Gunowners - would you "give up" your guns under federal law?

[soundforbjt]

The problem is the grabbers don't want to compromise. They want to take freedoms away, and are unwilling to even consider granting some back.

I've said in other threads, if there were a hobbyist FFL that allowed me to buy modern guns over the Internet and have them shipped, I'd be willing to give a lot. Registration, secure storage, inspections, utilizing NICS. Same with opening the title 3 registry.

The problem is the left doesn't want to make guns safer, they believe that is a logical fallacy. They want to pair back both the number and type of guns owned.

With over 300 million guns and only 80 million owners, I think it's safe to say the numbers of guns per owner is pretty high. If they (both sides) could have an honest discussion instead of both being huge drama queens, they could reach a compromise.

 

[TerryMathews]

With over 300 million guns and only 80 million owners, I think it's safe to say the numbers of guns per owner is pretty high. If they (both sides) could have an honest discussion instead of both being huge drama queens, they could reach a compromise.

3.75 per owner. Here, of all places, we should realize that one size doesn't fit all. How many people here own 4+ computers?

4 guns: rifle, shotgun, pistol, target pistol. Done.

How many millions of computers do you think there are vs owners? Cars vs drivers?

Meaningless stat is meaningless.

 

[fskimospy]

3.75 per owner. Here, of all places, we should realize that one size doesn't fit all. How many people here own 4+ computers?

4 guns: rifle, shotgun, pistol, target pistol. Done.

How many millions of computers do you think there are vs owners? Cars vs drivers?

Meaningless stat is meaningless.

It's really not a meaningless stat, it provides interesting information I think. Gun ownership has actually declined in the US over the last 30-40 years, but the number of guns per person has gone up significantly. This points to the idea that gun ownership is now concentrated in smaller numbers of more committed individuals. (if I remember right the top 25% or something of gun owners actually own the majority of guns in the US)

 

[monovillage]

With over 300 million guns and only 80 million owners, I think it's safe to say the numbers of guns per owner is pretty high. If they (both sides) could have an honest discussion instead of both being huge drama queens, they could reach a compromise.

Where do you get the number 80 million gun owners and why do you think it's accurate?

 

[Doppel]

As to the politics of it I think getting ahead of the curve and proposing gun control laws that would be acceptable would work better than appearing to be completely unwilling to consider any changes.

This is a straw man. It insinuates that gun owners have been unwilling to consider any changes and that just doesn't appear to be the case. They are willing to consider them. Ones that make no sense intuitively, and for which science exists indicating they serve no good purpose, should be shot down for the worthlessness they are.

It's really not a meaningless stat, it provides interesting information I think. Gun ownership has actually declined in the US over the last 30-40 years, but the number of guns per person has gone up significantly. This points to the idea that gun ownership is now concentrated in smaller numbers of more committed individuals. (if I remember right the top 25% or something of gun owners actually own the majority of guns in the US)

This is true.

 

[Cerb]

You make some very good points.

As to the politics of it I think getting ahead of the curve and proposing gun control laws that would be acceptable would work better than appearing to be completely unwilling to consider any changes.

Becasue the public doesn't think what happened at Sandy Hook is acceptable.

It's not, but the 'other side' doesn't seem to be willing to accept that we should work on keeping guns from crazy people; and that maybe, just maybe, getting that done might require giving a few inches, wrt to sane gun owners. A compromise that could prevent another event like Sandy Hook is not going to have much involvement with guns, which also seems to be a problem for the emotional non-thinkers in big cities (he should have already had some psychiatric evaluation and/or care, and if such determined he might be dangerous to himself or others, his mother should have been required to not offer such easy access--but don't expect to get there without having to give a little).

So, instead, we get more of our divisive grid-locking political theater. Yay. Like health care, but without the ability to ram quick legislation through, not enough Congress critters want to really listen, read, or think.

 

[TerryMathews]

It's really not a meaningless stat, it provides interesting information I think. Gun ownership has actually declined in the US over the last 30-40 years, but the number of guns per person has gone up significantly. This points to the idea that gun ownership is now concentrated in smaller numbers of more committed individuals. (if I remember right the top 25% or something of gun owners actually own the majority of guns in the US)

3.75 per person. The math doesn't lie. I don't find that to be unusually high.

 

[Brigandier]

Are citizens in a free society adults free to kill and be killed or children free to be sheltered? That's the question I ask myself in any gun debate.


I like to think my fellow citizens are adults, and I like to trust in that fact.

 

[Tom]

This is a straw man. It insinuates that gun owners have been unwilling to consider any changes and that just doesn't appear to be the case. They are willing to consider them. Ones that make no sense intuitively, and for which science exists indicating they serve no good purpose, should be shot down for the worthlessness they are.This is true.

You missed a critical part of what I said. They should do more than consider changes, they should propose them.

