about it.

[MannyGoldstein]

12. Mandatory 18-month sentence for illegal posession

Works well in Massachusetts.

[spin]

54. I'm all for future gun control being targeted on criminals rather than ...

honest responsible gun owners.

[friendly_iconoclast]

59. Please ignore that triple murder in Lawrence and the cop shot in Woburn.

The first yesterday, the second this morning....

[MannyGoldstein]

61. Don't ignore it at all. Add it into the total stats.

And the stats say that Mass has a very low rate of firearms deaths. Much lower thaan NH. for example.

[slackmaster]

76. For 2009, MA's murder rate was 2.9 per 100,000. NH's was 0.8

According to the source I speed-Googled up, it appears that New Hampshire had the lowest murder rate of all the 50 states. So it seems a little odd to me that MannyGoldstein would choose it to compare with Massachusetts - Over the years New Hampshire's murder rate has been pretty consistently lower. The demographics and socioeconomic stratification of the populations of those two states are quite different, their physical proximity notwithstanding.

I'm not sure what relevance the "rate of firearms deaths" has to anything that matters, such as the likelihood of being able to live your life in peace and not be murdered.

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/murder-rates-nationally-and-state

[MannyGoldstein]

124. Please re-read: I said *firearms deaths*, not murder rate.

Good luck.

[slackmaster]

126. Your turn to re-read. I asked you what relevance the "rate of firearms deaths" has...

...to anything.

It's a bullshit, meaningless factoid.

[MannyGoldstein]

127. So, deaths due to firearms have nothing to do with firearms?

I think I'm missing your point.

[slackmaster]

131. You have failed to make any connection between long prison sentences for illegally possessed...

...firearms, and anything else that really matters.

[MannyGoldstein]

148. I've made a connection between strict gun laws and fewer gun deaths

Mandatory prison sentences haven't ended gun deaths, but they are quite low - second lowest in the country.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

154. No, you really havent.

What you've done is demonstrated that a state which has had historically low crime in general has fewer crimes involving firearms. The fact that they have strict gun laws is hardly the sole discriminating factor.

VT has the lowest crime rate involving firearms in the nation and has the most lax gun laws, which rather blows your theory completely apart.

Correlation does not equal causation. Back to statistics class with you.

[MannyGoldstein]

164. Hawaii has strong gun laws too, and they have the lowest gun death rate of all

That said, you're right that I haven't disproved the hypothesis that lax gun control leads to more deaths. One of us should at least look at how it correlates.

[friendly_iconoclast]

168. That's because they don't have much of a crime problem. Compare them with Jamaica

Horrible crime problem and horrible gun death rate.

[slackmaster]

156. Not really. Correlation does not prove causation. You haven't made a logical link at all.

And what use is a "quite low" gun death rate when the MURDER rate is not any lower than states with higher gun death rates?

[We_Have_A_Problem]

132. Is someone more dead if they are shot rather than stabbed? n/t

[X_Digger]

129. You're less dead if a firearm wasn't involved, obviously, *snort* n/t

[GreenStormCloud]

167. So some one stabbed to death isn't a dead as someone shot to death? N/T

[slackmaster]

77. Please tell us what criteria you used to come to the conclustion that MA's law "works well"

Massachusetts has crime rates that are generally lower than most, but not spectacularly so and not impressive at all when compared with rates for other states in that region.

[MannyGoldstein]

125. We have a low rate of *firearms deaths*

Most deaths from firearms are not due to crime. They are also very efficient for accidental deaths and suicides.

MA has the second-lowest rate in the nation: http://www.statemaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir-death-rate-per-100-000

[slackmaster]

130. Correlation does not prove causation, and long prison sentences for illegally possessed firearms...

...is a different subject altogether.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

138. So?

You have an overall low crime rate. It follows that you would have fewer firearms used in crimes.

