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.
When people demand "just little more" gun control, they know it has never worked. What do they really want?
Anti-gun people have tried every method under the sun, supposedly to try to reduce shootings. They have uniformly failed. The rate of shootings continues to climb, varying only by location and dates, but not in deadliness. And yet they continue to call for the same things to be tried again and again.
But one method WILL work.
Don't pussyfoot around. Ban all private ownership of guns, period. And enforce it. This will dry up the supply until even the worst criminals can't get a gun any more.
Can anyone see a way this would NOT work in reducing shootings in this country?
For those who are interested in reducing shootings by reducing the number of guns, it is the only way that WILL work.
The gun-control advocates, of course, do a fast 180, throw up their hands in mock horror, and insist "We would never ban your guns! What a paranoid idea!" But everything else they try, fails miserably... and their reaction is always, "Well, we just need a little more gun control." There's always the same pattern to their demands... and it leads in only one direction, despite their smooth assurances to the contrary.
There is only one scheme that would actually reduce shootings in this country. Of course, you'd have to repeal the 2nd amendment first. Good luck with that. In fact, you'd probably have to amend the Constitution even further, to specifically give Congress the power to restrict or ban guns, and take that power away from the states once the 2nd is repealed. Let me know how that goes.
Then you'd have to get the legislation through Congress to actually ban everything.
And then comes the enforcement. A huge number of households have guns - millions. Does anyone think that all of them will simply bring their guns in to the nearest police station or collection point, once the police have the power to tell them to? You would need to put together police task forces to go house to house, collecting the guns.
It won't be long, of course, before some gun owner politely declines to give up his guns, Constitutional amendments or not. And the police would then insist. And then, the gun owner's refusal would become less polite. And so would the police's insistence. It's just a matter of time before the guns get used somewhere, instead of relinquished.
And the police certainly won't let THAT slide. The police teams would quickly turn into SWAT teams. And a collection mission to the next house, would consist of the SWAT team setting up outside the house, or maybe blocking off an entire street or block, demanding the residents come out, making all of them lie facedown in the grass, cuffing them, and holding them while the cops go house to house checking for newly-forbidden weapons.
They'll probably have to dig up most back yards too, in case someone put his rifles or pistols in a length of plastic pipe and buried them to avoid police confiscation. This is bound to happen in a few places, at least. And maybe QUITE a few places.
When the SWAT team actions start, how long will it be before neighborhoods that have several gun owners, start getting together and making plans for what to do when the SWAT teams show up on their block?
And how many American citizens, who had been innocent, law-abiding people until the new laws got passed, will be injured or killed? They could number into the thousands. Maybe MANY thousands.
How many times would this be repeated, across a country 3,000 miles wide with 320,000,000 people?
This method, once carried through a every house or apartment in the nation, WOULD significantly reduce the number of shootings in the U.S.
Can you say that about any other "gun control" scheme? No, you cannot... because not one of them has ever worked.
So-called "gun control advocates" are still demanding, however, that the government "do something to reduce these shootings". And they've been doing it long enough to know that none of their schemes have ever worked.
It stands to reason that the officials who keep demanding it anyway, will have one of two results:
1.) Complete failure like they have always had (I doubt they intend that result), or
2.) The only method that WILL work. As described above. Possibly brought on a little at a time, hoping to sneak it in without too many people noticing... but with the ultimate implementation described above.
It's time to stop kidding ourselves. The liberals who want "more gun control" or "just a few reasonable restrictions" today, feign horror and denial when someone says they want to ban all guns. But since nothing else will work, their actions belie their words: They can intend nothing else.
In other words, it's time for them to fish or cut bait. How many more examples of failure do they want, before conceding what normal people already know: That their "usual gun control" methods never work? How long to they expect to be able to fool people with the "just a few more common sense regulations" fib?
The ones that are still insisting on "more gun control" are clearly not serious in their "just a little" assurances. They know that "just a little more" won't work. They can only have one outcome in mind: The only one that will work.
When you hear liberals on TV calling for more gun control..... get ready. They may say, "Just a little". But they don't mean it.
while a sane person IS concerned with reducing violence of any type, including violence involving firearms, Patriots and those who think deeply and understand the entire picture, understand that the preservation of freedom that the RKBA supports is the highest priority of all.
Gun control advocates understand this as well - they just don't like freedom, preferring tyranny under the mistaken belief that somehow they will be the ones wearing the jack-boots.
You made that term (state militia) up out of whole cloth. The term in the Constitution is "militia" -period. Further in the parlance of the day, regulated meant equipped or supplied, not the sort of "regulation" our ruling elite has thrust upon we-the-people. And yes, according to the Founders the militia were the whole body of people not actually in the military.
When people demand "just little more" gun control, they know it has never worked. What do they really want?
Anti-gun people have tried every method under the sun, supposedly to try to reduce shootings. They have uniformly failed. The rate of shootings continues to climb, varying only by location and dates, but not in deadliness. And yet they continue to call for the same things to be tried again and again.
But one method WILL work.
Don't pussyfoot around. Ban all private ownership of guns, period. And enforce it. This will dry up the supply until even the worst criminals can't get a gun any more.
Can anyone see a way this would NOT work in reducing shootings in this country?
For those who are interested in reducing shootings by reducing the number of guns, it is the only way that WILL work.
The gun-control advocates, of course, do a fast 180, throw up their hands in mock horror, and insist "We would never ban your guns! What a paranoid idea!" But everything else they try, fails miserably... and their reaction is always, "Well, we just need a little more gun control." There's always the same pattern to their demands... and it leads in only one direction, despite their smooth assurances to the contrary.