And not meaningless things like 'enforce the laws on the books'. That's an empty claim when at the same time the NRA's allies prevent the ATF froim having a director and don't advocate increasing funds to improve law enforcment and a way to get the revenue to do so.

 

[MtnMan]

Actually I can't because I lost all of my guns in a terrible boating accident :whiste:

Ammo too

 

[Tequila]

Simple question.

The poll is anonymous.

NOT GONNA HAPPEN

So stop worrying about it.

 

[sao123]

when the govermnet begins to remove our firearms, its up to us to rise up and remove that government.

 

[xj0hnx]

This is from someone that is extremely distrustful in our government ...there is just absolutely no way that the government is going to come confiscate our guns. It just not only isn't going to happen, it can't, it is a logistic impossibility. Even if they had every member of the US Armed Forces, and every member of the locality they were confiscating's LEO, there are just too many people, too many houses, and no one knows who has what, where. If they did go door to door, before they were half way through with one section there would be an uprising.

 

[monovillage]

This is from someone that is extremely distrustful in our government ...there is just absolutely no way that the government is going to come confiscate our guns. It just not only isn't going to happen, it can't, it is a logistic impossibility. Even if they had every member of the US Armed Forces, and every member of the locality they were confiscating's LEO, there are just too many people, too many houses, and no one knows who has what, where. If they did go door to door, before they were half way through with one section there would be an uprising.

I don't disagree with you, but what the government will do is pass increasingly restrictive laws and then widely publicize some poor sod that got caught in the law (ex-marine and magazine size anyone?) and over time force people to acquiesce to firearm turn-ins. It's the incremental restrictions, costs and select prosecution that will cause the loss of gun rights over time.

 

[AnyMal]

One of the reasons why we have the Second Amendment is to give people the means to fight back against an opressive government. If such law was ever enacted it would, in effect, give every citizen the right to excercise our Second Amendment to the fullest.

 

[fskimospy]

Threads like this on here remind me of one of my favorite movies as a kid:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fbHH5xZcVvQ&feature=youtu.be

It's funny to see how much the gun nuts in America have come to resemble what was once a parody.

 

[AnyMal]

Threads like this on here remind me of one of my favorite movies as a kid:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fbHH5xZcVvQ&feature=youtu.be

It's funny to see how much the gun nuts in America have come to resemble what was once a parody.

I am curious, what makes a gun nut a "gun nut"?

 

[xj0hnx]

I don't disagree with you, but what the government will do is pass increasingly restrictive laws and then widely publicize some poor sod that got caught in the law (ex-marine and magazine size anyone?) and over time force people to acquiesce to firearm turn-ins. It's the incremental restrictions, costs and select prosecution that will cause the loss of gun rights over time.

This is exactly what they will do. There is a local town hall coming up where people are asking the Sheriff what he is going to do if a confiscation comes about. I was talking to one of the organizers and tried to explain this to them, and that a confiscation is just a distraction that will keep our efforts marginalized, and that we really need to concentrate on watching the language of new laws, and bans, and the incremental restrictions of our rights.

 

[xj0hnx]

I am curious, what makes a gun nut a "gun nut"?

Anyone that doesn't see things exactly as he does.

 

[AnyMal]

Anyone that doesn't see things exactly as he does.

So, doesn't it make him anti-gun nut? If so, in what ways anti-gun nuts are more credible then gun nuts? :biggrin:

 

[imadrugie4life]

Truth all guns should be confiscated today because my boyfriend and his three friends were shot and killed by a gun nut when they went to get some money from him because we were in pain. Ok he was killed also because he would not give them money. He had a gun with a 30 round clip and all they had was hand guns and that is just not acceptable if he had just let them have the money they would still be here to do as they had many times with nobody ever dieing before as a matter of fact my boyfriend only shot two other people because they would not give him money. I ask is money worth a life NO

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Anyone that doesn't see things exactly as he does.

I take it you would call someone who doesn't see things exactly as you do a "gun grabber"?

 

[Zodiark1593]

I believe the government was only able to force a partial enforcement of a confiscation during Katrina out of the shock of the hurricane, the size of the area, the concentration of the national guard on hand, and the surprise the measure itself brought. From what I've read, that seemed to be an experiment of opportunity.

Enforcing a similar measure in the entirety of the US is a much different matter, however. Lack of manpower being chief.

 

[xj0hnx]

Truth all guns should be confiscated today because my boyfriend and his three friends were shot and killed by a gun nut when they went to get some money from him because we were in pain. Ok he was killed also because he would not give them money. He had a gun with a 30 round clip and all they had was hand guns and that is just not acceptable if he had just let them have the money they would still be here to do as they had many times with nobody ever dieing before as a matter of fact my boyfriend only shot two other people because they would not give him money. I ask is money worth a life NO

Keep trollin', trollin', trollin' keep trollin', trollin', trollin'

 

[xj0hnx]

I take it you would call someone who doesn't see things exactly as you do a "gun grabber"?

No, just anyone that continues to try to legislate away our rights to firearms.