The only response I will give is a question in return - to anyone here or to those that propose such a ban/confiscation:
If __________ were banned tomorrow, would you hand them in?? Examples to fill in the blank:
* All gasoline operated cars
* All kitchen knives and utensils
* All 'standard' light bulbs
* All cigarettes, tobacco
* All alcohol
* All marijuana
* All coffee
* All smart phones
* All Justin Bieber music
* All Kardashian products
Lots of things could be added to the list, keep it going and you will hit on something that everyone cares about. Why is this question always having to be directed at gun owners? Why are we constantly having to defend our reasons to own guns, when it is an established constitutional right?
So perhaps my response is - if you expect me to give up guns, as a compromise, what do I get to choose for you to give up? Can I just choose something you love and decide you no longer get to own it, under penalty of law??
Banning/confiscation simply will not work. Some would get turned in. Likely some folks would get dinged under that law. But I believe the majority would do what has happened in Australia - disappear into obscurity, with a majority of owners still holding their 'banned' guns years and years later.
Remember how the argument for legalized marijuana was that you can't get it off the streets? You can't stop people from buying/using? You can't waste resources going after the drug? Why won't it work with marijuana, but it will supposedly work with guns?? It didn't work with prohibition, but somehow it will magically work with guns?
It's all just a B.S. political move, aimed squarely at law-abiding people, by those that care nothing about our rights.
That list I made above - one thing to recognize is that while all of those things are important to somebody, they are not constitutionally guaranteed, unlike our gun rights.
If __________ were banned tomorrow, would you hand them in?? Examples to fill in the blank:
* All gasoline operated cars
* All kitchen knives and utensils
* All 'standard' light bulbs
* All cigarettes, tobacco
* All alcohol
* All marijuana
* All coffee
* All smart phones
* All Justin Bieber music
* All Kardashian products
Lots of things could be added to the list, keep it going and you will hit on something that everyone cares about. Why is this question always having to be directed at gun owners? Why are we constantly having to defend our reasons to own guns, when it is an established constitutional right?
So perhaps my response is - if you expect me to give up guns, as a compromise, what do I get to choose for you to give up? Can I just choose something you love and decide you no longer get to own it, under penalty of law??
Banning/confiscation simply will not work. Some would get turned in. Likely some folks would get dinged under that law. But I believe the majority would do what has happened in Australia - disappear into obscurity, with a majority of owners still holding their 'banned' guns years and years later.
Remember how the argument for legalized marijuana was that you can't get it off the streets? You can't stop people from buying/using? You can't waste resources going after the drug? Why won't it work with marijuana, but it will supposedly work with guns?? It didn't work with prohibition, but somehow it will magically work with guns?
It's all just a B.S. political move, aimed squarely at law-abiding people, by those that care nothing about our rights.
That list I made above - one thing to recognize is that while all of those things are important to somebody, they are not constitutionally guaranteed, unlike our gun rights.