CDZ My gun control plan that will stop 95-99% of gun crime and murder in the U.S.

OP
2aguy

2aguy

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2014
Messages
80,219
Reaction score
17,249
Points
2,180
Frivolous gun control laws like universal background checks don’t save any lives... In fact they have nothing to do with firearms they have always been about control
Nice qualifier... throw a “frivolous” in there so you can hide from the fact that regulation does save lives. How about you show some objectivity and lay out which non frivolous gun laws do save lives. Then maybe we can move forward with a rational discussion

The problem with the word regulation and the way we use it today, it is a shy way of saying National Gun Registration. Prevention is the real answer.

We know who is going to commit acts of violence. Intervene and help them before they destroy their lives... and the lives of others. Let's help them while they're young. Let's start by getting rid of America's drug culture.
Yes I agree that we need to work on prevention. But I also don’t believe in the slippery slope that ends in confiscation. Regulations do save lives and make our communities safer. That should be admitted by all and not denied. We need to be smart about how and what we regulate while maintaining a fair balance of public safety and personal freedom.

The slippery slope always ends in confiscation....you can't name one place where they registered guns where they didn't latter come back and confiscate them.....Britain, France, Germany, Australia, Canada, New York, California, Venezuela.........
I live in California. Guns are not confiscated. I own several. My buddy owns a gun shop. People can go in there and buy guns.

You guys live under the protection of the 2nd Amendment, the work of the NRA, Gun Owners of America and the 2nd Amendment Foundation....it's like saying that we don't have to worry about war anymore because no one has attacked us since 9/11.

This is a war of attrition....you have all of the major democrat presidential candidates declaring they support mandatory gun buyback, assault weapon bans and confiscation along the lines of the Australian model.....if you think they are joking, you are delusional...if you think they will stop at AR-15 rifles, you don't understand their openness about banning all semi-automatic weapons....that would mean all rifles, pistols and shotguns as well as revolvers that fire one shot per pull of the trigger....and if you think they don't mean that, that they only want "assault rifles," you are delusional.
 

BasicHumanUnit

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 1, 2013
Messages
10,282
Reaction score
2,005
Points
280
Location
Everywhere needed
Many people are overly confident that their guns are all they need to prevent a buyback or incremental revocation of the 2nd Amendment. It's already happening.

Truth is, most who brazenly say what they "would do" have never actually had to face the situation.

Unfortunately, they are fooling themselves and I agree, whether people want to believe it or not IT IS GOING TO HAPPEN.....sooner or later because there is no real resistance.
It'll happen in some states before others granted. But when enough states basically go along with a disarmed America, the pressure will mount for all states to comply.

Once the guns are gone, then the true face of the fascists will emerge. we've only seen a hint so far.
 
Last edited:

BasicHumanUnit

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 1, 2013
Messages
10,282
Reaction score
2,005
Points
280
Location
Everywhere needed
Just for the sake of the argument........
Let's say Beto got elected President......(JUST for the sake of the argument)
And let's go further and say he gets a cooperative senate and House. So now he, along with Congress get a mandatory buy back done.
Who will be turning in their AR15's and AK47's ? Criminals damned sure wont.

They will go down any and every list they can swipe on exactly who has bought and registered one....and they will begin going to those homes and businesses.

So when the Left screams for "Common sense" Background checks, what they're really saying is "Let's get EVERYONE who owns a gun ON A LIST so that when we get "our man" in place, taking the guns will be that much easier.

Roughly 95% of Americans will most likely, when confronted with prison time or taking some cash for their guns will take the cash. No matter what Internet Tough Guys who've never been confronted with an armed team of trigger happy leftist agents might say.

5% of the population will not cooperate and will become instant criminals and the target of systematic witch hunts and prosecutions.

Gun Control Preceded the Tyranny in Venezuela
Gun Control Preceded the Tyranny in Venezuela | José Niño
 
Last edited:

Slade3200

Platinum Member
Joined
Jan 13, 2016
Messages
31,242
Reaction score
3,119
Points
1,140
Nice qualifier... throw a “frivolous” in there so you can hide from the fact that regulation does save lives. How about you show some objectivity and lay out which non frivolous gun laws do save lives. Then maybe we can move forward with a rational discussion

The problem with the word regulation and the way we use it today, it is a shy way of saying National Gun Registration. Prevention is the real answer.

We know who is going to commit acts of violence. Intervene and help them before they destroy their lives... and the lives of others. Let's help them while they're young. Let's start by getting rid of America's drug culture.
Yes I agree that we need to work on prevention. But I also don’t believe in the slippery slope that ends in confiscation. Regulations do save lives and make our communities safer. That should be admitted by all and not denied. We need to be smart about how and what we regulate while maintaining a fair balance of public safety and personal freedom.

The slippery slope always ends in confiscation....you can't name one place where they registered guns where they didn't latter come back and confiscate them.....Britain, France, Germany, Australia, Canada, New York, California, Venezuela.........
I live in California. Guns are not confiscated. I own several. My buddy owns a gun shop. People can go in there and buy guns.

You guys live under the protection of the 2nd Amendment, the work of the NRA, Gun Owners of America and the 2nd Amendment Foundation....it's like saying that we don't have to worry about war anymore because no one has attacked us since 9/11.

This is a war of attrition....you have all of the major democrat presidential candidates declaring they support mandatory gun buyback, assault weapon bans and confiscation along the lines of the Australian model.....if you think they are joking, you are delusional...if you think they will stop at AR-15 rifles, you don't understand their openness about banning all semi-automatic weapons....that would mean all rifles, pistols and shotguns as well as revolvers that fire one shot per pull of the trigger....and if you think they don't mean that, that they only want "assault rifles," you are delusional.
Hey, you just listed California in your list of where registration led to confiscation and that is just not true. Now you are pivoting to the fear tactics. I’m fine with a healthy dose of skepticism and fighting for the rights you believe in. I don’t have anything against your position. Just be honest about it
 
OP
2aguy

2aguy

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2014
Messages
80,219
Reaction score
17,249
Points
2,180
The problem with the word regulation and the way we use it today, it is a shy way of saying National Gun Registration. Prevention is the real answer.

We know who is going to commit acts of violence. Intervene and help them before they destroy their lives... and the lives of others. Let's help them while they're young. Let's start by getting rid of America's drug culture.
Yes I agree that we need to work on prevention. But I also don’t believe in the slippery slope that ends in confiscation. Regulations do save lives and make our communities safer. That should be admitted by all and not denied. We need to be smart about how and what we regulate while maintaining a fair balance of public safety and personal freedom.

The slippery slope always ends in confiscation....you can't name one place where they registered guns where they didn't latter come back and confiscate them.....Britain, France, Germany, Australia, Canada, New York, California, Venezuela.........
I live in California. Guns are not confiscated. I own several. My buddy owns a gun shop. People can go in there and buy guns.

