calls for gun confiscation always lead to -skyrocketing gun sales -increased NRA memberships -Democrats losing elections
What people have to consider is there are 300 million guns already in the hands of people in the US today. There is no viable way to "disarm everybody". That's not even remotely feasible.
Haha. Ok fine. If we implement a more restrictive gun licensing/taxation/insurance regime that reflects the actual costs they impose on society , I promise when you drag your Walter White ass to mid desert and start firing off your homemade unregistered Casey H .50 at buzzards and cactuses, nobody will care.
Yeah that's the kind of stupidity that might appease the absolute fringe left element, but it'll completely alienate the middle and will pump up the right to come out and vote against you. I mean, it's almost as bad as if a Republican came out and said they were going to ban abortion by executive order. It's just a campaign destroyer.
We can do that when we implement more restrictive voting policies with a competency test and a tax that reflects the actual costs bad voters impose on our society.
I won't be subject to the fat tax, smoker tax, fast food tax, drug tax, ******* tax, over watering lawn tax etc. i assume all actions will be taxed this way in your delusional fantasy. My delusional fantasy of guns being as free as cars will die.
Which is why Obama is a completely ineffective president. Any fool can get up and scream for reform on something that is extremely difficult to address. Its a no risk all reward drum beat. Unlike dealing with ISIS, Obama is afraid to put his ass on the line. Granted Bush had a long line of screw ups, at least he chose to do something instead of grandstanding on issues that would not help the problem at hand. We surely dont see the citizens of France whining about gun control. They understand the root of the issue. Islamic extremism.
This. Obama is unwilling to make decisions, he is unwilling to accept accountability and is unwilling to put in the hard work to find solutions across the aisle. The definition of a truly terrible leader.
You obviously have a reading comprehension problem. 80% of Americans are for increasing gun control, LOL and you assume that means banning guns. Just shows how the NRA has you in it's vice.
Except it is. In Australia they implemented gun control and a corresponding buy back program. Homicide firearm rates drop by over one half.
Exactly my point. "increasing gun control" can mean anything. By the most broad definition I'd be considered in the yes category.
You are calling anyone in favor of gun control an extremist - are you then calling yourself an extremist? Dude you're arguing yourself into a pretzel here - you keep contradicting yourself.
No....I'm calling YOU an extremist, you have extreme views on gun control that almost no one would go along with. You have called for the outright ban of all semi-automatic weapons....a total non-starter with the vast majority of the country. You tried to use some really broad poll as evidence that others thought the way you do and I called you on it.
Outright ban on semi-automatics would be the most effective means to cut firearm crime down as showcased in many other countries. The data supports that approach. That doesn't make me an extremist - just a pragmatistic. I go by the data, not anything else. I said I'd settle for tighters background checks and waiting periods, as well as many of the rules implemented in other countries that are not considered extremist by the way. Seems you need to label me in order to feel good about yourself and keep the bag over your head.
It's an extreme view even if you don't recognize it. Enforcing a 24 hour curfew and martial law would be the most effective means to cut all crime down, but it would be an extreme measure. The fact that you don't even realize what an extreme measure that an outright ban of all semi-automatic weapons would be just reinforces how extreme your views really are. Given that you are so removed from reality in this discussion what you'd settle for is kind of irrelevant, no? There are some added regulations that will likely be passed in an effort to keep guns away from the mentally ill and they'll probably even beef up the background check regulations, but that's about all that is even on the table. Even a law restricting the mentally ill from owning firearms will likely face legal challenges because it's super hard to strip people of their rights, which again, is why there are so few actual rights.
A 24 hour curfew is against our constitution - no where in our constitution does it mention semi-automatic weapons. The fact that you label something extreme without debate is the definition of extreme. Furthermore I have said that I'd settle for background checks that were real and for a waiting period and exams to help ensure that only people with the right mental facility can obtain guns. Most other civilized countries lower crime by limiting access to guns. They are not extreme.
So you think we could collect 300 million guns through a buy back program? I'm sure all the extremists, drug kingpins and gang leaders would all line up to trade in their guns.
Many US cities have implemented gun buy-back programs in the past. How'd those work out? I'll await your evidence showing they worked.
I actually agree with this. Disarming the U.S. is impossible. The second amendment has been a disastrous mistake in the way it has been interpreted. With the amount of firearms in circulation in the U.S, it's impossible to go back.
