How does it happen with(out (im presuming?)) major bloodshed?
Why would there be "major bloodshed"?
Sounds to me like if it would cause major bloodshed -- wouldn't that be reason enough in and of itself to remove these rights?
And there wasn't any in Australia to my knowledge?
(please delete this post if its in the risk of losing posting privileges)
how compliant do you think gun owners would be in the US? hmm? voluntary buyback does jack shit here. Government wants them, they gotta take them. otherwise the whole exercise is bullshit talking point.
A bullshit talking point that gets some people really riled up...if it's just a talking point why care?
I'm really tired of the if it's not perfect then do nothing crowd. That's stupid for everything. Why does it have to be perfect? Do something...start...lack of any action is pathetic weakness on the part of the NRA and those politicians they have in their pockets.
If you bought a fixer upper house, do you not start fixing it up cause you can only fix the fucking kitchen first? Please.
I’m curious about the conditions that would make the Australian buyback different from an American buyback scenario.
1. Is gun culture more revered in the States than it was in Australia? 2. How polar are average group opinions in the two nations? When mass opinions are split and are congregated at poles/extreme conditions, reconciliation or compromise becomes more difficult than if they were marginally opposed or nuance was all there was dividing the population’s opinion 3. Was the ‘slippery slope’ argument used as much by the Australian gun lobbies when the buyback was initially proposed? 4. Is the Australian gun lobby as powerful as the American one? 5. Are Australian politicians as weak and morally void as American ones? 6. The States seem to have a perpetual campaign on the “fear of otherness” at least coming from the right (anti-poor, anti-immigrant, etc.). Did this same fear campaign exist in Australia? 7. Are the mental health treatment opportunities materially different in Australia and in the States? 8. Are the mental health issue rates materially different in Australia and in the States?
I’ve seen this conversation come close to these questions, and is usually going astray by the time we start to say “yeah, but America isn’t Australia”. Shouldn’t we try to understand what vital ways the States differ if we’re going to call this comparison admissible/inadmissible?
Edit: Cincy, I’m asking these questions because there is a real psychological potential for a buyback under the wrong circumstances where the government shows ineptitude in the buyback, and honest citizens surrender their weapons while criminals keep theirs. Obviously this is the situation that needs to be mitigated, but my faith in the US government’s ability to get anything done properly today is approximately zero (and I would fully understand gun-owners who share this viewpoint).
Post edited by benjs on
'05 - TO, '06 - TO 1, '08 - NYC 1 & 2, '09 - TO, Chi 1 & 2, '10 - Buffalo, NYC 1 & 2, '11 - TO 1 & 2, Hamilton, '13 - Buffalo, Brooklyn 1 & 2, '15 - Global Citizen, '16 - TO 1 & 2, Chi 2
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
0
Options
mickeyrat
up my ass, like Chadwick was up his Posts: 35,706
How does it happen with(out (im presuming?)) major bloodshed?
Why would there be "major bloodshed"?
Sounds to me like if it would cause major bloodshed -- wouldn't that be reason enough in and of itself to remove these rights?
And there wasn't any in Australia to my knowledge?
(please delete this post if its in the risk of losing posting privileges)
how compliant do you think gun owners would be in the US? hmm? voluntary buyback does jack shit here. Government wants them, they gotta take them. otherwise the whole exercise is bullshit talking point.
A bullshit talking point that gets some people really riled up...if it's just a talking point why care?
I'm really tired of the if it's not perfect then do nothing crowd. That's stupid for everything. Why does it have to be perfect? Do something...start...lack of any action is pathetic weakness on the part of the NRA and those politicians they have in their pockets.
If you bought a fixer upper house, do you not start fixing it up cause you can only fix the fucking kitchen first? Please.
Dude, read up above. You'll see what my real issue with his latest statement is.....
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
0
Options
mickeyrat
up my ass, like Chadwick was up his Posts: 35,706
How does it happen with(out (im presuming?)) major bloodshed?
Why would there be "major bloodshed"?
Sounds to me like if it would cause major bloodshed -- wouldn't that be reason enough in and of itself to remove these rights?
And there wasn't any in Australia to my knowledge?
(please delete this post if its in the risk of losing posting privileges)
how compliant do you think gun owners would be in the US? hmm? voluntary buyback does jack shit here. Government wants them, they gotta take them. otherwise the whole exercise is bullshit talking point.
First off, are the rifles registered to people in the US? As in, is there a database where one can see who owns the specific rifles?
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
How does it happen with(out (im presuming?)) major bloodshed?
Why would there be "major bloodshed"?
Sounds to me like if it would cause major bloodshed -- wouldn't that be reason enough in and of itself to remove these rights?
And there wasn't any in Australia to my knowledge?
(please delete this post if its in the risk of losing posting privileges)
how compliant do you think gun owners would be in the US? hmm? voluntary buyback does jack shit here. Government wants them, they gotta take them. otherwise the whole exercise is bullshit talking point.
First off, are the rifles registered to people in the US? As in, is there a database where one can see who owns the specific rifles?
no.
That's one way to do it.
Post edited by Spiritual_Chaos on
"Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"
How does it happen with(out (im presuming?)) major bloodshed?
Why would there be "major bloodshed"?
Sounds to me like if it would cause major bloodshed -- wouldn't that be reason enough in and of itself to remove these rights?
And there wasn't any in Australia to my knowledge?
(please delete this post if its in the risk of losing posting privileges)
how compliant do you think gun owners would be in the US? hmm? voluntary buyback does jack shit here. Government wants them, they gotta take them. otherwise the whole exercise is bullshit talking point.
A bullshit talking point that gets some people really riled up...if it's just a talking point why care?
I'm really tired of the if it's not perfect then do nothing crowd. That's stupid for everything. Why does it have to be perfect? Do something...start...lack of any action is pathetic weakness on the part of the NRA and those politicians they have in their pockets.
If you bought a fixer upper house, do you not start fixing it up cause you can only fix the fucking kitchen first? Please.
Dude, read up above. You'll see what my real issue with his latest statement is.....
Sure...but then you should be pissed whenever the NRA holds a convention in an arena...you know where people get shot. Or whenever a politician talks 2nd amendment rights near a school. But do you? Does anyone? No. Just tired of the nonsense do nothing crowd.
Get this...was at a local festival on Sunday in ohio. had a nice time. Saw a booth that does screen printed t shirts. Had a "Dayton Strong" shirt hanging right next to a "Try and take my gun" shirt with some sort of military type weapon AK something I bet but I ain't no gun guru. I mean wtf? People are so fucking blind and stupid when it comes to guns.
How does it happen with(out (im presuming?)) major bloodshed?
Why would there be "major bloodshed"?
Sounds to me like if it would cause major bloodshed -- wouldn't that be reason enough in and of itself to remove these rights?
And there wasn't any in Australia to my knowledge?
(please delete this post if its in the risk of losing posting privileges)
how compliant do you think gun owners would be in the US? hmm? voluntary buyback does jack shit here. Government wants them, they gotta take them. otherwise the whole exercise is bullshit talking point.
First off, are the rifles registered to people in the US? As in, is there a database where one can see who owns the specific rifles?
no.
That's one way to do it.
Hence the “slippery slope” arguments. The gun rights activists have been preaching that registration leads to confiscation as a major political rallying point for years. Now that we have a candidate openly saying “we’re going to take your guns”, their concerns are now 100% validated. Now, it is going to be even harder to even push registration. This is where Beto’s “we’re gonna take um” stance is undermining the gun control crowd. We’re seeing that happening in TX right now. Dan Patrick, a hardcore conservative, (for instance) mentioned registration and he is now most likely going to be voted out as the mud slinging has already begun. No one really answered my question...How would confiscation even play out? The buyback programs in the US so far have been duds.
How does it happen with(out (im presuming?)) major bloodshed?
Why would there be "major bloodshed"?
Sounds to me like if it would cause major bloodshed -- wouldn't that be reason enough in and of itself to remove these rights?
And there wasn't any in Australia to my knowledge?
(please delete this post if its in the risk of losing posting privileges)
how compliant do you think gun owners would be in the US? hmm? voluntary buyback does jack shit here. Government wants them, they gotta take them. otherwise the whole exercise is bullshit talking point.
First off, are the rifles registered to people in the US? As in, is there a database where one can see who owns the specific rifles?
no.
That's one way to do it.
Hence the “slippery slope” arguments. The gun rights activists have been preaching that registration leads to confiscation as a major political rallying point for years. Now that we have a candidate openly saying “we’re going to take your guns”, their concerns are now 100% validated. Now, it is going to be even harder to even push registration. This is where Beto’s “we’re gonna take um” stance is undermining the gun control crowd. We’re seeing that happening in TX right now. Dan Patrick, a hardcore conservative, (for instance) mentioned registration and he is now most likely going to be voted out as the mud slinging has already begun. No one really answered my question...How would confiscation even play out? The buyback programs in the US so far have been duds.
Well, in a country with guns registered to the owners (as e.g. the country where IT: Chapter 2 actor Bill Skarsgård comes from) if a gun-type would be made illegal, I would guess the owners would get information sent out about the window available to hand over the weapon at a nearby police station and after that window it would be illegal to be in a possession of such a weapon. Resulting in a fine or whatever.
With having this very sound thing called a register (as e.g. the country where Big Little Lies actor Alexander Skarsgård comes from), one could easily check if person A has handed over the illegal weapon.
Without a registry it is a bit more wild wild west. But the same information could go out "you have a 3 month window to hand over weapon type X, Y and Z - afterwards these will be deemed illegal" and then treat it as being an illegal possession when happening upon on of these weapons in the wild, when stopping over a car for speeding and seeing one in the backseat, if someone dies and the garage is cleared out or at the local McDonalds when they have the said weapon with them like it was their pet.
Post edited by Spiritual_Chaos on
"Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"
0
Options
mickeyrat
up my ass, like Chadwick was up his Posts: 35,706
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Why? I didn't mean it in a way to disparage the USA. So this can be edited if it is seen as that in any way. Don't want to risk losing posting privileges.
I just meant it as without a register, you don't even know who owns what guns etc. Are cars registered to owners in the US?
"Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"
0
Options
mickeyrat
up my ass, like Chadwick was up his Posts: 35,706
Why? I didn't mean it in a way to disparage the USA. So this can be edited if it is seen as that in any way. Don't want to risk losing posting privileges.
I just meant it as without a register, you don't even know who owns what guns etc. Are cars registered to owners in the US?
well since the term was born here to begin with and used to describe what still goes on here, it was funny to me.....
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Why? I didn't mean it in a way to disparage the USA. So this can be edited if it is seen as that in any way. Don't want to risk losing posting privileges.
I just meant it as without a register, you don't even know who owns what guns etc. Are cars registered to owners in the US?
Exactly, without an “accurate” registry, the government doesn’t know who owns what. I just question what the compliance rate will be among the millions and the logistics of such an undertaking. I hate to say it, but I think it would probably take another civil war to or turning the US into essentially a police state to actually enforce mass confiscation. I am not in favor of that, and I don’t think any current politicians are truly wanting to go to that length. Putting all my biases aside, I just do not think it is a logical or feasible approach to the issue of gun violence. But hey, “copy and paste”... Even if you have a 3 month window, who is going to enforce this? The feds? State and local agencies and sheriffs have already stated that they will not comply with any confiscation orders....so? Frustrating part about it all is that people were starting to see a little more common ground on some aspects of gun control, even outlawing future sales of these “assault weapons”. But it only takes someone with O’Rourke’s message to undermine every bit of that hope and rack up new sales exponentially...
How does it happen with(out (im presuming?)) major bloodshed?
Why would there be "major bloodshed"?
Sounds to me like if it would cause major bloodshed -- wouldn't that be reason enough in and of itself to remove these rights?
And there wasn't any in Australia to my knowledge?
(please delete this post if its in the risk of losing posting privileges)
how compliant do you think gun owners would be in the US? hmm? voluntary buyback does jack shit here. Government wants them, they gotta take them. otherwise the whole exercise is bullshit talking point.
First off, are the rifles registered to people in the US? As in, is there a database where one can see who owns the specific rifles?
no.
That's one way to do it.
Hence the “slippery slope” arguments. The gun rights activists have been preaching that registration leads to confiscation as a major political rallying point for years. Now that we have a candidate openly saying “we’re going to take your guns”, their concerns are now 100% validated. Now, it is going to be even harder to even push registration. This is where Beto’s “we’re gonna take um” stance is undermining the gun control crowd. We’re seeing that happening in TX right now. Dan Patrick, a hardcore conservative, (for instance) mentioned registration and he is now most likely going to be voted out as the mud slinging has already begun. No one really answered my question...How would confiscation even play out? The buyback programs in the US so far have been duds.
To say "X is going to happen" for years and years, and then X finally happens - doesn't mean there's some kind of Nostradamus in the NRA or GOP. All that means that a very likely combination of events/non-events (mass shootings for decades + mass unwillingness to correct the mistake for decades) caused a very logical reaction (people annoyed over mass unwillingness to correct a mistake resulting in slaughtered children, and calling for actions more extreme than previously rejected compromises and/or checks and balances). When you ask for a little and get nothing, then you have no choice but to demand a lot as the situation worsens.
I feel your understanding of the cause and effect (Republicans refuse to cede to Democrat requests because Democrats want huge gun reforms) is completely backwards, and I also feel that that misunderstanding, while it may be real for you, has been purposefully exploited by the likes of the NRA and GOP and been inaccurately communicated.
'05 - TO, '06 - TO 1, '08 - NYC 1 & 2, '09 - TO, Chi 1 & 2, '10 - Buffalo, NYC 1 & 2, '11 - TO 1 & 2, Hamilton, '13 - Buffalo, Brooklyn 1 & 2, '15 - Global Citizen, '16 - TO 1 & 2, Chi 2
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
How does it happen with(out (im presuming?)) major bloodshed?
Why would there be "major bloodshed"?
Sounds to me like if it would cause major bloodshed -- wouldn't that be reason enough in and of itself to remove these rights?
And there wasn't any in Australia to my knowledge?
(please delete this post if its in the risk of losing posting privileges)
how compliant do you think gun owners would be in the US? hmm? voluntary buyback does jack shit here. Government wants them, they gotta take them. otherwise the whole exercise is bullshit talking point.
First off, are the rifles registered to people in the US? As in, is there a database where one can see who owns the specific rifles?
no.
That's one way to do it.
Hence the “slippery slope” arguments. The gun rights activists have been preaching that registration leads to confiscation as a major political rallying point for years. Now that we have a candidate openly saying “we’re going to take your guns”, their concerns are now 100% validated. Now, it is going to be even harder to even push registration. This is where Beto’s “we’re gonna take um” stance is undermining the gun control crowd. We’re seeing that happening in TX right now. Dan Patrick, a hardcore conservative, (for instance) mentioned registration and he is now most likely going to be voted out as the mud slinging has already begun. No one really answered my question...How would confiscation even play out? The buyback programs in the US so far have been duds.
To say "X is going to happen" for years and years, and then X finally happens - doesn't mean there's some kind of Nostradamus in the NRA or GOP. All that means that a very likely combination of events/non-events (mass shootings for decades + mass unwillingness to correct the mistake for decades) caused a very logical reaction (people annoyed over mass unwillingness to correct a mistake resulting in slaughtered children, and calling for actions more extreme than previously rejected compromises and/or checks and balances). When you ask for a little and get nothing, then you have no choice but to demand a lot as the situation worsens.
I feel your understanding of the cause and effect (Republicans refuse to cede to Democrat requests because Democrats want huge gun reforms) is completely backwards, and I also feel that that misunderstanding, while it may be real for you, has been purposefully exploited by the likes of the NRA and GOP and been inaccurately communicated.
Still haven’t answered my question. How would mass confiscation as Beto is pushing work? Past buyback programs in the US have been complete duds...so what then? You saying that I misunderstand does not make it so. I feel that you are misunderstanding...see how that works? But anyways, if you feel that Beto’s approach is helping gun control, then that’s great...I do not and would never vote for someone with his approach...that’s what really matters (if you still “feel” your vote matters).
How does it happen with(out (im presuming?)) major bloodshed?
Why would there be "major bloodshed"?
Sounds to me like if it would cause major bloodshed -- wouldn't that be reason enough in and of itself to remove these rights?
And there wasn't any in Australia to my knowledge?
(please delete this post if its in the risk of losing posting privileges)
how compliant do you think gun owners would be in the US? hmm? voluntary buyback does jack shit here. Government wants them, they gotta take them. otherwise the whole exercise is bullshit talking point.
First off, are the rifles registered to people in the US? As in, is there a database where one can see who owns the specific rifles?
no.
That's one way to do it.
Hence the “slippery slope” arguments. The gun rights activists have been preaching that registration leads to confiscation as a major political rallying point for years. Now that we have a candidate openly saying “we’re going to take your guns”, their concerns are now 100% validated. Now, it is going to be even harder to even push registration. This is where Beto’s “we’re gonna take um” stance is undermining the gun control crowd. We’re seeing that happening in TX right now. Dan Patrick, a hardcore conservative, (for instance) mentioned registration and he is now most likely going to be voted out as the mud slinging has already begun. No one really answered my question...How would confiscation even play out? The buyback programs in the US so far have been duds.
To say "X is going to happen" for years and years, and then X finally happens - doesn't mean there's some kind of Nostradamus in the NRA or GOP. All that means that a very likely combination of events/non-events (mass shootings for decades + mass unwillingness to correct the mistake for decades) caused a very logical reaction (people annoyed over mass unwillingness to correct a mistake resulting in slaughtered children, and calling for actions more extreme than previously rejected compromises and/or checks and balances). When you ask for a little and get nothing, then you have no choice but to demand a lot as the situation worsens.
I feel your understanding of the cause and effect (Republicans refuse to cede to Democrat requests because Democrats want huge gun reforms) is completely backwards, and I also feel that that misunderstanding, while it may be real for you, has been purposefully exploited by the likes of the NRA and GOP and been inaccurately communicated.
Still haven’t answered my question. How would mass confiscation as Beto is pushing work? Past buyback programs in the US have been complete duds...so what then? You saying that I misunderstand does not make it so. I feel that you are misunderstanding...see how that works?
Without a registry it is a bit more wild wild west. But the same information could go out "you have a 3 month window to hand over weapon type X, Y and Z - afterwards these will be deemed illegal" and then treat it as being an illegal possession when happening upon on of these weapons in the wild, when stopping over a car for speeding and seeing one in the backseat, if someone dies and the garage is cleared out or at the local McDonalds when they have the said weapon with them like it was their pet.
If "it would be a dud" would be the bar over what is right to do - then bicycle-theft would be legal in Sweden because the cops ain't solving any bicycle thefts.
Post edited by Spiritual_Chaos on
"Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"
How does it happen with(out (im presuming?)) major bloodshed?
Why would there be "major bloodshed"?
Sounds to me like if it would cause major bloodshed -- wouldn't that be reason enough in and of itself to remove these rights?
And there wasn't any in Australia to my knowledge?
(please delete this post if its in the risk of losing posting privileges)
how compliant do you think gun owners would be in the US? hmm? voluntary buyback does jack shit here. Government wants them, they gotta take them. otherwise the whole exercise is bullshit talking point.
First off, are the rifles registered to people in the US? As in, is there a database where one can see who owns the specific rifles?
no.
That's one way to do it.
Hence the “slippery slope” arguments. The gun rights activists have been preaching that registration leads to confiscation as a major political rallying point for years. Now that we have a candidate openly saying “we’re going to take your guns”, their concerns are now 100% validated. Now, it is going to be even harder to even push registration. This is where Beto’s “we’re gonna take um” stance is undermining the gun control crowd. We’re seeing that happening in TX right now. Dan Patrick, a hardcore conservative, (for instance) mentioned registration and he is now most likely going to be voted out as the mud slinging has already begun. No one really answered my question...How would confiscation even play out? The buyback programs in the US so far have been duds.
