General Discussion

kdmorris

(5,649 posts)

112. I know that

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 10:05 AM

Dec 2012

But there is no excuse to be OK with "a few" other David Koresh's choosing the same fate for their children. It is absolutely no different. The children were innocent and it doesn't matter who took their lives or caused their death.

You obviously don't think that it's OK for 21 children to burn to death because their leader was a whack job. So, why did you post this as if it was different? Is that better or different in any way than 20 children dying to gunfire? The death of 20 children is the death of 20 children, who are completely innocent and at the mercy of the adults around them. I take exception to "joking" around about hoping that "a few" more David Koresh's instigate "a few" more Wacos to keep their guns from being confiscated.

I will never be OK with "a few more" Wacos just to prove that the US Govt is serious about gun control. The death of 20 children - NO MATTER WHO CAUSED THEIR DEATHS - is a terrible thing to be OK with.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

115 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Confiscate most guns in the country, and how it could be done [View all] quinnox Dec 2012 OP

Highly improbable ProgressiveProfessor Dec 2012 #1

the gun culture would take time to change but quinnox Dec 2012 #4

You minimize the legal hurdles which are massive ProgressiveProfessor Dec 2012 #10

There would be the added benefit of thousands of angry freepers dying while resisting confiscation librechik Dec 2012 #2

if a few Waco style confrontations/occurances happened, then so be it quinnox Dec 2012 #5

Waco was an incredible tragedy that should not be repeated kdmorris Dec 2012 #15

Waco ending was chosen by David Korash, the starting of fires was at his orders. Thinkingabout Dec 2012 #103

I know that kdmorris Dec 2012 #112

25 children were murdered at Waco. Cool plan. nt rDigital Dec 2012 #17

I'm not endorsing Waco, just being prepared for the reality that some of quinnox Dec 2012 #20

Regrettable? Does that mean acceptable instead of absolutely horrifying? Killing more children? nt rDigital Dec 2012 #26

no, it would be a terrible event but the blame would of course be placed squarely quinnox Dec 2012 #32

You've dug yerself a hole. Saboburns Dec 2012 #63

I think my answers have clarified what I meant and have been reasonable quinnox Dec 2012 #67

not endorsing Waco Trunk Monkey Dec 2012 #49

a "gun enthusiast" speaks.... mike_c Dec 2012 #76

Law enforcement gave Koresh 51 days to surrender. Instead, he continued hugging his guns and raping Hoyt Dec 2012 #31

What about the 25 dead kids? No sympathy for them either.... Disgusting. nt rDigital Dec 2012 #33

All you care about is your guns. Be honest. Hoyt Dec 2012 #34

No. rDigital Dec 2012 #35

Refusing to be honest? No surprise. ThatPoetGuy Dec 2012 #39

Pot meet kettle. See above. toodles. nt rDigital Dec 2012 #61

He should never have been able to stockpile those guns in the first place. CTyankee Dec 2012 #45

Good luck. Get to it. nt rDigital Dec 2012 #53

will do. and thanks. CTyankee Dec 2012 #85

Then what Amendment or laws get repealed next? atreides1 Dec 2012 #74

Oh, haven't you heard? There are already some people who want to repeal the Voting CTyankee Dec 2012 #86

Waco was not about guns. musical_soul Dec 2012 #68

OK, so why did Janet Reno go after them? nt rDigital Dec 2012 #70

She wanted to solve the problem....... musical_soul Dec 2012 #80

You think they sent the ATF in for an unstable man? DesMoinesDem Dec 2012 #83

what the fuck????? cali Dec 2012 #29

It wouldn't be "a few." Lizzie Poppet Dec 2012 #62

Funny joke... haha kdmorris Dec 2012 #23

Perhaps my reading comprehension skills are lacking geek_sabre Dec 2012 #3

with the full force of law and police agencies cracking down quinnox Dec 2012 #6

I love how gun people assume all the gun owners will just turn vicious felons alcibiades_mystery Dec 2012 #18

I agree quinnox Dec 2012 #25

If you pass the law, most people will comply with it. Trunk Monkey Dec 2012 #51

Yes, I'm willing to experiment with it alcibiades_mystery Dec 2012 #65

The vast majority don't take illegal drugs. jeff47 Dec 2012 #88

I think the fog of anger over this tragedy has clouded a lot of otherwise excellent minds. cherokeeprogressive Dec 2012 #71

Actually, you're not being respectful alcibiades_mystery Dec 2012 #81

Because guns don't use ammunition jeff47 Dec 2012 #89

At least ammunition AlexSatan Dec 2012 #96

If the vast majority used illegal drugs, you'd have a point jeff47 Dec 2012 #100

The problem is that AlexSatan Dec 2012 #101

Where do those illegally gotten guns come from? jeff47 Dec 2012 #106

Can you support that claim? AlexSatan Dec 2012 #107

Because Washington DC is a state jeff47 Dec 2012 #108

I appreciate the data AlexSatan Dec 2012 #114

" Because those laws allow us to stop drunk drivers before they kill someone." Ghost in the Machine Dec 2012 #110

Because my post said laws were 100% effective in all cases. jeff47 Dec 2012 #111

Because politicians and elected sheriffs and judges in red states hack89 Dec 2012 #43

They weren't going to enforce integration either alcibiades_mystery Dec 2012 #66

It will never get to that point fortunately hack89 Dec 2012 #75

Great idea! AlexSatan Dec 2012 #95

That worked great with cocaine and marijuana, too (nt) Recursion Dec 2012 #99

Ammunition sales. jeff47 Dec 2012 #87

How do you get around the courts? white_wolf Dec 2012 #7

my OP is predicated on the idea of the constituiton question already being decided quinnox Dec 2012 #9

When one starts in fictional territory indeed all things are possible ProgressiveProfessor Dec 2012 #12

I'm not a Doctor Jim, I'm a pool man! nt rDigital Dec 2012 #19

I'm merely speculating and saying it could happen quinnox Dec 2012 #22

The SC has already ruled that the 2A is an individual right NickB79 Dec 2012 #109

Then I guess we'd better start nominating SC justices that are on our side. Change the CTyankee Dec 2012 #48

Now that I can get behind. white_wolf Dec 2012 #56

Remind the courts that "well regulated militia" appears in the 2nd amendment jeff47 Dec 2012 #90

If we quit the war on drugs and Afpak, we could do this Taverner Dec 2012 #8

That would probably work as well as the war on drugs. shraby Dec 2012 #11

One small difference being guns are an enumerated Constitutional right. Common Sense Party Dec 2012 #77

Only issuing licenses to security personnel or subsistance hunters? Lizzie Poppet Dec 2012 #13

no, it couldn't be done as you lay out. It's just a fantasy. cali Dec 2012 #14

Correct, but this is a women's suffrage type Constitutional project alcibiades_mystery Dec 2012 #16

If it takes more than one election cycle it won't work. rrneck Dec 2012 #21

Precisely. nt rDigital Dec 2012 #28

NRA propaganda. ThatPoetGuy Dec 2012 #41

Yes, let's not let this propaganda go unchallenged. Onward! CTyankee Dec 2012 #50

Stricter gun control and confiscation are two different things. rrneck Dec 2012 #58

Ah stricter gun control means confiscation of most guns. Glad you have clarified that. dkf Dec 2012 #60

I have firearms that nobody knows about. Throd Dec 2012 #24

You can build your own ARs with unregistered receivers and there is no Federal requirement to ProgressiveProfessor Dec 2012 #27

And you guys tell us gun lovers are "law-abiding and responsible." Apparently, you don't even Hoyt Dec 2012 #36

Nothing I said was illegal in the least nor irresponsible ProgressiveProfessor Dec 2012 #42

That the problem with a lot of gun folks -- Things can be legal, but immoral. Hoyt Dec 2012 #52

Nothing there is immoral either ProgressiveProfessor Dec 2012 #64

No. I think most people realize guns contributed greatly to this tragedy. Hoyt Dec 2012 #73

The clear implication of your words quakerboy Dec 2012 #97

I and others have pointed out the fallacy of collection squads ProgressiveProfessor Dec 2012 #98

You're just one of tens of millions. nt rDigital Dec 2012 #30

Guns no one knows about is not even the beginnnig of the problem. Lurker Deluxe Dec 2012 #40

Good barrels require specialized tooling to do the rifling ProgressiveProfessor Dec 2012 #44

Then you're part of the problem. baldguy Dec 2012 #46

How? Throd Dec 2012 #84

So you are saying "self defense in my home" would not be a valid reason? Or target shooting? Logical Dec 2012 #37

I have not considered all details quinnox Dec 2012 #38

I think your collection of the current 300 million guns might be harder than you think..... Logical Dec 2012 #47

It would be a tax break for any returned weapons, not cold hard cash quinnox Dec 2012 #55

No way they could take guns and not compensate the owner for fair market value. Logical Dec 2012 #72

Its even worse than that. Travis_0004 Dec 2012 #91

People are not being realistic at this point. How has removing all illegal drugs worked? Logical Dec 2012 #92

Do you really want cops to be the only ones with guns? musical_soul Dec 2012 #54

me either-- take them away from cops, too.... mike_c Dec 2012 #78

So.... musical_soul Dec 2012 #82

with a trudgeon or other non-lethal means.... mike_c Dec 2012 #93

We have a couple rifles which we need when predators are going after our hens. peacebird Dec 2012 #57

that situation would fall under an acceptable gun license quinnox Dec 2012 #59

Because we don't have enough people in prison bluestateguy Dec 2012 #69

Banning drugs has worked out really well Recursion Dec 2012 #79

+1 Carnage251 Dec 2012 #102

I strongly dislike guns, but even more so, the idea that the populace would be unarmed and not the Fire Walk With Me Dec 2012 #94

All I tend to hear is we want to turn the screws to a level that won't be tolerated TheKentuckian Dec 2012 #105

It can't be done Carnage251 Dec 2012 #104

until the 2nd amendment goes away it cant be done rdking647 Dec 2012 #113

More pragmatic idea: let people keep them Nevernose Dec 2012 #115