Progressives: Would you support a complete gun ban? What about self defense?

[countryboy]

You mean over 200 hundred years ago, before there was ever a second amendment, against a government not even on the continent, in the age of sails? LoLz.

Are you seriously that ignorant of American history?

 

[notquiteright]

Would you support Americans being forced to give up all guns to the government? If so, how would they protect themselves against criminals who WONT give up their guns? Do you see any potential legal issues involved with denying a basic constitutional right?

NO... :doh

 

[notquiteright]

even if they say no, they'd support it. leftists are inherently dishonest because they know if they tell the truth about their radical positions only a small minority will go along with them. as for the constitution, they'd simply re-write it, once the opposition was exterminated. and i do mean exterminated, national socialism, soviet socialism, chinese socialism, it all ends with extermination. hard to exterminate an armed population, hence the leftist fixation on creating a disarmed population. think about it.

I'd opine if some mass conspiracy theorists 'think about it' they'd know their rants are as bogus as a hooker's smile. How powerful the left is to be able to do what no Conservative can. Simply re-write the Constitution as they see fit... :roll:

The Conservatives couldn't insert a 'defense of marriage', couldn't rewrite the 1st amendment to allow their versions of religion to be plastered across the Republic in any taxpayer funded building they saw fit....

but liberals are going to 'simply re-write it' the Constitution...

But riddle me this, how do you first 'exterminate' the opposition if you haven't rewritten the Constitution to drop the 2nd Amendment???

Confused Conservative chicken or the egg failed ahhhh 'logic'... eace

 

[Kal'Stang]

You mean over 200 hundred years ago, before there was ever a second amendment, against a government not even on the continent, in the age of sails? LoLz.

No need to go so far back. Try Romania in 1989. The people over threw the government and established a new one. And then there's Muammar Gaddafi in 2011. Granted the people had some help from NATO forces. But that support was limited. Laurent Kabila overthrow of Mobutu Seko in 1997.

I could go on if you wish?

 

[Redress]

No need to go so far back. Try Romania in 1989. The people over threw the government and established a new one. And then there's Muammar Gaddafi in 2011. Granted the people had some help from NATO forces. But that support was limited. Laurent Kabila overthrow of Mobutu Seko in 1997.

I could go on if you wish?

So your examples are when other people step in to aid revolutionaries. Who you going to call in to protect your free speech, the communists?

 

[Kal'Stang]

So your examples are when other people step in to aid revolutionaries. Who you going to call in to protect your free speech, the communists?

You apparently only read the part about Gaddafi and ignore the other examples.

And FYI, if the US's colonials had help from outside. You never said in your post that you wanted to limit it to strictly not getting help from others. Talk about moving the goal posts. :roll:

 

[Redress]

You apparently only read the part about Gaddafi and ignore the other examples.

And FYI, if the US's colonials had help from outside. You never said in your post that you wanted to limit it to strictly not getting help from others. Talk about moving the goal posts. :roll:

No, I actually know history. Weapons flowed from outside Romania. Nice try.

 

[legalimmigrant]

Yawn, I have a very long shelf of books written by Steve Bonta that sound just like that.
Still waiting for that "radical left wing" government.
Soon's you tell me how the math works, and the budget, and the expected yield, and how the logistics work in real world terms, I'll listen, but right now you just sound like AM radio.
A lot of sound and fury, signifying NOTHING.

Yawn all you want. I saw communism up close. The US resembles what I left 50 years ago more and more with every passing year.

The obedient and naive Americans are a perfect fodder for a full conversion to a totalitarian system because - in addition to being obedient and naive - you are also too chickens to stand up against your corrupt and incompetent DC clique.

 

[joG]

Considered by who?

Read the literature from the time. It seems like that would be the place to start. Maybe British, German or US news papers.

 

[Kal'Stang]

No, I actually know history. Weapons flowed from outside Romania. Nice try.

Did you not read that second line?

 

[legalimmigrant]

So, according to many libs, if you're just about to be murdered, raped, assaulted or attacked by terrorists, all you have to do is have the perpetrator wait while you dial 9-1-1, and continue waiting til the police arrive, before they start murdering or raping you! Sounds brilliant and totally practical right? Lmao....

Police are not meant to protect people. They protect the system.

By the way, that We Serve and Protect on the police cars is a lie to make you feel warm and fuzzy toward the cops, as the Supreme Court said back in 2005 that the police are not legally obligated to serve or protect.

Bottom line: police do not protect; they investigate after they find you dead.

 

[faithful_servant]

No, because it's an idiotic idea, and it's also impossible.
Supporting ideas which are impossible is a sign of a lack of common sense.
We are going to have to learn to live with the fact that there are guns in this country, AND a more than bumper crop of IDIOTS who have too much access to them.
Now, seeing as how we have fewer IDIOTS than guns, it's probably better if we restrict the IDIOTS, and MAYBE make guns a little more high tech in the process, but we could leave that on the back burner for a VERY VERY long time because first and foremost, we really DO NEED to deal with the IDIOTS.

PS: I am a liberal.

So another liberal bigot who thinks that everyone who doesn't think they want them to think is less than they are...

BTW - You still didn't answer the question... Maybe if it was re-phrased:
If you found a magic lamp on the beach and when you rubbed it, a genie appeared and offered to make all the legally owned guns in America disappear, would you have him do it?

 

[faithful_servant]

Why ban guns? What is the objective? Would that be it? A quote:

United Kingdom: The UK enacted its handgun ban in 1996. From 1990 until the ban was enacted, the homicide rate fluctuated between 10.9 and 13 homicides per million. After the ban was enacted, homicides trended up until they reached a peak of 18.0 in 2003. Since 2003, which incidentally was about the time the British government flooded the country with 20,000 more cops, the homicide rate has fallen to 11.1 in 2010.