You guys live under the protection of the 2nd Amendment, the work of the NRA, Gun Owners of America and the 2nd Amendment Foundation....it's like saying that we don't have to worry about war anymore because no one has attacked us since 9/11.

This is a war of attrition....you have all of the major democrat presidential candidates declaring they support mandatory gun buyback, assault weapon bans and confiscation along the lines of the Australian model.....if you think they are joking, you are delusional...if you think they will stop at AR-15 rifles, you don't understand their openness about banning all semi-automatic weapons....that would mean all rifles, pistols and shotguns as well as revolvers that fire one shot per pull of the trigger....and if you think they don't mean that, that they only want "assault rifles," you are delusional.
Hey, you just listed California in your list of where registration led to confiscation and that is just not true. Now you are pivoting to the fear tactics. I’m fine with a healthy dose of skepticism and fighting for the rights you believe in. I don’t have anything against your position. Just be honest about it

Here...

The Costs and Consequences of Gun Control



Americans are well aware that gun registration can be a tool for gun confiscation, and not just in other countries. In New York City during the mid-1960s, street crime was rising rapidly. So as a gesture to “do something,” the New York City Council and Mayor John Lindsay (R) enacted long-gun registration. The per gun fee was low, just a few dollars.103 Registration never did solve crimes, and crime continued to worsen. So in 1991, with the city becoming increasingly unlivable, Mayor David Dinkins (D) made a grand gesture of his own, convincing the City Council to enact a ban on so-called assault weapons.104 Then, the New York police used the registration lists to conduct home inspections of individuals whose registered guns had been outlawed. The police said they were ensuring that the registered guns had been moved out of the city, or had already been surrendered to the government.105

In California, in 2013, only strenuous opposition finally led to the defeat of a proposed law, AB 174, which, before it was amended to cover a different subject, would have confiscated grandfathered assault weapons that had previously been registered in compliance with California state law.

They tried to Confiscate registered guns in California......if you don't think they will try again, you are foolish...
 
OP
2aguy

2aguy

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2014
Messages
80,219
Reaction score
17,249
Points
2,180
Just for the sake of the argument........
Let's say Beto got elected President......(JUST for the sake of the argument)
And let's go further and say he gets a cooperative senate and House. So now he, along with Congress get a mandatory buy back done.
Who will be turning in their AR15's and AK47's ? Criminals damned sure wont.

They will go down any and every list they can swipe on exactly who has bought and registered one....and they will begin going to those homes and businesses.

So when the Left screams for "Common sense" Background checks, what they're really saying is "Let's get EVERYONE who owns a gun ON A LIST so that when we get "our man" in place, taking the guns will be that much easier.

Roughly 95% of Americans will most likely, when confronted with prison time or taking some cash for their guns will take the cash. No matter what Internet Tough Guys who've never been confronted with an armed team of trigger happy leftist agents might say.

5% of the population will not cooperate and will become instant criminals and the target of systematic witch hunts and prosecutions.

Gun Control Preceded the Tyranny in Venezuela
Gun Control Preceded the Tyranny in Venezuela | José Niño

They don't have to go door to door and the anti-gunners know this....all they want is gun registration....then when they ban guns, if you don't turn them in, they just wait. Every interaction you have with the police will lead to an arrest of anyone who didn't turn in their gun...

You make a noise complaint for a noisy party and the police come to your home to make the report...they punch you in their database...you have registered a gun you did not turn in.....now they arrest you as an illegal gun owning felon....

You get pulled over for 40 in a 30mph.....they run your name through the data base.....you have a registered gun you did not turn in.....instead of a ticket, you are arrested as a gun felon...

This is how it will be done..
 

Blues Man

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2016
Messages
7,721
Reaction score
1,441
Points
195
Your plan is simple and elegant. Unfortunately the problem is complex and messy. In theory your plan should work but I predict in practice it will fail.
Problems I see:
  • Who's a criminal? Charged or convicted, felony or misdemeanor, gun crimes only count or does failure to pay child support count?
  • Criminals will recruit kids or others without a record to carry their guns.
  • If I'm a criminal with a gun facing life I'm going to use that gun to avoid arrest and I won't care who I hurt
  • Criminals ain't always stupid. What if a criminal carries only a part of a gun and his buddy has the other part?

Yep.....but if you limit the crimes to violent crimes.....rape, robbery, murder, kidnapping... you don't have that problem...since the violent crimes are what you are trying to stop.

A felon, caught with an illegal gun goes away 30 years...now we can limit that to violent felonies, but then you risk prosecutors plea bargaining violent felonies down....

I already pointed out that gangs will start to use 15 year olds more and more for shootings.....that is a problem that would need to be dealt with too....

If a criminal is willing to use a gun, knowing the penalties......then he belongs off the street no matter what you might believe.....I am talking 95% of the criminals here...the ones responsible for the majority of the 10.982 gun murders......and for the random acts of gang violence, by forcing gang members to stop carrying guns in their jeans, you eliminate impulse shootings right off the bat.

Part of a gun....30 years.

If you bust a drug house and you have felons in the house and their is a .22 pistol, unloaded? 30 years for any felon in that house....
The solution is to hang violent criminals publicly within 2 weeks of their conviction. Not doing so bloats the government and makes prison more dangerous for non-violent offenders.


Why the two weeks???????


What are you.....a Liberal or summmpin???????
Just to be double sure it's the right one, ease of scheduling as well..

I'll go with the jury system...


...and a little idea I have for a business venture: witness chairs hinged at the back. As soon as the jury comes back with 'guilty,' the chair with the murderer tilts back and the murderer is dumped into a pool with lawyers....er, sharks.


It allows for two nanoseconds for his lawyers to demand a re-trial....and then we move on.




Studies show that the imposition of the death sentence saves future lives of about 75 innocent victims.
What studies are those?
 

PoliticalChic

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
95,815
Reaction score
29,652
Points
2,260
Location
Brooklyn, NY
Yep.....but if you limit the crimes to violent crimes.....rape, robbery, murder, kidnapping... you don't have that problem...since the violent crimes are what you are trying to stop.

A felon, caught with an illegal gun goes away 30 years...now we can limit that to violent felonies, but then you risk prosecutors plea bargaining violent felonies down....

I already pointed out that gangs will start to use 15 year olds more and more for shootings.....that is a problem that would need to be dealt with too....

If a criminal is willing to use a gun, knowing the penalties......then he belongs off the street no matter what you might believe.....I am talking 95% of the criminals here...the ones responsible for the majority of the 10.982 gun murders......and for the random acts of gang violence, by forcing gang members to stop carrying guns in their jeans, you eliminate impulse shootings right off the bat.