To say "X is going to happen" for years and years, and then X finally happens - doesn't mean there's some kind of Nostradamus in the NRA or GOP. All that means that a very likely combination of events/non-events (mass shootings for decades + mass unwillingness to correct the mistake for decades) caused a very logical reaction (people annoyed over mass unwillingness to correct a mistake resulting in slaughtered children, and calling for actions more extreme than previously rejected compromises and/or checks and balances). When you ask for a little and get nothing, then you have no choice but to demand a lot as the situation worsens.
I feel your understanding of the cause and effect (Republicans refuse to cede to Democrat requests because Democrats want huge gun reforms) is completely backwards, and I also feel that that misunderstanding, while it may be real for you, has been purposefully exploited by the likes of the NRA and GOP and been inaccurately communicated.
Still haven’t answered my question. How would mass confiscation as Beto is pushing work? Past buyback programs in the US have been complete duds...so what then? You saying that I misunderstand does not make it so. I feel that you are misunderstanding...see how that works? But anyways, if you feel that Beto’s approach is helping gun control, then that’s great...I do not and would never vote for someone with his approach...that’s what really matters (if you still “feel” your vote matters).
I mentioned earlier,
Just a thought
The same way they enforce drunk driving laws.
0
Options
mickeyrat
up my ass, like Chadwick was up his Posts: 35,706
How does it happen with(out (im presuming?)) major bloodshed?
Why would there be "major bloodshed"?
Sounds to me like if it would cause major bloodshed -- wouldn't that be reason enough in and of itself to remove these rights?
And there wasn't any in Australia to my knowledge?
(please delete this post if its in the risk of losing posting privileges)
how compliant do you think gun owners would be in the US? hmm? voluntary buyback does jack shit here. Government wants them, they gotta take them. otherwise the whole exercise is bullshit talking point.
First off, are the rifles registered to people in the US? As in, is there a database where one can see who owns the specific rifles?
no.
That's one way to do it.
Hence the “slippery slope” arguments. The gun rights activists have been preaching that registration leads to confiscation as a major political rallying point for years. Now that we have a candidate openly saying “we’re going to take your guns”, their concerns are now 100% validated. Now, it is going to be even harder to even push registration. This is where Beto’s “we’re gonna take um” stance is undermining the gun control crowd. We’re seeing that happening in TX right now. Dan Patrick, a hardcore conservative, (for instance) mentioned registration and he is now most likely going to be voted out as the mud slinging has already begun. No one really answered my question...How would confiscation even play out? The buyback programs in the US so far have been duds.
To say "X is going to happen" for years and years, and then X finally happens - doesn't mean there's some kind of Nostradamus in the NRA or GOP. All that means that a very likely combination of events/non-events (mass shootings for decades + mass unwillingness to correct the mistake for decades) caused a very logical reaction (people annoyed over mass unwillingness to correct a mistake resulting in slaughtered children, and calling for actions more extreme than previously rejected compromises and/or checks and balances). When you ask for a little and get nothing, then you have no choice but to demand a lot as the situation worsens.
I feel your understanding of the cause and effect (Republicans refuse to cede to Democrat requests because Democrats want huge gun reforms) is completely backwards, and I also feel that that misunderstanding, while it may be real for you, has been purposefully exploited by the likes of the NRA and GOP and been inaccurately communicated.
Still haven’t answered my question. How would mass confiscation as Beto is pushing work? Past buyback programs in the US have been complete duds...so what then? You saying that I misunderstand does not make it so. I feel that you are misunderstanding...see how that works? But anyways, if you feel that Beto’s approach is helping gun control, then that’s great...I do not and would never vote for someone with his approach...that’s what really matters (if you still “feel” your vote matters).
I mentioned earlier,
Just a thought
The same way they enforce drunk driving laws.
with drive through check points that by law must be announced ahead of time?
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
How does it happen with(out (im presuming?)) major bloodshed?
Why would there be "major bloodshed"?
Sounds to me like if it would cause major bloodshed -- wouldn't that be reason enough in and of itself to remove these rights?
And there wasn't any in Australia to my knowledge?
(please delete this post if its in the risk of losing posting privileges)
how compliant do you think gun owners would be in the US? hmm? voluntary buyback does jack shit here. Government wants them, they gotta take them. otherwise the whole exercise is bullshit talking point.
First off, are the rifles registered to people in the US? As in, is there a database where one can see who owns the specific rifles?
no.
That's one way to do it.
Hence the “slippery slope” arguments. The gun rights activists have been preaching that registration leads to confiscation as a major political rallying point for years. Now that we have a candidate openly saying “we’re going to take your guns”, their concerns are now 100% validated. Now, it is going to be even harder to even push registration. This is where Beto’s “we’re gonna take um” stance is undermining the gun control crowd. We’re seeing that happening in TX right now. Dan Patrick, a hardcore conservative, (for instance) mentioned registration and he is now most likely going to be voted out as the mud slinging has already begun. No one really answered my question...How would confiscation even play out? The buyback programs in the US so far have been duds.
To say "X is going to happen" for years and years, and then X finally happens - doesn't mean there's some kind of Nostradamus in the NRA or GOP. All that means that a very likely combination of events/non-events (mass shootings for decades + mass unwillingness to correct the mistake for decades) caused a very logical reaction (people annoyed over mass unwillingness to correct a mistake resulting in slaughtered children, and calling for actions more extreme than previously rejected compromises and/or checks and balances). When you ask for a little and get nothing, then you have no choice but to demand a lot as the situation worsens.
I feel your understanding of the cause and effect (Republicans refuse to cede to Democrat requests because Democrats want huge gun reforms) is completely backwards, and I also feel that that misunderstanding, while it may be real for you, has been purposefully exploited by the likes of the NRA and GOP and been inaccurately communicated.
Still haven’t answered my question. How would mass confiscation as Beto is pushing work? Past buyback programs in the US have been complete duds...so what then? You saying that I misunderstand does not make it so. I feel that you are misunderstanding...see how that works? But anyways, if you feel that Beto’s approach is helping gun control, then that’s great...I do not and would never vote for someone with his approach...that’s what really matters (if you still “feel” your vote matters).
I mentioned earlier,
Just a thought
The same way they enforce drunk driving laws.
Who is “they”? State, local police an Sheriffs? What do you mean “in the same way”? “They” enforce drunk driver laws by determining the person is drunk (usually begins with an actual traffic violation), and then going a step further to prove that they were in fact under the influence. What would be the probable cause to search a person’s property (car, house, etc) to find out they actually own an AR-15? I’m not seeing your point...
How does it happen with(out (im presuming?)) major bloodshed?
Why would there be "major bloodshed"?
Sounds to me like if it would cause major bloodshed -- wouldn't that be reason enough in and of itself to remove these rights?
And there wasn't any in Australia to my knowledge?
(please delete this post if its in the risk of losing posting privileges)
how compliant do you think gun owners would be in the US? hmm? voluntary buyback does jack shit here. Government wants them, they gotta take them. otherwise the whole exercise is bullshit talking point.
First off, are the rifles registered to people in the US? As in, is there a database where one can see who owns the specific rifles?
no.
That's one way to do it.
Hence the “slippery slope” arguments. The gun rights activists have been preaching that registration leads to confiscation as a major political rallying point for years. Now that we have a candidate openly saying “we’re going to take your guns”, their concerns are now 100% validated. Now, it is going to be even harder to even push registration. This is where Beto’s “we’re gonna take um” stance is undermining the gun control crowd. We’re seeing that happening in TX right now. Dan Patrick, a hardcore conservative, (for instance) mentioned registration and he is now most likely going to be voted out as the mud slinging has already begun. No one really answered my question...How would confiscation even play out? The buyback programs in the US so far have been duds.
To say "X is going to happen" for years and years, and then X finally happens - doesn't mean there's some kind of Nostradamus in the NRA or GOP. All that means that a very likely combination of events/non-events (mass shootings for decades + mass unwillingness to correct the mistake for decades) caused a very logical reaction (people annoyed over mass unwillingness to correct a mistake resulting in slaughtered children, and calling for actions more extreme than previously rejected compromises and/or checks and balances). When you ask for a little and get nothing, then you have no choice but to demand a lot as the situation worsens.
I feel your understanding of the cause and effect (Republicans refuse to cede to Democrat requests because Democrats want huge gun reforms) is completely backwards, and I also feel that that misunderstanding, while it may be real for you, has been purposefully exploited by the likes of the NRA and GOP and been inaccurately communicated.
Still haven’t answered my question. How would mass confiscation as Beto is pushing work? Past buyback programs in the US have been complete duds...so what then? You saying that I misunderstand does not make it so. I feel that you are misunderstanding...see how that works?
Without a registry it is a bit more wild wild west. But the same information could go out "you have a 3 month window to hand over weapon type X, Y and Z - afterwards these will be deemed illegal" and then treat it as being an illegal possession when happening upon on of these weapons in the wild, when stopping over a car for speeding and seeing one in the backseat, if someone dies and the garage is cleared out or at the local McDonalds when they have the said weapon with them like it was their pet.
If "it would be a dud" would be the bar over what is right to do - then bicycle-theft would be legal in Sweden because the cops ain't solving any bicycle thefts.
Oh, everyone has their opinion as to “what is right to do”. I don’t think it is right to overstep due process or confiscate legally purchased property if that person has not committed a crime with that legally purchased property. I do not think mass confiscation is “the right thing to do”. Anyways, stick by Beto...he won’t have my vote. He is actually making me happy to vote for bugger eating Cruz.
How does it happen with(out (im presuming?)) major bloodshed?
Why would there be "major bloodshed"?
Sounds to me like if it would cause major bloodshed -- wouldn't that be reason enough in and of itself to remove these rights?
And there wasn't any in Australia to my knowledge?
(please delete this post if its in the risk of losing posting privileges)
how compliant do you think gun owners would be in the US? hmm? voluntary buyback does jack shit here. Government wants them, they gotta take them. otherwise the whole exercise is bullshit talking point.
First off, are the rifles registered to people in the US? As in, is there a database where one can see who owns the specific rifles?
no.
That's one way to do it.
Hence the “slippery slope” arguments. The gun rights activists have been preaching that registration leads to confiscation as a major political rallying point for years. Now that we have a candidate openly saying “we’re going to take your guns”, their concerns are now 100% validated. Now, it is going to be even harder to even push registration. This is where Beto’s “we’re gonna take um” stance is undermining the gun control crowd. We’re seeing that happening in TX right now. Dan Patrick, a hardcore conservative, (for instance) mentioned registration and he is now most likely going to be voted out as the mud slinging has already begun. No one really answered my question...How would confiscation even play out? The buyback programs in the US so far have been duds.
To say "X is going to happen" for years and years, and then X finally happens - doesn't mean there's some kind of Nostradamus in the NRA or GOP. All that means that a very likely combination of events/non-events (mass shootings for decades + mass unwillingness to correct the mistake for decades) caused a very logical reaction (people annoyed over mass unwillingness to correct a mistake resulting in slaughtered children, and calling for actions more extreme than previously rejected compromises and/or checks and balances). When you ask for a little and get nothing, then you have no choice but to demand a lot as the situation worsens.
I feel your understanding of the cause and effect (Republicans refuse to cede to Democrat requests because Democrats want huge gun reforms) is completely backwards, and I also feel that that misunderstanding, while it may be real for you, has been purposefully exploited by the likes of the NRA and GOP and been inaccurately communicated.
Still haven’t answered my question. How would mass confiscation as Beto is pushing work? Past buyback programs in the US have been complete duds...so what then? You saying that I misunderstand does not make it so. I feel that you are misunderstanding...see how that works? But anyways, if you feel that Beto’s approach is helping gun control, then that’s great...I do not and would never vote for someone with his approach...that’s what really matters (if you still “feel” your vote matters).
I mentioned earlier,
Just a thought
The same way they enforce drunk driving laws.
Who is “they”? State, local police an Sheriffs? What do you mean “in the same way”? “They” enforce drunk driver laws by determining the person is drunk (usually begins with an actual traffic violation), and then going a step further to prove that they were in fact under the influence. What would be the probable cause to search a person’s property (car, house, etc) to find out they actually own an AR-15? I’m not seeing your point...
Someone telling the appropriate law enforcement that a person is having an AR-15?
What would you do if you found your neighbor having the stolen Mona Lisa in his/her living room?
Sounds a lot like you are looking for reasons to not thinking changing the law is possible by playing up some weird fabricated daftness. Don't see the point.
"Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"
How does it happen with(out (im presuming?)) major bloodshed?
Why would there be "major bloodshed"?
Sounds to me like if it would cause major bloodshed -- wouldn't that be reason enough in and of itself to remove these rights?
And there wasn't any in Australia to my knowledge?
(please delete this post if its in the risk of losing posting privileges)
how compliant do you think gun owners would be in the US? hmm? voluntary buyback does jack shit here. Government wants them, they gotta take them. otherwise the whole exercise is bullshit talking point.
First off, are the rifles registered to people in the US? As in, is there a database where one can see who owns the specific rifles?
no.
That's one way to do it.
Hence the “slippery slope” arguments. The gun rights activists have been preaching that registration leads to confiscation as a major political rallying point for years. Now that we have a candidate openly saying “we’re going to take your guns”, their concerns are now 100% validated. Now, it is going to be even harder to even push registration. This is where Beto’s “we’re gonna take um” stance is undermining the gun control crowd. We’re seeing that happening in TX right now. Dan Patrick, a hardcore conservative, (for instance) mentioned registration and he is now most likely going to be voted out as the mud slinging has already begun. No one really answered my question...How would confiscation even play out? The buyback programs in the US so far have been duds.
To say "X is going to happen" for years and years, and then X finally happens - doesn't mean there's some kind of Nostradamus in the NRA or GOP. All that means that a very likely combination of events/non-events (mass shootings for decades + mass unwillingness to correct the mistake for decades) caused a very logical reaction (people annoyed over mass unwillingness to correct a mistake resulting in slaughtered children, and calling for actions more extreme than previously rejected compromises and/or checks and balances). When you ask for a little and get nothing, then you have no choice but to demand a lot as the situation worsens.
I feel your understanding of the cause and effect (Republicans refuse to cede to Democrat requests because Democrats want huge gun reforms) is completely backwards, and I also feel that that misunderstanding, while it may be real for you, has been purposefully exploited by the likes of the NRA and GOP and been inaccurately communicated.
Still haven’t answered my question. How would mass confiscation as Beto is pushing work? Past buyback programs in the US have been complete duds...so what then? You saying that I misunderstand does not make it so. I feel that you are misunderstanding...see how that works? But anyways, if you feel that Beto’s approach is helping gun control, then that’s great...I do not and would never vote for someone with his approach...that’s what really matters (if you still “feel” your vote matters).
I mentioned earlier,
Just a thought
The same way they enforce drunk driving laws.
Who is “they”? State, local police an Sheriffs? What do you mean “in the same way”? “They” enforce drunk driver laws by determining the person is drunk (usually begins with an actual traffic violation), and then going a step further to prove that they were in fact under the influence. What would be the probable cause to search a person’s property (car, house, etc) to find out they actually own an AR-15? I’m not seeing your point...
Someone telling the appropriate law enforcement that a person is having an AR-15?
What would you do if you found your neighbor having the stolen Mona Lisa in his/her living room?
Sounds a lot like you are looking for reasons to not thinking changing the law is possible by playing up some weird fabricated daftness. Don't see the point.
So you think the plan will work based on neighbors telling on their neighbors? This is getting laughable...speaking of daft ness. What would you do if you found out your neighbor smokes marijuana? That’s still illegal in Sweden, right? Would you call the police if you found out your neighbor smokes pot? Personally, unless I thought my neighbor was going to do something bad, I would not turn them in. I’m not that authoritarian... You are reading this all wrong, I am not saying changing laws is impossible, just that successful mass confiscation in a civil/lawful manner is. I am saying O’Rourke’s specific methodology is wrong...
How does it happen with(out (im presuming?)) major bloodshed?
Why would there be "major bloodshed"?
Sounds to me like if it would cause major bloodshed -- wouldn't that be reason enough in and of itself to remove these rights?
And there wasn't any in Australia to my knowledge?
(please delete this post if its in the risk of losing posting privileges)
how compliant do you think gun owners would be in the US? hmm? voluntary buyback does jack shit here. Government wants them, they gotta take them. otherwise the whole exercise is bullshit talking point.
First off, are the rifles registered to people in the US? As in, is there a database where one can see who owns the specific rifles?
no.
That's one way to do it.
Hence the “slippery slope” arguments. The gun rights activists have been preaching that registration leads to confiscation as a major political rallying point for years. Now that we have a candidate openly saying “we’re going to take your guns”, their concerns are now 100% validated. Now, it is going to be even harder to even push registration. This is where Beto’s “we’re gonna take um” stance is undermining the gun control crowd. We’re seeing that happening in TX right now. Dan Patrick, a hardcore conservative, (for instance) mentioned registration and he is now most likely going to be voted out as the mud slinging has already begun. No one really answered my question...How would confiscation even play out? The buyback programs in the US so far have been duds.
To say "X is going to happen" for years and years, and then X finally happens - doesn't mean there's some kind of Nostradamus in the NRA or GOP. All that means that a very likely combination of events/non-events (mass shootings for decades + mass unwillingness to correct the mistake for decades) caused a very logical reaction (people annoyed over mass unwillingness to correct a mistake resulting in slaughtered children, and calling for actions more extreme than previously rejected compromises and/or checks and balances). When you ask for a little and get nothing, then you have no choice but to demand a lot as the situation worsens.
I feel your understanding of the cause and effect (Republicans refuse to cede to Democrat requests because Democrats want huge gun reforms) is completely backwards, and I also feel that that misunderstanding, while it may be real for you, has been purposefully exploited by the likes of the NRA and GOP and been inaccurately communicated.
Still haven’t answered my question. How would mass confiscation as Beto is pushing work? Past buyback programs in the US have been complete duds...so what then? You saying that I misunderstand does not make it so. I feel that you are misunderstanding...see how that works? But anyways, if you feel that Beto’s approach is helping gun control, then that’s great...I do not and would never vote for someone with his approach...that’s what really matters (if you still “feel” your vote matters).
I mentioned earlier,
Just a thought
The same way they enforce drunk driving laws.
Who is “they”? State, local police an Sheriffs? What do you mean “in the same way”? “They” enforce drunk driver laws by determining the person is drunk (usually begins with an actual traffic violation), and then going a step further to prove that they were in fact under the influence. What would be the probable cause to search a person’s property (car, house, etc) to find out they actually own an AR-15? I’m not seeing your point...
Someone telling the appropriate law enforcement that a person is having an AR-15?
What would you do if you found your neighbor having the stolen Mona Lisa in his/her living room?
Sounds a lot like you are looking for reasons to not thinking changing the law is possible by playing up some weird fabricated daftness. Don't see the point.
So you think the plan will work based on neighbors telling on their neighbors? This is getting laughable...speaking of daft ness. What would you do if you found out your neighbor smokes marijuana? That’s still illegal in Sweden, right? Would you call the police if you found out your neighbor smokes pot?
Nope.
But I would if I spotted an automatic rifle in their car.
"Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"
How does it happen with(out (im presuming?)) major bloodshed?
Why would there be "major bloodshed"?
Sounds to me like if it would cause major bloodshed -- wouldn't that be reason enough in and of itself to remove these rights?
And there wasn't any in Australia to my knowledge?
(please delete this post if its in the risk of losing posting privileges)
how compliant do you think gun owners would be in the US? hmm? voluntary buyback does jack shit here. Government wants them, they gotta take them. otherwise the whole exercise is bullshit talking point.
First off, are the rifles registered to people in the US? As in, is there a database where one can see who owns the specific rifles?
no.
That's one way to do it.
Hence the “slippery slope” arguments. The gun rights activists have been preaching that registration leads to confiscation as a major political rallying point for years. Now that we have a candidate openly saying “we’re going to take your guns”, their concerns are now 100% validated. Now, it is going to be even harder to even push registration. This is where Beto’s “we’re gonna take um” stance is undermining the gun control crowd. We’re seeing that happening in TX right now. Dan Patrick, a hardcore conservative, (for instance) mentioned registration and he is now most likely going to be voted out as the mud slinging has already begun. No one really answered my question...How would confiscation even play out? The buyback programs in the US so far have been duds.
To say "X is going to happen" for years and years, and then X finally happens - doesn't mean there's some kind of Nostradamus in the NRA or GOP. All that means that a very likely combination of events/non-events (mass shootings for decades + mass unwillingness to correct the mistake for decades) caused a very logical reaction (people annoyed over mass unwillingness to correct a mistake resulting in slaughtered children, and calling for actions more extreme than previously rejected compromises and/or checks and balances). When you ask for a little and get nothing, then you have no choice but to demand a lot as the situation worsens.
I feel your understanding of the cause and effect (Republicans refuse to cede to Democrat requests because Democrats want huge gun reforms) is completely backwards, and I also feel that that misunderstanding, while it may be real for you, has been purposefully exploited by the likes of the NRA and GOP and been inaccurately communicated.
Still haven’t answered my question. How would mass confiscation as Beto is pushing work? Past buyback programs in the US have been complete duds...so what then? You saying that I misunderstand does not make it so. I feel that you are misunderstanding...see how that works? But anyways, if you feel that Beto’s approach is helping gun control, then that’s great...I do not and would never vote for someone with his approach...that’s what really matters (if you still “feel” your vote matters).
I mentioned earlier,
Just a thought
The same way they enforce drunk driving laws.
Who is “they”? State, local police an Sheriffs? What do you mean “in the same way”? “They” enforce drunk driver laws by determining the person is drunk (usually begins with an actual traffic violation), and then going a step further to prove that they were in fact under the influence. What would be the probable cause to search a person’s property (car, house, etc) to find out they actually own an AR-15? I’m not seeing your point...
Someone telling the appropriate law enforcement that a person is having an AR-15?
What would you do if you found your neighbor having the stolen Mona Lisa in his/her living room?
Sounds a lot like you are looking for reasons to not thinking changing the law is possible by playing up some weird fabricated daftness. Don't see the point.
So you think the plan will work based on neighbors telling on their neighbors? This is getting laughable...speaking of daft ness. What would you do if you found out your neighbor smokes marijuana? That’s still illegal in Sweden, right? Would you call the police if you found out your neighbor smokes pot?
Nope.
But I would if I spotted an automatic rifle in their car.
Fair enough, I would if I spotted meth in someone’s front seat too. But am I going to go around checking if people have meth in their front seat? No, and how exactly are you going to “spot” something in someone’s trunk, or closet, or gun safe, etc? And you are anti-gun. Pretty sure not many would turn others in for something they do not believe is right...just like they don’t with Marijuana. Yeah, though, there are a “few” like yourself, but that is hardly something to hang a successful gun control plan on.
How does it happen with(out (im presuming?)) major bloodshed?
Why would there be "major bloodshed"?
Sounds to me like if it would cause major bloodshed -- wouldn't that be reason enough in and of itself to remove these rights?
And there wasn't any in Australia to my knowledge?
(please delete this post if its in the risk of losing posting privileges)
how compliant do you think gun owners would be in the US? hmm? voluntary buyback does jack shit here. Government wants them, they gotta take them. otherwise the whole exercise is bullshit talking point.
First off, are the rifles registered to people in the US? As in, is there a database where one can see who owns the specific rifles?
no.
That's one way to do it.
Hence the “slippery slope” arguments. The gun rights activists have been preaching that registration leads to confiscation as a major political rallying point for years. Now that we have a candidate openly saying “we’re going to take your guns”, their concerns are now 100% validated. Now, it is going to be even harder to even push registration. This is where Beto’s “we’re gonna take um” stance is undermining the gun control crowd. We’re seeing that happening in TX right now. Dan Patrick, a hardcore conservative, (for instance) mentioned registration and he is now most likely going to be voted out as the mud slinging has already begun. No one really answered my question...How would confiscation even play out? The buyback programs in the US so far have been duds.
To say "X is going to happen" for years and years, and then X finally happens - doesn't mean there's some kind of Nostradamus in the NRA or GOP. All that means that a very likely combination of events/non-events (mass shootings for decades + mass unwillingness to correct the mistake for decades) caused a very logical reaction (people annoyed over mass unwillingness to correct a mistake resulting in slaughtered children, and calling for actions more extreme than previously rejected compromises and/or checks and balances). When you ask for a little and get nothing, then you have no choice but to demand a lot as the situation worsens.
I feel your understanding of the cause and effect (Republicans refuse to cede to Democrat requests because Democrats want huge gun reforms) is completely backwards, and I also feel that that misunderstanding, while it may be real for you, has been purposefully exploited by the likes of the NRA and GOP and been inaccurately communicated.
Still haven’t answered my question. How would mass confiscation as Beto is pushing work? Past buyback programs in the US have been complete duds...so what then? You saying that I misunderstand does not make it so. I feel that you are misunderstanding...see how that works? But anyways, if you feel that Beto’s approach is helping gun control, then that’s great...I do not and would never vote for someone with his approach...that’s what really matters (if you still “feel” your vote matters).
I mentioned earlier,
Just a thought
The same way they enforce drunk driving laws.
with drive through check points that by law must be announced ahead of time?
How does it happen with(out (im presuming?)) major bloodshed?
Why would there be "major bloodshed"?
Sounds to me like if it would cause major bloodshed -- wouldn't that be reason enough in and of itself to remove these rights?
And there wasn't any in Australia to my knowledge?
(please delete this post if its in the risk of losing posting privileges)
how compliant do you think gun owners would be in the US? hmm? voluntary buyback does jack shit here. Government wants them, they gotta take them. otherwise the whole exercise is bullshit talking point.
First off, are the rifles registered to people in the US? As in, is there a database where one can see who owns the specific rifles?
no.
That's one way to do it.
Hence the “slippery slope” arguments. The gun rights activists have been preaching that registration leads to confiscation as a major political rallying point for years. Now that we have a candidate openly saying “we’re going to take your guns”, their concerns are now 100% validated. Now, it is going to be even harder to even push registration. This is where Beto’s “we’re gonna take um” stance is undermining the gun control crowd. We’re seeing that happening in TX right now. Dan Patrick, a hardcore conservative, (for instance) mentioned registration and he is now most likely going to be voted out as the mud slinging has already begun. No one really answered my question...How would confiscation even play out? The buyback programs in the US so far have been duds.
To say "X is going to happen" for years and years, and then X finally happens - doesn't mean there's some kind of Nostradamus in the NRA or GOP. All that means that a very likely combination of events/non-events (mass shootings for decades + mass unwillingness to correct the mistake for decades) caused a very logical reaction (people annoyed over mass unwillingness to correct a mistake resulting in slaughtered children, and calling for actions more extreme than previously rejected compromises and/or checks and balances). When you ask for a little and get nothing, then you have no choice but to demand a lot as the situation worsens.
I feel your understanding of the cause and effect (Republicans refuse to cede to Democrat requests because Democrats want huge gun reforms) is completely backwards, and I also feel that that misunderstanding, while it may be real for you, has been purposefully exploited by the likes of the NRA and GOP and been inaccurately communicated.
Still haven’t answered my question. How would mass confiscation as Beto is pushing work? Past buyback programs in the US have been complete duds...so what then? You saying that I misunderstand does not make it so. I feel that you are misunderstanding...see how that works? But anyways, if you feel that Beto’s approach is helping gun control, then that’s great...I do not and would never vote for someone with his approach...that’s what really matters (if you still “feel” your vote matters).
I mentioned earlier,
Just a thought
The same way they enforce drunk driving laws.
Who is “they”? State, local police an Sheriffs? What do you mean “in the same way”? “They” enforce drunk driver laws by determining the person is drunk (usually begins with an actual traffic violation), and then going a step further to prove that they were in fact under the influence. What would be the probable cause to search a person’s property (car, house, etc) to find out they actually own an AR-15? I’m not seeing your point...
Someone telling the appropriate law enforcement that a person is having an AR-15?
What would you do if you found your neighbor having the stolen Mona Lisa in his/her living room?
Sounds a lot like you are looking for reasons to not thinking changing the law is possible by playing up some weird fabricated daftness. Don't see the point.
So you think the plan will work based on neighbors telling on their neighbors? This is getting laughable...speaking of daft ness. What would you do if you found out your neighbor smokes marijuana? That’s still illegal in Sweden, right? Would you call the police if you found out your neighbor smokes pot?
Nope.
But I would if I spotted an automatic rifle in their car.
Fair enough, I would if I spotted meth in someone’s front seat too. But am I going to go around checking if people have meth in their front seat? No, and how exactly are you going to “spot” something in someone’s trunk, or closet, or gun safe, etc? And you are anti-gun. Pretty sure not many would turn others in for something they do not believe is right...just like they don’t with Marijuana. Yeah, though, there are a “few” like yourself, but that is hardly something to hang a successful gun control plan on.
No one is asking you to go around checking peoples front seats?
Should Mariujana be legal in Sweden on the sole basis of people not reporting their neighbors?
You are twisting and spinning the discussion. It is like hearing republicans trying to spin/divert from the Ukraina-call.
As i said before, should bike-theft be legal because of bike-thefts not being cleared up? Should having sex with someone under the legal age be legal, if most people won't report on it? Should homemade nuclear reactors be legal just because no one will turn them in and no one will know if someone keeps one in their basement? Should driving drunk be legal because 1 our of every 10.000 cases gets caught?
I understand you are pro-gun. But come on.
(I'm also not anti gun(?) - more anti-idiotic bullshit. Regardless of topic)
"Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"
How does it happen with(out (im presuming?)) major bloodshed?
Why would there be "major bloodshed"?
