Let's just get it out in the open - who supports confiscation of firearms?

[NaturalHigh]

This discussion thread was locked as off-topic by BlackSkimmer (a host of the General Discussion forum).

Why not just be honest? A few here have already expressed a desire to confiscate firearms. How many here hold that opinion?

Full disclosure - I'm a strong supporter of the right to keep and bear arms.

[daleanime]

1. Then why ask for a conversation.....

you're not interested in?

[NaturalHigh]

13. Actually I'm very interested.

[daleanime]

63. Interested, maybe....

amused, probably....

willing to do any thing, unlikely.

The way you frame the question shows where your sympathies lay. I'm done talking to a wall.

We may have a discussion some other day on some other subject, but not this one. Now go ahead and say what ever you want to, see if you can cover over the blood for another day, I'm out of here.

[kentuck]

87. The Democratic response:

The people know where we stand. It is up to the Republicans if anything is to be done. Do the people want it or not? The people will have to let the Republicans know that something needs to be done. It is not good enough to sit on their duffs and do nothing. The Democrats have made their position very clear, in my opinion.

[bemildred]

2. LOL.

[NaturalHigh]

47. Brilliant retort.

[bemildred]

50. Brilliant thread. nt

[NaturalHigh]

54. Thank you!

[Rex]

3. You mean like the NRA fantasy of Obama going door to door, taking all our guuuuuunnns?

Surely you cannot be serious.

[NaturalHigh]

49. That's hardly what I implied, now is it?

[mythology]

94. Actually that is the caricature you are presenting

But admitting that puts you in a bad light.

[Rex]

158. IKR

If worded right it sounds just like it and i notice no real elabotration. I rate 'Obama coming for my guns' up there with birthers.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

4. I do.

[Ed Suspicious]

5. I'm for taking them from anyone who is paranoid enough to think this would actually happen.

[NightWatcher]

18. Best answer ever. If you think they're coming for your gun, you're too paranoid to keep it

[beevul]

133. All the people whos guns were confiscated during katrina.

All the people whos guns were confiscated during katrina.

Too paranoid to keep a gun?


What about SKS owners who had to register with the state of CA, which later used the registration lists to CONFISCATE them?






Are they paranoid too?

[NaturalHigh]

23. I never said I thought it would actually happen.

I'm just curious how many here favor it.

We constantly read "nobody wants to take your guns." I would like to know how true that is. So far in this thread we know that sentiment is not unanimous to say the least.

[KingCharlemagne]

6. Isn't your OP and thread a violation of the ToS? I thought all this gun-nuttery was confined to

a specific area on DU, so as not to waste time and bandwidth.

[Lizzie Poppet]

8. Um...did you somehow fail to notice the dozens of gun threads in GD right now?

The rule (which has always been a bit of a joke) is suspended when there's a big gun-related national story going on.

[kentuck]

91. The "Discussionists" have slowly infiltrated DU by coming thru the RKBA group...?

It sure seems like it sometimes...

[Lizzie Poppet]

99. Well...virtually all of the gun threads in GD are virulently anti-gun.

Same as it ever was...this happens in the wake of every high-profile shooting.

[NaturalHigh]

10. Take a look around GD today then get back to me.

[elehhhhna]

21. Yep

[orpupilofnature57]

7. Not me, I was blocked from that group last year, BUT even though I will never own a gun

knowing that the military, police and criminals would be the only ones with the guns, would be worse than the tyranny by a police state government existing without fear of reprisal .

[beevul]

9. Which group were you blocked from? N/t

[krispos42]

24. Not the one I host.

I think I've banned a total of 4 to date, and two of those have been given the granite cookie.

Hell, I hadn't banned anybody in.... Months? Over a year?

[Duckhunter935]

33. And we thank you for that

It is great to have a group that allows both sides of the debate to be expressed.

[orpupilofnature57]

44. Sorry banned twice during the Trayvon Martin murder for 24 hrs, not blocked I have 2 there too

[orpupilofnature57]

37. Wrong !! Banned 5 TIMES the Gun Control & RKBA GROUP my fault not blocked

[beevul]

136. How am I wrong for asking what group you were banned from? N/T

[orpupilofnature57]

143. NO NO not you, Me for saying Blocked, I was banned a temporary thing .

[Duckhunter935]

140. I fail to understand

I am blocked from one group. I do not know what you mean by being banned several times. I just am somewhat confused. Thanks, I do not want to seem like a pain.

[orpupilofnature57]

144. I was banned for 48 hrs, blocked is kicked out from entering group at all .

[Duckhunter935]

150. Thanks, never heard of banned for time

I am one of the many blocked. I can view but not participate. The insults allowed by the host in that group are not good for DU in my opinion.

[orpupilofnature57]

152. I agree, 1 person can have you kicked out, that's Wrong .

[Duckhunter935]

153. Host rules

In my opinion, a host is abusing it but he is the host. The one that gets me is a block for a self deleted posting that was only up for a couple of minutes when the poster discovered he posted in the wrong group. Could not be an SOP violation as not post was there. The host blocked anyway. For what, only the shadow knows.....

[elehhhhna]

25. that battles lost already. they have mil-grade armaments.

[madokie]

11. I do, I do, I do

can I make it I DO, yes I can.

[BillZBubb]

12. I do not, but

I totally disagree with you on what the 2nd Amendment means. I support strong gun control.

[ann---]

14. I think paying people

a generous amount for their weapons would be better - and
only allowing shotguns for hunting and protection.

Ban on all handguns - except for police. Military is a separate
organization and NO military weapons outside of the bases and
on the battlefield.

That would get my support.

Maybe then, the madness will stop. The Brits have it right.

[BainsBane]

26. You should see the gun crowd cry about gun buy back programs

worrying about the poor guns that won't be "re-homed." I shit you not.

[G_j]

31. maybe they can find foster homes

for the poor little guns..

[BainsBane]

36. They seriously would like to

but the point of gun buy backs is of course is to get them off the streets.

[Eleanors38]

67. Crying? Collector regularly post up near the "buy backs" & offer better prices...

Wish one would come my way. I have a dud and could use the grocery money.

[Duckhunter935]

75. I have an old

Chinese knock off 9MM that is worth about 20 bucks I could turn in. Got it for free from an army buddy like 15 years ago.

[enlightenment]

15. Define that.

Confiscate all firearms? No. Confiscate automatic and semi-automatic weapons? Yes. Handguns? Yes. More than one long rifle per household? Yes.

[Shamash]

113. What -other- technologies over a century old do you feel are too modern to be possessed? n/t

[enlightenment]

114. Gatling guns.

I don't think anyone needs one of those.

I answered the question posed by the OP and have no intention of further engaging in some inane argument that has nothing to do with my response.

Have a nice day.

[ghostsinthemachine]

16. Honestly, not me.......

In fact I would fight to the death to see that it never happened.

We do need to do something but that is not the answer.

[Runningdawg]

17. I do not support confiscation

not only do I not support it, currently, it would be unconstitutional and I don't believe for one minute there are enough votes for amendment. 2nd option - the PTB could declare martial law, start busting down doors and begin a blood bath, unlike the USA has ever seen before. I don't see that happening either. Also like it or not, there IS some truth that the reason mainland USA has never seen the boots of a foreign enemy on it's ground is because our private citizens are armed. The great majority of those, legally and responsibly.

[NaturalHigh]

65. Well thought-out post. Thank you.

[kentuck]

96. I'm not so sure that is why we have "never seen the boots of a foreign enemy"?

I think the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans might have had something to do with it?

[blue neen]

126. Who needs boots when they can use airplanes?

.....?

[thucythucy]

155. "...mainland USA has never seen the boots of a foreign enemy

on its ground"?

