Gun Control Has Only 1 Motive - Confiscation of All Guns from Law Abiding Citizens

[Daryl Hunt]

Hitler didn't take the guns, he actually EXPANDED the gun laws for German Citizens.

Lie.

Lol. Facts don't lie

And the fact are that German Jews were also citizens, and claiming that only citizens could own guns is nonsense. Even before Hitler got in power, German interior minister ordered gun registration, and then he ordered those gun registration records be made secure to keep them from falling into the hands of radical elements.

Very next year, Hitler got in power and seized those records, then he stripped Jews of citizenship first, then their assets, including firearms. He also disarmed all his political opponents, regardless of being citizens.

Nazi Firearm Law by Stephen Halbrook

You should be aware that you contradicted your self in the same post.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

No....he didn't.......he used the gun registration records created in the 1920s and 30s to disarm his enemies and Jews.........he allowed his supporters to have guns.....

You just don't know the history.

He knows history well enough to know what he wants to repeat.

There's a reason that the Nazis wanted to disarm the Jews.

There's a similar reason that subhuman filth such as Daryl Hunt want to disarm law-abiding citizens.

LOL, that's a good one. No wonder no one listens to you IRL about gun regulations.

 

[Ame®icano]

Hitler didn't take the guns, he actually EXPANDED the gun laws for German Citizens.

Lie.

Lol. Facts don't lie

And the fact are that German Jews were also citizens, and claiming that only citizens could own guns is nonsense. Even before Hitler got in power, German interior minister ordered gun registration, and then he ordered those gun registration records be made secure to keep them from falling into the hands of radical elements.

Very next year, Hitler got in power and seized those records, then he stripped Jews of citizenship first, then their assets, including firearms. He also disarmed all his political opponents, regardless of being citizens.

Nazi Firearm Law by Stephen Halbrook

You should be aware that you contradicted your self in the same post.

Care to explain how?

Hitler was very same "radical element" that those records supposed to be protected from, only that radical element got in power year later.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Hitler didn't take the guns, he actually EXPANDED the gun laws for German Citizens.

Lie.

Lol. Facts don't lie

And the fact are that German Jews were also citizens, and claiming that only citizens could own guns is nonsense. Even before Hitler got in power, German interior minister ordered gun registration, and then he ordered those gun registration records be made secure to keep them from falling into the hands of radical elements.

Very next year, Hitler got in power and seized those records, then he stripped Jews of citizenship first, then their assets, including firearms. He also disarmed all his political opponents, regardless of being citizens.

Nazi Firearm Law by Stephen Halbrook

You should be aware that you contradicted your self in the same post.

Care to explain how?

Hitler was very same "radical element" that those records supposed to be protected from, only that radical element got in power year later.

You seem to believe that America is Nazi Germany or has the capability to become one. We have two things that Germany did not have. We have the United States Constitution and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. While I see similarities today the US is self resetting. In order to do modify our government like Mussolini and Hitler did, a leader would have to be able to dissolve the Supreme Court, take over 2/3rds of the Congress and completely control the Federal Military. Only after that can Fascism rule a country. That is how it was done. Forget about the rule of law or land if the laws are weak to begin with. Let me scare you a little bit.

How would someone take over the US?

1. Control the Congress by getting his lackeys to control 2/3rds of Congress so the Constitution can be changed

2. Put in at least 5 of his lackeys into the Supreme Court to do his bidding. You don't have to dissolve it

3. With control of Congress and the Supreme Court, that person can get the necessary changes to the UCMJ. But there is going to be one hell of a loss of personnel over it and it may leave the US without the ability to defend itself.

4. Outlaw any news outlet that doesn't follow the "Person's" best wishes. One way is to discredit the News Agencies to the point where none of it can be trusted.

If this sounds familiar, it should. Think about it.

 

[Ame®icano]

Lie.

