What is the end game for the Democrats who want to ban some firearms?

[Rucker61]

Those countries I mentioned demonstrate that is not the case.

In none of those countries was the right to keep and bear arms protected by their Constitution.

Please have the Democrats run in 2022 on a gun confiscation platform.

 

[RF667799]

It would be a combination of laws that decrease the number of guns in circulation. As I keep repeating in these types of thread, look at Canada, Britain, Australia, NZ, comparable first world nations. The measures these countries have in place mean fewer guns in circulation and therefore fewer that fall 'out' of circulation and onto the black market.

The measures include, licenses, restricting certain types, enforcing certain bans and prohibitions, amnesties and buy backs - all sensible stuff. The results are simple - there are fewer guns around, even criminals find them harder and costlier to obtain, those who have a history of domestic violence or gang associations are shit outta luck and therefore fewer people as a percentage are harmed or killed by guns in those countries.

I know the NRA thinks licensing and the Second Amendment right are mutually exclusive but that's hogwash. You need the proper permits already to exercise that right in various manners all across the country: silencers, conceal carry, open carry, mag caps and fun switches, are all affected by various laws and permits here and there. So people still have the right as long as they can demonstrate the responsibility.

Which of my guns am I supposed to give up so you can have fewer in circulation? Why is it up to me to satisfy some arbitrary number in your mind anyway?

 

[uptower]

no country is anything like the USA so comparisons to other nations are worthless when it comes to US gun policies. and the fact remains-since "gun control" is almost exclusively a "solution" to crime that comes from left-wingers, we both know that trying to reduce violent crime by restricting what lawful gun owners can do, doesn't even pass the smell test

Firstly quite a number of countries are indeed quite similar to the US in language, education levels, GDP, standard of living and so on. The ones I named especially so. The start point that is glaringly different is that America is already awash with guns, and culturally addicted to them, which makes change harder. Secondly the call for gun control doesn't come exclusively from the left - a majority of republicans are also supportive of some measures such as background checks.

Finally the majority of gun deaths by accident, suicide and mass killing are the result of legally owned firearms - till they were used illegally. Many gun criminals are not criminals till they first direct their weapon against others. Nations similar to America somehow avoid that problem to a large extent by better managing the type of weapons available, who has access and how.

In the end, by properly screening buyers, by making sure the weapons they get are by and large not military-grade killing machines, and reducing the ridiculous number of guns out there, gun crime should come down because even criminals will find it hard to get them. as it is America's gun problem is so bad it's fuelling the violence across the border in Mexico by exporting so many of its weapons to cartels and gangs over there. laughingly, America reducing its gun deaths - by weapons bought above or below the table - could have a knock on effect on other illicit markets.

 

[uptower]

In none of those countries was the right to keep and bear arms protected by their Constitution.

Please have the Democrats run in 2022 on a gun confiscation platform.

Once again the idea of a right' superseding all permits and regulations has been debunked by the myriad laws already in place in the US. But have no fear, I don't think the Democrats are going to run on a mass confiscation platform. The gun problem will take a hearts and minds approach rather than a sledgehammer.

 

[TurtleDude]

Firstly quite a number of countries are indeed quite similar to the US in language, education levels, GDP, standard of living and so on. The ones I named especially so. The start point that is glaringly different is that America is already awash with guns, and culturally addicted to them, which makes change harder. Secondly the call for gun control doesn't come exclusively from the left - a majority of republicans are also supportive of some measures such as background checks.

Finally the majority of gun deaths by accident, suicide and mass killing are the result of legally owned firearms - till they were used illegally. Many gun criminals are not criminals till they first direct their weapon against others. Nations similar to America somehow avoid that problem to a large extent by better managing the type of weapons available, who has access and how.

In the end, by properly screening buyers, by making sure the weapons they get are by and large not military-grade killing machines, and reducing the ridiculous number of guns out there, gun crime should come down because even criminals will find it hard to get them. as it is America's gun problem is so bad it's fuelling the violence across the border in Mexico by exporting so many of its weapons to cartels and gangs over there. laughingly, America reducing its gun deaths - by weapons bought above or below the table - could have a knock on effect on other illicit markets.

what is a military grade killing machine-that sort of bullshit proves to me you really haven't a clue about the subject. What I see is another left-winger who wants to harass lawful gun ownership as RF667799 noted.

