The only law that will disarm criminals, is a TOTAL BAN on guns, followed by confiscation

[Little-Acorn]

The liberals have made countless laws restricting guns. Some places are even called "gun free zones" by them. Yet that is where nearly all of the mass shootings take place.

It is becoming increasingly clear that their laws don't work.

Some of them have even admitted frankly that the only countries that have managed to reduce these mass shootings, are the ones that enact a virtual 100% ban on guns in civilian hands: England, China, Japan, Australia, etc. The fact that crime continues to increase in most of those countries, is carefully not examined by the liberals.

And yet, with the evidence before them, they continue to push for more gun laws. It's obvious what their real goal is: Knowing the laws they call for won't work, they want the 100% ban in this country, too.

And even that 100% ban will only work if we also enact a massive police state, where squads of armed police regularly invade and search every house, looking for guns.

Keep this in mind the next time some politician calls for "reasonable gun restrictions" or some other tired talking point. He knows it won't work. But it's the next step he wants on the way to his real goal.

What other reason could he have for continuing to push for more gun laws?

 

[Little-Acorn]

 

[easyt65]

Good luck with that....

 

[SuperDemocrat]

The only problem(s) with total confiscation is the 2nd and 5th amendment. The second amendment is obvious because when it says the people have the right to bear arms it is impossible to deny everyone from owning some kind of weapon. The next problem, which is rarely discussed, is that the fifth amendment states that whenever the government takes your property it must pay you for it. This is known as eminent domain so whenever the government takes your property it has to give you some money. IF the government takes your gun then it mush compensate you for your loss. This simple idea is really designed, in my opinion, to prevent the government from outright stealing from you. Such things do happen in many third world countries. They call it 'nationalizing' but in reality it is just transferring property rights from individuals to the state beurcracy itself. Confiscating firearms will be an expansive endeavor.

In this country, by this dictator, who goes by the name of Obama, it is called 'shared responsibility'. That is how it goes in our banana republic.

 

[Little-Acorn]

The only problem(s) with total confiscation is the 2nd and 5th amendment.

Plus a couple hundred million pissed-off gun owners.

For good reason.

How much farther can they be pushed without reacting?

 

[Little-Acorn]

So why don't you stop obsessing with taking guns from people who aren't committing crimes and in fact want to defend themselves and start working on the actual problem, the criminals?

Because solving the actual problem isn't what liberals want. They want to control law-abiding people, and make sure the law-abiding people can't control them.

With all the evidence we've seen that "gun control" doesn't work, there are still some liberals trying to restrict guns.

Clearly, reducing crime isn't their goal, since that's been proven again and again to NOT result from their efforts at gun control.

There aren't too many alternatives left. Can these people have ANYTHING in mind besides disarming and controlling the law-abiding populace?

 

[kaz]

So why don't you stop obsessing with taking guns from people who aren't committing crimes and in fact want to defend themselves and start working on the actual problem, the criminals?

Because solving the actual problem isn't what liberals want. They want to control law-abiding people, and make sure the law-abiding people can't control them.

With all the evidence we've seen that "gun control" doesn't work, there are still some liberals trying to restrict guns.

Clearly, reducing crime isn't their goal, since that's been proven again and again to NOT result from their efforts at gun control.

There aren't too many alternatives left. Can these people have ANYTHING in mind besides disarming and controlling the law-abiding populace?

No one would logically think that laws that only take guns from victims would make us safer if making us safer was their goal. Liberals want to make ubiquitous government safer

 

[Bassman007]

The liberals have made countless laws restricting guns. Some places are even called "gun free zones" by them. Yet that is where nearly all of the mass shootings take place.

It is becoming increasingly clear that their laws don't work.

Some of them have even admitted frankly that the only countries that have managed to reduce these mass shootings, are the ones that enact a virtual 100% ban on guns in civilian hands: England, China, Japan, Australia, etc. The fact that crime continues to increase in most of those countries, is carefully not examined by the liberals.

And yet, with the evidence before them, they continue to push for more gun laws. It's obvious what their real goal is: Knowing the laws they call for won't work, they want the 100% ban in this country, too.

And even that 100% ban will only work if we also enact a massive police state, where squads of armed police regularly invade and search every house, looking for guns.

Keep this in mind the next time some politician calls for "reasonable gun restrictions" or some other tired talking point. He knows it won't work. But it's the next step he wants on the way to his real goal.

What other reason could he have for continuing to push for more gun laws?

Will banning guns ban guns like banning heroin and cannabis banned them?

Think if you can moron

 

[Flash]

"The only law that will disarm criminals, is a TOTAL BAN on guns, followed by confiscation"

This fails as a straw man fallacy, no one advocates a 'total ban' of firearms, nor does anyone advocate firearms be 'confiscated.'

Any measure attempting to do so would be invalidated by the courts as a violation of the Second, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments to the Constitution.

In addition to being a straw man fallacy this is nothing more than ridiculous demagoguery and fear-mongering.

You didn't pay attention to the OP's point, did you?

His point was that restrictive laws don't work so therefore the only way to prevent gun crimes is to resort to draconian methods.