Lol. Facts don't lie

And the fact are that German Jews were also citizens, and claiming that only citizens could own guns is nonsense. Even before Hitler got in power, German interior minister ordered gun registration, and then he ordered those gun registration records be made secure to keep them from falling into the hands of radical elements.

Very next year, Hitler got in power and seized those records, then he stripped Jews of citizenship first, then their assets, including firearms. He also disarmed all his political opponents, regardless of being citizens.

Nazi Firearm Law by Stephen Halbrook

You should be aware that you contradicted your self in the same post.

Care to explain how?

Hitler was very same "radical element" that those records supposed to be protected from, only that radical element got in power year later.

You seem to believe that America is Nazi Germany or has the capability to become one. We have two things that Germany did not have. We have the United States Constitution and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. While I see similarities today the US is self resetting. In order to do modify our government like Mussolini and Hitler did, a leader would have to be able to dissolve the Supreme Court, take over 2/3rds of the Congress and completely control the Federal Military. Only after that can Fascism rule a country. That is how it was done. Forget about the rule of law or land if the laws are weak to begin with. Let me scare you a little bit.

How would someone take over the US?

1. Control the Congress by getting his lackeys to control 2/3rds of Congress so the Constitution can be changed

2. Put in at least 5 of his lackeys into the Supreme Court to do his bidding. You don't have to dissolve it

3. With control of Congress and the Supreme Court, that person can get the necessary changes to the UCMJ. But there is going to be one hell of a loss of personnel over it and it may leave the US without the ability to defend itself.

4. Outlaw any news outlet that doesn't follow the "Person's" best wishes. One way is to discredit the News Agencies to the point where none of it can be trusted.

If this sounds familiar, it should. Think about it.

First that come to mind is FDR.

Both, him and Eleanor were militant socialists, and therefore globalists. He forced already overturned "New Deal" by threatening to pack Supreme Court. Note, several of Democratic presidential candidates supported packing SCOTUS if they get elected. FDR had Democratic super majority in House and Senate that approved everything he wanted. Only president in office for four terms. He sacrificed fleet in Pearl Harbor to get in war with Japan. If people in 1942 knew what they know today, they would have impeached him, and hang him for his balls in in front of Congress. Before that, he forced his SOS Hull to strong arm Japan over Manchuria. FDR did send over 100,000 Japanese Americans to concentration camps. He also gave half of Europe to his buddy uncle Joe (Stalin), whom he gave plans for nuclear weapons. Shall I go on?

That faggot was closest thing to dictator that US ever had. And yeah, he was a Democrat.

 

[Bo Didleysquat]

No?
But Weatherman, we only want sensible gun laws passed!


OK

List the ‘sensible’ gun laws that still need to pass and just ONE Democrat saying once these pass we’ve done all we can do, no more laws about guns will be pushed for.

There isn’t one Leftist. It’s all about riding the slippery slope and making sure felons are on the streets to create more violence to further their agenda of grabbing all guns from law abiding citizens.

Now the end game: Name one tyrannical government in modern history that didn’t grab guns from law abiding citizens.

There isn’t one. They all grabbed the guns first.

Yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaawn, the sky has been falling all my life on this, still got mine. Don had 2 years with majorities in both houses. Did the Reps not get anything done to protect you from your fear when they could have? Gee, and nothing on abortion either.

Good little Brown Shirter.

Don had 2 years with majorities in both houses. Did the Reps not get anything done to protect you from your fear when they could have? Gee, and nothing on abortion either.

Don't pout, you know.

 

[Bo Didleysquat]

Lol. Facts don't lie

And the fact are that German Jews were also citizens, and claiming that only citizens could own guns is nonsense. Even before Hitler got in power, German interior minister ordered gun registration, and then he ordered those gun registration records be made secure to keep them from falling into the hands of radical elements.

Very next year, Hitler got in power and seized those records, then he stripped Jews of citizenship first, then their assets, including firearms. He also disarmed all his political opponents, regardless of being citizens.