[gejohnston]

174. true most are due to suicide but

Japan and Russia have fewer gun deaths than the US. Japan's suicide rate is higher than our murder rate and suicide rate combined. Of course since Japan counts murder/suicides as the everyone committing suicide (which is not infrequent) the numbers are deflated/inflated respectively by our definition.
Russia's murder rate is over three times ours. Do you think gun laws deter suicides? Nonsense.
You may not realize it on a conscious level, but it sounds like gun control is less about saving lives or making the world a better place than it is some culture war.

[SteveM]

117. Yeah, that cleared up murders, armed robbery, drive-bys, nt

[LonePirate]

13. Start with a massive gun sales tax and then institute a federal buy back program.

Add a mandatory registration process for each gun purchased and enforce strict and harsh sentences for any instance of an illegally sold gun.

We have to start getting the guns off the streets and out of the idiots (most Americans) who would use them.

[PavePusher]

30. Utterly Unconstitutional, of course.

Good luck with that...

[Name removed]

34. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[oneshooter]

32. Again, How would you pay for them? n/t

[LonePirate]

35. The program pays for itself with reduced health costs and increased public safety.

Associating costs with a matter of public good is a despicable Republican tactic. Deficit spend as needed to pay for this approach.

[spin]

55. Mexico has very strict gun control ...

and the drug cartels have no problem getting far more lethal weapons than are sold in Mom and Pop gun stores in the U.S. They acquire them from the Mexican military and nations in South America as well as some that are smuggled in from the United States (many with the help of the ATF).

[rrneck]

36. Tax people so we can use their own money to buy their guns

from them.

Hey, it worked for the bankers.

[PavePusher]

37. You might want to check your facts.

Case law says taxing a Civil Right is not kosher. We even have an Amendment specifically outlawing the poll tax.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=460&page=588

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

I don't believe your idea would pass the courts with those two examples for evidence.

Edit: And a federal registry of firearms is currently illegal, and also probably wouldn't pass muster, as the courts have specifically ruled that criminals don't have to register their firearms.

[cleanhippie]

84. Is it safe to say that you are included in that gouping of "most Americans?"

[oneshooter]

97. So you believe that "most Americans" are idiots? Should they be allowed to vote?. n/t

[midnight]

14. Have you been listening to the Fast and Furious nonsense...

That govt. program seems to loose them fast and furiously...

[Katya Mullethov]

80. I hope to find one

The crown jewel of any collection .

It's obtaining proof of provenance that is proving difficult , FOIA proof in fact . Maybe if I were a paid informant I would have better luck ?

[Mojambo]

18. Strawman. n/t

[-..__...]

19. Anyone willing to get rid of theirs...

PM me... I'll gladly take them off your hands.

:-)

[adhd_what_huh]

20. stupid question...you know we can't. What is your point.

[Logical]

27. Then why all the debate?

[xchrom]

21. Because there is a lot of a thing doesnt

Mean that thing shouldn't be regulated.

& that you shouldn't go to jail if you have that thing.

[oneshooter]

33. How do you plan to pay for them ?

[xchrom]

42. How is any thing that's regulated paid for? Nt

[oneshooter]

48. You tell me. It is your Idea. n/t

[TreasonousBastard]

38. Take them away at gunpoint.

[PavePusher]

40. Why are you advocating another Civil War? n/t

[oneshooter]

41. And you are willing to volunteer to do it? n/t

[spin]

57. Do you want to volunteer for the job as a member of the new Gestapo?

If so you are not very bright or you have big balls.

edited for typo

[TreasonousBastard]

58. Pssst! Over here...

I knew I'd catch someone if I didn't put the "sarcasm" thingy in.

[PavePusher]

179. Hook, line and sinker, eh...

Well played.

Unfortunately, there have been people here who advocated exactly that. And proposed having it done by our neighboring nations militarys.

So, yeah, the sarcasm tag would have helped.