By the way the Libtards are simply too chickenshit to declare that they want confiscation but that doesn't mean they don't want it and would impose it if they thought they could get away with it.

We are only one vote away in the Supreme Court from having the right to keep and bear arms being taken away. Four Libtard shitheads on the Supreme Court voted against the concept that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right so your premise that they could never do it is very weak.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

We are only one vote away in the Supreme Court from having the right to keep and bear arms being taken away.

Nah, simmer down. It's far too late for all that. Any such ruling from the SCOTUS would be completely ignored, and if pressed it would quickly become clear precisely who has the upper hand in this matter.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

So why don't you stop obsessing with taking guns from people who aren't committing crimes and in fact want to defend themselves and start working on the actual problem, the criminals?

Because solving the actual problem isn't what liberals want. They want to control law-abiding people, and make sure the law-abiding people can't control them.

With all the evidence we've seen that "gun control" doesn't work, there are still some liberals trying to restrict guns.

Clearly, reducing crime isn't their goal, since that's been proven again and again to NOT result from their efforts at gun control.

There aren't too many alternatives left. Can these people have ANYTHING in mind besides disarming and controlling the law-abiding populace?

The only evidence is that you and most others on the right remain ridiculous liars.

 

[Flash]

We are only one vote away in the Supreme Court from having the right to keep and bear arms being taken away.

Nah, simmer down. It's far too late for all that. Any such ruling from the SCOTUS would be completely ignored, and if pressed it would quickly become clear precisely who has the upper hand in this matter.

Alan Gura, the attorney that argued Heller, says that we are only one SCOTUS vote away from losing the right to keep and bear arms and that most likely we only have a few years to go before the end. He is very credible when it comes to this subject.

Here is him talking about it.

http://ec.libsyn.com/p/c/d/e/cde6cf...ce3dae902ea1d06cd8032d9ca54bd4a&c_id=10929665

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

We are only one vote away in the Supreme Court from having the right to keep and bear arms being taken away.

Nah, simmer down. It's far too late for all that. Any such ruling from the SCOTUS would be completely ignored, and if pressed it would quickly become clear precisely who has the upper hand in this matter.

Alan Gura, the attorney that argued Heller, says that we are only one SCOTUS vote away from losing the right to keep and bear arms and that most likely we only have a few years to go before the end. He is very credible when it comes to this subject.

Here is him talking about it.

http://ec.libsyn.com/p/c/d/e/cde6cf...ce3dae902ea1d06cd8032d9ca54bd4a&c_id=10929665

He can talk all he wants. The people won't accept a reversal.

 

[WildBillKelsoe]

We are only one vote away in the Supreme Court from having the right to keep and bear arms being taken away.

Nah, simmer down. It's far too late for all that. Any such ruling from the SCOTUS would be completely ignored, and if pressed it would quickly become clear precisely who has the upper hand in this matter.

Alan Gura, the attorney that argued Heller, says that we are only one SCOTUS vote away from losing the right to keep and bear arms and that most likely we only have a few years to go before the end. He is very credible when it comes to this subject.

Here is him talking about it.

http://ec.libsyn.com/p/c/d/e/cde6cf...ce3dae902ea1d06cd8032d9ca54bd4a&c_id=10929665

A Supreme Court ruling in favor of gun bans/confiscation would be illegal.

 

[Agit8r]

Fun fact; gun free zones were originally aimed at Black Panthers.

 

[easyt65]

That won't even do it. A ban and confiscation will only work on those who actually respect and follow the law...and at that point, however, the government would have a fight on their hands to be able to successfully confiscate all the guns. Might be talking about another 'Civil War'.

 

[jon_berzerk]

Fun fact; gun free zones were originally aimed at Black Panthers.

so you are saying that gun control laws tend to be racist

 

[Agit8r]

Fun fact; gun free zones were originally aimed at Black Panthers.

so you are saying that gun control laws tend to be racist

Is that the implication? On occasion, the black panthers carried guns into a court of law. Is that a legitimate form of protest?

 

[jon_berzerk]

Fun fact; gun free zones were originally aimed at Black Panthers.

so you are saying that gun control laws tend to be racist

Is that the implication? On occasion, the black panthers carried guns into a court of law. Is that a legitimate form of protest?

i believe in open carry for all

the court is hardly a gun free zone

there are plenty of guns in court house

including many judges

so are you saying the court house set up a gun free zone because black folks attended with side arms

but on the other hand it was ok for white folks carrying side arms into the court house



however truth be told

the many gun laws are racist

like the banning of Saturday night specials for example

 

[Agit8r]

Fun fact; gun free zones were originally aimed at Black Panthers.

so you are saying that gun control laws tend to be racist

Is that the implication? On occasion, the black panthers carried guns into a court of law. Is that a legitimate form of protest?

i believe in open carry for all

the court is hardly a gun free zone

there are plenty of guns in court house

including many judges

so are you saying the court house set up a gun free zone because black folks attended with side arms

but on the other hand it was ok for white folks carrying side arms into the court house



however truth be told

the many gun laws are racist

like the banning of Saturday night specials for example

And that's why Antonin Scalia was okay with gun free zones, right?