Another mass shooting

[DCHawk1]

Any plan that includes "seizing guns" is guaranteed to lead to a civil war. So no, not valid

I don't support broad-based seizure plans, for a lot of reasons. Some legal, some practical.

That said: people like you need to grow the fuck up, and realize that the overheated rhetoric ("civil war", and so on) is very much a you problem.

Not every restriction on gun ownership means King George III, or Barack Obama, is coming for your homestead.

Honestly, seizure plans are entirely unnecessary. Government has so many more resources than brute force to make things difficult for people who refuse to abide by new regulations/laws.

Anyone who thinks that they can go Waco/Ruby Ridge on the ATF when they "come to get my guns" has no imagination and no clue how any of this will work.

[TDub]

this is also true. But doesn't mean they won't try and create a mess

[jfish26]

Any plan that includes "seizing guns" is guaranteed to lead to a civil war. So no, not valid

I don't support broad-based seizure plans, for a lot of reasons. Some legal, some practical.

That said: people like you need to grow the fuck up, and realize that the overheated rhetoric ("civil war", and so on) is very much a you problem.

Not every restriction on gun ownership means King George III, or Barack Obama, is coming for your homestead.

I think whether or not you consider a reality or rhetoric may depend on where you've spent your time.

In the suburbs of KC, perhaps sounds like over dramatic blah blah statements.

In other places, perhaps not.

There are people here that, 100% without a doubt, would hunker down and draw arms if there was a plan drawn up to require the forfeiture of their already owned weapons.

That might sound silly, they can't win,....but its not unrealistic or rhetoric. It is 100% fact that a portion *larger than you may want to admit) of the population would indeed refuse to give them up.

But this is where the temperature of the conversation is relevant. There is a massive, MASSIVE difference between (1) what would happen if the government tried to seize guns, and people/groups resisted with force, and (2) a civil war.

BUT.

Rubes like randy following along with the civil war rhetoric, and survivalist cosplay and so on, greatly increase the risk of very bad things happening.

[KUTradition]

inconvenient fact: only pussies think they need an automatic weapon, and that owning one is protected by the constitution

Im not concerned about not owning automatic ish weapons...never have, never will.

If it stopped there I'd be good with it.

and you seem to me to be a reasonable gun owner

there seems to be only one unreasonable gun owner participating in this thread, and (no surprise) he’s the loudest and most ill-informed one here

[jfish26]

I dont want a civil war. Thats why I'm anti any politician talking about seizing any guns. Cause I know what that will lead to

We were close to a civil war last election

This country is so damn divided, we don't need any politicians doing anything drastic

We were not close to a civil war last election. I would also guess that the lawyers for your 1/6 heroes would appreciate you stopping referring to them as warmongers. It's not helpful to their parole chances.

[jfish26]

I see the pro-gun crowd is out making their usual talking points.

The best thing they could do is stop fucking killing innocent people.

No one would care what type of gun you had, how many you had, how large the capacity was, if they weren't frequently being used to kill innocent people, often large numbers of them.

If seeing a half dozen people murdered for no reason makes you angry at people who don't like guns rather than the senseless murders, you have some fucked up priorities.

The tree of liberty apparently MUST be watered with the blood of nine year olds.

[jfish26]

This isn't about keeping people safe. This about controlling people. A population that can't defend itself as well is a lot easier to control. Dont let their fears tactics trick you

Lol. This is just delusional.

To be clear:

YOU ARE BEING CONTROLLED BY FEAR TACTICS.

[PhDhawk]

I see the pro-gun crowd is out making their usual talking points.

The best thing they could do is stop fucking killing innocent people.

No one would care what type of gun you had, how many you had, how large the capacity was, if they weren't frequently being used to kill innocent people, often large numbers of them.

If seeing a half dozen people murdered for no reason makes you angry at people who don't like guns rather than the senseless murders, you have some fucked up priorities.

I see PhD is making his usual "everybody else is a fucking idiot" talking point (and I like PhD, a lot, but goodness that wears thin at times).

99.9999% of gun owners don't do any of things youre talking about. What more can responsible owners do?

Admit that guns are part of the problem. Stop acting like a restriction or some amount of paperwork, or other mild inconvenience to obtain a gun is an infringement of your intrinsic human rights. Stop it with the nonsense idea that the solution to these issues is MORE guns. Stop it with the boogey man "they're coming for our guns," when someone wants ANY restriction on the purchase of a gun. Disavow the NRA. Support the gun restrictions you think are sensible...

Lots of things.

[pdub]

My suggestion is 'extreme' but it serves as a response to the:

"iTS ToO lATe, tHERes miLLioNs oF gUNs Out thERE hOw WoULd YoU DO it?"

That is how I would do it.

