• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's 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!

What Will You Do?

Hari Seldon said:
So it would be better if I had guns if I was swatted?
Click to expand...
Not for anyone, but the assumption that such a law would be irrelevant to do depends on someone not telling the government that you have banned guns. You have no control over that..
 
Redress said:
His proposed 28th amendment does several things, but does not from what I can find repeal the 2nd amendment.
Click to expand...
It certainly renders the Second Amendment moot. Given that any firearm cam be banned as an "assault weapon" simply by defining as such in the verbiage of a law, how could the Second Amendment protect any firearm?
 
VySky said:
If Gavin Newsom snubs out Biden in 24, like they did Bernie years ago, and he comes for your guns?

Will you willfully give them up? Or did you just suffer a horrible boating accident? Sold them all in a face to face deal in Tennessee?

Do you think most American will turn over their guns?

What say you?
Click to expand...
Why don't you actually pose the real questions - like
  • "What will you do if they make homosexuality mandatory?" or
  • "What will you do if they make interracial marriage mandatory?" or
  • "What will you do when they make abortion mandatory?" or
  • "What will you do when they ban Christianity?" or
  • "What will you do when they make hiring White Males illegal"
- that you really want answers to?
 
Rucker61 said:
swat·ting
/ˈswädiNG/
nounINFORMAL•US
the action or practice of making a prank call to emergency services in an attempt to bring about the dispatch of a large number of armed police officers to a particular address.
"he found out that he was a victim of swatting after police surrounded his home on Thursday"

Given that the authorities don't know who has guns, it would be prudent to assume anyone could. Combine that with an anonymous tip line and anyone vould be subject to a police raid.

I hope that if the OP's scenario happens that people without guns won't have SWAT giving them a visit.
Click to expand...
Begs the question of WTF would you intend to do with your guns if you get swatted?

Correct me if I am wrong, but you are sounding like a Darwin award waiting to happen.
 
marduc said:
Begs the question of WTF would you intend to do with your guns if you get swatted?

Correct me if I am wrong, but you are sounding like a Darwin award waiting to happen.
Click to expand...

What would anyone do now? SWATting is a current phenomenon. Innocent people have already been killed.

If the event that the OPs scenario comes to fruition, what actions can either of us take to prevent an anonymous caller from informing the police that we have an "arsenal" and was heard to say that "we're taking cops with us"?
 
I would not care because I don't have a gun. And I live in Texas.
 
Rucker61 said:
It certainly renders the Second Amendment moot. Given that any firearm cam be banned as an "assault weapon" simply by defining as such in the verbiage of a law, how could the Second Amendment protect any firearm?
Click to expand...
The proposed 28th amendment bars purchase of "assault weapons", not ownership. Are you unaware, or are you making shit up?
 
HIP56948 said:
I turned in 2 weapons in Australia in 1998. Would do the same here if the law said to..
Click to expand...
What if the law was unconstitutional?

What kind of guns did you turn in?
 
Rucker61 said:
What would anyone do now? SWATting is a current phenomenon. Innocent people have already been killed.

If the event that the OPs scenario comes to fruition, what actions can either of us take to prevent an anonymous caller from informing the police that we have an "arsenal" and was heard to say that "we're taking cops with us"?
Click to expand...
You did not answer my question.

How does possessing guns benefit you if are being swatted? Seriously I am trying to wrap my head around this, your post makes it seem like you are intending to hold off the swat team with your arsenal, which is precisely why I said correct me if I am wrong.

Now is your opportunity.
 
VySky said:
If Gavin Newsom snubs out Biden in 24, like they did Bernie years ago, and he comes for your guns?

Will you willfully give them up? Or did you just suffer a horrible boating accident? Sold them all in a face to face deal in Tennessee?

Do you think most American will turn over their guns?

What say you?
Click to expand...
no---they won't, and they won't try to take all the guns either......
 
Redress said:
The proposed 28th amendment bars purchase of "assault weapons", not ownership. Are you unaware, or are you making shit up?
Click to expand...
And that law can't be changed? The current AWB bills differs significantly from the 1994 law? If the power exists to actually pass the 28th Amendment the power exists to change the definition of "assault weapon" prior to or subsequent to the Amendment being ratified. Of gun control advocates have the power to pass such an Amendment do you think they'd settle for anything short of confiscation, given that this law won't impact mass shootings?? Those countries they keep comparing us to confiscated lots of guns. They like what those countries did.

It could be very subtle changes. Ohio SB260 from the 2019 state legislative session redefined "assault" as any semiautomatic weapon "capable of accepting a large capacity magazine". That definition would prevent the sale of a subcompact Glock 42 pistol with a six round factory capacity as an "assault weapon" as there is a 12 round aftermarket magazine for it.
 
marduc said:
You did not answer my question.

How does possessing guns benefit you if are being swatted? Seriously I am trying to wrap my head around this, your post makes it seem like you are intending to hold off the swat team with your arsenal, which is precisely why I said correct me if I am wrong.

Now is your opportunity.
Click to expand...
My whole point was regarding your claim that this law would be irrelevant to you as you don't own guns. It certainly could if you get swatted, which would be deadly regardless if you owned guns or not.
 
Rucker61 said:
My whole point was regarding your claim that this law would be irrelevant to you as you don't own guns. It certainly could if you get swatted, which would be deadly regardless if you owned guns or not.
Click to expand...
I never made that claim; however if being swatting is deadly independent of gun ownership, then yes by simple logic it is indeed irrelevant.
 
marduc said:
I never made that claim; however if being swatting is deadly independent of gun ownership, then yes by simple logic it is indeed irrelevant.
Click to expand...
Two other posters did, and I mistakenly included you in the conversation.

Based on the comments of those two posters, it seemed clear that the new kaw would have no impact on them as the weren't gun owners. I don't think that's correct.
 
Most would turn in their guns, including me. If it comes to that it means we are living in left wing dictatorship where they will kill you for any reason.
 
Rucker61 said:
Two other posters did, and I mistakenly included you in the conversation.

Based on the comments of those two posters, it seemed clear that the new kaw would have no impact on them as the weren't gun owners. I don't think that's correct.
Click to expand...
So what impact in a swatting event differs between having a gun and not having a gun then?
I am still confused, you are presenting a zero sum scenario.
 
Rucker61 said:
Not for anyone, but the assumption that such a law would be irrelevant to do depends on someone not telling the government that you have banned guns. You have no control over that..
Click to expand...
I will definitely keep that in mind.
 
Rucker61 said:
Quantify "fewer guns" ( we have over 400 million now) and define "less killing power".
Click to expand...
Why? “Fewer” and “less” would be an improvement.
 
HIP56948 said:
If the law was unconstitutional, I wouldn't do it.
I think it was a .38 and a rifle.
Click to expand...
I have only an old 9mm and I'll bury it before I give it up. I've been wanting a shotgun for a long time, and I'll bury that too.

I don't need an AR, don't want one, and there has to be some way to allow people enough firepower to defend themselves without the proliferation of firearms as we currently have.

This is theory only, as it's impossible to confiscate guns. Any restrictions will occur on the manufacturing end, and as long as I'm allowed a 9mm and a shotgun, I'm fine.
 
marduc said:
So what impact in a swatting event differs between having a gun and not having a gun then?
I am still confused, you are presenting a zero sum scenario.
Click to expand...
Much greater chance of being swatted in the OP scenario, especially if those opposing the kaw know that someone would support such a law.
 
HIP56948 said:
If the law was unconstitutional, I wouldn't do it.
I think it was a .38 and a rifle.
Click to expand...
Were either of these banned under the 1996 Australian law?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom