Do Democrats REALLY Think Americans Will Turn Their Guns In Peacefully If They Pass a Law

[HereWeGoAgain]

The whole Liberal / Progressive anti-gun argument is insane.

They say taking away guns will make society safer....yet all the while they open the borders so criminals can fill the nation, give criminals light or reduced sentences so more criminals can be on the streets and provide sanctuary cities where ultra violent MS13 gangs can flourish.

But when it comes to guns, you are more likely to die in a plane crash (which is HIGHLY unlikely in the first place) than be shot to death.

Seriously.....are these people as mentally ill as their actions say they are?

Pure Insanity....no other way to see it.

Over 80% agree on background checks and we want to end illegal immigration with a SS ID card that can't be faked and fair semi amnesty for the Worthy. Keep listening to Fox and Rush. You will never get this straight.

Background checks
Ban large capacity magazines
Keep crazies from getting guns

Overwhelmingly supported by real Americans

**** you on the first two....
Ask Coward County and the feds why they didnt detain Cruz before he went on a rampage after being reported multiple times as being a nut job.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

Most gun owners claim they are law abiding citizens and they shouldn’t be confused with those that are not

If regulations regarding background checks, registration, allowable weapons and magazine size are changed......I imagine law abiding citizens will comply

It is amusing how some of the very worst of corrupt leftist filth like to speak of the rule of law, while defending the ultimate lawlessness of violating the Constitution which is this nation's highest law.

The truth is slipping right under the radar here. The problem noted in these posts is a clue to the FACT that one cannot be both a law-abiding citizen and a moral person. The only way they could be both is if every law was moral (an impossibility, for reasons I won't get into here); this is simply not the case.

Gun owners have true knowledge of the immorality, the injustice, of taking away a person's means of defense. Their desire to recognize morality conflicts with their desire to be law-abiding. Any person who would acknowledge morality cannot be law-abiding as a general character trait; as to be law-abiding is to abide by the law regardless of its moral nature.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

In these things about guns I always wonder what is the attraction of guns? Why would people be willing to threaten a civil war to keep their guns? Is the attraction of guns in themselves, is it what they do, is it the feeling a person gets when he carries a gun. Just what?

It's the fact that the right to bear arms is the right that ultimately protects every other.

It's the fact that to deny people the right to defend themselves is no different then denying them the right to secure food, shelter, or any other fundamental means of survival.

It's the fact that parchments, oaths, and protest marches can't stop government overreaching to the point of outright tyranny. Only the ability to fight back can do that.

Don't ever get to thinking this ain't still a jungle. Law is not a protection. DEFENSE is the only true protection.

You could always offer dipshit a ride to the middle of the woods, where there's bears and Coyotes, and big cats, put him out, and tell him "**** You, you don't like guns, remember?"

He could get killed by a deer.

It's triple dangerous in FL woods. Not only are there the 3 critters I mentioned, there's around 6 more.

Gators, Diamondbacks, Crocodiles, poisonous spiders, Moccasins, Pygmy Rattlers.

I know some saltwater marshes that I'd love to take a liberal fishing.......

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

Nobody died in plane crashes
Nobody died in a U.S. commercial jet crash last year — a trend that predates Trump

And the US homicide rate is at a 51 year low....while gun ownership is at all time record highs. Imagine THAT.

BTW...last year was an unusual year as far as Commercial Jet crashes go. You're hand picking your propaganda and painting it as the norm.

Additionally, of those "gun deaths", the vast majority were suicides or gang related in fighting. So, unless you're in a gang or contemplating suicide, you are in effect worried about being struck by lightning, twice......on a day on which you also won the lottery. Outside of those, guns are used in statistically small number of murders compared to other means of murders.

Meanwhile, no concern for thousands of criminal illegal aliens entering the country?
No concern for the Sanctuary cities aiding and abetting MS13 gang members?

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Most gun owners claim they are law abiding citizens and they shouldn’t be confused with those that are not

If regulations regarding background checks, registration, allowable weapons and magazine size are changed......I imagine law abiding citizens will comply

It is amusing how some of the very worst of corrupt leftist filth like to speak of the rule of law, while defending the ultimate lawlessness of violating the Constitution which is this nation's highest law.

The truth is slipping right under the radar here. The problem noted in these posts is a clue to the FACT that one cannot be both a law-abiding citizen and a moral person. The only way they could be both is if every law was moral (an impossibility, for reasons I won't get into here); this is simply not the case.

Gun owners have true knowledge of the immorality, the injustice, of taking away a person's means of defense. Their desire to recognize morality conflicts with their desire to be law-abiding. Any person who would acknowledge morality cannot be law-abiding as a general character trait; as to be law-abiding is to abide by the law regardless of its moral nature.

