Waco Shoot Out Gun Confiscation Fantasies

[ZX86]

Why does any mention of common sense gun control legislation always lead to some convoluted argument over government agents en masse kicking down doors of peaceful citizens and taking their guns?

These fantasies seem just as pernicious and deeply held as the ones where goes gun owners single handily defend themselves from throngs of inner city dwellars hell bent on stealing their survival seeds and powdered milk after a complete break down of society due to rejection of return to the gold standard.

Any common sense gun registration/assault weapons ban would be easy to institute. Only licensed dealers can buy and sell firearms and aggressive gun buy back programs.

Look. Gun nuts aren't too smart. Just start a gun lottery. Turn in your gun for a chance to win a million dollars. That would take thousands of guns off the streets. Or other creative ideas like:

1. For every pound of gun you turn in you get a six pack of beer.

2. For every pound of gun you turn in you get a free month subscription to Ashley Maddison and a bottle of penis enlargement pills.

3. Any other worthless crap collecting dust in warehouses from Duck Dynasty swag to Ted Nugent concert tickets could be given in exchange for these murder machines and the idiots who own them will gladly give them up. No need for kicking in doors.

[Warren Stupidity]

1. Because gunners are paranoids to start with.

They've already bought into a fully delusional world view in which they need to hump their guns obsessively everywhere like a rutting dog.

[MohRokTah]

2. Because any time anybody starts talking about reasonable gun laws...

somebody else has to demand an outright ban and confiscation.

[ZX86]

3. Bans and confiscation are apart of all regulations.

That's the nature of regulation.

[MohRokTah]

5. Once you start on about bans, you lose people.

It's been this way for decades.

The Assault Weapon Ban set the gun control movement back three or more decades, and what keeps it from moving forward is every time there's any incident, the talk of bans comes up once again.

You will never progress so long as bans are on the table.

Never.

[ZX86]

8. Yes. Banning them.

That's what gun control is about. Banning certain guns. What did you think it was about?

[MohRokTah]

10. No, that's not what gun control is about for anybody but the extreme.

And it's why those with reasonable solutions lose, because they cannot overcome the stigma of the extremists.

The balance is lopsided because gun ownership is a constitutional right, so the extremists on the side of no regulations at all don't come into the equation. It requires massive support to achieve modestly reasonable gun laws than it does to force no new gun regulations at all.

[ZX86]

12. What do you think gun control is about?

If it's not about banning certain guns?

[MohRokTah]

17. Universal background checks to begin with

Bans do not work and are unacceptable.

[ZX86]

21. We have bans right now and they are working.

You cannot go out and commercially purchase a fully automatic machine gun. What you are saying is factually not correct.

Bans work and they are universally accepted.

[MohRokTah]

30. Now you are comparing apples to horse shoes

Automatic weapons have never been widely used for legal purposes.

Meanwhile, semi-automatic weapons number around 120 million, the technology is ubiquitous and more than a century old, and more than meets the standard of widely used for legal purposes.

[ZX86]

31. I beg to differ.

Asbestos and lawn darts were used for years for legal purposes and they are just as banned.

[MohRokTah]

41. Again you compare apples to horse shoes

You are not guaranteed the right to keep and bear asbestos or lawn darts in the constitution. You ARE guaranteed the right to keep and bear arms in the constitution. The legal standard as set by the SCOTUS on whether an arm can be effectively banned is no arm in widespread legal use may be banned.

[ZX86]

49. Same tired arguments.

RPGs are arms and you can't own one.

[MohRokTah]

50. RPGs have never been in widespread legal use.

Hence, RPGs fail the test and may be effectively banned.

This comes from constitutional law, not some tired old argument. This is the standard set by the SCOTUS.

Semi-automatic weapons comprise ~120 million units in legal use in the United States, ergo, they are in widespread legal use and cannot be banned constitutionally.

You can change this by convincing 290 members of the House, 67 Senators, and 37 state legislatures to repeal the second amendment.

[ZX86]

64. Moving the goal posts.

Which is it? The right to bear arms or widespread legal use? At any rate you're wrong on both counts. Legal products in widespread use have been banned and the right to bear arms is not a right for private citizens to own any kind of weapon they want to. Also there is no provision in the Constitution regarding "widespread use".

