Guys, Seriously. Stop gunsplaining. It is mean and vile.

You know, it should be worth remembering for those of you who go along with the NRA's "More guns is the answer to everything and don't even think about banning high caliber military-style rifles": you are in the minority. For now you have the political advantage because the NRA has disproportionate clout. This may not always be the case. If the makeup of lawmaking bodies starts to swing more toward the majority viewpoint you run the risk of ending up with far more draconic restrictions than anything that's been proposed recently. I'm not talking "right" or "wrong" here and you can save your arguments over the 2nd Amendment for some other thread. I'm talking political realities here. If the political landscape changes and the pro-gun faction continues to be absolutist in it's position you could end up being pushed aside and completely marginalized the way the "segregation now, segregation forever" crowd did. As Lyndon LaRouche would say "you have been warned."

There is a nice little park/athletic field called Allen Field in La Jolla (off Torrey Pines Road) where we used to play pee wee league soft ball games or soccer and other stuff like that. It is near the top of a hill over looking the ocean so you have beautiful views and great coastal breezes but... Sure as shit there were alwats a bunch of goffer holes on the fields. They'd fix them, they'd set up traps, the hippies would write nasty letters to the city about the traps being inhumane...

I bet if you went there today there would still be a ton of goffer holes and a guy filling them in a couple times a week. Those critters sure are industrious with their digging.

Beavers can be destructive too. If you live near a stream they can dam it up & flood your property. When I lived in Wisconsin one of my neighbors destroyed a beaver dam and thought the beavers would get the hint and take their business elsewhere. All the beavers did was chew down the trees in his yard (right near his house) and used them to rebuild the dam.

I don't expect the gun control side to leave any effective exercise of gun rights intact if they gain power. I live in California and I've seen this play out (and expect it to get much worse in the near future).

Unlike most other freedoms, gun rights have a physical component: namely, guns. The more there are in circulation, the harder it will be for the government to confiscate them, simply because compensating owners will be economically unfeasible.

Unlike segregation, gun rights defenders are on the freedom side, and taking freedoms away from the peaceful and law-abiding is not the American norm. And, though many Americans may favor gun control of some kind or another, it's unclear if large numbers of them are passionate about it. Certainly, the gun rights side--even if numerically smaller--is very, very engaged, and puts its money where its mouth is.

Gun rights have gained ground in the last few decades. Concealed carry is on a shall issue basis in 40+ states, and carrying without need for a license is the rule in a number of states. We have two landmark Supreme Court cases that secure at least some defensive gun rights and establish that common guns--including handguns--are protected. Justice Kennedy may be about to retire, and Trump's replacement pick would almost certainly firm up the pro-gun rights majority on the court. Business for gun manufacturers is great--and booms when gun control is the issue of the day--and the AR-15 and its variants are the bestsellers.

The 2nd is very entrenched in American society; curtailing it federally is going to be very, very difficult. At the state level--assuming controls survive judicial review--people can always vote with their feet.

Instead of the Bible let's thump the 2nd Amendment! When it comes to voting with your feet, one of the reasons I left Florida was the gun culture where any shithead who has a need to feel like a really macho guy who can more or less fill out paperwork can go concealed carry. I feel a hell of a lot safer in Idaho where the vast majority of people who go concealed carry and have heavier stuff as well have been around them all their life and regard them as tools, potentially dangerous tools in the same way chain saws are dangerous if used improperly. We have plenty of loonies out here too, but they also are much more knowledgeable. Gun control supporters need to recognize that difference, but so do the 2nd Amendment absolutists.

Paranoia strikes deep
Into your life it will creep
It starts when you're always afraid
Step out of line, the men come and take you away
​

Here's a question for all of you who spend so much of your time parsing "a well-regulated militia" to mean "me and my personal arsenal, period," guaranteed to showcase your ability to rewrite the language in order to cling to your toys: Where in the Sacred Second does it say your "arms" have to be loaded? This oughta get you all upsetted long before I add the follow-up question.

Wait for it...

Garamet is order to "bear arms" such as a gun you would need the ammunition. It's a given that the two go together.

But thank you for proving Paladin's point, that you quoted, once again.

I am all for taxing ammunition as well as guns. A national registration, like the one for automatic weapons, with a hefty tax every time they change ownership would be a very good thing and perfectly legal. Anyone fpund with an unregistered gun would get hit with tax evation and likely a prison stint.

