The Federal government needs to confiscate all guns

[chalmers]

No guns in the hands of citizens. Problem solved.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

1. There is a pesky thing called the 2nd Amendment.

I have no problem with sane and law abiding folks with guns.

[Logical]

3. Lol, ok, how do you determine that? Nt

[Nuclear Unicorn]

27. The same way we determine people aren't robbers and rapists.

[LynnTTT]

77. We wait

We just wait till they shooter gets his legal 13 guns, loads up with ammo, kills the 9 college students, or 20+ first graders, etc. , lets himself get killed by the cops and then we act surprised and horrified, pray over the dead and wait till next time.
The only solution at this time would be the ability to change the mindset of the American people. Why do we believe that everyone has the right to have a weapon? Even if they law abiding? Why does my neighbor, who lives next door in a gated community near Hilton Head South Carolina feel he needs a gun and has a concealed weapon permit? They are in their 60's, never go into a large city, go out to eat in the early evening in a suburban area, and have never had any crime problem. Their answer? People around the world are trying to kill us.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

80. We wait

We just wait till they rapist stews in his violent misogyny, loads up with "courage", rapes repeatedly, or morphs into a serial killer, etc. , lets himself get killed by the cops and then we act surprised and horrified, pray over the victims and wait till next time.

Meanwhile someone like Amanda Collins is told she cannot carry her duly licensed pistol on the campus where she was raped and she kept from testifying by politicians passing yet more impotent gun control laws in the name of protecting her.

[Major Nikon]

75. ...

[TipTok]

14. Also stomping all over the 4th during that confiscation...

[branford]

53. Don't forget about the Fifth (compensation) and Fourteenth (due process). nt

[TeddyR]

60. I'm not sure that controllers

Are concerned about which clauses of the Constitution they violate.

[TipTok]

71. I had a realization earlier...

... that part of the allure of the mass confiscation fantasy is a) the joy of seeing police kick down doors of millions of Americans to allay their personal fears and b) the certain knowledge that millions of people (many of them right leaning) would become non voting criminals when they didn't comply

[treestar]

85. No If it became illegal, probable cause would exist.

[TipTok]

98. That is just creepy...

[Logical]

2. Wow, not put much thought into this i assume. Nt

[Throd]

4. Send guys with guns to confiscate all guns.

There might be some hidden the attic! Tear the house down to the studs just to be sure!

[ileus]

54. I see a future in giant C-arms

[NightWatcher]

5. Consider the logistics and probability of that happening.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

9. It is really loose talk like that kills any chance at meaningful gun control.

It is really that kind of loose talk that kills any chance at meaningful gun control. It's allows gun registration opponents to argue that if they register their guns it will be easier for the government to find them and take them away.

[lancer78]

39. + 1 Billion!!

You are exactly right. Reasonable gun control died the day Di-Fi opened her mouth about "If I had my way, everyone would turn in their guns".

[DemocratSinceBirth]

48. Considering her history her thoughts were understandable but they aren't helpful.

Folks can have guns, sane folks...

[TipTok]

99. Except hers of course...

[X_Digger]

45. I'm wondering if the OP actually belongs here or is stirring up shit. n/t

[RKP5637]

56. Yep, could be. n/t

[DashOneBravo]

83. +1

[ananda]

6. Works for me.

Or guns could be legalized with severe regulations and restrictions,
such as no handguns or automatic weapons. Shotguns or rifles
approved after deep background checks, expensive licensing, and
kept locked in a government approved cabinet at all times, except
when used for hunting.

[Travis_0004]

30. Automatic weapons were restricted in 1986

Yes, some are still out there but no many, and they cost several thousand dollars and a months long process to buy. Its also illegal to make a new automatic weapon for the civilian market.

[branford]

55. The restrictions started in 1934 with the passage of the NFA. nt

[Hoyt]

57. We know what poster meant by "auto." The gun nomenclature game is tiring.

Christ, Colt still calls its seminautos, "automatic."

[branford]

61. Legally and functionally there's a big difference between automatic and semi-automatic firearms.

You can't just wave away the important distinctions because you personally abhor all guns and gun owners and don't care.

[Hoyt]

62. Take it up with Colt. In the meantime, i'm sure your gun clients appreciate

fighting on their, and their guns, behalf.

[branford]

65. My practice doesn't involve firearms and related law.

My expertise is based both on my general legal experience and what many would expect of an experienced litigator who's dealt with constitutional and a wide variety of other matters, as well as my employment at the National Institute of Justice, USDOJ, where I researched and wrote about many issues, including firearms. However, I do indeed fight zealously for all my clients, regardless of the nature of the dispute.

