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

[txradioguy]

Hypothetical?  In the real world, some folks really do beat the crap out of their wife and kids.

And the vast majority of the 320 million people in this country do not do that.

Not that it matters to you.

You want to take that 1% and punish the 99% for the actions of a few bad actors. 

What's the remedy?

How about enforcing the laws already on the books.  That's a subject counselor that you always purposely dance away from when asked about it.


The answer is most definitely NOT trampling all over the Constitution.

Are you so protective of this goon's gun rights that you'd oppose any attempt to take them away?   

I'm protective of EVERYONE's rights under the Constitution.  I'm also a big fan of due process.

Tell me have you ever litigated in a courtroom?  Or are you one of those that's only argued cases in a class room or board room?

You don't sound like...from all of your theoretical BS and classroom hypotheticals...that you've had much time as a defense or a prosecuting attorney.

Just sayin...

[roamer_1]

Hypothetical?  In the real world, some folks really do beat the crap out of their wife and kids.   What's the remedy?   Are you so protective of this goon's gun rights that you'd oppose any attempt to take them away?   

If he ain't in the pokey, and she ain't shot him dead, and she is still with him, what business is it of yours?

[INVAR]

Hypothetical?  In the real world, some folks really do beat the crap out of their wife and kids.   What's the remedy?   Are you so protective of this goon's gun rights that you'd oppose any attempt to take them away?   

We know that with Tyranny advocates like you, confiscation starts with listing classes of behaviors and peoples who should have their property confiscated for the safety of the community.  And then, in short order once you have achieved the precedent - you start expanding your list arbitrarily - and then things like the FBI's 2009 Domestic Terrorism Assessment paper are used as justification to start confiscation from the groups and peoples THE GOVERNMENT has of itself stated are a threat to public safety by their existence while lobbyists like you and SPLC petition bureaucrats to add more names and peoples to the list.

We are protective of our inalienable right to arms to the point that we reject outright, any suggestion or remedy people like you come up with from this point forward.  We are done discussing remedies.  If the existing miasma of laws and regulations were not enough for Authorities to stop the nutjob in Florida, no further regulations or schemes of yours are going to make any difference either.

Just understand, we are not going to comply with any further efforts being made to give yourselves the illusion of safety and security.

You will need guns to put to our heads to force compliance with your ideas and plans - and at that point as I have warned you - you will have bought yourself a war.

[roamer_1]

   What's the remedy? 

And btw, who says there IS a remedy? Often times there ain't. Shit happens.

[Jazzhead]

And the vast majority of the 320 million people in this country do not do that.

Not that it matters to you.

You want to take that 1% and punish the 99% for the actions of a few bad actors. 

That's the appeal of a GVRO.  It punishes the bad actors by taking away the tools that can amplify their violence.   It doesn't punish the good guys.   

[roamer_1]

That's the appeal of a GVRO.  It punishes the bad actors by taking away the tools that can amplify their violence.

Except, no, it really doesn't.

[Idiot]

And btw, who says there IS a remedy? Often times there ain't. Shit happens.

[INVAR]

And btw, who says there IS a remedy? Often times there ain't. Shit happens.

No, there actually IS a remedy.

Preventing nut jobs with guns or tyrants with guns doing harm, are a liberty-minded people armed with guns and the resolve and skill to use them to put down the nut jobs and tyrants when they act as they are wont to do.

Problems solved.

[txradioguy]

That's the appeal of a GVRO.  It punishes the bad actors by taking away the tools that can amplify their violence.   It doesn't punish the good guys.   

Do you know how many people issued a GVRO walk right through them every year and kill the people they are designed to protect?

Again...maybe if you got out of the classroom and into the real world you'd understand just how ineffective what you're proposing is in reality.

[txradioguy]

The National Violence Against Women survey (NVAW, p. 52) found that approximately one-half of the protection orders women took out against males were known to have been violated and nearly one-third of the orders men had against women were basically ignored.

Several other studies also suggest that, despite their widespread use, protection orders have little, if any, protective effect. Cathy Young quotes: "A 1984 study by Janice Grau, Jeffrey Fagan, and Sandra Wexler has concluded that the orders have a protective effect for women who were not severely victimized in the first place. If so, peddling them to women in real danger is like giving cancer patients aspirin."

Incredibly, the Equal Justice Foundation has never encountered a case where a protection order provided any documented level of protection, or even anecdotes about how a protection order made a woman safe. And we hear from many women on this issue (see In Women's Own Words).

http://www.dvmen.org/dv-14.htm

[Frank Cannon]

I think it is funny that you guys wasted 4 pages discussing what some unemployed Marxist said in a Maine low circulation circular as though it was something real and serious.