I guess the British were wearing loafers when they burned down the White House and Capitol during the War of 1812.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

19. I do. Even from the cops.

[closeupready]

64. Not "even"; rather, "But first".

[BainsBane]

20. What is the point of this?

It isn't even constitutional so why would you worry about it? Are you so threatened by thoughts you can't control?

[NaturalHigh]

29. The point is discussion.

Are you so threatened by discussion that you can't control?

[BainsBane]

35. Whatever

Looks to me like you're just trying to drum up ammunition to use against background checks and other constitutional gun control. I noticed it really bothers gun folk that people express views that don't elevate guns above all else. I guess that's why the NRA is working so assiduously to chip away at the First Amendment.

[NaturalHigh]

40. I am personally a strong supporter of the First Amendment.

Can you say the same?

[Duckhunter935]

38. some are as they require a safe haven

to limit it. Sad in my opinion.

[NaturalHigh]

42. I think I just might know to what group you are referring.

[cherokeeprogressive]

39. Magic 8 Ball says... Without a doubt. n/t

[Jefferson23]

22. That would be awesome, but I would be satisfied if we can see guns registered and

the laws passed Obama tried for after Newtown. I would like very much for there to be
a counter to the NRA and their affiliates that ask the question of why would
anyone want to take a gun to Starbucks and to Walmart. I would like a very public
campaign to dial back the fear mongering they do to help sell more guns.

But in an ideal dream state, yea..they would definitely come and get your guns
if it were up to me.

[NaturalHigh]

27. Thank you for your honesty.

I totally disagree with you, but your honesty is refreshing.

[Jefferson23]

32. You're very welcome. n/t

[Duckhunter935]

28. Not me

But I am curious who will have the courage to say they are. I think with full enforcement and sensible laws, we can do more to limit the tragedies.

[arely staircase]

30. I support sensible gun control proposals like extended background checks

and I am open to other suggestions like bans on high capacity magazines. But I believe in an individual constitutional right to own guns. But that right, like others, is not absolute.

[alarimer]

34. Yes.

I favor scrapping the 2nd Amendment altogether. And banning individual ownership of guns.

Fuck the NRA apologists, fuck gun owners.

[Duckhunter935]

43. not very nice of you

I would never say to you "fuck you" like you just did to me.

Truly insulting.

[NaturalHigh]

46. Your remarks are insulting but refreshingly honest.

Most gun banners don't have the courage to profess their beliefs outright.

[Lizzie Poppet]

53. "fuck gun owners"

In other words, "fuck lots of DU'ers and (literally) millions of Democrats."

Well isn't that special?

[Duckhunter935]

55. and they say no insults

are never directed at firearms owners. I am sure the controller crowd will be here any minute to chastise that poster.

[Lizzie Poppet]

57. Some animals are more equal than others.

[Duckhunter935]

61. agreed

[irisblue]

66. alert results

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Typically I would not alert on this but the reply was to a DUer gun owner and saying FU to a DUer is not cool. Other DUers noticed it too.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sun Jun 21, 2015, 02:17 PM, and the Jury voted 0-7 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: alarimer was getting swarmed/baited by Duckhunter
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Not nice, but it's not directed toward a specific gun owner.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Obviously feels strongly about his/her views.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: The OP doesn't say they're a gun owner, so this post is too generalized to be referring to a specific person.

[Lizzie Poppet]

72. Some animals are more equal than others.

Use the exact same language (with the exact same applicability to both DU'ers and to millions of Democrats), only changing "owners" to "controllers," and it would likely be 7-0 to hide...unless some of DU's second class citizens were on the jury.

[irisblue]

78. as Skinner has said, you take your chances.

[Lizzie Poppet]

82. Yep.

I think the jury system's pretty fubar...but with such a busy site, it's unreasonable to expect mods/admins to be able to keep track of all the alerts. It's probalby the best choice we have if we're going to continue to be able to alert on nasty posts..

[Duckhunter935]

86. I agree

It could be worse. The thing I do not like are the alert stalkers. I am sure Skinner is aware of a couple.