But again, well played. :toast:

[DissedByBush]

65. I have a proven method

1. Publicity campaign showing how armed citizens are endangering the company -- check

2. Require each person to turn in a firearm regardless of whether one is owned. This means people who don't have one must obtain one from somewhere and turn it in, making the clean-up even more effective. Not turning one in means jail.

There you go. It worked.

Oh yeah, I forgot step 3:

3. Round up all the undesirable people you disarmed and kill them.

The Armenians in Turkey, the first victims of the classic disarmament/genocide combo in the 20th Century.

[ileus]

43. Only allow single shot 20ga shotguns.... allow an exchange period or disable existing firearms.

[oneshooter]

49. How do you pay for them. That damn Fifth Amendment thing, again!

[Hoyt]

44. Might as well start thinking long-term and not let manufacturers make 100 million more while we

pander to those who think weapons in public are desirable, and who keep buying more and more guns to add to their caches in the hopes they can make a profit in private sales that bypass background checks and other controls.

[oneshooter]

51. And how would you do that? n/t

[spin]

62. In reality to do this you will have to do away with our form of government ...

and install a dictatorship.

Currently the political reality is that even when the Democrats, many of whom support draconian gun laws, had control of the Senate and the House and the Presidency, they didn't even try to pass another assault weapons ban.

There are at least 80 million gun owners in this nation and many others have a distrust of government and would oppose any effort to stop the sale of firearms in our nation, The 80 million gun owners and their supporters would show up at the polls to vote any politician who supported your idea out of office.

Plus the Supreme Court with their current history of supporting the Second Amendment would overturn your law.

Of course, if you installed a dictatorship, you would definitely risk a rebellion. If you believe that the Amerasian military would happily support a dictatorship in such a situation, you are a bigger fool than I current think you are. I have a feeling that the military would overthrow a dictatorship in a heartbeat.

[Hoyt]

66. Maybe if you gunners could quit your bad gun habit, we wouldn't have to take tougher measures.

[spin]

70. So do your "tougher measures" include doing away with our representative democracy ...

and replacing it with a dictatorship as I suggested?

[Hoyt]

74. Who said anything about doing away with "representative democracy?"

But, "we" (ie, society) need to understand that arming up is no way to survive/progress in the 21st century.

[spin]

103. My post which you replied to ...

The title was "In reality to do this you will have to do away with our form of government...and install a dictatorship."

edited for typo

[cleanhippie]

85. Maybe if you anti-gunners could quit your fallcious posting habits, we could actually discuss it.

You were asked a direct question, and you dodged with some more typical bullshit about people's personalities because you lack the ability to think critically, it would appear.


Your posts are intellectually dishonest, incoherent, sophomoric, and boring.

[Hoyt]

118. Why waste time responding to a poster's comment about having to do away with our form of govt?

We don't have to do away with our form of government to restrict guns to the militia, LE, and a few people who can prove the need to strap one or two to their bodies in public.

Better clutch yours tight, because the day is coming where the 96% who can do without or leave them at home are going to start questioning whether we should allow guns in public.

[SteveM]

119. And what constitutes a "bad gun habit?"...

I have seven arms, and may get an additional one. Most are used regularly. I'm curious, what other "bad habits" can you identify that require tough measures, or at least continued present policies? Don't leave out drugs, cigarettes, booze, whoring, or other nasty things.

[Tejas]

160. Maybe if you gave a flying rat's a$$ about actual criminals instead of

making instant criminals out've law-abiding citizens then somebody might listen to you.

[ileus]

64. Hopefully we can exceed 500mil...I have 30 more at least to add to the collection.

adding 3-5 a year I need at least another 10 years worth of production.


Of course most of mine are bought private sales, but still I need another 10 or so years of legal production.

[Hoyt]

67. I bet you do. At a minimum, we need to stop private sales without background checks through an FFL.

[spin]

115. I have no problem with that idea ...

as long as the cost is reasonable and no gun registration, beyond what a dealer would do for a new firearm he sold, is involved.