Explain.

"The truth is slipping right under the radar here. The problem noted in these posts is a clue to the FACT that one cannot be both a law-abiding citizen and a moral person."

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

Background checks
Ban large capacity magazines
Keep crazies from getting guns

Overwhelmingly supported by real Americans

Actually that's false. It's what you "want" to believe. But that will never make it fact.
The truth is that Americans are split nearly evenly on these topics....regardless of your polls that also show Hillary by a landslide.

Even though they've spun the story heavily to omit the positive influence of gun ownership...The Left concedes that gun violence has become much less of a concern.

The Washington Post
We’ve had a massive decline in gun violence in the United States. Here’s why.
We’ve had a massive decline in gun violence in the United States. Here’s why.

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

Instead of fighting the Left just to hang on to the firearms we have.....we should turn the fight around and insist on owning arms that are more in line with the intent of the 2nd.

If they won't stop trying to incrementally disarm Americans and raising hell over semi auto rifles calling them "Assault" weapons, maybe we should turn the fight into a battle for OUR interpretation of the 2nd so we can actually have those "Assault weapons" they say we already have.

Maybe we should focus on a MODERN civilian militia....which is a civilian militia CAPABLE of actually meeting a tyrannical government force.

That would dictate weapons FAR more potent than AR15's

Many would probably be quite safe and responsible owning 50 Caliber fully automatic machine guns. In fact, MANY private Americans already own them.

 

[regent]

In these things about guns I always wonder what is the attraction of guns? Why would people be willing to threaten a civil war to keep their guns? Is the attraction of guns in themselves, is it what they do, is it the feeling a person gets when he carries a gun. Just what?

It's the fact that the right to bear arms is the right that ultimately protects every other.

It's the fact that to deny people the right to defend themselves is no different then denying them the right to secure food, shelter, or any other fundamental means of survival.

It's the fact that parchments, oaths, and protest marches can't stop government overreaching to the point of outright tyranny. Only the ability to fight back can do that.

Don't ever get to thinking this ain't still a jungle. Law is not a protection. DEFENSE is the only true protection.

You could always offer dipshit a ride to the middle of the woods, where there's bears and Coyotes, and big cats, put him out, and tell him "**** You, you don't like guns, remember?"

He could get killed by a deer.

It's triple dangerous in FL woods. Not only are there the 3 critters I mentioned, there's around 6 more.

Gators, Diamondbacks, Crocodiles, poisonous spiders, Moccasins, Pygmy Rattlers.

And here some dumbass is talking about banning guns.

That dumbass needs dropped off where the critters are.

Did I mention wild boar? There's Razorbacks, too. Git you some!

...or possibly some oxbow on the Trinity River full of gators.

So is that the reason for people's need for guns? In case they go to the FL woods?

 

[Kondor3]

Incorrect. They will make you obtain an owner's license and register your guns and approve transactions and require you to attend mandatory training and recertifications.

Ah yes, the fantasy that you Stalinist masturbate to; your jackbooted stormtroopers will march in and end civil rights, bringing about the hell on earth you so desire. But it's just a fantasy....

There is nothing 'Stalinist' about seeking intelligent control over lethal weapons. America has seen one too many piles of slaughtered schoolchildren.

Oh, and, by the way, conflating Gun Ownership with overall Civil Rights is an old cup of Kool-Aid that is no longer palatable to vast numbers of your countrymen.

Finally... it is only a fantasy so long as the Imperial Cheeto and his party hold power... and, the way he's going, that's going to change, in 2018, 2020 or 2022.

In any event, it won't last forever, and the next time the Dems are up-to-bat, with the White House, Congress and SCOTUS on their side, things are going to change.

So you keep right on making excuses and enabling monsters with uncontrolled quantities of assault weapons to slaughter innocent babies in their school rooms.

You only add fuel and fury to the fire; then again, your (side's) arrogance and faux confidence in the status quo will come back to haunt you soon enough.

...300 million fire arms in this nation...

That's nice.

There will shortly (as political history measures time) be a third that number, and every one of them registered, and their owners vetted and licensed and trained.

... Even if every last one of the 200,000 cops decided to become traitors and wage war on their families and friends...

Do you mean that if every one of 200,000 law enforcement officers fulfill their oaths and enforce their nation's duly-enacted laws and defend the American public?

...See, despite your desires, this ain't Nazi Germany pal...

Never said it was... never want to be thus... I would fight alongside you, to ensure that it never becomes thus.

