The only laws that will disarm criminals, is a TOTAL BAN, followed by confiscation

[whitehall]

That's it in a nut shell (pun intended) li'l acorn.

 

[The Professor]

From a liberal perspective: There are restrictions on other constitutional rights, such as free speech. Why can't there be similar restrictions on the types of guns available?

Honestly, until something happens and a case that directly covers this is taken to the Supreme Court, I'm not sure anything will change. Court cases that guns-rights activists use as support are also used by gun-control activists.

The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that reasonable restrictions are allowed. What follows is an earlier post I submitted on the Second Amendment:

The Constitution means whatever the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) says it means. The decisions of the SCOTUS define and therefore become part of the Constitution. In the case of DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA et al. v. HELLER, the SCOTUS ruled that being a member of a militia had nothing to do with an individual's right to keep and bear arms:

"Held:
1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.
(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22."

However, the SCOTUS also ruled that the right to keep and bear arms was not absolute and could be subject to reasonable restrictions:

"2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56" (emphasis my own).

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

Conclusion: The right to keep and bare arms is a personal right which has nothing to do with membership in any militia; however this right is subject to reasonable restrictions (what is considered reasonable is ultimately a matter for the courts to decide).

 

[9thIDdoc]

It is impossible to disarm criminals.
It is impossible to enforce a total ban and it is really stupid to think you can disarm criminals by increasing their numbers by millions.

Let's see, you pass laws that mandate my turning in my expensive property with threats against my life should I fail to comply. If such were the case-just a word to the wise-don't expect I would "sit at home with my armory" and wait for you. I think that I would pay you a visit along with a few thousand of my closest armed friends.

 

[martybegan]

1. Longer wait times on ALL gun purchases
2. Expanded background checks on all gun purchases, even during private transactions
3. Registration of all firearms
4. Mandatory insurance for all guns owned
5. MUCH stiffer penalties for illegal gun possession
6. Convicted criminals, mentally unstable can not own a weapon. Zero tolerance.

You meet all of the criteria above? Then you get to own as much and any gun you want.

Will that completely eliminate gun violence? Of course not, but it will make a noticeable impact.

1. Didn't stop the California guy, he waited MONTHS for it. and what about someone who thinks their life is at risk? Will the police provide 24-7 coverage while the person waits?

2. Criminals will still be Criminals, no impact.

3. How does knowing who owns the guns stops someone from going nutters and shooting people?

4. Infringement. The government will make the price so high only the rich will be able to afford it. Why do you hate poor people?

5. So basically when someone doesn't follow your laws above to the letter, you get to ban them from ever owning a legal gun again. Banning by increments.

6. Again, you lower the bar to misdemeanors to create a de-facto ban. you then lower the bar for mentally unstable to limit it even further. de facto ban.

Each one of these is open to abuse by you to prevent all gun ownership. Go fuck yourself.

You're not smart enough to discuss serious topics. Sorry Marty, go lie back down.

What a complex and informative response. Again, you have nothing.

Go fuck a rusty tire iron with your ass.

 

[DigitalDrifter]

Since the criminals in question will ignore all your new laws, what impact will it make, exactly?

Yeah, that's what I was thinking.

I can see that increasing regulations on initial purchases would slow things down a bit over time, but I can't get past the old "if guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns" thing.

There's obviously a problem, I don't own a gun (unless you count the Super Soaker™ in the garage), but I don't see a clear and effective answer to this question.

.

That's because you don't see the obvious, when guns are outlawed having one makes them an outlaw, and we shoot first and ask questions later.

We only have to gun down a few hundred people holding guns they aren't allowed to own before the word gets out.

And you would be okay with a government that guns down people who tried to keep their guns ?

 

[SAYIT]

Sadly, is there any doubt that Obama would sign a Bill like that in a heartbeat?

Not to worry ... a bill like that will never reach his desk.

 

[SAYIT]

How do we get guns away from criminals?
What's the plan?
Step by step, please.

First we ban them. Then we require that you turn them in. Then we shoot anyone with a gun who isn't in uniform dead if they show up with one.

For those who hole up in their homes with their armory we have a special treat, you and your entire family get to meet Jesus as we bulldoze the place flat.

Okay, any serious plans?

He is serious.

 

[martybegan]

Yeah, that's what I was thinking.

I can see that increasing regulations on initial purchases would slow things down a bit over time, but I can't get past the old "if guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns" thing.

There's obviously a problem, I don't own a gun (unless you count the Super Soaker™ in the garage), but I don't see a clear and effective answer to this question.

.

That's because you don't see the obvious, when guns are outlawed having one makes them an outlaw, and we shoot first and ask questions later.

We only have to gun down a few hundred people holding guns they aren't allowed to own before the word gets out.

And you would be okay with a government that guns down people who tried to keep their guns ?

Paintmyhouse is to me a sock of joeB. its a method of him living out his gun confiscation fantasies while letting his regular avatar seem slightly more "reasonable"

 

[SAYIT]

.

How do we get guns away from criminals?

What's the plan?

Step by step, please.

.

Easy.....take out a half page ad in every newspaper in America and request they hand them over at the local police dept.

Actually, it would not be a request. It would be mandatory.

But one of Howard's other lasting legacies is Australia's gun control regime, first passed in 1996 in response to a massacre in Tasmania that left 35 dead. The law banned semiautomatic and automatic rifles and shotguns. It also instituted a mandatory buy-back program for newly banned weapons.