 

[uptower]

Which of my guns am I supposed to give up so you can have fewer in circulation? Why is it up to me to satisfy some arbitrary number in your mind anyway?

I don't know how many or what kind of guns you have to begin with, and frankly it doesn't interest me, we're not here to discuss one another's collection or anything else about ourselves.

But let's say for the sake of argument licensing, registration or something similar came into effect you may have to register one or more of them depending on type - that's the kind of thing that goes on in similar western democracies for example. Or if a certain type were banned or required a higher permit you'd be obliged to hand it over or get the paperwork. I know that stuff is abhorrent to many gun owners, but many others would play along. It works in places. And bear in mind many states and cities already require permits for certain types, parts, or open or conceal carry, so meh, licensing and regulations can and do exist alongside the right to bear arms.

 

[TurtleDude]

I don't know how many or what kind of guns you have to begin with, and frankly it doesn't interest me, we're not here to discuss one another's collection or anything else about ourselves.

But let's say for the sake of argument licensing, registration or something similar came into effect you may have to register one or more of them depending on type - that's the kind of thing that goes on in similar western democracies for example. or is a certain type were banned or required a higher permit you'd be obliged to hand it over or get the paperwork. I know that stuff is abhorrent to many gun owners, but many others would play along. It works in places. And bear in mind many states and cities already require permits for certain types, parts, or open or conceal carry, so meh, licensing and regulations can and do exist alongside the right to bear arms.

none of that is going to impede people who traffic narcotics and kill their rivals. and it doesnt' work in the USA.

 

[uptower]

what is a military grade killing machine-that sort of bullshit proves to me you really haven't a clue about the subject. What I see is another left-winger who wants to harass lawful gun ownership as RF667799 noted.

If you cannot discuss an issue and only the issue on its merits without getting pissy with fellow posters, don't waste my time.

 

[TurtleDude]

If you cannot discuss an issue and only the issue on its merits without getting pissy with fellow posters, don't waste my time.

you ignore the fact that the USA has thousands of miles of borders and at LEAST 400 million firearms in circulation. All you can keep demanding are stupid restrictions on people who have not caused any problems with the guns they currently own.

 

[Logician Man]

If you cannot discuss an issue and only the issue on its merits without getting pissy with fellow posters, don't waste my time.

Several others here in GCF, regardless of personal views, or political lean have suggested the same.

 

[uptower]

you ignore the fact that the USA has thousands of miles of borders and at LEAST 400 million firearms in circulation. All you can keep demanding are stupid restrictions on people who have not caused any problems with the guns they currently own.

Okay that's better. Of course the large number of guns in circulation and the long border create opportunities for traffickers. This is not something that can be solved overnight. But with time, the number of weapons in illicit circulation can be reduced simply by dint of them being rarer and harder to get in general. It would take many years of course, I can't imagine otherwise.

As for people who have not cause problems with the guns they currently own, it sure looks like a lot of them are fixing to. A militia was just sprung near Boston. There are legal gun owners in the backwoods of every state, banding together and plotting insurrection, terror attacks, kidnappings and the like. I don't want those guys to have awful access to firearms because eventually they will use them to harm others.

 

[TurtleDude]

gun banners think that restrictions that prevent people from obtaining new guns in countries that have very little in terms of privately owned guns will work in a country were there are 400 million+ guns and that doesn't count all the federal and state organizations that are constantly buying handguns and rifles. It doesn't.

 

[Rucker61]

Once again the idea of a right' superseding all permits and regulations has been debunked by the myriad laws already in place in the US. But have no fear, I don't think the Democrats are going to run on a mass confiscation platform. The gun problem will take a hearts and minds approach rather than a sledgehammer.

Your approach requires fewer guns. What "hearts and minds" program will convince law abiding citizens to give up their guns?

What "hearts and minds" approach will convince the actual criminals committing the murders to turn in their guns?

 

[RF667799]

I don't know how many or what kind of guns you have to begin with, and frankly it doesn't interest me, we're not here to discuss one another's collection or anything else about ourselves.

But let's say for the sake of argument licensing, registration or something similar came into effect you may have to register one or more of them depending on type - that's the kind of thing that goes on in similar western democracies for example. Or if a certain type were banned or required a higher permit you'd be obliged to hand it over or get the paperwork. I know that stuff is abhorrent to many gun owners, but many others would play along. It works in places. And bear in mind many states and cities already require permits for certain types, parts, or open or conceal carry, so meh, licensing and regulations can and do exist alongside the right to bear arms.

