Another day in America where we need nothing short of repealing the 2A and confiscating all guns.

[LonePirate]

There are no other solutions to the problem. If you support the 2A, you are part of the problem.

[Skittles]

1. sorry, no

this is the kind of talk that feeds into repuke hysteria

I have long thought, though, that 2A needs to be re-written so even gun humpers can understand.

[LonePirate]

4. I'll put you in the category of wanting more massacres since you refuse to address the problem.

Rewriting the 2A is no solution. Eliminating guns is the only solution.

[Skittles]

11. again, hysteria

[orangecrush]

51. Agree

This feeds right wing bullshit hysteria.

[HopeAgain]

178. And there's nothing to get hysterical about

Maybe when we get five mass shootings a day?

[Skittles]

181. repealing 2A and confiscating all guns something that is never gonna happen

[HopeAgain]

182. No because the defeatest

are too numerous...

[Skittles]

189. no, it is not defeatist

it is reality

defeatist would be saying NOTHING can be done about guns

[Codeine]

193. Assuming you mean "defeatists"

that isn't the reason at all. You need 38 states to pass an amendment, and two-thirds of the House and Senate to propose the amendment — that level of support for the repeal of the 2A doesn’t exist, not even close.

[HopeAgain]

195. So shhhhhh...

we shouldn't talk about it, it might upset the gun owners.

[Codeine]

197. We can talk all we want,

but don't be surprised when nothing whatever comes of it. It’s a minority view that needs to be an overwhelmingly majority view before it can go anywhere.

[HopeAgain]

198. But I'm basically told that there is no point in talking about it

everytime I do...it's almost like some people here don't want to see it happen...

[LakeArenal]

201. Because it's never going to happen.

[Calculating]

97. Not going to happen

You want Trump in 2020? This kind of talk is how you get Trump in 2020.

[Skittles]

115. gun humping pieces of shit equate sensible gun laws with confiscation of all guns

they have zero critical thinking skills

[Codeine]

121. It doesn't help

when people like the OP are actually advocating repeal and confiscation.

But yeah, sensible gun laws are a no-brainer here. National registration, background checks and licensing are long overdue.

[AncientGeezer]

170. The OP said..confiscate all guns

[Skittles]

180. yes

and insinuated that was all that makes gun humpers love them some Trump

[AncientGeezer]

183. Dumpster has a history of being for gun control..

..before he wasn't.

[Skittles]

188. he is owned by Russia and the Greedy Old Pig party now

[Tom Rinaldo]

196. Failure is never a solution, no matter how noble the intent

Advocating for the confiscation of all guns does require repealing the second amendment, which is a political process with a very high threshold needed to be met in order to succeed. In other words, it would not get 2/3rds of the current House, let alone the Senate. And then it would still need to be ratified by 3/4ths of the States.

What advocating for the repeal of all guns now does though is play right into the NRA play book. Every time anyone proposes a really sensible step forward, like universal background checks, or "red flag" laws, or banning high capacity cartridges, or outlawing combat type weapons, the NRA and Republicans scream out "they want to confiscate ALL your guns!"

You may wish this was not true, but when ever that charge sticks Democrats lose votes, which makes it much harder to elect a Congress that supports more limited but concrete steps to limit gun deaths.

[Thomas Hurt]

202. you have to change the gun culture or you will never get rid of guns.

Other countries aren't safer when it comes to gun violence because they don't have guns, they are safer because they don't have a gun culture. They just don't give a crap about guns as much as the US.

repealing the 2nd Amendment at this point is frankly is pointless.

[Atticus]

205. Thank you. nt

[samnsara]

2. i like my guns

[SCVDem]

3. Said no shooting victim

Ever!

[LonePirate]

5. I like salty and greasy foods but that doesn't mean I should have them. Time to give up your guns.

For the good of America, give up your guns. It's the least you can do.

[zackymilly]

15. I like my guns too. Your tagline. LOL. Maybe not shot, but one was stabbed doing the dishes.

https://www.twincities.com/2009/01/25/barron-woman-says-she-stabbed-husband-while-washing-dishes/

[USALiberal]

129. LOL, what a silly comment. nt

[WhiskeyGrinder]

6. How will you confiscate all guns?

[LonePirate]

9. Buy backs and then house to house searches, if necessary.

You must be a gun humper if you are trying to start a discussion on how confiscation is not possible feasible. Much like #1 above, you must want more massacres in this country by throwing up smokescreens and trying to prevent the only real solution to the problem.

[WhiskeyGrinder]

13. Oh, I didn't say it wasn't feasable. I was interested in what your idea of confiscation looks like.

So with these house-to-house searches, do the cops have guns?

[WillowTree]

20. You'd need to repeal the Fourth Amendment, as well, to do what you suggest.

Just sayin'.

[Codeine]

29. As long as we're gutting the Bill of Rights

what’s one or two extra amendments down the toilet?

I’m always amazed when some people are willing to discard rights without understanding that such a thing opens the door to tearing all of our freedoms to shreds.

[WillowTree]

35. Agree. (I try never to argue with wise people speaking the truth.)

[mr_lebowski]

45. There are those of us who firmly believe the 2A did not mean what Scalia said it did in Heller ...

I don't agree with 'repealing' but we need a new (which would actually be the 200+ year old) SCOTUS interpretation, that reverses Heller, IMHO.

[Codeine]

47. I have no problem with your interpretation.

My disagreement is with the notion that we’re going to somehow repeal the 2A and conduct door-to-door confiscations. That’s simply not going to occur, and people who argue for it rarely come across as rational.

[sir pball]

96. Er, you mean when he wrote

"Nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."

"...like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited." It is "not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose."

An AWB, or even a handgun ban, would probably pass muster under that interpretation, and the Supreme Court agrees*. It's less a legal issue and more a political willpower issue; if you can get a ban in place the courts won't interfere.

* - https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-guncontrol/u-s-top-court-spurns-challenge-to-maryland-assault-weapons-ban-idUSKBN1DR1SE

[mr_lebowski]

100. Er ... no I mean when SCOTUS decided in Heller by 5-4 vote that the 2A spoke to an Individual

Right to own guns, rather than a Collective Right, like the courts had basically held for 200+ years previously, through many cases.