[Electric Monk]

79. Awesome jury!

[Duckhunter935]

83. I am sure you said the same

at your 7-0 loss

[Electric Monk]

101. It is so flattering how you obsess about me, day in and day out. I'm so glad you care. nt

[Duckhunter935]

116. Do not obsess

But like to be informed about some of my very good friends.

I do have to be extra careful around my friends though.

[Duckhunter935]

81. not surprising

telling DU members "fuck you" is allowed as long as it is against a certain group here. Same with most of the insults, that is one reason I rarely alert.

[edgineered]

112. Any competitive sport has champions

Take for example the fastest car at the races may not have broken any rules, there are a few tricks whether it is racing, politics, or posting on message boards.

There is not a rule for being here that says one cannot have multiple jury blacklists. I'm not making any accusations, just wondering outloud if sometimes a poster will use *list b* before joining certain discussions, and if *list b* may be populated exclusively by members of a certain group.

Maybe what I'm really trying to do is stress the importance of jury blacklists, and not that such a questionable tactic was used here.

[irisblue]

129. what is a multiple jury blacklist/ a list b blacklist?

I'm a member of DU, I can put up to 15 posters on my blacklist. Non members get 5. You put people on there you do not trust to be fair. As Skinner has said, don't push your luck, don't make DU suck. So I am politely asking for a clarification. Thank you

[edgineered]

156. Nice try,

my machines wouldn't be faster than yours if we knew the same tricks, would they? It's just how racers are.

[PowerToThePeople]

102. Rec!

Eom

[gwheezie]

41. The people who wrote the 2A restricted gun ownership

But I digress. I would not support confiscating all guns.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

45. There's a pesky thing called the Fourth Amendment...

There's a pesky thing called the Fourth Amendment but I can't for the life of me understand why a law abiding person doesn't want to register his gun.

[hunter]

48. It's much more fun to mock and shame people with gun fetishes...

... and I do.

In my own family, fools and their guns are soon parted.

My mom confiscated my grandma's guns when grandma got strange.

My grandma was eventually removed from her home as a danger to herself and others by police and paramedics, but it took many hours, and she was cussing horrors, throwing things, kicking, hitting screaming and biting until they strapped her to the gurney and shot her full of sedatives. She was naked too.

Later my mom and sister found more guns in grandma's house, but maybe grandma decided not to check out of life that way, or maybe she'd simply forgotten where her remaining guns were hidden in her hoarder's mess.

I have two people who were very close to me who suicided by gun.

I've been in several rough situations where people have had guns, have been shooting guns, but not once have I been in a situation where more guns would have improved the outcome.

Guns usually transform a bad situation into something much worse.

I don't think most people are qualified to handle guns, not even most cops.

I have a few ideas for improving gun regulations here in the U.S.A., but it's like arguing with religious fanatics. Guns are sacred objects to some people, enshrined in the U.S.A. Constitution.

The gun religion sucks.

I see you all as this:



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zardoz

[hunter]

71. I drive a car that has a bullet hole in it.

A real bullet hole. We bought it from a guy who'd lived in rougher neighborhoods than we ever did.

Guns are very effective suicide tools.

Years ago, when I was still an off-my-meds-creature of the chaos, my girlfriend's girlfriend who'd already drank enough booze and taken enough pills to drop an elephant, tried to kill herself in my bathtub by cutting herself. Lots of cuts. Deep cuts. Yet she survived.

My childhood friend who shot himself in the head did not.

My sister is a firefighter and a paramedic. She sees things.

My youngest brother wanted to do the same as his big sister and ended up with the first responders to a murder-suicide by gun. But the guy with the hole in his head and the gun in his hand was still breathing and he "lived" for almost two days in intensive care.

My little brother decide that wasn't the career he wanted.

I don't live in your world, "bro."

[blue neen]

132. The dude answered your OP with an honest story of tragedy in his family,

and you MOCK him for it? Wow. Way to win people over to your way of thinking.

[thucythucy]

161. Amazing, isn't it?

Then again, posting another pro-gun thread while most of us are still in shock after yet another gun massacre is hardly an indication of tremendous empathy, is it?

[lancer78]

157. The suicide issue

is that people with suicidal tendencies will still try to commit it with or without a guns help. Look at Japan. Almost impossible to get a gun but the suicide rate is sky high. We have 300 million guns, but our suicide rate is equivalent to Englands' which has major controls on handguns.

[theycallmetrinity]

52. I support the buy back programs police dept have

People are able to turn them in with no legal hassles of where you got them.
Plus they pay you for them.

It's a good plan that should be done not by the police but nation wide by the federal government .

[Duckhunter935]

59. could that increase stolen weapons?

no questions asked, free money?

[theycallmetrinity]

70. I don't think it would

Are there a lot of guns stolen from peoples homes ?

[Duckhunter935]

73. Oh, I am sure there are some

I think that may increase when you give a bounty with no questions asked for each weapon.

[Lizzie Poppet]

77. More than there should be.

I consider it to be a part of responsible gun ownership to have an effective method of securing your weapons. I choose a good, sturdy gun safe.

I'm not sure there is any genuinely reliable data on how many firearms are stolen every year from people's homes.

[theycallmetrinity]

95. I agree with a safe in the home if a person wishes to own a gun

I don't know though if I would support a law for it.

Unless the gun owner was allowed maybe to also use a security steel cabinet
of some sort.

The one thing I would not want to see is a person or family of little
means be able to afford lets say a very inexpensive shotgun but
legally not be able to buy it because they can't afford the $700 to $1000 gun safe


And for full disclosure I am a gun owner and a Democrat
I own a .22 bolt action rifle that I target shoot with.

[Lizzie Poppet]

100. I have basically the same take.

If mandatory weapon security is made law, there have to be allowances for people of limited means who choose to own firearms. Firearms are a legitimate personal security choice, and pricing the poor out of that choice is unacceptable.

[Initech]

56. That's exactly what the Alex Jones crowd wants.

They want mass confiscation of their precious guns so theey can declare open season on the government and anyone who wants to try to take them away. Let's face it - their ultimate goal is a race and civil war. Let's hope that they don't get it.

[treestar]

58. I would like an Australia style law

Though I could see where the second end amendment could get in the way

[Duckhunter935]

68. thats why the pump action AR models are out now (warning gun video)

DO NOT CLICK IF YOU DO NOT WANT TO SEE THE WEAPON DEMONSTRATION that is fully legal in Australia.

Skip to 15 minutes for rapid fire demonstration.

Note to jury on alert, this video is to show what weapons are now fully legal in Australia and should fall within the scope of big news as is the same as this post.

[Paladin]

60. Not out-and-out confiscation......

....but I fully support a rigorous, periodic background check and renewable licensing system for ALL firearms transactions, a system which identifies and denies the right of gun ownership to those who shouldn't have them, and imposes severe punishment for those who attempt to end-around the system and acquire illegal guns. Would such a system prevent all crimes involving firearms? Of course not. But it would reduce the rate of such crimes significantly. Further, it would instill a more mature, responsible mindset among gun owners, something that is desperately needed to replace the puerile, lethal gaming attitude which has infected too much of shooting sports. Finally, it would drag this country into the 21st century in our viewpoint toward guns, bringing us up to the level of other advanced countries, which is way overdue.

[closeupready]

62. Not unless you disarm law enforcement officers.

And even then, I support the Bill of Rights in its entirety, including the 2nd Amdmt.

[Damansarajaya]

69. This is a good question.

Because the only gun laws that really work to reduce gun violence are gun bans. It's like swimming pools. If you ban them, then no children would ever accidentally drown in one.

But gun bans are impossible here, folks. Just forget it. It cannot happen.

