Where do you stand on Gun Control?

[Frozen Sky Ever Why]

I oppose all gun laws.

[Bidenworth2020]

I say universal background, ban on anything more powerful than semi-automatic

What?? You obviously have a lot to learn about guns. More powerful than a semi-automatic?? What caliber? Your statement makes no sense.

yeah, in liberal Maryland, it is pretty much impossible to get a gun. To elaborate, ban on all bump stocks, and a weapon that can shoot more than 100 BPM.  Something I really like is Manchin-Toomey bill. Any thoughts on it?

[Kingpoleon]

Repeal the second amendment, confiscate all privately-owned firearms, improson anyone who resists.

Precisely why we need the 2nd Amendment ^^^.

I'm opposed to this kind of thinking^^ about the 2nd Amendment: that people need guns to be able to shoot at government officials who intend to confiscate their guns. If all three branches of the federal government have decided to ignore the 2nd Amendment and confiscate guns, the right way to react to is comply, not rebel and get violent. I think it was Abe Lincoln who said that in a democracy there is no successful appeal from the ballot to the bullet.

It has often been said that those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable. How much more, then, do those who make armed peace impossible make armed civil war unavoidable?

It says a great of a government - that it fears weapons in the hands of a few of its citizens.

[YE]

I support the 2nd amendment, but favor closing gun loopholes, banning ump stocks, and background checks.

[MarkD]

Repeal the second amendment, confiscate all privately-owned firearms, improson anyone who resists.

Precisely why we need the 2nd Amendment ^^^.

I'm opposed to this kind of thinking^^ about the 2nd Amendment: that people need guns to be able to shoot at government officials who intend to confiscate their guns. If all three branches of the federal government have decided to ignore the 2nd Amendment and confiscate guns, the right way to react to is comply, not rebel and get violent. I think it was Abe Lincoln who said that in a democracy there is no successful appeal from the ballot to the bullet.

You stated the issue exactly right, but came to the wrong conclusion. When government  ignores and abuses the rights of its citizens, that is when the citizenry has a duty to resist. It was Thomas Jefferson who wrote on how the people should respond when government engages in this kind of abuse, saying "it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government".

You used the word "rights" in plural form, but I ask you whether you are willing to hold a civil war, as Kingpoleon is suggesting, solely over one "right," the 2nd Amendment right? Is it really worth having a war between a heavily armed minority and a not-as-well-armed majority solely because the majority wants to confiscate arms?

[MarkD]

Repeal the second amendment, confiscate all privately-owned firearms, improson anyone who resists.

Precisely why we need the 2nd Amendment ^^^.

I'm opposed to this kind of thinking^^ about the 2nd Amendment: that people need guns to be able to shoot at government officials who intend to confiscate their guns. If all three branches of the federal government have decided to ignore the 2nd Amendment and confiscate guns, the right way to react to is comply, not rebel and get violent. I think it was Abe Lincoln who said that in a democracy there is no successful appeal from the ballot to the bullet.

It has often been said that those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable. How much more, then, do those who make armed peace impossible make armed civil war unavoidable?

It says a great of a government - that it fears weapons in the hands of a few of its citizens.

I'm trying to avoid having a civil war but you're telling me that civil war will be inevitable. Perhaps you already know who the winner will be, since one side will have lots of armaments and the other side won't.

[Kingpoleon]

Repeal the second amendment, confiscate all privately-owned firearms, improson anyone who resists.

Precisely why we need the 2nd Amendment ^^^.

I'm opposed to this kind of thinking^^ about the 2nd Amendment: that people need guns to be able to shoot at government officials who intend to confiscate their guns. If all three branches of the federal government have decided to ignore the 2nd Amendment and confiscate guns, the right way to react to is comply, not rebel and get violent. I think it was Abe Lincoln who said that in a democracy there is no successful appeal from the ballot to the bullet.

You stated the issue exactly right, but came to the wrong conclusion. When government  ignores and abuses the rights of its citizens, that is when the citizenry has a duty to resist. It was Thomas Jefferson who wrote on how the people should respond when government engages in this kind of abuse, saying "it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government".

You used the word "rights" in plural form, but I ask you whether you are willing to hold a civil war, as Kingpoleon is suggesting, solely over one "right," the 2nd Amendment right? Is it really worth having a war between a heavily armed minority and a not-as-well-armed majority solely because the majority wants to confiscate arms?

“First they came for the gun owners, who wanted to bear guns, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a gun owner.

“Then they came for the journalists, who wanted freedom of the press, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a journalist.

“Then they came for the Muslims, who wanted freedom of religion, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Muslim.

“Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me. Not only that, but they had destroyed any potential armed opposition by seizing guns. Not only that, but they had destroyed any written, intellectual opposition by seizing journalists. Not only that, but they had destroyed all religious places of worship not loyal to them.”

Anyone who will not protect even one right for others can have no claim to any protection of their own rights.

[MarkD]

Repeal the second amendment, confiscate all privately-owned firearms, improson anyone who resists.

Precisely why we need the 2nd Amendment ^^^.

I'm opposed to this kind of thinking^^ about the 2nd Amendment: that people need guns to be able to shoot at government officials who intend to confiscate their guns. If all three branches of the federal government have decided to ignore the 2nd Amendment and confiscate guns, the right way to react to is comply, not rebel and get violent. I think it was Abe Lincoln who said that in a democracy there is no successful appeal from the ballot to the bullet.

You stated the issue exactly right, but came to the wrong conclusion. When government  ignores and abuses the rights of its citizens, that is when the citizenry has a duty to resist. It was Thomas Jefferson who wrote on how the people should respond when government engages in this kind of abuse, saying "it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government".

You used the word "rights" in plural form, but I ask you whether you are willing to hold a civil war, as Kingpoleon is suggesting, solely over one "right," the 2nd Amendment right? Is it really worth having a war between a heavily armed minority and a not-as-well-armed majority solely because the majority wants to confiscate arms?

“First they came for the gun owners, who wanted to bear guns, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a gun owner.

“Then they came for the journalists, who wanted freedom of the press, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a journalist.

“Then they came for the Muslims, who wanted freedom of religion, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Muslim.

“Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me. Not only that, but they had destroyed any potential armed opposition by seizing guns. Not only that, but they had destroyed any written, intellectual opposition by seizing journalists. Not only that, but they had destroyed all religious places of worship not loyal to them.”

Anyone who will not protect even one right for others can have no claim to any protection of their own rights.

*sigh*

Well, this theory we're debating is kind of moot anyway because the hypothetical that Chris Murphy 2020 talked about -- the hypothetical that all three branches of the federal government are going to render such a narrow interpretation of the second amendment that they will begin a monumental effort to try to confiscate all guns -- is quite far-fetched, not likely going to happen, and I would be contacting my federal legislators to say that I do not support confiscating guns. I just wanted to go on record that I do not support going to war solely over the issue of gun control. I also want to go on record that I get bored with debates that include slippery slope arguments.

[MarkD]

I've thought this through some more and what I really should have said is that I'm against both extremes of the gun control debate: I'm opposed to this extreme ...

Repeal the second amendment, confiscate all privately-owned firearms, improson anyone who resists.

... and I'm opposed to the other extreme of If the federal government takes away my right to own a gun, I'll use my gun(s) against them to defend my right.

[Kingpoleon]

I absolutely agree, MarkD. But we can’t just ignore the idea of a “slippery slope”.

If East Germany had sent ambulances and fire trucks to help West Berlin, would you consider it a DOW or a helpful gesture? What if they send one policemen? Ten? A hundred?

[SATW]

Repeal the second amendment, confiscate all privately-owned firearms, improson anyone who resists.

hey, look, an actual fascist on the forum

[Santander]

Repeal the second amendment, confiscate all privately-owned firearms, improson anyone who resists.

Precisely why we need the 2nd Amendment ^^^.

I'm opposed to this kind of thinking^^ about the 2nd Amendment: that people need guns to be able to shoot at government officials who intend to confiscate their guns. If all three branches of the federal government have decided to ignore the 2nd Amendment and confiscate guns, the right way to react to is comply, not rebel and get violent. I think it was Abe Lincoln who said that in a democracy there is no successful appeal from the ballot to the bullet.

The thing about the 2nd Amendment is that it is part of the Bill of Rights - something which has not been amended since it came into law. So while the 2nd Amendment alone does not protect individual rights, it is part of a larger understanding of individual rights which America was built upon. If all three branches of government outright ignore the Constitution and decide to start confiscating guns, (which is never going to happen...) the correct response is absolutely not to meekly comply. I mean, drawing guns on law enforcement is extremely dangerous, foolish, and not behavior which I would endorse, but in such a hypothetical scenario, It would be imperative for people to use every single one of their other rights to protect their Constitutional rights. If the government ignores the 2nd Amendment, who's to say they won't ignore the 1st Amendment, or any other of your rights? At some point, rights which are not exercised or cherished stop being rights.

[Kingpoleon]

Repeal the second amendment, confiscate all privately-owned firearms, improson anyone who resists.

Precisely why we need the 2nd Amendment ^^^.

I'm opposed to this kind of thinking^^ about the 2nd Amendment: that people need guns to be able to shoot at government officials who intend to confiscate their guns. If all three branches of the federal government have decided to ignore the 2nd Amendment and confiscate guns, the right way to react to is comply, not rebel and get violent. I think it was Abe Lincoln who said that in a democracy there is no successful appeal from the ballot to the bullet.

The thing about the 2nd Amendment is that it is part of the Bill of Rights - something which has not been amended since it came into law. So while the 2nd Amendment alone does not protect individual rights, it is part of a larger understanding of individual rights which America was built upon. If all three branches of government outright ignore the Constitution and decide to start confiscating guns, (which is never going to happen...) the correct response is absolutely not to meekly comply. I mean, drawing guns on law enforcement is extremely dangerous, foolish, and not behavior which I would endorse, but in such a hypothetical scenario, It would be imperative for people to use every single one of their other rights to protect their Constitutional rights. If the government ignores the 2nd Amendment, who's to say they won't ignore the 1st Amendment, or any other of your rights? At some point, rights which are not exercised or cherished stop being rights.

Nope. That’s a slippery slope argument, according to MarkD, and he doesn’t engage in those.