Confiscation question.

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

  • No ad networks!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • jstolz

    Active Member
    Aug 28, 2018
    338
    Glen Burnie
    I know some not all anti 2a want a complete gun confiscation. But the ones that do what exactly do they want? Our current system with no “assault rifles”? Or a British style where guns are kept at a gun club? It seems on Twitter that people want to take the guns away but didn’t think it through.
     

    TheOriginalMexicanBob

    Ultimate Member
    Jul 2, 2017
    32,151
    Sun City West, AZ
    I think it's a step-by-step process. The anti-gun people want them all but are generally pragmatic enough to "compromise" and accept less...such as "assault"weapon bans or requiring them to stay at gun clubs as suggested. Then they will continually go for more and more thorough laws to gradually either confiscate or require destruction of privately owned firearms of all kinds. Every time another mass killing take place by someone with a firearm not turned in there will be more calls for further restrictions ultimately leading to eradication of all other than those owned by criminals.

    The political left wants us to "compromise" away all of our rights.
     

    Joe Marino

    Member
    Feb 15, 2019
    28
    We are on borrowed time. I won’t be alive but within 25 years owning a firearm will be almost impossible.
     

    kdmag88

    Active Member
    Jan 10, 2018
    125
    I've had a friend or two say before, 'we probably need to ban all guns outright'. But like you said, they don't think it through, it's impulsive. I ask 'how do you plan on banning them? Really the gov't has to give you compensation the same way they can't just take your house to widen a road. How do you plan on paying for that? do you know how many guns there are and therefore how much money it would cost taxpayers?'. To which they usually say, "well don't buy them, just ban them, make people turn them in', which is an even scarier thought that people are OK with disregarding so much of our constitution. But usually I say, 'if you tell everyone in the U.S. to turn them all in, with but especially without compensation, you will have a second civil war.'. But when you say stuff like that, the dems don't seem to take you seriously. I am not sure why as I don't think it could be any more assured.
     

    TheOriginalMexicanBob

    Ultimate Member
    Jul 2, 2017
    32,151
    Sun City West, AZ
    I'm thinking that eventually some Democrat will liken confiscation to eminent domain...where the government takes your property for "the public good" but has to pay you compensation for your loss. Of course there will be no explanation why taking your firearms will be the same as real property as accepted in the concept of eminent domain nor will there be a definition of what "compensation" is or fair market value as opposed to a set fee that the government decides upon.

    I can see this happening and tying up courts for years if not generations but it can cause a lot of damage in the meantime. But we all know Democrats and fellow Leftists don't care about that. The Constitution is only a speed bump in their quest to dominate and rule.
     

    BlueHeeler

    Ultimate Member
    Apr 28, 2010
    7,086
    Washington, DC
    Most anti people are ignorant, but well intentioned. TV tells them that the AR-15 is super evil so it must be banned. They stop thinking about consequences, because they believe a ban would be an reasonable solution to end gun violence.

    The other antis know the crime statistics and AR's have very little impact on gun deaths. However they will ban ARs first because they can get the moderate voters on the ban-wagon. When that has zero impact, move to all semi-auto rifles. When that does not work ban handguns.

    Anyone honest about gun safety would focus on suicide prevention and keeping violent felons off the street.
     

    randomuser

    Ultimate Member
    Nov 12, 2018
    5,774
    Baltimore County
    Taking tax money from me and then giving it back so you can decide what one of my possessions you choose to take and the value of what you will pay for it is in itself a criminal act. I don't care what any lawbook says. It breaks the golden rule.

    If I give you a balongna sandwich and take 10 dollars from you and call it a fair deal, did we make a trade or did I force something on you that you didn't want? If you did not give the 10 bucks for the sh!tty sandwich I'da hauled you off an kidnapped you. Again, a criminal act if anyone other than a ruler does it.

    I'd hope that people would put into effect the slogan more patriots than handcuffs if something like a forced buyback or all out ban came into effect.

    BUT....
    Look at california. Look at their horrible looking ar's. It shows me that people will comply.

    FN15_Tactical_II_CA_Thumb-600x250.png


    sad
     

    frogman68

    товарищ плачевная
    Apr 7, 2013
    8,774
    confiscation will not happen, if they can't deport 11-20 million illegal immigrants no way can they take the weapons
     

    Tungsten

    Ultimate Member
    Jan 1, 2012
    7,230
    Elkridge, Leftistan
    I have a common sense compromise that should make all sides satisfied and comfortable with the outcome.

    Ban all Democrats from owning guns.


    Gun related crimes will drop by 95%
    2A supporters will not have their rights infringed nor property confiscated.

    Everyone gets what they want.
     

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Latest posts

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    274,917
    Messages
    7,258,612
    Members
    33,348
    Latest member
    Eric_Hehl

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom