Real Question Here

[Honda]

I'm not sure why we are talking about confiscation

Because Joe Biden said yesterday that is exactly what he intended to do a mandatory government buy back. Biden has a better than average chance to be elected President. It's a serious issue well worth being discussed, sorry you missed out on that.

[wacojoe]

They had a mandatory buy-back or whatever in New Zealand after the terrorist attack there, and now New Zealand is the home of the most criminal population of gun owners in the world, as a great number of gun owners flatly refused the demand. I doubt New Zealanders are more recalcitrant than are Americans.

[Honda]

They had a mandatory buy-back or whatever in New Zealand after the terrorist attack there, and now New Zealand is the home of the most criminal population of gun owners in the world, as a great number of gun owners flatly refused the demand. I doubt New Zealanders are more recalcitrant than are Americans.

Depends on the statute. If the Dems win the WH and the Senate my belief is that they will pass sweeping "gun control" legislation and the SCOTUS will be the only thing between it and the people. If they get their way there will be strong criminal repercussions for failure to comply. If that happens we will see how defiant and brave folks are. I know some are chuckling at me and I don't want to get the last laugh but this country is ripe for some sweeping gun control and there are people who want to do it running for office NOW.

[Mike]

Depends on the statute. If the Dems win the WH and the Senate my belief is that they will pass sweeping "gun control" legislation and the SCOTUS will be the only thing between it and the people. If they get their way there will be strong criminal repercussions for failure to comply. If that happens we will see how defiant and brave folks are. I know some are chuckling at me and I don't want to get the last laugh but this country is ripe for some sweeping gun control and there are people who want to do it running for office NOW.

I agree that they are coming for our guns and it is going to be a bitter pill to swallow. It is going to be the most divisive thing government has done since the war of northern aggression and I can see it starting a revolution if the government makes it too draconian. They had better start small like making all transfers require a background check and an FFL holder to process it. The AR-15 platform is the most popular gun in the U.S. and confiscation is going to make a whole lot of law abiding citizens very mad.

[wacojoe]

Like so many rational people, I struggle with the issues presented by gun control. As I’ve stated before here, my thoughts are that the 2nd A is not an absolute. Would anyone seriously argue that shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missiles are protected because they can be kept and borne by a person (“...the right of the people to keep and bear arms...”)? If the 2nd is not then absolute, the question devolves to where the line should be drawn.

My own personal experience has revealed that there is far from a dearth of homicidal nuts in this country and far too many to negate or immobilize by authorities in anticipation or interdiction before they act. Even for those who might act in heinous ways only an infinitesimal number actually would, which brings to question how many would be wronged in order to guard against those few. Having had the peculiar job at one time in my career of prosecuting involuntary commitments of the mentally ill and much experience with psychology/psychiatry “experts,” I can say without reservation that there would be many egregious errors committed in any “Red Flag” procedures.

Our recent history proves to me that our present technology has so far exceeded the foresight of our authors of the Constitution that current interpretation should make up for the difference. I do not think any of those founders could have anticipated that an ordinary citizen could acquire the weaponry to mow down a crowd of people in thirty seconds using the equivalent of a few hours pay. My reasoning is that if we cannot stop mass assaults on the populace at the point of origin by singling out and removing the dangerous mental defectives amongst us, then we should look one rational step up from that solution to the next plateau — their weapon(s) of choice, wherever possible, reasonable & limited in scope. The weapons upon which I would concentrate are those designed for laying down a seriously deadly field of fire, AR15’s & AK47’s being two of those. We have already removed or seriously restricted many worse weapons — machine guns, grenades, bazookas, explosives, brass knuckles, even swords, etc., etc. It is true there are many which cannot be removed for practical reasons — vehicles, pressure cookers, gas bottles, etc., but you have to limit those you can, especially those which have greater destructive value than utility, such as rapid-fire weaponry with large capacity magazines.

While proposing remedies against my nature (State control of individual rights) and fully cognizant of the argument that the 2nd A was included to protect us from government or those who might seek to commandeer government, there must be rational limits at the same time.

Here are a couple of well reasoned columns that explore contrary conclusions than my own —

https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/...ant-than-ever/

https://www.nationalreview.com/corne...mass-killings/

[Truckman]

I do not think any of those founders could have anticipated that an ordinary citizen could acquire the weaponry to mow down a crowd of people in thirty seconds using the equivalent of a few hours pay.

I don't think any of those founders anticipated that it would happen...But I also believe that had they thought of it, their preventative actions would not have included denuding all citizens of the right to possess any of the tools that such individuals would employ in such an act...The instruments of death and destruction, whether they be icepicks, automobiles, firearms or telephones, are not the cause of wholesale slaughter, nor individual attack...They are merely the appliances which the criminal has perverted to suit his own plans...Legislate against the criminal's ability, not against the means by which others better their own lives......Ben

[Mike]

What Ben said above. ^^^

[wacojoe]

...Legislate against the criminal's ability...Ben

Can you explain what you mean by that? Keep in mind that many of these people waiting to explode are not yet criminals.

