End Game: "It’s Time For Gun Abolition. We Need To Ban All Civilian Guns."

[INVAR]

For imbeciles and morons who insult those refusing to agree with proposals to require insurance and register all firearms with condescension to insist "registration does not lead to confiscation", the fact is that the anti-gun movement is heading into it's end game where the masks are coming off and they are telling us "Yes, we want a complete disarmament of the civilian population".

We have half or more of a population that no longer considers the Constitution or the BOR valid, and a government now run by Republicans that look like they are going to do what Obama, Hillary and their hordes of Anti-American Marxists have been unable to do.  The treasonous antagonists are now begun a movement beyond just banning some accessories and more background checks.  They are calling for the government to ban and confiscate all civilian arms, and a willing press to give them 24/7 loudspeakers.

I do not know what course others will stake, but for me - this is the hill to resist and die on.  The funny thing is, they are going to have to empower their government to equip agents with guns to go out and kill those gun owners with guns,  who refuse to comply and surrender them should they get their wish.

It’s time for a gun abolition movement
We need to stand up to the NRA and push for what is so desperately needed: a complete ban on firearms.

...To end gun deaths, we need to ban all civilian guns.

...Banning guns is especially problematic when the Second Amendment is touted as the right of any individual to own firearms.

Yet while we are a nation that reveres our Constitution, we are also one that changes it when it becomes clear that the Founding Fathers failed to see what modern times require. We changed the Constitution to allow women the right to vote. We reinterpreted it to protect the right to gay marriage.

...Abolishing guns will profoundly alter the American way of life for the better, just like women’s suffrage did. Is gun abolition too extreme? Not if human life comes first.

...Let’s clear the air and call for total civilian disarmament. Period.

[Free Vulcan]

Spawn of Stalin, doing what they always do.

[INVAR]

Spawn of Stalin, doing what they always do.

With a growing portion, maybe nearing half of population and much of the Millennial generation who now think Communism is better than Capitalism.

[goatprairie]

The first step to government tyranny is to disarm the average citizen.
They'll do it under the guise of "saving the children" using the tragedy in  Florida as an excuse to grab all guns.
Even when it's been conclusively shown that the tragedy could have been stopped by authorities doing their job, that doesn't deter the gun grabbers.
 I believe many prospective American Stalins are put off somewhat by the idea that their dreams of a totalitarian state might be squelched by some armed citizen who would stop them before they could implement their prison state.
Huey Long, was killed by a doctor I believe who feared Long would get elected president and rule like a dictator. Supposedly, he ran Louisiana like a little dictator and had aspirations of becoming the Grand Dictator of the U.S.
Hang on to your guns to put the fear of God into any future Huey Longs.

[Jazzhead]

It is fascinating to consider how similar the pro-gun and pro-abortion extremists are.   Here's INVAR breathlessly shouting "they're coming for our guns!" on the basis of some crank opinion in a Maine newspaper.   Just as the pro-abortionists are convinced the true goal of the pro-life movement isn't regulation but abolishment of the abortion right, so does the pro-gun crowd convince itself that reasonable regulation of firearms is just cover for the true goal of confiscation.

Why is this?    The answer's pretty clear to me.   As I've explained elsewhere,  the natural, individual right to self-defense (that is, outside the context of providing for the civilian militia) isn't protected by the Second Amendment,  but by a 5 - 4 Supreme Court decision.   The right to abortion is likewise not codified in the Constitution, but derives from the natural right of privacy as enunciated by a 5 - 4 Supreme Court decision.

In other words,  the right to abortion and the individual right to bear arms are both a product of the same "living Constitution" and just as fragile.   How many of us voted for Trump mainly because he promised to appoint conservative justices that, we hope, will overturn the right to abortion?   Well, the individual RKBA is just as susceptible to being lost on the decision of some future SCOTUS majority.   And the votes we - both right and left - cast for President are ground zero in ensuring the makeup of the courts that will secure the precious  rights we fear are most fragile. 

It is a situation that is fundmentally poisonous to our nation.   