Sounds to me like if it would cause major bloodshed -- wouldn't that be reason enough in and of itself to remove these rights?
And there wasn't any in Australia to my knowledge?
(please delete this post if its in the risk of losing posting privileges)
how compliant do you think gun owners would be in the US? hmm? voluntary buyback does jack shit here. Government wants them, they gotta take them. otherwise the whole exercise is bullshit talking point.
First off, are the rifles registered to people in the US? As in, is there a database where one can see who owns the specific rifles?
no.
That's one way to do it.
Hence the “slippery slope” arguments. The gun rights activists have been preaching that registration leads to confiscation as a major political rallying point for years. Now that we have a candidate openly saying “we’re going to take your guns”, their concerns are now 100% validated. Now, it is going to be even harder to even push registration. This is where Beto’s “we’re gonna take um” stance is undermining the gun control crowd. We’re seeing that happening in TX right now. Dan Patrick, a hardcore conservative, (for instance) mentioned registration and he is now most likely going to be voted out as the mud slinging has already begun. No one really answered my question...How would confiscation even play out? The buyback programs in the US so far have been duds.
To say "X is going to happen" for years and years, and then X finally happens - doesn't mean there's some kind of Nostradamus in the NRA or GOP. All that means that a very likely combination of events/non-events (mass shootings for decades + mass unwillingness to correct the mistake for decades) caused a very logical reaction (people annoyed over mass unwillingness to correct a mistake resulting in slaughtered children, and calling for actions more extreme than previously rejected compromises and/or checks and balances). When you ask for a little and get nothing, then you have no choice but to demand a lot as the situation worsens.
I feel your understanding of the cause and effect (Republicans refuse to cede to Democrat requests because Democrats want huge gun reforms) is completely backwards, and I also feel that that misunderstanding, while it may be real for you, has been purposefully exploited by the likes of the NRA and GOP and been inaccurately communicated.
Still haven’t answered my question. How would mass confiscation as Beto is pushing work? Past buyback programs in the US have been complete duds...so what then? You saying that I misunderstand does not make it so. I feel that you are misunderstanding...see how that works? But anyways, if you feel that Beto’s approach is helping gun control, then that’s great...I do not and would never vote for someone with his approach...that’s what really matters (if you still “feel” your vote matters).
I mentioned earlier,
Just a thought
The same way they enforce drunk driving laws.
Who is “they”? State, local police an Sheriffs? What do you mean “in the same way”? “They” enforce drunk driver laws by determining the person is drunk (usually begins with an actual traffic violation), and then going a step further to prove that they were in fact under the influence. What would be the probable cause to search a person’s property (car, house, etc) to find out they actually own an AR-15? I’m not seeing your point...
Someone telling the appropriate law enforcement that a person is having an AR-15?
What would you do if you found your neighbor having the stolen Mona Lisa in his/her living room?
Sounds a lot like you are looking for reasons to not thinking changing the law is possible by playing up some weird fabricated daftness. Don't see the point.
So you think the plan will work based on neighbors telling on their neighbors? This is getting laughable...speaking of daft ness. What would you do if you found out your neighbor smokes marijuana? That’s still illegal in Sweden, right? Would you call the police if you found out your neighbor smokes pot?
Nope.
But I would if I spotted an automatic rifle in their car.
Fair enough, I would if I spotted meth in someone’s front seat too. But am I going to go around checking if people have meth in their front seat? No, and how exactly are you going to “spot” something in someone’s trunk, or closet, or gun safe, etc? And you are anti-gun. Pretty sure not many would turn others in for something they do not believe is right...just like they don’t with Marijuana. Yeah, though, there are a “few” like yourself, but that is hardly something to hang a successful gun control plan on.
No one is asking you to go around checking peoples front seats?
Should Mariujana be legal in Sweden on the sole basis of people not reporting their neighbors?
You are twisting and spinning the discussion. It is like hearing republicans trying to spin/divert from the Ukraina-call.
As i said before, should bike-theft be legal because of bike-thefts not being cleared up? Should having sex with someone under the legal age be legal, if most people won't report on it? Should homemade nuclear reactors be legal just because no one will turn them in and no one will know if someone keeps one in their basement? Should driving drunk be legal because 1 our of every 10.000 cases gets caught?
I understand you are pro-gun. But come on.
(I'm also not anti gun(?) - more anti-idiotic bullshit. Regardless of topic)
I tend to support enforceable laws. I just want an actual plan that will work. In my opinion, mass confiscation as supported by O’Rourke will not work...period. Come up with a better plan than merely saying “we’re gunna take em’ from ya”. You are the one twisting this into something it is not... Most likely he will not be elected and all he will have accomplished is undermining years of gun control efforts by those with actual well thought out ideas that could actually make a difference.
How does it happen with(out (im presuming?)) major bloodshed?
Why would there be "major bloodshed"?
Sounds to me like if it would cause major bloodshed -- wouldn't that be reason enough in and of itself to remove these rights?
And there wasn't any in Australia to my knowledge?
(please delete this post if its in the risk of losing posting privileges)
how compliant do you think gun owners would be in the US? hmm? voluntary buyback does jack shit here. Government wants them, they gotta take them. otherwise the whole exercise is bullshit talking point.
First off, are the rifles registered to people in the US? As in, is there a database where one can see who owns the specific rifles?
no.
That's one way to do it.
Hence the “slippery slope” arguments. The gun rights activists have been preaching that registration leads to confiscation as a major political rallying point for years. Now that we have a candidate openly saying “we’re going to take your guns”, their concerns are now 100% validated. Now, it is going to be even harder to even push registration. This is where Beto’s “we’re gonna take um” stance is undermining the gun control crowd. We’re seeing that happening in TX right now. Dan Patrick, a hardcore conservative, (for instance) mentioned registration and he is now most likely going to be voted out as the mud slinging has already begun. No one really answered my question...How would confiscation even play out? The buyback programs in the US so far have been duds.
To say "X is going to happen" for years and years, and then X finally happens - doesn't mean there's some kind of Nostradamus in the NRA or GOP. All that means that a very likely combination of events/non-events (mass shootings for decades + mass unwillingness to correct the mistake for decades) caused a very logical reaction (people annoyed over mass unwillingness to correct a mistake resulting in slaughtered children, and calling for actions more extreme than previously rejected compromises and/or checks and balances). When you ask for a little and get nothing, then you have no choice but to demand a lot as the situation worsens.
I feel your understanding of the cause and effect (Republicans refuse to cede to Democrat requests because Democrats want huge gun reforms) is completely backwards, and I also feel that that misunderstanding, while it may be real for you, has been purposefully exploited by the likes of the NRA and GOP and been inaccurately communicated.
Still haven’t answered my question. How would mass confiscation as Beto is pushing work? Past buyback programs in the US have been complete duds...so what then? You saying that I misunderstand does not make it so. I feel that you are misunderstanding...see how that works? But anyways, if you feel that Beto’s approach is helping gun control, then that’s great...I do not and would never vote for someone with his approach...that’s what really matters (if you still “feel” your vote matters).
I mentioned earlier,
Just a thought
The same way they enforce drunk driving laws.
Who is “they”? State, local police an Sheriffs? What do you mean “in the same way”? “They” enforce drunk driver laws by determining the person is drunk (usually begins with an actual traffic violation), and then going a step further to prove that they were in fact under the influence. What would be the probable cause to search a person’s property (car, house, etc) to find out they actually own an AR-15? I’m not seeing your point...
Someone telling the appropriate law enforcement that a person is having an AR-15?
What would you do if you found your neighbor having the stolen Mona Lisa in his/her living room?
Sounds a lot like you are looking for reasons to not thinking changing the law is possible by playing up some weird fabricated daftness. Don't see the point.
So you think the plan will work based on neighbors telling on their neighbors? This is getting laughable...speaking of daft ness. What would you do if you found out your neighbor smokes marijuana? That’s still illegal in Sweden, right? Would you call the police if you found out your neighbor smokes pot?
Nope.
But I would if I spotted an automatic rifle in their car.
Fair enough, I would if I spotted meth in someone’s front seat too. But am I going to go around checking if people have meth in their front seat? No, and how exactly are you going to “spot” something in someone’s trunk, or closet, or gun safe, etc? And you are anti-gun. Pretty sure not many would turn others in for something they do not believe is right...just like they don’t with Marijuana. Yeah, though, there are a “few” like yourself, but that is hardly something to hang a successful gun control plan on.
No one is asking you to go around checking peoples front seats?
Should Mariujana be legal in Sweden on the sole basis of people not reporting their neighbors?
You are twisting and spinning the discussion. It is like hearing republicans trying to spin/divert from the Ukraina-call.
As i said before, should bike-theft be legal because of bike-thefts not being cleared up? Should having sex with someone under the legal age be legal, if most people won't report on it? Should homemade nuclear reactors be legal just because no one will turn them in and no one will know if someone keeps one in their basement? Should driving drunk be legal because 1 our of every 10.000 cases gets caught?
I understand you are pro-gun. But come on.
(I'm also not anti gun(?) - more anti-idiotic bullshit. Regardless of topic)
I tend to support enforceable laws. I just want an actual plan that will work. In my opinion, mass confiscation as supported by O’Rourke will not work...period. Come up with a better plan than merely saying “we’re gunna take em’ from ya”. You are the one twisting this into something it is not...
So by that, bike-theft and drunk driving should be legal...
"Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"
How does it happen with(out (im presuming?)) major bloodshed?
Why would there be "major bloodshed"?
Sounds to me like if it would cause major bloodshed -- wouldn't that be reason enough in and of itself to remove these rights?
And there wasn't any in Australia to my knowledge?
(please delete this post if its in the risk of losing posting privileges)
how compliant do you think gun owners would be in the US? hmm? voluntary buyback does jack shit here. Government wants them, they gotta take them. otherwise the whole exercise is bullshit talking point.
First off, are the rifles registered to people in the US? As in, is there a database where one can see who owns the specific rifles?
no.
That's one way to do it.