Nazi Firearm Law by Stephen Halbrook

You should be aware that you contradicted your self in the same post.

Care to explain how?

Hitler was very same "radical element" that those records supposed to be protected from, only that radical element got in power year later.

You seem to believe that America is Nazi Germany or has the capability to become one. We have two things that Germany did not have. We have the United States Constitution and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. While I see similarities today the US is self resetting. In order to do modify our government like Mussolini and Hitler did, a leader would have to be able to dissolve the Supreme Court, take over 2/3rds of the Congress and completely control the Federal Military. Only after that can Fascism rule a country. That is how it was done. Forget about the rule of law or land if the laws are weak to begin with. Let me scare you a little bit.

How would someone take over the US?

1. Control the Congress by getting his lackeys to control 2/3rds of Congress so the Constitution can be changed

2. Put in at least 5 of his lackeys into the Supreme Court to do his bidding. You don't have to dissolve it

3. With control of Congress and the Supreme Court, that person can get the necessary changes to the UCMJ. But there is going to be one hell of a loss of personnel over it and it may leave the US without the ability to defend itself.

4. Outlaw any news outlet that doesn't follow the "Person's" best wishes. One way is to discredit the News Agencies to the point where none of it can be trusted.

If this sounds familiar, it should. Think about it.

First that come to mind is FDR.

Both, him and Eleanor were militant socialists, and therefore globalists. He forced already overturned "New Deal" by threatening to pack Supreme Court. Note, several of Democratic presidential candidates supported packing SCOTUS if they get elected. FDR had Democratic super majority in House and Senate that approved everything he wanted. Only president in office for four terms. He sacrificed fleet in Pearl Harbor to get in war with Japan. If people in 1942 knew what they know today, they would have impeached him, and hang him for his balls in in front of Congress. Before that, he forced his SOS Hull to strong arm Japan over Manchuria. FDR did send over 100,000 Japanese Americans to concentration camps. He also gave half of Europe to his buddy uncle Joe (Stalin), whom he gave plans for nuclear weapons. Shall I go on?

That faggot was closest thing to dictator that US ever had. And yeah, he was a Democrat.

Feudalism gets a bad rap don't it.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I don't remember reading that in the Constitution. Could you point it out, please?

So you support giving the Baths a brand new Saddam Statue paid for by the US because it was illegally torn down? I would quote the Constitution but since you have never read it, you would just claim it's fake news. I really want to see the version of the Constitution that you operate from. But the fact remains, the south ain't gonna' rise again. Get over it.

What was the law violated? Cite exact law.

To the Victors go the spoils. The Vanquished don't make the rules.

The Victor's also have all the guns. So tell me what guns do you have? LOL

You tell me. Do I own a gun or two or three or not? You are just going to take your chances, pinky.

Don't worry snowflake anti-gunners don't have guns

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Hitler, Stalin and Mao had that same motive.

Hitler didn't take the guns, he actually EXPANDED the gun laws for German Citizens.

BS. Hitler grabbed all guns from all Jews.
Guess what happened next.

Jews aren't humans, they were/are vermin. As I clearly stated he expanded gun laws for German Citizens. Not for parasites who destroyed the state.

Hitler, Stalin and Mao had that same motive.

Hitler didn't take the guns, he actually EXPANDED the gun laws for German Citizens.

Actually like a good little Democrat he only took guns from certain citizens more less racist

OK cuck

Hitler, Stalin and Mao had that same motive.

Hitler didn't take the guns, he actually EXPANDED the gun laws for German Citizens.

No....he didn't.......he used the gun registration records created in the 1920s and 30s to disarm his enemies and Jews.........he allowed his supporters to have guns.....

You just don't know the history.

Lol. Jews are everyone's enemy as they should be. REGULAR German citizens had their gun rights expanded.

Hitler, Stalin and Mao had that same motive.

