Returned in utterly unusable condition. Most were rusted solid, having been purposefully left in ways guaranteed to let the elements destroy them. Many people had family heirlooms destroyed, and collections worth tens of thousands of dollars were reduced to worthless junk.
From the OP: Hinting that it could happen here. Thus my comment, "As a gun owner, I'm kind of surprised that this old myth that America is threatened by a total gun ban, rather silly. This shows a lack of common sense."
Common sense died in this country when liberals started co-opting it’s meaning. As for a total gun ban... it has been floated by many on the left from time to time, but unlikely to get enough of a concensus to gain realistic traction nationally with the required votes.
There were plenty of lawsuits about it. A guy I know personally had a collection of valuable firearms that were confiscated, and by the time all of the lawsuits had been settled and he got them back it turns out they'd been thrown haphazardly in 55 gallon barrels and then left in simple cargo containers with out any kind of environmental protection. In the high humidity of SE Louisiana, they rusted into useless blocks of steel. This was the experience of most of the gun owners in LA after Katrina. http://www.theshootist.net/2008/12/court-decision-on-new-orleans-gun.html https://dailycaller.com/2015/08/24/...confiscation-can-and-has-happened-in-america/
If democrats had their way it would be a reality which is why we can't let them get the power they covet.
Boy, you're all over the map. First, it's no one said anyone would ban all guns, now you're saying they would if given the chance. Which is it?
Well, these days when I hear or see the idiom ‘common sense’ used, particularly by liberals, I do translate it to ‘common myth’, so yes. That idiom has lost it’s historic meaning when applied these days, not unlike many others such as ‘reasonable’, ‘assault weapon’, ‘rational’, ‘gun safety laws’, ‘fully semi automatic’, ‘gun deaths’, ‘liberty’ and many more. Do I think there are advocates on the left for banning certain weapons and imposing sever restrictions on others or that would deceive voters of their intentions? Yes. Many have been caught on tape revealing their intentions. Recently Clair McCaskill was unveiled, https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/oct/15/project-veritas-video-claire-mccaskill-hides-gun-c/ It’s little wonder that many gun owners feel threatened. Do I think these efforts will be successful? Not without great difficulty; even when gun control sentiment was at it’s highest there was little chance the 2nd was threatened and more and more of the population is becoming skeptical of the left, a trend I think will continue for some time to come despite the MSM’s support of the left’s goals. Americans are funny about their rights; despite many support for gun control occalating with the MSM fixation with overhyped events, they will not give up their RKBA any more than they will free speech.
Not really. A couple of guys I knew in the Border Patrol were part of the post-storm buildup of law enforcement trying to restore order after Katrina, and they told me how when the higher ups started talking about confiscations a lot of LEOs expressed resistance to it. So, when they wanted to send out people to confiscate guns they sent officers from New York or New Jersey or California who were okay with draconian gun control and believed rights were nothing but readily revocable privileges.
Chaos, of the kind Katrina produced in New Orleans, coupled with people walking around with guns, or arming themselves as a way to resist forced evacuation, is not a good idea. I would think a former LEO would understand that. Because they did a sh*ty job caring for the guns they took is not a reason not to do it.
A total gun ban today is unrealistic, what gun owners today are concerned about is the slow and never ending erosion of our rights until that ban is reached through legislation, bypassing the Constitution completely. Next time a gun grabber proposes something ask them if that's it. Its never it, it never ends with them...
I understand and agree that some are looking to whittle away at firearms until there are few people left who are allowed to own what little firearms are still available. However, most are not that way. For example, extreme left winger Bernie Sanders is from liberal gun laws Vermont. I tend to agree with him in that we all need to relax on the extreme positions. If the NRA had taken that approach 25 or so years ago I believe the debate and experimental gun control laws would all be over by now and we'd left with a position leaning strongly towards the pro 2nd amendment crowd's position
There simply is no middle ground any more. Any infringement is one too many, even ones that could make sense must be opposed. I have never met a gun grabber that didn't want more. The infringements have been stacking up for the last hundred years or so, it can't be allowed to continue if future generations are to have the rights the Founders' created...
Nonsense. You're not using your head. The idea is to keep your guns not to continue a debate that doesn't need to be had. If you keep up that view of yours you'll only lose more guns.
No, you are willing to surrender to people who will take more, and every surrender is one step closer to the loss of our freedoms and rights...
Oh BS. The idea is to keep your guns not to continue a debate that doesn't need to be had. If you keep up that view of yours you'll only lose more guns.
You're not thinking clearly. What you will or will not accept has just become irrelevant. The way you handle this is to make those who want to ban some guns feel like they have input. After that, you negotiate with your eye on keeping the 2nd amendment intact by sacrificing something that is, in reality, insignificant to upending that purpose. It would be very easy to do and finally close the book on this debate.
Even if they say it is, come the next shooting they will be right back demanding more and more and more. Nelson Shields III, Co-Founder Handgun Control Inc. “I’m convinced that we have to have federal legislation to build on. We’re going to have to take one step at a time, and the first step is necessarily — given the political realities — going to be very modest. Of course, it’s true that politicians will then go home and say, ‘This is a great law. The problem is solved.’ And it’s also true that such statements will tend to defuse the gun-control issue for a time. So then we’ll have to strengthen that law, and then again to strengthen that law, and maybe again and again. Right now, though, we’d be satisfied not with half a loaf but with a slice. Our ultimate goal — total control of handguns in the United States — is going to take time. My estimate is from seven to ten years. The problem is to slow down the increasing number of handguns sold in this country. The second problem is to get them all registered. And the final problem is to make the possession of all handguns and all handgun ammunition — except for the military, policemen, licensed security guards, licensed sporting clubs, and licensed gun collectors — totally illegal.”