[MohRokTah]

69. I'm not moving anything.

The SCOTUS standard on whether or not a type of arm can be effectively banned requires that said arm not be in widespread legal use.

120 million semi-automatic weapons in the hands of law abiding citizens is a self evident argument that semi-automatic weapons are in widespread legal use.

[ZX86]

73. "Widespread legal use" is not in the Constitution.

"Well regulated militia" is in the Constitution. And I would hardly call the weekly massacres of men, women, and children, "self evident argument that semi-automatic weapons are in widespread legal use".

[MohRokTah]

74. Neither is "Separation of Church and State".

The concept of both are the SCOTUS standards.

[ZX86]

77. SCOTUS standards change on whims.

Vote counting in Florida for example.

[MohRokTah]

79. N o, they really don't.

In nearly every case, it requires an amendment to the constitution to alter a SCOTUS preedent. The SCOTUS is very loathe to overturn prior decisions.

Bush v. Gore overturned no precedent.

[ZX86]

89. Bush v. Gore overturned no precedent.

And set no precedent which was written into the decision which in all practical terms is a whim.

[uncle ray]

51. wrong.

it is illegal to sell new killer lawn darts, you may still possess and use them, likewise in many cases asbestos may be left in place.

[ManiacJoe]

36. Commercially, no. Privately, yes.

If you have the tens of thousands of dollars, pass the background checks, and pay the federal transfer fee, yes you can purchase a machine gun. Some states may require you to store it out of state.

[Lurks Often]

60. You are wrong, one can still purchase a fully automatic machine gun

You apply to the ATF, the paper work takes about 6 months and you pay $200 tax stamp ON TOP of the cost of the firearm and the Class III FFL dealer's transfer fee.

A crappy Sten or MAC-10 starts at about $4000-$5000, with belt fed machine guns in the $30,000 and up range. Prices vary widely based on the gun, it's maker and other things 99% of the people here don't care about.

Also the machine gun has to have been manufactured prior to 1986


And your condescension is why your side continues to lose. I know lots of gun owners and many are engineers, lawyers, nurses and a variety of other educated jobs.

[ZX86]

62. Stop being silly.

You can buy cocaine and dynamite as well if you fill out the right forms and you are approved by the right government agencies. That's not what we're talking about and you know it.

[Lurks Often]

95. I enjoyed pointing out that you were wrong

I enjoy even more your feeble attempts to direct attention away from being caught in a lie.

And I laugh at your op and your entire premise. What you want isn't going to happen.

[hillbillytom]

96. Some information about machine guns that I was not aware of

[link:http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2014/05/21/machine-guns-legal-practical-guide-full-auto/#disqus_thread|

[Snobblevitch]

11. The ten year AWB is what created demand for the AR-15.

The AR-15 and similar guns had been available for 30+ years prior to the ban. After the ban went into effect, pre-ban ARs skyrocketed in price. Demand creates sales. After the AWB expired, sales went through the roof, partly because of fears that they would once again ban the sale of them. The same thing happened with so called 'high capacity' magazines. There was a ban on new magazines, but they were always available. Once the ban expired, sales were high. It is entirely possible that these bans created a situation to increase their sales. Every time the gun banning talk starts up, gun sales increase. The gun manufacturers love gun control talk.

[ZX86]

13. Kind of hard to avoid gun control talk

When every other day there's a bloody gun massacre splashed all over our TV screens.

[Snobblevitch]

15. It's the rhetoric that is the problem.

Gun bans are not the answer. Those laws will not pass, they don't work anyway.

[ZX86]

18. Trust me.

It's the piles of dead bodies that have people upset. Not the rhetoric.

Yes, gun bans are the answer. That's why we don't have fully automatic machine gun massacres, bazooka massacres, and flame thrower massacres.

[Snobblevitch]

20. When have bans worked?

Alcohol? Street drugs?

Bana are not effective nor are they realistic? There are 300+ million guns in circulation. The talk of gun bans does one thing, it sells more guns.

[ZX86]

24. Bans work every day.

Everything you taste, touch, hear, smell, and see is regulated in one way or another and is subject to banning and confiscation. If you know of something that isn't please let us know.

[Snobblevitch]

39. How did the ban on alcohol go?

How about the ban on street drugs?

Comparing a ban on gun to Jarts is ridiculous to the extreme.