Part of a gun....30 years.

If you bust a drug house and you have felons in the house and their is a .22 pistol, unloaded? 30 years for any felon in that house....
The solution is to hang violent criminals publicly within 2 weeks of their conviction. Not doing so bloats the government and makes prison more dangerous for non-violent offenders.


Why the two weeks???????


What are you.....a Liberal or summmpin???????
Just to be double sure it's the right one, ease of scheduling as well..

I'll go with the jury system...


...and a little idea I have for a business venture: witness chairs hinged at the back. As soon as the jury comes back with 'guilty,' the chair with the murderer tilts back and the murderer is dumped into a pool with lawyers....er, sharks.


It allows for two nanoseconds for his lawyers to demand a re-trial....and then we move on.




Studies show that the imposition of the death sentence saves future lives of about 75 innocent victims.
What studies are those?


These.


Recent evidence,
however, suggests that the death penalty, when carried out, has an
enormous deterrent effect on the number of murders. More precisely,
our recent research shows that each execution carried out is
correlated with about 74 fewer murders the following year.

For any society concerned about human life, that type of evidence is
something that should be taken very seriously.

The study examined the relationship between the number of executions
and the number of murders in the U.S. for the 26-year period from 1979
to 2004, using data from publicly available FBI sources. The chart
nearby shows the number of executions and murders by year. There seems
to be an obvious negative correlation in that when executions
increase, murders decrease, and when executions decrease, murders
increase.

http://groups.google.com/group/alt....read/thread/e1d266fa584228fd/4dc4b778d46df46d



"Recent high-profile events have reopened the debate about the value of capital punishment in a just society. This is an important discussion, because the taking of a human life is always a serious matter.

Most commentators who oppose capital punishment assert that an execution has no deterrent effect on future crimes. Recent evidence, however, suggests that the death penalty, when carried out, has an enormous deterrent effect on the number of murders. More precisely, our recent research shows that each execution carried out is correlated with about 74 fewer murders the following year.

It is possible that this correlated relationship could be mere coincidence, so we did a regression analysis on the 26-year relationship. The association was significant at the .00005 level, which meant the odds against the pattern being simply a random happening are about 18,000 to one. Further analysis revealed that each execution seems to be associated with 71 fewer murders in the year the execution took place.

Occam's razor suggests the simplest solution is probably the actual solution. We know that, for whatever reason, there is a simple but dramatic relationship between the number of executions carried out and a corresponding reduction in the number of murders.
It now seems that the proper question to ask goes far beyond the obvious one of "do we save the life of this convicted criminal?" The more proper question seems to be "do we save this particular life, at a cost of the lives of dozens of future murder victims?" That is a much more difficult moral dilemma, which deserves wide discussion in a free society."
Capital Punishment Works - WSJ.com

Capital Punishment Works

As many as 60 people may be alive today in Texas because two dozen convicted killers were executed last year in the nation's most active capital punishment state, according to a study of death penalty deterrence by researchers from Sam Houston State University and Duke University.

A review of executions and homicides in Texas by criminologist Raymond Teske at Sam Houston in Huntsville and Duke sociologists Kenneth Land and Hui Zheng concludes a monthly decline of between 0.5 to 2.5 homicides in Texas follows each execution.

This study, however, is the first to focus on monthly data in Texas, where researchers said the number of executions — 447 since capital punishment resumed in 1982 — is statistically significant enough “to make possible relatively stable estimates of the homicide response to executions.” …Kent Scheidegger, legal director of the California-based Criminal Justice Legal Foundation, which supports capital punishment, said the study “would be sufficient by itself to justify the death penalty.” The StandDown Texas Project
 

Blues Man

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2016
Messages
7,721
Reaction score
1,441
Points
195
The solution is to hang violent criminals publicly within 2 weeks of their conviction. Not doing so bloats the government and makes prison more dangerous for non-violent offenders.


Why the two weeks???????


What are you.....a Liberal or summmpin???????
Just to be double sure it's the right one, ease of scheduling as well..

I'll go with the jury system...


...and a little idea I have for a business venture: witness chairs hinged at the back. As soon as the jury comes back with 'guilty,' the chair with the murderer tilts back and the murderer is dumped into a pool with lawyers....er, sharks.


It allows for two nanoseconds for his lawyers to demand a re-trial....and then we move on.




Studies show that the imposition of the death sentence saves future lives of about 75 innocent victims.
What studies are those?


These.


Recent evidence,
however, suggests that the death penalty, when carried out, has an
enormous deterrent effect on the number of murders. More precisely,
our recent research shows that each execution carried out is
correlated with about 74 fewer murders the following year.

For any society concerned about human life, that type of evidence is
something that should be taken very seriously.

The study examined the relationship between the number of executions
and the number of murders in the U.S. for the 26-year period from 1979
to 2004, using data from publicly available FBI sources. The chart
nearby shows the number of executions and murders by year. There seems
to be an obvious negative correlation in that when executions
increase, murders decrease, and when executions decrease, murders
increase.

http://groups.google.com/group/alt....read/thread/e1d266fa584228fd/4dc4b778d46df46d



"Recent high-profile events have reopened the debate about the value of capital punishment in a just society. This is an important discussion, because the taking of a human life is always a serious matter.

Most commentators who oppose capital punishment assert that an execution has no deterrent effect on future crimes. Recent evidence, however, suggests that the death penalty, when carried out, has an enormous deterrent effect on the number of murders. More precisely, our recent research shows that each execution carried out is correlated with about 74 fewer murders the following year.

It is possible that this correlated relationship could be mere coincidence, so we did a regression analysis on the 26-year relationship. The association was significant at the .00005 level, which meant the odds against the pattern being simply a random happening are about 18,000 to one. Further analysis revealed that each execution seems to be associated with 71 fewer murders in the year the execution took place.

Occam's razor suggests the simplest solution is probably the actual solution. We know that, for whatever reason, there is a simple but dramatic relationship between the number of executions carried out and a corresponding reduction in the number of murders.
It now seems that the proper question to ask goes far beyond the obvious one of "do we save the life of this convicted criminal?" The more proper question seems to be "do we save this particular life, at a cost of the lives of dozens of future murder victims?" That is a much more difficult moral dilemma, which deserves wide discussion in a free society."
Capital Punishment Works - WSJ.com

Capital Punishment Works

As many as 60 people may be alive today in Texas because two dozen convicted killers were executed last year in the nation's most active capital punishment state, according to a study of death penalty deterrence by researchers from Sam Houston State University and Duke University.

A review of executions and homicides in Texas by criminologist Raymond Teske at Sam Houston in Huntsville and Duke sociologists Kenneth Land and Hui Zheng concludes a monthly decline of between 0.5 to 2.5 homicides in Texas follows each execution.

