I Guess I do Want Your Guns

Our government very clearly does NOT see itself as "omnipotent".

And, here I thought gun owers believed in the rule of law!

When you buy your next gun, I suggest you keep your disdain for the law under wraps.

 

The American people aren't aware of the current gun laws. So, asking them about new gun laws is stupid.

The polls should educate the ignorant populace about the over 20,000 gun laws that already do exist and then when the ignorant populace is well informed on the existing gun laws, then ask the stupid poll question again.

 

Not that far off

We were on track to mimic your mass shooting carnage prior to the buy back. We had had one mass shooting per year for roughly 13 years (including bikie gang blowouts)

In the 23 years since we have had exactly 3 incidents fitting the FBI criteria. Two were family ideas and ONE was gang related

Meantime the frequency and mortality of mass shootings has risen in the USA

 

I believe in the rule of law until that law becomes tyrannical. Then I no longer believe in its authority, and will actively resist and disobey it.

 

I don't believe that's really much help.

Every one of the existing gun laws can be removed or superceded.

We need a solution, and whether the solution includes anything that exists today isn't a decided issue as far as I'm concerned.

A much larger problem is that we don't have as much data on the actual issue as we should. With auto safety and air safety we have dedicated professionals in our government working on safety, identifying issues, proposing solutions, etc.

We don't have that for gun safety.

We don't even have gun discharge records by our police forces!

If we took gun safety seriously we wouldn't be doing what we're doing today - refusing to discuss it in congress, because it's "too soon"(!!!), making crazy gun categories to restrict in order to make it look like something is being done, consulting with the totally corrupt NRA that has no interest in public safety as if THEY have something to add, etc.

 

There are over 20,000 gun laws in the United States and all of them are unconstitutional.

 

Incrementalism is how the country got so divided and then realized it suddenly.

 

That's ridiculous, of course.

The objective is to reduce the number of people we kill each year with guns.

And, Beto wants to buy back AK style weapons that have no valid civilian purpose, but have been used repeatedly in heinous crimes involving numerous deaths.

 

I'm not sure what your point is here.

Are you suggesting we should weigh legislation by the number of pounds of paper it would take to print them?

I've already pointed out that it's entirely possible that large numbers of these laws might be eliminated given smart legislation oriented to reducing the count of those shot dead in America.

Yet you still pump this one number you found.

 

Which part may I ask you is ridiculous?
-The part about banning the guns without which the mandatory buy back "aka confiscation" is meaningless?

Or the slippery slope part about the dems constantly "evolving"
-from affirmative actions to reparations
-from amnesty to open borders
-from economic safety net to full-fledged socialism
-from gay marriages to the existence of 100 genders
-and lest we forget, from gun background checks to bans and confiscations

One has to completely disconnect one's mental faculties to believe that this Democratic gun confiscation will be the end of their anti-gun jihad and not just the first step, and that the dems won't be back on the warpath demanding more bans and more confiscations 20 minutes after this first step goes into effect.

 

Buy back programs are not confiscation. When a branch of government confiscates something from you, it does not pay you for it.

The objective is safety for American civilians. That is a VERY common objective.

If something is tried and it doesn't work, there absolutely will be further efforts.

That's HOW IT WORKS!

When the border security doesn't work, we find further solutions.
When airplanes crash, we find further solutions (which is why it is so amazingly safe).
When auto deaths are high, we work to make driving more safe.
When we perceive that our military isn't good enough in some way, we spend billions to improve it.

In ALL these cases, if the result isn't good enough, we work on further improvement.

NONE of our efforts come with a promise that we will NEVER improve. NONE of our solutions is calculated to be a "final solution". We ALWAYS work incrementally for numerous very important reasons.


I hope this helps you understand how a democratic government works toward solving problems.

 

Glad we agree on something for once, it's the slippery slope I was talking about, it has absolutely zero chance of even a miniscule success so the Democrats will continue confiscating more and more types of guns until the population is completely disarmed. It still won't reduce gun crime but the democrat real goal it to get all guns and this real goal will be accomplished.

About that.... mandatory "buy backs" ARE confiscations.... just like "path to citizenship" IS amnesty... Just like no border enforcement and no punishment for illegal border crossing IS open borders.

What you are selling here is just silly semantics and hair-splitting. Good luck finding a buyer.

 

Working to decrease the number of dead Americans is absolutely NOT a slippery slope.

Would you consider our military a slippery slope? Our air transport safety? Auto safety?

And, a "path to citizenship" does NOT imply amnesty - though I think you're confusing issues.

 

If they are mandatory, it is confiscation. You are being compelled by law, not 'selling' by choice. It's involuntary. Using the force of law to force you to part with your property. No amount of 'payment' changes that.

 

Jeez.
1. gun confiscation will not decrease the number of dead americans as only law-abiding citizens will comply with it. It will though drastically increase the power of the government which is the real goal of the exceedingly intolerant and totalitarian Democrat party.

2. path to citizenship constitutes a rewards for a committed crime and is thus an absolute and undeniable amnesty, your boring semantics and hair-splitting notwithstanding.

 

Oh, but notice -- you have utterly FAILED to make your case concerning why any of us -- who aren't "criminals and crazies" -- should be forbidden to own the self-defense weapon that EACH OF US feels is needed to defend ourselves from the kind of corrupted, sick, perverted, dangerous society that radical Democrats have foisted on all of us!

Look -- you are more than welcome to sit utterly DEFENSELESS in the comfort of your own home... just make damned sure you leave the vast majority of the rest of us -- who are blameless, law-abiding citizens and taxpayers -- ALONE! Now do you "got it"...?! I can't make it any plainer than that!

It's too damn bad that it has come to this, and you may be sure that NOBODY wants "criminals and crazies" to have any weapons at all. But if THEY have them, it is madness and insanity for the rest of us NOT to be able to possess them legally![/QUOTE]

 

You have to get substantially more moderated in your approach here, as your extremism makes your arguments ridiculous.

 

A buyback of AK style weapons will certainly make it less trivial for white supremacists to acquire that weapon for killing people in synagogues, in shopping malls, etc.

Amnesty does NOT imply that the receiver of the amnesty has no requirements they must fulfill.

More importantly, we use amnesty in every state of our republic, and for very good reason. The idea that we suddenly can't use amnesty anymore is way beyond ridiculous.

 

Since Chicago has a gun violence issue, I suggest that y'all start there. Please get back to us with the results...

 

I agree that laws should be different in different places.

If you're in Wyoming, I'm not so sure there is an issue at all.

The catch is two fold. Chicago is not allowed to make its own gun laws. And, guns can be brought in from the surrounding area.

If you want to allow each city to make its own laws on guns, I might just support you on that change.

 

How? You really think the government is going to offer more than the market rate for these weapons? I doubt it. Why would most people sell their weapons?

I sure as hell wouldn’t sell mine unless I made a big profit. Then I would use that profit to purchase a better firearm.

 

Yes, I am aware that gun owners have priorities they see as more important than the law.

So, we can't expect them to remain legal - which IS one of the problems.

 

Just because it is legal doesn’t make it right. When my rights are violated, the law no longer applies. Germans blindly followed the law in ww2. They disarmed their people too.

 

Since when did Beto speak for anyone but Beto?

 

If we took gun safety seriously we would have schools taking kids to the gun range to teach them gun safety.

All the ideas you have talked about are garbage and are exactly the kind of things we do not need.