We have to deal with reality. I'm a gun owner and what I'm going to say will anger a lot of other gun owners, but I'd like to see more thorough background checks with a special license to own guns (like a driver's license), safe storage laws, and national gun registration.

A number of gun reduction efforts have shown to be ineffective: gun buybacks absolutely don't work for instance (see "Freakonomics" author Steven Levitt), and in fact put money into gun owners' hands so they can sell their trash and buy more lethal modern weapons.

But trying to outlaw guns or types of guns is political suicide in rural states. Democrats did decades of damage from the very bad and ineffective "assault weapons" ban in the '90's.

[Iggo]

74. .

[sadoldgirl]

76. That depends

If hunting's considered a sport (a rather expensive one at that),
then people could rent one for that purpose. I do believe in
self defense,

however that Bundy crowd in Nevada, who threatened the
BLM people should have their guns confiscated.
The BLM was only following the law, and those
militia kind of jerks had no right to their actions.

There is no need for semi-automatics. If you need to
train, go to a regular or official place, rent the weapon,
and return it after you session.

The argument to protect yourself from the evil
government makes no sense to me. The government
can confiscate your bank accounts, turn off electricity
and water, and in dramatic cases send a drone.
But that is just me, and I grew up in Europe.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

131. Put enough software in it, and you don't need a radio signal to control a drone.

Give it sensors to pull data, routines to 'make decisions', and it becomes autonomous.

[L0oniX]

80. Let's start with de-militarizing the pigs ...and maybe a little less war too.

[LAGC]

160. +1

[PeoViejo]

84. Nothing like a little provocation to sow discord among Democrats

Fugettaboutit. Guns are not going away, and making this an issue during an election cycle is a favorite GOP tactic to drive gun-owning Democrats to vote for the Gun-Rights Candidate.

[edhopper]

85. What a fucking strawman,

red herring.
Yeah, everyone for stricter gun regulation wants to take your gun.
What bullshit.

[Duckhunter935]

88. That is not what the OP said

He just asked a simple question of how many are. I guess that should not be allowed?

So are you?

[edhopper]

89. It's a non issue

will never happen and has never been suggested by any gun control advocate.
It's not simple, it's loaded. That's why it's a strawman.
It's like asking what Bigfoot thinks of GMOs. Why bother.

[Duckhunter935]

92. some here have stated they are for it

I am curious how many would actually say so. I guess some do not wish to say it in public.

[edhopper]

120. Or they don't give a fuck

and think it has nothing to do with real gun control
In other words, a strawman, red herring.

[pintobean]

93. It's a straight forward question

about opinions. It's amazing how many are freaking out over it.

Some have answered honestly that they are for confiscation. I disagree with them, but greatly respect their honesty.

[edhopper]

98. It's a loaded question

to paint gun control advocates as extreme.
Cause no one is suggesting this be done.
Do you have an article where a politician or advocate is saying we should do this..anywhere?

[kentuck]

103. It's confiscation or nothing...

As if there are no other options?

Yea, it's a loaded question.

[Lizzie Poppet]

107. I'd have worded it differently, myself.

That is, "who favors a ban on civilian gun ownership?" That's a position that not a few DUers (and gun control advocates in genera;l) have explicitly stated.

Moreover, I think the question of just what level (and types) of control that gun control advocates would consider sufficient is a very valid one. You see a huge range in the level of regulation being proposed.

[kentuck]

111. What is the minimum we should do?

Should nothing be done when a "mentally ill" person (white) walks into a schools and shoots 20 small children?

What is the minimum that should be done if a "mentally ill" person (white) walks into a black church and 9 people as they worship?

That's all that is being asked? What should be done?

[Lizzie Poppet]

117. Along with what we have now...

...some of the other gun control ideas I'd like to see are: universal background checks (recently added here in Oregon), expansion of the information available to the NICS database to make those checks more useful, stiffer penalties and more aggressive enforcement of the laws against straw purchases, and mandatory firearms security (although with care taken not to price low-income people out of gun ownership...guns safes are expensive).