Hence the “slippery slope” arguments. The gun rights activists have been preaching that registration leads to confiscation as a major political rallying point for years. Now that we have a candidate openly saying “we’re going to take your guns”, their concerns are now 100% validated. Now, it is going to be even harder to even push registration. This is where Beto’s “we’re gonna take um” stance is undermining the gun control crowd. We’re seeing that happening in TX right now. Dan Patrick, a hardcore conservative, (for instance) mentioned registration and he is now most likely going to be voted out as the mud slinging has already begun. No one really answered my question...How would confiscation even play out? The buyback programs in the US so far have been duds.
To say "X is going to happen" for years and years, and then X finally happens - doesn't mean there's some kind of Nostradamus in the NRA or GOP. All that means that a very likely combination of events/non-events (mass shootings for decades + mass unwillingness to correct the mistake for decades) caused a very logical reaction (people annoyed over mass unwillingness to correct a mistake resulting in slaughtered children, and calling for actions more extreme than previously rejected compromises and/or checks and balances). When you ask for a little and get nothing, then you have no choice but to demand a lot as the situation worsens.
I feel your understanding of the cause and effect (Republicans refuse to cede to Democrat requests because Democrats want huge gun reforms) is completely backwards, and I also feel that that misunderstanding, while it may be real for you, has been purposefully exploited by the likes of the NRA and GOP and been inaccurately communicated.
Still haven’t answered my question. How would mass confiscation as Beto is pushing work? Past buyback programs in the US have been complete duds...so what then? You saying that I misunderstand does not make it so. I feel that you are misunderstanding...see how that works? But anyways, if you feel that Beto’s approach is helping gun control, then that’s great...I do not and would never vote for someone with his approach...that’s what really matters (if you still “feel” your vote matters).
Fair on the question (you asked first). I have grave concerns over how mass confiscation would work in a culturally gun-obsessed environment like the States, and didn't say that Beto's approach is helping gun control (I didn't even bring up Beto or buybacks). I said that Republican talking points have planted seeds of paranoia in the minds of their supporters, which have led to even the most meagre gun control attempts being shot down for fear of the slippery slope creating a fully unarmed USA, which then creates more anger because of inactivity, so the DNC asks get bigger since the results are approximately zero since they're blocked by Republicans, and then Republicans continue the vicious circle by telling their supporters about how the Democrats want all of your guns.
Also, I reject your opinion that there's become some common ground in approaches. If my opponents in progress only throw me a bone very infrequently (and it's always less than I ask for), why would I ask for anything less than the moon in each negotiation (when I even have the rare opportunity to get this on the table in the Republican-controlled Senate)? Can you at least concede that there are non-starters coming from both Republicans and Democrats today?
'05 - TO, '06 - TO 1, '08 - NYC 1 & 2, '09 - TO, Chi 1 & 2, '10 - Buffalo, NYC 1 & 2, '11 - TO 1 & 2, Hamilton, '13 - Buffalo, Brooklyn 1 & 2, '15 - Global Citizen, '16 - TO 1 & 2, Chi 2
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
How does it happen with(out (im presuming?)) major bloodshed?
Why would there be "major bloodshed"?
Sounds to me like if it would cause major bloodshed -- wouldn't that be reason enough in and of itself to remove these rights?
And there wasn't any in Australia to my knowledge?
(please delete this post if its in the risk of losing posting privileges)
how compliant do you think gun owners would be in the US? hmm? voluntary buyback does jack shit here. Government wants them, they gotta take them. otherwise the whole exercise is bullshit talking point.
First off, are the rifles registered to people in the US? As in, is there a database where one can see who owns the specific rifles?
no.
That's one way to do it.
Hence the “slippery slope” arguments. The gun rights activists have been preaching that registration leads to confiscation as a major political rallying point for years. Now that we have a candidate openly saying “we’re going to take your guns”, their concerns are now 100% validated. Now, it is going to be even harder to even push registration. This is where Beto’s “we’re gonna take um” stance is undermining the gun control crowd. We’re seeing that happening in TX right now. Dan Patrick, a hardcore conservative, (for instance) mentioned registration and he is now most likely going to be voted out as the mud slinging has already begun. No one really answered my question...How would confiscation even play out? The buyback programs in the US so far have been duds.
To say "X is going to happen" for years and years, and then X finally happens - doesn't mean there's some kind of Nostradamus in the NRA or GOP. All that means that a very likely combination of events/non-events (mass shootings for decades + mass unwillingness to correct the mistake for decades) caused a very logical reaction (people annoyed over mass unwillingness to correct a mistake resulting in slaughtered children, and calling for actions more extreme than previously rejected compromises and/or checks and balances). When you ask for a little and get nothing, then you have no choice but to demand a lot as the situation worsens.
I feel your understanding of the cause and effect (Republicans refuse to cede to Democrat requests because Democrats want huge gun reforms) is completely backwards, and I also feel that that misunderstanding, while it may be real for you, has been purposefully exploited by the likes of the NRA and GOP and been inaccurately communicated.
Still haven’t answered my question. How would mass confiscastill “feel” your vote matters).
I mentioned earlier,
Just a thought
The same way they enforce drunk driving laws.
Who is “they”? State, local police an Sheriffs? What do you mean “in the same way”? “They” enforce drunk driver laws by determining the person is drunk (usually begins with an actual traffic violation), and then going a step further to prove that they were in fact under the influence. What would be the probable cause to search a person’s property (car, house, etc) to find out they actually own an AR-15? I’m not seeing your point...
Someone telling the appropriate law enforcement that a person is having an AR-15?
What would you do if you found your neighbor having the stolen Mona Lisa in his/her living room?
Sounds a lot like you are looking for reasons to not thinking changing the law is possible by playing up some weird fabricated daftness. Don't see the point.
So you think the plan will work based on neighbors telling on their neighbors? This is getting laughable...speaking of daft ness. What would you do if you found out your neighbor smokes marijuana? That’s still illegal in Sweden, right? Would you call the police if you found out your neighbor smokes pot?
Nope.
But I would if I spotted an automatic rifle in their car.
Fair enough, I would if I spotted meth in someone’s front seat too. But am I going to go around checking if people have meth in their front seat? No, and how exactly are you going to “spot” something in someone’s trunk, or closet, or gun safe, etc? And you are anti-gun. Pretty sure not many would turn others in for something they do not believe is right...just like they don’t with Marijuana. Yeah, though, there are a “few” like yourself, but that is hardly something to hang a successful gun control plan on.
No one is asking you to go around checking peoples front seats?
Should Mariujana be legal in Sweden on the sole basis of people not reporting their neighbors?
You are twisting and spinning the discussion. It is like hearing republicans trying to spin/divert from the Ukraina-call.
As i said before, should bike-theft be legal because of bike-thefts not being cleared up? Should having sex with someone 1 our of every 10.000 cases gets caught?
I understand you are pro-gun. But come on.
(I'm also not anti gun(?) - more anti-idiotic bullshit. Regardless of topic)
I tend to support enforceable laws. I just want an actual plan that will work. In my opinion, mass confiscation as supported by O’Rourke will not work...period. Come up with a better plan than merely saying “we’re gunna take em’ from ya”. You are the one twisting this into something it is not...
So by that, bike-theft and drunk driving should be legal...
No, they are completely different. I am all about people owning bikes, but theft I am not. I am fine with people getting drunk and owning alcohol, but driving while drunk I am not. Gun owners do not want their property taken away, but do want to have people that commit crimes with them held more accountable. Most support background checks and training laws. But not confiscation... And if AR-15s were illegal to buy or sell then the future purchases and selling of them would be an illegal act... Just because you don’t support confiscation does not automatically mean you don’t want any new regulations, just that you don’t think a specific strategy will work. You keep creating these logic fallacies that have nothing to do with that stance.
How does it happen with(out (im presuming?)) major bloodshed?
Why would there be "major bloodshed"?
Sounds to me like if it would cause major bloodshed -- wouldn't that be reason enough in and of itself to remove these rights?
And there wasn't any in Australia to my knowledge?
(please delete this post if its in the risk of losing posting privileges)
how compliant do you think gun owners would be in the US? hmm? voluntary buyback does jack shit here. Government wants them, they gotta take them. otherwise the whole exercise is bullshit talking point.
First off, are the rifles registered to people in the US? As in, is there a database where one can see who owns the specific rifles?
no.
That's one way to do it.
Hence the “slippery slope” arguments. The gun rights activists have been preaching that registration leads to confiscation as a major political rallying point for years. Now that we have a candidate openly saying “we’re going to take your guns”, their concerns are now 100% validated. Now, it is going to be even harder to even push registration. This is where Beto’s “we’re gonna take um” stance is undermining the gun control crowd. We’re seeing that happening in TX right now. Dan Patrick, a hardcore conservative, (for instance) mentioned registration and he is now most likely going to be voted out as the mud slinging has already begun. No one really answered my question...How would confiscation even play out? The buyback programs in the US so far have been duds.
To say "X is going to happen" for years and years, and then X finally happens - doesn't mean there's some kind of Nostradamus in the NRA or GOP. All that means that a very likely combination of events/non-events (mass shootings for decades + mass unwillingness to correct the mistake for decades) caused a very logical reaction (people annoyed over mass unwillingness to correct a mistake resulting in slaughtered children, and calling for actions more extreme than previously rejected compromises and/or checks and balances). When you ask for a little and get nothing, then you have no choice but to demand a lot as the situation worsens.
I feel your understanding of the cause and effect (Republicans refuse to cede to Democrat requests because Democrats want huge gun reforms) is completely backwards, and I also feel that that misunderstanding, while it may be real for you, has been purposefully exploited by the likes of the NRA and GOP and been inaccurately communicated.
Still haven’t answered my question. How would mass confiscation as Beto is pushing work? Past buyback programs in the US have been complete duds...so what then? You saying that I misunderstand does not make it so. I feel that you are misunderstanding...see how that works? But anyways, if you feel that Beto’s approach is helping gun control, then that’s great...I do not and would never vote for someone with his approach...that’s what really matters (if you still “feel” your vote matters).
