On guns, a question: What would *you*, personally, do to confiscate them?

[friendly_iconoclast]

Join the military?

Become a cop?

In all my years at DU, I can count on the fingers of one hand the people who said
that they would be willing to do the job themselves.

Most content themselves with loudly proclaiming that it's a task that really needs to be done, while studiously
avoiding volunteering to do it...

[NightWatcher]

1. I'm Pro-Healthcare for All but there's no way I'm going to start giving colonoscopies.

It's law enforcement's job to carry out the laws.

[SHRED]

2. Bingo!!

[Eliot Rosewater]

3. The OP question is meant to make a point, I suppose...I know, lets keep doing NOTHING

and eventually we will all be affected by gun death.

Or, we could do what the rest of the world has done.

sigh

[NightWatcher]

6. The reason we don't have gun control has nothing to do with what people want or do.

It's a few dozen old white guys in power who take money from the gun lobby. 98% are for background checks. There's nothing more we can DO.

[Eliot Rosewater]

10. And even if we put into law all gun laws under consideration, and enforce them, the vast majority

of these mass killings will continue, because the problem is the guns exist, if they exist people are gonna get em and use em and some of those people are gonna do mass shootings.

Basic math.
funny how to even suggest we do what the WORLD does, get rid of them, is somehow a sin to say here

[wasupaloopa]

18. We have gun rights in our constitution the world does't

[Eliot Rosewater]

20. Nah, it only protects them in WELL REGULATED MILITIAS and Heller is unconstitutional

[wasupaloopa]

21. Well when are we going to have a liberal court?

[Eliot Rosewater]

23. We dont need a "liberal" court, we just need one not bought off by the NRA...

[Mike_DuBois]

73. USSC decisions are the ultimate statement of what is Constitutional

Disagreement doesn't make it otherwise

[friendly_iconoclast]

9. It was meant to point out widespread chickenhawkism and slacktivism

You are, of course entitled to your own interpretation.

[Eliot Rosewater]

11. Chickenhawks, are YOU calling ME and anyone who wants to have guns removed

CHICKENHAWKS if we are not willing to do it ourselves, by ourselves?

Is THAT what YOU are saying????

[friendly_iconoclast]

16. You want it done, have no intention of doing so yourself, but expect others to do it for you?

[Eliot Rosewater]

19. thanks for admitting you are personally attacking me

[friendly_iconoclast]

22. Post #16 is an accurate description of your stance on the issue, is it not?

[tazkcmo]

102. Sillyness.

And very insulting considering my Army service and Operation Desert Storm participation. Shove your insults where the sun don't shine.

[wasupaloopa]

13. The rest of the world does not protect gun rights

in their constitution.

Sigh

[Eliot Rosewater]

15. OUr constitution allows ONLY for guns in REGULATED MILITIAS and Heller is not constitutional

period

[wryter2000]

36. You and I agree on that

Unfortunately, we are not on the Supreme Court

[PTWB]

95. If you get down to arguing semantics you're never going to make progrsss.

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Arguing over how to parse a 250 year old sentence isn’t going to save one life or convince one person to switch sides. Focus on what we can do to make a change - get out the vote, show people the way and in 20 years we might repeal the 2nd or have the court presence to have it reinterpreted.

For transparency, I am a gun owner who supports common sense background checks and gun control regulations.

[friendly_iconoclast]

4. Yeah, but you're not advocating mandatory colonoscopies...

[Sugarcoated]

50. Most people believe getting murderers, rapists and thieves off the streets is mandatory

as per passed laws. As a society, "we" hold them accountable, but not you and I, people trained to handle folks who act inappropriately and/or dangerously, who refuse to follow the law(s). Why should it be any different if laws were passed making military style weapons illegal? The buy back idea before the law goes into effect looks like it's been very successful in other countries.

[Hekate]

66. Sophistry

[DanTex]

100. Thread winner!!

[tazkcmo]

101. You speak for me.

Well said.