[randylahey]

I dont want a civil war. Thats why I'm anti any politician talking about seizing any guns. Cause I know what that will lead to

We were close to a civil war last election

This country is so damn divided, we don't need any politicians doing anything drastic

We were not close to a civil war last election. I would also guess that the lawyers for your 1/6 heroes would appreciate you stopping referring to them as warmongers. It's not helpful to their parole chances.

When did I say anything about 1/6 or warmongers?

[jfish26]

This isn't about keeping people safe. This about controlling people.

No it's not.
Over 70% of America wants stricter gun control.

Additionally:

The 2nd Ammendment was intended for colonies/commonwealths/states that didn't have a standing army yet as a means to protect themselves. It was a new nation. Washington and the Federalists changed that in the mid 1790s when the Army was created to fight the Native Americans. If the States want to create militias, where people volunteer and train and have access to those weapons, much like joining the military but directly just for your state and not Federally bound in anyway, because they think/feel the State could rise against a tyrannical government, i'm in support of those members having access to the weaponry the National Armed Forces have ( though they would never get even close to the capabilities with pin point distance missiles, high speed jets, drones etc ).

This is why textualism is dangerous: it makes no sense whatsoever to presume that the founders intended for the Constitution to apply ONLY to the world as it existed in the 18th century (and that anything from there forward was basically lol you're on your own now).

[randylahey]

I see the pro-gun crowd is out making their usual talking points.

The best thing they could do is stop fucking killing innocent people.

No one would care what type of gun you had, how many you had, how large the capacity was, if they weren't frequently being used to kill innocent people, often large numbers of them.

If seeing a half dozen people murdered for no reason makes you angry at people who don't like guns rather than the senseless murders, you have some fucked up priorities.

I see PhD is making his usual "everybody else is a fucking idiot" talking point (and I like PhD, a lot, but goodness that wears thin at times).

99.9999% of gun owners don't do any of things youre talking about. What more can responsible owners do?

Exactly. Good at projecting their preconceived notions of a group onto every single person they feel is part of that group. When in reality they are talking about the exception that doesn't apply to 99.9 %

[jfish26]

I see the pro-gun crowd is out making their usual talking points.

The best thing they could do is stop fucking killing innocent people.

No one would care what type of gun you had, how many you had, how large the capacity was, if they weren't frequently being used to kill innocent people, often large numbers of them.

If seeing a half dozen people murdered for no reason makes you angry at people who don't like guns rather than the senseless murders, you have some fucked up priorities.

I see PhD is making his usual "everybody else is a fucking idiot" talking point (and I like PhD, a lot, but goodness that wears thin at times).

99.9999% of gun owners don't do any of things youre talking about. What more can responsible owners do?

Responsible gun owners should be speaking out in favor of sensible gun control. Even if that means giving up some toys.

[randylahey]

inconvenient fact: only pussies think they need an automatic weapon, and that owning one is protected by the constitution

Weren't you the one terrified of a virus with a 99 percent survival rate? And supported forced lockdowns/vaccinations/masking. Hilarious calling anyone else a pussy

[jfish26]

I dont want a civil war. Thats why I'm anti any politician talking about seizing any guns. Cause I know what that will lead to

We were close to a civil war last election

This country is so damn divided, we don't need any politicians doing anything drastic

We were not close to a civil war last election. I would also guess that the lawyers for your 1/6 heroes would appreciate you stopping referring to them as warmongers. It's not helpful to their parole chances.

When did I say anything about 1/6 or warmongers?

(You don't need to.)

[pdub]

Do we think randy has kids?

[randylahey]

Violence is the problem. Even if somehow you magically made guns and all weapons instantly disappear of the face of the earth forever, murder would still be just as common

Especially since automatic weapons make up such a tiny tiny percentage of murders

[randylahey]

We were not close to a civil war last election. I would also guess that the lawyers for your 1/6 heroes would appreciate you stopping referring to them as warmongers. It's not helpful to their parole chances.

When did I say anything about 1/6 or warmongers?

(You don't need to.)

Because you'll make up whatever preconceived bullshit you think applies to me and claim i said it anyways???

[pdub]

We aren't saying we can solve all murders.

Just like you're saying you can't stop all illegal immigrants from entering the country but we should do something.

Or prevent all businesses from mandating masks but we should do something.

Or stop any minors from trying to transition to another sex but we should do something.

[PhDhawk]

I see the pro-gun crowd is out making their usual talking points.

The best thing they could do is stop fucking killing innocent people.

No one would care what type of gun you had, how many you had, how large the capacity was, if they weren't frequently being used to kill innocent people, often large numbers of them.

If seeing a half dozen people murdered for no reason makes you angry at people who don't like guns rather than the senseless murders, you have some fucked up priorities.

The tree of liberty apparently MUST be watered with the blood of nine year olds.

And can we please please ban drag shows, and books, and can we strictly regulate what's taught in school. In the name of liberty.

We simply must protect the children. You know, the children of the USA, the demographic for whom the leading cause of death is firearms.