2A doesn't say every individual has a Right to own and keep a firearm, at their house, just because they want to.

That was not the intent, or the meaning. The intent was that the US wouldn't have a Federal Standing Army, and the citizens, under State control, would form the country's 'militia' to protect us from foreign threats, and to put down insurrections and such.

In order to get the States to sign up for the Constitution, they had to be promised that they could keep their militias. That's what the 2A actually speaks to.

[emmaverybo]

108. Absolutely. And the second amendment does not stop us from doing what Australia did after

Last edited Sun Aug 4, 2019, 01:35 PM - Edit history (2)

the Port Arthur massacre. They outlawed military-style weapons used for mass slaughter. It worked as it did in California.

[AncientGeezer]

184. Actually it does...

[emmaverybo]

186. Before Heller, the second amendment was not interpreted as giving civilians the right to

possess all types of weapons. California banned assault weapons for years. Getting rid of the second amendment will only weaken the case for gun control and regulation.

[Blue_true]

30. Guns should be better regulated.

But people that hate and want to kill will find a way, even without guns.

We need to focus on root causes coupled with limiting a muderer's capacity to do major damage, the second is where regulating guns comes in.

[RobinA]

64. Completely Agree

I wish I could believe that better control would work, but I just don’t. People get all kinds of illegal things, so I’m not much convinced that availability is the issue. The people who do this are pretty homogeneous, yes there are a few outliers, but generally it’s the whitish male in his 20s give or take. Haters have always been with us, guns have always been with us, what’s going on now?

[Initech]

50. And I say "good luck with that".

House to house searches are exactly what the gun humpers want, they would shoot on sight. This is the exact line of thinking that gets them elected and us shunned.

[mzmolly]

164. Sounds like Nazi Germany. Next, the house to house searches will involve deportation

of those with brown skin.

[MarvinGardens]

52. Hard core authoritarianism. Right here on DU.

[Codeine]

57. There's always been a strain of that here.

Authoritarianism is fine as long as it’s the right flavor and strongmen are embraced provided they mouth the approved rhetoric. Luckily I believe this to be a minority view.

[Joe941]

122. You are part of the problem then.

[Codeine]

125. Transparent. nt

[MarvinGardens]

128. By not wanting house to house searches, I am part of the problem?

[MicaelS]

53. Become a cop.

Then YOU can lead the house to house searches.

[Backseat Driver]

103. That's NOT the answer either...and a very unthinking one as well...

I've known many doctors who own and use "guns" of every kind for many "elite" and regular oft repeated reasons as well. I knew one who joined a DMAT unit, a state-authorized militia, took weapons training at Camp Perry as well as concealed weapons training. This multi-board-accredited physician told me in a hypothetical situation that he would shoot persons who would not comply with a mandatory order to comply with a "new" immunization during a time of a possible pandemic. The conflict of dual loyalties here is stunning! Hippocratic Oath be damned, he'd follow the orders of a commanding officer on up to highest authority. The fear is VERY REAL! The disrespect for human life and hate promoted by media hate mongers is also VERY REAL and messes with unstable the mental status of the already paranoid.

When conspiracy, collusion, and obstruction of justice, as well as corruption of justice in our courts, and we learn of it and take NO ACTION TO CHANGE to remove persons involved by action or cozy association from their positions, we can EXPECT these horrific events to continue.

It is not possible to determine the exact moment the fragile mind will snap, nor legislate love for others, but civil discourse will always be at GREATER RISK when we cannot or will not accept the responsibility to change rules that no longer work to contain them, let alone prevent them before they happen! The perps just laugh at our impotence and actually plan these events to our shame!

Prison in-mates aren't immune either; gangs on the inside got into it in Brazil recently, and 52 persons were either killed or severely injured in an uprising within the prison walls. Never again can we trust these "mind monsters" in our world nor should be ever accept as normal those that incite them over the edge of, I hesitate to use this truly undefine notion, sanity!

[sammythecat]

78. So anyone who has any reservations

about your plan is, for sure, a "gun humper" who "wants more massacres". I wish I was more eloquent, but that's just a fucked up offensive thing to say. Fucked up, stupid, and offensive.

[EllieBC]

101. House to house searches? But I thought ACAB!!! What about that? Is this where ACAB doesn't apply?

Can someone update me on how I am supposed to feel for various groups?

[Agschmid]

124. House searches? Really?

God sometimes I can’t believe what I read here.

[Codeine]

126. They actually used the

“if you have nothing to hide” argument unironically. The mind reels.

[bottomofthehill]

176. Will they get to charge you for other things while searching for guns

Pot, drug paraphernalia, any drug for that matter. Expired prescriptions, if necessary to turn over guns, I will but searching every home......

[End Of The Road]

194. And they'll shoot my dogs while they search... nt

[aikoaiko]

7. I support the 2nd Amendment.

We can still reduce gun violence.

[Backseat Driver]

105. Me too, and I also worry that the calls for

Constitutional Amendment plays right into one of the planks of RW GOP elite contributors and their puppets (Koch Brothers?). I don't want to see any confiscation of lawful ownership and use, but responsible owners must be willing to accept tighter regulations so we can continue in the spirit that we can defend ourselves and homes from the lawless, hateful, and common, in the lowest definition of this word, corrupt authoritarian governing techniques of mass genocide and slavery. These "Constitutional Crises" are NO ACCIDENT! The fish rots from the head; it's rotten and needs to removed, if not by Constitutional protocol but through our votes that show we have no tolerance for divisiveness that bring out these crises for the purpose of political protection for the duration. In the most highest offices of our land, leaders are not upholding their oaths to uphold the values our Constitution was wise enough to be open to changing regulations to resolve societal civility.

[kcr]

113. Wow. If it's really that bad

Then how is voting going to do a damn thing?

[Joe941]

123. Are you a repub?

[Codeine]

127. You're fooling nobody. nt

[aikoaiko]

131. Lifelong Democrat, Joe.

What’s your point?

[Joe941]

142. Not very progressive.

[aikoaiko]

144. I support civil liberties and one them is protected by the 2nd Amendment.

That's how it works.

We can still work to reduce gun violence.

[USALiberal]

130. Whats your plan??? Can't wait! nt

[aikoaiko]

139. Not so much a plan, but things I support and don't support.

First part of the plan is to not freak out. Homicides by guns are still far fewer than they were in the 1990s (the peak) and most people weren't freaking out then.

We can reduce a lot of firearm deaths through restrictions and regulations. I oppose banning or confiscating firearms en masse.

Universal background checks a la Manchin and Toomey 2013
Red-Flag laws with an adequate due process
Reasonable safe storage laws that still allow authorizes access to loaded firearms.
Capping magazines at 30
Raise the age of ownership of semi-autos to 21 or even 25
Some exceptions could be made to the two above with a special license.

If mass shootings with semi-auto rifles and pistols continue, then I would be willing to incorporate all of them into an NFA-type registry with a different fee structure.

But no bans. I can't support any Democrat's position to ban firearms.

[Skidmore]

8. We need reasonable

gun regulations and laws for punishment of domestic terrorism.

[RobinA]

67. Punishment?

Most of these guys wind up dead, many by their own hand. Punishment would not deter.

[Auggie]

10. All for gun control, though it would be a shame if this became a defining issue in 2020.

As important as it is, number one is restoring democracy and sane, competent and honest leadership.

[Joe941]

12. Yup. And other parts of the constitution should be rewritten while they are at it.

[AncientGeezer]

172. Curious....which parts?

[OrlandoDem2]

14. Those who support the 2A should be on the front lines of correcting the problems

I think every gun owner needs to register with the government and they need to be examined for depression, anxiety, or other issues .

Need to close gun loopholes.

Need required safety classes and licensing of all owners.

Need gun buybacks.

[LonePirate]

19. Except they have no interest in correcting the problem. They love their guns more than life itself.

[Archae]

23. Can we start with your house?

[LonePirate]

24. Yes. I have never owned any guns and never will. Nothing to find here.

[Archae]

27. Ok fine, let's tear the house apart to be SURE you have no hidden ones, either.

[LonePirate]

28. I have nothing to hide. Sounds like you have plenty to hide, starting with your cowardice I guess.

[A HERETIC I AM]

43. I think you may have misunderstood archae

Let YOUR house to be the first to have a complete search, from slab to shingle, tearing up any and all floor coverings and wall treatments to reveal any possible hiding places.

You may have nothing to hide, but how do we know for sure unless we gut your home?

[LonePirate]

46. If that is what it takes to rid this country of the gun menace, so be it.

I perfectly understood what that gundamentalist meant. He obviously loves his guns more than anything and does not have the courage to admit it.

[graeme_macquarrie]

74. Interesting...

How long will it take and how many law enforcement officers will it take to search every building in the United States? What- at least 100 million structures? Storage units, apartments, businesses, corporate warehouses, barns, sheds, houses?
Metal detectors in case someone buries them? Do we co-op the military and ignore posse comitatus? No-knock warrants? Will Leo be required to have warrants? What would be the probable cause for 100 million warrants?
What will LEO's do when they find no guns but evidence of other lawlessness? Drugs? Stolen property, evidence of domestic violence? Parole violations?
Collateral damage in executing all those searches? How many shootings of LEO or Military personnel? Obviously we don't care about the gun humpers, they are all just nascent murderers and killers, amiright?
No one's civil rights are more important than stopping 10,000 lives lost every year to "gun violence".

I think it would no longer be the country you live in today.

[LonePirate]

76. You're making ridiculous excuses. You must want the massacres to continue.

We put several men on the moon not long after we sort of mastered flight. We can rid this country of guns if we so choose. You're making ridiculous excuses as to why we shouldn't or couldn't do that. Your motive why is patently obvious.

[graeme_macquarrie]

86. No "ridiculous excuses" I just want to know what

lengths and expense you are willing to go to to try and stop 10-11,000 firearm homicides each year.
How long will your solution take?
What is your plan?
What will it cost?
What rights will we need to sacrifice to achieve your goals?
How many lives can we expect to sacrifice to achieve total disarmament of the populace?

What about the other 4 to 5,000 non-firearm homicides? Are going to ban hands and feet? Knives?
Humans have been murdering each other for millennia before firearms were ever invented.
Humans are a violent, selfish, even evil species that intentionally and indiscriminately kills each other and all other species for greed, avarice, jealousy, even fun.
Humans are the root cause and the reason for every homicide. We need to deal with that.

[EX500rider]

148. "You're making ridiculous excuses" You mean questions on how that would work?

Might as well go full 1984 and go with thought police and cameras in all houses monitoring everything for the govt, and of course implanted RFID chips so they can find you when you have wrong thoughts or possess a banned item.

[LonePirate]

160. We'll all be dead before that happens because people like you do not want to address the gun problem

[Codeine]

171. Take a deep breath, dude.

You’re starting to hyperventilate.

[Fla_Democrat]

88. Maybe have the workers from....

Maybe have the workers that are retrofitting every building in America to being energy efficient (under the GND) can do the searches....

[AirmensMom]

41. That's ridiculous.

I have no guns and never have owned any. Most people who feel this strongly about it generally don’t have a stash of them hiding in their attics.

[sarisataka]

48. The point is

How can we be sure without searching every house? The person who is hiding guns will also swear they have none.

The problem with those who harbor authoritarian fantasies is that they believe they will never suffer the fate they picture for others.

[AirmensMom]

49. OK, fine.

Let the search my house. It's a small price to pay to get rid of the scourge.

[sarisataka]

71. I have heard it said

'if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear'

Perhaps there are people out there who would not mind it if the police, or other authorities, could search you, your vehicle, your property or anything else, at ant time with no warrant needed. I, however, am fond of the Fourth Amendment ever though I have nothing to hide.

[AirmensMom]

117. I'm not saying that.

If they suspect I’m hiding something, they would, of course, need a warrant. Jeez. I’m fond of the 4th Amendment too, but so tired of the 2nd and how it’s used to mow down groups of people. It needs to end.

[Codeine]

91. Wow.

You sell your rights cheap. I hold mine a bit more dearly, thanks.

[AirmensMom]

116. The lives of children are not cheap.

I am sick to death of gun rights being more important than the right to life.

[Codeine]

118. I'm not talking about gun rights.

You’re willing to sacrifice the 4th Amendment to further your impossible goal of disarming the populace. Granting the government the right to search your home without probable cause is just one of many steps too far.