[TheCowsCameHome]

5. Who says guns would be confiscated by individuals..

...other than the paranoid gun humpers?

[Eliot Rosewater]

12. I wont stand for it HERE, I wont be called a chickenhawk HERE

so I will see if he will retract it.

[Mike_DuBois]

74. I dunno. I've seen a few dozen posts 'round here say it

[PSPS]

7. Who said we have to confiscate?

As other countries have done, do a buy back, ban future sales, including ammunition and accessories. Time itself will take care of the leftovers.

[Newest Reality]

57. That has worked!

We have a far more aggressive and violent country, (from its inception) with some rather ingrained ideas about this from the onery types who desperately want to protect their paranoia, (about the rest of us and the government) and believe that is part of their Second Amendment rights and we have to respect it.

So, how things go here may be different, but that would be the game plan that would work, along with the kind of requirements that Japan imposes for gun ownership, perhaps.

We need a drivers license to legally drive a car which involves an initial quiz test and road test, so what's up here? Strict requirements are not taking away anybody's rights, they just ensure that people who purchase and own guns are qualified to have a deadly weapon.

[MyMission]

68. IRL- insure, register and license firearms as we do motor vehicles

I agree, and am trying to start a platform for IRL. In real life those who want to own guns should
1) be insured, not (only) for loss of property but liability (make them pay!) As with cars ...
2) be registered, for every gun, like cars. And re-registered every year, with guns inspected.
3) be licensed to carry and use the gun(s). Some call it permits. Driver's and gun licenses may be issued for longer or shorter periods of time, depending on your state, age and circumstance. A written test (many might not pass) should be given, along with proficiency. If you can't shoot straight, or your target, you shouldn't get a license. Issue a Learners permit to those who qualify and want one. Then test for actual license. To be repeated every so many years. Until you're an old (white) guy who can't hit your target, then revoke license, surrender guns. Perhaps special license to collectors, I don't know enough about guns to come up with a plan for that. But collectors certainly insure them against theft!

I like the idea of buyback if you lose or surrender your gun license. Some drive without license, insurance or registration, but most comply with DMV regs because they make sense.
It makes to do the same with firearms. NRA could underwrite the insurance, and pay for damages, injuries and deaths. Just thought of that last part as I type this.
IRL guns like cars!
IRL IRL

[Newest Reality]

69. Excellent!

That's good to see. I mean, a detailed outline that is just a acceptable as a driver's license, etc. It is also on par with some other countries and the type of restrictions they put on owning DEADLY weapons.

Thanks! I can't fault that and each point makes sense, legally and otherwise. The car analogy is also valid and practical, and I would like to see it presented and how the advocates debate it.

And to those who are naysayers and who pretty much respond that this or that won't work or won't be enforceable, etc., I would respond, let's just do it and find out if that is so. If you are right, we will know then. Otherwise, it is mere conjecture and, you know, there is an awful lot at stake here. It is not a trivial matter.

[Newest Reality]

71. You know, that is

so compelling and practical that you might want to put it in its own post, since it can be a bit lost here in the comments, that is, if you feel it is polished and ready enough for that.

Part of the value of it is to stimulate ideas and discussions and see what people here think. There will be pros or cons, but the premise seems to be a great idea to float.

[MyMission]

83. IRL

Thanks for the encouragement. I thought of starting a thread, but there are 2 gun (control) boards here and I wasn't sure which one to post on. I could put it on the general thread. Any suggestions where?

I sent the idea to March for our lives over the weekend, to begin with, as an intellectual gift. They're connected to many groups that advocate gun control. Suggested they float it in states that already require registration, and have some interest in monitoring gun ownership. Just starting to put the concept out there.

The wording "gun control" is too diffuse. Like birth control, many forms exist, including abstinence!
The word control is scary to most of us: think mind control. And background checks are only a small piece.

