Dem congressman: Force gun owners to get rid of assault weapons - Polidicks

The first example you gave though was blatantly murder and not covered under castle doctrine. I’m fairly certain the guy was convicted of murder as well.

Why? Are we supposed to allow you to equate "Dem Congressman says:" to "anyone who wants stricter gun control is willing to pry it from your cold dead hands"?

Honestly this is you being paranoid about a tiny minority.

The example was more about the idea of how toxic american gun culture is rather than whether it was legal or not. Fantasizing about shooting home invaders leads to shit like that happening.

Because it is patently dishonest. It is 100% a false statement. Very clearly there are those in the government trying to do so, and there are a good amount of people in the populace advocating for such as well. "No one is coming for your guns" is such a stupid statement to say anymore. It is always said in order to paint gun rights people as paranoid and obstinate. Well guess what, they are trying, so it does not do to say that anymore. Also, the eventual goal of the majority of gun control advocates are gun bans. You cannot tell me otherwise, because that would also be false. I would love it if gun control advocates stopped trying to argue from a position of dishonesty.

If Democrats push gun control going into the midterms they will lose. Fucker needs to shut the fuck up lmao, I can't believe how utterly retarded democrat politicians get when it comes to guns as an issue. Honestly they'd probably be better off tabling the discussion indefinitely.

A tiny minority? Really? Dunno brother, I just saved a funny picture I saw on facebook. I wouldn't assign any more meaning to it than that.

Are you sure you are not talking about some guy in washington state? He was charged with murder. https://nypost.com/2017/04/03/home-intruder-shot-dead-while-taking-a-shower/ You're logic is highly flawed, that is like saying when criminals do awful things it is hard to trust people in general. If a gun owner commits a crime, they get charged with said crime. It isn't like gun owners are allowed to get away with anything. You think banning guns is going to change anything in this country? It's been said a million times already, gun violence is a symptom of a deeper issue in the united states.

This is like saying Pro life politicians and activists are in the minority so women are just being paranoid if they worry about their abortion rights being taken away.

I never said this represented all gun owners? I just said that gun culture in America is in a very deep end when ideas like that fester and influences some people. I never said all gun owners act like this, I just see this "home intruder invasion" fantasy thing way too much in America compared to literally any other country ever, and it's a very unhealthy mindset that leads to acts like that. Also when did I ever say anything about banning guns? I just want reasonable barriers towards getting one. Like the whole car analogy meme makes me think about the fact we have driving licences but no gun licences, despite cars being imperative to American infrastructure and guns being nothing more really than a dangerous toy for most people. I'm fine with people owning guns if there's actual license requirements that the people who own them can handle it responsibly (Which not every gun owner is! Some people can be very irresponsible with firearms and yet still access them!) in the same way we have for driving. How many disclaimers do I have to say that I'm not painting "EVERY SINGLE" gun owner like this? I'm just saying that they shouldn't be as easy to access for what's a very dangerous object in the wrong hands. I don't think they should be THAT difficult to obtain, but it should require more proofing than the current system.

I too fantasize about lawsuits, legal fees, being smeared by the media and mental trauma.

Sorry I didn't make it clear but the example of Texas Law and the homeless man taking a shower were meant to be 2 separate examples, I didn't know where the man was from because I forgot most of the details of the story.

Who is "they"? And why did you change the quote in between arguments from "they" to "no one"? The first one is more specific, it's a perfectly valid statement when talking about, say, a bill that's being introduced. The second one talks about basically everyone, you can't really argue "no one" holds a certain position, so sure, trash it all you want. But you're also being presumptuous as fuck and arguing that there is basically one position for the gun control crowd, and anything else is just lies. I'm glad you're showing the gun control people how bad they are for assuming, by doing the same fucking thing

Licenses for what is explicitly a right for any American in good standing is a non-starter for me. Do you view the 2nd as a right, or as an inconvenient paragraph to be worked around as best as possible?