Got a lot of time on your hands I guess. Bully for you.

[roamer_1]

But what of your neighbor who beats the crap out of his spouse and kids?   Should he be permitted to possess a firearm?

I will ask again, @Jazzhead , How is he to provide for them without guns? How does he keep predators off his chickens and livestock?

[txradioguy]

Our position is that we don’t need more laws and we don’t need GVROs to tackle these issues. As even Governor Brown said in a 2015 veto message, “California’s criminal code has grown to more than 5,000 separate provisions, covering almost every conceivable form of human misbehavior.”

No one knows that better than we law-abiding gun owners and advocates do.

Murder, manslaughter, and assault are crimes that are illegal everywhere. If a state doesn’t have adequate or appropriate mental health codes, then they should address that problem. But GVROs are an ineffective way to deal with mental health, because they don’t. And they don’t address the fundamental problems inherent to violent criminals, either. The bottom line is,that there were plenty of legal ways to deal with criminals and mentally unstable people before GVROs. So, not only are GVROs ineffective, they were totally unnecessary.


<snip>

This GVRO issue is really a never-ending battle. Once the framework is in place, they will never stop adding to it. Just two years after they passed AB 1014, Assemblymember Phil Ting (D – San Francisco) authored and passed AB 2607, which would have vastly expanded the number and kind of people who could petition for a GVRO to take away someone’s guns, ammunition, and Second Amendment rights.

<snip>

https://www.redstate.com/jenvanlaar/2018/02/24/exclusive-interview-gun-policy-expert-brandon-combs/

[Jazzhead]

I will ask again, @Jazzhead , How is he to provide for them without guns?

Er, get a job? 

[INVAR]

I think it is funny that you guys wasted 4 pages discussing what some unemployed Marxist said in a Maine low circulation circular as though it was something real and serious.

Ignoring stupid tyrant-wannabe Marxists with visions of grandeur publishing their ideas as vehicles for government-policy will result in being conquered and subjugated by the same wannabe tyrant Marxists.

Discussing it and venting about it in 4 pages on a forum is a whole lot more preferable than what will be wasted in the near future by refusing to point out what these shit-bleep are wanting to do.

[txradioguy]

Er, get a job?

@roamer_1 he doesn't get what you're asking.

 

[Frank Cannon]

Ignoring stupid tyrant-wannabe Marxists with visions of grandeur publishing their ideas as vehicles for government-policy will result in being conquered and subjugated by the same wannabe tyrant Marxists.

Discussing it and venting about it in 4 pages on a forum is a whole lot more preferable than what will be wasted in the near future by refusing to point out what these shit-bleep are wanting to do.

This Commie boilerplate anti gun bullshit has been submitted in op eds for generations. It still as laughable today as it was when I was reading it in the late 70's in my local papers.

[Frank Cannon]

Er, get a job?

Congratulations. Once again you win the "Stupidest Poster" award. That's almost a year straight for you.

[thackney]

This Commie boilerplate anti gun bullshit has been submitted in op eds for generations. It still as laughable today as it was when I was reading it in the late 70's in my local papers.

The problem goes far beyond the Op Ed pages.

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

[roamer_1]

Er, get a job?

You really don't have any idea. The level of ignorance is stunning.

So screw the farm, screw the livestock, screw the hunting. screw his home, screw the garden, and his main source of subsistence. Because that is what you do by taking his guns.

[roamer_1]

@roamer_1 he doesn't get what you're asking.

 

@txradioguy
Not a single dang clue. That's why city folks 2000 miles away have no business dictating anything.

[INVAR]

This Commie boilerplate anti gun bullshit has been submitted in op eds for generations. It still as laughable today as it was when I was reading it in the late 70's in my local papers.

I know you like to laugh Frank, and frankly Frank - we all like to laugh.   However, I think we made the mistake of just laughing at the Commie-puke hippie bastards and their ideas for society when they ranted about it all back then.  We laughed in ridicule while refusing to take them seriously as the True Believers they were.

Now look at society as a result of simply laughing at them.

[Jazzhead]

@roamer_1 he doesn't get what you're asking.

 

It was an attempt at humor.   

(Yes, roamer, I understand that you have to protect your chickens)

[roamer_1]

(Yes, roamer, I understand that you have to protect your chickens)

So a family already under stress and having problems, how does it help anything to take food out of their mouths?

[txradioguy]

So a family already under stress and having problems, how does it help anything to take food out of their mouths?

They can get government assistance /s