[ZX86]

46. Your argument doesn't make sense.

The ban of dangerous weapons reduces the amount of carnage caused caused by criminals who would break laws such as Prohibition and the selling of street drugs.

Prohibition led directly to the ban on tommy guns. The ban on tommy guns has been in effect for years and is doing great. The type of bloody massacres caused by tommy guns doesn't happen anymore.

The ban of weapons is nothing new and an effective tool against those who commit gun crimes and all other crimes which now includes work place violence and terrorism.

Giving criminals easy access to deadly firepower because they're criminals and they don't obey laws anyway is what is ridiculous in the extreme.

[Snobblevitch]

65. Banning 300+ million guns, yeah, that'll work.

[ZX86]

75. Snark in the face of whole sale slaughter of innocents

is not productive. Gun violence is a serious public health issue and doing nothing is not an option.

[Snobblevitch]

82. This thread is based on your OP that is full of snark.

[ZX86]

88. Snark at the people who claim we should do nothing

in the face of horrific gun violence. Snark at people who believe their hobby/fetish outweighs the safety of our family members at work or school. Snark at people who think the status quo is acceptable.

[Snobblevitch]

91. There are lots of things that can be done about

gun violence that does not include gun bans and confiscation. Talk like that only increases sales of guns. Re-read all of these gun threads, about 90% of the insults posted are from anti-RKBA people such as yourself.

[beevul]

98. Oh, but if it doesn't include bans or confiscation or gun centric measures....

Oh, but if it doesn't include bans or confiscation or gun centric measures, then NOTHING CAN BE DONE.

This is generally their position.

I'm sure one of them will chime in and say "no, that's not true", but look around. Look at all the 'gun violence prevention' outfits, and look at how they use their resources.

90 plus percent of these orgs and their efforts, are in the only direction in which they meet resistance - the gun centric direction, rather than attacking the fully 2/3 of gun deaths through non-gun efforts aimed at reducing suicides and improving nationwide mental health, a direction in which they'd meet no resistance.

They can make all the claims they want, but the facts that observing their strategies and approaches reveal speak for themselves, and really can't be hidden or explained away.

[PowerToThePeople]

52. Ban them all.

Give people 6 months to turn them in for financial compensation.

After than time, anyone with a firearm becomes a domestic terrorist and will be dealt with in accordance.

[sarisataka]

71. Ok and 90% of people comply

That leaves 8 million illegal gun owning domestic terrorists give or take.

How will you deal with them? Make Death Valley an open air penal colony or just order lots of body bags?

[ZX86]

81. Deal with them the same way all law breakers are dealt with.

You don't make laws depending on whether law breakers will follow them or not. The idea we have to ask permission of criminals whether we can have common sense gun laws or safe streets is insane.

[sarisataka]

85. So we increase our

Federal incarceration total from 1.5 to near 10 million with people who have done nothing more than violate a possession law... I recall one candidate proposing similar draconian actions for some classes of people.

If a law is going to have massive, widespread disobedience maybe that law needs to be reconsidered. There are likely unintended consequences in addition to total failure.

See 18th Amendment and the rise of organized crime.

[ZX86]

90. Most people violate speed laws.

Nobody is calling for mass incarceration of speeders. Common sense laws with common sense penalizing. No one is calling for mandatory minimum sentencing in prison because somebody has grandpa's musket hanging over the fire place in the vacation cabin.

The drama queenisms for the pro-gun crowd is astounding.

[sarisataka]

93. You said anyone with a gun

post ban "becomes a domestic terrorist and will be dealt with in accordance."

Domestic terrorists face either incarceration or death. So no drama, just logically following the aftermath of your proposal. Are you backtracking now or trying to suggest domestic terrorists face no more than a speeding ticket?

[beevul]

87. "You don't make laws depending on whether law breakers will follow them or not."

"You don't make laws depending on whether law breakers will follow them or not."

If you don't take into account when considering a proposed law, whether the masses will obey that law, then you have no business making ANY laws.

81. Deal with them the same way all law breakers are dealt with.

Ok. So when thee start being 'second amendment sanctuary' cities states and counties, will you be on board, or against them?

[ZX86]

92. When a community becomes a safe haven

for criminals and terrorists who want to traffic in high capacity killing machines the wisdom of their decisions will become self evident.

