Kansas Crimson

pdub wrote: ↑Wed Mar 29, 2023 9:01 am Then civil war it is.
Fucking moranic hive mind “IMA TOUGH MAN you can take my guns one bullet at a time” persons are the worst.

nobody wins in any war.....especially true for civil wars.

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

The seizures would be in extreme circumstances.
Preferred plan of action would be fines/garnishing wages instead of confrontation.
And this would be after, I dunno, a 5 year grace period to be able to turn your guns in. And you would get paid to do so on a scale of what the average price of that gun NEW would be.

This of course wouldn't mean a 'gun hunt' but more like you having illegal drugs in your home. If you were safe enough to not get caught, that's on you. You'd just have to understand you were doing something illegal.

The point would be to still maintain a fairly giving interpretation of the 2nd amendment, which technically reads as a well regulated militia ( is every common IMA TOUGH MAN part of a well regulated militia? ), to apply to individuals in order to protect themselves from home intrusions and to hunt animals.

So you could still have guns. But not the ones that can so easily kill human beings in mass quantities.

This is coming from a gun owner.

TDub wrote: ↑Wed Mar 29, 2023 9:04 am

jfish26 wrote: ↑Wed Mar 29, 2023 8:54 am

randylahey wrote: ↑Wed Mar 29, 2023 8:41 am 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.

Before/while hunkering, I hope they'd be OK with a swath of fines and garnered wages and seized monetary assets.

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.

pdub wrote: ↑Wed Mar 29, 2023 9:16 am

TDub wrote: ↑Wed Mar 29, 2023 9:04 am

jfish26 wrote: ↑Wed Mar 29, 2023 8:54 am

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.

Before/while hunkering, I hope they'd be OK with a swath of fines and garnered wages and seized monetary assets.

if someone is serious about hunkering down i doubt fines and garnishing wages for a job they arent going to are high on their list of worries.

But why advocate for fines/garnishing wages of people that never did anything wrong?

What kind of country are you guys trying to create lol what in the actual fuck

pdub wrote: ↑Wed Mar 29, 2023 9:14 am So you could still have guns. But not the ones that can so easily kill human beings in mass quantities.

This is coming from a gun owner.

this is exactly where i’m at

i also think the majority of Americans could get behind this idea, if they aren’t already

Inconvenient fact: more people die per year from attacks from hands, feet and fists than from guns

Inconvenient fact: more people get killed per year in this country by hammers than by "assault weapons"

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

randylahey wrote: ↑Wed Mar 29, 2023 9:34 am Inconvenient fact: more people die per year from attacks from hands, feet and fists than from guns

errr....

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/20 ... ble-11.xls

https://www.statista.com/statistics/195 ... apon-used/

You're not even following marching orders correctly, the talking point is...."More people die from hands, fists, feet, than rifles.”

And even that is misleading:

https://www.statesman.com/story/news/po ... 960682002/

The FBI’s numbers also show that of all the homicides reported, 13,663 were committed with firearms of any kind, or about 77%. Only about 4% of homicides overall were from hands, fists and feet.

And 4,863 of those gun homicides were committed with firearms of a "type not stated," meaning law enforcement agencies didn't specify in their data reporting which type of gun was used. Enough rifles could be among those to push that total higher than personal weapons — even 5% would do it — though there’s no way to know for certain.

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

randy?

man, i stopped being afraid of the boogey man when i was like 6

randylahey wrote: ↑Wed Mar 29, 2023 9:38 am 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 ).

I'm really just starting to feel bad for all the gun owner's who, apparently define themselves by the guns they own. It's sad. I guess their entire manhood is a facade.

And, of course, the key difference here is, that those hammers, and feet and hands, are far far more likely to be on an individual basis where one person was killed. And it just happens more often because domestic/local violence is an issue. That's not the issue we are currently trying to solve here.

Show me a mass feet and hands murder at a school where 20 children were killed by an individual.
Or 60 people at a concert were killed by one guys hands and feet.

PhDhawk wrote: ↑Wed Mar 29, 2023 9:28 am 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?

KUTradition wrote: ↑Wed Mar 29, 2023 9:41 am 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.