Fair on the question (you asked first). I have grave concerns over how mass confiscation would work in a culturally gun-obsessed environment like the States, and didn't say that Beto's approach is helping gun control (I didn't even bring up Beto or buybacks). I said that Republican talking points have planted seeds of paranoia in the minds of their supporters, which have led to even the most meagre gun control attempts being shot down for fear of the slippery slope creating a fully unarmed USA, which then creates more anger because of inactivity, so the DNC asks get bigger since the results are approximately zero since they're blocked by Republicans, and then Republicans continue the vicious circle by telling their supporters about how the Democrats want all of your guns.
Also, I reject your opinion that there's become some common ground in approaches. If my opponents in progress only throw me a bone very infrequently (and it's always less than I ask for), why would I ask for anything less than the moon in each negotiation (when I even have the rare opportunity to get this on the table in the Republican-controlled Senate)? Can you at least concede that there are non-starters coming from both Republicans and Democrats today?
It’s not really a concession as much as an agreement, but Republicans and Democrats produce plenty non-starters. And that is where we were on two different pages, as I am talking specifically about O’Rourke and his “plan”. I was trying to keep that narrow focus instead of a broad gun control argument as this is the “Democrat candidates” thread. Democrats and Republicans are both guilty of lying to garner support for their platforms related to gun control.
How does it happen with(out (im presuming?)) major bloodshed?
Why would there be "major bloodshed"?
Sounds to me like if it would cause major bloodshed -- wouldn't that be reason enough in and of itself to remove these rights?
And there wasn't any in Australia to my knowledge?
(please delete this post if its in the risk of losing posting privileges)
how compliant do you think gun owners would be in the US? hmm? voluntary buyback does jack shit here. Government wants them, they gotta take them. otherwise the whole exercise is bullshit talking point.
First off, are the rifles registered to people in the US? As in, is there a database where one can see who owns the specific rifles?
no.
That's one way to do it.
Hence the “slippery slope” arguments. The gun rights activists have been preaching that registration leads to confiscation as a major political rallying point for years. Now that we have a candidate openly saying “we’re going to take your guns”, their concerns are now 100% validated. Now, it is going to be even harder to even push registration. This is where Beto’s “we’re gonna take um” stance is undermining the gun control crowd. We’re seeing that happening in TX right now. Dan Patrick, a hardcore conservative, (for instance) mentioned registration and he is now most likely going to be voted out as the mud slinging has already begun. No one really answered my question...How would confiscation even play out? The buyback programs in the US so far have been duds.
To say "X is going to happen" for years and years, and then X finally happens - doesn't mean there's some kind of Nostradamus in the NRA or GOP. All that means that a very likely combination of events/non-events (mass shootings for decades + mass unwillingness to correct the mistake for decades) caused a very logical reaction (people annoyed over mass unwillingness to correct a mistake resulting in slaughtered children, and calling for actions more extreme than previously rejected compromises and/or checks and balances). When you ask for a little and get nothing, then you have no choice but to demand a lot as the situation worsens.
I feel your understanding of the cause and effect (Republicans refuse to cede to Democrat requests because Democrats want huge gun reforms) is completely backwards, and I also feel that that misunderstanding, while it may be real for you, has been purposefully exploited by the likes of the NRA and GOP and been inaccurately communicated.
Still haven’t answered my question. How would mass confiscation as Beto is pushing work? Past buyback programs in the US have been complete duds...so what then? You saying that I misunderstand does not make it so. I feel that you are misunderstanding...see how that works? But anyways, if you feel that Beto’s approach is helping gun control, then that’s great...I do not and would never vote for someone with his approach...that’s what really matters (if you still “feel” your vote matters).
Fair on the question (you asked first). I have grave concerns over how mass confiscation would work in a culturally gun-obsessed environment like the States, and didn't say that Beto's approach is helping gun control (I didn't even bring up Beto or buybacks). I said that Republican talking points have planted seeds of paranoia in the minds of their supporters, which have led to even the most meagre gun control attempts being shot down for fear of the slippery slope creating a fully unarmed USA, which then creates more anger because of inactivity, so the DNC asks get bigger since the results are approximately zero since they're blocked by Republicans, and then Republicans continue the vicious circle by telling their supporters about how the Democrats want all of your guns.
Also, I reject your opinion that there's become some common ground in approaches. If my opponents in progress only throw me a bone very infrequently (and it's always less than I ask for), why would I ask for anything less than the moon in each negotiation (when I even have the rare opportunity to get this on the table in the Republican-controlled Senate)? Can you at least concede that there are non-starters coming from both Republicans and Democrats today?
It’s not really a concession as much as an agreement, but Republicans and Democrats produce plenty non-starters. And that is where we were on two different pages, as I am talking specifically about O’Rourke and his “plan”. I was trying to keep that narrow focus instead of a broad gun control argument as this is the “Democrat candidates” thread. Democrats and Republicans are both guilty of lying to garner support for their platforms related to gun control.
All gun control has been “non starter”. People pretend to be concerned about a slippery slope and all that nonsense as an excuse to keep everything the same and fool themselves into thinking they aren't part of the problem and they don’t share any responsibility for all the deaths.
Comments
1. Is gun culture more revered in the States than it was in Australia?
2. How polar are average group opinions in the two nations? When mass opinions are split and are congregated at poles/extreme conditions, reconciliation or compromise becomes more difficult than if they were marginally opposed or nuance was all there was dividing the population’s opinion
3. Was the ‘slippery slope’ argument used as much by the Australian gun lobbies when the buyback was initially proposed?
4. Is the Australian gun lobby as powerful as the American one?
5. Are Australian politicians as weak and morally void as American ones?
6. The States seem to have a perpetual campaign on the “fear of otherness” at least coming from the right (anti-poor, anti-immigrant, etc.). Did this same fear campaign exist in Australia?
7. Are the mental health treatment opportunities materially different in Australia and in the States?
8. Are the mental health issue rates materially different in Australia and in the States?
I’ve seen this conversation come close to these questions, and is usually going astray by the time we start to say “yeah, but America isn’t Australia”. Shouldn’t we try to understand what vital ways the States differ if we’re going to call this comparison admissible/inadmissible?
Edit: Cincy, I’m asking these questions because there is a real psychological potential for a buyback under the wrong circumstances where the government shows ineptitude in the buyback, and honest citizens surrender their weapons while criminals keep theirs. Obviously this is the situation that needs to be mitigated, but my faith in the US government’s ability to get anything done properly today is approximately zero (and I would fully understand gun-owners who share this viewpoint).
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Get this...was at a local festival on Sunday in ohio. had a nice time. Saw a booth that does screen printed t shirts. Had a "Dayton Strong" shirt hanging right next to a "Try and take my gun" shirt with some sort of military type weapon AK something I bet but I ain't no gun guru. I mean wtf? People are so fucking blind and stupid when it comes to guns.
and he is now most likely going to be voted out as the mud slinging has already begun. No one really answered my question...How would confiscation even play out? The buyback programs in the US so far have been duds.
With having this very sound thing called a register (as e.g. the country where Big Little Lies actor Alexander Skarsgård comes from), one could easily check if person A has handed over the illegal weapon.
Without a registry it is a bit more wild wild west. But the same information could go out "you have a 3 month window to hand over weapon type X, Y and Z - afterwards these will be deemed illegal" and then treat it as being an illegal possession when happening upon on of these weapons in the wild, when stopping over a car for speeding and seeing one in the backseat, if someone dies and the garage is cleared out or at the local McDonalds when they have the said weapon with them like it was their pet.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
I just meant it as without a register, you don't even know who owns what guns etc. Are cars registered to owners in the US?
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
But hey, “copy and paste”...
Even if you have a 3 month window, who is going to enforce this? The feds? State and local agencies and sheriffs have already stated that they will not comply with any confiscation orders....so?
Frustrating part about it all is that people were starting to see a little more common ground on some aspects of gun control, even outlawing future sales of these “assault weapons”. But it only takes someone with O’Rourke’s message to undermine every bit of that hope and rack up new sales exponentially...
I feel your understanding of the cause and effect (Republicans refuse to cede to Democrat requests because Democrats want huge gun reforms) is completely backwards, and I also feel that that misunderstanding, while it may be real for you, has been purposefully exploited by the likes of the NRA and GOP and been inaccurately communicated.
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
If "it would be a dud" would be the bar over what is right to do - then bicycle-theft would be legal in Sweden because the cops ain't solving any bicycle thefts.
I mentioned earlier,
Just a thought
The same way they enforce drunk driving laws.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
What would you do if you found your neighbor having the stolen Mona Lisa in his/her living room?
Sounds a lot like you are looking for reasons to not thinking changing the law is possible by playing up some weird fabricated daftness. Don't see the point.
You are reading this all wrong, I am not saying changing laws is impossible, just that successful mass confiscation in a civil/lawful manner is. I am saying O’Rourke’s specific methodology is wrong...
But I would if I spotted an automatic rifle in their car.
Should Mariujana be legal in Sweden on the sole basis of people not reporting their neighbors?
You are twisting and spinning the discussion. It is like hearing republicans trying to spin/divert from the Ukraina-call.
As i said before, should bike-theft be legal because of bike-thefts not being cleared up?
Should having sex with someone under the legal age be legal, if most people won't report on it?
Should homemade nuclear reactors be legal just because no one will turn them in and no one will know if someone keeps one in their basement?
Should driving drunk be legal because 1 our of every 10.000 cases gets caught?
I understand you are pro-gun. But come on.
(I'm also not anti gun(?) - more anti-idiotic bullshit. Regardless of topic)
You are the one twisting this into something it is not...
Most likely he will not be elected and all he will have accomplished is undermining years of gun control efforts by those with actual well thought out ideas that could actually make a difference.
Also, I reject your opinion that there's become some common ground in approaches. If my opponents in progress only throw me a bone very infrequently (and it's always less than I ask for), why would I ask for anything less than the moon in each negotiation (when I even have the rare opportunity to get this on the table in the Republican-controlled Senate)? Can you at least concede that there are non-starters coming from both Republicans and Democrats today?
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1