Measures not constituting gun control (but which I think would vastly reduce the toll from gun-related violence): end the idiotic War on Drugs, greatly improve access to mental healthcare (not so much for mass shootings - which are horrific but constitute a minuscule percentage of gun deaths - but for suicide prevention), and the biggest: work to achieve economic justice.

[Duckhunter935]

121. Great points

I agree completely.

[Lizzie Poppet]

135. Thanks. I think there really are "common sense gun regulations."

Of course, everyone thinks the "common sense" position is the same as theirs, huh?

[kentuck]

124. Which of those do you think the Republican Party might agree with?

I don't think they support universal background checks??

[Lizzie Poppet]

134. Probably none of them.

But I'm actually kind of embarrassed to admit I don't really know the GOP's platform policies on gun control. I don't vote for Republicans on the basis of their economic policies (I'm a democratic socialist...and yes, I'm thrilled Bernie's running!), so I don't look that deeply into their other positions.

[pintobean]

154. The question was asked of people here.

Why are you so freaked out over it? I assume your answer is that you are not for confiscation. Some have answered that they are for it. It's okay, it's just opinions.

[Duckhunter935]

119. Same here

It is refreshing to get a straight honest answer. Now if we could get politicians to do that.

[Lizzie Poppet]

104. Irony level: boss tier.

>complains about a strawman argument
>makes a strawman argument in the process

My sides...

[edhopper]

125. Or

pegged it for what it was exactly.

Your calling my response a strawman was a strawman itself IMO.

[Lizzie Poppet]

137. Ah, I see: you don't actually know what a straw man fallacy is, do you?

No shame in that; not everyone studies philosophy. Here you go: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html

[edhopper]

142. I know precisely what it is

your condescending bullshit is duly noted.
Thanks for playing, you can get the home game on the way out.

[Lizzie Poppet]

147. Then why did you completely misuse the term?

Oh, and if I'd wanted to be condescending (or on any other way nasty), my reply would have been far more toxic than that. I was offering the link because you mis-characterized more than one statement as a strawman.

[edhopper]

151. The way you did as well,

perhaps I was just throwing it back at you?

Couldn't figure that out yourself.

Well, bye-bye, my next post would get hidden anyway.

[Lizzie Poppet]

162. Except I didn't. To wit:

You wrote:

Yeah, everyone for stricter gun regulation wants to take your gun.

...in response to:

Let's just get it out in the open - who supports confiscation of firearms? [View all]

Why not just be honest? A few here have already expressed a desire to confiscate firearms. How many here hold that opinion?

Full disclosure - I'm a strong supporter of the right to keep and bear arms.

Nothing in the post to which you responded can be rationally interpreted as asserting that "everyone for stricter gun regulation wants to take your gun." You inserted a completely different argument, implying that the OP was making that argument...when he actually said no such thing. That makes your statement a straw man fallacy.

Moreover, my assertion that you had committed this fallacy does not contain any representation of your actual statements whatsoever, either a citation or a paraphrasing. I didn't replace your argument with another (for the purpose of knocking it down). Thus it cannot possibly be a straw man fallacy, as those must, by definition, contain a misrepresentation of another person's statements.

Like I said, you apparently have no idea what a straw man fallacy actually is. Thanks for confirming that.

[Martin Eden]

97. OK, let's be honest:

The confiscation of firearms from law abiding citizens who had a right to own firearms prior to the extremely unlikely passage of a law abolishing that right is a real issue almost exclusively in the realm of rightwing propaganda and in the minds of those who swallow it.

