How would a federal gun ban work? House to house searches?

[banned from Kos]

I am avidly pro 2nd Amendment. This post is just for a little logistical clarity.

Would you ban NEW gun sales only? That would leave about 500 million guns in the country.

Please discuss.

[Fresh_Start]

1. just let the NSA monitor communications...

from my experience gun-owners love to talk about their guns so should be good for finding 80-90% of them

[Fumesucker]

67. I have two reactions to your post..

The first is: BINGO!

The second is: Let?

[Zalatix]

85. Let me guess, "If you don't have anything to hide", right?

The NSA is bad enough as it is with their surveillance state behavior. They couldn't even catch James Holmes.

Since when have Democrats wanted the NSA to expand their powers???

[gregoire]

2. We have the TSA

That would be a good start. The FBI has the records of gun sales so they know what neighborhoods to start in. For example, where I live I have never heard someone say they have one of those things whereas if you picked a neighborhood in a more violent area such as Dallas or Charlotte, I'm sure you'd find bad things in nearly 10% of the houses.

[slackmaster]

36. Actually, the FBI doesn't have records of gun sales

[KansDem]

53. Really?

Who keeps the form you fill out when buying a gun?

[slackmaster]

57. The paper form stays in the files of the company who sold the weapon, as long as it's in business

After that, once the Federal Firearms License is expired or not renewed, the forms are sent to the BATFE for storage.

The BATFE stores them in a big warehouse, somewhere. I think it's in Ohio.



There is no process for indexing or digitizing them AFAIK. It would make sense from a cost control viewpoint to scan and shred them, but you know how efficient the federal government is.

That process has been in place since 1968, when the Gun Control Act created the federal licensing system for firearm manufacturers, dealers, importers, and collectors.

There is no federal registry for weapons not covered by the National Firearms Act.

[KansDem]

59. Thanks for the info!

Wow! Look at that warehouse! I'll wager that at least half those boxes contain files pertaining to Romney's finances...

[snooper2]

99. I was just thinking about how I play hide and go seek with my 2 year old

[ManiacJoe]

115. That is the warehouse from the movie

"Raiders of the Lost Ark", right?

[GreenStormCloud]

123. Yes. Have you watched "Warehouse 13", a TV series?

Even bigger, (computer generated) warehouse. It is a Sci-Fi/Fantasy Mystery/Comedy/Action series.

[loli phabay]

71. i dont think they have a record for private sales, at least when i bought my guns all i got

was a piece of paper from the seller saying i paid the agreed amount for said gun. I dont think they then forwarded it to the FBI, hell i doubt they even kept a copy and i sure as hell have no idea where i put them.

[slackmaster]

98. In most states, occasional private intrastate sales of used firearms are not regulated in any way

As long as no federal firearms licensee is involved in the transaction, no paperwork or record-keeping is required by law.

[leveymg]

3. Keep what ya got, register it, but no more manufacture, buying or selling of semiautos. Not a ban on

legal possession. People would still be able to buy and sell bolt-action hunting rifles, revolvers, and shotguns as they have been.

It would be ludicrous to try to take away all those semiautos, though. All that prying my cold, clammy finger stuff.

[The Magistrate]

4. If This Is Serious Question, Sir....

First step probably would be an amnesty for turning the things in, likely with cash payment.

Past that, it would be the usual processes of constriction. To be caught in possession would have serious, exemplary consequences, informants would come forward ( a very large proportion of those who would be die-hards have annoyed and offended many people ). Ammunition would be contraband, and the chemicals and materials needed to attempt its manufacture monitored closely. It would become progressively more of a risk to remain in possession, let alone attempt to use, the proscribed items.

[banned from Kos]

11. I shudder at the thought - that party (Dems) would face massive losses

but thanks for the input.

[The Magistrate]

12. You Asked How It Would Be Worked If Done, Sir

If such a law passed, it would only be because most people had come to support such a measure, and legislators had to respond to the people's will. No such law would be passed without this development. In such a political climate, opponents of the law would be isolated and ostracized, and seen as fit objects for the attention of law enforcement.

[banned from Kos]

13. Wily reply again. I agree with you.

A federal gun ban would be a disaster for the country and any party that tried to implement.

[The Magistrate]

20. It Would Be Of Great Benefit To the Country, Sir

It is a very bad idea to base policy concerning matters of life and death on fantasies of omnipotence; that necessarily rots the quality of public debate.

But no such law would be passed without wide popular support for it, and in the presence of such wide popular support, it would be opponents of the law, not its supporters and enactors, who would suffer politically.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

31. It would have to be very wide support

As it couldn't happen until/unless the 2nd Amendment is repealed.

[The Magistrate]

34. It Was Not Me Who Proposed the Hypothetical, Sir

Whether the thing is practical or possible is beside the point of the question: how would it be enforced.

But there is no public benefit in the present day, and much public detriment, to the copious quantities of fire-arms in circulation in our country.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

35. Understood

Just making a point that even politically expedient, it isn't even possible under the Constitution as it stands now.

[The Magistrate]

37. A Supreme Court In Theory Could Rule Otherwise, Sir

If the emphasis were taken to be 'well-regulated militia', five at least could fashion an argument that only persons enrolled in an organized state or federal militia had any right to possess firearms, and should such bodies not exist, or be extremely restrictive in their recruiting, well....