More importantly, as usual, you didn't refute the fact that there's a significant difference, particularly as a matter of law, between automatic and semi-automatic firearms.

Lastly, I find you reliance on purported Colt terminology quite amusing, as they are one of the few firearm manufacturers in such poor financial condition during this boom time for the industry. I didn't know you were such a Colt aficionado...

[Hoyt]

68. OK, you defend Zimmermans too. Little difference.

[branford]

70. No, my opinion of Zimmerman is quite poor.

However, it doesn't take an attorney to realize and acknowledge that the prosecution's case against him, no less their trial performance, can most diplomatically be described as complete garbage.

You can rail to your heart's content about Zimmerman's poor character, racism in the criminal justice system, or your dissatisfaction with self-defense jurisprudence in Florida or elsewhere, but under the established laws of the State of Florida and based on the meager evidence presented by the prosecution, the trial was a farce and Zimmerman's quick acquittal entirely unsurprising.

[HassleCat]

7. And further measures

Take all private automobiles off the roads to reduce crash fatalities and injuries. Censor all media to eliminate content that advocates violence. Round up all the militia groups and throw them in jail as illegal combatants, with no access to attorneys, no formal charges, etc. Institute racial profiling, stop & frisk, etc. and prohibit hooded sweatshirts. There are so many things we can do to make this the kind of country we all want. I'm sure we won't allow the constitution to stand in the way.

[packman]

25. Sorry, this type of reasoning - too extremes

is stopping any meaningful gun control in this country. Australia and other countries worked out their problems but if we purpose anything with any teeth in it to curb this slaughter, some person comes up , "Yah, and let's take all cars off roads, censor all media... , etc,, etc." As far as I'm concerned, they are just as culpable as the asshats clinging to their guns screaming Second Amendment, second amendment, 2nd ad, II Admend., ad infinitum. And in the end, NOTHING get done.

[HassleCat]

28. Speaking of extreme

Confiscating all firearms is pretty extreme. I just proposed other, equally extreme measures to illustrate how wildly unconstitutional it would be to take away all gun. I certainly favor reasonable restrictions on firearms and firearm owners.

[packman]

33. "Wildly unconstitutional"

[NutmegYankee]

37. Unless you believe the Constitution is "Just a God-damned piece of paper"

like a former president stated, confiscation is obviously wildly unconstitutional. Hell, just the fifth amendment alone blocks it.

[packman]

40. Don't interpret my posts with the statements of an idiot

it only proves my point that extremist will deflect and obfuscate an issue that clearly needs addressing. It has been proven that law makers make mistakes and amendments can be changed.

[NutmegYankee]

42. Unless being a member of the ACLU is considered extremist...

I am by no means an extremist.

[TeddyR]

51. Exactly how many times

Have amendments been changed in the history of the United States? I'll give you a hint -- it is less than 2.

[packman]

69. And your point?

Mine was it can be done- and new amendments can be written. Are you saying that the amendments and the Constitution is immutable? I believe it can be rewritten, reworded and changed. Written on the walls of the Thomas Jefferson Memorial are these words:


[URL=.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL]

Beside these a society has an obligation to change laws that speak to violence and take away the basic right of all men to live in a society where one does not fear their neighbor and can be reasonably safe from the violence so easy purchased.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

82. And speaking of...

...Thomas Jefferson: "The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes..."

Could you please articulate more on "...the basic right of all men to live in a society where one does not fear their neighbor..."?

I would say that's more of a goal for society and government to work toward rather than describing it as right. Such a right would certainly be unattainable.
Maybe your goal is to just find a belief system on which to conveniently lay the blame.

I believe wise and and cautious conduct in things which could prove harmful is a burden to be shared by both buyers and sellers. Working to enlighten folks to realities and dangers can only enhance their ability to make a sound assessment of their own circumstances thus aiding their decisions. Safety considerations should be on everyone's mind 24/7.

[jwirr]

8. No.

[Taitertots]

10. Confiscation won't remove all the guns from civilian hands.

Let's get back to reality.

[RKP5637]

58. Quite true, and all it would do is create a lucrative black market. n/t

[LeftyChristian]

11. Been there done that...

http://necrometrics.com/gunsorxp.htm|

From the link above...

CONSIDER THIS... This is just part of the known tally ...

In 1929 the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, approximately 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915-1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, 13 million Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, the mentally ill, and others, who were unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million "educated" people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

That places total victims who lost their lives because of gun control at approximately 56 million in the last century. Since we should learn from the mistakes of history, the next time someone talks in favor of gun control, find out which group of citizens they wish to have exterminated.