But establishing and enforcing nationwide standards for firearms vetting, licensing, registration, training, transaction approval, etc., is not a "Nazi" characteristic.

No matter how many times you try to serve-up that same, lame, stale old Kool-Aid.

...We have an armed populace that is equal or exceeding in skill to the police and army....

Your fifth-grade schoolboy fantasies of The People Rising Against Their Masters is a real hoot... entertaining... amusing... damned funny.

...Yeah sploogy, you'll just command "SIT" and America will gladly relinquish all civil rights to your totalitarian rule....

Incorrect.

Congress will eventually pass Federal -level legislation to establish such nationwide standards and jurisdiction and it will be vetted and approved by the courts.

When that happens, your duly-elected Government will move to implement and enforce the provisions of such legislation.

You will keep your guns.

But you'll have to pass a background check, obtain a license, register each weapon, undergo mandatory training, and periodically re-certify.

In addition, there are likely to be reasonable limits on the number of weapons (5 or 10, rather than 20 or 30 or 40) and their nature.

Hell, keep your semi-autos and assault weapons - just be aware that you'll need a Class X license rather than a Class Y license; much those for a car vs. a truck.

That way, you can hang onto your juvenile fantasies about Rising Against Tyranny, safe-and-sound, snug-as-a-bug-in-a-rug, on your shooting range or farm.

But you will comply with the duly enacted and Constitutionally-vetted laws of the United States of America, once enacted... guaranteed.

...IF the government were ever so stupid to do as you fantasize, it would be an instant shooting war....

Individual States and Municipalities have already enacted such restrictions, and most have withstood the Constitutionality test in the courts.

This will merely be leveling the playing field on a nationwide basis so that all citizens who wish to own firearms undergo the same vetting and accountability standards.

As to your "instant shooting war" threats... save those for your County Volunteer Militia Camouflage Spaghetti Fundraiser or Paint-Ball Kiddie Weekend, eh?

...You see slogans like "Come and Take it" and "Stand and Fight," but you don't grasp what they really mean...

It only means that you have drunk long and deep from the NRA Kool-Aid pitcher and have worked yourself into a psychological disorder over that toxic brew.

...Basically comrade, it is a vow that if the Gestapo kicks in the door of an American to disarm them, all free people in the area will respond with deadly force to repel the Gestapo...

If you are threatening armed rebellion in reaction to the enforcement of future laws of the United States then you are setting yourself up for a humbling experience.

...Yep, you're insane. This ain't Australia...

Never said it was Australia, and I (and vast numbers who favor gun-control) don't want your guns like the Aussies did... just far better vetting and accountability.

...But I DO strongly urge you to campaign on the promise of confiscating AR-15's...

No need. That's not the intention. Merely to implement better vetting and accountability on a nationwide basis.

...It's a winner that will put you Maoists in power!...

Establishing nationwide standards for firearms vetting and accountability has nothing whatsoever to do with Maoist behaviors, despite your denigration to the contrary.

...Hey, you Bolshevik thugs have been really successful over the last 100 years, Why would that change?

What "Bolshevists" would those be?

Your fellow Americans, who oftentimes take political stands alongside you on many other issues, but who merely differ from you in their opinion about firearms screening and the responsibilities that should accompany gun ownership?

That doesn't make them "Bolshevists". That makes them fellow citizens who are tired of the slaughter and who want real and substantive change in this area.

Fellow citizens whose numbers grow exponentially with each passing slaughter of little schoolchildren.

Fellow citizens whose numbers grow each time those in thrall to the NRA and its Kool-Aid turn to vilifying and denigrating those who think differently than they do.

Come to think of it, vilifying and denigrating those who think differently than you do - where have we seen that before in history?

And where, in history, have we seen that vilifying and denigration turn into threats of violent reaction, as we see here?

And where, in history, have we seen such threats of violent reaction turn into action?

But not to worry... Trump and the Republicans are gonna stay in power forevermore, right?

Especially after he served-up his own brand of NRA Kool-Aid in a speech just yesterday.

Told you exactly what you wanted to hear, didn't he?

I'll bet some of your cammo-wearing County Volunteer Militia creamed their jeans over that one.

Enjoy it while it lasts.

Because it's not going to last forever.

The movement to undertake real and substantive Gun Control in the United States through duly enacted legislation isn't dying.. it's just getting started.

The People, their Republic, and its Constitution and Laws will ultimately triumph in this matter, and you, as a Citizen, will obey those Laws... guaranteed.

View attachment 192070

Then it's a good thing for mainstream Gun Control advocates, that they're not looking to outlaw guns, isn't it?

