Total Gun Ban: A Question

To those in favor of total gun bans, since those coincidentally tend to be Democrat: let’s say for a second that happened, and even for the sake of argument let’s say all guns were just gone. Magic wand, whatever, but there are now zero guns left in America

Question: What good is that if you are not willing to secure the border?

All we will have is exactly what we have now with the flow of drugs, which is to say guns will flow into the black market from foreign suppliers and get snapped up by the criminals here who will use them on an American public with zero fear they will be able to defend themselves.

How do you guys want to fight foreign drugs? Oh that’s right, by legalizing them. How ironic. Sure, we’ll still have drug addiction and death but it won’t be so bad because of government regulation. So by that logic we should keep guns legal here too because sure we’ll have shootings too but it won’t be as bad because of government regulation? Exactly what we have now?

A gun ban and 2nd amendment burning with zero reconciling of border security is simply absurd to the point of idiocy. Thankfully I don’t believe this will ever happen. Indeed, with the high crime and lawlessness Democrats have wreaked on this country, the need for people, particularly women, to be able to defend their homes and their families has never been more poignant.

 

A different but better way of saying if you outlaw guns only the outlaws will have guns.

 

I believe I'm the only one in this forum who is for a total ban of all guns. And since I am a Democrat, I guess your statement about we tending to be Democrats appears to be technically correct. Though not in any real significant way.

So I'll try answering your question. I believe you are asking how to control guns from coming in through the southern border.

First of all, you make an inaccurate assumption: that there is no control over the southern border. There sure is! A lot! Nothing is 100% secure. But contraband is as controlled as it CAN be without causing a supply chain crisis like the one Greg Abbot created. This means that the existing controls are enough to make any smuggled goods extremely expensive.

As for guns... you DO know, I hope, that Mexico doesn't manufacture guns. The flow of guns is from the U.S. to Mexico. Not the other way around. But let's assume you mean that guns could be sent to Mexico, and then smuggled into the United States..... Do you understand how much that would COST? You would have to import guns and ammunition from... for example... Israel or Russia or... I don't know, and then bring it into the U.S. Much like they bring drugs, right?

Now... do you know how much a Russian AK-12 weighs? Seriously... do you know? Because I don't. But let's say it weighs 4 KG. 4 KG of cocaine sell for (I just looked it up) somewhere between $15K and $45K. Plus ammunition! Of course it's much more expensive to obtain and bring guns from Russia than it is to bring cocaine from Colombia. And I'm not even factoring that in. Sure... some "mafia boss" would be able to pay about that much for a gun. But probably not some thug who wants to break into your house. And even less some teenager that wants to go to a nearby Elementary School and shoot 10 year olds. And even the mafia boss would have to pay a fortune for ammunition. They're not going to shoot at YOU. They're more likely to save those extremely expensive and hard to obtain bullets for the mafia boss next door who might be trying to take over their territory. Or for the cops when they come knocking at their door.

And, as far as the smugglers go, what INCENTIVE would there be to bring in weapons, when they can make MORE using ... whatever resources they have, to bring in drugs?

So, you see, your scenario is nonsense.

 

US Democrats tend to run wars all around the world, but they don't want weapons in US.
This is curious ...

From an external perspective, I've noted that Republicans react to attacks, while Dems tend to start wars just because they are getting bored ...

Maybe Dems should first of all think not to start a war in an other Solar System.
For the rest ... we've got the technology to control weapons. I wonder why in US you are not using it.

 

very few people want a total gun ban. but some people must not have access to guns. tamos, the guy in buffalo, many of them make it very clear to their families and friends that they must not be allowed near a gun.

there are exceptions to every amendment except the second. it is about time for "responsible gun owners" to help take guns from the insane, the demented, and gang members and wannabes.

 

I think the over simplified point of this thread is that prohibitions never work, and always create much larger problems than they were enacted to solve. Where there is demand, a supplier will always appear, at a price the market will bear.

 

"How Buri started his own business and became a billionaire over night" will be the title of my book should a silly ban like this ever happen. It won't this is just self-amusement.

 

Any person who is too dangerous to keep and bear arms in our peaceable society, is too dangerous to be at large at all. Our prison system should be focused on keeping dangerous and violent people segregated from the peaceful.

 

Oh and... By the way...

It's LIBERTARIANS who want to legalize drugs. Not Democrats. Most democrats I know, including me, are AGAINST legalizing heavy drugs.

I think you got your cables crossed there a little bit...

 

Ask if Democrats will take guns from government? If not, why.

 

Because they are under the mistaken impression that government has some obligation or duty to protect them, when self defense is solely the obligation of the individual.

 

Hmm.. I think a better way to look at it is that government has to have guns to keep people from wresting power from them.

 

Belief based on nothing

Many Democrats are for open borders. As well as complete ban on guns. It is this wet dream by Dems to which I speak, so you framing it in the context of current conditions of control is leading you to very wrong conclusions.

Even at that, to talk about the complete mess of illegal immigration and all the crap that is walking in with it as if it’s doing as well as it humanly can be is laughably absurd. You’ll simply have to try again here. You have no leg to stand on.

This picture you’ve painted of guns and ammo being too difficult and expensive for anyone to bother is riddled with virtually nothing but conjecture and assumptions.