[chalmers]

13. LOL you get that from NRA talking points?

[philosslayer]

21. Do you dispute these assertions?

Or have different facts?

[treestar]

88. After a little research

Far more factors than the alleged gun control would creep in to make the post oversimplification.

[LeftyChristian]

22. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Thank you for identifying yourself as part of the paving crew.

[GGJohn]

66. LOL, did you get that from the Brady Bunch org. talking points?

Enjoy your stay, you're on a *roll.

[packman]

34. Jesus, why are you even posting on the DU?

Give some examples of countries that have gun control and is working. Go post on an NRA site. For you to even post this type of shit shows that NRA brainwashing is effective.

[LeftyChristian]

43. Absolute Solution

I was addressing the original post. "The Federal government needs to confiscate all guns."

Do you agree with the OP?

Confiscating all guns has nothing to do with NRA brainwashing. There are numerous historical examples of this extreme solution backfiring wildly on the citizens of the countries where that was the policy.

[MillennialDem]

36. Except nazi germany actually expanded gun rights. Of course they restricted the jews and

Roma from having them as they restricted the Jews and Roma from any rights so your assertion about gun control is Nazi Germany is grade a horse poo.

not to mention, not like guns would have done them a lick of good. Try penetrating tank armor with a gun. You're better off using Molotov cocktails.

[LeftyChristian]

46. Not my list

Not my assertion. Try this guy. http://necrometrics.com/author.htm

The gun registration laws passed by the previous government made it much easier for the Nazis to confiscate the guns of the groups they intended to exterminate.

[MillennialDem]

50. Eyeroll: from wiki

The 1938 German Weapons Act, the precursor of the current weapons law, superseded the 1928 law. As under the 1928 law, citizens were required to have a permit to carry a firearm and a separate permit to acquire a firearm. But under the new law:

Gun restriction laws applied only to handguns, not to long guns or ammunition. The 1938 revisions completely deregulated the acquisition and transfer of rifles and shotguns, as was the possession of ammunition."[5]
The legal age at which guns could be purchased was lowered from 20 to 18.[6]
Permits were valid for three years, rather than one year.[6]
The groups of people who were exempt from the acquisition permit requirement expanded. Holders of annual hunting permits, government workers, and NSDAP members were no longer subject to gun ownership restrictions. Prior to the 1938 law, only officials of the central government, the states, and employees of the German Reichsbahn Railways were exempted.[5]
Manufacture of arms and ammunition continued to require a permit, with the revision that such permits would no longer be issued to Jews or any company part-owned by Jews. Jews were consequently forbidden from the manufacturing or dealing of firearms and ammunition.[5]
Under both the 1928 and 1938 acts, gun manufacturers and dealers were required to maintain records with information about who purchased guns and the guns' serial numbers. These records were to be delivered to a police authority for inspection at the end of each year.


Again, the gun law was weakened. It was strict by US standards, but it was LESS strict than the 1928 law. As for the Jews, there were only ~200,000 in Germany and even if all of them had guns it would have done diddly squat. And what do you think, when it came to a new law to be passed that Hitler would leave the Jews out of it? Everything he did was about oppressing the Jews, Roma, and Communists. So the reality of it: the Germans encircled 600,000 Soviet RED ARMY soldiers near Kiev (among many other large encirclements) and those were trained healthy young men with machine guns, tanks, planes, mortars, artillery, and explosives.

A rag tag group of German Jews would have been squashed like bugs by the Wehrmacht. They had tanks. Let me repeat that: they had tanks. What were they going to do to a tank with rifles and hand guns?

[LeftyChristian]

95. What is your point?

Would you rather die defending yourself or get carted off to a prison/extermination camp to either die in the cattle car on the way, get gassed, die of starvation or be "experimented" on by the Nazis?

Hitler was very public in identifying the groups of citizens that his government wished to exterminate and used confiscatory gun laws to make it much easier to accomplish his goal. Complete gun confiscation as the OP suggests is not a solution to the mass shooting epidemic in the United States. You can continue to argue semantics, but you will do it alone.

[MillennialDem]

96. False dichotomy. You can fight without a gun and you can be taken captive even with one. And

if I was in the resistance I'd focus on making things that blow up or burn so I could take out a tank rather than just shoot at one at have all my bullets bounce off it.

[treestar]

87. Exactly, we have an Equal Protection Clause

and if guns became illegal, it would apply to everyone.

The government has no motive to single out and get rid of a group.

The ones who think they need guns to defend from the government are the craziest. The government has nuclear weapons! If it could force us all into a dictatorship it would have happened.

[treestar]

86. Who was exterminated in Australia?

No one. Our government is not going to do anything like that, FFS.

[sarisataka]

12. And this is the guy to do it

[Dr. Strange]

15. We'll call this "Project: Prison Population Explosion."

[dumbcat]

32. Also likely to be called Police Reduction Program

There would soon be a shortage of door-kickers.

[NutmegYankee]

38. It's hard to have a real rational discussion on this topic...

But I always find the posters who state "let's make getting caught with a gun a Felony with life imprisonment" funny. A severe penalty just makes it more likely that the person in possession of the gun will choose to shoot it out rather than surrender.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

16. Good luck with that. There is that pesky little thing

called the Constitution that might be a bit of a roadblock. Although the 2nd Amendment refers to a "well-regulated militia" it has been interpreted as including an individual right to own guns, so that's the law, like it or not. I am not a big fan of guns and I wish there were fewer of them in private hands, but even apart from the 2nd Amendment, I hardly think the idea of the federal government bigfooting around, searching people's private homes and confiscating their property (don't forget the 4th Amendment, giving citizens the right to be "secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects&quot would not go over well at all. It sounds just a tad -- if you'll excuse the expression -- fascist.

And that doesn't even consider the incredible cost of thousands of law enforcement officers going house to house trying to confiscate all 300 million guns, and probably getting shot themselves in the process.

The idea is ridiculous.

[flamin lib]

17. Enforce the 2nd Amendment! Like the NRA says, just enforce the laws we have!

Round up every gun owner of military service age and put 'em in a well regulated militia! Do some close order drill, clean some latrines, PT at 5:00 AM and do five mile humps in the evenings. Just enforce the 2nd Amendment!

How long will it take to get these two to give up their gunz?

[JackInGreen]

79. Within the week

For what it's worth I agree. Though id say "get rid of the standing army and go back to regulated state militias to be called in time of need.' They can keep their guns, god help em if they piss off the district man at arms.

[workinclasszero]

90. Notice these pencil dick losers

have guns specifically designed to mass kill human beings?

Its all about terrorizing other people at first as these limp dick types parade around in public with their weapons of mass destruction.

Course when the day comes that they snap.....well the fun and games are over and your kid is in a box six feet under.

I somehow think this is not what the authors of the 2nd amendment had in mind, ya know?

[Xipe Totec]

18. For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. - H.L. Mencken nt

[LittleBlue]

19. That would cause a civil war

Any president who ignored the constitution to seize guns would be a tyrant and would meet a tyrant's fate.

[Lint Head]

20. Maybe guns should be issued to everybody, including children, then at designated moment point the

guns at each other pull all triggers at the same time and do away with the despicable murderous country we have become.

[Monk06]

23. Talk about giving the Alex Jones conspiracy wackos the ultimate Christmas present.

[onehandle]

24. That's tyranny. Like the misinterpreted Second Amendment is tyranny on the majority of Americans.

1) Repeal the Second Amendment.

2) States, Counties, and Cities get the right to control guns however they wish.

[HooptieWagon]

26. There's 200 million of them.

Are you volunteering to go door to door collecting them?

[WDIM]

29. Do you comprehend the results of that?

There would be war in the streets
There would be more death and destruction
There would be an underground black market just like there is for everything that is prohibited.
This would create more crime and violence and more death.

Ill take random shooting every now and then over your idea.

Or we can attempt to change our culture of fear violence seperation division eye for an eye every man for himself competitive excluding bullying and judging.

Love peace and nonviolence is the answer and it needs to start with our leaders. We need to focus on education community and mental health.

[krispos42]

59. There would be a mass ignoring of the law

Cops wouldn't enforce it. Then what?

National Guard call-up? Mobilize the Army and Marines?

Maybe a few police departments would close down the gun dealers in their jurisdictions. Those and many more would simply go underground and form an organization. You know, a gang.

The OPer is trolling.

[Blue_In_AK]

31. This is not a good idea,

especially in rural states like Alaska where some people depend on hunting for their subsistence and where sometimes a weapon is needed for protection against unpredictable wild animals like grizzly bears. You can't just institute a blanket prohibition against all firearms. Imposing certain limitations is a better idea.

[Lizzie Poppet]

35. And how, specifically, do you suggest they do that?

Who's going to conduct these confiscations? BATF? They have about 4800 total employees, 2500 of which are actually field agents. To confiscate 300,000,000+ guns from 80,000,000 people? Obviously not.

