Usually along the lines of "That's what they tell you now. They're just getting ready." Or "That's what Hitler said." (FYI, Hitler in fact greatly eased the Weimar Republic gun restrictions already in place when took office, and he encouraged gun ownership. The vast majority of German households had guns.)

It's a lost cause. You can't reason with paranoia.

Inauguration Day.

I've had this discussion with them a hundred times. It is frustrating and childish. They just say "You're drinking the Kool-Aid! Don't look to me to protect you when they're kicking in your door!"

Well, it's usually more like this:

"your drinking the cool-Ade dont look to me pertec yowhen there kicking in your door. You hate America.go live in a Comunist country.pussys like you wood be right athome their"

a lot of folks here will lump me into that group. It seems like it's ok to broad brush whole groups of people on some topics (see post #3).

Anyway, what happened in CT was a national tragedy. So were all the shootings before and since. But short of making every firearm disappear you are not going to stop people from shooting themselves or even others. It's a sad true fact. And before we can move on to talk about the reality of gun control, people have to face this fact. You either decide to go door to door, agency to agency, police dept. to police dept. and remove every firearm in the country and plug the borders so that guns can't get in, or you deal with reality.

on edit: Lots of good ideas have been floated lately - along with some really bad ones. Someone has to sort through the chaff and propose effective legislation.

But your argument tends to jibe with many of them. You seem to think gun control advocates are seeking an all-or-nothing approach. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Seat belts laws were vehemently opposed as a violation of rights, but are widely accepted now. Do seat belts stop ALL automobile deaths? Of course not. But they've dramatically reduced their number. Same can be said for your "right" to smoke. No one says you can't smoke. But regulations about where you can smoke have dramatically reduced deaths. The list of similar comparisons is quite long.

For the bazillionth time, there is no movement to take your guns away. It isn't going to happen. What people are calling for is some common sense regulation to help reduce the likelihood of another mass shooting. No one expects to eliminate gun deaths. But there is absolutely no reason we can't take steps to make Americans safer.

No one is coming to take your guns!

heard warnings about the government confiscating firearms. If anyone knows of any time in the history of this country that private citizens have had their weapons confiscated en mass by their government, please let me know.

One example
Repeal the 2nd Amendent

Of course I don't know how serious this person was - see post count.

realized just how incredibly hard it is to either pass a new amendment or repeal one, you would know that any argument of such is nothing but ignorance and failure.

So please stop it. You are not helping anyone by continuing this type of "hair on fire" conversation.

I guess they don't teach Civics classes anymore. It is so difficult to pass a Constitutional Amendment anyway, how easy do these people think it would be to pass one on an issue as contentious as banning guns or repealing 2A? It's ridiculous! When I attempt to point this out, they scream the "Obummer doesn't care about the Constitution! He'll just act on his own!" as if it would be legally possible for one President to simply amend the Constitution with a pen stroke. These people have just gone nuts...thus "Gun Nutters."

Tell me again - what I am supposed to stop doing?

"But I have seen "serious du'ers" proposing a repeal of the second amendment."

1) I pointed out how ill-informed that kind of talk is 2) give me links to the "serious du'ers" who are advocating as such.

The link you provided is by a du'er who has less than 150 posts and only has been a member since Dec. 9th of last year. I don't consider that a "serious du'er".

then you go on to say, "I don't know how serious this du'er is" which contradicts your about observation of "serious du'ers".

don't spread ridiculousness, it's very unattractive.

on edit: I am presuming some level of "serious" since they took the time to post. BTW - not the only such post.

Your point is taken about the nature of such proposals. I suppose they should just be ignored as responding feeds into the hysteria.

Legislature, will pass legislation to this effect and have the power to change the Constitution.

Do they teach Civics these days?

But I can write about supporting it just as quickly as they can write about dismantling it.

Make this bluster close to...impossible...right.

It is both a strength and a weakness.

I can scream till I am blue in the face that I want to change the Second, the Third, or just get a new in...it is so difficult that unless you got a movement, that ain't gonna happen.

None is gonna take your guns, or mine, serious.

I can hysterically rant about keeping it.

I think that's fair.

As I take theirs...that be not at all

As you said, fair is fair.

I knew it could be done.

"It seems like it's ok to broad brush whole groups of people on some topics..."

Gun Owner is to Gun Nutter as Christian is to Fundy.

Let's not martyr ourselves simply for dramatic and petulant effect.

Now not only can everyone can go ahead and feel OK about calling people names, but they can feel good about attacking the constitution.

It's a win win.

and propose effective legislation." Since you know so much about the subject, you would be perfect. I have a feeling you wont, but just sit back and complain about whatever those of us that dont know about guns, except they kill, come up with.

"Nothing in the Second Amendment prevents reasonable regulation."#1

1. Fill holes in the instant background check database by requiring states to report in a timely fashion people who are disqualified from owning firearms.


2. Increase state penalties for crimes committed with guns, or prosecute criminals in federal courts when federal penalties are heavier than under penalties under state law


3. Close the loophole that exempts private sellers of arms, at gun shows or anywhere else, from the requirement to clear buyers with the NICS database. Ignore NRA protests that this is an inconvenient imposition or intrusion on privacy.


4. Crack down (hard) on straw purchasers and on firearms dealers who knowingly sell to them or to disqualified buyers.


5. Encourage all fifty states to pass legislation requiring state or local licenses to own a gun


6. Encourage all fifty states to pass legislation to mandating training and qualification in the use and storage of firearms


7. Authorize national safety standards for the mechanical safety of guns themselves.


8. Require all firearm thefts or losses to be reported to the authorities within 48 hours of the time of discovery


9. Let the ATF do it's job free of congressional obstruction

While I agree those are good recommendations, and would certainly help, I dont think they are enough. A trained idiot is still an idiot. Knowing where guns are or were would help after the disasters but not do much to prevent them.

I feel that it is within our Constitutional rights to decide what types of weapons citizens can own. We draw that line today. I suggest we move the line and get high capacity weapons, out of the hands of the public.

Thanks again for the response.

So let's ban just about all rifles except .22lr (but apparently NOT go and get them from their current owners) and get it over with.

as to how government would go about confiscating approximately 270,000,000 privately owned firearms from about 85,000,000 homes.

Bans, non-tranferable registration, and buyback.

There are no good reasons why any civilian needs a military knock-off. The looks alone are a problem because of the mind-set of the people they attract. It is the Rambo fantasies that these people entertain. They think they need them for home invasions by 10 or more people. They think they need them to ward off the government for whatever variety of reasons. Then think they need them because it makes them more scary, so people will respect them. They think they need them so they can hold off whole gangs of "bad guys" with their scary looking people killer. For that's what it is designed to do, kill people. Never mind these people think they can use their military knock-off to hold at bay and shoot up the advancing hoards, armed with the same types of weapons. Thinking at part through never enters their minds.
The Bushmaster look-a-likes are themselves a problem. For many that think they need a Bushmaster or similar, they should not even be allowed to have access to guns in the first place. This country would be a safer place.

Last edited Tue Jan 22, 2013, 11:18 AM - Edit history (1)

that talks about "Unfounded Fears" and "Unfounded Articles", and pushes "checkable facts", it eventually closes with some goofy unintelligent BS about squirrels & deer, and so-called 'facts' which, oh BTW - would include banning AND TAKING just about all rifles!

Or does "Bushmaster look-a-likes" = all semi-automatic rifles?

That is never made clear - where the line between legal and illegal is drawn.

Should this gun be legal, for example:

Reread my post again. Does that look like a Bushmaster or one of the look-a-likes? No.
I'm picking on Bushmaster because most everyone knows what they look like now, especially after Sandy Hook.

that rifle is a Mini-14. Shoots the same bullet as a Bushmaster at the same rate of fire using high capacity magazines.

It more than meets this criteria:

It is the looks of a weapon that was designed to be more efficient at killing humans. The looks that attracts a certain mind-set. A mind-set that fantasize about Rambo style movie exploits. The mind-set that gravitates toward a less stable, less reality oriented reality of being a hero by using his macho, testosterone inducing he-man war weapon, saving the day against imaginary bad guys, by carrying it into J.C. Penney, or anywhere else in public, for that matter. A reality that frames the term "gun nut" and give gun owners in general, a bad name. The very people that should be looked at to see if they should even be allowed to have weapons in the first place.
Instead of starting with," ...if it has a bayonet lug or flash suppressor..." or what not, use a picture of a Bushmaster style military knock-off, that attracts the less stable instead, and work from there, for getting some sanity in our gun laws.
It is most definitely the looks that attract the worst.
You NRA talking points are getting a little old. Laws against drunk driving hasn't stop driving drunk, but they have helped and helped a lot. The same goes for sane gun laws, for the exact same reason. True it will not stop all the insanity, but it will heavily curtail most of it. And that is what is needed.

Va Tech shooter used handguns. There were no military style weapons at Columbine - it was planned to be a bombing.

Mass killers are methodical. They start with the idea of killing and work from there. They will find whatever weapons they can.

Handguns are the killers in America. PERIOD. In 2010 handguns were used to murder 6,009 people. Rifles of all kinds were used to murder 358.

Now you can fuck around all day redesigning the perfect looking rifle if you want but don't try to convince me that it will make America safer. Until you address handguns you are wasting your time.

If I were talking hand guns, you'd move over to something else. The point is the gun laws in this country are too lax, period. We need to start somewhere. Hand guns would be a good start too. But it was not hand guns that killed 20 1st graders. We need to start where the momentum is, to fix the fun problem. And right now that is the knock-off Bushmaster style weapons.
Gee, so many problems with too many guns floating around. It's hard to know where to start, huh?

you may only get one grab at the gun control ring. The idea of incremental gun control is a fantasy - it took 20 years to back to this point after the 1994 AWB. This may be your only shot for the next 20 years - if you want to piss it away just so you can say you "did something" then knock yourself out.

Please don't tell me more guns is the answer.

1. Decriminalize drugs and treat it as a public health issue. Empty the prisons of non-violent drug offenders. Take the money saved and spend it on education, jobs and healthcare.

2. Focus the legal system like a laser on violent offenders and get them off the streets. Use a weapon in the commission of a crime and go to prison for a very long time.

3. Single payer healthcare with strong mental health coverage.

Lets address root causes.

(I also support the president's EO's, universal background checks and limits on magazine size)

It increased the murders committed during robberies. Why? the perpetrators had nothing to lose and something to gain by killing the victims - i.e., witnesses.

#1 & #3, I am already behind. The rest of the world has a good head start on us, US on these.
But that still leave the swamp of unregulated guns in this country. With $50 or less, I can walk a few blocks and buy an unregistered gun. No paperwork involved. I supposed the legality would hinge on whether the serial number is still visible.

because they are too violent? BS.

They're almost as bad as those paranoid fools who think government is infringing on or taking away their 1st Amendment rights. You know, the crazies who complain about the police knocking heads during protests. The crazies who complain about a cross or prayer on public ground.

Is an AR-15 a gun?

Not a peep as "Free Speech Zones" were instigated. Not a peep when the 4th amendment was violated by the NSA. Not a peep when the Patriotic Act made it crime to say bad things about the government.

They like to put up those signs that say "Without this (pic of gun), THIS (1A) is meaningless." Well, it appeared to be meaningless, anyway, because those gun-wielding "Patriots" didn't actually have the cajones to stand up and protect the Constitution. It only seems to matter if they think their precious is threatened.

Probably sitting back and saying that "I don't like protests, so it's ok to infringe on the right of others on that right." People shouldn't be able to protest anywhere they want, so "Free Speech Zones" make sense. People don't want to be a victim of a mass bombing, so the Patriot Act is needed to keep us safe.
Funny how that works.

How can their ingoring the 1st and defending the 2nd, be any more "meaningless" than your willingness to ignore the 2nd and defend the 1st?
Imagine what would happen if We the People actually stood up for ALL of our rights, instead of just the one's we like?

LOL! You admit you're perfectly okay with taking away all sorts of rights.

Oh, and you haven't read my position. I'm not ignoring the 2nd Amendment. I'm not anti-gun. I actually enjoy shooting, and have used a Winchester (that was real kick!) and a basic double-barrel shotgun, as well as a couple of .22s. I'm NOT anti-gun.

I am anti-ignorance, and I am opposed to the ridiculous fear-mongering by the nutters who insist the government is coming to take their guns. The fact that you don't accept the absurdity of a "Free Speech ZONE" in a conversation about defending constitutional rights is absolutely laughable.

"People don't want to be a victim of a mass bombing, so the Patriot Act is needed to keep us safe."

Hey, I've got news for you...people don't want their children to be the victims of mass shootings at schools and movie theaters, so some laws are needed to keep us safe. Yeah...funny how that works.

I am for all of our rights, not just the ones I agree or feel comfortable with.

IF you were truly "anti-ignorance," you would be able to see the hypocrisy of one who whines about others who ignore the loss of some of our 1st Amendment rights, while encouraging the taking of some of our 2nd Amendment rights.

IF it really is all about keeping us safe, then you should have no problem with those who advocate the taking of freedoms to protect us from bombings and mob violence. People don't want their children to be the victims of bombings in daycare or on airlines. They don't want their children to be victims of mob violence by protesters.

Of course, if you are all for 'free speech zones' and 'the Patriot Act,' then you are consistent in your argument for even more gun control.

Until you can answer that your entire point is moot.

And apparently, took 'em away well?

Huh?

No, of course "regulated" doesn't mean "taken away." The SCOTUS already ruled in Heller that you have the right own guns to protect yourself and your home, but that there was no language that prohibited the government from "regulating." Your right to bear arms shall not be infringed. "Infringed" and "regulated" don't mean the same things either. No one says you can't speak when they regulate the 1st Amendment. No one is proposing taking your guns away.

And why are your opinions of what is ok to strictly regulate, more valid than the opinions of others?

If "regulating" rights is perfectly ok, then "Free Speech Zones" should be the standard. Maybe, in order to prevent mob violence, protests should be limited to no more than 7, maybe 10, people?

BTW: I don't own any guns, so the 'No one is proposing taking your guns away' meme in order to discount the opposing view doesn't hold water.

I can see the game you're playing. I spelled my case out pretty clearly, and you're just trying to do a tap dance and confuse the issues. I was very clear about my position on the 1st Amendment, and about the bullshit I always hear from the gun nutters that they need their guns in part to protect the 1st Amendment...but didn't take up those arms when the government actually DID come and take fundamental rights away.

The SCOTUS has already ruled on the 2nd Amendment and determined that it does NOT say that the government cannot regulate guns. It merely says you have the right to own some.

Have a nice day.

I am not playing any game and your "case" is flooded with hypocrisy.

How can you whine about the "gun nutters" not taking "up those arms when the government actually DID come and take fundamental rights away" on the 1st, while also encouraging government to do the same on the 2nd? As you said yourself, regulating your 1st Amendment rights with zones does not mean you cannot speak.

The anti-gun paranoids love to talk about how protests are more effective than guns, so why aren't you all out there protesting to protect the 2nd Amendment?

that will reduce such occurances are needed to keep us safe'.

I'm down with that. Get 'em passed!

TSA? Wireless wiretapping? Free Speech Zones? Drone surveillance?

gun laws aren't included in that line-up.

Personally, I am against government violating free speech, freedom of assembly, privacy etc...

But, to each his own.

"I have problems with laws that infringe on basic rights. Luckily most
gun laws aren't included in that line-up."

On edit:
I will add {laws that overly infringe} just to be sure we are not talking understandable measures like outlawing yelling fire, child porn, etc..

For me, our 2nd Amendment right is also a "basic right" and infringing on it out of fear is no different than infringing on any of our other rights out of fear.
If people are ok with limiting or regulating how one right is exercised, they have no business complaining about how other rights are limited or regulated.

Not a basic right, but one derived from the community. Though the original intent is sort of obsolete what with a huge standing army and the creation of the National Guard, I did not see too many occasions where someone has passed laws infringing on our ability to serve in the Militia.

to agree with that minority opinion of its original intent, then have them re-interpret that meaning into new laws, and your point might have some merit.

Until then, accept that it is an individual right, just as it says, and that limiting or regulating it opens up other rights being limited and regulated in the same manner.

Serious merit, otherwise these imminent bills would not even be considered let alone be passed like in NY.
The Supreme Court may indeed have the final say, but, if so, it may take a while for them to get there.

I do accept the 2nd secures an individual right to keep and bear arms, exactly as it says - int he preamble and the restriction. I have never held any other opinion. You can choose to argue over what THAT phrase means, or simply agree with the Supreme Court majority. I too tend to form my own opinions.

People I have known for years reposting crap from teabagger sites, militia sites, etc. I'm sad and really at a loss. They are behaving like birthers in their beliefs and no facts can change their minds. I've recently hid all fb posts from a long time dear friend who has gone off the deep end since Newtown.

Wish my recently hidden friends had more grief for the children killed then they do over their fear of gun regulation. Actually makes me sick that they don't.

There are not crackpots. These are people I've always had similar views with. If the propaganda can get to them.... sigh.

They honestly and deeply believe that the government is going to take away their right to bear arms. Not just regulation, they believe that this is the slippery slope to the government coming in and taking away their personal firearms. In my opinion any rational human being should know this is not the case.

Flooded this thread with NRA Talking Point responses to lock up yet another gun control discussion.

Seems DU is infested these days.

Most of them are afraid they're going to have their guns confiscated because like a drunk or drug addict, they place greater value in their guns over even their families and friends and they're sure they'll be on a no-guns list because of their unstable mental health.
Normal gun owners do not view their guns as the only thing that protects them from the greater "outside" or makes them feel stronger (or more alpha) than everyone else around them. Normal gun owners don't fantasize about shooting ravening hoards of evil deviants and being the hero that saves the few "good" people left in their world amd try to force the world outside them to become what they want it to be.
Sure there's "bad guys". But even in "bad neighborhoods", those "bad guys" that most people who buy guns for protection from have a life of their own to live, and the chances of any one gun-owner running afoul of of that sort of criminal or threat even once in their lives is very small - there are far fewer potential assailants than there are people who go around armed against assault in this country at any time. And there are certainly far more abusers terrorizing their own otherwise beloved family members than there are potential assailants walking the streets looking for victims at any one moment in time. And many of those abusers use the very weapons they collect to "defend themselves" against those they supposedly love in that abuse.

Anyway, most of these types of posters are either blowing off steam (often saving family members from the brunt of their frustrated neurosis), or building themselves up a comforting fairy tale reality through the anonymity of the internet.

The few who mean it are the ones who really should think about learning how to deal with their overwhelming fear and self-doubt before they hurt a lot of innocent people when it builds up to be too much and they have to blame someone else for their pain and anger because they can't handle their own self-induced problems. And they really shouldn't have guns to increase the amount of damage they will do when that will happen.

Haele