This study, however, is the first to focus on monthly data in Texas, where researchers said the number of executions — 447 since capital punishment resumed in 1982 — is statistically significant enough “to make possible relatively stable estimates of the homicide response to executions.” …Kent Scheidegger, legal director of the California-based Criminal Justice Legal Foundation, which supports capital punishment, said the study “would be sufficient by itself to justify the death penalty.” The StandDown Texas Project
So a "study" that concludes correlation equals causation.
 

PoliticalChic

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
95,815
Reaction score
29,652
Points
2,260
Location
Brooklyn, NY
Why the two weeks???????


What are you.....a Liberal or summmpin???????
Just to be double sure it's the right one, ease of scheduling as well..

I'll go with the jury system...


...and a little idea I have for a business venture: witness chairs hinged at the back. As soon as the jury comes back with 'guilty,' the chair with the murderer tilts back and the murderer is dumped into a pool with lawyers....er, sharks.


It allows for two nanoseconds for his lawyers to demand a re-trial....and then we move on.




Studies show that the imposition of the death sentence saves future lives of about 75 innocent victims.
What studies are those?


These.


Recent evidence,
however, suggests that the death penalty, when carried out, has an
enormous deterrent effect on the number of murders. More precisely,
our recent research shows that each execution carried out is
correlated with about 74 fewer murders the following year.

For any society concerned about human life, that type of evidence is
something that should be taken very seriously.

The study examined the relationship between the number of executions
and the number of murders in the U.S. for the 26-year period from 1979
to 2004, using data from publicly available FBI sources. The chart
nearby shows the number of executions and murders by year. There seems
to be an obvious negative correlation in that when executions
increase, murders decrease, and when executions decrease, murders
increase.

http://groups.google.com/group/alt....read/thread/e1d266fa584228fd/4dc4b778d46df46d



"Recent high-profile events have reopened the debate about the value of capital punishment in a just society. This is an important discussion, because the taking of a human life is always a serious matter.

Most commentators who oppose capital punishment assert that an execution has no deterrent effect on future crimes. Recent evidence, however, suggests that the death penalty, when carried out, has an enormous deterrent effect on the number of murders. More precisely, our recent research shows that each execution carried out is correlated with about 74 fewer murders the following year.

It is possible that this correlated relationship could be mere coincidence, so we did a regression analysis on the 26-year relationship. The association was significant at the .00005 level, which meant the odds against the pattern being simply a random happening are about 18,000 to one. Further analysis revealed that each execution seems to be associated with 71 fewer murders in the year the execution took place.

Occam's razor suggests the simplest solution is probably the actual solution. We know that, for whatever reason, there is a simple but dramatic relationship between the number of executions carried out and a corresponding reduction in the number of murders.
It now seems that the proper question to ask goes far beyond the obvious one of "do we save the life of this convicted criminal?" The more proper question seems to be "do we save this particular life, at a cost of the lives of dozens of future murder victims?" That is a much more difficult moral dilemma, which deserves wide discussion in a free society."
Capital Punishment Works - WSJ.com

Capital Punishment Works

As many as 60 people may be alive today in Texas because two dozen convicted killers were executed last year in the nation's most active capital punishment state, according to a study of death penalty deterrence by researchers from Sam Houston State University and Duke University.

A review of executions and homicides in Texas by criminologist Raymond Teske at Sam Houston in Huntsville and Duke sociologists Kenneth Land and Hui Zheng concludes a monthly decline of between 0.5 to 2.5 homicides in Texas follows each execution.

This study, however, is the first to focus on monthly data in Texas, where researchers said the number of executions — 447 since capital punishment resumed in 1982 — is statistically significant enough “to make possible relatively stable estimates of the homicide response to executions.” …Kent Scheidegger, legal director of the California-based Criminal Justice Legal Foundation, which supports capital punishment, said the study “would be sufficient by itself to justify the death penalty.” The StandDown Texas Project
So a "study" that concludes correlation equals causation.


Nah...your hot air must prove that there is no value to removing the threats to society.
 

Care4all

Warrior Princess
Joined
Mar 24, 2007
Messages
53,636
Reaction score
12,370
Points
2,220
Location
Maine
I support a life sentence on any criminal who uses a gun for an actual gun crime..... and 30 years if a criminal is caught in possession of a gun, even if they are not using it at that moment for crime.

This will dry up gun crime over night. Criminals will stop using guns for robberies, rapes and murders.....and those who do will be gone forever......

Criminals will also stop walking around with guns in their pants......which is the leading cause of random gang shootings in our cities. if they are stopped by police, with a gun in their pants, they are gone for 30 years...they will stop carrying those guns, and random gang violence will end.

You implement this with two other things...

1) No More Bargaining Away the Gun Charge.........it must be against the law to bargain away a gun charge as part of a plea deal....this stops.

2) When a criminal is arrested for any crime, and booked in...they will be read the announcement that any use of a crime is a life sentence without parole, owning or carrying a gun as a felon is a 30 year sentence without parole....when they are released from custody...the same will be read to them again....when they meet their parole officer it will be read to them again.....the U.S. government will also buy and send out Public announcements on this policy on t.v. radio. and cable......

That is how you stop gun crime over night.

Mass shooters are different..... but with only 93 people killed in mass public shootings in 2018, they are not the major problem in gun crime.

The value in my plan......it actually targets the individuals actually using guns to commit crimes and murder people....

It does not require new background check laws, it does not require gun licensing, licensing gun owners, gun registration, new taxes, fees or regulations on guns...

By making gun crime a life sentence, criminals will stop using guns for crime and will stop carrying guns around for protection.....

Also....a nurse, with a legal gun, driving from Pennsylvania, to New Jersey, will not be considered a gun criminal.....that will end. Criminals with a record of crime, caught with a gun will get 30 years, no deals.....and criminals who use guns for actual crime...robbing the local store, rape, robbery, murder.....life without parole...

This, of course, eliminates the need for more gun control laws...we can already do this.....

that would be the worst gun law the world has ever seen,,,all the anti gunners have to do is make it illegal to use a gun in self defense,,,,and what if they use a bat or knife to commit the crime???
do they get a life sentence too?? if not why??
better to just punish a crime as a crime and be done with it,,
They can try to make using a gun for self defense a crime....that would be a tough slog.

I don't care about bats and knives.....guns are the issue.....this would end gun violence which is the key, it would take pressure off of the attacks on the 2nd Amendment....

Of course criminals will switch to knives and bats, they will also target the elderly and children, and they will attack in larger groups..and when they need someone shot, they will use more 15 year olds...

The goal is to stop gun crime....
Are gun murders/deaths only committed by the ex cons, (95%) the criminals who have been caught before? Do you have any statistics showing such? It sounds like this is what you are presuming?
 