 

[Kondor3]

...If your filthy ass point is that this country is losing our Liberties because of deranged assholes like you then I will tend to agree...

Calm yourself, Princess, and mind your manners, in the presence of your betters.

...Oppression often times wins out over Liberty. We have seen it many times...

There is no loss of Liberty at stake here; merely a long-overdue introduction of accountability with respect to ownership of lethal weapons.

...But we won't go down without a fight....

Save that $hit for your cammo-wearing County Volunteer Militia spaghetti-fundraiser nights, eh?

...By the way Moon Bat, the membership of the NRA is at an all time high. A significant number of new members just since Parkland...

Keep consoling yourself with such inconsequential thoughts... it will not stop Reform from coming.

...Firearms ownership is also at an all time high. At the same time violent crimes have been decreasing...

That's nice. And with newly-introduced Gun Control measures (nationwide vetting, licensing, registration, etc.), crime will continue to decline.

...The only place we have significant crime in this country is in the Democrat controlled big city shitholes among the scum that votes for Democrats.

Yep.

Mostly because the thugs in those $hitholes skip across the State Line to Red States that have much looser laws for such purposes.

Time to level the playing field and establish and enforce nationwide standards for that purpose.

The gun-owner in Hawaii or Texas or New Jersey or Alabama or Maine or Oklahoma or Illinois or Vermont all will be held to the same measure of accountability.

Same goes for gun manufacturers and dealers... accountability and responsibilities all across the board.

It's coming.

And it's going to get a bullet right between it's eyes.

You tell 'em, Twinkle-toes...

 

[9thIDdoc]

People rightly defend themselves against armed robbers. Most police would refuse to become criminals.

Well, all police are criminals against natural law, but within the context you're suggesting, I certainly hope you're right, but I'm not so sure. I think things would have to get pretty bad for them to stand up. If their masters said "go round up all the children and bring them to work camps" I believe many would take a stand, but tyranny doesn't usually work like that. It's more of a step-wise, tip-toe effect.

But if they said "Go get their guns, not ALL of them, just those really dangerous ones that they don't need for hunting and stuff" I think these guys will come and take them. My view can be skewed because I'm from NYC, I don't know. I have this notion that cops in more gun-friendly areas would be more likely to stand up, but it's just a guess.

Disagree that police are criminals against natural law. Except maybe in NYC.
Agree with your comment about tyranny.
About - Oath Keepers

I love what the oath keepers are trying to do, but the Constitution itself condones violation of natural law (ironically, considering who wrote it) because it asserts an inequality of rights. “Congress shall have power...” that other individuals don’t have.

Congress is not an individual and does not have rights. Congress has lawful limited authority.

Um... Congress is a group of human beings, is it not? Making them all stand in one place, pointing at them and calling them “Congress” doesn’t change that fact. Men make laws, men enforce laws, and men who do these things claim rights that others don’t have (euphemized as “lawful limited authority”). Do you agree?

No. the individuals that make up the group known as congress have rights. The group known as congress may have powers responsibility privileges and authority but it does not have rights.

 

[flacaltenn]

In these things about guns I always wonder what is the attraction of guns? Why would people be willing to threaten a civil war to keep their guns? Is the attraction of guns in themselves, is it what they do, is it the feeling a person gets when he carries a gun. Just what?

It's the fact that the right to bear arms is the right that ultimately protects every other.

It's the fact that to deny people the right to defend themselves is no different then denying them the right to secure food, shelter, or any other fundamental means of survival.

It's the fact that parchments, oaths, and protest marches can't stop government overreaching to the point of outright tyranny. Only the ability to fight back can do that.

Don't ever get to thinking this ain't still a jungle. Law is not a protection. DEFENSE is the only true protection.

You could always offer dipshit a ride to the middle of the woods, where there's bears and Coyotes, and big cats, put him out, and tell him "**** You, you don't like guns, remember?"

He could get killed by a deer.

It's triple dangerous in FL woods. Not only are there the 3 critters I mentioned, there's around 6 more.

Gators, Diamondbacks, Crocodiles, poisonous spiders, Moccasins, Pygmy Rattlers.

And here some dumbass is talking about banning guns.

That dumbass needs dropped off where the critters are.

Did I mention wild boar? There's Razorbacks, too. Git you some!

...or possibly some oxbow on the Trinity River full of gators.

So is that the reason for people's need for guns? In case they go to the FL woods?

What the hell is wrong with THAT concept? Does your doorman keep the coyotes and alligators out of your 300 sq ft apartment?

 

[flacaltenn]

Second Mod Message this evening. 16 more posts deleted. All noise and personal threats. Last call for discussing the TOPIC of the thread.