Gun control is scary to many gun owners. But if it was presented not as gun control, but something that sounds better, even logical, I think many who own guns could get on board. We don't call it car control. Like DMV we would need an agency to oversee this. State run, like DMV. DGS maybe, or DGU Department of gun safety or usage. Gun safety sounds better than gun control. Just came up with that.

I've spoken with gun control advocates over the years. At one meeting many years ago, before so many mass shootings, they were discussing need for control to prevent suicides. I said I didn't care much if someone wants to shoot themselves, as long as they don't shoot others. That's where the mental health issue is more relevant. Then I thought (but did not say) that if everyone who owns a gun Should shoot themselves, blow their own brains out, then we could just retrieve the guns, melt them down and reuse the metal! Swords into plowshares! But then I thought about military needing guns... cops get tasers.

There is so much to consider. I thought it might make a good sci fi story, gun control, mind control, ways to get gun owners to shoot themselves.But reality bites and invades my creative thoughts. Those thoughts turned to practical solutions. To me, the idea of background checks or banning assault weapons is kind of stupid if we don't have a plan for controlling guns and gun ownership. I'd like to see a comprehensive, thoughtful plan take shape and put into place.

[Mike_DuBois]

75. As long as you cann do it at no cost to gun owers

Otherwise you're restricting Constitutional rights based on economic priviledge, and that's a no no. See poll taxes for relevent rationaale

[MyMission]

84. Gun owners should pay for the privilege, like car owners

And if they can't afford it, or it cost more than they thought was reasonable, they could give up the gun. I had to show proof of insurance before I took my road test. I have to pay to inspect and register my car every year, incur fines and penalties if I don't do so when it's due; have to pay my car insurance, and pay to renew my license every 8 yearsI And if I don't I have penalties, my license is suspended and I have to pay for reinstatement. I have to pay city and county property tax on my condo, and maintenance fees. And in NC we also pay property tax on our vehicles!

If I wanted a gun, I'd have to pay for the purchase, and the permit/license, and the class they require, and the renewal of permit, and the ammo if I actually shoot it. If I couldn't afford it, i wouldn't own it, or I'd work extra hours, take another job, etc And if I wanted 10 guns, I should have to register and pay for all. Again, if I could only afford 1 or 2 (I've got 2 hands, after all) then I'd only have what I could afford.

If I collected but didn't shoot, I would be paying insurance against theft, and I'd still own a weapon that someone might steal and use, unless the firing pin was removed, I think.

And let's not forget about about my NRA dues. Might not be able to afford them if I had to pay my state.
This concept is just in the development phase.
Really, the only hesitation I have with my platform is If I used a gun to hunt for food, lived off the land and had no job or means of support. There aren't many who are in that situation. And surely there could be exceptions, and agencies that cover or reduce fees for those individuals.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

99. Please highlight the word "privilege"

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Cars are not an enumerated right.

[MyMission]

106. Militia has several definitions and has changed over time

1) A military force that is raised from the civil population to supplement regular army in an emergency
2) A military force that engages in rebel or terrorist activities in opposition to a regular army
3) All able-bodied civilians eligible by law eligible for military service
That's from Oxford.

Wikipedia for Militia (United States) gives a history, and cites current codes.
"The current United States Code, Title 10 (Armed forces), section 246 (Militia: Composition and Classes), paragraph (a) states: "The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard."[57] Section 313 of Title 32 refers to persons with prior military experience. ("Sec. 313. Appointments and enlistments: age limitation (a) To be eligible for original enlistment in the National Guard, a person must be at least 17 years of age and under 45, or under 64 years of age and a former member of the Regular Army, Regular Navy, Regular Air Force, or Regular Marine Corps. To be eligible for reenlistment, a person must be under 64 years of age. (b) To be eligible for appointment as an officer of the National Guard, a person must – (1) be a citizen of the United States; and (2) be at least 18 years of age and under 64."

Clearly there are age limits, for joining initially and for being called. I read it as age 17-64.

US militia exists independently in each state. Just because some yahoo owns a gun, does not make them eligible or part of the militia. They must be Able bodied and within a certain age range. 65+ year Old (white) guys on oxygen, walkers, or unable to meet military/militia standards aren't eligible to join.