Illegal Guns flow from the US to all over central and S. America. How is this possible? Because illegal guns and ammo aren’t nearly as difficult and expensive as what you’d like to think just because it’s convenient for you to think it. If there’s a high demand for it and money to pay it, someone’s going to get it done. Illegal Guns flowing from US to everywhere is possible but not possible in reverse? With a criminal population like we have and tons of money? Ridiculous.

Sorry, your counter argument is simply not good enough.

Now my turn for conjecture. US Gun manufacturers aren’t going to simply retire and go home. They’re going to relocate and take their designs and expertise with them. The river might be reversed but it’s still going to flow. Such is the way of supply and demand and money

 

yea yea yea. some people are schizo but not necessarily criminal until jesus tells them that those school children are little devils. some people just need a time out to get over their divorce or sudden unemployment. jail might not be appropriate, but in conservative world they need to open carry in the elementary school?

 

This is like arguing Democrats aren’t in favor of universal healthcare. Yes they most certainly are, they just arent necessarily stupid enough to say so out loud, instead going for the stepping stone strategy of ever more restrictive gun laws headed straight toward the obvious.

 

I don't know any. I have never heard a single Democrat propose open borders. Not in this forum, not anywhere.

Maybe... Is THAT what you actually wanted to discuss? I thought you wanted to talk about weapon smugglers from a country that doesn't PRODUCE guns.

Of course it is!!!! That's what your question called for. Unless you are not aware that weapon smuggling right now goes from here to there, not from there to here.

There is no conjecture or assumption in that smuggling weapons through the southern border would make them very very expensive. How expensive is a conjecture. But there is ZERO doubt that they would be too expensive for just a casual home invasion..

Because most of those countries allow the import of those guns. If we BAN guns, we won't allow it. That is what the word "ban" means.

Importing guns from the US is not illegal in most countries. Mexican cartels DO import guns illegally... because THEY don't have the controls we have. For heaven's sake, you're comparing OUR resources to those of an underdeveloped nation?

Besides, as I said.... WE produce guns. Mexico doesn't! So you have to add the cost of smuggling them INTO Mexico from... Russia, Brazil, Israel... wherever....

You responded to nothing in my argument. Why use the resources smugglers have to import guns, when they can use them to smuggle drugs... unless they make them as profitable? And to make them as profitable, the markup will have to be comparable. NOT accessible to your average run-of-the-mill elementary school shooter, or home invader....

 

An assertion so absurd on its face
that I can't believe even you really believe it to be true.

 

Hah! That's hilarious! Democrats are for legalizing drugs even though you don't hear them being for legalizing drugs.

The argument is too absurd to even address it.

 

Those of us that are looking for some middle ground on gun ownership are not naive to believe that removing all guns from law-abiding citizens is the solution.

Can you post the links to the all the "good guys with guns" that have helped to combat the "influx of criminals" from the (I'm assuming you're referring to the Southern border)?

Uncle Sam is the largest drug dealer in the world.

Laws are NOT written with *criminals* in mind. By definition, criminals do not obey laws.

That's not a equivalent argument.

Legalizing some now-illegal drugs is not proposed or designed for the purpose of eradicating the use of those drugs. It's designed to not have our criminal justice system bogged down by people that are only hurting themselves (and those closest) to them versus the people that hurt "society" as a whole.

For example, I don't particularly care if a prostitute and/or "pot" head does their thing every day of the week. I very much care if a serial rapist and/or pedophile and/or murderer is locked away from free society.

That's not based on anything other than your opinion and you haven't shown why that is more substantial than any opinion on the opposing side. So, besides thinking that those of us that don't agree with you are idiots, what else do you have to make your point?

This is an appeal to emotion.

1. Crimes are not exclusively committed by any specific political party.
2. Our society doesn't give a damn about women or children.

How much more evidence do you need to realize either or both of those points?

 

I will says this, there are upwards of a half billion firearms in the hands of private citizens in the US. My own anecdotal experience suggests, and I wholly believe, that that number is greatly understated. This is the reality we live in. This is never going to change. So, no free person in this country can be practically kept from acquiring a firearm, if he wants one bad enough. No law can be passed that will effectively change this.

The ONLY PRACTICAL WAY to keep firearms out of the hands of the mentally unstable is to identify them early and physically segregate them from the available firearms before they get one and do something awful with it.

But there's a big problem with this solution. We, as Americans, believe in due process, and presumption of innocence. We Americans value Freedom and Liberty over everything else. Benjamin Franklin said: "Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

So, there is an obvious issue with arbitrarily labeling a free American as "dangerous" and taking his freedom by force. That's why nothing has been done in the past. Because the only practical solution is unavailable without abandoning the principals of Freedom and Liberty and due process.

 

Your belief is incorrect but nothing unusual there. There are several around here just like you with your authoritarian fascist mindset.

 

It looks like you're famous "research" is once again lagging behind...

https://www.thegazette.com/staff-co...mous-legalize-all-drugs-stance-is-aging-well/

 

If the shooter had entered the school building with two Molotov cocktails and tossed them in separate classrooms we would not be discussing banning Molotov cocktails, or guns. We would be discussing how to protect school kids. We protect airline terminals. We protect courthouses. We protect presidents. The solution is to protect the kids and the building. And we do that with people and guns.

 

So no military or boarder patrol then.

 

Decriminalizing drugs works.