In other words, the 15-year experiment in a handgun ban has achieved absolutely nothing.

Correlation does not equal causation. Show the cause and effect between the issues and not just lines on a graph that trend the same...

 

[ashurbanipal]

The only gun control I can get behind is the following. People currently incarcerated should not have access to firearms. You probably ought to have to be 18 to purchase a gun. And if you committed a violent crime meeting certain criteria, you probably shouldn't be allowed to purchase a gun legally. And private citizens shouldn't have access to nuclear or biological weapons. Other than that, every citizen ought to have access to every kind of gun or weapon any one in the military has. Assault weapons, tanks, rocket launchers, grenades, mines, and even chemical weapons.

The point of the 2nd amendment was already expressed in this thread, and the fact is, every time in history a populace has given up their weapons, something far worse than all the mass shootings we've had, combined, happened to them. If you think those sorts of things cannot happen again, that we're somehow past that in history, you don't understand human beings.

I am a liberal.

 

[TheGoverness]

Would you support Americans being forced to give up all guns to the government? If so, how would they protect themselves against criminals who WONT give up their guns? Do you see any potential legal issues involved with denying a basic constitutional right?

No. I can't take away people's Constitutional right to bear arms. And plus if the government tries to ban guns, all it's gonna do is create a massive black market, which would arguably be the most violent black market in U.S History.

 

[joG]

Why ban guns? What is the objective? Would that be it? A quote:

United Kingdom: The UK enacted its handgun ban in 1996. From 1990 until the ban was enacted, the homicide rate fluctuated between 10.9 and 13 homicides per million. After the ban was enacted, homicides trended up until they reached a peak of 18.0 in 2003. Since 2003, which incidentally was about the time the British government flooded the country with 20,000 more cops, the homicide rate has fallen to 11.1 in 2010.

In other words, the 15-year experiment in a handgun ban has achieved absolutely nothing.

That corresponds to the numbers I have crunched. Guns do not seem to be the driving force in homicide rates. That is something in upbringing and culture. As to what factor(s) are important, I have not seen studies that appeared to be robust.

 

[faithful_servant]

You mean over 200 hundred years ago, before there was ever a second amendment, against a government not even on the continent, in the age of sails? LoLz.

Actually, the last time Americans took up arms against their got'v was shortly after WWII, when a group of vets used weapons from a local armory to stop a corrupt local gov't. The 2nd is about the ability to do exactly that.

 

[joG]

Would you support Americans being forced to give up all guns to the government? If so, how would they protect themselves against criminals who WONT give up their guns? Do you see any potential legal issues involved with denying a basic constitutional right?

Die like a person*)!

*) or is it still politically correct nowadays to say "Die like a man!"?

 

[legalimmigrant]

Correlation does not equal causation. Show the cause and effect between the issues and not just lines on a graph that trend the same...

You are right.

Please explain this bit of wisdom to the anti-gun zealots who claim that fewer guns means fewer murders.

The Orlando pos didn't attack the Orlando police HQ for a reason.

 

[RetiredUSN]

Actually, the last time Americans took up arms against their got'v was shortly after WWII, when a group of vets used weapons from a local armory to stop a corrupt local gov't. The 2nd is about the ability to do exactly that.

Almost forgot about that. I read the story some years ago.

 

[legalimmigrant]

I have to confess that the antis have a point claiming that guns are useless.

At home, no sane parent with kids older than 12 months would have a gun in a night stand and loaded. But, if it's not loaded and under lock, it's useless, so what's the point.

Outside, you can carry it only in the streets. Everywhere else, there are those "no guns allowed" stickers on the doors. Can't take them to forest preserves, either.

Then, there is the question, why would you go for a walk where you would need to use your concealed gun? Would you expose your wife to that risk?

In the random fire war zones like Chicago, a concealed gun serves no purpose. When approached by three black thugs with guns, are you going to go for yours?

So, why would anybody need a gun?

 

[Kobie]

Read the literature from the time. It seems like that would be the place to start. Maybe British, German or US news papers.

Why can't you just answer the question? "Read all the newspapers" isn't an answer.

 

[AGENT J]

Raw numbers mean little without comparisons to relative population.

I dont know about "mean little" but I do agree it could impact them, this is why the number of gun deaths doesnt impact me at all.

But you are right, if the population of Australia increased 400% in 10 years then yeah those charts dont have such an impact.

 

[Hatuey]

Bunching up Nazis, progressives, Maoists, and Soviet-style socialists is quite the feat.

He's a moderate.

 

[AGENT J]

1.)You should've read the link I provided...it has charts.
2.) But I agree, I don't think a complete gun ban would work here. I wouldn't even want to try.
3.) The point of posting that was to show that after Australia banned guns...they've had zero mass killings since 1996. Whereas before they had many.

1.) i did read it it doesnt have the charts i asked for unless it was a link or something i missed. .. .
2.) me neither unless there was proof that about 95% of legal guns were removed from the country then we could begin a SLOW process of more and tighter restrictions but still not a ban, at least IMO.

The idea of bad guys still be so able to get guns while making it hard for me to have a gun will just never sit easy with me, IMO it feels like the government is turning its back on its people.

3.) I get that and my point is that doesn't mean much "to me" at all because they aren't us, how many did they have in their history, was it already on the way down and if other crimes increased like rape, theft, robbery, assault etc at the same time I honestly dont see it as a real benefit. Seems like the difference of two evils and Id rather try to stop the mass shootings (im using shootings to be clear and not killings) while keeping the individual crimes low/ But again thats just my view.

IMO im more ok with that, not "ok" at all but you know what I mean. I more willing to work from what we have now then to change it, and make those individual crimes worse.