sarisataka (5,374 posts) http://www.democraticunderground.com/10027115121
So once the Second Amendment is repealed and gun ownership prohibited, who will be entrusted to enforce this?
I am curious how much power we will allow police to have for enforcement. Will police arrest anyone in possession of a gun as they encounter them, will we allow the police to go house to house and confiscate guns or will it be like illegal immigration and left up to Federal enforcement?
Will any additional weaponry be authorized for use in enforcing the new paradigm?
Not the evil police! God forbid a law enforcement job, even one as ****ed up as weapon confiscation be handled by the police.
Must be put into the hands of the Feds.
sarisataka (5,374 posts)
7. Many are saying, and with much support, "Guns have no place in modern society".
Many are saying DEATH TO AMERICA and DEATH TO ISRAEL! and cutting the heads off people and tossing gays to their deaths off buildings too.
NowSam (59 posts)
5. We should not repeal the 2nd Amendment
We should just focus on the part of it that says "Well Regulated". The amendment as written allows for regulation, it seems to me. Licensing of hand guns to those who are taught gun safety, and the handling of their weapon, take an oath to uphold the law, and such. Universal background checks should be done, etc.
There is also the issue of us vs them and that is part of the bigger issue. Other nations arm everyone and they are not going through this. Those nations really are "One nation, indivisible". Here we have a very divided nation - full of distrust and hate. There is still a horrible amount of racism and such as well.
Economic distress is truly a great cause of desperation for so many who are living pay check to paycheck or worse and are one mishap from disaster. Others are medicated out the wazoo in order to cope with the cognitive dissonance of living in such a dog eat dog society. People are desperate. They don't trust their neighbors, the media, the government, or anything. In a grossly greedy for profit society where the marketers are feeding the fears and seducing simultaneously the people - bombarding them with a zillion bytes of that per minute - where the doctors and pharmaceutical industry cares about $$$$$$ but not safety or efficacy, where the NRA, the Church and other lobbies manipulate and stir the pot of discontent - where the police are not held to any standard of civility - Its a powder keg right now and we need to come together with our neighbors. We need to see the cause of who is dividing the people and fermenting the hate. We need to be "We the People." No more us vs them. That's the only way to curb this.
We the people must hold our public servants' feet to the fire and hold them to the highest standards of accountability. Really we must say, "Enough is enough".
Who keeps up the racial tension?
jonno99 (545 posts)
56. "Well Regulated" = "Well Trained". Govt. regulations - especially federal - were almost
non-existent at the time of the founding (there was no EPA, OSHA, IRS, EEOC, DOL, etc, etc.).
So it's safe to conclude that "well regulated" was NOT about govt. rules controlling firearms.
Insert "well-trained" (or "well-equipped") and the amendment makes perfect sense - especially when you add the last section: "...the right of the people..."
"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."
IMHO - "infringed" is actually the key word on which to focus. As Bernie has pointed out 99.9% of guns owners are responsible.
Of course the trick is always: how then do we manage the lawless 0.1% without infringing the rights of the law-abiding?
well... yeah.
LonePirate (2,332 posts)
40. You arrest and jail those people like you would any other felony lawbreakers.
check out this line of thinking...
JT1979 (7 posts)
52. So what hapens when
Those police get shot trying to arrest and take guns?
LonePirate (2,332 posts)
60. Those so-called law abiding gun owners are wanted for homicide/attempted homicide among others.
Fear of enforcing a law should never serve as a deterrent for not having or enforcing the law in the first place.
If gun nutters truly support the Constitution, then they will obey it when it eventually prohibits the possession of firearms.
beevul (9,521 posts)
75. What if theres 25 million of them?
Then what.
LonePirate (2,332 posts)
78. Unless all 25M converge on Washington at the same time waving their guns
then it is merely an issue for local law enforcement officers.
beevul (9,521 posts)
80. Have you ever heard of assymetrical warfare?
Insurgents generally do not line up all gentlemanly like the british did in the revolutionary war, and say 'here I am, come get me'.
See Viet Nam and Iraq for examples.
LonePirate (2,332 posts)
85. I don't see it ending any differently than the countless police standoffs that occurred up until now
The criminals will either end up dead or in jail if they attempt to shoot an officer of law. If they shoot and hit, they should expect even more LEOs to come after them.
The vast majority of gun owners will either voluntarily turn over their guns or they will quietly maintain possession of them without it impacting anyone.
Then you have the small percentage of Dumb**** Billy Bob gun owners who think they are brave and skilled enough to outgun and outlast a much larger and better armed group of LEOs. If they then choose to fire on those LEOs, then they can pay the consequences of such illegal activity with either jail time or their life. Fortunately, there are fewer and fewer of these idiots with each passing year.
beevul (9,521 posts)
86. "a much larger and better armed group of LEOs."
a much larger and better armed group of LEOs.
You mean like at the bundy ranch? Why didn't the bundy ranch incident follow your script?
There are approximately 900,000 state federal and local LEOs in America.
If 25 million people decide they've had enough, 900,000 leos will soon be half that many, and that's before any fighting starts - probably at least half of them would suddenly be looking for another line of work, or be sympathizers to the insurgent cause. Many leos like guns, and see things different when its their guns being taken away.