"Yeah, we don't want no Gitmo terrorists in our local maximum security federal prison, but walking our streets and patronizing our gun shops is perfectly fine!"

Turning your community into a terrorism magnet might not be the smartest move.

[beevul]

94. Tell me more.

92. When a community becomes a safe haven for criminals and terrorists who want to traffic in high capacity killing machines the wisdom of their decisions will become self evident.

Well, then I guess parts of ny and one or two other states where strict laws have been passed, where there now exist for all intents and purposes second amendment sanctuaries where laws like the safe act are not enforced, would be examples.

What is your prediction for what will happen in those places?

Oh, and for the record, why are these 'criminals and these terrorists not incarcerated?

[Orrex]

43. I agree with you, for what it's worth

Bans and confiscation are apart of all regulations. That's the nature of regulation.

Absolutely correct. That's why we've seen cops kicking in doors to confiscate cars and smartphones and baby cribs, since they're all regulated too

[X_Digger]

4. +1 n/t

[Matrosov]

54. Reasonable gun laws wouldn't have prevented San Bernadino

Stricter background checks? The weapons might have been provided by a friend, but neither Syed Farook nor Tashfeen Malik had a criminal background, and they would've been able to purchase weapons on their own.

Another federal assault weapon ban? Not only did the one from 1994 not ban these weapons outright, but even if that could be accomplished, it wouldn't make a difference. The Virginia Tech shooter killed 32 people using regular handguns.

Reasonable gun laws in Europe didn't stand in the way of Anders Brevik or the shooters in the recent massacre in Paris either.

Hence people talk about bans and confiscations.

[MohRokTah]

55. Talk of bans and confiscations = GOP political victories.

The talk of bans and confiscations make me want to buy guns and sit out the next election, and I don't own a single gun.

[ZX86]

68. Rape laws don't prevent 100% of rape either.

It doesn't mean we should make rape legal. Your argument makes no sense. Surrender to crime and criminals because nothing is 100% effective? That would be like saying don't lock your doors when you leave your home because most burglars gain entry through windows.

[Snobblevitch]

6. Your post/thread in which your main goal

is to insult all gun owners is one of the reasons that no reasonable gun control legislation has been passed.

If you would engage in a positive conversation, if you would actually work to pass reasonable gun control laws, instead of just posting rhetoric such as this, maybe something could be done.

[ZX86]

7. The reason for no reasonable gun control

is because of gun lobby money. Don't kid yourself.

[Snobblevitch]

9. I don't disagree that the gun lobby is powerful.

I do think we could have gotten a reasonable UBC (no gun registration, loans of guns ok) bill passed if an AWB was not part of it.

[Kang Colby]

23. In 2013? It would not have passed the House.

Just my .02.

[Snobblevitch]

27. You might be right.

If it were a clean bill, accounted for loaning guns, transfers to family, etc. it might have had a chance in a non-election year. However, I live in a pro-RKBA blue state (Minnesota) so my instincts might be a bit off. Personally, if a 'clean' UBC bill came up, I would support it.

[Kang Colby]

35. Nice, Minnesota is fantastic.

I spent some vacation time in McGregor, Minnesota a few years back. Beautiful, cold, country.

Even with a clean bill, and three years earlier in the 111th congress I doubt it would have won the votes in the House. At that point, there were nearly 60 Democrats who would have been reluctant to vote for anything that could be deemed "gun control". The 110th Congress passed the NICS Improvements Amendments Act of 2007, but I think UBCs would have had an issue with the Senate during that time period.

[Snobblevitch]

37. We have a cabin and a couple hundred acres

about an hour north of McGregor.

There are times when it is in the 90s and miserable (this last 4th of July) but I remember that we fired up the wood stove one time on July 31st. The best time up there is after a hard frost (mid Seltember) through deer season. We occassionally get up there in the deep winter and that is interesting when it's -25°.

I would support a reasonable UBC bill.

[Wounded Bear]

45. Until a 2A supporter calls him a "gun grabber" that is...

[Rex]

14. There is no reasoning with folks that think the POTUS is coming fer their guuuuunnsss!

They've already lost it.

[Kang Colby]

16. Those are nutty fantasies. Do you know what's just as big of a fantasy....?

A gun control bill seeing a floor vote in congress.