[MarvinGardens]

54. It doesn't matter if you have guns.

Anything they find that they don't like, they can use against you. Or if they just don't like you, they can plant evidence.

[AncientGeezer]

173. Going to do that for other Bill of Rights, rights...

Let's say Not in the BoR's...say voting rights.."..needs to register with the government and they need to be examined for depression, anxiety, or other issues." Don't tell me that votes don't kill people.....remember Shrub invading Iraq and how many Thousands killed?

[Codeine]

16. That simply isn't going to happen.

There’s no way you’ll get enough states behind such a change, not even close.

[ripcord]

151. It is simply out of reach

2/3 of the House, 2/3 of the Senate and 3/4 of the states, that just isn't going to happen.

[customerserviceguy]

17. Wouldn't it be a lot easier

to round up all the failure-to-launch losers out of their mommy's basement, and put them in a concentration camp?

It would be equally constitutional.

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

18. I agree.

And I've been advocating confiscating guns for some time now.

Every single person who says otherwise is essentially saying, "I have no problem at all with mass shootings." No, you don't get to pontificate about how you're so responsible, how you only use guns as they're supposed to be used, which is still to murder living things. You don't get to whine about how you live somewhere that is so unsafe you must have guns to be safe. Nope. You're okay with events such as today's, pure and simple.

Oh, and for you hunters, here's how to do it: All the hunting guns are kept in various central locations. When you get your hunting license you check out the appropriate gun(s) and ammunition. At the end of the license period, you return the gun and any unused ammunition. You still get to hunt.

[MarvinGardens]

60. That's like saying that everyone who drinks is fine with drunk driving deaths.

Or acute, traumatic deaths resulting from alcohol abuse in general. Which eclipse all gun deaths in America, in any given year. And that's not even counting the alcohol deaths from chronic disease. So because I don't support outlawing and confiscating all alcohol, I'm either responsible for, or OK with, tens of thousands of traumatic alcohol deaths a year? And I suppose you want to outlaw alcohol and seize it all before you tackle the gun issue, since the former would save more lives?

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

66. Somehow, I see a difference here.

I'm sorry if you don't.

Of course, then there's smoking. Some 400,000 people die every year from smoking. Somewhere to a third and a half of all smokers will die from that. I happen to have zero sympathy for smokers, especially the ones who are just shocked when they get some terrible diagnosis related to their smoking.

But guns, used as intended, kill. Alcohol is not quite the same. Yeah, alcoholism kills, but mostly only takes those who consume it with them. Guns, on the other hand, are all too often used to kill others. So, really, there is a difference.

[MarvinGardens]

80. Half of American gun deaths are suicides.

So you are OK with the suicides but not the homicides? And why do you assume that such a high percentage of traumatic alcohol deaths incur only to the drinker? Again, I'm not even counting the deaths from chronic disease.

Seems like you're cool with having a lethal product available that kills more people than the product you want to ban, because you are confident (right or wrong) that said product isn't going to kill you. And maybe you drink a little.

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

82. Nope. I'm not okay with the suicides, either.

If the guns weren't available, a whole lot of those suicides wouldn't be dead.

And alcohol and tobacco, as terrible as they are, simply aren't involved in a whole lot of people being killed all at once.

Actually, if it were up to me tobacco would be outlawed. I happen to like to drink myself, so I'm biased in favor of keeping that drug legal.

[MarvinGardens]

85. So you're OK with traumatic deaths,

as long as they don't all happen at once.

Or maybe outlawing alcohol is futile. Which should inform our decision as to whether outlawing guns is a good idea.

[sammythecat]

94. Somehow, I see a difference too.

88,000 alcohol related deaths last year vs. 40,000 firearm related deaths. In my lifetime I've gone to 8 funerals of friends killed by drunk drivers. Luckily, I've never know anyone shot to death, or even shot. That's just anecdotal, doesn't necessarily prove anything, but the 88,000 vs 40,000 is fact. Another really cool consequence of alcohol is the unknown number of children and families that are permanently fucked up and damaged because of alcohol. I was a child in one of those families. The number is unknown but it must be in the millions.

You and I have something in common. We both abstain from a vice that has never tempted us. Smoking for you, drinking for me, and neither one of us has any reason at all to be proud or self-righteous about our abstinence. Unlike many other unfortunates, we never had to fend off the temptation to keep doing something we knew was going to be a problem. No temptation overcome, no virtue. And no reason for us to have zero (as in NO) sympathy for those who have had to do battle and lost.

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

95. For what it's worth, I don't believe I've known anyone killed by a drunk driver.

Nor, as it happens, someone who was murdered. Probably people I went to high school with have suffered those things, but since I moved away not long after graduation, I'm simply unaware.

I do know about alcoholism. My father was an alcoholic who'd become more and more abusive, and when I was 14 my mother moved the five of us children still at home (oldest brother was in the army) from northern New York State to Tucson, Arizona. It was the best possible thing she could have done for us.

So yeah, I know about what alcohol can do.

[emmaverybo]

187. That is not true. Alcohol is a major cause of MVAs in which other lives than the drivers' are taken

as well as of domestic violence and often contributes to sexual assault. So the analogy holds quite well. And one need not be an alcoholic to drive while impaired.

[AncientGeezer]

174. You'd have to argue to SCOTUS the "Hunting Clause" part of the 2A..that doesn't exist.

[Archae]

21. How stupid can a person be to say this?

[Codeine]

31. And a cheering section to support it.

This place sometimes.

[LonePirate]

37. So you support enabling future massacres and terroristic events? That's what supporting the 2A means

[Codeine]

42. Reductio ad absurdism has never been a convincing

debate tactic, regardless of ideology.

[Atticus]

206. Your "debate technique" is the same as Limbaugh's. That should concern you. nt

[LonePirate]

207. What concerns me is all of the DUers like you who refuse to support methods to end these massacres.

[MicaelS]

77. Reminds me of Bush II

"The Constitution is just a goddamned piece of paper."

I add "Which some want to use to wipe their ass with."

[AirmensMom]

34. It has actually worked in other countries. N/T

[EX500rider]

79. Like Mexico? They have 1 govt owned gun store in the whole country.

Mexico: 24 per 100,000 homicides

USA 5 per 100,000


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

[LonePirate]

36. How stupid can a person be to support the 2A and the resultant terrorism?

[AncientGeezer]

185. President Obama...?

He said,,,and I quote...“I believe in the Second Amendment,”

[X_Digger]

22. Repealing the second amendment wouldn't make the right go away.

It would simply become an unenumerated right, like the right to travel.

Ahh, I see others have already commented on the impact to the fourth.

[marlakay]

25. I agree. I am over here in Ireland where

Handguns are illegal and its hard to get hunting license and if you manage to get one have to renew every 3 yrs. After I got here I googled their laws on it, the strictest in Europe. And police don’t carry guns.

I have been here 2 months and I don’t even hear people arguing in public. People here don’t understand Americans and their need for a gun.

I told them I don’t get it either as I have never had one or shot one.

One guy told me he visited America in Florida and was told he could buy one even though a visitor, he thought that was crazy!

[MarvinGardens]

70. I like that the police don't carry guns.

I'd agree to give mine up if and only if: the police give theirs up for a period of at least 2 years prior to me having to give up mine. And it's written into the Constitution that the police shall not carry firearms.

Why would I be willing to give up my rights I otherwise jealously defend ? Two reasons:

1. If the police really are willing to not carry guns, maybe I really don't need one for self defense. But let them set the example.

2. While there is no guarantee that civilian gun deaths would be substantially reduced, police killings of innocent Americans would be substantially reduced.

[Blue_true]

26. I would favor limiting all pistols and rifles to no more than six rounds.

Some police officers would have more but only in the line of duty.

[elleng]

32. which will never happen,

so think of something(s) else.

[LonePirate]

38. So you're quitting and giving up? No wonder this country is in the mess it is in.

[elleng]

40. NEVER quitting and giving up,

I am realistic, and suggested finding something(s) else.

[Archae]

33. Welcome to my ignore.

[SCantiGOP]

102. Everybody should put this poster on Ignore

[Fla_Democrat]

133. Where's the fun in that?

This is pure comedy gold.

[AirmensMom]

39. I'm with you.

Gun nuts value their toys over lives. It makes no sense to me. I hate the goddamn things and would like nothing more than to see them all confiscated and melted down. We can do better than this, but our country flat out doesn’t want to.

[MicaelS]

75. Re-read your last sentence.

We tried Prohibition with alcohol and it was a failure.

We have tried Prohibition with drugs and that also has been a failure.

What in the world makes you think a third bite at the Prohibition apple will work?

[kcr]

111. Are you under the impression that nothing is illegal or restricted?

Guns aren't consumed, like drugs and alcohol, so your prohibition comparison is invalid.

[MicaelS]

145. Comparison is perfectly valid.

The point is people WANT these things and will acquire and use them, no matter what laws you will pass.

Note, I am not saying I do not believe in strict gun control, banning all semiautos is fine with me, but banning ALL guns will never fly in this country.

[kcr]

150. When you use prohibition as an argument against gun control

You seem to be arguing against any restriction. That is what I've been talking about in this thread; how guns have seemingly been permanently entrenched and codified legally and culturally in this country that the popular impression is there is no possible path to any change. However, it's simply not true. Even given the 2a, there is nothing about the issue of guns that somehow magically protects it from the political will to change. It's no different than any other issue. And if daily massacres can't push political will, we're doomed.

[ExciteBike66]

44. Guns are toys for guys who are insecure.

If you want a c**k enchancer, join the Army...

[EX500rider]

81. Is that so?

?t=20170517

[ExciteBike66]

191. And?

He fired a gun once, wow.

[BannonsLiver]

159. You have to be fit to join the military.

Having been to a gun show or two in my time, I’ll just leave it at that.

[ExciteBike66]

190. Ha

Having been an infantryman, I can tell you that "fitness" is relative...

[mzmolly]

55. We need reasonable regulation ...

...not the confiscation of all guns.

[LonePirate]

56. If you don't want all guns removed from the streets, then you want the massacres to continue.

It's a pretty easy distinction to make.

[Codeine]

58. That's some simple-minded bullshit. nt

[LonePirate]

59. I'm sorry you have a problem with the truth. A single gun is capable of killing numerous people.

[mzmolly]

69. There are distinct differences between

a handgun and a semi-automatic assault weapon.

[Codeine]

72. And yet many nations have private firearms

ownership and don’t experience the same incidence of mass violence that has become so common here.

The notion that only draconian gun laws and a mass door-to-door confiscation scheme can stop these incidents is simple minded bullshit, full stop. If merely the presence of firearms was the problem then placed like Switzerland or Canada would have weekly mass shootings.

Registration? Licensing? Testing? Training? These are all areas open to rational discussion. Repeal of the 2A and confiscation not so much.

[mzmolly]

65. Removed from the streets?

I am not in favor of open carry, but I don't think it's prudent or reasonable to 'confiscate' every handgun in the US.

[LonePirate]

68. Then you want the massacres to continue if you want guns left in circulation. It's pretty simple.

[mzmolly]

73. Your thought process is indeed, simple.

However, the nuances related to the discussion are important from a statistical and pragmatic standpoint.

[LonePirate]

89. The nuances are irrelevant when a single gun can wipe out an entire room full of people.

Your equivocation is tantamount to support for the massacres. There is no room for nuance in these life and death situations. Perhaps you should start caring more about the potential victims than the gundamentalists.

[graeme_macquarrie]

93. Let's remove all Nuance...

The root cause and common denominator for all homicides is homo sapiens. Complete control of homo sapiens results in no more murder of any kind. Failure to support full control of all homo sapiens means you condone and support murder.

[EX500rider]

152. You seem not to realize LOTS of things can wipe out a room full of people.

The worse recent mass killing by a individual was not done with firearms but with a truck.

On the evening of 14 July 2016, a 19-tonne cargo truck was deliberately driven into crowds of people celebrating Bastille Day on the Promenade des Anglais in Nice, France, resulting in the deaths of 86 people[2] and the injury of 458 others.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Nice_truck_attack

If our wakos switch to that instead of firearms it will not be a improvement...or to IED's, poison, arson, etc.