[Dave Grubb]

I get all the arguments against implementing any of the proposed restrictions-----but we can't continue to wait for the perfect, most eloquent solution, we need to do something---even if in hind sight we see a better way---change it then.

Waiting will only get us more of these events--and frankly I have had enough.

[wacojoe]

I think I have already answered with my conclusions on many of your questions, Ben. Let me repeat —

...The weapons upon which I would concentrate are those designed for laying down a seriously deadly field of fire, AR15’s & AK47’s being two of those. We have already removed or seriously restricted many worse weapons — machine guns, grenades, bazookas, explosives, brass knuckles, even swords, etc., etc. It is true there are many which cannot be removed for practical reasons — vehicles, pressure cookers, gas bottles, etc., but you have to limit those you can, especially those which have greater destructive value than utility, such as rapid-fire weaponry with large capacity magazines.

We have long ago outlawed or seriously restricted many much less dangerous weapons than high capacity semi-auto rifles and the Constitution did not suffer. To compare that with removing cars & trucks or kitchen knives is a classic logical fallacy of arguing that because extreme measures are impossible or impractical lessor measures are as well. The question remains: why would any person not bent on mayhem need a rifle with a 75-shot magazine?

I do not like giving my ideological rivals a step up on one of their principal goals, and I do recognize the slippery slope ramifications, but going through the choices available brings me to a disagreeable choice I stated. Knee-jerk opposition to opposing forces is not reason enough to discount rational choices. The major problem with any kind of ban or restriction on those type weapons is what has been mentioned and brings us back to the thread origins — there are hundreds of thousands or millions already widely dispersed...can they be removed from circulation?

[Dave Grubb]

In a thoughtful article in this morning's WSJ a list of potential measures are discussed---outside the normal political aspect.

Quoting parts of that article:

To Rosanna Smart, an economist at the Rand Corp. who studies gun violence, there is no single solution for averting such attacks. The statistical infrequency of the incidents and their varying circumstances make them difficult to study and fully understand.

“In the wake of these events there’s a lot of discussion and a lot of attention to these potential policies, but we really don’t know a lot about what an effective policy would look like and how it would work,” she said. “It’s not going to be a one-size-fits-all solution, it’s going to take a multipronged approach.”...........

‘Red-Flag’ Laws

While lawmakers have struggled to agree on many gun-control measures in recent years, one fix is gaining bipartisan support after the two most recent tragedies: extreme-risk protection laws, otherwise known as “red-flag” laws.

The laws, adopted in various forms in more than a dozen states, allow family members, law enforcement and others to request a court to bar a person’s access to guns and ammunition if the person has demonstrated a likelihood to hurt themselves or others.
Red-Flag States
Seventeen states and the District of Columbia have enacted extreme risk protection or “red-flag” laws.

In roughly half the mass shootings between 2009 and the end of 2017, the shooter made previous threats of violence or showed other signs that they could be a danger, according to Everytown.org, a gun-control advocacy group.

“This is one more tool that fills in the gaps when there’s nothing else that could be used to disarm someone,” said Laura Cutilletta, managing director at the Giffords Law Center, a gun-control group. “The important thing is to get guns out of the hands of people who may be dangerous.”

The NRA has questioned whether red-flag laws sufficiently protect the due-process rights of individuals considered dangerous. The group opposes implementing a red-flag law at the federal level.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R., S.C.), chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said in a statement Monday that he hoped to move forward with legislation to give states grant money to pass their own red-flag laws. Mr. Graham, who said he called President Trump about the proposal, is working with Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D., Conn.) on the bill.

Red-flag laws gained national attention after 17 high-school students and adults were killed at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Fla., last year. People close to the person charged in the shooting, Nikolas Cruz, repeatedly raised concerns about his mental state to his school district, Florida’s social service agency, two local sheriff’s departments and the FBI. Weeks before the assault, a woman had called the FBI to express her concern that Mr. Cruz would “get into a school and just shoot the place up.”

[Phillbo]

No one is going to take your guns away.. It's just political posturing to get TV time.

[wacojoe]

No one is going to take your guns away.. It's just political posturing to get TV time.

Don’t look now, but for all practical purposes “they” did that before we were born in specific instances. I’m guessing Xxxxxx is the only one of us to own a permit for a full auto, and I don’t hear much beefing about them taking them away. We have long decided certain weaponry does not belong among the citizenry and the absence has not hair-lipped anyone.

[Redaction by Mike]

[Honda]

Don’t look now, but for all practical purposes “they” did that before we were born in specific instances. I’m guessing xxxxxx is the only one of us to own a permit for a full auto, and I don’t hear much beefing about them taking them away. We have long decided certain weaponry does not belong among the citizenry and the absence has not hair-lipped anyone.

I hear ya Joe but my fear is once they start they won't stop.

[wacojoe]

That is a valid concern I share. When that camel gets its nose in the tent, its breath is rancid.