Why would gun owners trust a system which is already flawed and made it very apparent it wants nothing more to take away guns? Why would anyone listen to someone who talks about gun culture and then tries to use a criminal as an example of what gun culture is? Why would anyone that listens to someone that tries to paint all owners (by talking about "Gun culture") as terrible wana-be murders? Point is, stop blaming guns, stop blaming "gun culture", stop talking about ease-of-access, when plenty of people brought up reasonable measures. Stop talking about adding more responsibly to a system of government which has already proven and shown failures, for example Air Force didn't report an airman who got discharged for domestic violence and because of that failure to report he was able to buy a gun. Why do people like you continue to highlight so called failures and issues, but ignores all the systematic failures which have proven to be ineffective in regards to gun control which is already in place. How about you talk about the culture of american politics which fucks the poor, fucks minorities, and fucks everyone that isn't rich or powerful. How about we address the lack of education, jobs, accessible healthcare, gerrymandering, failures of the prison and criminal justice system, racial inequality, and all the other social issues which are contributing to violence? Why it is certain parts of american can have a gun ownership rate of like 10 guns per person and not have crime. Versus the inner-cities which have MORE gun control then the majority of the country but yet contribute far more deaths to gun statistics per day compared to actual active shooter situations? If gun control advocates actually gave a shit about saving lives they would work on policies and implement social programs which help the most affected areas of gun violence.

The latter because it shouldn't exist. Gun ownership is fine, near unrestricted access to it is not. "Any American in good standing" just means you don't have a criminal record or history of severe mental health problems. Lacking both those things doesn't mean you can't be an irresponsible idiot. There should be a check that makes sure people are going to handle a firearm properly before they get one, much like how there is one with a vehicle. I don't see how that's unreasonable when guns are dangerous in irresponsible, untrained hands like cars are. I don't even want it to be that difficult to get.

Unfortunately you were probably born in the wrong country if you like voting away your and your fellow citizen's rights, I think.

I meant to say it's an aspect of gun culture, not the entirety of all gun owners? Stop being so defensive. " Versus the inner-cities which have MORE gun control then the majority of the country but yet contribute far more deaths to gun statistics per day compared to actual active shooter situations" Gun crime in places like Chicago is contributed by factors like how Wisconsin and Michegan are next door and have very lax gun laws. " Why don't you actually look at gun stats and see how gun related homicides are classified? Separate suicides, accidental deaths, justifiable homicide, and get the real number of homicides" Accidental deaths and suicides are still a part of the problem of access to firearms. I was never solely talking about homicides or acting like all gun owners are homocidal maniacs. Also the way you say "A criminal" doesn't undermine the point, a criminal suddenly "doesn't count." The amount of assumption and defensiveness is ridiculous because I'm not even a "ban all gun" type. You should just have to go through some mandatory firearms training, safety protocols classes and a background check to obtain a firearm. That's all I want?

Threads like this always demonstrate the American worship of the constitution as a sacred document that must forever be static even as reality changes, which really kinda baffles me as an outsider in a country without a real static constitution.

We already have background checks. What training and safety protocols do you have in mind? Who is footing the bill for these classes? You can't put financial barriers in front of a right. Whatever classes you have in mind would need to be 100% free and accessible to all citizens in the US.

I think taking the statement "no one is coming for your guns" as literally meaning "there is not one single person on Earth who wants to ban guns outright" is being obtuse.

"You can't put financial barriers in front of a right." There already are financial barriers considering guns usually go for no less than $200-300. 2 or 3 classes on firearms would be like the same cost as one.

It's equally obtuse to try and reduce it that much. There is a strong movement in government to outright ban or type-ban, enforced by forceful confiscation, firearms. This movement has widespread outside support and I'd be willing to wager that if it came down to an immediate total ban or maintaining the current status quo many people in this thread would jump for the former. You are acting like one or two fringe dudes in California want to ban all guns and they have no chance of gaining any traction. And that's not what's going on here.

I truly believe that anyone advocating gun control has an end goal, independent of how long it would actually take, of ending civilan ownership of firearms in the US. At best, they don't realize that they're just helping pave the path for the people who do want that. I'm sure there are a few well meaning advocates of it who would be happy to stop at some point, but from what I've seen the vast majority would love to flip a switch and make all gats disappear.

That's not the issue, the issue is why this particular example of a congressman coming out in favor of ban has somehow tipped us over the edge into "No one can deny there is a widespread concerted effort to ban all guns." Either the issue is clear independent of this one guy, in which case one additional voice does nothing to really bolster the point, or this is basically at the moment just an example of "A politician who wants to ban guns," which doesn't mean much, as was the point of my previous post.

The point is that currently, at this moment, there is a force within government that wants to forcefully confiscate lawfully owned property from law abiding citizens. In the past people would say, "oh, yes, people used to want to ban all guns, but it's not 1993 anymore," or whatever, but now it is a current issue. No matter how far you as an individual want to take restrictions on guns, there is someone more powerful than you who wants to take it further, who you probably wouldn't stand against when it came down to it. That means whether you personally want a total "assault weapon ban" or not, you will do nothing to stop it after whatever smaller regulations you have in mind open the door to it. The reason gun owners hold 2A up so high is because it's meant to be the technical, legal protection against total bans. The "worship" for 2A is because it's supposed to be the emergency brake on draconian rules. It hasn't been effective in the past, though. The fact that 2A hasn't been effective in the past evokes further distrust from gun owners. No matter how much you say, "we'll institute hard protections against further measures in exchange for giving up AR-15s" or whatever the proposed compromise may be, all it takes is a later law to strip or just ignore those hard protections. 2A was supposed to be the hard protection and that's been cast to the wind already. The reason gun owners don't want to entertain the notion of more restrictions is exactly because it's so difficult to get the existing ones lifted and any protections we have can just be ignored or removed by law once new restrictions are in place. New York did this with SAFE. Outside of the US, Canada's RCMP does this on the regular.

If you want to believe that, go for it. But when one of two parties in the US has gun control on their platform and can't put out a bill without the word ban in the first few words I'm entirely skeptical of their end goal being anything else.

How on earth are you getting that meaning from his words? The claim he's responding to is 'nobody's coming for your guns'. He never said every gun control advocate wants mass confiscation and total disarmament. The fact is that there are politicians actively working within our political system towards bans and confiscation- whether they represent a minority or majority of gun control advocates is irrelevant, they exist and they have enough traction among the public that their policy proposals could actually happen. Anyone who says 'nobody is coming for your guns' at this point is either uninformed or gaslighting. If someone tried to claim 'nobody's coming for illegal immigrants' or 'nobody's coming for your abortion rights' you wouldn't buy it for a second, and it doesn't matter one fucking bit that many people just want stricter border control rather than throwing all illegal immigrants in prison. There are people in positions of power who do want to throw immigrants in prison, or ban abortions altogether, or confiscate guns, and the fact that they haven't succeeded yet doesn't mean we get to pretend they don't exist and act like anyone who's worried about them is a paranoid lunatic.

What makes you think this man's proposal could actually happen though? There's no way in hell the Republicans are going to go along with anything he says and they have control of the house, the senate, and the presidency. His proposal is awful and basically in ignorance of reality but it seems like he's playing to a base, and he'd be an even bigger idiot than he is right now if he actually believes that gun confiscation will go through. Even groups that are for gun control say that going as far as this congressman's proposed would be a bad idea, as cited in the article. Seems more like a situation where a Californian politician is doing something that'll be a good soundbyte for re-election with a Californian base rather than an actual policy decision that will truly go through.

But that's not the situation right now. This kind of shit spawned from the alarmist narrative could well take root and sprout when there's inevitably a blue switch in 2020.