It is a software problem, not a hardware problem....somebody wants kill a bunch of people they will get it done.

Other things that are more dangerous in our daily lives, ladders and stairs, cars, what ever is under your sink and in your medicine cabinet:

Unintentional fall deaths (per yr)
Number of deaths: 36,338
Deaths per 100,000 population: 11.2

Motor vehicle traffic deaths
Number of deaths: 40,231
Deaths per 100,000 population: 12.4

Unintentional poisoning deaths
Number of deaths: 64,795
Deaths per 100,000 population: 19.9

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/accidental-injury.htm

And yet nobody seems to give a crap about what could be done to save those 140,000+ dead people a year, which makes the 14,000+- dead by homicide look like a smaller problem to me.

[LonePirate]

153. This is a discussion about guns. Start those discussion threads if you want to address those issues.

Otherwise, you are simply bloviating in an attempt to distract from the rampant gun problem in this country.

[EX500rider]

154. Got ya, don't point out inconvenient facts that don't help your case, such that it be. nt

[LonePirate]

155. You're the one distracting from the discussion about guns. I wonder how many you own.

You gun humpers cannot stand it when people start talking about your addiction and penile replacements.

[BannonsLiver]

157. I don't even know why someone like that is here.

For what possible reason would someone with the callousness of a conservative be permitted to post on DU? Seems like the cave, 4chan would be more appropriate.

[mzmolly]

163. A single handgun is less likely to wipe out a room with more than six

people and a skilled shooter on the other end of it. However, assault weapons (and semi-automatics) are another matter.

I care about what can be accomplished to prevent gun related deaths. It does no good to entertain the fantasy, that the US can or will ever confiscate every gun in America.

[LonePirate]

165. Are you actually making an excuse based on the type of gun or clip/magazine?

No wonder this problem rages on when people play games of semantics like that.

[mzmolly]

167. No, I'm thinking your scenario through.

There is a difference between semantics, and evidence. I'm looking at evidence.

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/02/assault-weapons-high-capacity-magazines-mass-shootings-feinstein/

[AncientGeezer]

175. Va. Tech ring a bell?

[mzmolly]

199. Semi-automatics

ring a bell?

[AncientGeezer]

200. Semi auto hand guns....ring a bell? 37 dead with semi auto handguns

[mzmolly]

203. .. Which is why we need to also address high capacity magazines,

which the Virginia Tech shooter, used in his massacre. Thanks for pointing that out.

[AncientGeezer]

209. Those weren't Hi-cap mags....they were standard to each pistol.

The Glocks most police use hold 15 rds.

[mzmolly]

210. More than 10 rounds is generally considered high capacity.

State laws vary as to how the term “large capacity magazine” is defined: California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, and the District of Columbia define a large capacity magazine as a magazine that is capable of holding more than 10 rounds.

fords.org/gun-laws/policy-areas/hardware-ammunition/large-capacity-magazines/

[AncientGeezer]

211. You listed 7 states and D.C so not really "generally"....but the mags in the pistols I mentioned

are standard capacity mags for those handguns.
That said, let's use the 10 rd model.....it takes about 2-3 seconds to change a mag for the average owner.

[mzmolly]

212. I listed 7 states with laws defining 'high capacity' - so yes, generally.

Most states have not bothered to create laws surrounding the definition in question.

[AncientGeezer]

214. And there are 43 others that don't..so not generally..actually rarely

[sammythecat]

104. Ok, ok. I'll admit it.

Like many others here you're accusing, I want the massacres to continue. You're saying "if you want this" or "if you want that" then you want the massacres to continue. Now me, I don't much care about the "this" or "that" part, doesn't matter to me. I just like massacres, with people of all ages and circumstance being shot dead, mutilated, terrified, and disabled.

But, putting that aside, I am truly amazed at your powers of deduction. A sentence or two in disagreement is all it takes and your logic leads you to the irrefutable conclusion that indeed we all are massacre loving monsters. I think you've outed a half dozen or so that I've seen so far, and until now I thought I was the only one.

[kcr]

112. That button is sensitive, isn't it?

Instead of acting defensive, maybe think about reflecting a bit on why that strikes such a nerve.

[dustyscamp]

61. We need to also make sure people are enforcing these regulations too

I hear some officers are refusing or not even trying to take guns away illegal guns.

[mzmolly]

63. Agree.

eom

[Fla_Democrat]

138. "reasonable" means nothing

Because I am sure, every proposal from every poster is "reasonable" to them. Unless they are trolling, but judging by the commitment to a position, and what I imagine is a multitude of spittle flecked screens in some domiciles... there seems to be little trolling.

In fact, it seems to be less than nothing, cause it has no set parameters saying "reasonable", and is only useful as a club to bash people who disagrees with a proposed plan... "Whut, you don't agree with bulldozing ever house in ameriKKKa to be sure they are not hiding gunz? You're just being unreasonable/a gun humper/ a coward*"


* A personal note, I had to chuckle in light of some people who use the word coward on a near weekly basis when describing people who don't hold their view on 'gunz' being called out for cowardice for not supporting, 'reasonable' gun control.

[mzmolly]

162. Fair point. Though I don't think confiscating ALL guns in the US is reasonable or

feasible.

As for what's reasonable, I would say what works is:

https://www.bmj.com/company/newsroom/higher-rates-of-mass-shootings-in-us-states-with-more-relaxed-gun-control-laws/?fbclid=IwAR1kQDNlX3BGDJl6U368neg6SL8kwc3PHvM30QvdzLcHtRYokAhUuECucOI

[captain queeg]

62. I'd bet good money we'll see an uptick in guns & ammo purchases this week

Happens every time.

[Mike_DuBois]

83. I wish you good fortune in the wars to come

/gameofthronesvoice

It really would be civil war. And I wouldn't bet money the majority of the miitary or police would be on your side.

[EX500rider]

84. It's amusing you think confiscation is workable.

A. Easy to hide handguns in and about your property.
B. The people most likely not to comply are the ones whose guns you want, mentally damaged killers.
C. Way to give the GOP a majority in both houses for a long time.

While your at it, how about govt monitored cameras in all houses and implanted bio-metric/RFID chips in us all, go full 1984!

