Total Gun Ban: A Question

Actually, securing the border wouldn't fix the problem you refer to. Maximum security prisoners can still get drugs, so no reason a secure border would keep guns out. Could just make them here anyway.

But it's true. Banning drugs or guns is futile if people really want them. Always some desperate or greedy guy to replace the last dealer. So only demand-side measures really matter.

 

there are plenty of due processes of law that do not require a felony conviction in a jury trial. for example, civil forfeiture, a reagan drug war policy, assumes that money or other assets are criminal. why not assume that for some people, a gun should be civilly forfeited?

your argument, that "freedom" requires that madmen have access to semi automatic weapons, is an interpretation of the constitution as a suicide pact.

 

There are upwards of half a BILLION firearms known to be in US civilian possession right now. Probably far more than that. That fact is never going to change. Every person who has his freedom has access to those firearms. Nothing short of incarceration can eliminate that access.

Are you advocating for the incarceration of free Americans who have committed no crime, over suspicion they might in the future?

 

no one is suggesting a total gun ban, just making ar-15's harder to get

 

The phrase, "don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good" comes to mind.

 

not incarceration. impounding their weapons or putting them in the custody of a responsible adult.

do any 18 tear olds posting manifestos or whining in the incel chat room or receiving orders from the dog have access to YOUR weapons?

 

Pareto's law probably holds for gun ownership, too. 80% of guns are owned by 20% of the people. It is those 20% of the people, with the help of the GOP and the NRA, who hold the rest of the country hostage and prevent any reasonable action in response to those mass shootings, such as universal background checks, or closing the gun show loophole, or banning the sale of assault rifles. Those 20% of people tend to have substantial stash of guns, not for personal protection, but because of a gun obsession. What happens when one of them falls into a mental health crisis in anyone's guess. The NRA itself has called those people the "crazies" in a previous, leaked meeting. Yet, they keep catering to the crazies, because that's their base.

 

So you've conflated a gun ban, an exaggerated gun ban, issue to a boarder security issue. AND then run off the rails that if guns are banned "totally" America would be unsafe. Well, in the modern world, of course it would. BUT NO BODY IS ASKING FOR A TOTAL GUN BAN, AND NEVER HAVE.

I am not, and neither are most Americans, asking for a gun ban. Most Americans would just like to have gun buyers checked out, for gun safety and handling knowledge, sanity and propensity for violence, BEFORE they can buy a phuking gun.

 

I have a handgun in every room in my house. You break in my house you will be met with flying hot lead. The schools must do the same. It's the only solution.

 

"Impounding their weapons" is a problem, because it is unconstitutional, and that's not likely to change. I think the best thing suggested thus far is some sort of early warning system to identify people who are indicating immediate violence, and intervening in some way.

The most recent shooter gave ample warning of what he was about to do. The police chose to congregate outside at a safe (for them) distance and wait until he ran out of ammo before they thought it was safe enough (for them) to go in and draw the chalk lines.

I am not the topic of this thread.

 

.

you and your party are. A donkey doesn’t have to say it’s a donkey for it to be a donkey. They are called open borders democrats because they are by policy and deed. By your logic no republicans are racist because none of them call themselves racist.

there is zero reason to think criminals from far less affluent countries to the south would be able to afford guns but the far wealthier criminals here wouldn’t.

The formula is very simple: criminals+demand+money+porous border security = guns.

You’re relying on specious and uncredible arguments to support a “too expensive” argument with no support or historical context. Guns too heavy? Illegal Alcohol was imported from other countries during prohibition, and that’s plenty heavy. They’re smuggling in truckloads of human beings for crying out loud. What the hell do you mean too heavy and expensive?

Again you put to much faith in words with nothing to support the faith and a worlds worth of history and facts against you. Unfortunate. Bans mean nothing with ineffective enforcement. Hence the point of this thread.

Democrats aren’t very good at law enforcement. Just how big is that rock you’re living under?

Who mentioned school shooter? The argument is only criminals will have guns in America. Not every criminal regardless of age will have easy access to a gun.

You’ve been arguing that suppliers won’t bother, guns are too expensive and our security is omg amazing. All of which are ridiculous assertions that we see countless examples all over the world and in history of this not being the case. Underdeveloped nations can get flooded with illegal guns but our highly affluent developed nation can’t because guns are too expensive? Ridiculous.

Everything can and will be smuggled if the basic business formula fits.

 

You already admitted some Democrats are in favor of legalizing drugs when you said “most democrats I know aren’t in favor of legalizing hard drugs”. We know this because plenty of them say it as well as push for it. The Biden Admin wanted free crack pipes for everyone.

So if you think there’s something contradictory in my statement, you’ll have to look harder. Some Democrats want to legalize drugs. Perhaps some honestly don’t. But some say they don’t but don’t want to be open and honest about it.

It’s why we on the right really appreciate your angry woke mob. They are at least open and honest while the rest of you want a more measured stepping stone approach but fundamentally you’re all basically on the same page of whackjob.

Again, how big is this rock you’re living under?

 

Maybe with very stringent restrictions. They would have to be so stringent that I'm not sure it would fall into the "decriminalizing" category. However, it's clear to me that the current state of affairs doesn't work.

Different topic, though.

 

Your entire post is a rambling mixture of mostly disconnected observations in search of an actual point.

For example: you state crime is not committed by any specific party. As debatable as that very truly is on a quantity basis, what’s your actual point? Society doesn’t care about women and children? Pardon me but wtf? Absurd notion on its face not to mention being so disconnected from the point of this topic as to make me question if you’re even in the right thread.

Here I’ll try to simplify my own argument so you can make your counter more concise: my basic argument is only criminals will have guns in the event of a gun ban.

Demand+money+suppliers+ineffective border security = guns.

At least Golem is being direct and allowing me to specifically address his points. Yours is approaching the realm of myopic

 

In order for so-called "universal background checks" to be effective, accurate and complete universal registration must also be enacted. Work through what that practically means, and try to formulate a plan to implement it. You will run into constitutional and practical barriers that cannot possibly be overcome. Firstly, the vast majority of firearms probably have no existing paper trail associated with them, at all. I have perfectly functional firearms in my safe that have been in my family for 150 years, for instance. Many do not have any serial number. They would all have to be serialized, inventoried, and a paper trail established that identifies me as the current owner. Do we allow the "honor system" to generate that paper trail? How could that possibly be effective, complete and accurate?

There is no "gun show loophole". There are only private sales, and while they can take place at gun shows, they can also take place anywhere else; living rooms, driveways, parking lots, back alleys, etc. There is no practical way to stop private sales of firearms, even if making them illegal, unless you first have complete and accurate universal registration. And that is impossible. Closing the so-called "gun show loophole" is as simple as declaring that private sales that take place at gun shows must undergo the same process as commercial sales do. But that will do nothing to prevent private sales of firearms, it just pushes the transaction to the parking lot.

"Assault rifles" are already heavily regulated by the 1934 NFA. There have been no crimes committed with them for decades, that I know of. The AR15 is not an "assault rifle". Other than a cosmetic resemblance to it military cousin, it has more in common with a semi-automatic hunting rifle than it does with true assault rifles.

Nothing you have suggested affects criminal sales and use of firearms in any way, nor does it do anything to prevent anyone from acquiring a firearm if they really want one.

 

First off, why so angry? I specifically stated “for those in favor of a total gun ban,” so if that doesn’t apply to you then great. If that applies to no one, then even better. Let us both rejoice, not be angry. Goodness. there are worse things in this world than threads that apply to no one.

I do have to ask a question and I’ll be happy to delve more on this line of “no one believes in gun bans” thought further if you can answer satisfactorily:

you specifically stated no one is in favor of total gun bans and then you stated that neither you nor most Americans in favor of a total gun ban. Those are statements directly in conflict with one another. How do you reconcile them?

in this very thread, Golem has said he is the only one he knows of who would be in favor of a total gun ban, making your job easier in answering this question honestly.

 

I want to focus on just that much of your post. Why?

OK, I disagree. Going forward, taking measures to ensure new gun buyers are competent gun handlers, sane and not given to violence is something that CAN be done. Presently we are doing nothing. It's time to try something.

 

Show those policies and deeds.

You didn't even bother to read my response. I already SAID that wealthy criminals would be able to afford them. But it's extremely unlikely wealthy criminals would waste their very expensive ammunition in mass school shootings or in a home invasion. They save them for the criminal next door who wants to invade their territory, or for the cops.

Thus, random mass shootings are reduced (if not totally eliminated), and normal people won't have to worry about drug addicts with a gun who want to steal your jewels to get their next fix.

Not reading the posts you quote is definite sign that you are not interested in a serious debate. Let me know if that's the case so we don't waste both our time.

 

It's not like that at all. You're making assumptions so that you can craft your boogeyman. Care to throw down any evidence to back your assertion? Even on this site just about all of the libs I see aren't for total gun bans. Hell, some of them OWN GUNS. Me included.

 

YES!!! And some Republicans are TOO. And just about every libertarian I know or have ever read. Your contention that it's some Democratic "party policy" is absurd.

 

Nobody is talking about banning guns.

What evidence do you have that our society cares about women and/or children?

I'm not going to play party tit-for-tat with you.

 

Years ago I used to be a diehard anti-gun person who donated money to anti-gun causes on a regular basis. I would have been fine if we went door to door and took everyone's guns away. People really didn't need guns and guns killed people. They caused far more problems then the "fun" we got out of them through sport and we didn't need guns for protection if no one had guns but the police.

Then 9/11 happened and it was like an epiphany to me. Suddenly I completely understood our founding fathers and the second amendment and why it was all so important. If there were no guns in America, we could easily be taken over by some entity and we couldn't even fight back. Sure, we had a military to do our fighting for us. But, what if they actually lost? What if our president surrendered to Russia, China, Iran, North Korea, ISIS, radical Islamists, or whomever?

The fact is, our military could lose and our president could surrender our country. But, with Americans armed to the teeth, a lot like Ukranians, we would continue fighting nonstop throughout eternity and all of this makes our country much more "free" because our military can't surrender us and not even our president can surrender us. Those who would want to take us over realize that taking over our country would be an insurmountable task with millions of Americans armed and willing to fight for our freedom.

 

Another problem on military reliance is that people join the military for a wide range of reasons. When the risk of death is there are they going to flee? There was that veteran that went to Ukraine that didn't manage to stay for two days and only shot his weapon once. This was someone with multiple tours of duty. It's different when you're willing to kill but, not willing to die.

 

To say nothing of the fact that it is a moot point since banning guns would be unconstitutional. I may be interesting for the left to understand that, in 1972 46% of households had at least one gun. There were no school shootings in 1972. Currently there are 42% of households with at least one gun and school shootings are becoming a weekly event. All the school shooters are young people with troubled histories. Perhaps gun ownership has nothing at all to do with the problem. Could the problem be the shooters?

 

How does it work?