Barricaded gunman opens fire as standoff enters 27th hour in Michigan

rjs330 said:

It's not a falsehood if that's what we are being told. You are the one spreading falsehoods. Its already happened in New York and Chicago among other places.

Click to expand...

What has happened? I live a short distance outside of Chicago and I am not aware of any wholesale gun confiscation being carried out.

Have you forgotten O'Rourke?

Click to expand...

LOL! Everybody has forgotten O'Rourke.

Have you not read posts on this forum stating we shouldn't have guns or you should show a serious legitimate reason to have one?
Repeal the Second Amendment. It's the only way towards real change

https://www.miamiherald.com/opinion/op-ed/article207762909.html

Click to expand...

So who are these guys and why should we take what they say as definitive expressions of left-wing policy? You're trying to support the existence of an actual policy agenda. You can't just cherry pick some Op-Ed pieces.

rjs330 said:

Its already happened in New York and Chicago among other places.

Click to expand...

Do you have a source for the Chicago roundup? I don't recall hearing this and I live in the city. Thanks.

~bella

Speedwell said:

Reading my mind again? You ought to give it up--you're no good at it. In fact, I don't know of any proposal to require a psych test of all gun buyers.

Click to expand...

Okay then how would you determine if someone needs one or not?

Speedwell said:

What has happened? I live a short distance outside of Chicago and I am not aware of any wholesale gun confiscation being carried out. LOL! Everybody has forgotten O'Rourke. So who are these guys and why should we take what they say as definitive expressions of left-wing policy? You're trying to support the existence of an actual policy agenda. You can't just cherry pick some Op-Ed pieces.

Click to expand...

It's the op ed pieces and people like O'rourke and many othera that tell you something that many want. You need to listen when it becomes main stream thought enough that some politicians and and many in media are actually talking about it. Any many in this board. If it's so absurd it wouldn't be as mainstream as it is. It NEVER happens all at once. It happens a little at a time. You have got to know this.

rjs330 said:

It's the op ed pieces and people like O'rourke and many othera that tell you something that many want. You need to listen when it becomes main stream thought enough that some politicians and and many in media are actually talking about it. Any many in this board. If it's so absurd it wouldn't be as mainstream as it is.

Click to expand...

Not many are talking about wholesale gun confiscation. It's not mainstream. It will never become mainstream. If for no other reason than that too many on "The Left" own guns for home protection or enjoy shooting sports.

It NEVER happens all at once. It happens a little at a time. You have got to know this.

Click to expand...

What happens a little at a time? Where? Chicago?

bèlla said:

Do you have a source for the Chicago roundup? I don't recall hearing this and I live in the city. Thanks.

~bella

Click to expand...

It's not JUST about confiscation. For example Chicago doesn't have confiscation. It's about prohibiting ownership. Chicago had a ban on ownership of guns not already registered. That law was struck down by the Supreme Court. But it does tell you what the left wants. It's not just about what IS. But what is tried. The fact that this had to go to the supreme court tells us something.

And like I said, the left knows they can't wait say "all guns are banned in the US and we are now going for to door and confiscate your guns.". What they do is chip away at the freedom. A little here a little there. To make it more and more restrictive a little at a time. I've even heard proposals that don't allow you to leave your guns to others in a will. They would belong to the government. Gum confiscation doesn't have to be right now all at once. Let's just start with ARs. Oh we won't come get the one you have right now. But you won't be allowed to sell it or give it to anyone and no one will be able to get one ever again. That's a form of government confiscation of a gun. And someday there will come a call for government buy backs involving either selling the gun or giving it to the government. Just wait and see.

Speedwell said:

Not many are talking about wholesale gun confiscation. It's not mainstream. It will never become mainstream. If for no other reason than that too many on "The Left" own guns for home protection or enjoy shooting sports. What happens a little at a time? Where? Chicago?

Click to expand...

What do you think would happen if the second amendment was abolished. Everyone would be allowed to keep their guns?

36% of Democrat Voters support Confiscation of Legally Owned Firearms from American Citizens Who Have Not Committed a Crime

36% right now. That's pretty mainstream.

Every state and every city that has restricted gun laws happened a little at a time. Chicago had a very strict ban for many years. It is mainstream for a lot of leftists. Yes there are many on the left that own guns. But as I said, the fact that these articles and quotes from politicians indicate a desire to ban guns. There is a second amendment. So they know they can't just outright do it. But that has not stopped them from trying to do things to limit guns and limit people's ability to have them. They will keep at it until the average person will find it so restrictive and so costly to have one they won't be able to. That's gun confiscation under another name.

Whyayeman said:

Wow! An apparently sick boy fires a gun and we are invoking the Second Amendment, decrying the unfair taxation of three centuries ago and bringing Hitler into the equation. I think the gun lobbyists here protest too much!

Reading through this increasingly preposterous thread I begin to think that American liberty consists of being free to kill people. There is rather more to it. For instance there is the freedom not to be killed by your neighbour.

Click to expand...

The fact that you think the freedom to keep and bear arms equates to the freedom to murder is very bizarre to say the least.

We do have laws against murder you know.

Speedwell said:

Because a person who seriously believes that "The Left" intends to confiscate all the guns needs some kind of intervention and those knowingly who spread that falsehood are dangerous enemies to free constitutional government.

Click to expand...

Then why do 36% of democrats support just that? It's not so rare. And it's going to go up.

We already learned that AR restrictions didn't really do anything. Yet we want to try it again.

And you still didn't answer my question regarding how you would determine if someone needed a psych exam before getting a gun.

rjs330 said:

We are not the UK. In fact we split from the UK to form a completely different government with real life individual rights. We don't want to be the UK it Germany or whatever. If we did we wouldn't have separated from European type government. We wanted freedom. And with freedom come responsibility. And if a person can't handle the responsibility of freedom, they don't deserve to be free.

Click to expand...

The notion that such a heavily indoctrinated population is freer than the average European is pretty dubious.

rjs330 said:

Then why do 36% of democrats support just that? It's not so rare. And it's going to go up.

Click to expand...

Citation?

We already learned that AR restrictions didn't really do anything. Yet we want to try it again.

Click to expand...

I thought we were talking about confiscation.

And you still didn't answer my question regarding how you would determine if someone needed a psych exam before getting a gun.

Click to expand...

I wouldn't determine it. It's a dumb idea which you tried to attribute to me.

bèlla said:

I think it's clear guns are getting into the wrong hands. No one mentally unstable with limited coping mechanisms should be wielding weapons. More importantly, if the person demonstrates an inability to remain in society without causing harm we ought to address it.

Click to expand...

I don't disagree with you. But how would you go about doing this?

And how would you know someone is unable to remain is society without causing harm?

What would you do with them?

We have sexual predators who have to be psych evaluated. And often are determined that they are very likely to offend. Yet they are released back into society. What should happen to them instead?

This idea of getting psych evals seems like it makes sense, but the practicality of it is far more complex. I would like to know just who would get one and when? And how we would determine who gets one.

Speedwell said:

Citation?

I thought we were talking about confiscation.

I wouldn't determine it. It's a dumb idea which you tried to attribute to me.

Click to expand...

Okay, how would we as in we the people, determine who gets one and who doesn't? And how would that take place?

36% of Democrat Voters support Confiscation of Legally Owned Firearms from American Citizens Who Have Not Committed a Crime

rjs330 said:

A little here a little there. To make it more and more restrictive a little at a time.

Click to expand...

Actually the opposite has happened. The gun lobby has pushed for ever less-restrictive rules for gun ownership. There is a wider range of available weapons now than ever before. Now it is easy to buy weapons designed for the military. Their sole function is to kill efficiently. They are not suitable for sports use.

The NRA has opposed every sensible regulation to control who can buy weapons resulting in a free-for all market. Anybody including convicted criminals can get round the flimsy regulations designed to keep weapons out their hands.

rjs330 said:

Okay, how would we as in we the people, determine who gets one and who doesn't? And how would that take place?

Click to expand...

Any adult with the money and a clean background check should be able to buy a gun.

Whyayeman said:

Actually the opposite has happened. The gun lobby has pushed for ever less-restrictive rules for gun ownership. There is a wider range of available weapons now than ever before. Now it is easy to buy weapons designed for the military. Their sole function is to kill efficiently. They are not suitable for sports use.

The NRA has opposed every sensible regulation to control who can buy weapons resulting in a free-for all market. Anybody including convicted criminals can get round the flimsy regulations designed to keep weapons out their hands.

Click to expand...

Not true.

See a Timeline of Gun Control in the U.S. from 1791 to the Present

Speedwell said:

Any adult with the money and a clean background check should be able to buy a gun.

Click to expand...

You know there is a law right now for that right?

Speedwell said:

Any adult with the money and a clean background check should be able to buy a gun.

Click to expand...

The clean background does not matter if you buy a weapon privately or at a gun fair. If I wanted a gun and I had something dodgy in my background - say convictions for violent crime - guess where I would go to get one.

To go back to the young man at the centre of this: who is concerned that he was able to arm himself to the teeth? There was certainly a serious curtailment of liberty during the 27 hour stand-off with police officers for the neighbouring families.

rjs330 said:

You know there is a law right now for that right?

Click to expand...

No. Guns bought from federally licensed gun dealers require background checks. Guns bought from private individuals do not.

Whyayeman said:

There is a wider range of available weapons now than ever before. Now it is easy to buy weapons designed for the military. Their sole function is to kill efficiently. They are not suitable for sports use.

Click to expand...

You actually need an expensive tax stamp to get those.

Whyayeman said:

The NRA has opposed every sensible regulation to control who can buy weapons resulting in a free-for all market.

Click to expand...

That's not true at all. They supported bans on full automatics and bump stocks.

Whyayeman said:

Anybody including convicted criminals can get round the flimsy regulations designed to keep weapons out their hands.

Click to expand...

Criminals can and do get weapons. They can also get hard drugs at least as easily, despite those being illegal for everybody. Anybody can get hard drugs with relative ease, in fact. If the government can't keep drugs off the streets, why should I expect them to keep guns out of criminals' hands? And if they can't keep them out of criminals' hands, why shouldn't I be able to train with them and own them and use them to protect myself and my loved ones?