I also support better financing the NICS background check to insure that the names of felons and those who have been legally adjudged as having a disqualifying mental illness are input into the system in a more timely manner.

You can rant and rave all you want about honest citizens with a carry permit packing heat and you will accomplish nothing.

Improving the NICS background check and requiring it to be used for all private sales have a better chance of success and would save lives.

[DissedByBush]

45. They have a chicken/egg problem

The most effective way would be to institute a totalitarian police state and seize them all.

And then they have the added benefit of finally running that totalitarian police state they've always wanted.

Their problem is that it is those guns that would prevent them from instituting such a police state in the first place.

[spin]

63. Exactly. (n/t)

[Hoyt]

68. Maybe gunners ought to step up and do something about this mess. I definitely won't hold my breath.

[DissedByBush]

75. That we don't have a totalitarian police state is a "mess"?

We don't plan on doing anything about that, except trying to keep it from happening.

You go ahead and keep promoting one though.

[Name removed]

87. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SteveM]

121. The vast majority of "gunners" don't make messes. Da thugs do. nt

[kestrel91316]

46. I'm not aware of ANYONE who is proposing to get rid of every gun in the country.

But carry on with those drug-induced hallucinations......

[slackmaster]

47. Yes, they'll always make exceptions for guns in the hands of government employees

If they respond at all.

[oneshooter]

50. I always thought that "ban them all" meant just that. Guess that I was wrong. n/t

[Hoyt]

69. Restrict them in public will help. You guys can do what you want with your guns at home.

[rrneck]

71. You may be the only

other truly universal constant in creation.

Don't ever change Hoyt. I don't think I could take it.

[Hoyt]

73. When you lay down your guns, talk/post to me about "change."

[rrneck]

78. I dont carry.

And I told you to never change.

[Name removed]

162. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[iverglas]

199. and what the fuck is the deal here?

If this poster is referring to the claim that Dianne Feinstein stated that she wanted to BAN ALL GUNS, then he needs to step up to the plate and prove that claim.

That claim is a LIE. Hell, maybe he doesn't know it's a lie, but it is a lie. It is a lie told by right-wing gun militants about an elected Democrat.

I don't know why else this poster would be using the expression "ban them all", in quotation marks, in this context, but maybe it's supposed to mean something else. The poster needs to explain what it means. Whom is he quoting?

I think it's a reference to Dianne Feinstein. If I'm wrong, this poster is free to let me know. It's not my problem if he uses or claims to use the stupid "ignore" function; if people don't want to participate in discussion on a discussion forum, they should click on by, is my opinion, but they most definitely are not granted impunity by using it. He's made a statement, and I'm challenging it, and it is not MY post that is the problem here.

I'm sick to death of this false claim about an elected Democrat being made at this website, and I will say so when I please, as I have done several dozen times in the past.

Here's me refuting the big lie back in 2004:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=90203#91648

You see, even the NRA fills in the blanks thus:

http://www.clintongunban.com/Articles.aspx?i=59&a=Artic

"If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban <on "assault weapons">, picking up every one of them, Mr. and Mrs. America turn them all in, I would have done it."

So would you maybe agree that someone who writes the quotation in question thus:

On CBS's "60 Minutes" on February 5, 1995, Senator Dianne Feinstein declared, "If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright <firearms> ban, picking up every one of them, Mr. and Mrs. America turn them all in, I would have done it."

is, oh, a lying sack of shit?

Or heck, maybe it was a reference to the statement by US Representative Mel Reynolds (another Democrat) in December 1993: "If it were up to me we'd ban them all." Anybody who wants to prove that HE was not talking about assault weapons as defined in the 1994 legislation is free to do that too.

Oh look.

http://www.gettyimages.ca/detail/50598192?Language=en-US

Lovely picture there:

Title: Dianne Feinstein; Charles E. Schumer; Mel Reynolds
Caption: Rep. Schumer (NY) (R), ldr. in assault weapons ban, raising linked hands w. Dem. colleagues Sen. Feinstein (CA) & Rep. Reynolds (IL) after House vote favoring ban. (Photo by Terry Ashe//Time Life Pictures/Getty Images)
Date created: 04 May 1994

Was he saying "ban all guns"? I don't think so. In fact, I have no doubt he was not.


So I give up, and I want to know: who said this "ban them all" that you are quoting?

And if it was either of those individuals, why are you propagating the falsehood that they were saying "ban all guns" when they were NOT saying that?

[Logical]

201. Calm down!

[Name removed]

210. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

122. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[krispos42]

178. Magical fairly dust and liberal use of the phrase "pretty pretty please".

Perhaps a touch of powdered unicorn horn in the water supply...

[iverglas]

198. so what the fuck is the deal here?

Seriously: what is the deal?

The OP asks an IGNORANT question LOADED WITH A FALSE premise:

Once again, how would the pro-gun control people get rid 300 million guns at this point?

and I point out this FACT and ... ?

WHO is proposing to "get rid of 300 million guns at this point"?

NOBODY. Not one single "pro-gun control" person. Nobody.

So my question was: why would anybody even bother responding to an incivil question like this?

The only correct response is: Mu. Reject the damned question for what it is: demagoguery. Do not buy into its ridiculous false premise, do not dignify it with a response of any kind.

[beevul]

205. Yeah, not one. /sarcasm

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3219869

http://www.google.com/#sclient=psy&hl=en&source=hp&q=%22ban+all+guns%22&pbx=1&oq=%22ban+all+guns%22&aq=f&aqi=g1g-v4&aql=1&gs_sm=s&gs_upl=1602l4815l0l7563l14l13l0l0l0l0l342l2675l0.5.6.1l12l0&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=2ea25270560d40fb&biw=1459&bih=829

And, I just know you'd like to play semantic games now, and claim nobody who is "pro control" is a gun ban supporter.


I'll buy that for a dollar... :eyes:

[iverglas]

206. snork

A DU thread from April 2007 by someone I at least have never heard of (with a concealed profile) who did not return to their little outburst. Snork. Had to dig deep, did you?

For the rest: snork. Google results for ban all guns.

Adding Feinstein to your search terms knocks out about 5,000 of those results.

Making the search term they want to ban all guns knocks out another 17,000+.

Your results also include things, right in the top few, like a youtube entitled "#7 Ban All Guns- Quick Questions For Gun Control Advocates" and other neat stuff like "So, if we ban all guns, how are you going to protect yourself?" (in response to "Ban all (hand)guns!"). Oooh, and from foxnews: "Let's Face It, Chicago's Mayor Richard Daley Wants To Ban Guns"!

Then there's the one apparently intended as tongue-in-cheek from the guy who styles himself "patriotic rebel - Political discourse with a rebel attitude towards the current administration in America. Obama needs to go. I believe in the Constitution, not socialism / marxism / communism - the Obama agenda."

:rofl:

I liked the result about 4 from the top in that last set of results:

http://www.lemonlawsforusedcars.org/why-are-liberals-for-an-all-out-ban-on-guns/

Why are liberals for an all out ban on guns?

... When will you Conservatives actually show us quotes from liberals saying that all guns should be confiscated? As far as I can see this issue is nothing more then conservative BS!

... I would like to see quotes from Liberals saying they want to ban all guns. My husband owns guns, he spent 20 yrs in the Marine Corps. Don’t make generalizations that are blatantly false. Thanks.

[beevul]

214. Chew on this cud, my dear.

"WHO is proposing to "get rid of 300 million guns at this point"?"

"NOBODY. Not one single "pro-gun control" person. Nobody."



Those are YOUR words. No qualifiers. No context. Flat bold absolute statements, they are. And they're obviously INCORRECT.

And you knew that when you posted them.



Your words.

Let us all know how they taste.