Not likely, obviously, but equal violence has been done to the plain words of text by lawyers in the past.

There is no constraint whatever on the High Court, not even its own precedents.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

40. I agree 100% with all your points

But in order to make it "stick", for lack of a better term, there would still have to be massive public support.

In my mind, the people always have the final say, via constitutional convention. If the SCOTUS, with 2 or 3 Obama appointees, did away with the individual right to bear arms next year (just an example, obviously), unless it was largely accepted, it could all be undone.

Again, just an academic exercise.

[HooptieWagon]

64. I disagree with your interpretation of milita.

There was no standing army, it was a citizen militia. The militia did not store weapons and issue them to the citizen members when called to duty, it was expected that citizens would own and keep their guns with them and bring them when summoned. Implicit is that the citizens would be using their guns for civilian use, hunting and defense, when they weren't on duty with the militia. And it does not appear that the authors of the Constitution intended to prohibit civilian ownership of guns extra-militia... there was no effort to ban or confiscate guns from non-militia at the time, nor for the next 150 years. Not until 1930s, when limits were first placed on automatic weapons b/c of number of WW1 surplus weapons being sold on civilian market.

[The Magistrate]

65. Not My Interpretation, Sir, Merely One A Pack Of Lawyers Might Weasel Out Of the Words If They Chose

There would be no gainsaying five Justices if they chose to rule thusly....

"Can't nobody here play this game?"

[HooptieWagon]

68. Five justices could ignore stare decisus

and ban or severely restrict civilian gun ownership, but that would be a shocking decision. I doubt such justices would even be appointed, nor would they be approved.

IMO, if severe gun control is passed it won't be through the courts or by repeal of 2A. It would be through the legislature with a huge amount of popular support. I don't see that happening. If the public is willing to accept 30,000+ auto deaths a year as a price for the convienence of driving a car, then I don't see a popular backlash to 10,000 gun-homicides a year as too steep a price for the RKBA.

[The Magistrate]

70. One Seldom Sees Flat-Out Endorsement Of Sacrificing 10,000 Lives Annually To The God RKBA, Sir

Good for you, for owning up to the dynamics of the thing, without flinching or looking away.

[friendly_iconoclast]

77. Not an endorsement, simply realpolitik.

[The Magistrate]

78. Do Not Craw-Fish Away From A Morally Respectable Action, Sir

You have stated that state of firearms ownership and laws regarding same in the United States are worth ten thousand human lives a year; that you consider the benefits obtained from the present state of firearms ownership and laws regarding it outweigh ten thousand human lives lost annually. That is a forthright and honest statement, that gives you some claim on regard as an honorable fellow, possessed of clear sight.

[friendly_iconoclast]

80. Wrong poster. And in any event, that is not what he said.

Poorly worded, and cynical as all get out- but a fair (if cold-blooded) estimation of popular political sentiment: People will accept much if they feel it only
falls upon others to suffer the negative results.

[The Magistrate]

82. I Plead the Lateness Of the Hour, Sir

And would apologize for complimenting you, if that were not carrying the thing a mite too far....

[HooptieWagon]

89. The public also accepts 20,000 annual deaths as the price

for walking. Yes, annual deaths by fall = twice as many as by gun-related homicide. Perhaps some day the people will wake up to this horror, and pass a law prohibiting people from leaving bed.

[LanternWaste]

90. There's a cost-benefit analysis to every actions we take.

There's a cost-benefit analysis to every actions we take. I would imagine that is a critical and relevant different difference between walking and shooting.

[HooptieWagon]

92. Agreed. And as we weigh the cost/benefit ratio,

we look at the chances of it happening to us, as an individual. Most (over half) gun-related crime victims have criminal records, as does most of those who commit them. Therefore, not only is your chance of dying by gunshot 1/3 that of dying in a car crash, and 1/2 that of dying by fall; but your chances diminish even further if you aren't a convicted felon or hang around them.

[The Magistrate]

108. Where Your Argument Fails, Sir, Is That You Cannot Produce The Benefit

The social utility of movement, indeed, the absolute necessity of movement, is readily evident, and is something to set against a cost in lives.

You will be hard put to describe a comparable social utility, let alone a comparable necessity, that is bestowed by wide-spread possession of firearms in our society today, that could sensibly be argued to be worth the difference in firearms deaths per hundred thousand persons to be noted in comparing, say, the United States and Germany, or the United States and Australia or Canada.

We will leave aside, too, that when people suggest laws and practices likely to reduce the lethality of automobile travel, no great claque stands and shrieks this is just the start of a slippery slope to forbidding people to own automobiles. Half a century ago, in a smaller population, traffic fatalities were considerably larger than they are today, and the difference is largely owing to various regulations and alterations in practice put in place with the intent to achieve this.

[HooptieWagon]

118. You make good points, Mr. Magistrate.

However, it remains that the majority of the population is against a drastic restriction of firearms. Perhaps a brave pol in a safe district can come out in favor, but as a party platform it would lead to disastrous results... not only wouldn't there be gun control, but sayanora to the rest: womans rights, healthcare, workers rights, voters rights, etc.