 

[LuckyDuck]

Even the Democrats in Congress know more gun control laws are political suicide. Look for some of the state laws recently enacted to be overturned in the courts also. ALL are unconstitutional.

Based upon the Dimocrats pushing for more gun control and a repeal of the 2nd Amendment, I figure that, that the topic is going to be a part of their main rhetoric for the 2018 elections. After all, Marxist ideology needs the disarming of the public so that the freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution can be gradually eliminated.

 

[9thIDdoc]

People rightly defend themselves against armed robbers. Most police would refuse to become criminals.

Well, all police are criminals against natural law, but within the context you're suggesting, I certainly hope you're right, but I'm not so sure. I think things would have to get pretty bad for them to stand up. If their masters said "go round up all the children and bring them to work camps" I believe many would take a stand, but tyranny doesn't usually work like that. It's more of a step-wise, tip-toe effect.

But if they said "Go get their guns, not ALL of them, just those really dangerous ones that they don't need for hunting and stuff" I think these guys will come and take them. My view can be skewed because I'm from NYC, I don't know. I have this notion that cops in more gun-friendly areas would be more likely to stand up, but it's just a guess.

Disagree that police are criminals against natural law. Except maybe in NYC.
Agree with your comment about tyranny.
About - Oath Keepers

I love what the oath keepers are trying to do, but the Constitution itself condones violation of natural law (ironically, considering who wrote it) because it asserts an inequality of rights. “Congress shall have power...” that other individuals don’t have.

The Constitution is the law of the land. "Natural law" is a fantasy construct.

So you completely dismiss everything the Founding Fathers believed - unalienable rights and so forth - but have total respect for the document expressly born of those beliefs?

Please support your assertion of natural law being a fantasy construct with some rational argumentation, if you would. To make that determination, you must have a great understanding of the principles of natural law and reasons for thinking it’s all bunk, so please explain how you came to this conclusion.

You think you know everything the Founding Fathers believed or that they all believed the same things? I believe they put their beliefs into the Constitution and the Constitution does not contain unalienable rights. A person can be deprived of any and all rights under certain circumstances such as conviction of a crime insanity age etc. Nor were all men created equal in our new Country. Some were still born slaves and women were little better than property and only property owners had a vote in some places.

Why would you think I could or should know the properties of somebody else's fantasy? At one time people believed that it was natural law that the world was flat and the sun circled the earth. In case you're wondering they were wrong. Given the examples you've given as being natural law (which is all I know about how you define the term) I have to think your thinking is very nearly as skewed.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

Most gun owners claim they are law abiding citizens and they shouldn’t be confused with those that are not

If regulations regarding background checks, registration, allowable weapons and magazine size are changed......I imagine law abiding citizens will comply

It is amusing how some of the very worst of corrupt leftist filth like to speak of the rule of law, while defending the ultimate lawlessness of violating the Constitution which is this nation's highest law.

The truth is slipping right under the radar here. The problem noted in these posts is a clue to the FACT that one cannot be both a law-abiding citizen and a moral person. The only way they could be both is if every law was moral (an impossibility, for reasons I won't get into here); this is simply not the case.

Gun owners have true knowledge of the immorality, the injustice, of taking away a person's means of defense. Their desire to recognize morality conflicts with their desire to be law-abiding. Any person who would acknowledge morality cannot be law-abiding as a general character trait; as to be law-abiding is to abide by the law regardless of its moral nature.

Explain.

"The truth is slipping right under the radar here. The problem noted in these posts is a clue to the FACT that one cannot be both a law-abiding citizen and a moral person."

The remainder of that post went some distance in way of explanation; but the point is that to be a “law-abiding citizen” - as an overarching characteristic - one must obey man’s law irrespective of its content. If law says, “children must be caged and starved for 24 hours upon being caught in a lie” then the law-abiding citizen must perform this duty, with no consideration of morality. To not consider morality disqualifies one from being a moral person.

What’s more, were there such a thing as a true law-abiding citizen (and I am reluctant to believe that any such creature could exist), he would be in violation of his own rights. Man has unalienable rights by natural law, meaning that his rights cannot be separated from him by any means, including his own consent.

The law asserts that it has the right to act as a primary standard for the individual’s behavior. No moral objection can excuse one from the punishment of breaking the law. The law-abiding citizen also recognizes governmental authority as valid and primary, obeying its dictates irrespective of any other considerations.

To willingly hand himself over to this state of outright slavery is no less a crime than had he handed another over to it; and so he aids in the violation of human rights, and his standing as a moral person is lost.