OP
2aguy

2aguy

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2014
Messages
80,219
Reaction score
17,249
Points
2,180
I support a life sentence on any criminal who uses a gun for an actual gun crime..... and 30 years if a criminal is caught in possession of a gun, even if they are not using it at that moment for crime.

This will dry up gun crime over night. Criminals will stop using guns for robberies, rapes and murders.....and those who do will be gone forever......

Criminals will also stop walking around with guns in their pants......which is the leading cause of random gang shootings in our cities. if they are stopped by police, with a gun in their pants, they are gone for 30 years...they will stop carrying those guns, and random gang violence will end.

You implement this with two other things...

1) No More Bargaining Away the Gun Charge.........it must be against the law to bargain away a gun charge as part of a plea deal....this stops.

2) When a criminal is arrested for any crime, and booked in...they will be read the announcement that any use of a crime is a life sentence without parole, owning or carrying a gun as a felon is a 30 year sentence without parole....when they are released from custody...the same will be read to them again....when they meet their parole officer it will be read to them again.....the U.S. government will also buy and send out Public announcements on this policy on t.v. radio. and cable......

That is how you stop gun crime over night.

Mass shooters are different..... but with only 93 people killed in mass public shootings in 2018, they are not the major problem in gun crime.

The value in my plan......it actually targets the individuals actually using guns to commit crimes and murder people....

It does not require new background check laws, it does not require gun licensing, licensing gun owners, gun registration, new taxes, fees or regulations on guns...

By making gun crime a life sentence, criminals will stop using guns for crime and will stop carrying guns around for protection.....

Also....a nurse, with a legal gun, driving from Pennsylvania, to New Jersey, will not be considered a gun criminal.....that will end. Criminals with a record of crime, caught with a gun will get 30 years, no deals.....and criminals who use guns for actual crime...robbing the local store, rape, robbery, murder.....life without parole...

This, of course, eliminates the need for more gun control laws...we can already do this.....

that would be the worst gun law the world has ever seen,,,all the anti gunners have to do is make it illegal to use a gun in self defense,,,,and what if they use a bat or knife to commit the crime???
do they get a life sentence too?? if not why??
better to just punish a crime as a crime and be done with it,,
They can try to make using a gun for self defense a crime....that would be a tough slog.

I don't care about bats and knives.....guns are the issue.....this would end gun violence which is the key, it would take pressure off of the attacks on the 2nd Amendment....

Of course criminals will switch to knives and bats, they will also target the elderly and children, and they will attack in larger groups..and when they need someone shot, they will use more 15 year olds...

The goal is to stop gun crime....
Are gun murders/deaths only committed by the ex cons, (95%) the criminals who have been caught before? Do you have any statistics showing such? It sounds like this is what you are presuming?
Here...

http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf

I. VIOLENCE: THE DECISIVENESS OF SOCIAL FACTORS
One reason the extent of gun ownership in a society does not spur the murder rate is that murderers are not spread evenly throughout the population. Analysis of perpetrator studies shows that violent criminals—especially murderers—“almost uniformly have a long history of involvement in criminal behav‐ ior.”37 So it would not appreciably raise violence if all law‐ abiding, responsible people had firearms because they are not the ones who rape, rob, or murder.38 By the same token, violent crime would not fall if guns were totally banned to civilians. As the respective examples of Luxembourg and Russia suggest,39 individuals who commit violent crimes will either find guns despite severe controls or will find other weapons to use. 40
--------------------------



III. DO ORDINARY PEOPLE MURDER?

The “more guns equal more death” mantra seems plausible only when viewed through the rubric that murders mostly in‐ volve ordinary people who kill because they have access to a firearm when they get angry. If this were true, murder might well increase where people have ready access to firearms, but the available data provides no such correlation. Nations and


areas with more guns per capita do not have higher murder rates than those with fewer guns per capita.53

Nevertheless, critics of gun ownership often argue that a “gun in the closet to protect against burglars will most likely be used to shoot a spouse in a moment of rage . . . . The problem is you and me—law‐abiding folks;”54 that banning handgun posses‐ sion only for those with criminal records will “fail to protect us from the most likely source of handgun murder: ordinary citi‐ zens;”55 that “most gun‐related homicides . . . are the result of impulsive actions taken by individuals who have little or no criminal background or who are known to the victims;”56 that “the majority of firearm homicide[s occur] . . . not as the result of criminal activity, but because of arguments between people who know each other;”57 that each year there are thousands of gun murders “by law‐abiding citizens who might have stayed law‐abiding if they had not possessed firearms.”58

These comments appear to rest on no evidence and actually con‐ tradict facts that have so uniformly been established by homicide studies dating back to the 1890s that they have become “crimino‐ logical axioms.”59 Insofar as studies focus on perpetrators, they show that neither a majority, nor many, nor virtually any murder‐ ers are ordinary “law‐abiding citizens.”60

Rather, almost all mur‐ derers are extremely aberrant individuals with life histories of violence, psychopathology, substance abuse, and other dangerous behaviors. “The vast majority of persons involved in life‐ threatening violence have a long criminal record with many prior contacts with the justice system.”61 “Thus homicide—[whether] of a

stranger or [of] someone known to the offender—‘is usually part of a pattern of violence, engaged in by people who are known . . . as violence prone.’”62


Though only 15% of Americans over the age of 15 have arrest records,63 approximately 90 percent of “adult mur‐ derers have adult records, with an average adult criminal career [involving crimes committed as an adult rather than a child] of six or more years, including four major adult felony arrests.”64


Most murder victims in big cities have criminal record - WND

A review of murder statistics across America shows that in many large cities, up to 90 percent of the victims have criminal records.
-------
The report concludes that “of the 2011 homicide victims, 77 percent (66) had a least one prior arrest and of the known 2011 homicide suspects 90 percent (74) had at least one prior arrest.”
----------


In early 2012, after pressure put on the police by murder victims’ families in New Orleans, the police department stopped revealing whether or not the murder victim had a prior record.

---------------

Though data is no longer published in Baltimore, USA Today reported in 2007 that 91 percent of the then-205 murder victims in the city between Jan. 1 and Aug. 31, 2007, had criminal records.

---------
A WND review of the Philadelphia Police Department Murder and Shooting Analysis for 2011 shows a similar pattern to that of other large cities in America – a majority of the murder victims have prior records.



--------
In Philadelphia in 2011, of 324 murders, 81 percent (263) of the victims had at least one prior arrest; 62 percent (164) had been arrested for a violent crime prior to their murder.

----------

In Newark, N.J., long considered one of America’s most dangerous cities, 85 percent of the 165 murder victims between 2009 and 2010 had serious arrest histories.

Anthony Braga, a professor with the Rutgers-Newark School of Criminal Justice, told the Newark Star-Ledger that 85 percent of 165 murder victims in Newark between 2009 and 2010 had been arrested at least once before they were killed.

Those victims, he said, had, on average, 10 prior arrests on their criminal records.

A WND review of the Chicago Police Department Murder Analysis reports from 2003 to 2011 provides a statistical breakdown of the demographics of both the victims and offenders in the 4,265 murders in Chicago over that time period.

Of the victims of murder in Chicago from 2003 to 2011, an average of 77 percent had a prior arrest history, with a high of 79 percent of the 436 murdered in Chicago in 2010 having arrest histories.






-----
When Gun Violence Felt Like a Disease, a City in Delaware Turned to the C.D.C.



When epidemiologists from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention came to this city, they were not here to track an outbreak of meningitis or study the effectiveness of a particular vaccine.

They were here to examine gun violence.

This city of about 70,000 had a 45 percent jump in shootings from 2011 to 2013, and the violence has remained stubbornly high; 25 shooting deaths have been reported this year, slightly more than last year, according to the mayor’s office
.-------



The final report, which has been submitted to the state, reached a conclusion that many here said they already knew: that there are certain patterns in the lives of many who commit gun violence.

“The majority of individuals involved in urban firearm violence are young men with substantial violence involvement preceding the more serious offense of a firearm crime,”
 

PoliticalChic

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
95,815
Reaction score
29,652
Points
2,260
Location
Brooklyn, NY
I support a life sentence on any criminal who uses a gun for an actual gun crime..... and 30 years if a criminal is caught in possession of a gun, even if they are not using it at that moment for crime.

This will dry up gun crime over night. Criminals will stop using guns for robberies, rapes and murders.....and those who do will be gone forever......

Criminals will also stop walking around with guns in their pants......which is the leading cause of random gang shootings in our cities. if they are stopped by police, with a gun in their pants, they are gone for 30 years...they will stop carrying those guns, and random gang violence will end.

You implement this with two other things...

1) No More Bargaining Away the Gun Charge.........it must be against the law to bargain away a gun charge as part of a plea deal....this stops.

2) When a criminal is arrested for any crime, and booked in...they will be read the announcement that any use of a crime is a life sentence without parole, owning or carrying a gun as a felon is a 30 year sentence without parole....when they are released from custody...the same will be read to them again....when they meet their parole officer it will be read to them again.....the U.S. government will also buy and send out Public announcements on this policy on t.v. radio. and cable......

That is how you stop gun crime over night.

Mass shooters are different..... but with only 93 people killed in mass public shootings in 2018, they are not the major problem in gun crime.

The value in my plan......it actually targets the individuals actually using guns to commit crimes and murder people....

It does not require new background check laws, it does not require gun licensing, licensing gun owners, gun registration, new taxes, fees or regulations on guns...

By making gun crime a life sentence, criminals will stop using guns for crime and will stop carrying guns around for protection.....

Also....a nurse, with a legal gun, driving from Pennsylvania, to New Jersey, will not be considered a gun criminal.....that will end. Criminals with a record of crime, caught with a gun will get 30 years, no deals.....and criminals who use guns for actual crime...robbing the local store, rape, robbery, murder.....life without parole...

This, of course, eliminates the need for more gun control laws...we can already do this.....

that would be the worst gun law the world has ever seen,,,all the anti gunners have to do is make it illegal to use a gun in self defense,,,,and what if they use a bat or knife to commit the crime???
do they get a life sentence too?? if not why??
better to just punish a crime as a crime and be done with it,,
They can try to make using a gun for self defense a crime....that would be a tough slog.

I don't care about bats and knives.....guns are the issue.....this would end gun violence which is the key, it would take pressure off of the attacks on the 2nd Amendment....

Of course criminals will switch to knives and bats, they will also target the elderly and children, and they will attack in larger groups..and when they need someone shot, they will use more 15 year olds...

The goal is to stop gun crime....
Are gun murders/deaths only committed by the ex cons, (95%) the criminals who have been caught before? Do you have any statistics showing such? It sounds like this is what you are presuming?
Here...

http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf

I. VIOLENCE: THE DECISIVENESS OF SOCIAL FACTORS
One reason the extent of gun ownership in a society does not spur the murder rate is that murderers are not spread evenly throughout the population. Analysis of perpetrator studies shows that violent criminals—especially murderers—“almost uniformly have a long history of involvement in criminal behav‐ ior.”37 So it would not appreciably raise violence if all law‐ abiding, responsible people had firearms because they are not the ones who rape, rob, or murder.38 By the same token, violent crime would not fall if guns were totally banned to civilians. As the respective examples of Luxembourg and Russia suggest,39 individuals who commit violent crimes will either find guns despite severe controls or will find other weapons to use. 40
--------------------------



III. DO ORDINARY PEOPLE MURDER?

The “more guns equal more death” mantra seems plausible only when viewed through the rubric that murders mostly in‐ volve ordinary people who kill because they have access to a firearm when they get angry. If this were true, murder might well increase where people have ready access to firearms, but the available data provides no such correlation. Nations and


areas with more guns per capita do not have higher murder rates than those with fewer guns per capita.53

Nevertheless, critics of gun ownership often argue that a “gun in the closet to protect against burglars will most likely be used to shoot a spouse in a moment of rage . . . . The problem is you and me—law‐abiding folks;”54 that banning handgun posses‐ sion only for those with criminal records will “fail to protect us from the most likely source of handgun murder: ordinary citi‐ zens;”55 that “most gun‐related homicides . . . are the result of impulsive actions taken by individuals who have little or no criminal background or who are known to the victims;”56 that “the majority of firearm homicide[s occur] . . . not as the result of criminal activity, but because of arguments between people who know each other;”57 that each year there are thousands of gun murders “by law‐abiding citizens who might have stayed law‐abiding if they had not possessed firearms.”58

These comments appear to rest on no evidence and actually con‐ tradict facts that have so uniformly been established by homicide studies dating back to the 1890s that they have become “crimino‐ logical axioms.”59 Insofar as studies focus on perpetrators, they show that neither a majority, nor many, nor virtually any murder‐ ers are ordinary “law‐abiding citizens.”60

Rather, almost all mur‐ derers are extremely aberrant individuals with life histories of violence, psychopathology, substance abuse, and other dangerous behaviors. “The vast majority of persons involved in life‐ threatening violence have a long criminal record with many prior contacts with the justice system.”61 “Thus homicide—[whether] of a

stranger or [of] someone known to the offender—‘is usually part of a pattern of violence, engaged in by people who are known . . . as violence prone.’”62


Though only 15% of Americans over the age of 15 have arrest records,63 approximately 90 percent of “adult mur‐ derers have adult records, with an average adult criminal career [involving crimes committed as an adult rather than a child] of six or more years, including four major adult felony arrests.”64


Most murder victims in big cities have criminal record - WND

A review of murder statistics across America shows that in many large cities, up to 90 percent of the victims have criminal records.
-------
The report concludes that “of the 2011 homicide victims, 77 percent (66) had a least one prior arrest and of the known 2011 homicide suspects 90 percent (74) had at least one prior arrest.”
----------


In early 2012, after pressure put on the police by murder victims’ families in New Orleans, the police department stopped revealing whether or not the murder victim had a prior record.