Hitler didn't take the guns, he actually EXPANDED the gun laws for German Citizens.

Lie.

Lol. Facts don't lie

antisemitism and a racist

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Since I want to have common sense gun regs, that means that I am a criminal-loving filth? The only ones that I want disarmed are the ones that are a serious threat to society. If you don't fall in that category then what I say doesn't apply to you. But if you are, the sooner we get your firearms out of your reach the better.

Without exception, those who want to interfere with the rights of law-abiding cities are against the side of law-abiding citizens, and on the side of violent criminals.

If you don't want to be seen as being on the side of criminals, them stop advocating policies that are intended to make easier prey for them of law-abiding citizens.

We went to common sense gun regs and the gun violence went down. I can still walk into any gun shop and walk out with anything they are selling (of course pay for it) in about 15 minutes if I know exactly what I want to buy. It takes a lot longer than that because it's like a kid in a candy store with all those on hand. Common Sense Gun Regs don't even slow me down. We have added exactly one new law to the gun regs since 2013 and there isn't any talk of adding any more. Where you live, if there is talk about adding more laws after you get common sense gun regs then I suggest you vote a whole bunch of people out of office. But step one is to stop with the "World is ending" crap. Regular People don't listen to crackpots who keep screaming "The Sky is Falling".

Name one of your new "common-sense" gun laws that would prevent gun crimes?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Your Drumpftards need to calm down. I promise you retarded cons. If they try to take all our guns I will be the first to join you in rebellion.

hitlerish

 

[satrebil]

Lie.

Lol. Facts don't lie

And the fact are that German Jews were also citizens, and claiming that only citizens could own guns is nonsense. Even before Hitler got in power, German interior minister ordered gun registration, and then he ordered those gun registration records be made secure to keep them from falling into the hands of radical elements.

Very next year, Hitler got in power and seized those records, then he stripped Jews of citizenship first, then their assets, including firearms. He also disarmed all his political opponents, regardless of being citizens.

Nazi Firearm Law by Stephen Halbrook

You should be aware that you contradicted your self in the same post.

Care to explain how?

Hitler was very same "radical element" that those records supposed to be protected from, only that radical element got in power year later.

You seem to believe that America is Nazi Germany or has the capability to become one. We have two things that Germany did not have. We have the United States Constitution and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. While I see similarities today the US is self resetting. In order to do modify our government like Mussolini and Hitler did, a leader would have to be able to dissolve the Supreme Court, take over 2/3rds of the Congress and completely control the Federal Military. Only after that can Fascism rule a country. That is how it was done. Forget about the rule of law or land if the laws are weak to begin with. Let me scare you a little bit.

How would someone take over the US?

1. Control the Congress by getting his lackeys to control 2/3rds of Congress so the Constitution can be changed

2. Put in at least 5 of his lackeys into the Supreme Court to do his bidding. You don't have to dissolve it

3. With control of Congress and the Supreme Court, that person can get the necessary changes to the UCMJ. But there is going to be one hell of a loss of personnel over it and it may leave the US without the ability to defend itself.

4. Outlaw any news outlet that doesn't follow the "Person's" best wishes. One way is to discredit the News Agencies to the point where none of it can be trusted.

If this sounds familiar, it should. Think about it.

"You seem to believe that America is Nazi Germany or has the capability to become one."

Every country does and you're a total fool if you think otherwise. The Constitution is just a piece of paper. What keeps the government in relative check is the fear of 80 million armed Americans dragging their sorry asses into the streets and blowing them out of their socks. So they have to play the game of "you don't need that" or "think of the children!" and lemmings like you just lap it up.

Hitler took the guns. Castro took the guns. Stalin took the guns. Mao took the guns.

We know what happens when a populace relinquishes their arms which is why we never will. Deal with it, commie.

 

[satrebil]

Guys... let's settle this argument once and for all. Instead of endless gun control legislation, why don't we just make murder illegal?