[flvegan]

87. How stupid. n/t

[MarvinGardens]

90. I have the inherent human right to defend my home and family using reasonable measures.

Whether enumerated by the Constitution or not. So no, I decline to yield my rights at this time.

[LonePirate]

92. Then you are on the side of wanting more of these massacres to happen. You can't have it both ways.

[MarvinGardens]

135. My favorite responses to this are #93 and #104.

[LonePirate]

137. Both are responses by people who have no interest in actually solving the problem.

They have proposed no solutions. Heck, they might not even consider all of these mass shootings to be a problem. They are simply clutching their guns in fear and spewing words without any significance or meaning.

Removing all guns from this country will stop these shootings. They have not proposed any alternatives that will do the same. Admiring those posts is an indication that you don't have any interest in solving this problem, and therefore you want the massacres to continue as well.

[MarvinGardens]

141. Sticks and stones.

[LonePirate]

147. I suppose when you have no solutions to the problem, quoting nursery rhymes is all you're capable of

[MarvinGardens]

161. Your OP was not a serious proposal,

Last edited Sun Aug 4, 2019, 06:17 PM - Edit history (1)

because implementing it would be insane. You'd kill more people in its implementation than would ever be saved if we could somehow magically rid the country of guns. And that's what it would actually take to actually achieve what you envision achieving through despotism: magic.

As for serious proposals, let's start with a strict universal background check system for firearm purchases, including private sales. Eventually I think we could have a licensure system that would not run afoul of constitutional rights. No reform that works is ever going to be easy, nor instantaneous.

[CTyankee]

119. Using this same reasoning, I have seen what can happen when guns are easily available.

My niece was killed by a family member who had a gun to protect his family against intruders who would rob and perhaps kill his family members. While I am not insinuating that this could happen to you, I beg you to see another side of a horrible tragedy, one that my family lived through.

My niece's killer was not a man intent on killing her. He kept the gun, loaded and available, to protect his family and home. But his wife was dying of cancer and she had cut him out of her will and he became enraged. My niece was one of her grandmother's caregivers in her last days. She and her mother were victims of this man's rage. He was drunk at the time. He shot and wounded the grandmother, the mother and my niece. The latter was the only casualty. The rest survived the assault. The shooter then killed himself.

I call this the 3 A's of this kind of murder: alcohol, anger and accessibility of a loaded gun. He did not aim at his grandniece and had no intention of killing her, he just began shooting. Alcohol and rage rendered him incapable of controlling himself.

To his dying day my brother adamantly refused to call his daughter's killing an "accident." He called it murder.

[MarvinGardens]

132. I am very sorry for your loss.

Thank you for your post. I appreciate and understand your point of view. In the US approximately one third of homicides are alcohol related, and two thirds employ a firearm. There is probably a fair amount of overlap. Though the subject of my posts in this thread have been in opposition to draconian public policy, myself and my wife have had the serious discussion as to whether it is a good idea to keep a gun in the home at all. It is something we periodically reevaluate.

[CTyankee]

136. It's a good thing that you re-evaluate your ideas on guns in the home.

There is an Australian comic who does a routine on this subject. He points to the fact that Australia had a gun massacre and immediately re-thought their ideas about individual ownership of guns. One massacre was enough.

Here it is:

Ihope it helps you and your wife in your deliberations.

[Calculating]

98. Keeping my guns

I'm not a bad person for maintaining the right to defend myself and those I care about. You will not make me feel otherwise.

[LonePirate]

99. You're just making excuses to continue the massacres no matter how much you fool yourself.

[Joe941]

120. You are part of the problem then.

[kcr]

106. Every other sane country has done this.

But looking at the responses to your post on a supposedly liberal website in America says it all. People in this country have been fucking brainwashed.

[Codeine]

107. Plenty of perfectly wonderful and peaceful places

allow private firearm ownership. While we clearly need more and better regulation there is no rational argument for confiscation of all firearms. That’s madness, and something very few Americans would ever support.

[LonePirate]

109. There is no rational argument for massacres but gun apologists like you don't want to prevent them.

[kcr]

110. Are we a perfectly wonderful and peaceful place?

No. We're an idiotic country that codified gun ownership into a God-given right, which is why we aren't a perfectly wonderful and peaceful place. When other not quite so peaceful and wonderful places had a mass shooting, they did the sensible and intelligent thing and either heavily restricted or outright banned firearms. But not us. No. Even supposedly liberal places like this one can't even discuss it, because we're an idiotic country.

[MarvinGardens]

140. The OP was not a liberal post.

Trashing individual rights is not liberal. The many varied replies came because this is, indeed, a liberal place.

[kcr]

143. Claiming owning weapons that can mow down people in minutes is a right

is not liberal. Waving away these massacres as collateral damage that we have to accept because gun collections are more important, is not liberal.

[MarvinGardens]

168. I think that's debatable.

If the Klan were riding into my town, I'd feel better sitting on my porch with just such a weapon as you mention. My wife's ancestors found themselves in just such a situation, and successfully defended themselves, though I don't know the details of the weapons either side had. In eastern North Carolina where some of my ancestors come from, the Lumbee Indians ran off the Klan with firearms. Unfortunately, we are entering a time where these types of interactions are more likely to occur. The bad people have already armed up, and I would not want to discourage the good people from doing so, nor encourage a good liberal to disarm. To me, it is not about gun collections, or hunting, or target shooting for fun. But everyone has their own individual reasons.

That being said, you do have a point. Governments are established in part to protect the public safety. They do this not only by prosecuting those who have committed crimes, but also through some degree of regulation. Surely we would agree that nuclear weapons, or nerve gas, or fully automatic weapons, should not be in private hands (but neither in police hands). The right to self defense must be balanced against the protection of public safety. So are all of our rights. A person whose home is not subject to random search due to the 4th Amendment could be stockpiling ammonium nitrate, which could be much more lethal than any firearm. But there are regulations on the sale of large amounts of such things, sales are tracked, etc., as they should be. Hopefully you and I could have a discussion on what constitutes reasonable regulation of firearms. When someone (like the OP) says that anyone not in agreement wants for massacres to happen, this is not conducive to a reasonable discussion.

[kcr]

114. Oh, hey! Another mass shooting happening right now

in this peaceful country of ours. In Dayton, Ohio. But heaven forbid we do anything about this. We're the irrational ones.

