The Left is Rallying to Take Your Guns Again

[HARK!]

No guns have been taken forever. This thread is fear mongering.

Nonsense.

 

[JustOneWay]

Thank you. You're too kind. I do think that post #197 would make a nice slogan; but it pales in comparison to what Cruz could come up with.

Cruz ran to Mexico when the going got tough in Texas. How do people still support such a weak man?

 

[cow451]

Thank you. You're too kind. I do think that post #197 would make a nice slogan; but it pales in comparison to what Cruz could come up with.

I agree with John Boehner about the Senator from Texas.

 

[JustOneWay]

Nonsense.

EXACTLY! This is nonsense.

 

[cow451]

Nonsense.

Sense!

 

[HARK!]

The fact is that the US has more gun-related deaths than any developed country. Therefore all these guns are not reducing the number of deaths.

Fallacy of the undistributed middle.

 

[Tom 1]

but in the rural parts of Ukraine where they were not armed?

1) Not true
2) The populations of villages and cities are different

 

[HARK!]

The Heritage Foundation is a hate group made of hard right ideologues... you shouldn't be quoting them as a source if you want to be taken seriously.

Was that an ad hominem, or a feeble attempt at a refutation?

 

[NxNW]

Fallacy of the undistributed middle.

Not an example of that.

 

[HARK!]

I think you can defend yourself with a .357 or a shotgun. There is no need for 30 round magazines in an assault rifle IMO.

What's an assault rifle?

I've considered adding a shotgun to my collection.

 

[rturner76]

What's an assault rifle?

I've considered adding a shotgun to my collection.

I would consider that shotgun an assault rifle.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Information on this subject is rather scarce now. I was following this subject in my journals, very closely, as it unfolded.

California sought to impose registration of "assault weapons." They met resistance from gun owners; as they felt that registration would lead to confiscation. Gun owners were assured that wouldn't happen. Registration prevailed.

Asterisk.

In the end California backed off on their confiscations;

Oh, so it didn't happen, after all. The Left didn't take anybody's guns.

California Gun Law Paves the Way for Confiscation

'paves the way for'. Once again, this is a fear of the future. Just like the OP.

In the 1990s, the state used registration lists to demand that many law-abiding assault-weapons owners relinquish their guns. "Registration has led to confiscation in California," Michel said.

The LA Times is my local paper, so I have access to the archives. (Which alas are not user friendly). But I did track down what the article must be.

Lockyer Ends Defense of Assault Gun Registration
BY STEVE BERRY
AUG. 18, 1999 12 AM PT

The controversy stems from former Atty. Gen. Dan Lungren’s practice of letting assault weapon owners breach the registration provision of the landmark Roberti-Roos Assault Weapons Control Act of 1989, which will be superseded in January by a stricter law recently signed by Gov. Gray Davis.

The 1989 law declared 55 specific models illegal (the list later was increased to 75 models) and required owners to register them with the state Department of Justice by March 30, 1992, if they wanted to keep them.

Lungren quietly let gun owners continue to register weapons after the deadline. He allowed that practice until The Times revealed it, prompting a lawsuit by the activist group Handgun Control Inc. Last year the San Francisco Superior Court ordered Lungren to stop the policy. Lungren appealed that ruling.

The primary purpose of the registration requirement was to cap the number of assault weapons in the state, the law’s authors have said.

But because Lungren continued registering the weapons, California residents often bought weapons out of state and brought them back to register them with the attorney general’s office by saying they had purchased them before the Roberti-Roos law went into effect. Lungren’s office did not require proof.

So the people potentially affected either did not obey the letter of the law by registering their weapons by 1992, or were actively flouting it by buying these weapons after that date.

The news story, 7 years later in 1999, is about the Superior Court declaring these late registrations illegal and stopping them. And the state's decision to not appeal that ruling.

“We are accepting the court’s judgment that the statute clearly prohibits the registration of banned assault weapons after the March 1992 deadline,” Brankin said.