I hope none of the above ever happen, and I think you have not thought this through very well.
LonePirate (2,332 posts)
89. You are overestimating the bravery and ability of Joe Gun Owner to take down LEOs
Besides, after the reports start coming in of failed resistance by their brethren, the idiots will abandon their illegal dreams of holding on to their guns.
Star Member Lizzie Poppet (4,898 posts)
90. You're greatly overestimating the average LEO's combat ability.
As I mention elsewhere, the average beat cop fires their weapon a handful of times a year. They're no more skilled that Joe Gun Owner. The SWAT guys tend to be pretty good (although the couple of SWAT snipers I've seen at the range don't impress me all that much). But there are a few thousand of them, nationwide.
But I can see this is a pointless discussion. If you insist on believing that a proactive attempt at confiscation wouldn't turn into a bloodbath, there's obviously nothing I can do to change that. Hopefully, the demonstration of just how wrong you are never comes to pass.
LonePirate (2,332 posts)
91. There might be a bloodbath but you are mistaken about who the victims are going to be.
The vast majority of them will be Joe Gun Owner, who is no more skilled at using his weapon than the idiot who leaves his gun unsecured for his child to find.
Star Member Lizzie Poppet (4,898 posts)
98. To be blunt, you have no idea what you're talking about.
I spend a fair bit of time at shooting ranges on a very regular basis (I practice weekly with my self-defense pistols and I'm a pretty serious long-range rifle competitor, which requires a LOT of practice). I've seen plenty of "Joe Gun Owner" types who are obviously not spending a lot of time at the range...but the thing is, I also see a lot of average beat cops at the same pistol range (and occasionally share the rifle range with some of the SWAT marksmen). Those beat cops are no better than ol' Joe.
Of course, pistol shooting skill would be largely irrelevant in the sort of scenario we're discussing. Those kinds of fight happen with rifles. With rifles, I'd say the average gun owner who has rifles at all is probably a better shooter than the average cop. Again, the average cop only shoots that rifle to keep their qualification current. The average civilian AR-15 owner probably goes through several times more rounds in a year. The average hunter, with a scoped high-power bolt-action rifle, spends range time meticulously sighting in their rifle.
More serious shooters will have a significant skill advantage over the average LEO. Those serious shooters are far fewer in number that Joe Average Gun Owner, but would probably be the group from which the majority of insurrectionists would be drawn. That group includes a good number of combat veterans. I assure you that combat vets aren't remotely afraid of the average cop.
Yeah, there are serious shooters and combat vets on police forces, too...but they are few in number compared to gun owners, and I'm betting that a big chunk of them would refuse confiscation orders (they tend to be strongly pro-gun).
A good majority of the LEOs won't obey such an order in the first place.
DetlefK (5,532 posts)
11. No need to search houses.
If any weaponized contraband shows up in your possession in any way, it gets confiscated and you get a massive fine based on a percentage of your wage.
You can hide that gun in your drawer or bury it in your backyard. No problem. But if anybody ever finds that gun, then you have a problem.
What a wonderful America these DUmb****s visualize for the rest of us!
DetlefK (5,532 posts)
17. Theft? What theft?
There won't be guns left to steal.
- Some ordinary owners will get rid of their guns. -> Nothing to steal.
- Some ordinary owners will get licences for "oldtimer"-guns (e.g. inherited). -> Very rare.
- Some ordinary owners will hide their guns. -> Too well-hidden to steal.
- Public servants will own guns. -> Too dangerous to steal, plus they are registered.
And as the number of gun-owners dwindles, the market for guns shrinks. Many gun-manufacturers go out of business, the rest is monitored. And there will also be no more use for gun-sellers. As the only gun-sellers will be the companies themselves and as they can only legally sell to agencies of the government, the way of every illegal gun found at a crime-scene can easily be traced back
A utopia! where your house and property can be searched at any times for 'wrong-thinking' contraband and we live under a total police state!
Half-Century Man (4,169 posts)
77. I've brought this up before; The second ammendment says nothing about guns. Not one word.
It ensures some form of weapon be available to every citizen. Not all weapons be available.
We already regulate the open carry of most weapons. If you wish to test this statement; strap on a Katana and walk down your street. You will be stopped and at the very least questioned, most probably arrested. The open carry of swords is heavily regulated, out of the fear that if you are carrying it, you will use it to randomly hack down people.
Think about that, we outlaw the carrying of a weapon with an effective range of 1.8 meters and the ability to engage 6 or less targets a minute in the hands of a master; and glorify the open carrying of weapons with an effective range of 100 meters and the ability to engage 30+ targets a minute in the hands of a rank amateur.
We should regulate firearms according to mass lethality. Much the same way we regulate the private ownership of fully automatic weapons, suppressors (silencers), sawed off rifles and shot guns, stocked pistols, etc.
I say any weapon feed with a detachable magazine or belt needs a much higher standard of secure storage (facilities subject to state level inspection before acquiring the weapon), stricter background checks, and very limited circumstances for legal carry in public.
*******, they are stupid.