---------------

Though data is no longer published in Baltimore, USA Today reported in 2007 that 91 percent of the then-205 murder victims in the city between Jan. 1 and Aug. 31, 2007, had criminal records.

---------
A WND review of the Philadelphia Police Department Murder and Shooting Analysis for 2011 shows a similar pattern to that of other large cities in America – a majority of the murder victims have prior records.



--------
In Philadelphia in 2011, of 324 murders, 81 percent (263) of the victims had at least one prior arrest; 62 percent (164) had been arrested for a violent crime prior to their murder.

----------

In Newark, N.J., long considered one of America’s most dangerous cities, 85 percent of the 165 murder victims between 2009 and 2010 had serious arrest histories.

Anthony Braga, a professor with the Rutgers-Newark School of Criminal Justice, told the Newark Star-Ledger that 85 percent of 165 murder victims in Newark between 2009 and 2010 had been arrested at least once before they were killed.

Those victims, he said, had, on average, 10 prior arrests on their criminal records.

A WND review of the Chicago Police Department Murder Analysis reports from 2003 to 2011 provides a statistical breakdown of the demographics of both the victims and offenders in the 4,265 murders in Chicago over that time period.

Of the victims of murder in Chicago from 2003 to 2011, an average of 77 percent had a prior arrest history, with a high of 79 percent of the 436 murdered in Chicago in 2010 having arrest histories.






-----
When Gun Violence Felt Like a Disease, a City in Delaware Turned to the C.D.C.



When epidemiologists from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention came to this city, they were not here to track an outbreak of meningitis or study the effectiveness of a particular vaccine.

They were here to examine gun violence.

This city of about 70,000 had a 45 percent jump in shootings from 2011 to 2013, and the violence has remained stubbornly high; 25 shooting deaths have been reported this year, slightly more than last year, according to the mayor’s office
.-------



The final report, which has been submitted to the state, reached a conclusion that many here said they already knew: that there are certain patterns in the lives of many who commit gun violence.

“The majority of individuals involved in urban firearm violence are young men with substantial violence involvement preceding the more serious offense of a firearm crime,”


....my doctor told me to start killing people.

Well, not in those exact words. He told me I had to reduce the stress in my life, which is pretty much the same thing.
 

Slade3200

Platinum Member
Joined
Jan 13, 2016
Messages
31,242
Reaction score
3,119
Points
1,140
Yes I agree that we need to work on prevention. But I also don’t believe in the slippery slope that ends in confiscation. Regulations do save lives and make our communities safer. That should be admitted by all and not denied. We need to be smart about how and what we regulate while maintaining a fair balance of public safety and personal freedom.

The slippery slope always ends in confiscation....you can't name one place where they registered guns where they didn't latter come back and confiscate them.....Britain, France, Germany, Australia, Canada, New York, California, Venezuela.........
I live in California. Guns are not confiscated. I own several. My buddy owns a gun shop. People can go in there and buy guns.

You guys live under the protection of the 2nd Amendment, the work of the NRA, Gun Owners of America and the 2nd Amendment Foundation....it's like saying that we don't have to worry about war anymore because no one has attacked us since 9/11.

This is a war of attrition....you have all of the major democrat presidential candidates declaring they support mandatory gun buyback, assault weapon bans and confiscation along the lines of the Australian model.....if you think they are joking, you are delusional...if you think they will stop at AR-15 rifles, you don't understand their openness about banning all semi-automatic weapons....that would mean all rifles, pistols and shotguns as well as revolvers that fire one shot per pull of the trigger....and if you think they don't mean that, that they only want "assault rifles," you are delusional.
Hey, you just listed California in your list of where registration led to confiscation and that is just not true. Now you are pivoting to the fear tactics. I’m fine with a healthy dose of skepticism and fighting for the rights you believe in. I don’t have anything against your position. Just be honest about it

Here...

The Costs and Consequences of Gun Control



Americans are well aware that gun registration can be a tool for gun confiscation, and not just in other countries. In New York City during the mid-1960s, street crime was rising rapidly. So as a gesture to “do something,” the New York City Council and Mayor John Lindsay (R) enacted long-gun registration. The per gun fee was low, just a few dollars.103 Registration never did solve crimes, and crime continued to worsen. So in 1991, with the city becoming increasingly unlivable, Mayor David Dinkins (D) made a grand gesture of his own, convincing the City Council to enact a ban on so-called assault weapons.104 Then, the New York police used the registration lists to conduct home inspections of individuals whose registered guns had been outlawed. The police said they were ensuring that the registered guns had been moved out of the city, or had already been surrendered to the government.105

In California, in 2013, only strenuous opposition finally led to the defeat of a proposed law, AB 174, which, before it was amended to cover a different subject, would have confiscated grandfathered assault weapons that had previously been registered in compliance with California state law.

They tried to Confiscate registered guns in California......if you don't think they will try again, you are foolish...
Hold up Tonto... you are referring to a proposal from an Oakland assemblyman to end “grandfather clauses” for assault weapons and large capacity magazines. Something that never even gained traction and you are using that to back up your statement that California is confiscating guns? Come on!

I’m fine with your pro gun stance but you gotta be honest with your debate if you want your arguments respected
 

Dont Taz Me Bro

Diamond Member
Staff member
Moderator
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2009
Messages
49,417
Reaction score
13,548
Points
2,220
Location
Las Vegas, Nevada
Stick to the topic of the thread, please, which is not religion. Thanks
 
OP
2aguy

2aguy

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2014
Messages
80,219
Reaction score
17,249
Points
2,180
The slippery slope always ends in confiscation....you can't name one place where they registered guns where they didn't latter come back and confiscate them.....Britain, France, Germany, Australia, Canada, New York, California, Venezuela.........
I live in California. Guns are not confiscated. I own several. My buddy owns a gun shop. People can go in there and buy guns.

You guys live under the protection of the 2nd Amendment, the work of the NRA, Gun Owners of America and the 2nd Amendment Foundation....it's like saying that we don't have to worry about war anymore because no one has attacked us since 9/11.