The solution is to amend the Constitution to codify the individual RKBA.   Just as I've urged for years that the Constitution be amended to codify the right of privacy.   Whatever you may think of living Constitutions,  they have the perverse effect of polarizing our political culture.   For the left, it's all about saving abortion,  for the right, it's all about saving guns.  And so the red vs. blue divide deepens,  and folks like INVAR call for war.

[goatprairie]

It is fascinating to consider how similar the pro-gun and pro-abortion extremists are.   Here's INVAR breathlessly shouting "they're coming for our guns!" on the basis of some crank opinion in a Maine newspaper.   Just as the pro-abortionists are convinced the true goal of the pro-life movement isn't regulation but abolishment of the abortion right, so does the pro-gun crowd convince itself that reasonable regulation of firearms is just cover for the true goal of confiscation.

Why is this?    The answer's pretty clear to me.   As I've explained elsewhere,  the natural, individual right to self-defense (that is, outside the context of providing for the civilian militia) isn't protected by the Second Amendment,  but by a 5 - 4 Supreme Court decision.   The right to abortion is likewise not codified in the Constitution, but derives from the natural right of privacy as enunciated by a 5 - 4 Supreme Court decision.

In other words,  the right to abortion and the individual right to bear arms are both a product of the same "living Constitution" and just as fragile.   How many of us voted for Trump mainly because he promised to appoint conservative justices that, we hope, will overturn the right to abortion?   Well, the individual RKBA is just as susceptible to being lost on the decision of some future SCOTUS majority.   And the votes we - both right and left - cast for President are ground zero in ensuring the makeup of the courts that will secure the precious  rights we fear are most fragile. 

It is a situation that is fundmentally poisonous to our nation.   

The solution is to amend the Constitution to codify the individual RKBA.   Just as I've urged for years that the Constitution be amended to codify the right of privacy.   Whatever you may think of living Constitutions,  they have the perverse effect of polarizing our political culture.   For the left, it's all about saving abortion,  for the right, it's all about saving guns.  And so the red vs. blue divide deepens,  and folks like INVAR call for war.

It isn't just those two rights. And the "right" to privacy (nowhere enunciated in the constitution) does not automatically translate into the right to kill your kid.
At any rate, all natural rights are subject to intepretation and being severely altered or eliminated by certain people i..e leftists.
The right to free speech is being increasingly strained by the usual suspects who are concerned about peoples' feeling being hurt by certain speech directed at them.
In short, all natural rights are constantly under assault by leftists and not just the right to be armed. Leftists originated the idea of the "living constitution" in order to eventually take away all natural rights under the guise of "protecting the people."
INVAR is correct...they, leftists,  are coming for our guns.  Because they're eventually coming for all our rights.

[thackney]

Vermont Senate unanimously approves gun confiscation bill
http://www.mychamplainvalley.com/news/vermont-senate-unanimously-approves-gun-confiscation-bill/998951182
 Feb 28, 2018

Gun Confiscation Bill Passes Oregon House
http://www.oregonfirearms.org/gun-confiscation-bill-passes-oregon-house
02.15.18

Let's Be Honest, The Latest Gun Control Bill Is Pretty Much A Total Ban On Firearms
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2018/02/27/house-introduces-gun-ban-legislation-n2454670
Feb 27, 2018

[Jazzhead]

It isn't just those two rights. And the "right" to privacy (nowhere enunciated in the constitution) does not automatically translate into the right to kill your kid.
At any rate, all natural rights are subject to intepretation and being severely altered or eliminated by certain people i..e leftists.
The right to free speech is being increasingly strained by the usual suspects who are concerned about peoples' feeling being hurt by certain speech directed at them.
In short, all natural rights are constantly under assault by leftists and not just the right to be armed. Leftists originated the idea of the "living constitution" in order to eventually take away all natural rights under the guise of "protecting the people."
INVAR is correct...they, leftists,  are coming for our guns.  Because they're eventually coming for all our rights.