 

[Weatherman2020]

No?
But Weatherman, we only want sensible gun laws passed!


OK

List the ‘sensible’ gun laws that still need to pass and just ONE Democrat saying once these pass we’ve done all we can do, no more laws about guns will be pushed for.

There isn’t one Leftist. It’s all about riding the slippery slope and making sure felons are on the streets to create more violence to further their agenda of grabbing all guns from law abiding citizens.

Now the end game: Name one tyrannical government in modern history that didn’t grab guns from law abiding citizens.

There isn’t one. They all grabbed the guns first.

Yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaawn, the sky has been falling all my life on this, still got mine. Don had 2 years with majorities in both houses. Did the Reps not get anything done to protect you from your fear when they could have? Gee, and nothing on abortion either.

Good little Brown Shirter.

Don had 2 years with majorities in both houses. Did the Reps not get anything done to protect you from your fear when they could have? Gee, and nothing on abortion either.

Don't pout, you know.

Have a nice day, Ignoramus!

Planned Parenthood Cut Off From Federal Funding Under Trump Rule

 

[Weatherman2020]

Lie.

Lol. Facts don't lie

And the fact are that German Jews were also citizens, and claiming that only citizens could own guns is nonsense. Even before Hitler got in power, German interior minister ordered gun registration, and then he ordered those gun registration records be made secure to keep them from falling into the hands of radical elements.

Very next year, Hitler got in power and seized those records, then he stripped Jews of citizenship first, then their assets, including firearms. He also disarmed all his political opponents, regardless of being citizens.

Nazi Firearm Law by Stephen Halbrook

You should be aware that you contradicted your self in the same post.

Care to explain how?

Hitler was very same "radical element" that those records supposed to be protected from, only that radical element got in power year later.

You seem to believe that America is Nazi Germany or has the capability to become one. We have two things that Germany did not have. We have the United States Constitution and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. While I see similarities today the US is self resetting. In order to do modify our government like Mussolini and Hitler did, a leader would have to be able to dissolve the Supreme Court, take over 2/3rds of the Congress and completely control the Federal Military. Only after that can Fascism rule a country. That is how it was done. Forget about the rule of law or land if the laws are weak to begin with. Let me scare you a little bit.

How would someone take over the US?

1. Control the Congress by getting his lackeys to control 2/3rds of Congress so the Constitution can be changed

2. Put in at least 5 of his lackeys into the Supreme Court to do his bidding. You don't have to dissolve it

3. With control of Congress and the Supreme Court, that person can get the necessary changes to the UCMJ. But there is going to be one hell of a loss of personnel over it and it may leave the US without the ability to defend itself.

4. Outlaw any news outlet that doesn't follow the "Person's" best wishes. One way is to discredit the News Agencies to the point where none of it can be trusted.

If this sounds familiar, it should. Think about it.

No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms.

Thomas Jefferson

You’re free to move to any nation that will take you in, so stop trying to transform the greatest nation in human history.

 

[berg80]

No?
But Weatherman, we only want sensible gun laws passed!


OK

List the ‘sensible’ gun laws that still need to pass and just ONE Democrat saying once these pass we’ve done all we can do, no more laws about guns will be pushed for.

There isn’t one Leftist. It’s all about riding the slippery slope and making sure felons are on the streets to create more violence to further their agenda of grabbing all guns from law abiding citizens.

Now the end game: Name one tyrannical government in modern history that didn’t grab guns from law abiding citizens.

There isn’t one. They all grabbed the guns first.

I'm pretty sure they have medicine to treat paranoia like that.

The thing is, I don't think you're paranoid. You just like to sling total bullshit.

It would take a constitutional amendment to legally confiscate all guns. Not happening.

In truth, you just can't justify being against enhanced gun control because gun violence is a public safety issue so you have to make up bullshit as a rationale to oppose it. I see what you're doing asshole. Don't think I don't.