You claimed you want to reduce the number of guns in circulation and now you're waffling all over the place. This leads me to think you aren't seriously committed to your position.

 

[Rucker61]

You claimed you want to reduce the number of guns in circulation and now you're waffling all over the place. This leads me to think you aren't seriously committed to your position.

If he was serious he'd be stacking up to take doors in East St Louis with SWAT.

 

[RF667799]

Once again the idea of a right' superseding all permits and regulations has been debunked by the myriad laws already in place in the US. But have no fear, I don't think the Democrats are going to run on a mass confiscation platform. The gun problem will take a hearts and minds approach rather than a sledgehammer.

Democrats aren't going to say shit about confiscating guns unless they are in a staunch anti-gun rights area. That way lies unemployment.

 

[TurtleDude]

Okay that's better. Of course the large number of guns in circulation and the long border create opportunities for traffickers. This is not something that can be solved overnight. But with time, the number of weapons in illicit circulation can be reduced simply by dint of them being rarer and harder to get in general. It would take many years of course, I can't imagine otherwise.

and you ignore several points. the people who traffic billions of dollars in narcotics can easily traffic billions of dollars in arms. Countries around the world are constantly upgrading their military firearms and then dumping perfectly serviceable but militarily obsolete (such as the AK 47, the Beretta 92, the UZI SMG and the Browning HP pistol) weapons on the world market.

3D Printers, and first and second and now third generation CNC machines are becoming cheaper and cheaper. My long gone grandfather designed dozens of milling machines that were used by the US arms makers to make things like the Browning 30 caliber machine guns and Browning Automatic Rifle. He had most of those milling machines, lathes, etc in his basement workshop where he often designed other tools. He had the machinery in his home to built a BAR or a Browning 30 caliber machine gun. Now 55 years ago, that sort of machine tools owned by a private citizen were rare and he, as a I noted, was a master designer for the then leading machine tool maker in the world. Modern machine tools, with computer driven programs. are far more efficient and far more people have access to them

 

[RF667799]

If he was serious he'd be stacking up to take doors in East St Louis with SWAT.

I was never real fond of going into East St Louis to retire gas lines, let alone stack on a door.

 

[uptower]

You claimed you want to reduce the number of guns in circulation and now you're waffling all over the place. This leads me to think you aren't seriously committed to your position.

These measures would be part of a long term plan to reduce the number of guns out three. Or should I say the natural result would be fewer guns.

Let's say licensing was a thing: Fewer people would be able to buy them, or certain types, without showing they can keep and use one safely; demand would drop, production, sales and circulation and those that fall out of circulation onto the black market would also drop. simple domino effect.

Now banning a certain type and offering a program of buybacks and amnesties, etc, is a more direct way of reducing the number of guns. That would take a major event and a major piece of legislation of course. I see licensing as a middle ground.

Now laws like that take time to be fought in the courts, and nobody has put one forward lately AFAIK, but since there are already laws covering permits, types available and so on, the notion of having more permits doesn't strike me as a huge leap or a significant change in rights and access.

 

[uptower]

and you ignore several points. the people who traffic billions of dollars in narcotics can easily traffic billions of dollars in arms. Countries around the world are constantly upgrading their military firearms and then dumping perfectly serviceable but militarily obsolete (such as the AK 47, the Beretta 92, the UZI SMG and the Browning HP pistol) weapons on the world market.

3D Printers, and first and second and now third generation CNC machines are becoming cheaper and cheaper. My long gone grandfather designed dozens of milling machines that were used by the US arms makers to make things like the Browning 30 caliber machine guns and Browning Automatic Rifle. He had most of those milling machines, lathes, etc in his basement workshop where he often designed other tools. He had the machinery in his home to built a BAR or a Browning 30 caliber machine gun. Now 55 years ago, that sort of machine tools owned by a private citizen were rare and he, as a I noted, was a master designer for the then leading machine tool maker in the world. Modern machine tools, with computer driven programs. are far more efficient and far more people have access to them

Yes there will always be illicit means of getting weapons that is true. But will the demand truly be so much that they fill the vacuum? Will black market weapons be as cheap as legal ones? When faced with the choice of getting a permit or an expensive underground 3D printed alternative, wouldn't most law abiding citizens choose the former? Likewise if the choice is between a banned weapon and a permitted one, won;t most people settle for the gun they can get?