This is a war of attrition....you have all of the major democrat presidential candidates declaring they support mandatory gun buyback, assault weapon bans and confiscation along the lines of the Australian model.....if you think they are joking, you are delusional...if you think they will stop at AR-15 rifles, you don't understand their openness about banning all semi-automatic weapons....that would mean all rifles, pistols and shotguns as well as revolvers that fire one shot per pull of the trigger....and if you think they don't mean that, that they only want "assault rifles," you are delusional.
Hey, you just listed California in your list of where registration led to confiscation and that is just not true. Now you are pivoting to the fear tactics. I’m fine with a healthy dose of skepticism and fighting for the rights you believe in. I don’t have anything against your position. Just be honest about it

Here...

The Costs and Consequences of Gun Control



Americans are well aware that gun registration can be a tool for gun confiscation, and not just in other countries. In New York City during the mid-1960s, street crime was rising rapidly. So as a gesture to “do something,” the New York City Council and Mayor John Lindsay (R) enacted long-gun registration. The per gun fee was low, just a few dollars.103 Registration never did solve crimes, and crime continued to worsen. So in 1991, with the city becoming increasingly unlivable, Mayor David Dinkins (D) made a grand gesture of his own, convincing the City Council to enact a ban on so-called assault weapons.104 Then, the New York police used the registration lists to conduct home inspections of individuals whose registered guns had been outlawed. The police said they were ensuring that the registered guns had been moved out of the city, or had already been surrendered to the government.105

In California, in 2013, only strenuous opposition finally led to the defeat of a proposed law, AB 174, which, before it was amended to cover a different subject, would have confiscated grandfathered assault weapons that had previously been registered in compliance with California state law.

They tried to Confiscate registered guns in California......if you don't think they will try again, you are foolish...
Hold up Tonto... you are referring to a proposal from an Oakland assemblyman to end “grandfather clauses” for assault weapons and large capacity magazines. Something that never even gained traction and you are using that to back up your statement that California is confiscating guns? Come on!

I’m fine with your pro gun stance but you gotta be honest with your debate if you want your arguments respected

They tried to confiscate guns..... using the registration records. Do you think they won't do it in the future?
 

Porter Rockwell

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2018
Messages
6,055
Reaction score
639
Points
140
Many people are overly confident that their guns are all they need to prevent a buyback or incremental revocation of the 2nd Amendment. It's already happening.

Truth is, most who brazenly say what they "would do" have never actually had to face the situation.

Unfortunately, they are fooling themselves and I agree, whether people want to believe it or not IT IS GOING TO HAPPEN.....sooner or later because there is no real resistance.
It'll happen in some states before others granted. But when enough states basically go along with a disarmed America, the pressure will mount for all states to comply.

Once the guns are gone, then the true face of the fascists will emerge. we've only seen a hint so far.
I have to say that is by far the best post you have ever put on this board IMO. It is both honest and accurate.

There will a post Trump era run by out of control liberals. Today, we just sit back and let the "chosen one" extol his virtues while we do nothing to prepare for what lies ahead in either the next election OR the one to follow. America IS going left.

I used to teach (read that closely used to) a program called S.P.I.K.E. which was initiated by Lt. Col. James "Bo" Gritz. Gritz was a former Green Beret - actually the most decorated war veteran of the Vietnam era and a CIA operative. He taught the same skills taught to Green Berets, Navy SEALs, Rangers, and other Special Operations types to a group of civilians. He then told us to go out and teach those skills to the American people as they would one day need them in the United States. Today you could get more people to join a gay Nazi discussion board than to prepare for what is coming.

Those of you who are not participating in training, think tank groups, and prepping - and did I mention training, WILL submit when the government says register your weapon and then later when they say turn them in. So, don't get too heavily invested in them. You're going to stand in a long line and then watch some clown use a saw to cut your weapons into pieces of scrap.
 

Slade3200

Platinum Member
Joined
Jan 13, 2016
Messages
31,242
Reaction score
3,119
Points
1,140
I live in California. Guns are not confiscated. I own several. My buddy owns a gun shop. People can go in there and buy guns.

You guys live under the protection of the 2nd Amendment, the work of the NRA, Gun Owners of America and the 2nd Amendment Foundation....it's like saying that we don't have to worry about war anymore because no one has attacked us since 9/11.

This is a war of attrition....you have all of the major democrat presidential candidates declaring they support mandatory gun buyback, assault weapon bans and confiscation along the lines of the Australian model.....if you think they are joking, you are delusional...if you think they will stop at AR-15 rifles, you don't understand their openness about banning all semi-automatic weapons....that would mean all rifles, pistols and shotguns as well as revolvers that fire one shot per pull of the trigger....and if you think they don't mean that, that they only want "assault rifles," you are delusional.
Hey, you just listed California in your list of where registration led to confiscation and that is just not true. Now you are pivoting to the fear tactics. I’m fine with a healthy dose of skepticism and fighting for the rights you believe in. I don’t have anything against your position. Just be honest about it

Here...

The Costs and Consequences of Gun Control



Americans are well aware that gun registration can be a tool for gun confiscation, and not just in other countries. In New York City during the mid-1960s, street crime was rising rapidly. So as a gesture to “do something,” the New York City Council and Mayor John Lindsay (R) enacted long-gun registration. The per gun fee was low, just a few dollars.103 Registration never did solve crimes, and crime continued to worsen. So in 1991, with the city becoming increasingly unlivable, Mayor David Dinkins (D) made a grand gesture of his own, convincing the City Council to enact a ban on so-called assault weapons.104 Then, the New York police used the registration lists to conduct home inspections of individuals whose registered guns had been outlawed. The police said they were ensuring that the registered guns had been moved out of the city, or had already been surrendered to the government.105

In California, in 2013, only strenuous opposition finally led to the defeat of a proposed law, AB 174, which, before it was amended to cover a different subject, would have confiscated grandfathered assault weapons that had previously been registered in compliance with California state law.

They tried to Confiscate registered guns in California......if you don't think they will try again, you are foolish...
Hold up Tonto... you are referring to a proposal from an Oakland assemblyman to end “grandfather clauses” for assault weapons and large capacity magazines. Something that never even gained traction and you are using that to back up your statement that California is confiscating guns? Come on!

I’m fine with your pro gun stance but you gotta be honest with your debate if you want your arguments respected

They tried to confiscate guns..... using the registration records. Do you think they won't do it in the future?
If a law was passed to confiscate guns then that law and the elected officials who wrote and voted for it would be the cause. Not registration. Registration would help officials know who owns what but the law is the law. If you don’t want registration for fear of the government knowing what you have in the case a confiscation law is passed then you are advocating illegality owning weapons.

Regardless, you aren’t honestly stating your argument. A proposal from an assembly man that didn’t go anywhere is not evidence that Cali was confiscating guns.
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top