[RandySF]

105. ME!!!!

[Duckhunter935]

122. Nice to hear

Thanks

[hollysmom]

106. well, if you are mentally unstable, I don't want you to have a gun or if someone has a protection

against you or fi you are a felon - damn straight yes. I may also support citizens not having ak47s in their house. not realy necessary for most reasons unless you believe you have to protect yourself against th end of times, and then you may qualify for the insane clause confiscation

[Blue_In_AK]

108. No.

That would be a huge mistake in Alaska where a lot of people hunt their food, especially in the Bush, and dangerous animals are sometimes encountered when hiking and camping. It's hard to reason with a charging grizzly bear. Our household doesn't own a gun, but there have been a few times out in the wilderness when I might have felt a little more secure if one had been available.

[Oneironaut]

115. Loaded question

Very few people support the actual door-to-door confiscation of firearms. That's insanity. There can be a good solution between the two - I hate the false dilemma created where, you can either do nothing about guns or support door-to-door confiscation by force. The only point of doing this is to shut down any debate about guns.

[Hoyt]

118. Australia pretty much bit the bullet in 1996, after a mass shooting. It's worked pretty well, and

will just get better with time.

[Aerows]

123. Let's get it out in the open

People who use hyperbole and fictional either/or scenarios don't make a point, they just sound like they are making adamant statements and really aren't open to finding solutions.

[moondust]

127. Okay by me.

You could have a massive voluntary buyback program first and then confiscate what's left.

I suspect the Second Amendment was largely created to keep slaves under control and empower slave patrols as needed, to fight Native Americans and hunt game out on the expanding frontier in the 18th-19th century. Today it's a deadly anachronism.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

128. I support confiscation from their 'cold, dead hands'.

Ie, no inheriting guns. You either transfer ownership publicly before your death, or the state takes and melts down any firearms you possessed at the time of your death, and your estate receives some fair market value cash.

[99Forever]

130. What's the point of answering this?

To listen to the same old string of bullshit "reasons" gun bullies won't ever let it happen?

Fuck the NRA.

[rock]

138. I certainly wouldn't support such a move while the 2A exists

I am first and foremost a supporter of The Constitution. And before you ask the next question I do not support changing The Constitution by dropping the 2A.

[RandySF]

139. Well if we can permanently disable the firing mechanisms

the gun fetishists can use then as sex toys.

[Duckhunter935]

141. Oh, very funny

He made a sexual joke

[sarisataka]

145. Add this to the list

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026876578#post7

Why bother discussing serious issues with people who have the approximate mentally of a fourteen year old boy?

[cherokeeprogressive]

149. What's a "gun fetishist"?

I've seen a grip o' childish name calling using that phrase, but no one's ever been bold enough to step up to the plate and define it.

[Lee-Lee]

146. For those who would say yes- who will you get to do it? Will you volunteer?

That's a serious question.

You think local or state law enforcement will do it? Maybe you would have some luck in big northern cities, but in 99% of this country they wouldn't even get started.

Federal LE? Not enough of them to even make a dent.

The military? Illegal for the most part to use Active Duty, and highly doubtful they would do it anyway. Use of the National Guard would be legal, but there is no way in the world your going to make that happen. If you think the leadership and rank and file of the active forces leans conservative, the reserve components are even more so, especially the Guard.

So, who does the confiscation?

[JanMichael]

159. any limited sport or small caliber low capasity devices fine. 50 caliber or high capasity clips no.

no tanks no special rounds no landmines no shoulder fired anti tank devices.

i would also like to see off site secure storage for an firearm over two or three in one house.

is powder tagged now for ID if used in a crime? if not then tag it so self reloding types arent selling bullets to .loons

[RichVRichV]

163. I am.

I'm for confiscation from violent felons, people mentally unstable and people that can't safely store guns around small children. I'm not for out right confiscation from all gun owners at all. And I'm someone who wants to see the second amendment repealed. I have no problem with gun ownership, but it should be a privilege, not a right, IMO.

[Bradical79]

164. I lean towards yes.

I think there's no way in hell it will happen in my lifetime, but I don't think civilian firearm ownership makes me one bit safer. I would certainly rather the 2nd amendment be repealed as opposed to the current situation if I had to choose one or the other. No chance it'll happen imo, and I think there's plenty of room for compromise.