 

[LuckyDuck]

"Democratic Rep. Eric Swalwell of California wants to ban assault weapons, instate a federal gun buy-back program for those who own them and criminally prosecute those who refuse to hand them over.

The representative wrote an op-ed in USA Today Thursday rolling out what he feels is the gun control policy America should adopt:"



"“Reinstating the federal assault weapons ban that was in effect from 1994 to 2004 would prohibit manufacture and sales, but it would not affect weapons already possessed. This would leave millions of assault weapons in our communities for decades to come,” Swalwell wrote.

“Instead, we should ban possession of military-style semiautomatic assault weapons, we should buy back such weapons from all who choose to abide by the law, and we should criminally prosecute any who choose to defy it by keeping their weapons.”"

Raise your hand out there if you think this would end peacefully, with law-abiding citizens simply handing over their (until that moment) legally-owned guns to a bunch of Liberals trampling on the Constitution in their continued effort to dis-arm the American people (Because you KNOW the Liberals would not stop there...)?

Yeah, that's what I thought. Not going to happen / end well....



Eric Swalwell Unloads Gun Platform Liberals Really Want

I look at it this way.
There are over 300 million firearms in the hands of 80 to 100 million private citizens. Taking a conservative figure of 10%, if that percentage were to say, "I'm not giving up my gun(s) period....mean it and are willing to fight to keep them, that would be 8 to 10 million private citizens, myself among them, willing to take up arms against those trying to take them. That figure significantly exceeds the number of illiterate farmers in Afghanistan that have bogged down the US armed forces for 17 years, costing thousands of lives on both sides. Now, add to this, those personnel who joined the military have all sworn an oath to uphold the US Constitution, the 2nd Amendment being a part of it and who also own their own private firearms and thus some of them would break from standard ranks and side with the gun owners. The subsequent bloodbath that would result would make or first Civil War seem quite tame by comparison. You must ask, do we really want to make criminals out of the public that legally purchased those firearms, and weren't committing crimes and passionately believed in their right to bear arms? If that answer is yes, then I say, let the carnage begin.

 

[SavannahMann]

Incorrect. They will make you obtain an owner's license and register your guns and approve transactions and require you to attend mandatory training and recertifications.

Ah yes, the fantasy that you Stalinist masturbate to; your jackbooted stormtroopers will march in and end civil rights, bringing about the hell on earth you so desire. But it's just a fantasy....

There is nothing 'Stalinist' about seeking intelligent control over lethal weapons. America has seen one too many piles of slaughtered schoolchildren.

Oh, and, by the way, conflating Gun Ownership with overall Civil Rights is an old cup of Kool-Aid that is no longer palatable to vast numbers of your countrymen.

Finally... it is only a fantasy so long as the Imperial Cheeto and his party hold power... and, the way he's going, that's going to change, in 2018, 2020 or 2022.

In any event, it won't last forever, and the next time the Dems are up-to-bat, with the White House, Congress and SCOTUS on their side, things are going to change.

So you keep right on making excuses and enabling monsters with uncontrolled quantities of assault weapons to slaughter innocent babies in their school rooms.

You only add fuel and fury to the fire; then again, your (side's) arrogance and faux confidence in the status quo will come back to haunt you soon enough.

...300 million fire arms in this nation...

That's nice.

There will shortly (as political history measures time) be a third that number, and every one of them registered, and their owners vetted and licensed and trained.

... Even if every last one of the 200,000 cops decided to become traitors and wage war on their families and friends...

Do you mean that if every one of 200,000 law enforcement officers fulfill their oaths and enforce their nation's duly-enacted laws and defend the American public?

...See, despite your desires, this ain't Nazi Germany pal...

Never said it was... never want to be thus... I would fight alongside you, to ensure that it never becomes thus.

But establishing and enforcing nationwide standards for firearms vetting, licensing, registration, training, transaction approval, etc., is not a "Nazi" characteristic.

No matter how many times you try to serve-up that same, lame, stale old Kool-Aid.

...We have an armed populace that is equal or exceeding in skill to the police and army....

Your fifth-grade schoolboy fantasies of The People Rising Against Their Masters is a real hoot... entertaining... amusing... damned funny.

...Yeah sploogy, you'll just command "SIT" and America will gladly relinquish all civil rights to your totalitarian rule....

Incorrect.

Congress will eventually pass Federal -level legislation to establish such nationwide standards and jurisdiction and it will be vetted and approved by the courts.

When that happens, your duly-elected Government will move to implement and enforce the provisions of such legislation.

You will keep your guns.

But you'll have to pass a background check, obtain a license, register each weapon, undergo mandatory training, and periodically re-certify.

In addition, there are likely to be reasonable limits on the number of weapons (5 or 10, rather than 20 or 30 or 40) and their nature.

Hell, keep your semi-autos and assault weapons - just be aware that you'll need a Class X license rather than a Class Y license; much those for a car vs. a truck.

That way, you can hang onto your juvenile fantasies about Rising Against Tyranny, safe-and-sound, snug-as-a-bug-in-a-rug, on your shooting range or farm.

But you will comply with the duly enacted and Constitutionally-vetted laws of the United States of America, once enacted... guaranteed.

...IF the government were ever so stupid to do as you fantasize, it would be an instant shooting war....

Individual States and Municipalities have already enacted such restrictions, and most have withstood the Constitutionality test in the courts.

This will merely be leveling the playing field on a nationwide basis so that all citizens who wish to own firearms undergo the same vetting and accountability standards.

As to your "instant shooting war" threats... save those for your County Volunteer Militia Camouflage Spaghetti Fundraiser or Paint-Ball Kiddie Weekend, eh?

...You see slogans like "Come and Take it" and "Stand and Fight," but you don't grasp what they really mean...

It only means that you have drunk long and deep from the NRA Kool-Aid pitcher and have worked yourself into a psychological disorder over that toxic brew.

...Basically comrade, it is a vow that if the Gestapo kicks in the door of an American to disarm them, all free people in the area will respond with deadly force to repel the Gestapo...

If you are threatening armed rebellion in reaction to the enforcement of future laws of the United States then you are setting yourself up for a humbling experience.

...Yep, you're insane. This ain't Australia...

Never said it was Australia, and I (and vast numbers who favor gun-control) don't want your guns like the Aussies did... just far better vetting and accountability.

...But I DO strongly urge you to campaign on the promise of confiscating AR-15's...

No need. That's not the intention. Merely to implement better vetting and accountability on a nationwide basis.

...It's a winner that will put you Maoists in power!...

Establishing nationwide standards for firearms vetting and accountability has nothing whatsoever to do with Maoist behaviors, despite your denigration to the contrary.

...Hey, you Bolshevik thugs have been really successful over the last 100 years, Why would that change?

What "Bolshevists" would those be?

Your fellow Americans, who oftentimes take political stands alongside you on many other issues, but who merely differ from you in their opinion about firearms screening and the responsibilities that should accompany gun ownership?

That doesn't make them "Bolshevists". That makes them fellow citizens who are tired of the slaughter and who want real and substantive change in this area.

Fellow citizens whose numbers grow exponentially with each passing slaughter of little schoolchildren.

Fellow citizens whose numbers grow each time those in thrall to the NRA and its Kool-Aid turn to vilifying and denigrating those who think differently than they do.

Come to think of it, vilifying and denigrating those who think differently than you do - where have we seen that before in history?

And where, in history, have we seen that vilifying and denigration turn into threats of violent reaction, as we see here?

And where, in history, have we seen such threats of violent reaction turn into action?

But not to worry... Trump and the Republicans are gonna stay in power forevermore, right?

Especially after he served-up his own brand of NRA Kool-Aid in a speech just yesterday.

Told you exactly what you wanted to hear, didn't he?

I'll bet some of your cammo-wearing County Volunteer Militia creamed their jeans over that one.

Enjoy it while it lasts.

Because it's not going to last forever.

The movement to undertake real and substantive Gun Control in the United States through duly enacted legislation isn't dying.. it's just getting started.

The People, their Republic, and its Constitution and Laws will ultimately triumph in this matter, and you, as a Citizen, will obey those Laws... guaranteed.

View attachment 192070

Then it's a good thing for mainstream Gun Control advocates, that they're not looking to outlaw guns, isn't it?

Sure you are. Oh you wrap it in a couple dozen “common sense” reforms or some such shit. But you’re going to ban them bit by bit. First, the high capacity magazines. Then you’ll argue that we need a background check to even own. Then you’ll explain how this hasn’t reduced the gun violence, so we need to do more, and more and more.

It’s a lie. And already the people are sick of hearing about it, which is why support for your common sense reforms, or what do you call them now? Doesn’t matter, support is falling. Already the number of people who think it is a big issue, has cut in half from the high after Parkland. Perhaps you’ll get lucky, and another nutter will have a mass shooting right before the election, but otherwise, it isn’t going to carry you across the finish line.

That is where your promises of this incremental banning falls down. Besides violating even the most basic tenants of common sense, it’s all based on a lie. It isn’t common sense by any stretch of the fevered imagination.

