It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: VVV88
A) a voluntary buy back is in no way shape or fashion a threat to anything..
How jaded do you have to be to insist no one else can turn their guns in even if they wanted to..
B) no one is making a tax penalty for gun ownership..
You 100% just pilulled that out of thin air..
Do you know how hard it is to get anything passed Congress and the senate??
Plus literally no one is proposing that and no elected official has ever proposed that..
That is like me saying “well everyone could just decide they wanted to be Muslims and pass Shiria law here voluntarily..”
Sure it doesn’t break the laws of physics, but it is laughable in the real world..
Both the tax thing and the drivers licenses renewal would start a civil war. Just like confiscation would..
It wouldn’t need to start a war, because whoever is proposing that loses whatever election they were proposing it in..
Honestly you would probably have the US legalize child pornography before they legalized some weird gun prohibition that NO ONE WAS WILLING TO ENFORCE...
0% of Americanssupport a ban and confiscation.
It is how the gop gets stupid people to vote for deregulating their corporate masters..
The only thing THAT HAS EVER EVEN BEEN PROPOSED, is a ban on the new sale of assault rifles with a grandfather clause .. which would leave the millions in circulation perfectly legal.
But that doesn’t fire up the yokels now does it???
originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: JoshuaCox
It may well be that the conservative reasoning behind the second amendment support is propagandist, but as you know surely by now, that is not the place I approach this from.
I am a lefty. Tyrants must be opposed. The only argument I have against the second amendment as it stands today, is that few are prepared to use the second for what it is for, which is to destroy oppressive governments, and ensure the people are always better served by government, than the people who operate the government are.
But failure to correctly apply the second to an individual gun owners life, is not reason enough to remove their rights to arms, or the arms themselves, and with the greatest possible respect to everyone effected by gun crime, there is no number of bodies you could stack up which will ever change a damn thing in that respect. Take it from a guy who lives in a nation where even citizens in good standing, have no real right to defend themselves, and are prohibited from carrying about themselves, even the most inoffensive tools with which to defend themselves... no one should want that for their country, no matter how liberal minded or peaceful they might be.