***OFFICIAL GUN CONTROL DEBATE*** (2 Viewers)

[mad sweeney]

Sweeney asked a pertinent question: did James Mason write anything about what the phrase "well-regulated militia" meant? Obviously others have . But did Mason?

Would you say it's safe to assume that the others who used that term in that same period meant something similar?That's what I took away from how they all seemed to use it in the same manner,so why would he be any different?

If he's no different, and I'm not saying he is different, then why wouldn't he have said the same? It's very simple. If someone asks for a quote from X, don't provide a quote from Y or Z. It's debate skills 101

This is your interpretation of debate skills: Did Elvis prefer Mozart or Beethoven? Show me a quote. Can't show me a quote? I'm going to keep making a stink until you find me a quote from Elvis that says which one he prefers. You can't post something about Elvis without being able to backup his views on any question I might want to ask him no matter how obvious the answer is. I'm not going to bother doing the research myself, I'll just assume whatever my opinion is of something is true even though a mountain of evidence points otherwise, because that is debating 101.

Your interpretation is completely wrong on a number of levels:

First, I didn't bring up a quote from Elvis about classical music in the first place to bolster my side of an argument, which would be a comparable example since you brought up a quote from Mason. I also didn't even make an opinion in the first place, I asked what else he said in regards to the 2A, not a random question about "anything" Mason said. A very specific question about the same sentence on which your quote spoke of. Another massive failure as a comparable example. You also didn't provide a mountain of evidence about anything other than what a bunch of other people said about it, you didn't even provide a pebble about what Mason said.

Nothing you just wrote has any bearing whatsoever on what occured between us. You're utterly terrible at comparisons. Probably even worse than mx, something I didn't think was possible until you and Hustler came along, determined to race to the bottom.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

How about the 10 and 11 year old who just were caught with a handgun in school on the brink of murdering a 5th grade classmate? Praise The Lord these young Americans had their rights to bear arms.Hoo rah!

Are you claiming they were carrying legally? You're pretty much proving that criminals won't follow these proposed rules with that statement... Kids who weren't legally aloud to have guns took the gun/s to a place were guns were illegal..

 

[5 digit know nothing]

Sweeney asked a pertinent question: did James Mason write anything about what the phrase "well-regulated militia" meant? Obviously others have . But did Mason?

Would you say it's safe to assume that the others who used that term in that same period meant something similar?That's what I took away from how they all seemed to use it in the same manner,so why would he be any different?

If he's no different, and I'm not saying he is different, then why wouldn't he have said the same? It's very simple. If someone asks for a quote from X, don't provide a quote from Y or Z. It's debate skills 101

This is your interpretation of debate skills: Did Elvis prefer Mozart or Beethoven? Show me a quote. Can't show me a quote? I'm going to keep making a stink until you find me a quote from Elvis that says which one he prefers. You can't post something about Elvis without being able to backup his views on any question I might want to ask him no matter how obvious the answer is. I'm not going to bother doing the research myself, I'll just assume whatever my opinion is of something is true even though a mountain of evidence points otherwise, because that is debating 101.

Your interpretation is completely wrong on a number of levels:

First, I didn't bring up a quote from Elvis about classical music in the first place to bolster my side of an argument, which would be a comparable example since you brought up a quote from Mason. I also didn't even make an opinion in the first place, I asked what else he said in regards to the 2A, not a random question about "anything" Mason said. A very specific question about the same sentence on which your quote spoke of. Another massive failure as a comparable example. You also didn't provide a mountain of evidence about anything other than what a bunch of other people said about it, you didn't even provide a pebble about what Mason said.

Nothing you just wrote has any bearing whatsoever on what occured between us. You're utterly terrible at comparisons. Probably even worse than mx, something I didn't think was possible until you and Hustler came along, determined to race to the bottom.

:whoosh:

 

[mad sweeney]

Sweeney asked a pertinent question: did James Mason write anything about what the phrase "well-regulated militia" meant? Obviously others have . But did Mason?

Would you say it's safe to assume that the others who used that term in that same period meant something similar?That's what I took away from how they all seemed to use it in the same manner,so why would he be any different?

If he's no different, and I'm not saying he is different, then why wouldn't he have said the same? It's very simple. If someone asks for a quote from X, don't provide a quote from Y or Z. It's debate skills 101

This is your interpretation of debate skills: Did Elvis prefer Mozart or Beethoven? Show me a quote. Can't show me a quote? I'm going to keep making a stink until you find me a quote from Elvis that says which one he prefers. You can't post something about Elvis without being able to backup his views on any question I might want to ask him no matter how obvious the answer is. I'm not going to bother doing the research myself, I'll just assume whatever my opinion is of something is true even though a mountain of evidence points otherwise, because that is debating 101.

Your interpretation is completely wrong on a number of levels:

First, I didn't bring up a quote from Elvis about classical music in the first place to bolster my side of an argument, which would be a comparable example since you brought up a quote from Mason. I also didn't even make an opinion in the first place, I asked what else he said in regards to the 2A, not a random question about "anything" Mason said. A very specific question about the same sentence on which your quote spoke of. Another massive failure as a comparable example. You also didn't provide a mountain of evidence about anything other than what a bunch of other people said about it, you didn't even provide a pebble about what Mason said.

Nothing you just wrote has any bearing whatsoever on what occured between us. You're utterly terrible at comparisons. Probably even worse than mx, something I didn't think was possible until you and Hustler came along, determined to race to the bottom.

:whoosh:

I imagine that a lot of things involving logic and reason go over your head. You interpretation was 100% wrong on every level. None of the Elvis story actually corresponded to the situation. Your analogy sucked. It bore no resemblance to what actually took place. You are terrible at making comparisons. How many other times should I say it before you understand?

 

[timschochet]

To me well-regulated means that the federal government has the right to prohibit certain types of guns and/or ammunition, prohibit certain people from owning them, and carefully monitor all sales and ownership of firearms.

Bump. Why is this an unreasonable definition?

 

[Carolina Hustler]

To me well-regulated means that the federal government has the right to prohibit certain types of guns and/or ammunition, prohibit certain people from owning them, and carefully monitor all sales and ownership of firearms.

Bump. Why is this an unreasonable definition?

Because it wasn't the intended definition..?

 

[timschochet]

To me well-regulated means that the federal government has the right to prohibit certain types of guns and/or ammunition, prohibit certain people from owning them, and carefully monitor all sales and ownership of firearms.

Bump. Why is this an unreasonable definition?

Because it wasn't the intended definition..?

Why is that important? The Constitution is supposed to be a living document.