There is only one scheme that would actually reduce shootings in this country. Of course, you'd have to repeal the 2nd amendment first. Good luck with that. In fact, you'd probably have to amend the Constitution even further, to specifically give Congress the power to restrict or ban guns, and take that power away from the states once the 2nd is repealed. Let me know how that goes.
Then you'd have to get the legislation through Congress to actually ban everything.
And then comes the enforcement. A huge number of households have guns - millions. Does anyone think that all of them will simply bring their guns in to the nearest police station or collection point, once the police have the power to tell them to? You would need to put together police task forces to go house to house, collecting the guns.
It won't be long, of course, before some gun owner politely declines to give up his guns, Constitutional amendments or not. And the police would then insist. And then, the gun owner's refusal would become less polite. And so would the police's insistence. It's just a matter of time before the guns get used somewhere, instead of relinquished.
And the police certainly won't let THAT slide. The police teams would quickly turn into SWAT teams. And a collection mission to the next house, would consist of the SWAT team setting up outside the house, or maybe blocking off an entire street or block, demanding the residents come out, making all of them lie facedown in the grass, cuffing them, and holding them while the cops go house to house checking for newly-forbidden weapons.
They'll probably have to dig up most back yards too, in case someone put his rifles or pistols in a length of plastic pipe and buried them to avoid police confiscation. This is bound to happen in a few places, at least. And maybe QUITE a few places.
When the SWAT team actions start, how long will it be before neighborhoods that have several gun owners, start getting together and making plans for what to do when the SWAT teams show up on their block?
And how many American citizens, who had been innocent, law-abiding people until the new laws got passed, will be injured or killed? They could number into the thousands. Maybe MANY thousands.
How many times would this be repeated, across a country 3,000 miles wide with 320,000,000 people?
This method, once carried through a every house or apartment in the nation, WOULD significantly reduce the number of shootings in the U.S.
Can you say that about any other "gun control" scheme? No, you cannot... because not one of them has ever worked.
So-called "gun control advocates" are still demanding, however, that the government "do something to reduce these shootings". And they've been doing it long enough to know that none of their schemes have ever worked.
It stands to reason that the officials who keep demanding it anyway, will have one of two results:
1.) Complete failure like they have always had (I doubt they intend that result), or
2.) The only method that WILL work. As described above. Possibly brought on a little at a time, hoping to sneak it in without too many people noticing... but with the ultimate implementation described above.
It's time to stop kidding ourselves. The liberals who want "more gun control" or "just a few reasonable restrictions" today, feign horror and denial when someone says they want to ban all guns. But since nothing else will work, their actions belie their words: They can intend nothing else.
In other words, it's time for them to fish or cut bait. How many more examples of failure do they want, before conceding what normal people already know: That their "usual gun control" methods never work? How long to they expect to be able to fool people with the "just a few more common sense regulations" fib?
The ones that are still insisting on "more gun control" are clearly not serious in their "just a little" assurances. They know that "just a little more" won't work. They can only have one outcome in mind: The only one that will work.
When you hear liberals on TV calling for more gun control..... get ready. They may say, "Just a little". But they don't mean it.
And every additional criminal-empowerment law they pass is touted as a "good FIRST step". They are neither "good" nor "first".
What? The right to kill school children and other unarmed civilians with military assault rifles?The Second Amendment was not written to make it easier to engage in the mass slaughter of our citizenry. This is about the right of the NRA to continue to make obscene profits by selling ever more sophisticated weapons to a minority of the American people who want to continue to build their arsenals and show off their latest acquisitions to their pals at the gun range and elsewhere. If killers of school children help themselves to this largess of weaponry, well that's the "price we have to pay for freedom."
The slaughter of innocents is not freedom - it is tyranny pure and simple. You fear that if assault rifles are banned then other weapons will be banned as well until no gun is legal. I would say that if nothing is done about semi-automatics, then the gun crowd will demand that M240's be made legal. If M240's are legalized then you'll want the Browning M2 .50 Caliber Machine Gun, and of course no REAL man would be without his M-252 Mortar.
America, the land where every school teacher, every minister or rabbi, every movie ticket collector, and every child over the age of 12 must wear body armor and carry an assault weapon. That's freedom for you.
You cannot be serious. Look where almost all the killing comes from. Bangers in the cities and psychotic democrats. Nra has nothing to do with it.
There is nothing in the 2nd amendment that says only the militia may own firearms.
Nor is there any restrictions on the type of weapons that civilians may own.
Indeed, a little historical research reveals that private citizens owned all manner of military arms including artillery and battleships.
They only show their complete ignorance of the Second Amendment when they throw out the militia thing. First militia is all private citizens (the People) that wish to be in the unorganized militia, and then there is that pesky little comma that separates the militia from the Right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Either way it means the People which is you and me.
Nothing in the 2A about background checks, nor type of weapons that can be owned, and used.
You cannot be serious. Look where almost all the killing comes from. Bangers in the cities and psychotic democrats. Nra has nothing to do with it.
Blaming the NRA is merely a smoke-screen to hide the real culprits in the gun violence issue - liberal politicians, politics, supporters thereof, and those coddled thereby.
There are two reasons to ban guns, assault or otherwise:
1) Fear of guns, and
2) Fear of guns.
The first reason is that they're scary, so let's ban them to feel safe - just not from predators, armed or not.
The second reason is that you're a predator (or their ally), and you don't like it when prey shoot back at you.
The real beneficiaries of a helpless disarmed people are the predators.
The only people who regularly obey "gun control" laws, are the law-abiding.
And they're not the ones causing the problems.
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.
