Yes, they really do want your guns.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

Rational, reasonable, demonstrably true. Thank you!

a reply to: 0zzymand0s

Again, you’re missing the point of the thread. When the end goal is a total, or near total, ban and forcible confiscation is on the table as a viable option for some, nothing else is “too much” for those advocating confiscation.

That’s the point. Nothing more. If you want to argue points of their plan, do so with them. Given that my profession is the one that would be tasked with any confiscation plan, I’m fully aware of what it would entail and how it would work. Or not work.

originally posted by: carewemust

originally posted by: Shamrock6

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: burdman30ott6

As long as nutjobs have access to high capacity firearms, those firearms must be made unavailable. It's common sense. Common sense trumps emotions.

Nutjobs don’t have access to anything I own, high capacity or otherwise. Your fear, which is an emotion, of inanimate objects I may or may not possess doesn’t trump anything.

Hopefully a cure will be found for found for mental illness that causes violence, or weapons of mass murder will be banned from society.

And hey, why worry about mental health, right?

Thanks for playing.

a reply to: carewemust

Your fear of my inanimate objects doesn't trump a damned thing.

originally posted by: carewemust

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: burdman30ott6

As long as nutjobs have access to high capacity firearms, those firearms must be made unavailable. It's common sense. Common sense trumps emotions.

The law trumps emotions and the law is founded on and tested against the Constitutional Rights of the nation. That Constitution says you're the one relying on emotional drivel here.

Hardly. As long as humans have the capacity to murder, keep weapons that can kill A LOT OF PEOPLE out of the public environment. That's rational and saves human lives. Shoulder missile launchers, hand grenades, and explosives are restricted for that very reason.

There is indeed some rational in keeping weapons of that nature from the general public.
I support the SA, but it's fair to ask the question: Where do we draw the line?
It's not necessarily an emotional argument to suggest that civilians shouldn't have ready access to certain types of weaponry.
Let's suppose for a minute that, as some are suggesting, the 2A is interpreted to allow the sale of anything less than an ICBM. What if one of these Yeehadis cashed in their 401k, bought a stinger missile at Discount Dave's Weapons-Mart, and shot down an Aeromexico flight because they believed we're being invaded? Would we be having the same discussion?

"They're coming for your surface to air missiles!! Good gravy Cletus!! This country is goin' straight to hell!"

a reply to: Shamrock6

There's not enough of you. A lot of you wouldn't go along with it either. Plus, you actually know how much staff each confiscation team would require, including support staff and you probably have a pretty good idea how many confiscations a good team might be able to do (safely, for the team anyway) in a given interval of time.

Think of it this way. The Vox thing (and any other ultra left gun grabbing scheme) is a deliberate mischaracterization of the reality of your profession. Given that, how much "seriousness" should we grant them?

Frankly, I'd be a lot more worried about a alcohol and tobacco like "sin tax" on ammunition. That would raise the roof, but at least it's technically possible without magic.

a reply to: 0zzymand0s

For the third time, you’re missing the point and arguing things I’m either not discussing in the first place or you’re continuing to hammer points I’ve already agreed with. I don’t need your reassurances about the feasibility of a confiscation program, nor is the feasibility of it germane to the discussion about being told “nobody is talking this.”

a reply to: TerryMcGuire

If they want to use the celebrity to grab the bully pulpit they're welcome to. I certainly would were the positions reversed...

Though I'd like to think some of my pearls of wisdom would be...well...wiser. I'm, after all, not required to pay any heed what so ever to their pronouncements.

As for the celebrity aspect of Presidents...? Name recognition has always been a thing. Though with instantaneous communication, coupled with 20 second attention spans...well, we kinda get what we deserve.

a reply to: Shamrock6

No worries. I'll quit while I'm behind. Good luck to you.

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: Gandalf77

No, can't say that I do. As it stands right now, there are civilians owning those weapons anyway... funny thing that, none have ever been used to commit a crime. FFL Class 3 license holders are among the nation's most law abiding citizens. They own full auto rifles, miniguns, grenade launchers, etc. Those who own them have paid a LOT of money to own them and, as such, they tend to follow the laws... same as anyone else who purchased them would. Same as 99+% of firearm owners in the USA do. We are literally discussing slapping restrictions on the entire body of owners over the actions of less than 1% of them... in a country which can't even get consensus on cracking down on or profiling fundamentalist Islamics who have magnitudes higher rates of violence and crime. So yeah, let the safest people in this country exercise their Rights, we have much bigger issues to deal with.

Again, devil's advocate here: If you can't see any practical reasons for ordinary civilians to own anything shy of an ICBM, why the need for an FFL Class 3 license in the first place?

a reply to: Shamrock6

Yes , it is the ONLY Way for the Chicom's , Muslims , and NWO Guyz to Finally Enslave the LAST Remaining FREE NATION on this God's Green Earth , The Democratic Republic of the United States of America . Once , and IF , that EVER Happened , We are ALL Fuc@ked . Give Me Liberty , or Give Me Death is Not just a Saying , It is a " Mindset " that Cannot Except Enslavement or be Defeated by LIES . Imagine I'm Nuts ? I Think I am Sometimes when trying to Figure Out Who Exactly to Trust as an Sympathetic Ally , and Who Exactly I can Determine is the REAL Enemy of Personal Freedoms Around the World . Hey , If it Quacks like a Duck ..............



tv.infowars.com...

originally posted by: Gandalf77

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: Gandalf77

No, can't say that I do. As it stands right now, there are civilians owning those weapons anyway... funny thing that, none have ever been used to commit a crime. FFL Class 3 license holders are among the nation's most law abiding citizens. They own full auto rifles, miniguns, grenade launchers, etc. Those who own them have paid a LOT of money to own them and, as such, they tend to follow the laws... same as anyone else who purchased them would. Same as 99+% of firearm owners in the USA do. We are literally discussing slapping restrictions on the entire body of owners over the actions of less than 1% of them... in a country which can't even get consensus on cracking down on or profiling fundamentalist Islamics who have magnitudes higher rates of violence and crime. So yeah, let the safest people in this country exercise their Rights, we have much bigger issues to deal with.

Again, devil's advocate here: If you can't see any practical reasons for ordinary civilians to own anything shy of an ICBM, why the need for an FFL Class 3 license in the first place?

'




If the Second Amendment were to be Interpreted Literally , and by SOME in this Country it IS , then the Latest , and Most Ultimate Forms of Self Defense Weapons Known to MANKIND would be Available to ALL American Citizens by FIAT . That is Not the case Today , but Of Course the Founding Fathers Could NEVER Have Imagined the Future of the United States that they All Agreed Upon to Create would EVER be in a Position TODAY with the Weapons of Mass Destruction that are Currently at our Disposal in 2019 . It is Not Unfortunately Interpreted that way Today in 2019 , but that is Not to Say that in some Future Date in Our History , it Would Not somehow Become an Obvious Given .. ..

a reply to: seagull

.well, we kinda get what we deserve.

Yeah man, gotcha there....

originally posted by: 0zzymand0s
a reply to: Shamrock6

It's not possible. Think it through. Who is trying to manipulate you by making you think it is?

Precisely what the Jewish folks thought , I would imagine .
Or Cambodians under the Khmer Rouge regime.
Need I go on ?
I can .

"Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it"
Most likely attributed to George Santayana

originally posted by: Gandalf77

And we have laws on the books to address drunk driving.

I just now typed "drunk driver" into Google and constrained the results to only show results from the last week. There were at least 14 pages of results just in the last week and probably many more if I had bothered to keep going.

The drunk driving laws don't seem to stop drunk driving. Every time there's any mention of gun violence some idiot will say (Putting on my stupid voice) "What is it gonna take before they do something?"

Well, as far as I know, drunk drivers (and stupid, aggressive drivers who abuse others with impunity) have been basically murdering people on the roads for as long as there have been cars that go fast enough to result in bad results from a mishap. What's it gonna take for them to ban alcohol? It isn't just drunk drivers. Stupid people and alcohol are a very bad mix in just about any setting. You don't have to put a drunk behind the wheel to get bad results. Although that often tends to be the worst of it. Stupid drunk people have generated more grief, pain, misery and sorrow than cancer and it's been going on for centuries without any real break.