You're being myopic, GP.   Both the right and the left are threats to our natural rights.   Do you think the natural rights of privacy and self-determination are any less important to women than your natural right to protect your home and family is to you?    Do you think women are justified in their concern that the pro-life movement seeks not to regulate their right but abolish it,  just as you are justified in your concern that the anti-gun left seeks not to regulate the conditions of ownership of guns but to confiscate them? 

That's the problem with a living Constitution -  natural rights protected by such a compact depend on the whim of a 5-4 SCOTUS majority.   Just as pro-lifers for years have been "single issue" voters,  hoping that voting for conservatives will lead to the appointment of justices who will deny a woman's right to decide for herself whether to reproduce,  increasingly many on the left have become single issue-obsessed over guns,  hoping that the election of Hillary Clinton (or similar beastie) will provide the SCOTUS majority that will overturn Heller.   

The divide between red and blue all boils down to guns and abortion, and the fragile rights that underpin them.   It is time to codify these rights in the Constitution.   That is, to me, the silver bullet that can bring this country together again in good will.   

[Jazzhead]

Vermont Senate unanimously approves gun confiscation bill
http://www.mychamplainvalley.com/news/vermont-senate-unanimously-approves-gun-confiscation-bill/998951182
 Feb 28, 2018

Gun Confiscation Bill Passes Oregon House
http://www.oregonfirearms.org/gun-confiscation-bill-passes-oregon-house
02.15.18

Let's Be Honest, The Latest Gun Control Bill Is Pretty Much A Total Ban On Firearms
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2018/02/27/house-introduces-gun-ban-legislation-n2454670
Feb 27, 2018

The House Dem bill that bans "assault" weapons deserves to be opposed by everyone on this board,  but the Vermont and Oregon bills merely provide for gun violence restraining orders.   The latter have considerable merit, provided of course that they include guarantees of due process.   A GVRO isn't targeted at gun owners generally, restricting their liberty to choose the type of guns they want to protect their homes and property,  but rather focused on gun owners who represent a credible threat to themselves or others.  Like Nikolas Cruz.   There was never enough evidence to arrest and incarcerate Mr. Cruz, but if the GVRO option had been available, there appears to have been enough evidence to strip him of his weapons for a time.   That could have saved 17 lives. 

[thackney]

The House Dem bill that bans "assault" weapons deserves to be opposed by everyone on this board,  but the Vermont and Oregon bills merely provide for gun violence restraining orders.   The latter have considerable merit, provided of course that they include guarantees of due process.   A GVRO isn't targeted at gun owners generally, restricting their liberty to choose the type of guns they want to protect their homes and property,  but rather focused on gun owners who represent a credible threat to themselves or others.  Like Nikolas Cruz.   There was never enough evidence to arrest and incarcerate Mr. Cruz, but if the GVRO option had been available, there appears to have been enough evidence to strip him of his weapons for a time.   That could have saved 17 lives.

That is key if this goes forward.  A phone call from someone complaining is not reason to strip a citizens rights.  And a straight forward means of being able to refute the complaint.  Guilty until proven innocent is NOT the way forward in this subject.

[Jazzhead]

That is key if this goes forward.  A phone call from someone complaining is not reason to strip a citizens rights.  And a straight forward means of being able to refute the complaint.  Guilty until proven innocent is NOT the way forward in this subject.

What in your view are appropriate and practical due process protections that you would find acceptable in a GVRO bill?   Are there any current examples of current or proposed GVRO legislation that you would recommend as models?   

Let's look at Nikolas Cruz.   Police are tipped regarding his statements on social media, and have other knowledge of past violent incidents where police had to come to the door.   The police bring the complaint,  backed up by the foregoing evidence.  Cruz is permitted to defend himself before the judge.   The judge then rules, and strips him of his guns for, say, 90 days subject to a rehearing and reconsideration.   17 lives are saved.   Is the foregoing sufficient due process for you?   

[thackney]

What in your view are appropriate and practical due process protections that you would find acceptable in a GVRO bill?   Are there any current examples of current or proposed GVRO legislation that you would recommend as models?   