[lark]

134. I feel you, but disagree.

I hate guns, period the end. My husband bought one, sadly, but only because we're really worried about what the fascists will do. I do think tht the interpretation of the 2nd amendment is totally wrong and stupid and not at all what the founders wanted. If we can ever get a real, not Russian Repug, SCOTUS again both this and Citizens United need to be repealed as wrongly decided and unconstitutional. Don't worry, I'm not holding my breath. However, even if the law is changed, which it 100% should be to revert to the original intent, I still don't think we should be confiscating anything unless it's done after the person has proven to be dangerous, that just feels totally wrong. Buy backs should be done for all automatic and semi-automatic pistols and rifles. They should be illegal going forward unless the gun was registered prior to the change in the law. All guns require background checks and all government agencies required to report to some database. So anyone who has a stalking charge or who has a restraining order against them has to give up their gun and can't get one. Anyone who is a danger to themselves or others would be ineligible to buy a gun. No more than 1 gun can be bought in a 12 mo. period and limit the bullets that can be purchased. This alone would stop 90% of the mass murderers who buy up their guns within a few months of the rampage. Just think how many people wouldn't be dead if this one thing was enforced? Also, all guns purchased require background checks, no exceptions. People could not shoot at gun ranges with their person guns without providing proof of registration or using one of the places guns. Keeping things as they are is total insanity and so not acceptable. Thoughts and prayers are just bogus BS.

[fescuerescue]

146. It's really time for a constitutional convention

Let's face it, the constitution is getting pretty creaky in it's old age. Most of it's is perfectly fine but it requires some tweaking.

Healthcare should be added to the B.O.R.
The 2nd should just be removed.
Voting fairness should be added.
Womens right to choose should be added (spelled out instead of inferred)
The 1st needs to remain of course, but it does need tweaking. Things like Nazism should be allowed to be banned
Throw out the electoral college (duh)
Becoming a US citizen should be added to the BOR. If you are here X amount of time. DONE you are a citizen. Lots of room here for improvement I think.

This is a winning issue, but I know people are to fearful to try it.

[LonePirate]

149. Thank you! Nice to hear from someone who understands the crux of the proboem.

[hack89]

192. How do you think the Trumpsters will change the Constitution?

Or are you envisioning a rigged convention where only liberals can propose and vote on changes?

[ismnotwasm]

158. This is not going to happen.

In a way it’s refreshing to hear though, rather than arguments over what the second amendment “means” It is NOT going to happen, and I refuse to spend energy on it.

For the record, I own two handguns and a shotgun. I would give them up immediately if it would stop these shootings.

Since it’s not going to happen, I think energy should be spent on finding ways to reduce guns violence in a systematic way. Identify a problem (white supremacy, gun access, mental health etc) and find solutions.

[KentuckyWoman]

166. My family and most in the area I was raised hunt... out of necessity.

I don't believe gun ownership should be a right. It is a privilege and should carry every restriction needed. Why? It isn't the guns. It's the fact this society has stopped talking to each other and turns to guns instead.

Including the police. Get the damn guns off the street and you take away cops excuse that a pack of skittles was a gun.

[cynatnite]

169. Yeah, that'll work...

Not.

Just exactly how will you get the manpower, the funding and the will of the American people to be willing to have every weapon in the US confiscated? Do you have any idea how unreasonable your idea is?

And before you spout off your "you're part of the problem bullshit" keep in mind that hunting is a huge part of this country. I grew up in a hunting and fishing family where sometimes that was the only way to put food on the table.

Years ago when we had little money, hunting helped put food on the table. It's not changed that much. We know numerous families who use hunting and fishing to keep themselves fed.

Guns aren't the problem. People are. Lack of regulation is the problem. Having them loose on streets with easy access is a problem.

If I was going to suggest a solution it would be treating guns like cars. You have to be licensed and insured with no violations in order to own one. I would ban all assault style weapons across the board. Those were made for military purposes and that's where they should have stayed to begin with. That's just to start with.

We don't have to go to the extremes of taking every single gun away from law abiding Americans in order to prevent gun violence. There are much more reasonable steps to take without risking even more violence with this kind of notion.

[elocs]

177. If you are in touch with reality you will know neither of those will happen. n/t

[gay texan]

179. I live in deep west texas

Out in the sticks. I farm the 20 acres that i have. Its a wonderful place to live, but it has it's risks. There are three problems with living out here:

Feral Hogs
Rattlesnakes
white people spun up on meth

I've had contact with all three out here on my place, and unfortunately, it's required a gun every time. I'm too far out for the sheriff to show up in a timely manner. These things require you to take matters into your own hands.

I have a few old bolt actions and a shot gun. It would be hard to safely survive out here without them.

However, nobody needs to own an AR-15, an AK-47, or a SKS. I have never needed a high capacity magazine for anything. One bullet is all you need for a hog that's pissed off and coming for you (it's happened more than once to me). Any reason trying to justify owning one of these above mentioned rifles or high capacity magazines is pure bullshit.

My Dad fought in Vietnam during the 1968 Tet Offensive, seeing some of the worst gun violence and brutality anyone could have imagined. Dad raised my brother and i to use guns for a tool and nothing else. He always explained to us that it's not like the movies: anyone who is injured from a bullet wound is forcibly ripped apart. My Dad would simply say "you dont want to see the things i've seen"

Having someone show up at your house clearly spun up on meth at 2AM, that you've never seen before in your life, trying to enter your home is not fun. To be more precise it's fucking terrifying.

Absolute strict regulation of the 2A is needed, not eradication

[waterwatcher123]

204. Outlaw the Ownership of Assault Weapons and High Capacity Magazines

No self respecting hunter would advocate for the necessity of assault weapons like the AR-15 or AK47. These weapons and any large magazines or accessories that turn these weapons into machine guns should be outlawed. The collective interest of society to reduce the carnage these weapons do to human bodies outweighs any rights collectors have to own these guns.

[hughee99]

208. The rhetoric of the right has clearly incited this violence, as

I’ve seen argued here and many other places as well. While we’re at it, we should get rid of the first amendment too. People can’t be trusted with free speech when it has the potential to incite violence. If you support 1A, you are also part of the problem!