So what have the Australian laws actually done for homicide and suicide rates? Howard cites a study (pdf) by Andrew Leigh of Australian National University and Christine Neill of Wilfrid Laurier University finding that the firearm homicide rate fell by 59 percent, and the firearm suicide rate fell by 65 percent, in the decade after the law was introduced, without a parallel increase in non-firearm homicides and suicides. That provides strong circumstantial evidence for the law's effectiveness.

The paper also estimated that buying back 3,500 guns per 100,000 people results in a 35 to 50 percent decline in the homicide rate, but because of the low number of homicides in Australia normally, this finding isn't statistically significant.

Did gun control work in Australia? - The Washington Post


I'm not advocating this plan, just pointing out what Australia did and what the more extreme of the gun control folks would want to do.

So there is your step by step you requested.

I wonder how a ban on semis, autos and shotguns cut suicides. I mean, who uses these weapons to kill themselves?

 

[Geaux4it]

All these big-govt gun-haters are dancing carefully around the fact that none of their gun laws and restrictions will keep guns out of the hands of people who don't obey laws.....

....EXCEPT for a total ban on all guns for everybody, followed by massive confiscation of all guns presently in civilian hands.

They want to arrive at that slowly, a little at a time, so the frog in the kettle won't notice that the water is getting warmer.

So they only suggest a small restriction here, a ban on only certain guns there...... for now.

.

.

When do you suppose they'll notice that even their total gun ban, will work as well as the current nationwide bans on marijuana, cocaine, and exceeding the speed limit in your car?

You should stick to something that makes sense. If not, you should lead the charge. Start with your street

-Geaux

 

[SAYIT]

Since the criminals in question will ignore all your new laws, what impact will it make, exactly?

Yeah, that's what I was thinking.

I can see that increasing regulations on initial purchases would slow things down a bit over time, but I can't get past the old "if guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns" thing.

There's obviously a problem, I don't own a gun (unless you count the Super Soaker™ in the garage), but I don't see a clear and effective answer to this question.

.

That's because you don't see the obvious, when guns are outlawed having one makes them an outlaw, and we shoot first and ask questions later.

We only have to gun down a few hundred people holding guns they aren't allowed to own before the word gets out.

Got it. So we also must eliminate due process. Any other parts of our constitution you care to delete?

 

[Geaux4it]

How do we get guns away from criminals?
What's the plan?
Step by step, please.

First we ban them. Then we require that you turn them in. Then we shoot anyone with a gun who isn't in uniform dead if they show up with one.

For those who hole up in their homes with their armory we have a special treat, you and your entire family get to meet Jesus as we bulldoze the place flat.

Nice work Karl.

-Geaux

 

[Spoonman]

LMAO. they can't disarm a know enemy in a little country like afghanistan and they are going to do it in a country the size of the USA? a day after they clean out one section of town, they will be rearmed. anti gun nuts get nuttier by the day

 

[Spoonman]

How do we get guns away from criminals?
What's the plan?
Step by step, please.

First we ban them. Then we require that you turn them in. Then we shoot anyone with a gun who isn't in uniform dead if they show up with one.

For those who hole up in their homes with their armory we have a special treat, you and your entire family get to meet Jesus as we bulldoze the place flat.

this nitwit ^^^^^^ shows how the liberal gun grabbing mind really works

and this is why we can never vote for a left winger

 

[PredFan]

A total ban of fire arms is impossible.

You are incredibly naive.

 

[PredFan]

Molon Labe mother fuckers!

 

[OKTexas]

.

How do we get guns away from criminals?

What's the plan?

Step by step, please.

.

1. Longer wait times on ALL gun purchases
2. Expanded background checks on all gun purchases, even during private transactions
3. Registration of all firearms
4. Mandatory insurance for all guns owned
5. MUCH stiffer penalties for illegal gun possession
6. Convicted criminals, mentally unstable can not own a weapon. Zero tolerance.

You meet all of the criteria above? Then you get to own as much and any gun you want.

Will that completely eliminate gun violence? Of course not, but it will make a noticeable impact.

And what is your plan to get the guns out of the hands of criminals now that you have screwed over the law abiding?

 

[Little-Acorn]

Since the criminals in question will ignore all your new laws, what impact will it make, exactly?

So are we discussing this seriously or not? Just let me know.

Sounded like a serious question to me, one that you obviously don't have an answer for.

But it's not a serious question.

Relax, Newby. When a liberal can't (or doesn't dare) answer a question, his standard response is to pretend the question is wrong.

 

[Little-Acorn]

How do we get guns away from criminals?
What's the plan?
Step by step, please.

First we ban them.

Who's "we"?

Then we require that you turn them in.

Who's "you"?

Then we shoot anyone with a gun who isn't in uniform dead if they show up with one.

Define "we". And define "show up".

Details, please.

(Second time I've had to ask.)

 

[Spoonman]

.

How do we get guns away from criminals?

What's the plan?

Step by step, please.

.

1. Longer wait times on ALL gun purchases
2. Expanded background checks on all gun purchases, even during private transactions
3. Registration of all firearms
4. Mandatory insurance for all guns owned
5. MUCH stiffer penalties for illegal gun possession
6. Convicted criminals, mentally unstable can not own a weapon. Zero tolerance.

You meet all of the criteria above? Then you get to own as much and any gun you want.

Will that completely eliminate gun violence? Of course not, but it will make a noticeable impact.

sorry, this is still america where we have rights and freedoms. some of us aren't willing to give up what we stand for yet.