Here's a thought. Let's ban ALL guns,

[Stonepounder]

Last edited Sat Feb 17, 2018, 01:34 AM - Edit history (2)

and when former gun owners complain we can send them our 'thoughts and prayers' to make them feel better. (And, of course, we won't do anything else, since we know that they all believe that 'thoughts and prayers' are good enough.)



Guess I'm not the only one who thought of this.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100210244767

[gopiscrap]

1. YES

[customerserviceguy]

2. You'll see a DACA deal

before you see that passing through Congress.

[MarvinGardens]

3. Because you want to be vindictive toward all gun owners?

Not all gun owners are NRA supporting assholes.

[Stonepounder]

5. I didn't think I needed the 'sarcasm' tag.

[milestogo]

4. Fine by me.

[GulfCoast66]

6. Here a thought. Lets never win another election.

Cause that is what you just said.

[RainCaster]

8. That's what the NRA wants us all to believe

I'm not buying it

[aikoaiko]

9. If we push to ban all guns, he'll yeah we'll lose.

That's an easy prediction.

[dembotoz]

10. Obviously my state would go blood red

Kind of like how the Dems lost the south over civil rights

[GulfCoast66]

11. Out of curiosity and not being snarky

Where do you live?

Cause in the south, Midwest and mountain states there would not be one statewide Democratic elected official left.

[Stonepounder]

14. I obviously missed the mark here.

I live in Kentucky.

Look at the reaction on the responses. "We would lose ALL elected Dems."

Think about it. How is saying 'ban all guns' any more outrageous than saying 'dead kids is the price we pay to have guns'? How is it different than allowing kids to go to gun shows, buy guns with no hindrance, and tolerating school shooting? How many mass murders of children do we have to accept - nay, even encourage - before we vote out Repubs for their choice of choosing campaign money over children's lives?

But if I frame the NRA argument in reverse, all the liberals go ballistic. Even though I added a scarcase tag, people still seem to miss the point. If we, as a country, WANT to sacrifice our children so that everyone can carry a gun, then lets be honest enough to admit it, dammit, and quit whimpering that 'if we try and take their guns they will vote out all the Dems'. It that is true, then say so! Guns are more important than kids. OK. Man up and own it!

[USALiberal]

29. It has been nice seeing where you stand. Glad I know you so well now. nt

[GulfCoast66]

30. You have no idea where I stand.

Except that I think proposing a ban on all guns will result in political suicide. Do you disagree?

We can’t even get background checks worth a damn and there are folk here proposing we ban all guns. Hell, I want to be a race car driver. Except I am an overweight 50 year old man. And I have a better chance of becoming a race car driver than anyone achieving a gun ban.

DU is a reality based community. I am happy to talk gun control issues I support that have a real chance of happening in the next 1-10 years.

Do not make the mistake of believing that those who do not agree with you in all issues are any less outraged.

Have a nice evening.

[samir.g]

7. when former gun owners complain we can send them

a hearty "fuck you".

[Fluke a Snooker]

12. Great idea. Let's do it

And if malcontents don't want to give up their guns, we send in federal or UN SWAT teams to arrest them (or kill them) just like cops take down black motorists with "defective license plate" violations. See how THEY feel about "justice"...only in THIS case it would actually be justified.

[WhiskeyGrinder]

13. You're advocating state violence and murder against fellow citizens and calling it justified.

WTF.

[Stonepounder]

15. And you are saying that you accept the price of complete freedom for gun owners

and are willing to pay the price in dead children.

WTF?

[WhiskeyGrinder]

18. I said no such thing.

[Fluke a Snooker]

22. If you don't ban guns, you advocate killing of children

You don't have to say it to not implicate it's very real nexus.

[WhiskeyGrinder]

23. Pretty sure that sounded better in the original Russian.

[EX500rider]

16. "We're worried about people getting killed so lets kill some people!" ?!

[Fluke a Snooker]

25. So I said arrest them

If they resist by shooting or threatening with weapons, then there can be no other way to deal with them than as an armed threat. Nothing rocket scienc-ey about this.

[X_Digger]

17. Quoting for posterity

And if malcontents don't want to give up their guns, we send in federal or UN SWAT teams to arrest them (or kill them) just like cops take down black motorists with "defective license plate" violations. See how THEY feel about "justice"...only in THIS case it would actually be justified.

[oneshooter]

37. "we send in federal or UN SWAT teams"

UN SWAT TEAMS!!!!