[ZX86]

19. I would refer you to...

Black President of the United States.

Gay marriage.

Marijuana legalization.

All of which were "nutty fantasies" less than ten years ago.

[Kang Colby]

22. I put gun rights in the same category as gay marriage, marijuana legalization, and the first

black POTUS. The idea of rights expansion is almost impossible to stop once it picks up steam.

[ZX86]

26. Gay marriage and marijuana

Don't leave piles of blood soaked, bullet hole ridden bodies all over the schools, work places, and shopping centers. People notice the difference.

[Snobblevitch]

28. What dis President Obama, or congress, have to do with marijuana legislation?

[Kang Colby]

33. If sick people didn't do those things with firearms...

would you still have an issue with firearms? Just curious.

[ZX86]

38. Strange question like

If fish smoked cigars would you ban smoking in Atlantis?

[Snobblevitch]

40. Our black president has expressed support

for RKBA, as does the Democratic platform.

The talk of gun bans just sells more guns.

[ZX86]

47. Just like they did for

One man, one woman marriage and marijuana prohibition. Establishment leadership is often behind the curve.

The talk of gun bans does sell more guns is true. It also spurs the sell of survival seeds, rebel flags, and Alex Jones newsletter subscriptions. So what?

[Snobblevitch]

66. So what?

You wish to ban guns and it doesn't bother you that talk of banning guns sells more guns? If a UBC bill can't be passed, how can banning guns get passed? If the 2A were repealed, states would regulate guns. If congress passed a law banning guns, it would get overturned in the courts.

[ZX86]

70. Every fear real and imagined sells more guns in right wing world.

That ship sailed a long time ago. We can't base law based on the fears of those who tremble at everything from fluoridated water to a zombie apocalypse.

[ryan_cats]

25. Impressive

Very impressive.

Condescending, arrogant and morally superior.

For point #2, I give you:

[ZX86]

29. I'll take your pic and raise you two.

?112882

You really don't want get into pic contest of bros with their guns.

[Major Nikon]

44. Makes you wonder what women gun owners are compensating for

Large vaginas?

[ZX86]

48. Penis envy.

The jokes write themselves around here.

[Orrex]

58. By and large, women don't hang "Bumper Nuts" from their trucks either

Women seem less generally inclined than men to post gun-porn-selfies on social media.

What's true for male gun apologists need not be true for female gun apologists. It is a fallacy to assume that men and women must work from the same motivations (false dichotomy, among others).

[Major Nikon]

59. It was never anything more than psychobabble to begin with

So if you are in search of fallacies, that would be a good place to start.

[Orrex]

61. I don't believe that it was put forth as a serious clinical diagnosis

It was intended to satirize the comical enthusiasm that some--primarily males--have for preposterously over-powerful firearms, in many cases coupled with aggressive territorial displays. Like barking the loudest, or pissing higher on the tree.

It's a fair-game mockery of a certain types of hyped-up gun apologists, and it persists in large measure due to the paradox of certain gun apologists seeming strangely casual about daily mass shootings while they shriek in horror at the offensiveness of gun=penis jokes.

[Major Nikon]

63. So the only difference seems to be with the low hanging fruit

[Orrex]

67. No

The difference is that gun apologists will halt any discussion of guns to howl and screech if someone makes a dick joke about guns. This kneejerk sensitivity suggests that something deeper than a puritanically stunted sense of humor is at play. Sensing a vulnerability, it is fitting that this vulnerability be exploited.

Much like the gun apologists' rationalization that they have to keep guns guns guns for self-defense or for government overthrow, when the likelihood of either need is statistically very small. Their perceived need suggests that something deeper is going on.

Dismissing it as "low hanging fruit" is an attempt to declare off-limits a real and actual weakness in the credibility of gun apologists' justification for gun ownership. Sorry, but it doesn't work that way.

[Major Nikon]

72. You just described how it is low hanging fruit

Exploiting someone's "weakness" based solely on what genitalia they happened to be born with is exactly how sexism works.

[Orrex]

76. You are attempting to declare all rhetorical weakness as off-limits

That would mean that all argument is impossible, by your standard. What does that leave? A duel in the street to sort our differences?

For that matter, even if we were to accept it as low hanging fruit, that wouldn't make it untrue. This is another attempt at false dichotomy.

Exploiting someone's "weakness" based solely on what genitalia they happened to be born with is exactly how sexism works.

Please. That's like declaring that a urinal is sexist because it favors penis-equipped users. Are tampons similarly sexist because they discriminate against vagina-less humans?

[Major Nikon]

80. I'm not declaring anything off limits

I'm just explaining that what you are describing is sexism. If you want to employ sexism, that's up to you, but let's just not pretend it's something else.

Please. That's like declaring that a urinal is sexist because it favors penis-equipped users. Are tampons similarly sexist because they discriminate against vagina-less humans?

Sounds a lot like gibberish. A urinal or tampon is not used for the purpose of demeaning someone based on what sex organs they were born with, which by your own admission is exactly what you are doing.

[Orrex]

83. I am using the vernacular of gun apologists

The cock/Glock joke is made routinely. At least one kind of high-capacity ammo box or magazine is described as a "nut sack." You can readily purchase "gun nuts" that are analogous to "bumper nuts." Who do you imagine to be the target demographic for these purchases?

The portrayal of guns in media is also very commonly sexualized. These are the terms and images embraced by the apologists themselves. If you would pretend that my mockery of this mentality is sexist, then you need to call them out for their self-describing sexism as well, because that's where it begins.

A urinal or tampon is not used for the purpose of demeaning someone based on what sex organs they were born with, which by your own admission is exactly what you are doing.

If it makes you feel better to pretend that this is simply about sexism, then knock yourself out. I don't believe it, and I don't believe that you believe it, but I'm not aware of a single time on DU when you have admitted that you were wrong in your thinking, so perhaps we can both recognize that this is futile.

[Major Nikon]

84. Sure, everyone is in on the joke, so that makes it OK

I don't think I have to pretend ridiculing someone's sex organs is sexist. That's kinda the epitome of sexism. It's hard to imagine anything more sexist actually. I don't think you're doing yourself any favors by insisting otherwise, although comparing that to a tampon was quite funny and you should be commended for it.

I could really care less if you want to make such jokes. I was only pointing out that the mirror to that is making fun of female gun apologists for having big vaginas, and I'm also pretty sure that would be sexist as well. YMMV.

[Orrex]

104. I would like you to explain, in detail, how a male can be sexist against males

Specifically against males over whom I wield no professional, social or institutional power.


Also:

Who doesn't love a big dick?

[Major Nikon]

105. I get that you've created your own definition for the term

If you want an explanation, I'll just refer you to Webster's or any number of other collegiate editions from major dictionary publishers as I prefer to remain fully literate on the subject. YMMV.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sexism

[Orrex]

107. I find you boring and sanctimonious

And you're another in a long line of loudmouths who are more upset about a dick joke than about thousands murdered annually. If calling me sexist will put an end to gun murders, then call me sexist. Otherwise, stuff it up your self-righteousness, thanks.

You will likely now protest that this is a baseless accusation, but it's clear from this thread that, of the two, one subject has raised your dander far more than the other.

[Eleanors38]

99. Man, all this PenisTalk© & "low-hanging fruit" is kinda steaming up the joint!

[jmg257]

32. Easy enough to institute in CT & NY. And so far has survived court challenges. Compliance

hasn't been all that great (actually ridiculously low), a few LE won't enforce it, and those new "NY Compliant" ARs are just fugly.

But it wasn't too hard to institute.
And no doors are being kicked in!

[Photographer]

34. LOL! K&R'd

[librechik]

42. They pretend liberals are Nazis and will go door to door ransacking house for guns.

It's highly effective slogan-ning, but reversed, as so much slogan-ning is.

Also involved in the confiscation word is the notion that the guns will be taken away without compensation, so these greedy bastards will be out thou$ands in hard stock and ammo.


Republicans are the Nazis (I could prove it through legitimate dynastic historical links, given about 20 minutes) Part of their overall political strategy is to accuse the enemy of what they themselves do.


of course, and at the same time, all liberals are prissy little girls without the stones to be powerful leaders. Knee jerk peace bots.

Except when we kick down doors to steal your guns.

We are Nazis to them because we want them to stop using the N word and start treating women better. How dare we? Selfish childish fucks, that's what they are.

