Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It is the middle of the night and SWAT teams wearing scary black helmets and armor are going door to door, neighborhood to neighborhood, breaking down people's doors, terrorizing families, and tearing through homes to confiscate any firearms they may have. This is what many conservatives fear that Obama and the Democrats ultimately want to happen.
Does this fear have any basis in reality at all? How does any mention of stricter background checks, a ban on certain types of clips, or closing the gun show loophole become a mass, nationwide gun grab by a totalitarian government?
To be honest, though I am more liberal on most issues I tend to lean conservative on Second Amendment rights, but I just don't understand where this paranoia is coming from. Nobody has proposed a gun grab that I am aware of. If anything, Second Amendment rights have increased over the past couple of decades.
Confiscation is exactly what the Democrats want to happen. Some have openly stated that this is their goal. And yes, it is based in reality. After Katrina, firearms were confiscated from New Orleans residents.
I love how you call it paranoia when a person is concerned about something that not only has been stated as a goal, but has also actually happened in the continental United States.
Now, let's move on to your "common sense" ideas:
Background checks - the shooter in Orlando passed the background checks to legally own a firearm.
Magazine capacity limits - do you realize how quickly even a mediocre shooter can swap magazines? There is scarcely a pause in firing, and for an experienced shooter the pause is unmeasurable. If you limit magazines to 10 rounds, someone intent on doing harm will simply carry more magazines.
Gun show loophole: there isn't one. Stop spreading lies. Any dealer who sets up at a gun show is required to do a background check on potential purchasers. What is referred to as a "loophole" is the fact that private individuals are not required to run background checks on purchasers when selling their personal firearms. It has nothing to do with gun shows, it has to do with the individual right to sell property.
Last but not least, the ongoing call for an "assault weapons" ban. Rifles in general - a category which includes the scary black rifles which make liberals quake in fear (mainly because they know nothing about the subject) are used in about 1%-2% of firearms crime. In other words, they are statistically insignificant when compared to handguns, which are used in the vast majority of firearms crimes. Do you really, truly believe that banning a firearm which is used in such a small number of crimes is consistent with the stated liberal goal of safety? If the goal were safety, wouldn't liberals be calling for a ban on handguns? And if they're being dishonest about their stated goal, one must ask the question of why.
The entire gun control debate is ridiculous. The thought that banning a certain subset of firearms, limiting magazine capacities, or prohibiting certain people from owning firearms will somehow result in a safer society is ludicrous. People have been killing other people since before recorded history, and none of these proposals will stop it. The only effective way to stop someone who is intent on doing harm is to be just as, if not more, capable of doing harm to them.
Remember, too, that despite claims that Orlando is the worst massacre in U.S. history, the truth is that the entity responsible for the biggest massacres in U.S. history is our own federal government. Wounded Knee alone, in which the U.S. Army massacred somewhere between 150 to 300 American Indians, was far worse than Orlando. Oklahoma City resulted in triple the number of deaths compared to Orlando, and there were no firearms used. For that matter, the Bath Schoolhouse massacre claimed nearly the same number of lives as Orlando, and again no firearms were used.
So, tell us how all of these so-called "common sense" proposals would result in a safer society. Those of us who pay attention to history would love to know.
It is the middle of the night and SWAT teams wearing scary black helmets and armor are going door to door, neighborhood to neighborhood, breaking down people's doors, terrorizing families, and tearing through homes to confiscate any firearms they may have. This is what many conservatives fear that Obama and the Democrats ultimately want to happen.
.
If you had a 1911 and the government passed a law that you could only own single shot guns, would you turn your 1911 in?
The left never tells you what their ultimate goal is upfront. If their ultimate goal is a gun ban, they will start with stricter background checks. When they get that, they will continue incrementally passing stricter legislation until they finally arrive at gun bans. But make no mistake, most lefties would ultimately like to see guns only in the hands of the State.
It's like the Left on tax rates. They never say what enough taxes are.
You need to imagine for a moment that you are literally the leader of the world. As a leader, do you really want "the people" having guns? I mean, if I was Trump or Obama, I would be absolutely terrified of the common people having guns. I'm surprised they even go out in public.
This same logic applies to billionaires, and media personalities, among others. Basically the "ruling classes", are always hostile to the people being armed. The fact that Americans can own weapons to the extent they have been able to, is actually quite exceptional. And in my view, is primarily a byproduct of America being founded by people who didn't trust the government.
And for that matter, the people who are the primary advocates of gun-rights today, are those people who continue to not trust the government(and each other).
It is the middle of the night and SWAT teams wearing scary black helmets and armor are going door to door, neighborhood to neighborhood, breaking down people's doors, terrorizing families, and tearing through homes to confiscate any firearms they may have. This is what many conservatives fear that Obama and the Democrats ultimately want to happen.
Does this fear have any basis in reality at all? How does any mention of stricter background checks, a ban on certain types of clips, or closing the gun show loophole become a mass, nationwide gun grab by a totalitarian government?
To be honest, though I am more liberal on most issues I tend to lean conservative on Second Amendment rights, but I just don't understand where this paranoia is coming from. Nobody has proposed a gun grab that I am aware of. If anything, Second Amendment rights have increased over the past couple of decades.
There is no gun show loophole.
That's the deliberate decision of a legislative body that conscientiously refuses to get in a population's hair about private transactions that government has no business involving itself in.
Does this fear have any basis in reality at all? How does any mention of stricter background checks, a ban on certain types of clips, or closing the gun show loophole become a mass, nationwide gun grab by a totalitarian government?
Registration has only one end-purpose: confiscation.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