The fact of the matter is that # happens. Guns are legal and therefore, bad things will happen from time to time in a country with legal guns and 380 million people (or however many there are by now). And a significant portion of them are stupid, poverty-stricken and probably drunk, stoned or otherwise impaired. Throw in the fact that the US is extremely diverse (which actually just means that people have more reasons to fight and hate one another than it being any kind of real strength) and you just have a mess.

The US has always been a mess. And in the past it was a much bigger mess than it is now but (again) you wouldn't know it if you watch the news because mass shootings are the worst thing ever. Never mind that there was a time in America when you'd be lucky if disease didn't kill you before you were out of diapers.

A little bit of perspective. The US isn't Australia (thankfully) or anywhere else but conditions here are probably better than they have ever been. Mass shootings and all. Your chances of living to be 80 if you live in the US are (STILL) astronomical.

a reply to: carewemust

following the twitter uproar (lol) feral hogs yo wont some one think of the children that could be gored by the mean angry pigs? slate.com...

But there was one question that few people thought to ask: What if feral hog guy was right? “They are one of the world’s worst invasive species,” said John Mayer, a feral hog expert and author of Wild Pigs in the United States: Their History, Comparative Morphology, and Current Status—who had heard about the tweet “anecdotally” but had not seen it himself when I called him, and didn’t sound very amused by it. “They do an amazing variety of damage, and the magnitude of the damage is just off the charts.” Feral hogs, or Sus scrofa, are a non-native species introduced to the United States in the 16th century by explorers, according to the Department of Agriculture. For most of the 20th century, there were about 2 million wild pigs spread across 20 states, mostly in the South, with a fairly stable population and range. After 1990, however, that population exploded and expanded for reasons I’ll get to in a moment. Now, 48 states have reported the animals’ presence, and the population is between 6 million and 7 million. Mayer calls it the “pig bomb.” Feral hogs trample crops, tear up parks and playgrounds, destroy native habitats, and kill other wildlife like fawns and turkeys. According to the recent USDA video “FERAL SWINE: Manage the Damage,” the animals now cause annual damage of more than $1.5 billion in the U.S., and experts warn the problem could get worse. “They have the potential to really do epic harm,” Stephanie Shwiff, a National Wildlife Research Center research economist, says in the video. “We’re at the tip of the iceberg here.” In June, the USDA announced it is offering $75 million in funding to eradicate and control feral swine. And it’s not just property damage. Wild hogs cause dangerous vehicle accidents. No one knows the exact number, but a 2010 estimate was 10,000 hog-vehicle collisions for every 1 million hogs. (The typical male wild hog weighs 200 pounds, which is heavier than the typical male white-tailed deer.) Then there’s the specter of a North American outbreak of African swine fever, which is currently making its way across Europe. Mayer warned that if the disease crosses the ocean and gets into our wild pig population, it could cost the domestic pork industry “hundreds of billions” in lost sales and animals. In some states, including Texas and Florida, the animals are now making their way from rural areas into suburbs and even cities. Occasionally, as at least one Arkansas man might tell you, feral hogs can kill. “Pigs are killing more people than sharks are,” Mayer said. “You never hear about them on the news, but they’re dangerous.” (There were fewer than 70 fatal shark attacks worldwide between 2007 and 2017, but 84 fatal pig attacks, according to Mayer.) The animals breed year-round and reproduce quickly; a Texas A&M website devoted to hog control for landowners calls them “the most prolific large mammal on the face of the Earth.”

and fun fact you can hunt them from a helicopter in texas if you pay enough

originally posted by: usernameconspiracy
I've been hearing this "they're coming for your guns" nonsense for 30 years. Still have my gun.

Does that mean there aren't some in Congress who want gun control or a gun ban? No, of course not. But even when they had control of Congress, nobody came for my guns or even tried to come for my guns.