[friendly_iconoclast]

40. No doubt their intended audience will firmly believe they're serious...

[friendly_iconoclast]

42. I think DU is getting trolled hard by that one

Note to management:

Note the syntax and spelling errors, and the tone-deaf, stereotypically 'lefty' platitudes:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/126212564
https://www.democraticunderground.com/112412248
https://www.democraticunderground.com/112412248#post5
https://www.democraticunderground.com/10028956018
https://www.democraticunderground.com/100210132698

Combine that with the repeated invocation of a RW trope in this thread-

"lefties want the UN to confiscate your guns", and it's obvious

[EllieBC]

43. Good catch. Can we report a potential troll?

How do we???

[friendly_iconoclast]

44. Post a question in Ask the Administrators, or alert on individual posts

Advocating the UN help confiscate guns in the US? A trope straight outta Alex Jones's most perfervid fantasies:

https://www.google.com/search?q=alex+jones+un+troops&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

[friendly_iconoclast]

45. And in an entirely predictable turn of events:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=337981

[sarisataka]

19. Summary execution

Interesting way to define justice...

No thanks, I'll pass on your ideal police state

[Fluke a Snooker]

24. It's not "summary execution" if people are resisting arrest

I don't advocate violence of any sort. And I recognize most Americans will willingly obey the law and forfeit their killing weapons without penalty. I'm talking of the crazy small percentage of people who refuse to give up their illegal guns and threaten the federal or UN authorities from conducting the people's safety business.

[friendly_iconoclast]

27. Also quoting for posterity: "It's not "summary execution" if people are resisting arrest"

You should try that explantion on Eric Garner's or Laquan McDonald's friends and family,
or say it at a Black Lives Matter protest.

Let us know how it goes over, mmkay?

[Fluke a Snooker]

31. They didn't have guns. THAT'S THE POINT!

Garner and McDonald were executed by murderous cops because they didn't have guns. And I don't advocate shooting even NRA white supremacists if they don't use weapons either. But if they wanna make like this is their "last stand" and unload their assault rifles on the authorities, then I see no problem, at that point, in preventing them from killing innocent people as well.

In short, you can posterity-icize my comments all you want, in fact the more the merrier. I go on proudly with my position of creating a crime out of owning ANY gun, and arresting ANY criminal who has such a gun! And once we outlaw all guns, nobody will have them but the progressive authorities. And that's the point!

[friendly_iconoclast]

32. "(O)nce we outlaw all guns, nobody will have them" That approach worked well with heroin, no?

Also, would these be the same sort of "progressive authorities" that killed Garner and McDonald and
regularly arrest peaceful demonstrators and let right wingers slide, as see Charlottesville?

Hmm. I'm undecided here...



or

[Fluke a Snooker]

33. Your argument is a false flag

By trying to add nuance to the argument, we cede it to the right wingers. The bottom line: Unless we take all guns from everyone but the authorities whom are under a progressive governance in Washington (or eventually, Interpol), then we will always have problems and the Republicans will retain a stronghold. We must divest them of the tools necessary to ensure a more smooth transformation that President Obama initiated in his successful tenure.

[friendly_iconoclast]

35. How do you propose to get rid of "unprogressive" cops?

The Feds do not, and never have, controlled state and local law enforcement.

[Fluke a Snooker]

36. Making international cooperation deals with Interpol and other international entities.

Of course, we need the presidency and both legislative branches under progressive control, but by then we can federalize much of the country's laws, reducing the need for the 10th amendment. That is key.

[friendly_iconoclast]

41. Your proposals just happen to mirror a longtime RW paranoid trope. A coincidence, no doubt...

I'm sure your intended audience will believe that you're entirely serious.

As for me personally? Jeremy Wade would be hard put to do a better job.

[Xolodno]

20. Better idea...lets bring down the NRA...

...at let the hunting groups fill the vacuum. Oh and make gun manufacturers liable for their products like anyone other company is.

[Exotica]

21. I like this!

You seem reality-based.

PS

I am pro 2nd amendment repeal, but realise in our country overridden with gun psychopathy this will not happen.

[sfwriter]

26. I'm in.

Fuck 'em.

[JoeOtterbein]

28. Gun Suck. n/t

[retread]

34. Worked for Australia

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jun/23/australias-gun-laws-stopped-mass-shootings-and-reduced-homicides-study-finds

[Calculating]

39. Great plan

If you want to year the country apart and cause hundreds of thousands of deaths.