 

[StrikeS2k]

To me well-regulated means that the federal government has the right to prohibit certain types of guns and/or ammunition, prohibit certain people from owning them, and carefully monitor all sales and ownership of firearms.

Bump. Why is this an unreasonable definition?

Because it wasn't the intended definition..?

Why is that important? The Constitution is supposed to be a living document.

Then I suggest you amend it to mean what you want it to mean. If your definition makes it through the amendment process then those of us on the "other side" of your definition will have no choice but to respect your definition. Until then, pound sand.

 

[timschochet]

To me well-regulated means that the federal government has the right to prohibit certain types of guns and/or ammunition, prohibit certain people from owning them, and carefully monitor all sales and ownership of firearms.

Bump. Why is this an unreasonable definition?

Because it wasn't the intended definition..?

Why is that important? The Constitution is supposed to be a living document.

Then I suggest you amend it to mean what you want it to mean. If your definition makes it through the amendment process then those of us on the "other side" of your definition will have no choice but to respect your definition. Until then, pound sand.

I don't need to amend it, because the language right now says what I want it to say. Per Justice Stevens:

When each word in the text is given full effect, the Amendment is most naturally read to secure to the people a right to use and possess arms in conjunction with service in a well-regulated militia. So far as appears, no more than that was contemplated. But the Court itself reads the Second Amendment to protect a “subset” significantly narrower than the class of persons protected by the First and Fourth Amendments; when it finally drills down on the substantive meaning of the Second Amendment, the Court limits the protected class to “law-abiding, responsible citizens”.[139]

This was written as a part of the dissent to Heller, but I find it to be convincing, and it agrees with my point: the 2nd Amendment does not mean unrestricted ownership of firearms.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

To me well-regulated means that the federal government has the right to prohibit certain types of guns and/or ammunition, prohibit certain people from owning them, and carefully monitor all sales and ownership of firearms.

Bump. Why is this an unreasonable definition?

Because it wasn't the intended definition..?

Why is that important? The Constitution is supposed to be a living document.

Then I suggest you amend it to mean what you want it to mean. If your definition makes it through the amendment process then those of us on the "other side" of your definition will have no choice but to respect your definition. Until then, pound sand.

I don't need to amend it, because the language right now says what I want it to say. Per Justice Stevens: When each word in the text is given full effect, the Amendment is most naturally read to secure to the people a right to use and possess arms in conjunction with service in a well-regulated militia. So far as appears, no more than that was contemplated. But the Court itself reads the Second Amendment to protect a subset significantly narrower than the class of persons protected by the First and Fourth Amendments; when it finally drills down on the substantive meaning of the Second Amendment, the Court limits the protected class to law-abiding, responsible citizens.[139] This was written as a part of the dissent to Heller, but I find it to be convincing, and it agrees with my point: the 2nd Amendment does not mean unrestricted ownership of firearms.

Who is arguing unrestricted?SCOTUS has already upheld "common use"

Your interpretation of well regulated does not conform to the language at the time the document was written.

 

[timschochet]

Your interpretation of well regulated does not conform to the language at the time the document was written.

Maybe, maybe not. It's completely irrelevant IMO. That's why this whole "original intent" argument is so obtuse. At the time the constitution was written, there were no automatic or semi-automatic weapons. Rifles had to be loaded from the front, with powder. How can we possibly know what the Founding Fathers would have thought about the changes in technology and why should it even matter? The constitution is for us to interpret as we choose, given the times we live in.

Personally, I believe that we should have a national registration of ALL privately owned firearms, that all sales and transfers should be tightly controlled, that anyone caught attempting to sell or transfer firearms outside of federal monitoring should lose all gun-owning privileges and be punished. I think this would live up to our CURRENT interpretation of the phrase "well-regulated" militia, given the times we live in.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

Your interpretation of well regulated does not conform to the language at the time the document was written.

Maybe, maybe not. It's completely irrelevant IMO. That's why this whole "original intent" argument is so obtuse. At the time the constitution was written, there were no automatic or semi-automatic weapons. Rifles had to be loaded from the front, with powder. How can we possibly know what the Founding Fathers would have thought about the changes in technology and why should it even matter? The constitution is for us to interpret as we choose, given the times we live in.

Personally, I believe that we should have a national registration of ALL privately owned firearms, that all sales and transfers should be tightly controlled, that anyone caught attempting to sell or transfer firearms outside of federal monitoring should lose all gun-owning privileges and be punished. I think this would live up to our CURRENT interpretation of the phrase "well-regulated" militia, given the times we live in.

...and you would be wrong as usual.

 

[timschochet]

Your interpretation of well regulated does not conform to the language at the time the document was written. Maybe, maybe not. It's completely irrelevant IMO. That's why this whole "original intent" argument is so obtuse. At the time the constitution was written, there were no automatic or semi-automatic weapons. Rifles had to be loaded from the front, with powder. How can we possibly know what the Founding Fathers would have thought about the changes in technology and why should it even matter? The constitution is for us to interpret as we choose, given the times we live in. Personally, I believe that we should have a national registration of ALL privately owned firearms, that all sales and transfers should be tightly controlled, that anyone caught attempting to sell or transfer firearms outside of federal monitoring should lose all gun-owning privileges and be punished. I think this would live up to our CURRENT interpretation of the phrase "well-regulated" militia, given the times we live in.

...and you would be wrong as usual.

Well, that's convincing.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

Your interpretation of well regulated does not conform to the language at the time the document was written. Maybe, maybe not. It's completely irrelevant IMO. That's why this whole "original intent" argument is so obtuse. At the time the constitution was written, there were no automatic or semi-automatic weapons. Rifles had to be loaded from the front, with powder. How can we possibly know what the Founding Fathers would have thought about the changes in technology and why should it even matter? The constitution is for us to interpret as we choose, given the times we live in. Personally, I believe that we should have a national registration of ALL privately owned firearms, that all sales and transfers should be tightly controlled, that anyone caught attempting to sell or transfer firearms outside of federal monitoring should lose all gun-owning privileges and be punished. I think this would live up to our CURRENT interpretation of the phrase "well-regulated" militia, given the times we live in.

...and you would be wrong as usual.

Well, that's convincing.

You do not have the authority to interpret the Constitution to satisfy your political agenda, you say the language it was written in at the time is completely irrelevant and then put your own spin on what it should mean.

Dead wrong.

 

[timschochet]

Your interpretation of well regulated does not conform to the language at the time the document was written. Maybe, maybe not. It's completely irrelevant IMO. That's why this whole "original intent" argument is so obtuse. At the time the constitution was written, there were no automatic or semi-automatic weapons. Rifles had to be loaded from the front, with powder. How can we possibly know what the Founding Fathers would have thought about the changes in technology and why should it even matter? The constitution is for us to interpret as we choose, given the times we live in. Personally, I believe that we should have a national registration of ALL privately owned firearms, that all sales and transfers should be tightly controlled, that anyone caught attempting to sell or transfer firearms outside of federal monitoring should lose all gun-owning privileges and be punished. I think this would live up to our CURRENT interpretation of the phrase "well-regulated" militia, given the times we live in.

...and you would be wrong as usual.

Well, that's convincing.

You do not have the authority to interpret the Constitution to satisfy your political agenda, you say the language it was written in at the time is completely irrelevant and then put your own spin on what it should mean.Dead wrong.

The "political agenda" is on your side not mine . And if you think I'm wrong about the rest of it, make your best argument. The paranoid rhetoric you have pasted in the past is pretty weak.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

Your interpretation of well regulated does not conform to the language at the time the document was written. Maybe, maybe not. It's completely irrelevant IMO. That's why this whole "original intent" argument is so obtuse. At the time the constitution was written, there were no automatic or semi-automatic weapons. Rifles had to be loaded from the front, with powder. How can we possibly know what the Founding Fathers would have thought about the changes in technology and why should it even matter? The constitution is for us to interpret as we choose, given the times we live in. Personally, I believe that we should have a national registration of ALL privately owned firearms, that all sales and transfers should be tightly controlled, that anyone caught attempting to sell or transfer firearms outside of federal monitoring should lose all gun-owning privileges and be punished. I think this would live up to our CURRENT interpretation of the phrase "well-regulated" militia, given the times we live in.

...and you would be wrong as usual.

Well, that's convincing.

You do not have the authority to interpret the Constitution to satisfy your political agenda, you say the language it was written in at the time is completely irrelevant and then put your own spin on what it should mean.Dead wrong.

The "political agenda" is on your side not mine . And if you think I'm wrong about the rest of it, make your best argument. The paranoid rhetoric you have pasted in the past is pretty weak.

You want BIG government, you want control, you get all of the corruption that goes with it, what political agenda am I pushing, to defend the Constitution?

To take a line from your book, "I don't need to reiterate all of the arguments I've already made..." showing you will not get compliance with the policies you are pushing.

 

[ichris]

Your interpretation of well regulated does not conform to the language at the time the document was written.

Maybe, maybe not. It's completely irrelevant IMO. That's why this whole "original intent" argument is so obtuse. At the time the constitution was written, there were no automatic or semi-automatic weapons. Rifles had to be loaded from the front, with powder. How can we possibly know what the Founding Fathers would have thought about the changes in technology and why should it even matter? The constitution is for us to interpret as we choose, given the times we live in.

Personally, I believe that we should have a national registration of ALL privately owned firearms, that all sales and transfers should be tightly controlled, that anyone caught attempting to sell or transfer firearms outside of federal monitoring should lose all gun-owning privileges and be punished. I think this would live up to our CURRENT interpretation of the phrase "well-regulated" militia, given the times we live in.

How will you punish the people do not comply with the gun registry?

 

[timschochet]

Your interpretation of well regulated does not conform to the language at the time the document was written. Maybe, maybe not. It's completely irrelevant IMO. That's why this whole "original intent" argument is so obtuse. At the time the constitution was written, there were no automatic or semi-automatic weapons. Rifles had to be loaded from the front, with powder. How can we possibly know what the Founding Fathers would have thought about the changes in technology and why should it even matter? The constitution is for us to interpret as we choose, given the times we live in. Personally, I believe that we should have a national registration of ALL privately owned firearms, that all sales and transfers should be tightly controlled, that anyone caught attempting to sell or transfer firearms outside of federal monitoring should lose all gun-owning privileges and be punished. I think this would live up to our CURRENT interpretation of the phrase "well-regulated" militia, given the times we live in.

How will you punish the people do not comply with the gun registry?

Fines and seizure.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

Your interpretation of well regulated does not conform to the language at the time the document was written.

Maybe, maybe not. It's completely irrelevant IMO. That's why this whole "original intent" argument is so obtuse. At the time the constitution was written, there were no automatic or semi-automatic weapons. Rifles had to be loaded from the front, with powder. How can we possibly know what the Founding Fathers would have thought about the changes in technology and why should it even matter? The constitution is for us to interpret as we choose, given the times we live in.

Personally, I believe that we should have a national registration of ALL privately owned firearms, that all sales and transfers should be tightly controlled, that anyone caught attempting to sell or transfer firearms outside of federal monitoring should lose all gun-owning privileges and be punished. I think this would live up to our CURRENT interpretation of the phrase "well-regulated" militia, given the times we live in.

How will you punish the people do not comply with the gun registry?

Fines and seizure.

How are you going to seize them?

<Knock Knock>

Officer: Do you own gun XYZ?

Civilian: No I sold that gun last year.

Officer: Who did you sell it to?

Civilian: I don't know, he called me up from a private number and I never asked his name and he paid cash.

Officer: Do you mind if I look around your house?

Civilian: Yes.

1. He is telling the truth and the Officer cannot do anything at this point.

2. He is lying, he sold it to his cousin and the Officer does not know this and it ends here.

3. He is lying, he still has the weapon, what is the Officer going to do without getting a search warrant?

 

[ichris]

Your interpretation of well regulated does not conform to the language at the time the document was written. Maybe, maybe not. It's completely irrelevant IMO. That's why this whole "original intent" argument is so obtuse. At the time the constitution was written, there were no automatic or semi-automatic weapons. Rifles had to be loaded from the front, with powder. How can we possibly know what the Founding Fathers would have thought about the changes in technology and why should it even matter? The constitution is for us to interpret as we choose, given the times we live in. Personally, I believe that we should have a national registration of ALL privately owned firearms, that all sales and transfers should be tightly controlled, that anyone caught attempting to sell or transfer firearms outside of federal monitoring should lose all gun-owning privileges and be punished. I think this would live up to our CURRENT interpretation of the phrase "well-regulated" militia, given the times we live in.

How will you punish the people do not comply with the gun registry?

Fines and seizure.

Is that what the Canadians did? Their compliance rate was abysmal and turned the whole project into a waste of time and money. What did they do wrong that we could avoid?

 

[timschochet]

I don't know the answers to your questions. I am not an expert.

But I also don't believe it's especially impracticable, which seems to be what you guys are getting at. Israel, which has a much higher rate of gun ownership than we have here, also has strict regulation and national registration. Somehow, they manage to do it, and it hasn't affected the ability of private citizens over there to own firearms. So it can be done. I have a feeling that given today's internet technology, it can be done far cheaper than anyone thinks. I also think enforcement will be much easier than people think, because, as I have written many times in this thread, the vast majority of gun owners in this country are responsible law abiding citizens. If the law is there, they will obey it. The whole point of these laws are to isolate the bad guys.

Obviously this is all conjecture. I acknowledge that none of this is going to happen in my life time. There is no public support for national registration, and even when there is 90% public support for universal background checks, that's not enough to get Congress to move. So there's no way that national registration would ever happen. But I don't accept the arguments that it is either unconstitutional or not feasible. The reason it won't be done is because the NRA has successfully turned this entire topic into paranoia, and you guys have swallowed it up.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

There is no public support for national registration, and even when there is 90% public support for universal background checks, that's not enough to get Congress to move.

:

The reason it won't be done is because the NRA has successfully turned this entire topic into paranoia, and you guys have swallowed it up.

First you cite outdated and dis-proven stats and then you blame the NRA for propaganda.



96.2% of GOA members OPPOSE Universal Background Checks

Three basic reasons why people don't like "universal background checks":

• 
  They're a restriction on the exercise of a fundamental Constitutional right. Whether or not they're a permissible restriction depends a lot on exactly how they're implemented - but the right to keep and bear a gun is similar to the right to choose your own church/religion, or to read and write what you want, or to have an abortion, or to have children. Some of the basic opposition to them comes from the idea that requiring permission, or a background check, or a license, or whatever, before people can exercise a fundamental right is inherently offensive to people who value freedom.
  
• 
  They're ineffective relative to the expense/hassle they cause. Most criminals don't buy their guns at gun stores or gun shows, or from private parties - they steal them, or they buy them on the black market (from people who stole them, or did a straw purchase). On the other hand, the crazed mass murderers sometimes get their guns illegally (Sandy Hook, Columbine) and sometimes get their guns legally, because there's no way for the people selling the guns to know that the purchaser shouldn't be buying them, because the buyer isn't crazy yet, or hasn't been well-documented enough as crazy that they can be identified as such by a background check. Granted, there are probably a tiny number of cases where a person is (a) crazy enough to show up in databases of prohibited people, and (b) incapable of getting a gun some other way, and © inept enough that they can't kill with fire or poison or explosions or knives or whatever, but people who value their firearm rights don't perceive that tiny improvement in security as justifying a moderate (or worse) impairment of the rights of millions of law-abiding non-violent people.
  
• 
  They create a database of guns or gun owners, which can pretty much only be used to hurt gun owners. Look at what California has done with their "assault weapon" registrations - in some cases, they've retroactively decided that certain guns were allowed that shouldn't have been allowed, and the CA Department of Justice has sent letters to gun owners saying "turn in your guns or go to jail." A bill is pending now before the California legislature that will use registrations collected 15 years ago, for weapons that were perfectly legal then, to confiscate weapons that are now politically unpopular.
  

In other cases, media has gotten access to lists of guns/firearm permits and published them, leading to the disclosure of names/addresses/firearm status, putting law enforcement officers, domestic violence victims (and even people who don't have an especially sensitive personal security situation) at risk of attack or burglary.

This is not paranoia and you are obnoxious for continuing to point fingers in such a condescending way.

 

[timschochet]

There is no public support for national registration, and even when there is 90% public support for universal background checks, that's not enough to get Congress to move.

:

The reason it won't be done is because the NRA has successfully turned this entire topic into paranoia, and you guys have swallowed it up.

First you cite outdated and dis-proven stats and then you blame the NRA for propaganda.



96.2% of GOA members OPPOSE Universal Background Checks

Three basic reasons why people don't like "universal background checks":

• 
  They're a restriction on the exercise of a fundamental Constitutional right. Whether or not they're a permissible restriction depends a lot on exactly how they're implemented - but the right to keep and bear a gun is similar to the right to choose your own church/religion, or to read and write what you want, or to have an abortion, or to have children. Some of the basic opposition to them comes from the idea that requiring permission, or a background check, or a license, or whatever, before people can exercise a fundamental right is inherently offensive to people who value freedom.
  
• 
  They're ineffective relative to the expense/hassle they cause. Most criminals don't buy their guns at gun stores or gun shows, or from private parties - they steal them, or they buy them on the black market (from people who stole them, or did a straw purchase). On the other hand, the crazed mass murderers sometimes get their guns illegally (Sandy Hook, Columbine) and sometimes get their guns legally, because there's no way for the people selling the guns to know that the purchaser shouldn't be buying them, because the buyer isn't crazy yet, or hasn't been well-documented enough as crazy that they can be identified as such by a background check. Granted, there are probably a tiny number of cases where a person is (a) crazy enough to show up in databases of prohibited people, and (b) incapable of getting a gun some other way, and © inept enough that they can't kill with fire or poison or explosions or knives or whatever, but people who value their firearm rights don't perceive that tiny improvement in security as justifying a moderate (or worse) impairment of the rights of millions of law-abiding non-violent people.
  
• 
  They create a database of guns or gun owners, which can pretty much only be used to hurt gun owners. Look at what California has done with their "assault weapon" registrations - in some cases, they've retroactively decided that certain guns were allowed that shouldn't have been allowed, and the CA Department of Justice has sent letters to gun owners saying "turn in your guns or go to jail." A bill is pending now before the California legislature that will use registrations collected 15 years ago, for weapons that were perfectly legal then, to confiscate weapons that are now politically unpopular.
  

In other cases, media has gotten access to lists of guns/firearm permits and published them, leading to the disclosure of names/addresses/firearm status, putting law enforcement officers, domestic violence victims (and even people who don't have an especially sensitive personal security situation) at risk of attack or burglary.

This is not paranoia and you are obnoxious for continuing to point fingers in such a condescending way.

#1 is wrong, and the only people who believe it are paranoid.

#2 is arguable. I think it is wrong. So do the vast majority of police. I am no expert but they are.

#3 is paranoia to the extreme. So how can I be obnoxious for pointing it out?

 

[ichris]

I don't know the answers to your questions. I am not an expert.

But I also don't believe it's especially impracticable, which seems to be what you guys are getting at. Israel, which has a much higher rate of gun ownership than we have here, also has strict regulation and national registration. Somehow, they manage to do it, and it hasn't affected the ability of private citizens over there to own firearms. So it can be done. I have a feeling that given today's internet technology, it can be done far cheaper than anyone thinks. I also think enforcement will be much easier than people think, because, as I have written many times in this thread, the vast majority of gun owners in this country are responsible law abiding citizens. If the law is there, they will obey it. The whole point of these laws are to isolate the bad guys.