It's nothing more than conservative dogma at this point, and the NRA loves it! Boosts membership to have that fear mongering out there constantly. hell, even proposed common sense changes to the background check process get labeled as "THEY'RE COMING FOR OUR GUNS!"

It's silly.

Sincerely, a pretty liberal dude who owns guns.

Yup. It's amazing how the same tactics can be used for decades. I guess the general population is really comprised of #ing morons who can't remember what they had for breakfast.

a reply to: Gandalf77

both legal with permits but i believe there are between 2-6 mini guns in private hands but they are pretty much the unicorns of the class 3 gun world

originally posted by: RalagaNarHallas
a reply to: Gandalf77

both legal with permits but i believe there are between 2-6 mini guns in private hands but they are pretty much the unicorns of the class 3 gun world

Sure. But if the 2A covers all such weapons, why the need for permits? Shouldn’t I be able to buy a mini-gun at Dick’s?

a reply to: carewemust

fun or i guess a really not fun fact , one sarin attack in japan in the 80s or 90s wounded more people in one incident then all of the people wounded in the last 20 years in school shootings (1050 vs 468) in all fairness there have only been two of those with the second one wounding 500 and they were done by some lunatic cult so why do i bring up sarin gas? not many checks and balances or back ground checks least back in 2001 when the article was published so may have changed but for a good time you could order what ever you wanted to make good old fashioned nerve gas no background check no waiting period and apparently it isnt that hard to make
www.scientificamerican.com...

So Tour decided to do a little test. He filled out an order form for all the chemicals needed to make sarinthe nerve agent used by the Japanese cult Aum Shinrikyo in its 1994 and 1995 attacksand two of its relatives, soman and GF. His secretary then placed the order with Sigma-Aldrich, one of the nations most reputable chemical suppliers. If any order should have rung the alarm bells, this one should have.Instead Tour got a big box the next day by overnight mail. By following one of the well-known recipes for sarinmixing dimethyl methylphosphonate, phosphorus trichloride, sodium fluoride and alcohol in the right amounts and sequencehe could have made 280 grams of the stuff or a comparable amount of soman or GF. (Thats more than 100 teaspoonfuls.) All this for $130.20 plus shipping and handling. (Incidentally, some people have asked whether it is foolish to list the ingredients here. The short answer is no. For a longer answer, click here. We arent telling terrorists anything they wouldnt already know. We are, however, telling the rest of us what we need to know if we are to prevent terrorists from acquiring these materials.)

but wait! hes a scientist....... then there is this gem honestly hope its changed since when the article was written.

There was just one loophole in Tours argument: he is an established name and could probably order just about any chemical from Sigma-Aldrich he wanted. What about the rest of us? Surely we couldnt just call up a supplier and buy the ingredients for sarin? Yet Tour contended that most suppliers dont do any screening of their buyers. "You just go to an online distributor, you give them a credit card number and it comes in the mail," he says. And so it was. Scientific American placed our own order from a small local supply house and the materials arrived a few days later. To some extent, it wasnt a fair test, either, because the president of the company turned out to be a longtime reader of the magazine. But I could have been faking it. Nerve agent experts agree that something has to be done to keep tabs on such chemicals, especially since the other difficulties of mounting a gas attack seem less daunting after September 11. Says Rudy J. Richardson of the University of Michigan, "Some of the barriers that we might have thought would be therelike, Can terrorists disperse the agent and then escape?are not there. Todays terrorists dont care if they escape." Some worry that restrictions would put an undue burden on industry, which has legitimate uses for the chemicals, and wouldnt stop a determined terrorist anyway. But firms already manage with controls on drug-related chemicals, and some protection would be better than no protection. "Everybody points out the ways in which a monitoring system could be bypassed, and Im the first to agree," Tour says. "But the thing is, right now theres nothing to have to bypass."

so hey can we get some common sense sarin control before going after guns? i mean if we go by the numbers we just cant risk 1000+ people get wounded in one attack right?

(and for the love of god please any members here don't try cooking that crap in your kitchens please)