[Eleanors38]

100. You mentioned the "N word." You mean "NRA?"

[librechik]

103. +1 n/t

[LiberalArkie]

53. That sounds like something that would work in Australia, but we are not as smart or

patriotic as Australians are.

[Munificence]

56. And yet

Gunners are kicking the anti's ass on the issue (Now who's really the dumb ones?). Because every time the issue comes up anti's (especially around here) look like those Far right Christians who worship snakes, speak in tongues, flop around on the floor and are foaming at the mouth while the rest of society says "Look at those idiots, they act like 5 year olds"

Clean up the message, organize, start a special interest group with your money and take donations...get serious about it verses coming to the table with the same argument that "It's a penis extension blah blah blah"....do you think you are going to sway anyone with those type of childish messages?

I mean look at all the "jumping to conclusions" that was done around here in the 1st hour or so of the terrorist attack, media that represent our side also. ...lots of looking like total fools and having to back track.

I'm all for regulation, extensive background checks and an honest debate.....but would some adults please stand up?

let's face it, the anti's wanted this to be a white christian male and they jumped all over that. The right wanted it to be terrorist....who do you think came out of this looking like crazy snake handlers?

I mean take a look at your 3 bullet points....if that's the best educated argument you can come up with, then we'll never get anywhere.

I'm am all for better methods and practices to regulate guns, however I will not join up with folks like you and come up with a solution because it's hard carrying on a conversation when you bring those talking points to the table....adn as sad as it is, that's all you have.

[ZX86]

86. The level on debate on gun control

Last edited Sun Dec 6, 2015, 06:49 PM - Edit history (1)

by the right wing is about macho posturing. I can't count the number of political commercials I've seen of Republicans waving guns around and shooting at inanimate objects. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. This isn't one of those times.

It reminds of when right wingers go on and on about the rebel flag being about heritage when you know it's about race.

[Eleanors38]

101. Ah, but takes $, time, energy and know-how.

Besides, talk of slumber lumber will show 'em.

"rrrRoar....rrrrUff.... I'm the king of the fores-es-es-est!"

[hollowdweller]

57. Gun rights organizations have to stoke the fears to keep people paying dues.

When Obama was running my neighbor saw my sticker and came down with an NRA magazine about how Obama was going to take my guns.

I told him what I have told lots of others: Since 1968 or so I've been told Teddy Kennedy, Clinton, Democrats et al have been going to take my guns and except for 1 or 2 guns I've sold, I still have every gun I've bought or been given since I was 13.

I actually thought the Heller decision might make paranoid gun owners more willing to accept some expanded back ground checks since it would guarantee that your guns wouldn't be taken but there could be some restrictions to protect the public. However I can see no effect of Heller in making the gun community feel more safe. Pity.

I love hunting and shooting guns and see no reason why we should ban any gun. However I do think guns capable of holding a lot of bullets need to cost more to own and require more scrutiny of your reasons for owning them than say revolvers or lever actions.

However I have no fear of gun confiscation. Although it has happened in other countries the political reality is that the gun people vote their guns and can make a difference in elections. People always talk about the power of the NRA. The NRA is important in stoking the paranoia but it's the actual voters that make the NRA powerful.

Take a very active voter base and contrast that the Dems, we can't often get people who directly benefit from Democratic programs out to vote, much less get anybody pro gun restrictions to vote and you san see why I'm not worried. Then look at gun homicides at record lows now. In the 90's when Brady and AWB passed homicide rate was 50% higher so there was more of a push for gun control. We have mass shootings now but the reality of getting shot is way less now than 20 years ago, so there is just not the political will.

Also with Clinton's making gun control an issue and dems in general, I think this will result in a possible republican president and congress. Making gun confiscation even further away. But the gun owners will remain paranoid thanks to NRA.

[Calista241]

106. I agree. While nationwide, gun control may be a more popular issue

I think it's likely to cost us a significant number of votes in Florida, Colorado, Pennsylvania, and Ohio.

With a lackluster candidate already suppressing GOTV efforts, this is exactly the wrong confluence of events I see coming.

[cheapdate]

78. ...free admission to a Toby Kieth concert in Gulf Shores, AL.

[randys1]

102. I dont want to risk WH or SC with overly aggressive ban talk at this time, given nothing can happen

anyway.

I think the President will issue exec order about background checks and no rational person will oppose that.