• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

How Mass Gun Confiscation Would Work

jaeger19

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 18, 2013
Messages
30,112
Reaction score
8,043
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
Ugh, thanks. What's the point in believing the govt cant track people? It's bs.
Bingo. And when a ffl dealer goes out of business they must send their 4473s to the atf.
These folks dont realize how easy it would be to confiscate guns.
 

Chillfolks

DP Veteran
Joined
May 6, 2016
Messages
9,574
Reaction score
4,593
Location
VA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Why should I or anyone be a prisoner ?
Because you don't want to be in public with gun owners exercising their rights. As long as you're willing to accept the rights of other people then join society, if not stay at home your choice.
 

Wayne Jr

bis vincit qui se vincit
Supporting Member
Monthly Subscriber
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 16, 2018
Messages
6,899
Reaction score
1,653
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
The will of the People wants extended background checks...
Do you even know what's wrong with the current backround check system, to then think you know the solution?
 

Maidenrules29

Death to all but METAL!!
Joined
Dec 12, 2018
Messages
675
Reaction score
204
Location
Southern California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Because:

1. You don't need to
2. You'd be a far greater danger to other people than you'd be a help
I dont need to? That's your opinion. It's my opinion that carrying a firearm gives me an equalizer against a criminal with a firearm. And my objective isn't to "help" other people. My main concern is myself and my family who may be with me. Getting involved in a third party situation isn't recommended in CCW training or by lawyers.
 

Lursa

Tenacious
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
May 1, 2013
Messages
77,195
Reaction score
43,659
Location
Outside Seattle
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Independent
Bingo. And when a ffl dealer goes out of business they must send their 4473s to the atf.
These folks dont realize how easy it would be to confiscate guns.
Thanks
 

OpportunityCost

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 27, 2011
Messages
33,405
Reaction score
7,403
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
How, it just restricts the right to carry to private property




Yes you would be "bearing" and where else would you "keep" ?




I wouldn't restrict people's rights at all - they would still be able to bear and keep - just only on private property (with the property's owner's permission of course if it isn't yours)

And a court would have to decide if it was "constitutional"

It wouldn't destroy anyone's rights, as they could still keep and bear arms

Restricting the 1st Amendment to private property wouldn't really work would it ?
Besides free speech is not a physical item that you carry around with you.
Disingenuous bullshit aside, do you really think the right to bear isn't being restricted? Because I mean deliberately trolling isn't at all clever.
 

Batcat

Active member
Joined
Dec 5, 2016
Messages
267
Reaction score
67
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
I talked to two cops in the small Florida town I recently moved from. Both had gun collections and both said they had enough trouble taking guns away from the bad guys. They had absolutely no interest in confiscating firearms from honest people. The Florida county I moved to is a gun sanctuary. local law enforcement will not confiscate banned firearms nor would they help the Feds, There is a growing number of these counties in Florida.
 

Rich2018

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 31, 2018
Messages
34,751
Reaction score
3,000
Location
Norcross, Georgia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Because you don't want to be in public with gun owners exercising their rights. As long as you're willing to accept the rights of other people then join society, if not stay at home your choice.

I want gun owners exercising their rights only on private property.

Why would a gun owner want to exercise bearing arms elsewhere - except for self gratification and the intimidation of others ?
 

Rich2018

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 31, 2018
Messages
34,751
Reaction score
3,000
Location
Norcross, Georgia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
I dont need to?

No

That's your opinion.

Yes


It's my opinion that carrying a firearm gives me an equalizer against a criminal with a firearm....

No, it's just your emotional need to feel "big"
A potential threat against you is how you justify it to yourself


And my objective isn't to "help" other people.

I would never think for a second that it was


My main concern is myself and my family who may be with me. Getting involved in a third party situation isn't recommended in CCW training or by lawyers.

Nope, it's so you can inflate your self image
You probably have a 4x4 V8 truck for the same reason - or want one.
 

Rich2018

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 31, 2018
Messages
34,751
Reaction score
3,000
Location
Norcross, Georgia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
1: you're afraid to because of what people might think if they found out.
2: you're afraid you'd be a danger to others and yourself.

1. And they'd be right to think it
2. I would, just like anyone who carries a gun is

You and others make your property gun free zones and we will stay away. That is the we that are law abiding.
And in return you don't tell us what we can and can't do.

So no-one has any business passing a law or tax that requires you to conform to ?
 

Rich2018

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 31, 2018
Messages
34,751
Reaction score
3,000
Location
Norcross, Georgia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Disingenuous bullshit aside, do you really think the right to bear isn't being restricted? Because I mean deliberately trolling isn't at all clever.