I'm not arguing for a world without guns altogether here, just a country with fewer guns and gun-related problems.

 

[TurtleDude]

These measures would be part of a long term plan to reduce the number of guns out three. Or should I say the natural result would be fewer guns.

Let's say licensing was a thing: Fewer people would be able to buy them, or certain types, without showing they can keep and use one safely; demand would drop, production, sales and circulation and those that fall out of circulation onto the black market would also drop. simple domino effect.

Now banning a certain type and offering a program of buybacks and amnesties, etc, is a more direct way of reducing the number of guns. That would take a major event and a major piece of legislation of course. I see licensing as a middle ground.

Now laws like that take time to be fought in the courts, and nobody has put one forward lately AFAIK, but since there are already laws covering permits, types available and so on, the notion of having more permits doesn't strike me as a huge leap or a significant change in rights and access.

licensing should be struck down as unconstitutional. All the federal gun control laws are dishonest and you are hard pressed to find a constitutional scholar who honestly will state that crap like the 1934 NFA or the GCA of 68 was something the founders would have tolerated

 

[uptower]

licensing should be struck down as unconstitutional. All the federal gun control laws are dishonest and you are hard pressed to find a constitutional scholar who honestly will state that crap like the 1934 NFA or the GCA of 68 was something the founders would have tolerated

Yet they've passed and haven't been overturned so it is not inconceivable that more laws will pass in future. As I've said I don't imagine this happening like next year or anything. But one day in a generation or two perhaps Americans will feel more comfortable with a little more trade off, just like tha Canadians or the Aussies or other similar countries.

 

[TurtleDude]

Yes there will always be illicit means of getting weapons that is true. But will the demand truly be so much that they fill the vacuum? Will black market weapons be as cheap as legal ones? When faced with the choice of getting a permit or an expensive underground 3D printed alternative, wouldn't most law abiding citizens choose the former? Likewise if the choice is between a banned weapon and a permitted one, won;t most people settle for the gun they can get?

well the war on drugs has proven to be a huge failure and most of us who were in the higher levels of federal law enforcement understand that most of the violence in the USA is directly attributable to the attempts to ban drugs. you apparently haven't much understanding of why criminals are armed or what they will do to be armed. You also seem -at best-ambivalent to legal gun ownership

finally, there is the elephant in the room no one on the left wants to address. Right now, we are told the police do not have enough resources to say arrest straw purchasers or felons who lie on form 4473 and thus commit federal perjury when they claim they aren't felons but are stopped by the background check because they are. If only 10% of the current LEGAL gun owners refuse to comply with your desired gun restrictions-WTF are the police going to do? and what if only 1% were to resist violently. that's still a million people

 

[TurtleDude]

Yet they've passed and haven't been overturned so it is not inconceivable that more laws will pass in future. As I've said I don't imagine this happening like next year or anything. But one day in a generation or two perhaps Americans will feel more comfortable with a little more trade off, just like tha Canadians or the Aussies or other similar countries.

federally, the gun control movement is losing. and I suspect NY is going to lose the case in front of the supreme court

 

[RF667799]

These measures would be part of a long term plan to reduce the number of guns out three. Or should I say the natural result would be fewer guns.

Let's say licensing was a thing: Fewer people would be able to buy them, or certain types, without showing they can keep and use one safely; demand would drop, production, sales and circulation and those that fall out of circulation onto the black market would also drop. simple domino effect.

Now banning a certain type and offering a program of buybacks and amnesties, etc, is a more direct way of reducing the number of guns. That would take a major event and a major piece of legislation of course. I see licensing as a middle ground.

Now laws like that take time to be fought in the courts, and nobody has put one forward lately AFAIK, but since there are already laws covering permits, types available and so on, the notion of having more permits doesn't strike me as a huge leap or a significant change in rights and access.

Why do you think licensing would reduce the number of guns in existence? Does licensing reduce the number of motor vehicles? If drivers on public highways didn't have to be licensed, there would be more motor vehicles? I'm not seeing the connection. Gun owners in my state are licensed, and I've never seen any claim that it reduces the number of guns in this state.