Obviously this is all conjecture. I acknowledge that none of this is going to happen in my life time. There is no public support for national registration, and even when there is 90% public support for universal background checks, that's not enough to get Congress to move. So there's no way that national registration would ever happen. But I don't accept the arguments that it is either unconstitutional or not feasible. The reason it won't be done is because the NRA has successfully turned this entire topic into paranoia, and you guys have swallowed it up.

The experts didn't think a Canadian gun registry would be impracticable or too expensive either. What makes you think paranoid Americans will register weapons when the big-government-loving Canadians did not?

If it's your prerogative, go ahead and blame the NRA for protecting basic human rights defending against universal background checks. You need to also blame the ACLU, they came out against the universal background checks too. Two Constitutional oriented organizations oppose the universal background check bill. Obviously they think some civil liberties are being attacked.

You've lost the argument this time because the liberal gun agenda only works when public emotions are running high. You'll have to wait and politicize the next mass murder event when a psychopath decides to kill people.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

3 is paranoia to the extreme. So how can I be obnoxious for pointing it out?

http://www.shouselaw.com/pc12280.html

"Wobbler" sentencing for possessing assault weapons

Possession of assault weapons is what’s known as a wobbler. When an offense is a "wobbler" it means that prosecutors can choose to charge you with the crime as either a misdemeanor or a felony, depending on

• the facts of the case, and
• your criminal history.

If convicted of misdemeanor possession of an assault weapon, you face up to one year in a county jail and a maximum $1,000 fine. If convicted of felony possession of an assault weapon, you face 16 months, or two or three years in the state prison and a maximum $10,000 fine.26

From your other thread on this very topic where you called Dvorak paranoid as well, you didn't acknowledge it then either:

http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=650370&p=14641493

 

[Mookie]

Hang in there timschochet. There are many around here who completely agree with you, but just don't have the time to push this rock around in a circle.

 

[StrikeS2k]

I don't know the answers to your questions. I am not an expert.

But I also don't believe it's especially impracticable, which seems to be what you guys are getting at. Israel, which has a much higher rate of gun ownership than we have here, also has strict regulation and national registration. Somehow, they manage to do it, and it hasn't affected the ability of private citizens over there to own firearms. So it can be done. I have a feeling that given today's internet technology, it can be done far cheaper than anyone thinks. I also think enforcement will be much easier than people think, because, as I have written many times in this thread, the vast majority of gun owners in this country are responsible law abiding citizens. If the law is there, they will obey it. The whole point of these laws are to isolate the bad guys.

Obviously this is all conjecture. I acknowledge that none of this is going to happen in my life time. There is no public support for national registration, and even when there is 90% public support for universal background checks, that's not enough to get Congress to move. So there's no way that national registration would ever happen. But I don't accept the arguments that it is either unconstitutional or not feasible. The reason it won't be done is because the NRA has successfully turned this entire topic into paranoia, and you guys have swallowed it up.

Israel is a horrilbe analogy. Tim, don't they have a very restrictive immigration policy? Aren't they also a much smaller country than we are? Do you really think their model will work here given the porousness of our borders?

 

[[icon]]

I don't know the answers to your questions. I am not an expert.

Well tim is finally starting to make some sense in here.

 

[Dvorak]

PoliceOne.com survey results:

http://ddq74coujkv1i.cloudfront.net/p1_gunsurveysummary_2013.pdf

Wow, these results completely confllict with everything Tim has ever claimed about what police officers believe when it comes to guns...

Amoung them:

• 99 percent said policies other than an “assault weapons” ban are most important to prevent mass shootings.
• Almost 96 percent said that a ban on standard capacity magazines would not reduce violent crime.
• More than 91 percent stated that the use of a firearm in the commission of a crime should have stiff, mandatory sentences, and no plea-bargains.
• More than 91 percent stated they supported the Right-to-Carry by law abiding Americans.
• More than 81 percent said that “gun buy-backs” do not reduce gun violence.
• 80 percent believe legally armed citizens can reduce casualties in incidents of mass violence.
• Nearly 80 percent said that a ban on private transfers of firearms between law-abiding citizens would not reduce violent crime.
• More than 76 percent indicated that legally armed citizens are important to reducing crime.
• More than 76 percent support the arming of trained and qualified teachers or administrators who volunteer to carry a firearm.
• More than 70 percent said that a ban on “assault weapons” would not reduce violent crime.
• More than 70 percent opposed the idea of a national registry of legal gun sales.
• Nearly 68 percent said magazine capacity restrictions would negatively affect them personally.
• More than 60 percent said that the passage of Obama’s gun control legislation would not improve officer safety.
  

 

[5 digit know nothing]

I don't know the answers to your questions. I am not an expert.

But I also don't believe it's especially impracticable, which seems to be what you guys are getting at. Israel, which has a much higher rate of gun ownership than we have here, also has strict regulation and national registration. Somehow, they manage to do it, and it hasn't affected the ability of private citizens over there to own firearms. So it can be done. I have a feeling that given today's internet technology, it can be done far cheaper than anyone thinks. I also think enforcement will be much easier than people think, because, as I have written many times in this thread, the vast majority of gun owners in this country are responsible law abiding citizens. If the law is there, they will obey it. The whole point of these laws are to isolate the bad guys.

Obviously this is all conjecture. I acknowledge that none of this is going to happen in my life time. There is no public support for national registration, and even when there is 90% public support for universal background checks, that's not enough to get Congress to move. So there's no way that national registration would ever happen. But I don't accept the arguments that it is either unconstitutional or not feasible. The reason it won't be done is because the NRA has successfully turned this entire topic into paranoia, and you guys have swallowed it up.

Israel is a horrilbe analogy. Tim, don't they have a very restrictive immigration policy? Aren't they also a much smaller country than we are? Do you really think their model will work here given the porousness of our borders?

He's the biggest hypocrite pointing to Israel and their registration practices of the 6% of civilians that own a firearm. source

Yes let's be more like Israel that way anyone and everyone could carry weapons in public anywhere in public it is actually encouraged by police. Their relationship is so good with their citizens that anyone trained with the weapon can draw out a fully automatic weapon from their local armory.