That was how FDR dealth with automatic weapons in the 1930's and it could certainly be extended to all semi auto or any other category deemed undesirable. The 1930's law didn't outlaw automatics but it made them so damn expensive virtually no one bothered. Also gang members found with unregistered automatics ended up getting years in prison for tax evasion despite the government not being able to prove they had done anything else illegal. It worked once and can work again plus SCotUS has already said it is 100% legal.

Thanks for being the first one to step up, especially in this thread.

You just lost the last ounce of credibility you had. You're seriously comparing your hobby toy with the struggle to end segregation?

You've let the gun lobby chip away at any bit of critical thinking ability you may have once had on the issue.

That is exactly what I am talking about.

tick... tick... tick...

One, credibility with you means nothing to me.

Two, your dismissal of my rights as a "hobby toy" proves that you and those on your side have no regard for the 2nd in any meaningful way.

Three, absolutely I compare more radical gun control with segregation. Segregation tried to deprive people of their Constitutional rights; so does gun control. Segregation was state restriction on the freedoms of the peaceful and law-abiding; so is gun control. (Of course, the two issues tie together:many early gun control laws were about keeping uppity blacks disarmed, but that's another story.)

You're right on #2.

#3: you're pitiful.

#1: Why are you responding?

tick... tick... tick...

Oh, ok, so you're doubling down on this?

Yes, waiting periods, background checks, and restrictions on types of guns you can own is exactly the same as this:







You have to fill out some forms and wait a few days to get a new toy. What a struggle you must be going through.

No, I said more radical gun control. Bans, outlawing ownership, etc.

"more radical gun control" indicates you see this as radical gun control. ya whiny bitch.

If you think outlawing ownership of guns isn't radical, then any gunowner who fears you want to take away his gun rights isn't paranoid. He's well-informed.

So your idea of "more radical gun control" includes turning dogs and fire hoses on gun owners, lynching gun owners, banning gun owners from accessing public services, and groups of people in robes putting giant flaming guns on gunowners' lawns.

Because that's the only way this would be even remotely similar to segregation

It involves arresting them and jailing them for exercising their rights, and forcibly taking their property. Not as dramatic, I grant you, but every bit as egregious.

Actually, it didn't. The Hughes Amendment to the ironically named Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986 is what drove prices up. Until new production was banned, you could buy a brand new in the box Colt M16A1 for about $1,000 ($2,200 in 2018 adjusted for inflation) plus the tax stamp. I know because I did it. Today, that same rifle would cost $20,000-$25,000 because you've got to have legal proof that the weapon was made before the ban on production went into effect on June 1st, 1986.

What is "it" and who is "them"? What property?

hey MikeH92476 - maybe people aren't on a "macho trip" when they go concealed carry. Maybe they are just tired of slipping in that pool of urine when people like you piss yourself from fear over seeing a gun.

What? Who has seriously suggested arresting gunowners?

Of course, banning gun ownership is not on the agenda for anyone. Except for those who believe that any restrictions whatever, even those allowed under Heller are the first step on the slippery slope toward a ban.

Which is what I said. Nothing was banned the price was just made really expensive thus causing them to become very rare. The original $200 tax was the modern equivalent of around $4000 which caused them to fall into disfavor despite being still legal. Sadly, the tax was not indexed to inflation so it became meaningless over time. Thus the 1980's legislation we all already knew about and have spoken about many times before.

Repeat the same sort of tax with semi autos and semi autos will also fall out of favor. A $20,000 tax every time one is bought or sold no matter who does the buying or selling should do the trick and is perfectly legal according to past SCotUS rulings. That was the whole point which you some how missed.

Any tax of this kind is going to be vociferously opposed by the NRA and won't go anywhere legislatively. At this point the gun lobby has far too much of a stranglehold on the Republican Party and I don't think that's going away anytime soon.

Please...if the NRA didn't exist making even basic guns so expensive as to effectively make the average person unable to have one would still be fought and we all know it. That shit would be too blatant to ignore by either Republicans or Democrats. Think about how the Democrats are so entrenched in "poor people can't vote because they can't afford to get ID cards or drive to the polls". Now imagine "only rich people can defend themselves" gaining traction. Sorry the shit-storm would be epic and a blatant back-door "gun grab" like this would backfire (no pun intended) sooner or later.

The NRA has no power. Saying it does is an attempt to deflect the fact that its millions of members and countless millions of non-member supporters are in agreeance with NRA policy.

What?!