While no further registrations were allowed, as you say above, no confiscations ultimately occurred.

--

A related story from the same day.

Officials Raise Battle Cry Against Gun Proliferation
BY MATT LAIT AND TINA DAUNT
AUG. 18, 1999 12 AM PT

“Political cowardice is not something that is going to apply to solving this problem,” said [Sheriff] Baca at a luncheon hosted by The Times, which [mayor] Garcetti and [police chief] Parks also attended. “You have to stand up and say that common sense and doing the right thing are more important than holding political office.

“If you can’t take the heat from the NRA, then go do something else for a living,” he added.

The flurry of activity [about gun control] follows the shooting rampage last week, allegedly by a neo-Nazi, that left five wounded at the North Valley Jewish Community Center in Granada Hills and a postman dead in Chatsworth.

Both Parks and Baca said the shooting at the community center and the subsequent arrest of suspect Buford O. Furrow Jr. highlight the need for a more proactive approach to hate groups. Baca suggested that laws against making terrorist threats be applied to groups engaging in hate speech.

The more things change, huh?

 

[FireDragon76]

Was that an ad hominem, or a feeble attempt at a refutation?

It's not an ad hominem. The Heritage Foundation is widely recognized as a propaganda mill with poor quality research.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

Do those who love their guns offer any solutions to the shooting of innocent people?

 

[JustOneWay]

Was that an ad hominem, or a feeble attempt at a refutation?

Incorrect. That is stating an organization has no credibility.

 

[Tom 1]

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive." — Noah Webster

"The militia is the natural defense of a free country against foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers. The right of citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered as the palladium of liberties of the republic, since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers, and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them." — U.S. Supreme Court Justice Joseph


"...to disarm the people - that was the best and most effectual way to enslave them." (George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 380)

"Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." (James Madison, The Federalist Papers #46 at 243-244)

"The right of the people to keep and bear...arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country..." (James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434 [June 8, 1789])

"What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty.... Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins." (Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, spoken during floor debate over the Second Amendment [ I Annals of Congress at 750 {August 17, 1789}])

"The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them. And yet, though this truth would seem so clear, and the importance of a well regulated militia would seem so undeniable, it cannot be disguised, that among the American people there is a growing indifference to any system of militia discipline, and a strong disposition, from a sense of its burthens, to be rid of all regulations. How it is practicable to keep the people duly armed without some organization, it is difficult to see. There is certainly no small danger, that indifference may lead to disgust, and disgust to contempt; and thus gradually undermine all the protection intended by this clause of our national bill of rights." (Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States; With a Preliminary Review of the Constitutional History of the Colonies and States before the Adoption of the Constitution [Boston, 1833])

Do you have any example of something of this sort happening in recorded history?

 

[HARK!]

Oh, so it didn't happen, after all. The Left didn't take anybody's guns.

It did happen, thus the lawsuits. I guess CA felt that confiscation was getting too expensive.

 

[GoldenBoy89]

Do those who love their guns offer any solutions to the shooting of innocent people?

More guns.

 

[HARK!]

Do those who love their guns offer any solutions to the shooting of innocent people?

When the law abiding are armed, often victims don't have to wait as long for the police to come to stop the murderer from claiming more victims. When seconds count; the police are just minutes away. Better still, if those who are being shot at are armed; they have more of a fighting chance.

 

[Tom 1]

When the law abiding are armed, often victims don't have to wait as long for the police to come to stop the murderer from claiming more victims. When seconds count; the police are just minutes away. Better still, if those who are being shot at are armed; they have more of a fighting chance.

How far do you take that logic - when everyone is armed, all the time? At what point would you draw a line?

 

[NxNW]

When the law abiding are armed, often victims don't have to wait as long for the police to come to stop the murderer from claiming more victims. When seconds count; the police are just minutes away. Better still, if those who are being shot at are armed; they have more of a fighting chance.

If only those grade school children had been able to return fire! Dozens of kids spraying bullets everywhere, what could go wrong?