For those desiring to own guns, licensure is available on demand to every law-abiding, responsible adult. Swiss law allows, while Israeli law and policy actively promote, widespread carrying of handguns to maximize the likelihood that armed civilians will be present in public places. As an Israeli criminologist notes, Israeli murder rates are "much lower than ... in the United States.... despite the greater availability of guns to law-abiding [israeli] civilians."

The reason relatively few Israelis own guns is because any law-abiding, responsible, trained Israeli who needs a sub-machine gun, or a handgun, just draws it out of the local police armory, unlike in the United States, where fully automatic weapons have been illegal or severely controlled since the 1930s, and the importation and sale of even semi-automatic weapons is now prohibited. Unlike the United States, where carrying a concealed handgun is almost universally illegal, in Israel if you legally possess a firearm (by loan or licensure) you are allowed to carry it on your body (concealed or not concealed). The police even recommend you carry it, because then the gun is protected from thieves or children. The result is that in any big crowd of citizens, there are some people with their personal handguns on them (usually, concealed).

more...

American massacres in which dozens of unarmed victims are mowed down before police can arrive astound Israelis who note what occurred at a Jerusalem [crowd spot] some weeks before the California MacDonald's massacre: Three terrorists who attempted to machine-gun the throng managed to kill only one victim before being shot down by handgun-carrying Israelis. Presented to the press the next day, the surviving terrorist complained that his group had not realized that Israeli civilians were armed. The terrorists had planned to machine-gun a succession of crowd spots, thinking that they would be able to escape before the police or army could arrive to deal with them.

Score one for gun registration!

Wait what's this talk about loaning weapons...

Why do only 6% of Israelis own guns? Well let's look at what is required to own one...

To receive a gun license, one technically needs to meet two sets of criteria. First, the basics: A gun owner must be a citizen or a permanent resident and speak some Hebrew. The person can’t be a minor and can’t have any physical or mental problems hindering him from operating a firearm. Second, one must show cause to carry a weapon, a privilege limited on paper to about a dozen categories of people whose work conditions are perilous enough to justify carrying a firearm.

more...

In 2000, there were approximately 400,000 legally owned firearms in Israel, the majority of them handguns, and the number of illegal weapons stood at about 150,000. (61.5% compliance) Ten years later, thanks largely to the new strictures, the ratio was reversed: 180,000 firearms were legally licensed, and more than 400,000 were illegally obtained, most of them assault rifles like the M-16 and the Galil, stolen from the Israel Defense Forces. (31% compliance)

Score another one for gun registration in Israel!

 

[5 digit know nothing]

PoliceOne.com survey results:

http://ddq74coujkv1i.cloudfront.net/p1_gunsurveysummary_2013.pdf

Wow, these results completely confllict with everything Tim has ever claimed about what police officers believe when it comes to guns...

Amoung them:

• 99 percent said policies other than an “assault weapons” ban are most important to prevent mass shootings.
• Almost 96 percent said that a ban on standard capacity magazines would not reduce violent crime.
• More than 91 percent stated that the use of a firearm in the commission of a crime should have stiff, mandatory sentences, and no plea-bargains.
• More than 91 percent stated they supported the Right-to-Carry by law abiding Americans.
• More than 81 percent said that “gun buy-backs” do not reduce gun violence.
• 80 percent believe legally armed citizens can reduce casualties in incidents of mass violence.
• Nearly 80 percent said that a ban on private transfers of firearms between law-abiding citizens would not reduce violent crime.
• More than 76 percent indicated that legally armed citizens are important to reducing crime.
• More than 76 percent support the arming of trained and qualified teachers or administrators who volunteer to carry a firearm.
• More than 70 percent said that a ban on “assault weapons” would not reduce violent crime.
• More than 70 percent opposed the idea of a national registry of legal gun sales.
• Nearly 68 percent said magazine capacity restrictions would negatively affect them personally.
• More than 60 percent said that the passage of Obama’s gun control legislation would not improve officer safety.

More good stuff that will likely get ignored by the anti-gun crowd in this thread. Another summary of the results

Question 21. What would help most in preventing large scale schootings in public? Choose the Selection you feel would have the most impact:

Rankings of answers by % responded:

1. More permissive concealed carry policies for civilians (28.8%)

2. More aggressive institutionalization for mentally ill persons

3. More armed guards/paid security personnel

4. Improved background screening to determine mental wellness of gun purchasers

5. Other (please add) (11.4%)

6. Longer prison terms for gun-related violent crimes

7. Tighter limits on weapons sales and transfers (1.5%) - a.k.a. Universal Background Checks

8. More legislative restrictions on "assault weapons" and ammo magazines (0.9%) a.k.a. AWB

Nearly 8x as many officers spent the time to write in an answer that they believe would be more beneficial to preventing large scale shootings rather than simply checking a box for Universal Background Checks.

 

[timschochet]

Hang in there timschochet. There are many around here who completely agree with you, but just don't have the time to push this rock around in a circle.

Thanks. I try, but it's hard with all of the endless paranoid rhetoric coming from the other side.

 

[ichris]

Hang in there timschochet. There are many around here who completely agree with you, but just don't have the time to push this rock around in a circle.

Thanks. I try, but it's hard with all of the endless paranoid rhetoric coming from the other side.

Your performance in this thread is a disaster. Instead of responding to valid arguments and/or concerns you resort to belittling the people disagreeing with you. Persistence won't overcome the lack of depth in your opinions.

 

[FootballDummy]

http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/08/us/tennessee-gun-death/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

Oops.

 

[[icon]]

Tim care to address the police one survey?

 

[[icon]]

http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/08/us/tennessee-gun-death/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

Oops.

Sucks but clearly a case of stupid gun owner not storing his weapons properly... Just because one idiot ####s his pants shouldn't mean everyone has to wear diapers.

 

[FootballDummy]

http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/08/us/tennessee-gun-death/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

Oops.

Sucks but clearly a case of stupid gun owner not storing his weapons properly... Just because one idiot ####s his pants shouldn't mean everyone has to wear diapers.

Yeah, guns are awesome, everybody should have one. Oh wait.

 

[Todd Andrews]

Why are Republicans trying to make sure every madman has the right to buy an assault rifle and a high magazine clip again?

I missed the part where that was explained. Thanks in advance.

 

[mad sweeney]

PoliceOne.com survey results:

http://ddq74coujkv1i.cloudfront.net/p1_gunsurveysummary_2013.pdf

Wow, these results completely confllict with everything Tim has ever claimed about what police officers believe when it comes to guns...