 

[Weatherman2020]

No?
But Weatherman, we only want sensible gun laws passed!


OK

List the ‘sensible’ gun laws that still need to pass and just ONE Democrat saying once these pass we’ve done all we can do, no more laws about guns will be pushed for.

There isn’t one Leftist. It’s all about riding the slippery slope and making sure felons are on the streets to create more violence to further their agenda of grabbing all guns from law abiding citizens.

Now the end game: Name one tyrannical government in modern history that didn’t grab guns from law abiding citizens.

There isn’t one. They all grabbed the guns first.

I'm pretty sure they have medicine to treat paranoia like that.

The thing is, I don't think you're paranoid. You just like to sling total bullshit.

It would take a constitutional amendment to legally confiscate all guns. Not happening.

In truth, you just can't justify being against enhanced gun control because gun violence is a public safety issue so you have to make up paranoid bullshit as a rationale to oppose it. I see what you're doing asshole. Don't think I don't.

How did I know you couldn’t list a finite list of sensible gun laws?

 

[berg80]

How did I know you couldn’t list a finite list of sensible gun laws?

How did I know you can't name a single proposal to confiscate guns.

145 CEOs Call On Senate To Pass 'Common-sense, Bipartisan' Gun Laws
145 CEOs Call On Senate To Pass 'Common-sense, Bipartisan' Gun Laws

Commonsense Solutions Toolkits
Commonsense Solutions Toolkits | Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence

Three common-sense gun policies that would save lives
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...d8cb80-735f-11e5-9cbb-790369643cf9_story.html

The most promising option is a national permit-to-purchase, or PTP, policy requiring people to obtain a permit, contingent on passing a background check, before buying a firearm. In their recent review of dozens of scientific studies analyzing gun laws, Daniel W. Webster of Johns Hopkins University and Garen J. Wintemute of the University of California at Davis, concluded: “The type of firearm policy most consistently associated with curtailing the diversion of guns to criminals and for which some evidence indicates protective effects against gun violence is PTP for handguns.”


In Missouri, the 2007 repeal of a PTP law was associated with a 14 percent increase in the murder rate and an increase of 16 percent in the firearm-related suicide rate. Studies that examined Connecticut’s 1995 PTP law found that it was associated with a 40 percent reduction in the state’s firearm homicide rate and a 15 percent reduction in firearm suicides. Further, no “substitution effect” was observed in either Missouri or Connecticut, meaning criminals didn’t switch to other weapons when they failed to obtain firearms.

Additionally, a number of states have passed laws designed to keep guns out of the hands of perpetrators of domestic violence. Some states bar firearms from those convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence; others restrict people with domestic-violence restraining orders. A 2006 study by Duke University’s Elizabeth Richardson Vigdor and James A. Mercy of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention looked at data from 1982 through 2002 covering 46 states and found that policies that prohibited people with a domestic-violence restraining order from owning a gun are associated with a 7 percent reduction in intimate-partner homicides. Another study, by Webster and Michigan State’s April M. Zeoli, analyzed a similar set of policies but used more fine-grain city-level data and a more robust set of controls. It concluded that such policies were associated with a 19 percent reduction in intimate-partner homicides.

 

[Ame®icano]

How did I know you couldn’t list a finite list of sensible gun laws?

How did I know you can't name a single proposal to confiscate guns.

145 CEOs Call On Senate To Pass 'Common-sense, Bipartisan' Gun Laws
145 CEOs Call On Senate To Pass 'Common-sense, Bipartisan' Gun Laws

Commonsense Solutions Toolkits
Commonsense Solutions Toolkits | Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence

Three common-sense gun policies that would save lives
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...d8cb80-735f-11e5-9cbb-790369643cf9_story.html

The most promising option is a national permit-to-purchase, or PTP, policy requiring people to obtain a permit, contingent on passing a background check, before buying a firearm. In their recent review of dozens of scientific studies analyzing gun laws, Daniel W. Webster of Johns Hopkins University and Garen J. Wintemute of the University of California at Davis, concluded: “The type of firearm policy most consistently associated with curtailing the diversion of guns to criminals and for which some evidence indicates protective effects against gun violence is PTP for handguns.”


