- Do you believe that I and people with whom I work intend to ban your guns?
- If yes to #4, how do you think that could happen ( I mean the physical action)?
It has been said repeatedly, no matter what other topic is being "discussed" on this blog, that I, and the people with whom I work want to ban guns and of course, take away Second Amendment rights to keep and bear arms. Nothing could be further from the truth. No matter. Here are some of the answers I received:
- "I do not think you are completely unified, but for the most part yes. Someone like me would not be allowed to own the guns that I do, or to have a carry license. You would use the threat of gun violence in the hands of government to convince us to turn ours in, those who did not comply would get shot."
- " Yes. Anyone who would with a straight face try to defend a total ban on handguns in DC cannot be believed when they piously declare that they would not favor banning all guns. Typically when the government wants you to do something that you might resist, they send police officers to force you. See also Elian Gonzalez and David Koresh.
- " Let's see; Chicago Gun Ban -- Brady Campaign said it was reasonable, Washington D.C. Gun Ban - ditto. Name a single gun control law you've found to be "unreasonable"? Time and time again, I've asked the question of antis -- at what point, what number of firearm related crimes and deaths will be enough for you to say "we don't need another law". Never have gotten an answer. Since you haven't found a single gun control law to be 'unreasonable' what evidence is there for us to believe you aren't interested in banning firearms?"
- " Multi step process -- one which you and gun control groups seem to be following (just as the U.K. and Australia did)
A.) Mandate registration and licensing schemes
B.) Close licensing and registration for new firearms
C.) Legislate against the possession of 'certain dangerous' firearms; like so called 'assault weapons' or "high capacity" firearms.
D.) Announce an Amnesty period for people to turn in their now illegal firearms.
E.) Arrest and convict any person who has possession of an 'illegal firearm'; especially those who use them for self defense.
F.) Announce the failure of previous gun control laws and make more firearms illegal, make use of firearms in self defense illegal.
G.) Announce another Amnesty
H.) Rinse and Repeat until most firearms are gone. If needed make a door to door search."
- " I believe that many weapons that should be available to citizens are not (which IMO is any weapon having a legitimate military, self defense, or utility use) and I don’t see any logical point where the prohibition of weapons will stop short of total disarmament.
I think the logical path to disarmament is slowly restricting the types of weapons available and possibility requiring a registration likely ostensibly for the purpose of “keeping guns out of the hands of criminals”. The desire of most people to follow the law will do most of the disarmament work if guns are prohibited. But if the location of firearms is know there are several forcible remedies available to the government to deal with dissenters. "
- " I've only been reading your blog for a few posts, so I don't know where you stand personally. But I own handguns, some of which are even (gasp!) semiautomatic, and the Brady Campaign has supported bans on them. I believe that most casual gun control advocates don't want to ban _all_ guns, and are simply under the incorrect impression that guns are constantly getting deadlier, so we need to ban the new, ultra-deadly ones. But I also see (especially as a New Jersey resident) how every time the new gun control law inevitably fails to fix the problem, the proposed solution is always, always even more restrictions. Anybody who cares about a civil right would be a fool not to think about where that pattern is leading.
Great Britain shows us how far people who don't want to ban all guns can go, and they show little sign of being done restricting. "
- "How do we enforce any ban? Confiscation can involve passive seizure of only the contraband that comes to police attention, or midnight SWAT raids. Both are unacceptable. "
- " Some of them do – your European compatriots have banned most gun ownership. Pull gun sale records and send the police to search and seize (It would spark a civil war)."
- " I don't know you personally, but hell yeah I do. You absolutely want to ban some of the guns I own, some of the magazines I own, and at the very least put heavy, heavy restrictions and expenses on gun ownership. But the bottom line is ... I've never seen any anti-gun group NOT oppose the 2nd amendment as an individual right and support an anti-gun law, no matter how restrictive. i.e. the D.C. and Chicago handgun bans. My question to you ... if you could write all the laws and put them into effect ... what guns would you allow me to keep and under what restrictions?"
- " That question wholly depends on you, who you work with, and what guns I own. However, in general, in the past when gun enthusiasts have tried to sate anti-gun lobbyists, they have always lost gravely, to the point of such absurdity as is seen in Britain, where there have been cases of criminals suing their victims, and their victims being thrown in jail for much of their life. This is nonsense, and such misbehavior by the executive, judicial and legal systems should not be rewarded with total complacency. I am not sure how to answer this question, as you are asking for an answer that's either so self-evident that me answering would be entirely useless, or so deep that I cannot possibly answer. However, to give you an answer, I think that were "guns" to be banned, they would be banned in the usual manner that anything is: through the legal system.'
These are, again, just some of the responses to the questions asked and, as I have already mentioned, some people responded on their own blogs rather than put them on mine. As you can read, not one person who commented believed I wouldn't ban guns if given the chance. It appears that these folks are ready for the worst. We know that gun sales went up right before and after President Obama was elected. Fear is alive and well. He has said nothing anywhere to indicate that he would ban guns. That doesn't matter. Surely he will eventually so better to have an arsenal when the "jack booted government thugs" come to your door to take away your guns. It is interesting that when "googling" the highlighted phrase, above, I was directed to articles about the NRA. That is because NRA Executive VP Wayne LaPierre famously used that phrase to refer to federal agents after which President George H.W. Bush resigned from the NRA. Good for him. What does that really mean? More code words. Anything that smacks of a new gun law is automatically assumed to lead to gun confiscation.
The other problem with this faulty reasoning is that there is a slippery slope that will inevitably lead to gun bans no matter what the wording of a law or bill says. The Brady Law, enacted in 1994, has not resulted in a gun ban. The Assault Weapons Ban, enacted in 1995 and allowed to sunset in 2005, did ban certain types of assault type guns from import and sale for many good reasons. Many other types of these guns were still available on the open market. It's now water over the dam since the ban is no longer in effect. As a result, criminals and others have more and more of these type of dangerous weapons and have been using them on our streets- mostly to kill police officers. Cops are outgunned on the streets so they have found it necessary to buy more powerful weapons to protect themselves and the public.
There is actually a slippery slope going in another direction. Since President Bush took office, and now even in President Obama's term, the Assault Weapons Ban was allowed to lapse and a measure allowing guns in National Parks was attached as an amendment to the Credit Card bill. Guns can now be carried in checked luggage on Amtrak trains. The ATF has been limited in the ability to do it's job because the majority in our Congress is too afraid to challenge the NRA. Permit to carry laws have passed in almost all states and "Stand Your Ground Laws" have passed in many states as well. The Supreme Court has decided in favor of the Individual right to keep and bear arms in two recent cases and applied it to the states.
And then, of course, we have candidates for national political office outdoing themselves to assure the gun lobby that they won't pass ANY law regarding guns because they believe the nonsense that doing so will eventually ban guns. Take this article about Delaware GOP Senate candidate Christine O'Donnell in which she wrongly notes that any measure to stop illegal trafficking of small arms around the world would surely lead to banning guns in the U.S. Nonsense. And to make matters worse, her Democratic opponent has to assure everyone that new gun laws are not needed. Nonsense. If laws are needed to assure safety world- wide and in our own country, then they are needed. Please, someone tell me how passing measures to stop illegal gun trafficking so we can prevent terrorist attacks and international carnage will lead to banning guns in our country. So, what's left? Terrorists with guns that were trafficked illegally preying on citizens all over the world? Home grown terrorists shooting at people in our own country because the gun lobby said that stopping them would lead to gun confiscation? Pretty soon, we will have guns everywhere we go carried by dangerous people, whether we want them or not. That does not make common sense.