We don't want to take your guns...read H.R. 4269

Its still the fallacy of division.

You don't understand the exception.

You had me until the bolded.  There are plenty of people who love this country who want to remove the guns from most of the citizenry.  There is nothing inherently unpatriotic about that.  In fact, I think trying to change the system via the established legal processes and by constitutional amendment are perhaps the most patriotic actions a citizen can take.  They go through the trouble to change what they don't like precisely because they love this country.

Love it or Leave it is just plain wrong headed.

We agree on this point.

I wonder if SCOTUS were to overruled Heller in the future, or if the 2nd amendment was repealed, how many passionate gun owners would actually turn in their guns during a buy back. Or would they simply ignore the change? My guess is you would fight that change through the courts, but what if they ruled against you? I am just trying to figure out if your passionate defense of gun ownership rights is based on the 2nd amendment or you do believe it is a God given right.

I've lost court cases before.  I'd get over it. I'm not actually primarily motivated by either natural rights or the 2nd amendment.  My motivation is more practical, less theoretical.  There are 300,000,000 guns in this country.  You aren't ever going to collect them all or even a significant portion.  Its logistically impractical and politically impossible. 

Its still the fallacy of division.

You don't understand the exception.

You had me until the bolded.  There are plenty of people who love this country who want to remove the guns from most of the citizenry.  There is nothing inherently unpatriotic about that.  In fact, I think trying to change the system via the established legal processes and by constitutional amendment are perhaps the most patriotic actions a citizen can take.  They go through the trouble to change what they don't like precisely because they love this country.

Love it or Leave it is just plain wrong headed.

We agree on this point.

I wonder if SCOTUS were to overruled Heller in the future, or if the 2nd amendment was repealed, how many passionate gun owners would actually turn in their guns during a buy back. Or would they simply ignore the change? My guess is you would fight that change through the courts, but what if they ruled against you? I am just trying to figure out if your passionate defense of gun ownership rights is based on the 2nd amendment or you do believe it is a God given right.

I've lost court cases before.  I'd get over it. I'm not actually primarily motivated by either natural rights or the 2nd amendment.  My motivation is more practical, less theoretical.  There are 300,000,000 guns in this country.  You aren't ever going to collect them all or even a significant portion. Its logistically impractical and politically impossible.

Sounds like a great way to get shot!!!

After the dust settles and all our steel has been converted to manhole covers, this is the stuff we will be posting on social media, while learning the koran

 There are 300,000,000 guns in this country.  You aren't ever going to collect them all or even a significant portion.  Its logistically impractical and politically impossible.
[/quote]

I said in an earlier post that at this time the American public does not at this time have the will or desire to drastically reduce the number of guns in the country so I agree that it is currently politically impossible to do what needs to be done to significantly reduce the amount of guns in America. The second amendment is what SCOTUS says it means. Heller was a four five decision and Heller will probably be re-visited in the future especially if gun deaths remain the same or accelerate. I think a buyback, which would be very expensive, but doable, followed by something very difficult which is a strict limit on fresh guns coming into the market would reduce supply. Many cash strapped individuals would sell if the price is right. Others would not but I do think guns, particularly in urban areas like LA, Chicago, Detroit etc. would be reduced enough to make a difference in the amount of gun deaths in those cities. No plan will totally solve the problem but even partial death reductions are worth putting time and energy into. Whether this nation will is an open question.

There are 300,000,000 guns in this country.  You aren't ever going to collect them all or even a significant portion.  Its logistically impractical and politically impossible.

I said in an earlier post that at this time the American public does not at this time have the will or desire to drastically reduce the number of guns in the country so I agree that it is currently politically impossible to do what needs to be done to significantly reduce the amount of guns in America. The second amendment is what SCOTUS says it means. Heller was a four five decision and Heller will probably be re-visited in the future especially if gun deaths remain the same or accelerate. I think a buyback, which would be very expensive, but doable, followed by something very difficult which is a strict limit on fresh guns coming into the market would reduce supply. Many cash strapped individuals would sell if the price is right. Others would not but I do think guns, particularly in urban areas like LA, Chicago, Detroit etc. would be reduced enough to make a difference in the amount of gun deaths in those cities. No plan will totally solve the problem but even partial death reductions are worth putting time and energy into. Whether this nation will is an open question.
[/quote]

While they're at it they might as well ask the inner city thugs for the Coke and meth that they're also dealing

Everyone is overlooking the obvious: guns are worthless, without ammunition.
Ratchet down on ammo, make it expensive so that private supply drops (lead ban??) And less criminals will have ammo.  Sounds like Ca is writing the back-door book on gun control. Smoke n mirrors guys.

The homies will still be able to get ammo no matter what. Lead non lead silver it don't matter. Last week here in Salinas they threw a live grenade at someones doorstep.

The homies will still be able to get ammo no matter what. Lead non lead silver it don't matter. Last week here in Salinas they threw a live grenade at someones doorstep.

Didn't anyone tell em that's illegal?  We need more background checks to curb grenade sales and misuse of grenades : (

Couple months ago the raided a furniture store that was selling machine guns and rocket launchers as well.



http://www.kionrightnow.com/news/local-news/salinas-police-grenade-found-at-shooting-scene/37248520

The homies will still be able to get ammo no matter what. Lead non lead silver it don't matter. Last week here in Salinas they threw a live grenade at someones doorstep.

Didn't anyone tell em that's illegal?  We need more background checks to curb grenade sales and misuse of grenades : (

+1 this is outrageous!!!

To be honest this is one of several. You want a gold plated AK? No problem!


http://www.montereyherald.com/20101216/federal-agents-bust-illegal-gun-ring-in-salinas-area-raid

I don't think they knew it was illegal




http://www.montereyherald.com/article/ZZ/20101222/NEWS/101229037

Everyone is overlooking the obvious: guns are worthless, without ammunition.
Ratchet down on ammo, make it expensive so that private supply drops (lead ban??) And less criminals will have ammo.  Sounds like Ca is writing the back-door book on gun control. Smoke n mirrors guys.

I did mention this earlier in this thread. 

I should probably point out that ammo doesn't look scary, so there isn't any groundswell of support to ban it.

After 22 pages, bound to be repeatative, and redundant lol.

I should probably point out that ammo doesn't look scary, so there isn't any groundswell of support to ban it.


I don't know that id like to cuddle with this one.