Any attempt to crack down on guns will lead to MORE violence (Reagan, drug)
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's easy to post on the internet saying "The government will have to pry my guns out of my cold dead hands" but if there were a real situation involving mass confiscation I have to wonder how many would really get into a shootout.
I consider myself a very pro-2A person. If there was a mass confiscation I'd do my best to lose my guns in a tragic boating accident before the cops showed up. But I don't think I'm willing to get into an armed standoff or shootout over it. I have a wife and a daughter. They need me and I need them. You can call me a coward or bootlicker or whatever. I think a lot of others would do the same, even if they won't admit it. I think there are a lot of blowhard "I'll send the guns out, bullets first" types who say that because they know the likelihood of it actually happening is very low.
Cockpits in planes are now locked, so they can not be hijacked.....why can we not do the same in schools. Cracking down on guns is not the answer.....criminals will always have guns. A lady in WV just shot and killed a guy with an assult rife when he opened fire at a party. If this law abiding citizen did not have a lawful gun, a whole lot of innocent people would have been killed again.
They really don't have much of a chance to crack down on guns. Many anti-gun laws have been overturned, states have overwhelmingly passed CCW laws and pro gun rights politicians continue to be elected. There is no feasible pathway to repeal the 2nd amendment.
It's easy to post on the internet saying "The government will have to pry my guns out of my cold dead hands" but if there were a real situation involving mass confiscation I have to wonder how many would really get into a shootout.
I consider myself a very pro-2A person. If there was a mass confiscation I'd do my best to lose my guns in a tragic boating accident before the cops showed up. But I don't think I'm willing to get into an armed standoff or shootout over it. I have a wife and a daughter. They need me and I need them. You can call me a coward or bootlicker or whatever. I think a lot of others would do the same, even if they won't admit it. I think there are a lot of blowhard "I'll send the guns out, bullets first" types who say that because they know the likelihood of it actually happening is very low.
For cops to confiscate someones guns...they first must be able to FIND the guns.
For cops to confiscate someones guns...they first must be able to FIND the guns.
That is not as simple as it sounds.
Right, that's what I was implying with "losing them all in a tragic boating accident".
Don't get me wrong, if confiscation became a reality there absolutely would be instances of shootouts and standoffs with police. But I also think many people talk the talk but wouldn't walk the walk. Probably a lot who 100% believe they're willing to die for their 2A rights, but have second thoughts if the situation became a reality.
Although I find your opinion repugnant, I thank you for being honest. Some Americans (I'm assuming you are) are fine with these mass shootings and feel it is their right to commit them. Don't worry, Republicans are currently and will always block any changes as the US devolves further into what your MAGA God would call a s-hole country. Good grief.
Nobody thinks it is their right to commit mass murder. Even mass murderers know what they are doing is defined as wrong, illegal etc even if they themselves are cool with doing it anyway. A firearm might make a good tool for it, but even the most mentally deranged sociopath knows murder is illegal and nobody ahs a right to it.
You speak a blatant lie. Nobody thinks the 2nd Amendment protects a a madeup, nonexistent right to commit murder.
As a non-statist and responsible gun owner, I find all initiations of force to be immoral, illogical and disordered violations of the Non Aggression Principle, and I think anyone who commits ANY initiation of force voluntarily surrenders any and all of their own natural individual rights up to AND INCLUDING their right to life.
Firearms do not confer rights. They are simply private property and among their several uses, are capable of assisting in the defense/expression of several different rights, including the aforementioned right to private property as well as self-ownership and self-defense (which underpin our right to life). I am granted no special rights by purchasing a firearm, nor given additional benefits or entitlements as a citizen.
In fact, I would argue on behalf of the 99.94-99.98% of the firearms owners out there - who will never misuse their firearms for the purpose of initiating violence - that the purchase and possession of firearms not only does not confer special privilege, it actually does confer tremendous responsibility and burden. Not only according to the written laws, but the natural laws of Non Aggression and objective morality, I and all the other responsible firearms owners out there have tons of rules, regs and unwritten commandments we voluntarily agree to know and adhere to. It is among the most serious and sobering set of responsibilities anyone can assume, and the VAST majority of us get it implicitly.
But we cannot control that very tiny number of mentally ill/disordered folks who have evil in their hearts and twisted/busted wires in their skulls. All we can do is try and protect/defend against the possibility of what that tiny minority might theoretically do.
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.