Why haven’t we banned nuclear weapons? We know they are dangerous, and if they are used, millions will die. We all know this. But every election, it isn’t the idea that we should ban the missiles that is the talking point. It’s who’s finger is going to be on the button. We recognize that is an important issue, and we discuss it. Do we trust this person or that one to have their finger on the proverbial button. Yet, when it is a gun, well then it’s the gun that is the issue. That’s why we have to ban high capacity magazines. That’s why we can’t reduce the restrictions on sound suppression systems, because the weapons are the dangerous things.

Pfui. It’s all a lie, and either you know it, and don’t care. Or you are ignorant enough to actually believe the propaganda.

 

[Marion Morrison]

In these things about guns I always wonder what is the attraction of guns? Why would people be willing to threaten a civil war to keep their guns? Is the attraction of guns in themselves, is it what they do, is it the feeling a person gets when he carries a gun. Just what?

It's the fact that the right to bear arms is the right that ultimately protects every other.

It's the fact that to deny people the right to defend themselves is no different then denying them the right to secure food, shelter, or any other fundamental means of survival.

It's the fact that parchments, oaths, and protest marches can't stop government overreaching to the point of outright tyranny. Only the ability to fight back can do that.

Don't ever get to thinking this ain't still a jungle. Law is not a protection. DEFENSE is the only true protection.

You could always offer dipshit a ride to the middle of the woods, where there's bears and Coyotes, and big cats, put him out, and tell him "**** You, you don't like guns, remember?"

He could get killed by a deer.

It's triple dangerous in FL woods. Not only are there the 3 critters I mentioned, there's around 6 more.

Gators, Diamondbacks, Crocodiles, poisonous spiders, Moccasins, Pygmy Rattlers.

And here some dumbass is talking about banning guns.

That dumbass needs dropped off where the critters are.

Did I mention wild boar? There's Razorbacks, too. Git you some!

...or possibly some oxbow on the Trinity River full of gators.

So is that the reason for people's need for guns? In case they go to the FL woods?

Newsflash, Twinkletoes, just because FL woods are more deadly, doesn't mean all the woods nationwide aren't full of critters that can kill you just as dead. It could just be a pack of a dozen wild (formerly domestic), coy dogs that went feral in the 90s.

 

[jon_berzerk]

"Democratic Rep. Eric Swalwell of California wants to ban assault weapons, instate a federal gun buy-back program for those who own them and criminally prosecute those who refuse to hand them over.

The representative wrote an op-ed in USA Today Thursday rolling out what he feels is the gun control policy America should adopt:"



"“Reinstating the federal assault weapons ban that was in effect from 1994 to 2004 would prohibit manufacture and sales, but it would not affect weapons already possessed. This would leave millions of assault weapons in our communities for decades to come,” Swalwell wrote.

“Instead, we should ban possession of military-style semiautomatic assault weapons, we should buy back such weapons from all who choose to abide by the law, and we should criminally prosecute any who choose to defy it by keeping their weapons.”"

Raise your hand out there if you think this would end peacefully, with law-abiding citizens simply handing over their (until that moment) legally-owned guns to a bunch of Liberals trampling on the Constitution in their continued effort to dis-arm the American people (Because you KNOW the Liberals would not stop there...)?

Yeah, that's what I thought. Not going to happen / end well....



Eric Swalwell Unloads Gun Platform Liberals Really Want

I look at it this way.
There are over 300 million firearms in the hands of 80 to 100 million private citizens. Taking a conservative figure of 10%, if that percentage were to say, "I'm not giving up my gun(s) period....mean it and are willing to fight to keep them, that would be 8 to 10 million private citizens, myself among them, willing to take up arms against those trying to take them. That figure significantly exceeds the number of illiterate farmers in Afghanistan that have bogged down the US armed forces for 17 years, costing thousands of lives on both sides. Now, add to this, those personnel who joined the military have all sworn an oath to uphold the US Constitution, the 2nd Amendment being a part of it and who also own their own private firearms and thus some of them would break from standard ranks and side with the gun owners. The subsequent bloodbath that would result would make or first Civil War seem quite tame by comparison. You must ask, do we really want to make criminals out of the public that legally purchased those firearms, and weren't committing crimes and passionately believed in their right to bear arms? If that answer is yes, then I say, let the carnage begin.

true

however there are millions of people who do not own a firearm that support the right to bear arms

a better reflection may be too look at the revolutionary war

only 3% actually took up arms another 10% actively assisted the effort

and 20 more % offered support

10 million may be a very low guess

and then they have to count on a fascist military willing to kill its own family