Someone once said that if you can go anywhere in the world, except access to one field, are you really free ?

So yes, I suppose that and gun control is a restriction to some degree...and you know what, that's not a bad thing.
 

Chillfolks

DP Veteran
Joined
May 6, 2016
Messages
9,574
Reaction score
4,593
Location
VA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I want gun owners exercising their rights only on private property.

Why would a gun owner want to exercise bearing arms elsewhere - except for self gratification and the intimidation of others ?

You do not have to show a need to exercise a right, You also can’t deny someone a right simply because it’s what you want. If you you are unwilling to recognize and accept the rights people have and choose to exercise in public spaces, then stay on your private property where you can control the rights you disagree with. It’s so easy even a Rich can do it.
 

OpportunityCost

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 27, 2011
Messages
33,405
Reaction score
7,403
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Someone once said that if you can go anywhere in the world, except access to one field, are you really free ?

So yes, I suppose that and gun control is a restriction to some degree...and you know what, that's not a bad thing.

Only a dictatorial mind could think so.
 

Rich2018

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 31, 2018
Messages
34,751
Reaction score
3,000
Location
Norcross, Georgia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
You do not have to show a need to exercise a right, You also can’t deny someone a right simply because it’s what you want. If you you are unwilling to recognize and accept the rights people have and choose to exercise in public spaces, then stay on your private property where you can control the rights you disagree with. It’s so easy even a Rich can do it.

How can you justify a right if there's no need for it ?

Yes you can deny that right - if the majority of the people don't want it, nay - actively oppose it

However, exercising your rights on public property hurts no-one (unless maybe the people on that property also).
 

Chillfolks

DP Veteran
Joined
May 6, 2016
Messages
9,574
Reaction score
4,593
Location
VA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
How can you justify a right if there's no need for it ?

Yes you can deny that right - if the majority of the people don't want it, nay - actively oppose it

However, exercising your rights on public property hurts no-one (unless maybe the people on that property also).
Best Freudian slip ever and a moment of accidental honest on your part.

If you’re unable to understand that showing a need is not a requirement to exercise a right and can’t agree on that simple concept of what having a right means and how it works, then there is no need to communicate any more because we have no common ground.
 

Rich2018

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 31, 2018
Messages
34,751
Reaction score
3,000
Location
Norcross, Georgia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Best Freudian slip ever and a moment of accidental honest on your part.

If you’re unable to understand that showing a need is not a requirement to exercise a right and can’t agree on that simple concept of what having a right means and how it works, then there is no need to communicate any more because we have no common ground.

*Private property.
 

OpportunityCost

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 27, 2011
Messages
33,405
Reaction score
7,403
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Like those in the UK, Canada, Australia, Japan...pretty much every country on Earth.

Good luck rewriting the constitution. What you are proposing wouldn't end the way you think it would.
 

OpportunityCost

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 27, 2011
Messages
33,405
Reaction score
7,403
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
So you accept the countries that I alluded to, aren't full of "dictatorial minds" ?

Nah, liberals are all about control, they just aren't open about it, like you.
 

DebateChallenge

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 30, 2017
Messages
8,562
Reaction score
1,802
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
This article has it all wrong. They would run a program exactly like the banned machineguns: terminate all transfers to individuals with possible grandfathering of existing guns with registration, all other forms of civilian possession being illegal. And then, nothing. Simply wait for existing gun owners to die of old age and existing guns to wear out or rust.
Existing gun owners will no doubt will their guns to their descendants. Considering the fact that guns can last many lifetimes this decrease in guns will take a long long time.
 

Wayne Jr

bis vincit qui se vincit
Supporting Member
Monthly Subscriber
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 16, 2018
Messages
6,899
Reaction score
1,653
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Existing gun owners will no doubt will their guns to their descendants.
I literally just said, "terminate all transfers to individuals". Willing a gun to a descendant is a transfer.
 

Rich2018

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 31, 2018
Messages
34,751
Reaction score
3,000
Location
Norcross, Georgia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Nah, liberals are all about control, they just aren't open about it, like you.

Do you not know what "liberal" means ?

It means a LACK of regulation


Liberal
adjective

4: not literal or strict
5: not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or traditional forms
6: a political party advocating the principles of political liberalism, associated with ideals of individual freedom

noun

a: one who is open-minded or not strict in the observance of orthodox, traditional, or established forms or ways
b: capitalized : a member or supporter of a liberal political party
c: an advocate or adherent of liberalism especially in individual rights

 
Top Bottom