In Missouri, the 2007 repeal of a PTP law was associated with a 14 percent increase in the murder rate and an increase of 16 percent in the firearm-related suicide rate. Studies that examined Connecticut’s 1995 PTP law found that it was associated with a 40 percent reduction in the state’s firearm homicide rate and a 15 percent reduction in firearm suicides. Further, no “substitution effect” was observed in either Missouri or Connecticut, meaning criminals didn’t switch to other weapons when they failed to obtain firearms.

Additionally, a number of states have passed laws designed to keep guns out of the hands of perpetrators of domestic violence. Some states bar firearms from those convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence; others restrict people with domestic-violence restraining orders. A 2006 study by Duke University’s Elizabeth Richardson Vigdor and James A. Mercy of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention looked at data from 1982 through 2002 covering 46 states and found that policies that prohibited people with a domestic-violence restraining order from owning a gun are associated with a 7 percent reduction in intimate-partner homicides. Another study, by Webster and Michigan State’s April M. Zeoli, analyzed a similar set of policies but used more fine-grain city-level data and a more robust set of controls. It concluded that such policies were associated with a 19 percent reduction in intimate-partner homicides.

Every time left wants something, they're selling as "common sense" or "it's for the children". There is no "common sense" in limiting individual rights, and when left is promoting "common sense" there is always hidden agenda and slippery slope involved.

 

[Weatherman2020]

How did I know you couldn’t list a finite list of sensible gun laws?

How did I know you can't name a single proposal to confiscate guns.

145 CEOs Call On Senate To Pass 'Common-sense, Bipartisan' Gun Laws
145 CEOs Call On Senate To Pass 'Common-sense, Bipartisan' Gun Laws

Commonsense Solutions Toolkits
Commonsense Solutions Toolkits | Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence

Three common-sense gun policies that would save lives
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...d8cb80-735f-11e5-9cbb-790369643cf9_story.html

The most promising option is a national permit-to-purchase, or PTP, policy requiring people to obtain a permit, contingent on passing a background check, before buying a firearm. In their recent review of dozens of scientific studies analyzing gun laws, Daniel W. Webster of Johns Hopkins University and Garen J. Wintemute of the University of California at Davis, concluded: “The type of firearm policy most consistently associated with curtailing the diversion of guns to criminals and for which some evidence indicates protective effects against gun violence is PTP for handguns.”


In Missouri, the 2007 repeal of a PTP law was associated with a 14 percent increase in the murder rate and an increase of 16 percent in the firearm-related suicide rate. Studies that examined Connecticut’s 1995 PTP law found that it was associated with a 40 percent reduction in the state’s firearm homicide rate and a 15 percent reduction in firearm suicides. Further, no “substitution effect” was observed in either Missouri or Connecticut, meaning criminals didn’t switch to other weapons when they failed to obtain firearms.

Additionally, a number of states have passed laws designed to keep guns out of the hands of perpetrators of domestic violence. Some states bar firearms from those convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence; others restrict people with domestic-violence restraining orders. A 2006 study by Duke University’s Elizabeth Richardson Vigdor and James A. Mercy of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention looked at data from 1982 through 2002 covering 46 states and found that policies that prohibited people with a domestic-violence restraining order from owning a gun are associated with a 7 percent reduction in intimate-partner homicides. Another study, by Webster and Michigan State’s April M. Zeoli, analyzed a similar set of policies but used more fine-grain city-level data and a more robust set of controls. It concluded that such policies were associated with a 19 percent reduction in intimate-partner homicides.

Thanks for validating the OP.