Amoung them:

• 99 percent said policies other than an “assault weapons” ban are most important to prevent mass shootings.
• Almost 96 percent said that a ban on standard capacity magazines would not reduce violent crime.
• More than 91 percent stated that the use of a firearm in the commission of a crime should have stiff, mandatory sentences, and no plea-bargains.
• More than 91 percent stated they supported the Right-to-Carry by law abiding Americans.
• More than 81 percent said that “gun buy-backs” do not reduce gun violence.
• 80 percent believe legally armed citizens can reduce casualties in incidents of mass violence.
• Nearly 80 percent said that a ban on private transfers of firearms between law-abiding citizens would not reduce violent crime.
• More than 76 percent indicated that legally armed citizens are important to reducing crime.
• More than 76 percent support the arming of trained and qualified teachers or administrators who volunteer to carry a firearm.
• More than 70 percent said that a ban on “assault weapons” would not reduce violent crime.
• More than 70 percent opposed the idea of a national registry of legal gun sales.
• Nearly 68 percent said magazine capacity restrictions would negatively affect them personally.
• More than 60 percent said that the passage of Obama’s gun control legislation would not improve officer safety.

More good stuff that will likely get ignored by the anti-gun crowd in this thread. Another summary of the results

Question 21. What would help most in preventing large scale schootings in public? Choose the Selection you feel would have the most impact:

Rankings of answers by % responded:

1. More permissive concealed carry policies for civilians (28.8%)

2. More aggressive institutionalization for mentally ill persons

3. More armed guards/paid security personnel

4. Improved background screening to determine mental wellness of gun purchasers

5. Other (please add) (11.4%)

6. Longer prison terms for gun-related violent crimes

7. Tighter limits on weapons sales and transfers (1.5%) - a.k.a. Universal Background Checks

8. More legislative restrictions on "assault weapons" and ammo magazines (0.9%) a.k.a. AWB

Nearly 8x as many officers spent the time to write in an answer that they believe would be more beneficial to preventing large scale shootings rather than simply checking a box for Universal Background Checks.

It doesn't help your side that less than a third of the officers thought that more civilians carrying guns was the answer. Listening to the right wing rhetoric, that's the BEST way to do it. Yet barely more than a quarter of the police agree.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/08/us/tennessee-gun-death/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

Oops.

Sucks but clearly a case of stupid gun owner not storing his weapons properly... Just because one idiot ####s his pants shouldn't mean everyone has to wear diapers.

Yeah, guns are awesome, everybody should have one. Oh wait.

Oh look.. Now the sheriffs department shouldn't have guns...

I thought these guys having guns and being the authority was the reason why we didn't need guns..?

 

[ATC1]

Why are Republicans trying to make sure every madman has the right to buy an assault rifle and a high magazine clip again?

I missed the part where that was explained. Thanks in advance.

X

 

[5 digit know nothing]

Why are Republicans trying to make sure every madman has the right to buy an assault rifle and a high magazine clip again?

I missed the part where that was explained. Thanks in advance.

high magazine clip

How high, 10 feet?

 

[ATC1]

PoliceOne.com survey results:

http://ddq74coujkv1i.cloudfront.net/p1_gunsurveysummary_2013.pdf

Wow, these results completely confllict with everything Tim has ever claimed about what police officers believe when it comes to guns...

Amoung them:

• 99 percent said policies other than an “assault weapons” ban are most important to prevent mass shootings.
• Almost 96 percent said that a ban on standard capacity magazines would not reduce violent crime.
• More than 91 percent stated that the use of a firearm in the commission of a crime should have stiff, mandatory sentences, and no plea-bargains.
• More than 91 percent stated they supported the Right-to-Carry by law abiding Americans.
• More than 81 percent said that “gun buy-backs” do not reduce gun violence.
• 80 percent believe legally armed citizens can reduce casualties in incidents of mass violence.
• Nearly 80 percent said that a ban on private transfers of firearms between law-abiding citizens would not reduce violent crime.
• More than 76 percent indicated that legally armed citizens are important to reducing crime.
• More than 76 percent support the arming of trained and qualified teachers or administrators who volunteer to carry a firearm.
• More than 70 percent said that a ban on “assault weapons” would not reduce violent crime.
• More than 70 percent opposed the idea of a national registry of legal gun sales.
• Nearly 68 percent said magazine capacity restrictions would negatively affect them personally.
• More than 60 percent said that the passage of Obama’s gun control legislation would not improve officer safety.

More good stuff that will likely get ignored by the anti-gun crowd in this thread. Another summary of the results

Question 21. What would help most in preventing large scale schootings in public? Choose the Selection you feel would have the most impact:

Rankings of answers by % responded:

1. More permissive concealed carry policies for civilians (28.8%)

2. More aggressive institutionalization for mentally ill persons

3. More armed guards/paid security personnel

4. Improved background screening to determine mental wellness of gun purchasers

5. Other (please add) (11.4%)

6. Longer prison terms for gun-related violent crimes

7. Tighter limits on weapons sales and transfers (1.5%) - a.k.a. Universal Background Checks

8. More legislative restrictions on "assault weapons" and ammo magazines (0.9%) a.k.a. AWB

Nearly 8x as many officers spent the time to write in an answer that they believe would be more beneficial to preventing large scale shootings rather than simply checking a box for Universal Background Checks.

It doesn't help your side that less than a third of the officers thought that more civilians carrying guns was the answer. Listening to the right wing rhetoric, that's the BEST way to do it. Yet barely more than a quarter of the police agree.

When you learn how to read a poll, come back an post again.

You must have also missed the top quote.

• More than 91 percent stated they supported the Right-to-Carry by law abiding Americans.
• More than 81 percent said that “gun buy-backs” do not reduce gun violence.
• 80 percent believe legally armed citizens can reduce casualties in incidents of mass violence.
• Nearly 80 percent said that a ban on private transfers of firearms between law-abiding citizens would not reduce violent crime.
• More than 76 percent indicated that legally armed citizens are important to reducing crime.
• More than 76 percent support the arming of trained and qualified teachers or administrators who volunteer to carry a firearm.

 

[mad sweeney]

PoliceOne.com survey results:

http://ddq74coujkv1i.cloudfront.net/p1_gunsurveysummary_2013.pdf

Wow, these results completely confllict with everything Tim has ever claimed about what police officers believe when it comes to guns...

Amoung them:

[*]99 percent said policies other than an “assault weapons” ban are most important to prevent mass shootings.

[*]

[*]Almost 96 percent said that a ban on standard capacity magazines would not reduce violent crime.

[*]

[*]More than 91 percent stated that the use of a firearm in the commission of a crime should have stiff, mandatory sentences, and no plea-bargains.