The FBI? Similar problem: 35,000 total employees, only about half of whom are field agents.

The only other armed Federal force is the military, and using them for domestic law enforcement is profoundly illegal (and that's leaving aside the fact that today's military leans somewhat conservative and most of its members support civilian ownership of firearms...making it an open question whether such orders would be widely obeyed).

Calling upon local law enforcement? Same problem as with the military: widespread strong opposition among the rank-and-file to any such plan (and there also aren't nearly enough cops).

For better or worse, your proposed solution simply isn't going to happen.

[Angry Dragon]

41. nope

[pablo_marmol]

44. The Federal government needs to ban all alcohol and drugs.

No alcohol and drugs in the hands of citizens. Gun violence solved.

[librechik]

47. It worked in Australia

but to be fair, that was a much smaller population and a much smaller problem.

And forced confiscation in this country would bring about much bloodshed, if not actual revolution.

In my experience Aussies are just plain smarter than us. If you explain something to them they tend to be reasonable, not obtuse.

[hack89]

49. Australia did not ban guns. There are plenty of guns in Australia

they mandated a buy back of certain guns. It is estimated that there are now just as many guns in Australia as before the buy back.

[ileus]

52. No one will ever die again.

It's for the people...now that's progressive.

[GGJohn]

63. What a moronic thread.

This is nothing more than flamebait.
Enjoy your stay.

[GGJohn]

64. Not a deep thinker are you. eom.

[cherokeeprogressive]

67. Do you also propose to completely secure the borders? BOTH of them?

Because without border security, your idea means ... ffffffuck all.

[ladyVet]

72. Yeah, who needs that pesky Constitution?

It's not like it's relevant anymore, right? Just toss it out the window. Welcome in the fascist state! Stand ready to convert to whatever brand of Christianity is on top at the moment! We all benefit when the rich get richer. Whoot! More wars! More hate!

[Nuclear Unicorn]

73. Earlier this week a different poster the Constitution was described as "yellowing parchment"

Apparently, he feels entitled to disregard authority when it is inconvenient to his purpose of making everyone else obey his authority.

Buffet table authoritarianism.

[treestar]

89. It's not credible that would be the result

This country is too big and varied for that to be a real worry, especially in the internet age.

[Kang Colby]

74. Thanks for helping pro gun advocates like myself.

You'll more likely see unicorns galloping down Main St. than universal background checks anytime soon. Even Bernie Sanders voted against the Brady Act. Hopefully, Bernie will be willing to sign its repeal in a few years.

The proof is in the pudding.

[cheapdate]

76. It's only a matter of time before the roundup begins.

Glenn Beck, Alex Jones, and many others have been warning us for years.

Obama's brownshirts. House to house. Taking guns, rounding up Christians, shutting down opposition media outlets.

It's all been predicted.

How can I help!

[JackInGreen]

78. Yes chalmers

Give the NRA material and your fellows the squirts over an authoritarian move. No. It won't work, I'm sorry.

[LiberalArkie]

81. I still think a license for each weapon is the way to go.

You have to have a license for each car, truck, boat, trailer you have. You have to have a tag for every deer you kill. You have to have stamps for the ducks. Why not a license for each weapon. Of course the fee could be high also. A .22 rifle might only be $10 a year, where as a personal shoulder fired surface to air missile (for the ducks) night be a million a year.

[oneshooter]

92. I have 4 vehicles but only one license.

Unless you mean the plates on the vehicles, I only have 2 of them.

[LiberalArkie]

94. That is the license I am talking about. Most people have different licenses for each vehicle.

Just like each person that is a driver or pilot have individual licenses. Cities use to license bicycles years ago. Teachers, nurses, doctors etc are all licensed. But I guess guns and gun owners were too unimportant to license. Hell some fertilizers are licensed.

[beevul]

97. Licenses are generally for public use, not for simple ownership.

Do you mean, then, when talking about licenses, that people who have them should be able to carry guns in public?

If so, we already have that in most states.

[treestar]

84. I wish there was a way

Or the states could do it. No one has guns, no one needs them to defend themselves.

[jwirr]

91. This solution is exactly what the NRA is using to fight gun

control. And if we want a GOTV program in 2016 we can keep suggesting it. We will have every R in the country at the polls.

[workinclasszero]

93. Federal government needs to confiscate all automobiles

No cars in the hands of citizens. Problem solved, no more deaths by traffic accident.

I mean cmon OP! If you are going to troll at least put a little effort into it JEEZ!