Let's look at Nikolas Cruz.   Police are tipped regarding his statements on social media, and have other knowledge of past violent incidents where police had to come to the door.   The police bring the complaint,  backed up by the foregoing evidence.  Cruz is permitted to defend himself before the judge.   The judge then rules, and strips him of his guns for, say, 90 days subject to a rehearing and reconsideration.   17 lives are saved.   Is the foregoing sufficient due process for you?

One thing I struggle greatly with is the concept an individual cannot be trusted with a legal firearm, but will be left free in society otherwise.  To pretend this will prevent him from harming others just seems insane.

It is focusing on something that is not the real problem, while ignoring the real danger to others, the individual.  In my mind, that sets us up for more deaths, by pretending we did something worthwhile and removing focus from the actual problem.

[Jazzhead]

One thing I struggle greatly with is the concept an individual cannot be trusted with a legal firearm, but will be left free in society otherwise.  To pretend this will prevent him from harming others just seems insane.

It is focusing on something that is not the real problem, while ignoring the real danger to others, the individual.  In my mind, that sets us up for more deaths, by pretending we did something worthwhile and removing focus from the actual problem.

I hear you, thackney.   We're decades beyond the days when the mentally unstable were warehoused in institutions.   They live among us, for better or worse.  But it seems to me that a violent, paranoid crazy without a gun is less of a potential danger than a violent, paranoid crazy with a gun. Sure, he could just get into his (licensed and registered) car and plow into a crowd,  but I still see the value in denying him the tool of an semi-automatic rifle. 

[goatprairie]

You're being myopic, GP.   Both the right and the left are threats to our natural rights.   Do you think the natural rights of privacy and self-determination are any less important to women than your natural right to protect your home and family is to you?    Do you think women are justified in their concern that the pro-life movement seeks not to regulate their right but abolish it,  just as you are justified in your concern that the anti-gun left seeks not to regulate the conditions of ownership of guns but to confiscate them? 

That's the problem with a living Constitution -  natural rights protected by such a compact depend on the whim of a 5-4 SCOTUS majority.   Just as pro-lifers for years have been "single issue" voters,  hoping that voting for conservatives will lead to the appointment of justices who will deny a woman's right to decide for herself whether to reproduce,  increasingly many on the left have become single issue-obsessed over guns,  hoping that the election of Hillary Clinton (or similar beastie) will provide the SCOTUS majority that will overturn Heller.   

The divide between red and blue all boils down to guns and abortion, and the fragile rights that underpin them.   It is time to codify these rights in the Constitution.   That is, to me, the silver bullet that can bring this country together again in good will.   

You're getting ahead of yourself. There is no "right to privacy" anywhere in the constitution. We all have an idea of what it means, but it's not stipulated in the constitution and therefore can't be used as a legal argument to justify abortion.
If you think having the "right" to kill your kid is something women should have, that's a separate argument.

[thackney]

I hear you, thackney.   We're decades beyond the days when the mentally unstable were warehoused in institutions.   They live among us, for better or worse.  But it seems to me that a violent, paranoid crazy without a gun is less of a potential danger than a violent, paranoid crazy with a gun. Sure, he could just get into his (licensed and registered) car and plow into a crowd,  but I still see the value in denying him the tool of an semi-automatic rifle.

You haven't denied him that tool, only a legal means of buying it.  You don't solve the problem with this method.  You give people false sense of security that does not exit.  I see that as increasing the danger, not diminishing it.  For that reason I don't support a means of removing guns without other limits to the individual after due process.

[edpc]

The divide between red and blue all boils down to guns and abortion, and the fragile rights that underpin them.   It is time to codify these rights in the Constitution.  That is, to me, the silver bullet that can bring this country together again in good will.

We already have the right to bear arms in the Constitution.  Thankfully, it's difficult to adopt or repeal amendments.  Now, you want one to guarantee abortion rights?  Good luck.

[Restored]

You cannot abolish guns anymore than we could abolish illegal drugs. The prisons are full of people who sold drugs illegally. Prohibition does not end the problem. If you can sneak people and drugs across the border, you can sneak AK's.

[goodwithagun]

"Just as the pro-abortionists are convinced the true goal of the pro-life movement isn't regulation but abolishment of the abortion right,"

@Jazzhead  The true goal of the prolife movement is abolishment of infanticide! This statement alone is proof that you have no idea what you're talking about. By the way, you still haven't addressed why Dick's shouldn't be forced to sell semiautomatic weapons. If bakers can be forced to sell cakes or face punishment, Dick's should be forced to sell guns or be punished.

[roamer_1]

What in your view are appropriate and practical due process protections that you would find acceptable in a GVRO bill?   Are there any current examples of current or proposed GVRO legislation that you would recommend as models?   

Let's look at Nikolas Cruz.   Police are tipped regarding his statements on social media, and have other knowledge of past violent incidents where police had to come to the door.   The police bring the complaint,  backed up by the foregoing evidence.  Cruz is permitted to defend himself before the judge.   The judge then rules, and strips him of his guns for, say, 90 days subject to a rehearing and reconsideration.   17 lives are saved.   Is the foregoing sufficient due process for you?

BALONEY!!
If he is THAT great a danger there should be evidence enough to either convict or commit him.
This thought police bullcrap has to stop.

[Jazzhead]

We already have the right to bear arms in the Constitution.  Thankfully, it's difficult to adopt or repeal amendments.  Now, you want one to guarantee abortion rights?  Good luck.

But, see, that's the thing - the natural right of individual self defense is not addressed in the Second Amendment.  It is protected by the Constitution by reason of the Heller decision - a fragile, 5 -4 decision.   Its protection derives from the same "penumbras and emanations" that protect the natural right of privacy - and which similarly hinge on a fragile 5 -4 decision. 

The Constitution needs to be amended to codify the Heller decision.  Until it is,  the next Dem President can appoint the Justice(s) that will overturn Heller and rule that the 2A is limited to the context of the citizen militia and offers no protection to you and me.   

[goodwithagun]

You cannot abolish guns anymore than we could abolish illegal drugs. The prisons are full of people who sold drugs illegally. Prohibition does not end the problem. If you can sneak people and drugs across the border, you can sneak AK's.

Exactly. If prohibition works, then the world would have never known the Kennedys.

[Jazzhead]

"Just as the pro-abortionists are convinced the true goal of the pro-life movement isn't regulation but abolishment of the abortion right,"

@Jazzhead  The true goal of the prolife movement is abolishment of infanticide!

Thanks for your honesty.   The pro-life movement wants to deny the natural right of a woman to decide for herself whether to reproduce.   That's why the left, year after year,  attacks conservatives so vehemently:  they believe - as you have just admitted - that we seek "confiscation" of a right that women have relied on to order their lives for over 40 years now.   

[Jazzhead]

BALONEY!!
If he is THAT great a danger there should be evidence enough to either convict or commit him.
This thought police bullcrap has to stop.

There likely wasn't.   It takes more to incarcerate an individual than pointing to crazy postings on the internet.  But, with due process, a GVRO law could have stripped him of his weapons of mass murder.   

[edpc]

Thanks for your honesty.   The pro-life movement wants to deny the natural right of a woman to decide for herself whether to reproduce.   That's why the left, year after year,  attacks conservatives so vehemently:  they believe - as you have just admitted - that we seek "confiscation" of a right that women have relied on to order their lives for over 40 years now.

If you had the ability to go back in time, would you rather have Cruz incarcerated prior to the shooting or aborted prior to birth?

[goodwithagun]

Thanks for your honesty.   The pro-life movement wants to deny the natural right of a woman to decide for herself whether to reproduce.   That's why the left, year after year,  attacks conservatives so vehemently:  they believe - as you have just admitted - that we seek "confiscation" of a right that women have relied on to order their lives for over 40 years now.

1. There was never any denial from the prolife movement that we want an end to infanticide.

2. There is no "natural right of a woman to decide for herself whether to reproduce." It literally doesn't exist.

3. Why are you against the "confiscation" of a manmade "right" women have had for over 40 years, yet you are perfectly fine the confiscation of a natural right that we have had for over 200 years?