And again, there is no indication that severely restricting gun ownership would prevent another Aurora... England and Norway have some of the strictest gun control, yet have each had a mass murder in the past two years. And of course this is the 40th anniversary of the murder of Israeli athletes at the Munich Olympics. Even in the US, where the number of guns has boomed, although the percentage has dropped a tick, the number of gun-related homicides has gone down by almost half. Its pretty hard to argue a cost/benefit for restricting firearms, when the statistics prove otherwise.

[Mike_Valentine]

93. Just like all those other clear cut issues...

... that have been resolved and its supporters ostracized.

Healthcare, abortion, gay marriage etc.. etc...

IOW, Assuming that a law squeaked through there would still be a mass minority in strong opposition.

[sabrina 1]

69. So nice to know you're worried about Dems suffering 'massive losses' for something that no

Democrat has ever proposed.

What is the basis of this question?

Can you link to whatever it was that led you to believe that banning guns was ever a Dem proposition?

Or was this, as the Magistrate asked, a 'serious' question?

[Trunk Monkey]

15. First step probably would be an amnesty for turning the things in, likely with cash payment.

Stop right there.

500 million guns (I think that's a little high) at let's say 600$ each average.

I just put my calculator into error trying to figure how much money that would be but the Federal government doesn't have it.

Now what?

[The Magistrate]

21. Rather a High Figure, Sir: Local Buy-Backs Do Not Pay Nearly That Much

It is not necessary to pay market rates when giving someone an opportunity to avoid prosecution for a felony; even as little as twenty or fifty dollars would ease the transition greatly.

[Trunk Monkey]

25. Rather a High Figure, Sir: Local Buy-Backs Do Not Pay Nearly That Much

Local buy backs are voluntary you want my gun you pay fair market value for it.

BTW the most popular rifle of all time is the AR platform and they start at around 800$ apiece and average 1500$

You think the national debt's high now?

Plus WTF do you think the wingers are going to do when we ask congress for basically every dollar every printed from the beginning of the world to date?

The conservanazis will have a super majority until Hell freezes solid

[The Magistrate]

29. You Miss Several Points Here, Sir

Most important is that this is a hypothetical discussion: someone asked how, if the thing became law, it would be implemented. the discussion is simply about how a government would go about enforcing a law barring private ownership of guns were it placed on the books. There are a number of standard moves towards securing compliance and enforcing it. Solicitation of voluntary co-operation is an obvious first step.

Why you labor under the idea that a fair market price would have to be paid quite escapes me. The actual mechanism is that people are being told to turn proscribed articles in to the authorities to avoid arrest and prosecution for possessing them; calling it a buy-back and paying a token sum is simply giving people a more pleasant way to view it, and a bit of a sweetener into the bargain. It would, like locking a car door, serve to keep the amateurs out of the play. If you, or anyone else, wished to refuse co-operation and take your chances as an outlaw, that would be your own look-out. Most people have no idea how to exist outside the law for protracted periods, and the likelihood you are one of the exceptions to this seems small. One small word of advice: be sure everyone who knows you possess a firearm likes you, even loves and values you....

No such law would be passed without public support for it being at clamorous levels, sufficient to over-awe legislators who are used to responding to lobby groups instead. In such a climate, no one would give the north-faced end of a south-bound rat what 'wingers' or other hostile minorities thought; they would be so out of step with the popular mood necessary to bring such a law into being that they would be powerless and marginalized. Do talk of how bad it would be for some party or other, or how could it would be for some party or other, were such a law passed today, is quite beside the point. That is shifting the ground of the discussion from the technical question of how such a law would be implemented. In the present political climate, no such law could be passed.

[Trunk Monkey]

43. someone asked how, if the thing became law, it would be implemented.

That's true my apologies

Why you labor under the idea that a fair market price would have to be paid quite escapes me.

Because I'm assuming (the mother of all fuck ups) that the politicians that are trying to implement this jug fuck want to keep their jobs after it's all over.

and my wife just told me it's dinner time more later

[The Magistrate]

45. Take Your Time At Table, Sir

You are assuming such a law would be passed without great public pressure for and support for it, and in that case, no one would have reason to fear the consequences of enforcing the law, but rather would consider a hard line the best assurance of a good result at the ballot box.

[loli phabay]

72. dang that would be a lot of money that would need to be spent, would you buy the ammo as well?

[The Magistrate]

74. Damn, Ma'am: Forty, Fifty Posts a Day, is It?

What a busy little bee you are....

[loli phabay]

76. rofl nah just lots of puter time, and at night the other forums i am on are dead as a dormouse.

[joeybee12]

88. Good response, however, in your subject line I would note...

The OP is a BIG IF...this is not a serious OP...just a stirrer of things that are not mentioned in polite company, if you get my drift.

[The Magistrate]

105. That Is My View As Well, Sir....

[snooper2]

100. Jesus Trigg Christ see what happens when you go "Too-Far" left..

The theory holds true again, over and over...


You keep going to left the and eventually the political circle has to complete. You start ending up in fascist territory like some republicans and throw a mix of the libertarians in there too.