[*]

[*]More than 91 percent stated they supported the Right-to-Carry by law abiding Americans.

[*]

[*]More than 81 percent said that “gun buy-backs” do not reduce gun violence.

[*]

[*]80 percent believe legally armed citizens can reduce casualties in incidents of mass violence.

[*]

[*]Nearly 80 percent said that a ban on private transfers of firearms between law-abiding citizens would not reduce violent crime.

[*]

[*]More than 76 percent indicated that legally armed citizens are important to reducing crime.

[*]

[*]More than 76 percent support the arming of trained and qualified teachers or administrators who volunteer to carry a firearm.

[*]

[*]More than 70 percent said that a ban on “assault weapons” would not reduce violent crime.

[*]

[*]More than 70 percent opposed the idea of a national registry of legal gun sales.

[*]

[*]Nearly 68 percent said magazine capacity restrictions would negatively affect them personally.

[*]

[*]More than 60 percent said that the passage of Obama’s gun control legislation would not improve officer safety.

[*]

More good stuff that will likely get ignored by the anti-gun crowd in this thread. Another summary of the resultsQuestion 21. What would help most in preventing large scale schootings in public? Choose the Selection you feel would have the most impact:

Rankings of answers by % responded:

1. More permissive concealed carry policies for civilians (28.8%)

2. More aggressive institutionalization for mentally ill persons

3. More armed guards/paid security personnel

4. Improved background screening to determine mental wellness of gun purchasers

5. Other (please add) (11.4%)

6. Longer prison terms for gun-related violent crimes

7. Tighter limits on weapons sales and transfers (1.5%) - a.k.a. Universal Background Checks

8. More legislative restrictions on "assault weapons" and ammo magazines (0.9%) a.k.a. AWB

Nearly 8x as many officers spent the time to write in an answer that they believe would be more beneficial to preventing large scale shootings rather than simply checking a box for Universal Background Checks.

It doesn't help your side that less than a third of the officers thought that more civilians carrying guns was the answer. Listening to the right wing rhetoric, that's the BEST way to do it. Yet barely more than a quarter of the police agree.

When you learn how to read a poll, come back an post again.You must have also missed the top quote.

[*]More than 91 percent stated they supported the Right-to-Carry by law abiding Americans.

[*]

[*]More than 81 percent said that “gun buy-backs” do not reduce gun violence.

[*]

[*]80 percent believe legally armed citizens can reduce casualties in incidents of mass violence.

[*]

[*]Nearly 80 percent said that a ban on private transfers of firearms between law-abiding citizens would not reduce violent crime.

[*]

[*]More than 76 percent indicated that legally armed citizens are important to reducing crime.

[*]

[*]More than 76 percent support the arming of trained and qualified teachers or administrators who volunteer to carry a firearm.

When you learn to spell, come back an(d) post again. I was commenting on a specific part of the polls, one that I feel strongly against. Hth.

 

[BustedKnuckles]

During a trip to the United States, a powerful South Korean politician has suggested that his country needs nuclear weapons of its own - and not just to intimidate North Korea, but also to send a strong message to China.

Just like here with the guns just on a much smaller scale...same rational

 

[ATC1]

When you learn to spell, come back an(d) post again. I was commenting on a specific part of the polls, one that I feel strongly against. Hth.

What specific part?

Question 21. What would help most in preventing large scale schootings in public? Choose the Selection you feel would have the most impact: Rankings of answers by % responded:1. More permissive concealed carry policies for civilians (28.8%)

This was the part you quoted and would be just over 1/4. They did not ask a yes or no. The 8 categories made up 100%. I would consider 28.8% rather high and certainly is the highest of any other choice.

 

[ATC1]

Actually as far as question 21. If I had to give my priority of what I think would help the most, this would be my ranking.

 

[timschochet]

Tim care to address the police one survey?

It's important to consider all relevant information. Dvorak is correct that the results of this poll appear to contradict some of what I have written in this thread, specifically about police support for universal background checks. Of course, I did not make my assertions out of thin air. I have read for months now now, from a variety of sources, that the majority of police, (as well as the majority of gun-owners and NRA members) support universal background check. The latest Quinnipiac poll has confirmed at least part of this again:

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2013/04/poll-obama-guns-background-checks.php

But I want to stress that earlier when I wrote that police officers had convinced me on this issue, it was not the polling that did so, but specific arguments made by police officers in opinion pieces I have read on this. I have pasted a few of those earlier in this thread. If the arguments were not compelling then the polling (one way or the other) wouldn't matter.

 

[timschochet]

The NRA and pro-gun Republicans have argued that expanded background checks will be unfairly tedious to responsible gun owners, while more ominously warning that the measure could ultimately lead to confiscation. Quinnipiac’s latest indicated that rhetoric may be working, despite the enormous support for universal background checks. The poll showed a plurality of Americans overall (48 percent) and a majority of gun owners (53 percent) believe that universal background checks could lead to confiscation of legal firearms.

To me, this is the scary part. And I believe it's what fuels the gun nuts. Sure, they will argue the constitutionality, and the effectiveness, all day long. But at the core of their opposition is the fear of confiscation. It's pure paranoia, but they believe in an evil government intent on seizing their guns and installing a dictatorship. The scary part is that they have convinced so many Americans that this is a possibility.

The economic uncertainty of the times we are living in have made us more susceptible to populist paranoia and conspiracy theories than at any time since the early 1950s.

 

[ATC1]

The NRA and pro-gun Republicans have argued that expanded background checks will be unfairly tedious to responsible gun owners, while more ominously warning that the measure could ultimately lead to confiscation. Quinnipiac’s latest indicated that rhetoric may be working, despite the enormous support for universal background checks. The poll showed a plurality of Americans overall (48 percent) and a majority of gun owners (53 percent) believe that universal background checks could lead to confiscation of legal firearms.

To me, this is the scary part. And I believe it's what fuels the gun nuts. Sure, they will argue the constitutionality, and the effectiveness, all day long. But at the core of their opposition is the fear of confiscation. It's pure paranoia, but they believe in an evil government intent on seizing their guns and installing a dictatorship. The scary part is that they have convinced so many Americans that this is a possibility.

The economic uncertainty of the times we are living in have made us more susceptible to populist paranoia and conspiracy theories than at any time since the early 1950s.

With recent laws passed in New York, now they are allowing a reward to catch people with these newly deemed illegal guns/magazines and a father's house gets searched for having a picture of his son with a weapon, there is a reasonable assumption to believe the government took one step closer to confiscation. 53% of gun owners don't want to make it any easier for the govenment to be able to do so.