We can work with that. Sign up for the militia, or military, pass able bodied test, and one can own a gun without paying. But one should still get licensed to carry and have weapons registered. And if you're above or below the age limit, no right to automatically own gun for the purpose of serving in a militia as you're not eligible, despite your desire or misconceptions. But one can pay for registration, license and insurance if not eligible for your state militia. Selective service registration doesn't mean you're part of the militia or military. It means you can be called up and trained, to age 45 if you've never served.

So that would rule out a lot of rump supporters.

Thanks for leading me to look up this information!

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

107. The militia:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/246
10 USC § 246:
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

(emphasis mine) so, everyone.

The militia; the people; they're the same.

https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed46.asp
Federalist #46:
Extravagant as the supposition is, let it however be made. Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence.

(emphasis mine) so, everyone.

Check the 1790 census. 500,000 or so would be nearly everyone qualified. Those being males of 17+.

The intent of the founders and of law passed in the 20th century defines the militia.

What do scrupulously moral folks think about the right to weapons:

Martin Luther King, Jr. once applied for a permit to carry a concealed handgun. Racists in the government denied his application.
- [google is your friend]
"If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun."
- The Dalai Lama
"Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest."
- Mohandas K. Gandhi
"Without doubt one is allowed to resist against the unjust aggressor to one's life, one's goods or one's physical integrity; sometimes, even 'til the aggressor's death..."
- Thomas Aquinas
"Though defensive violence will always be 'a sad necessity' in the eyes of men of principle, it would be still more unfortunate if wrongdoers should dominate just men."
- Augustine of Hippo
"Now, however, He told them, the one with a purse should take it, and likewise a bag; and the one without a sword should sell his cloak and buy one."
- Gospel of Luke 22:36

And even this guy...
"If you've got to resist, you're chances of being hurt are less the more lethal your weapon. If that were my wife, would I want her to have a .38 Special in her hand?
Yeah."
- Dr. Arthur Kellerman

[wasupaloopa]

8. We don't Want to confiscate guns.

We can try to get future generation to not buy guns.

Make it so anti social that people would not want to own assault rifle

Repeal the second amendment

[mcar]

14. Are you suggesting that civilians should go door to door to confiscate guns?

Under what authority?

[Eliot Rosewater]

17. Worse, he is saying since I am not willing to do it I am a CHICKENHAWK

AND that infuriates the FUCK out of me

You know me, you know I take NOTHING here personal



until


now

I wonder what would happen to me if I called someone a chickenhawk who absolutely was not...oh, i know

[friendly_iconoclast]

27. You want it done, will not do so yourself- but expect *others* to go in harm's way for your beliefs

[G_j]

93. that's the ticket, have untrained civilians volunteer

I suppose we could have them defuse bombs too..

[sarisataka]

24. Post on the internet

Very vigorously...

[friendly_iconoclast]

31. I know- the subject tends to bring out a lot of 'inner Trumps, Boltons, and Cheneys'

i.e.: Would-be culture warriors that expect other people to do the fighting for them...

[ChubbyStar]

62. Like you!

What sound advice!

[Hoyt]

25. LMAO. Why do gunners always ask this question? Fact is, there is no need to confiscate them.

The law should give you a period of time to turn in the guns deemed illegal -- likely semi-auto rifles such as AR15s, AK47s, etc., high capacity magazines, other lethal accessories banned, and more.

If you don't turn them in, and are caught with one:
1. You will be subject to a significant fine -- thousands of dollars -- and potential jail time;
2. Lose your right to own any other guns including BB rifles, pellet guns, 5 or 6 shooters, etc.
3. Get caught with another banned weapon, and you better engage a criminal attorney in hopes of shortening sentence;
4. Use a banned weapon -- even if supposedly for self-defense -- hard time without parole.
5. Other.


I would also offer private citizens a bounty for taking illegal gunz from so-called "law abiding gun owners" -- who obviously aren't law abiding because they are proclaiming they won't obey the law -- but, that probably won't pass.

[friendly_iconoclast]

30. Feh. You'll do nothing to bring any of that about that *doesn't* involve a text-input device

[Hoyt]

32. Hopefully you'll wise up and turn your banned gunz in, no matter how hard it is on you.

[friendly_iconoclast]

37. What are 'banned gunz', and what makes you think I have any to "turn...in"?

[Hoyt]

42. LMAO. I know, the Gungeoneers used to say if there were a ban, they'd say "they were transporting

their banned weapons in a boat and it sunk." Don't think that will work for you.

[qazplm135]

26. I'm not a cop

so...nothing?

Seems like an easy question to me.

[James48]

28. I have no problem

With background checks, and laws requiring weapons to be safely secured under lock and key when not in use.

But AR-15’s May look scary, but they are no more dangerous than any other hunting rifle. There are so many 30 round magazines out there, that you will never make them disappear.

I’m in favor of tighter controls, but we will never make AR-15’s illegal, nor should they be, for reasonable, safe owners. Sorry, but that is how I feel.

[Hoyt]

40. I disagree. AR15s, hi cap mags, etc., are fueling today's gun market. They were banned once,

Last edited Tue Sep 3, 2019, 09:44 AM - Edit history (1)

and should be banned again, no matter how loudly gunners whine.

Fact is, I don't know anyone who can fire a lever, or bolt, action rifle 41 times in less than 30 seconds, like the gun-enthusiast in Dayton. And, as the Las Vegas shooter demonstrated, they can be converted to full auto, or "bumpstock" auto, easily.

Might as well prepare yourself for the inevitable. Every year we screw around, puts millions more on the street that we'll have to deal with when government finally bites the bullet and says, "Give em up or go to jail."

[PTWB]

97. Did you mean seconds?

[Hoyt]

98. Oh, yes. Thanks. Corrected it.

[procon]

45. Umm...they were banned and illegal

for ten years until Bush let the law expire. Since the precedence is already established a Dem majority Congress could renew the law in a snap.

[madville]

92. They were not banned or illegal

The 94 Assault Weapons Ban was a joke. You could still buy AR and AK style rifles with detachable magazines, they just had to have a few cosmetic features either modified or removed. High capaicity magazines were still available for sale, the prices just went up.

[Cirque du So-What]

29. When my coworkers ask me what I did on Labor Day

Last edited Mon Sep 2, 2019, 06:59 PM - Edit history (1)

I won't have to say, 'constructed ridiculous strawman arguments.'

[wryter2000]

33. There are plenty of people who want those jobs

I'd like to make sure those people had good wages and benefits and received lots of training.

[pnwmom]

34. Vote for politicians who would pass laws that would enable law enforcement to confiscate them.

Just like we enable law enforcement and the court system to enforce ALL our criminal laws.

Civilians are not supposed to take the law into our own hands. Why should gun control be the single exception?

[brush]

35. Australia had a very successful buy back in the late '90s when they had a mass shooting.

They haven't had one since. Of course government buy-in has to be there to get the media to broadcast and promote it.

With the current admin, I doubt it would happen so it's even more important to get rid of the orange imposter.

[friendly_iconoclast]

43. New Zealand is on track to reduce their supply of guns by 5% by year's end

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/aug/12/new-zealand-gun-buyback-10000-firearms-returned-after-christchurch-attack

More than 10,000 firearms have been bought by New Zealand’s government in less than a month as part of its gun buyback scheme following the Christchurch mosque shootings in March...

...The governments gun-buyback scheme was launched in mid July. Since then, 10,242 firearms have been handed into police, with an additional 1,269 firearms handed in under amnesty.

The total number of firearms in New Zealand is estimated to be between 1.2m and 1.5m, and gun owners of now-prohibited weapons have until 20 December to hand in their weapons.

It's amazing what can be accomplished when the NRA isn't in the way...

[Vinca]

38. I used to be a cop when dinosaurs roamed the earth, but I doubt any reluctant gun owner

would feel too compelled to comply with a 70 year old female cop even if the department would hire me back. That said, I'll gleefully help in melting the bloody things down for scrap and I'll do it for free.

[procon]

39. As far as rhetorical questions go -- give me a minute

to stop laughing -- before I throw down some deserving adjectives like ridiculous, insipid or obnoxiously irrelevant.

Why does anyone who favors strong gun laws have to change careers and become a cop or enlist? I like vegetarian food but I'm not going to become a farmer. I drive a car but I don't plan on working in the fossil fuel industry to see how gas is made.

Your rationale is illogical. I protest against Trump, but I'll be damned if I'm going to become a Republican to share their sojourn into evil, that's an experience I can do without.

Most metro police are very well trained and equipped, and one way or another, they take guns away from people everyday. I can't see see the problem, it's steady employment with good overtime.

[eShirl]

41. what?

you offer a buyback before the things become illegal

[dameatball]

44. I do not believe that door to door confiscation will work no matter who is doing it. Needless

deaths would occur and a large number of weapons would still be out there. If I had an AK-47 and someone tried to confiscate it, I could just say "Oh, I sold that legally at a gun show where private transactions are legal. I have no idea who the person was that bought it."

A better approach would be:

Gun buy backs with defined grace periods, after which possession is illegal.

Identify and make illegal certain types of ammunition currently used in assault rifles. Unfortunately, this would also impact weapons that are not considered to be the same thing. Too bad, so sad.

Vote possession and distribution laws into effect and enforce them with criminal charges. Heck, we did it with pot for about a century.

Close gun show loopholes.

Universal background checks.

Outlaw private transactions.

It's at least a start.

The last thing we need is some self-appointed vigilantes trying to prove something by confiscating the personal property of others.

[friendly_iconoclast]

55. "The last thing we need is some self-appointed vigilantes..." Vigilantes like this guy?

https://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x471849#471995

Further, every citizen should report anyone carrying a gun in public -- Maybe even hold them until police arrive. You just never know when the gunner is a criminal, has bad intentions, or just walked off their compound with a plan to harm innocent people.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/10026676609#post37

A policeman, or a bystander, seeing someone with a gun walking down the street has the right to
subdue them to determine if they are "legal."

[LanternWaste]

91. Your reductio ad absurdum is, if nothing else, most consistent.

But I get it... pretending its a valid course of thought is necessary to maintain your spin.

[jpak]

47. Enlist UN troops from Central America

Confiscation Squad.

White UN BTR-80s

Blue helmets

AR equipped mercenaries

[TreasonousBastard]

48. Absolutely nothing, except for voting and supporting anti-gun candidates...

I am perfectly happy to help feed the homeless or clean up the local beaches, but guns are way above my pay grade.

Hundreds of millions of guns out there of all sorts, and with all sorts of owners. How would I even know what to confiscate, much less where they are? Actually, even in the highly unlikely event guns should become illegal, it would be impossible for the appropriate authorities to confiscate them. Any attempt would end up in a bloodbath in some areas.

A bloodbath I would really rather not be involved in.

(Feel free to call me a chickenhawk)

[alwaysinasnit]

49. We might not have to confiscate guns if we do as Chris Rock suggested. Make bullets expensive.

[friendly_iconoclast]

59. Cool! Your local undocumented pharmecutical wholesalers would *love* his idea!

[keithbvadu2]

51. Give Trump a commission/bounty for every one confiscated.

Give Trump a commission/bounty for every one confiscated.

[USALiberal]

52. LOL, ok! nt

[OilemFirchen]

53. I don't own a pair of jackboots. Too old to be a thug.

I am, therefore, unqualified to participate in your paranoid fantasy.

[underpants]

54. Fire that's an absurd question- guns are not going to be confiscated. I do have an idea though.

Guns won be confiscated because aside from the sheer number and courts not allowing it its political suicide for anyone who proposes it. Not that the NRA is all that powerful but because it would strike even non-Ammosexuals as being too much.

I do propose this:
High capacity magazines are not needed
Red flags laws could very well work
Universal background checks
AR And AK types weapons be no longer available for sale
Aaaaand - gun related sentencing for things like domestic violence and DUIs. A judge could Oder the convicted to get rid of guns that thy own. Could they stay in the house? That I'm not sure of. The sentence would be like probation - if the convicted is later caught with or using a gun then the are sentenced for that crime retroactively.

[jberryhill]

56. Dumb question

You don’t have to “confiscate all the guns”.

But... people can’t show up at the range with them, or generally carry them in public. As soon as someone has one in public, no one has to wait for them to shoot. If the weapon is in plain view during a domestic disturbance, traffic stop, or any other law enforcement encounter, then it is not simply a lawful firearm sitting over there in the corner or in the back of the car. Those types of things, plus the attrition due to inability to transfer, or owners’ estates disposing of them, will significantly reduce the ability of people to casually own and transport these weapons.

On top of that, there will be a reduced incidence of stolen weapons or circumstances where a young person runs off with mom or dad’s weapon, since many actually law abiding people will dispose of them.

There was no national confiscation program for lawn darts. When was the last time you saw one?

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

58. Let's start with requiring all guns be registered.

And re-registered every year, sort of like your car. Mandatory insurance. Buy back programs. Real background checks.

Just like I don't think I should have to learn how to treat a sucking gun-shot wound, I shouldn't have to be the one to enforce laws, since I'm not a cop or a doctor.

[keithbvadu2]

63. Solution - NRA/gun orgs sell liability insurance...

Solution - NRA/gun orgs sell liability insurance…

Protects the gun owners,the public,and makes profit for NRA and gun orgs.

[Eko]

60. That is a bad argument.

.

[obamanut2012]

61. Happily turn in my own two guns

[Marengo]

103. What's preventing you from doing so now?

[mokawanis]

64. Support candidates and policies that bring about change

I think your question is a little strange. Actually, very strange. Must I take direct action because I hold an opinion about something?

No, I wouldn't become a cop or join the military.

I also support environmental protections but I'm not going to leave retirement to pursue a career with environmental groups.

I'm going to support candidates and policies that work toward the changes I think should happen.

[Crunchy Frog]

65. Why do you think I want to confiscate guns?

There's a whole lot of policies that I would love to see enacted, but confiscation is not one of them.

At this point I just want to stay out of the line of fire.

Maybe you'd be in favor of establishing a volunteer, citizens gun confiscation brigade?

[hunter]

67. Traditionally you start with family and friends.

That's the way we've always done it.

Then we can start working on our neighbors.

What are they going to do, shoot you?

Gun fetishes are disgusting.

Eventually gun owners will have to keep their guns at the ranges and sneak off to shoot them, taking showers afterwards so they don't go home to their wives smelling like gunpowder.

Sniff, sniff... hmmmm... I thought you were going to the gym, dear. Funny, no one saw you there.

I'm old enough to remember smoking was common everywhere. Smoking culture was promoted in the movies and on television. People smoked on airplanes, in restaurants, and even in grocery stores.

Slowly smoking became socially unacceptable and the law followed.

A similar process occurred with drunk driving.

That's what the gun fetishists are afraid of.

Most people in the U.S.A. don't care enough about guns to bother owning one. Increasing legal restrictions on guns and gun ownership won't affect them in any negative way.

Guns are a public health problem just like smoking and drunk driving and will be treated as such.

[Hotler]

70. make the ammo and reloading powder very hard to get. Let them keep theirs guns.

A gun is just a paper weight without rounds.

[Iggo]

72. I'm also not willing to be a prison guard.

[guillaumeb]

76. Is it the job of every citizen to enforce the laws?

There are various far right groups that call themselves sovereign citizens and claim the right to enforce their own laws.

[MyNameGoesHere]

77. I would be only willing to oblige the

"From my dead cold hands" bunch. I find the terms acceptable.

[Mike_DuBois]

80. Game on. Entrer Player One

Watch out internet, we got a bad ass here.

-----------------------------

Seriously, does a comment like that seem constructive at all?

[DVRacer]

78. No new gun laws

Until something drastically changes with the enforcers. If you grant more power to police be prepared for a higher rate of black and brown deaths and more incarceration.

You will also realize how unpopular they will be with white voters in places we can’t afford to loose in the Midwest. You can tell me how wrong I am that’s ok try it out and see.

Last year there were 14,611 deaths last year not including suicides. Rifles of all styles accounted for less than 400 of those.

Recently here in Oklahoma a petition was drawn up to simply put on the ballot an opportunity to repeal our permit less carry. It only needed 58,000 signatures in a state of 4 million and it failed to get them.

[Maru Kitteh]

79. Well golly gee! All these gun owners are so stable and law-abiding. Why ever would I fear

a visit with totally normal people who are not more violent in any way than the rest of the population in order to carry out a lawful action in the interest of public safety?

[ooky]

81. I would not confiscate the weapons, just make them illegal and offer a buy back program.

If the owner doesn't take advantage of the buy back program then that owner will just be stuck with an illegal weapon that can't be transported anywhere without being guilty of a crime if caught with it.

[GulfCoast66]

82. No one is going to try to confiscate guns!

Hell, our current party platform expressly calls out that the right to own firearms is a constitutional right. As will our next one. But you already know that.

DU is not a reflection of all Democratic voters. I understood that when I joined. But you, in my opinion, know that as well.

But there are things which a majority of Americans, myself included, but perhaps not you can support. I am a gun owner and hunter. But I would totally be down with making any magazine holding more than 10, or even 6, illegal. Not immediately of course. Stop all sales now and any possession after, say 2030, or even 2035 a federal crime. With exception of course of guns like .22 which have always had the capacity and are not an issue.

And do a buy back. Put our money where our mouth is Will my fellow rednecks explode? Of course. But they will follow the law if given enough time.

It’s going to happen eventually. We can’t keep allowing civilians to be armed like the military. If our mentality was like the Swiss then perhaps, but that’s not happening.

Owning an AR with a 30 round magazine is not a right we have under the constitution. Even Scalia recognized that fact in Heller.

[meadowlander]

85. I pay my taxes

and in return I expect a reasonable level of public safety.

You don't need volunteers to go door to door confiscating guns. The police offer a buy back, people bring in their guns and get compensated, if people don't hand in their guns and their house gets searched for some other reason, the gun charges get added. That's how they've been doing it in New Zealand and that's how they did it in Australia after Port Arthur.

[Joe941]

86. We start with a national registration...

So we know where the guns are.

[Celerity]

87. de-REC! nt

[roamer65]

88. You don't need to confiscate them.

Extremely stringent ammunition control will do the trick.

Severely limit the initial amounts purchased and then require each new round to have the return of a corresponding spent casing. Make dealing in black market ammo a 30 year felony.

Mass shootings will stop when the abundance of ammunition is gone.

[Joe941]

104. oh yes we do!

[LanternWaste]

90. I loudly proclaim the mail should get through, I studiously avoid volunteering to deliver the mail

I loudly proclaim the mail should get through, though I studiously avoid volunteering to deliver the mail.

[uponit7771]

94. Vote

[kentuck]

96. Pass a law to confiscate all guns that are found on the street on in public.

No concealed weapons permitted.

People have a constitutional right to be safe and secure in their person. That over-rides the present-day interpretation of the 2nd Amendment.

[rampartc]

105. i don't think all guns should be confiscated

but as criminals are booked a warrant should be served and all guns on their premises picked up. as mental patients are diagnosed the same. gang members, all guns picked up. red flags? pick 'em up. eventually we may never have every gun off the street, but the most dangerous.