Beware of the political circle...Some folks have done the whole loop more than once in their lives, and it's really not goof for your subconscious

[The Magistrate]

107. Neither The Question, Sir, Nor The Answer, Has Anything To With Left Or Right Views

The question asked was how a hypothetical law would or could be enforced. A purely technical question, to which a purely technical answer was given. To point out how common techniques of law enforcement would likely be applied to enforce a given law says nothing about whether one agrees with the law of the actions in enforcement of it. A person who considered banning firearms anathema, and who was knowledgeable concerning various techniques of law enforcement and pacification, ought to provide an answer to this hypothetical question not too different from mine.

[snooper2]

110. And what do you think the Bill of Rights would look like after that is implemented?

[The Magistrate]

111. I Expect If You Took a Gander At It, Sir, It Would Look About The Same....

[snooper2]

112. sure dude LOL

[Enrique]

5. yes, house to house searches

[leftstreet]

10. Hey it could be a Jobs Program!

[oldhippie]

19. They would run out of cops .....

... to do the house to house searches before the die hard gun owners ran out of guns (or ammo.)

[Reasonable_Argument]

54. Not to mention

That after the first few dozen people started to resist they'd ask for the military to step in and then you've got a full blown civil war.

[oldhippie]

61. And I have been with the military my whole adult life .....

.... just recently retiring at Fort Hood. I guarantee that your civil war will also split the military. I know for certain that most troops will not go door to door collecting weapons, and at least half of their officers will not order them to do so. You might get some generals and COLs behind it politically, but the Captains and Lieutenants will mostly resist. A lot of them are in my gun club.

Any attempt to get the military to disarm US citizens is going to turn into a God-awful bloody mess.

[loli phabay]

73. yup you would have the same problem with local law enforcement

what locally elected sheriff would send his deputies to do this and how many local cops would tell them no way.

[mike_c]

6. ban or dramatically reduce new gun sales through restrictive laws...

...such as expensive mandatory liability insurance that would cover the payout for wrongful death suits, etc. And I mean insurance capable of paying out for something like the Aurora shootings without blinking an eye. Let the NRA operate it as a non-profit, for all I care, as long as it's required to fully pay out in the event of wrongful death and injury. Second, enact severe penalties for gun operation, i.e. use, without sufficient insurance to cover any liability that might arise from that use, no matter what the circumstance. Third, offer government purchase programs for gun owners who do not wish to pay the social costs of gun operation by maintaining high-cost liability insurance-- let them police themselves.

Sure, criminals would continue to keep their guns and not pay for liability insurance-- that's why we need draconian penalties for gun violence if the perpetrator is not capable of privately paying the full social costs of gun violence.

The problem isn't people who OWN guns, it's people that USE them.

[rl6214]

39. I know I will always get a good laugh out of your posts.

[tiny elvis]

62. hee heeeeeeee

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

102. I would imagine...

...that a safe (any safe; gun safe, regular safe...) would make an effective Faraday cage.

Naivete is just so... charming.

[HooptieWagon]

94. Yes, we all see how effective pot prohibition has been.

Thanks for the laugh.

[chowder66]

8. I doubt there would ever be a full ban

but say one of these was implemented;
One handgun allowed per household in all places that are not rural
Rural households get one handgun and maybe a couple of shotguns at a time.
There can be exceptions if one can show why but not for self-defense, or it has to be for self defense only.
Have special licenses, programs for collectors.
Allow leasing guns at gun ranges or you can bring your own.

I'm just trying to set up scenarios.
Start with programs that educate first, then a program to voluntarily turn in guns or a buyback program.
Keep educating
I think it would be impossible to get everyone to turn in all of their guns but we can provide a path for those
who don't want to give up all of their guns to become collectors. It should be a fairly costly and difficult process but not
unattainable.
Those who do not fall into these categories would be subject to heavy penalities and possible legal action however it should probably
be a case by case situation. Not sure about this part.

This is just a scenario and not thought out to any particular degree. Just thoughts really.

[hughee99]

9. A good question, even leaving out the 2nd amendment,

I'm not sure how they could effectively do it given the logistics. Well, we do have a lot of unemployed people. I guess the government could hire all of them to search neighbors houses while they're at work.

At best, they could outlaw the sale of new guns and prohibit anyone from carrying one in public (heavy fines, jail time, etc...), but without violating other amendments, I can't see how they could possibly collect what's out there, and many people (a majority, I'd guess) wouldn't be willing to simply turn them in.

They tried outlawing booze (for a while) and drugs and look how well that's gone. They can put people in jail, but it doesn't resolve the issue.

[JoePhilly]

16. Grade the licenses. A standard drivers license does not allow ME to drive an 18 wheeler.

The same should hold true with guns.

You get a graded hand gun license when you prove you can handle it.

You want something that fire more rounds, more powerful, you have to reach a new grade level.

You want to own a cannon, fine, here are the license requirements.

Clearly we can restrict arms ... if we can't, then I can legally own a nuke. Which I can't.

Its a graded scale.

Prove you can handle the weapon responsibly, and you can have it.

[xmas74]

46. That's been my argument the entire time.

My idea of gun control is stricter background checks and mandatory, in person classes. You sign up for the class for the weapon you want, an in-depth background check is run, and then you take the class. The class includes safety, care of the weapon, laws of the land, and plenty of hands-on practice with a licensed instructor. The instructor sees how well you handle the weapon and can approve the permit. A different class for each level of weapon, along with another background check, etc. And each class up the scale requires more time in class.

I've had three different posters make comments about hunter's safety classes and how that should be a-okay. It's not. In most states you no longer have to sit in a classroom to take hunter's safety-it's an online course. Of course, when that was mentioned (and the link was provided to both the online class and the link coming from my home state's DNR page) the argument was quickly dropped.

[JoeyT]

55. That's actually a really good idea.

Easily one of the best I've ever heard on the subject. I'd be 100% ok with that. I'd be totally ok with it applying to rifles and shotguns too.

[Trunk Monkey]

17. Q. How would a federal gun ban work?

A. It wouldn't

[cali]

18. hey genius, who the FUCK is even suggesting anything of the kind. Try no one

duh. At least no one in government and no gun control advocates.

Stupid fucking gun shit.

[banned from Kos]

22. You support my point - Bloomberg says Obama and Romney should debate it

Bullshit.

Let the states have at it.

They will lose like they did in Heller.

[soccer1]

24. The states did not lose in Heller.

[11 Bravo]

42. States weren't involved in Heller. It was the District of Columbia, or as the Repugs call it ...

"Our Wingnut Legislative Playground". Heller would have never gotten out of district court had it involved the rights of people who ... you know ... have actual representation in Congress.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

44. Meh, I'm not sure

The individual right has been debated back and forth for ages...I think that so long as there was anyone willing to keep fighting, SCOTUS would have taken it.

[former9thward]

47. I think you are somewhat behind the times.

McDonald v. Chicago 130 S. Ct. 3020 (2010) which came after Heller applied the 2nd Amendment to the states and local governments. I think Chicago has actual representation in Congress.

[11 Bravo]

49. I think you are somewhat deficient in reading comprehension. The post to which I responded ...

specifically cited Heller. Therefore, that's the case I mentioned. But thanks for playing.

[former9thward]

60. Nice attempt to cover.

You said: States weren't involved in Heller. Heller would have never gotten out of district court had it involved the rights of people who ... you know ... have actual representation in Congress.

McDonald obviously did get out of district court and involved the rights of people who have actual representation in Congress. You attempted to make the poster think the states aren't bound to accept the 2nd amendment. You are the only one playing here.

[ellisonz]

66. +1

[soccer1]

23. You mean a ban on guns other than handguns?

Like when anything is "banned" there is a starting point....from that point no sales of those guns. The gov. could offer to buy existing weapons. The millions of already owned weapons that are not turned in to the gov or bought by the gov would remain in the hands of owners. If they were legally purchased, no problem, I would think. Over decades and centuries there would probably be museums dedicated to displaying all those weapons with all the accompanying info that guided tours provide. I imagine that over the centuries, guns will be found at excavation sites.....kind of like digging up dinosaur bones.

From my perspective, any banning of weapons is done(would be done) from the long view perspective. Over decades and centuries society would adjust and be better off for it.

When dangerous chemicals used in agriculture have been banned, the long view is what's considered. Certainly those chemicals still exist and some people might use them(illegally), but eventually the soil rejuvenates and heals. Meanwhile, non toxic methods and ingredients are found for enriching soil and controlling pests.

[madinmaryland]

26. It's a moot point. The NRA won.

FUCK THE NRA.

[jberryhill]

27. Like the Alcohol Ban, the Marijuana Ban, the Gold Ban...

In the course of our history, we have banned a lot of things at the federal level, including alcohol, marijuana, private ownership of gold, being Japanese, and so forth.

Some of these worked better than others.

[quaker bill]

28. You would never get all of them

Prohibition does not work on anything. The gun market has a pretty dark side already, it would just expand.

[Motown_Johnny]

30. Nobody is suggesting that. Straw Man Argument.

Here is how I see the problem.

Those of us who want stricter gun control legislation are focusing on the long term. It will take decades, and even generations, to make a significant change in this nation. We know that. We also know that in the short term there may even be negative effects from this legislation. For example, if we announce we will ban the sale of high capacity magazines as of the first of next year then we know sales of these magazines will go up in the short term. We accept that fact but are focused on there being fewer ten and twenty years from now then there are now.

Those of you who don't want stricter gun control legislation are focusing on the short term. Some even suggest that if more people were walking around with guns then there would somehow be fewer gun deaths. You think that the rare case of a crime being stopped by a gun owner justifies all the crimes that are committed with guns. To me it looks like you want a quick fix and don't care about the long term damage that is done to this country because of it. Decades, and generations, from now things will be worse because we don't have the courage to act now.

It is simply a matter of focus. Long term solutions which contains some short term problems or short term solutions which contains some long term problems.

I've made my choice.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

33. I disagree with your POV but

a great post nonetheless.

[Motown_Johnny]

50. Thank you

It is nice to see that we have some common ground. Maybe a mature conversation on this issue is possible after all.

[TheKentuckian]

120. A mature conversation is only possible after it is established what "reasonable" is.

There is a wide variety of stances from less regulation than we have now to the status quo to mandatory education to reinstating the AWB to clip restrictions to various high tech ammo and gun tracing features to more strict background checks to various forms of bans to confiscation schemes and everyone thinks they have the "reasonable" answer and anyone who thinks differently is not only unreasonable but stupid, dishonest, and/or wicked in some fashion.

There can be nothing akin to a mature dialog until people are willing to listen to each other and accept arguments and perspectives without name calling and emotionalism.

Some level of acceptance that massacres are horrible and if at all possible should be mitigated and that an effort to curtail or end a civil liberty is being made to reach that end. Actually, more respect for the perspectives than acceptance.

There is no dialog in a Tower of Babel with all kinds of different "languages" being spoken, shouting past each other.

Folks may never reach a common ground but a little respect and acknowledgment of varying perspectives at least allows the possibility.

[GreenStormCloud]

106. You are conflating legal with illegal carry.

You think that the rare case of a crime being stopped by a gun owner justifies all the crimes that are committed with guns.

The crimes are comitted by ILLEGAL carriers, commonly called violent criminals. Legal carriers rarely commit such crimes.

Texas Dept. of Public Safety annually publishes the statistics on felony convictions of those licensed to carry. Those who legally carry save more lives than they illegally take. http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/rsd/chl/reports/convrates.htm

Stopping legal carry will have no impact on illegal carry.

[Motown_Johnny]

109. This nut in Aurora was a legal carrier.

Making distinctions like that are part of the problem.

Your (and Texas's) faith based policies are also part of the problem.



Maybe watching a short video will help.

Rachel Maddow: More Guns Does Not Equal Less Crime

http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/rachel-maddow-more-guns-does-not-equal-les

[GreenStormCloud]

121. Faith based? No, statistics based.

I DID NOT claim that more guns = less crime. Please refrain from putting your words in my mouth. I claimed that in Texas CCWer save more innocent lives than we take. Here are the stats from the TX Dept of Public Safety.

In Texas the detailed statistics are compiled annually by the Department of Public Safety and published on the internet. It is likely that the Texas experience with Concealed Handgun Licenses would be about the same in other states. The last year for which statistics are published is 2009 for convictions. http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/rsd/chl/index.htm

In 2009 there were 402,914 people who had CHLs. Out of those people there was exactly one (1) murder conviction and no manslaughter convictions. Out of the general population there were 600+ convictions for murder in its various forms and manslaughter.
So very, very few CHL holders go bad, but some do.

The DPS also publishes an annual Crime in Texas Report. http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/crimereports/09/citCh3.pdf
From that report, page 15:
Statistics on murder circumstances, victims, and
victim/offender relationships on the next page
include justifiable homicides. Justifiable homicide
is the killing of a felon by a peace officer in the
line of duty or the killing (during the commission
of a felony) of a felon by a private citizen. In
2009, there were 106 justifiable homicides, of
which, 52 were felons killed by private citizens,
and 54 were felons killed by police.

In Texas all homicides, even those that are clearly self-defense, have to go before a grand jury which will rule if the killing was justified or not. So those 52 justified private citizen homicides were ones in which the defender genuinely and legitimately feared for his life. Since most shootings are merely woundings there would be a much larger number of justified woundings in which the defender genuinely feared for his life, but that number is not kept. Obviously there are dozens of cases each year in which a CHL holder uses their gun to save themselves.

Dozens of innocent lives saved versus one innocent killed shows the concealed carry is working in Texas. As already stated, there is no reason to believe that other CCW states have a different experience.

Legal concealed carry saves innocent lives.

[GreenStormCloud]

122. Holmes did NOT have a CCW. He was NOT a legal carrier.

He broke existing gun laws to do what he did.

When you have to lie to make your points then you have a losing argument.

[TheCowsCameHome]

32. Ask Wayne LaPierrre, Supreme Commander of the Fruitcakes

He's the one spreading this bullshit.

[Kaleva]

38. Local LEO in rural areas may not even enforce such a law.

The two candidates running for sheriff where I live both say they are pro-RKBA.

[loli phabay]

41. i think they also dont want to send their deputies door to door

As someone upthread said you wojld run out of police long before weapons as a lot of people would fight. Plus not sure if the states would go along with it not to say the political bloodbath anyone suggesting it would face. Then what happens if the same polititions decide that other rights are inconvenient to the public good.

[Serve The Servants]

79. I'm sure they'd contract out too.

Have Blackwater/Xe/Academi banging on your door.

That would be totally rad.

[loli phabay]

81. might be a worse idea, i can see people opening fire on these guys much quicker than their local dep

the attrition rate on both sides would be enormous.

[JDPriestly]

48. I don't think there will ever be a federal gun ban. It wouldn't work because

hunting is a popular sport in many parts of the country.

There could be a law requiring people to register and insure all kinds of guns. I would expect that if that ever passed (unlikely but possible depending on whether we have more events like Aurora) there would be a penalty for guns found in the hands of criminals that had not been registered or insure. In addition, I would expect and that people could be fined and required to register and insure guns if found with guns that had not been registered and insured.

Also, all sales of weapons and ammunition over a certain quantity would be recorded. Sales of huge amounts of ammunition and large sales of ammunition or guns to one person would attract the attention of authorities and be investigated.

That's all I would expect, and even that is unlikely.

The main point would be to know where guns are and to be able to identify the legal owner of a gun that wandered into the hands of a criminal or someone who should not have a gun.

[Scootaloo]

51. Three aspects.

1) Bar sales of new firearms.
2) Restrict ammo sales for "grandfathered" guns. License and register, similar to how Switzerland handles its ammo.
3) Federal trade-in option, turn in your firearm for X amount of cash, no questions.

There will still be guns out there of course, but it's a long-term goal thing.

[JoeyT]

52. Remember that drug war thing?

It'll work pretty much like that, all the way around. It will cost an unreal amount of money, put a shitload of people in prison (The vast majority of whom will be non-violent.), and do little to nothing about the problem.

So far the best (and I use that term loosely) argument I've seen would be informants. Which would work right up until people started reporting anti-gun people as gun owners and they find out concussion grenades at three in the morning are hell on property values.

Absolutely every bad thing that happens with the war on drugs would be happening with the war on guns.

[Fumesucker]

91. You say that like it's a bad thing...

It's hard to find something with more bipartisan support in Congress, the White House and the courts than the drug war. Federal level politicians are practically universally for the drug war.

Dennis Kookinich is retiring so that pretty much leaves Ron Paultard as the only real anti drug war voice in DC. Kookinich is a controversial figure on DU, there's plenty of DUers that hate him and what is thought of Paultard on DU is definitely not suitable for work..

[bluestateguy]

56. Well, if you're not doing anything illegal, then you have nothing to worry about, now do you?

And while government agents are in your house looking for illegal guns, they can poke around your computers, file cabinets and look around for drugs.

Yes, this is bitter sarcasm.

[kestrel91316]

58. That's irrelevant. A "federal gun ban" would be unconstitutional,

but I think you knew that when you posted this glaringly obvious flamebait.

[Brisket]

63. While they're at it, they can search for drugs, pornography and underfed cats. What a great idea.

[NickB79]

75. Trick question. The party that tried to pass that ban would be voted out en mass

And never see any kind of legislative power again for a generation.

Then the party opposed to gun control would gain so much power they'd overturn virtually ALL gun laws just out of spite.

When the dust settled, there'd be machine gun vending machines on street corners and mandatory you-must-purchase-1-gun-per-month laws in effect.

[Sancho]

83. No...you would need a license to possess a gun...

1.) background check
2.) mental health cleared
3.) training class

If you possessed a gun without the license (and regular renewal), then just like a DUI:

1.) you loose the license privilege
2.) you go to jail, maybe get out on some kind of probation
3.) you pay a big fine
4.) you likely loose homeowners insurance, etc.

If you want to possess a gun, you would be free to do so under well-regulated conditions. Otherwise, turn in the gun or sell it or destroy it.

Your post indicates you haven't thought about this very much. Maybe you should...

[azurnoir]

84. I believe such a law would most likely have much the same results as the Volstead Act n/t

[aquart]

86. I love truly stupid questions.

My all-time favorite is "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?"

But yours is good, too.

[Ichingcarpenter]

87. The well thought out questioned resulted from

?w=600

[4th law of robotics]

95. Metal detectors and TSA agents at every door

including your front door.

You can have guns but you can't walk outside with them.

It's the only way to be safe.

/also no liquids over 2 ounces. Or do you hate children and want to see them die?

[lunatica]

96. Why yes. House to house searches and FEMA camps for resisters

So be careful OK?

LOL!

[bullwinkle428]

97. Is this the "adult" equivalent of spinning on your back in the Wal-Mart toy aisle,

throwing a tantrum?

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

101. Aside from a federal ban being unconstitutional based on the 10th Amendment...

That's simple... it wouldn't.

Anyone who thinks Americans will stand for the government confiscation of at least $100,000,000,000 worth of private property should really stop huffing that glue.

There are about 300,000,000 firearms in private hands in the US which is about half of all the private owned firearms on Earth. About 86,000,000 Americans own one or more guns.

[unblock]

103. a ban on gun SALES is rather different from a ban on gun OWNERSHIP.

neither scenario is remotely likely, but a ban on gun sales is far easier to implement (notwithstanding that a black market would quickly emerge).

even if there were a ban on gun ownership, law enforcement would be left to prioritize enforcement along with other laws.

random or comprehensive door-to-door searches (i.e., without probably cause) are prohibited by the 4th amendment.

they'd most just have voluntary returns and confiscate guns found in the course of enforcing other laws.



but again, this is all pretty much fantasy. the vast majority of people who are opposed to guns aren't looking to ban ownership, or even sales, entirely. they're only looking for greater reasonable regulation.

[One_Life_To_Give]

104. Like Prohibition

Manufacturers move operations out of the country. Private individuals and criminal enterprises form to manufacture domesticly and run in foreign production. People like Capone make a fortune.

[Zorra]

114. Start with a powerful police agency -- The Dept. of Internal Control and Confiscation of the United

States, (or DICCUS for short).

[div style="display:inline; background-color:#FFFF66;"][font color="blue" size="size" face="face"]SUBMISSION. SAFETY. SECURITY.[/font]

Then, pass legislation suspending the 4th Amendment, citing that it is necessary for the safety and security of the nation. Name the legislation the Patriot Act or the National Defense Authorization Act Good Citizen Domestic Security Act (don't think they've used that one yet). Attach a [font color="red" size="size" face="face"]SUNSET PROVISION[/font] to the act, knowing full well that the Sun is never really going to Set on the legislation.

Search every dwelling thoroughly. Confiscate all firearms or any other illegal items/persons. Warrants are no longer no necessary. Set up security roadblocks between all state border crossings. Use gun/drug/immigrant/criminal sniffing police dogs at every checkpoint, along with x-ray surveillance of all persons and vehicles

Arrest anyone in possession of illegal items/substances/etc, convict them, and put them in prison for 3 years.

Do you have a neighbor you suspect may have a firearm or marijuana? Call the DICCUS HOTLINE at 911-555-5555!

Remember, there is a $500 Reward for each conviction!


Don't be afraid to give up your rights! We live in a different world today. Multi-national Corporations now run the government. They need to be free from all fear of democratic revolution in order to keep people safe from democracy. The Corporate State knows what is best for you.

[div style="display:inline; background-color:#FFFF66;"][font color="blue" size="size" face="face"]SUBMISSION. SAFETY. SECURITY.[/font]

[font color="red" size="size" face="face"]Obey[/font]

[Marinedem]

116. WOW!

Awesome post.

You forgot to talk about how the 1% knows better and is more civilized, so they will be exempted.

[Zorra]

117. Jefferson: "Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself.

Can he, then be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the form of kings to govern him? Let history answer this question."
Thomas Jefferson

It appears that history, and our ruling 1% "angels in the form of kings" have resoundingly answered his question:

47% of Congress Members Millionaires — a Status Shared by Only 1% of Americans
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/11/47-of-congress-members-millionaires-a-status-shared-by-only-1-of-americans/

Of course, the 1% are exempt from the laws under which we the people are subject. They own the lawmakers, and justice/law enforcement agencies as well. And they've made it so we basically can't do anything about it without engaging in mass, innovative, non-violent direct action.

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission

I'm a yellowdog Democrat from birth. A radical, liberal/progressive, non-violent FDR Democrat and a peaceful Occupier. While I see valid reason for some very necessary, stringent gun control regulations, I also see many good reasons to not make these regulations too restrictive on honest, law abiding citizens. My main reason for not wanting these laws to be unreasonably restrictive is because plutarchs (the 1%) control our government. I most sincerely believe that this is an excellent reason for me to not want to see firearms regulations overly restrictive. Some will disagree, saying "oh, the tyrants are too powerful, their weapons are too powerful you can't fight them off with deer rifles, so you might as well submit to their wishes, because there is nothing you can do". Well, I prefer to make that decision for myself, thank you very much.

I want the 1% to be fully aware that we the people have hundreds of millions of firearms.

"When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty."
Thomas Jefferson



I repeat: Of course, the 1% are exempt from the laws under which we the people are subject. They own the lawmakers, and justice/law enforcement agencies as well. And they've made it so we can't do anything about it without engaging in mass, innovative, non-violent direct action.

Time for ‘Banksters’ to be prosecuted
snip---
We are five years since Wall Street’s excesses blew up the global economy, and the scandals just keep coming. Each scandal reinforces the need for tough regulation and tough enforcement. Each scandal proves over again the importance of breaking up the big banks. Each scandal raises the question of personal responsibility. How come borrowers are prosecuted for defrauding their banks, but bankers seem never to be prosecuted for defrauding their customers? George Osborne, the conservative British chancellor of the Exchequer, put it succinctly: “Fraud is a crime in ordinary business — why shouldn’t it be so in banking?” He is demanding action: “Punish wrongdoing. Right the wrong of the age of irresponsibility.”

We haven’t heard anything like that out of Washington. Libor-gate once more exposes how lax this administration has been on the banks — and how irresponsible and, frankly, craven Republicans and Mitt Romney have been on this question. Romney echoes the know-nothing Republican right’s call for repealing what little bank regulation has been passed since the financial collapse — primarily the Dodd-Frank legislation. He touts deregulation in the wake of a global economic calamity caused in large part by the misguided belief that banks can police themselves.

Not surprisingly, Romney and Republicans are raking in donations from Wall Street. But they are catering to banksters that know no shame. For example, one of the most powerful Wall Street lobbying groups is the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association, which has been leading the drive to weaken Dodd-Frank and exempt derivatives from transparency. Its chair was Jerry del Missier, the COO of Barclays, who lost his job and apparently his chairmanship in Libor-gate. Why are we not surprised?

Last January, Barclays’ hard-edged CEO Robert E. Diamond Jr. announced that it was time for bankers to get their brass back. “There was a period of remorse and apology for banks,” he declared. “I think that period is over.” More and more of the customers defrauded by bankers might agree. They are tired of fake remorse and ritual apology. That period is over. It is time for prosecutions to begin.

If we ever succeed in overturning Citizen's United, ending all lobbying of elected officials, and completely remove wealth and profit as a motivator for government policy and action, only then would I ever consider that extreme firearm regulation might be a reasonable suggestion.
☮ccupy

[Dash87]

119. It wouldn't. That's why no one wants it.