General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWhat did you think of Beto O'Rourke's idea of confiscating AK-47s and AR-15s?
This discussion thread was locked as off-topic by Yonnie3 (a host of the General Discussion forum).
I admired his passion. I think he may have touched a nerve with the voting public?
But, many people are uncomfortable with the word "confiscate". I think the questioner may have set him up with that terminology. It was the wrong word to use, in my opinion.
However, the fact remains. We need to get AK-47s and AR-15s off our streets and out of the hands of dangerous people. They are weapons of war.
We need to ban the sale of these types of weapons, I would agree. If anyone is caught carrying one in the public square, they should lose that weapon immediately. There might be a process for them to get it back but it should be very difficult. This would be a prime instance where the government would likely offer a "buyback", in my opinion.
I was impressed with Beto.
lagomorph777
(30,613 posts)We've seen that loophole before.
True Dough
(17,331 posts)That said, in this era of soundbites, it's unfortunate he phrased it the way he did. It will repeatedly be used as fodder to rally right-wingers to show up at the polls. "It's true. The Democrats are coming for your guns. Just ask Beto..." [rolls clip]
walkingman
(7,668 posts)wasupaloopa
(4,516 posts)2nd Amendment.
The arguments which put us along side other countries is bogus at best because other countries do not have our constitution which guarantees the right to have guns.
hack89
(39,171 posts)What 38 states will approve such an amendment?
ripcord
(5,537 posts)It would be more likely that other Amendments would be eliminated, I'm not sure we want to let that genie out of the bottle.
still_one
(92,411 posts)bringing back the assault weapon ban would have been the way to do it, rather than as the OP points out, using words like confiscate
In order to do anything, you have to win first
Upthevibe
(8,072 posts)a word we've run from and sometimes it's appropriate! And confiscating AK-47s and AR-15s is appropriate! I was pleased with Beto last night......
gratuitous
(82,849 posts)I'm so over worrying about the delicate feelings of the blood-gargling psychopaths who insist on unrestricted civilian ownership of weapons designed to kill the maximum number of people in the minimum amount of time.
smirkymonkey
(63,221 posts)This!
cyndensco
(1,697 posts)Confiscate works for me.
lunasun
(21,646 posts)appeal to the masses
He gained points on my list for detailing the horror of the AWs some maybe still dont understand
NRaleighLiberal
(60,022 posts)rampartc
(5,437 posts)it won't pass either house and the supreme court will not allow it.
the rwnjs are talking about "2nd amendment sanctuary" states.
gun laws are possible but they have got to be directed at the people who own guns. restrict psychiatric cases, restrict gang members, red flag behavior.
they don't like that, but they are not voting with us anyway.
with regard to automatic weapons. they waste a lot of ammunition. a shooter can only carry so much ammunition. more time is spent reloading. the more that lands harmlessly in walls and trees the better. if a victim takes 2 or 3 rounds that allows for fewer victims.
ScratchCat
(2,002 posts)The only thing that running on "gun confiscation" accomplishes is re-electing Donald Trump.
rampartc
(5,437 posts)because he (for unimaginable reasons) inspires trust in the gun nuts. they would hand over their guns almost as readily as they would hand over their wives and daughters for his pleasure.
"only Nixon could go to china"
CTyankee
(63,912 posts)I never thought anyone could be as bad as him back in the day. But here we are with someone so corrupt and horrible, Nixon must be turning over in his grave....
rampartc
(5,437 posts)BruceWane
(345 posts)Are you seriously suggesting that automatic weapons result in fewer people getting shot?
rampartc
(5,437 posts)SergeStorms
(19,204 posts)church, the mall, a movie, out to dinner and drinks etc. is war now?
We're not taking these weapons away from the military, but there is no way in hell a private citizen should have the same firepower as someone on a real battlefield. NO. WAY. IN. HELL!
TreasonousBastard
(43,049 posts)so why not other essentially military weapons?
I don't see any great movement to legalize any surplus M60s lying around. Could it be that they just aren't that easy to lug into WalMart to scare the shit out of mothers with small children?
And they would be just the thing to deal with those marauding wild pigs. Shows ya where priorities may be lying.
aikoaiko
(34,183 posts)They only had to go through NFA registration.
We did ban new machine guns into the pipeline after 1986, but for 34 years after the NFA people could buy new machines guns and register them.
world wide wally
(21,755 posts)It was something that needed to be said definitively.
Thank you, Beto.
J_William_Ryan
(1,757 posts)not viable, and potentially dangerous to Democrats.
MicaelS
(8,747 posts)Last edited Fri Sep 13, 2019, 11:27 AM - Edit history (1)
And I am a FORMER gun owner.
If we cannot get an outright ban, then we need a new NFA to cover semiautomatics.
Similar to the NFA of 1934:
Fingerprinting
Full background check by FBI
Registration of all guns
Pay $200 for tax stamp for each gun
$100 for each hicap magazine.
No short barreled weapons.
Marengo
(3,477 posts)The only point of question to me is the cost burden to low income gun owners. Semiautos are most definitely in common use now, and I consider it only fair to give those current gun owners who cant afford the cost burden a means to comply at either a reduced fee or free of charge at the time of enactment. Otherwise, we may be facing a poll tax type issue which may not survive judicial review.
NickB79
(19,273 posts)No bill in Congress will get enough votes to pass.
After all, AR's and AK's are still legal in one form or another in all 50 states today.
aikoaiko
(34,183 posts)His distinction that they are weapons of war is intellectually weak. Almost every major design in guns was designed to increase rate of fire in battle including bolt action rifles, revolvers, pistols, pump-action shotguns, and magazine-fed rifles. If he wants to confiscate all "weapons of war" then he's coming for all guns -- even flint-locks.
It is an even more extreme reaction than how we handled machine guns which only required NFA registration and it worked to eliminate homicides with legal machine guns.
I'm personally offended that he thinks I'm a danger if I own one.
It may cost of the 2020 election or subsequent house/senate seats for years to come just as Bill Clinton described after the 1994 AWB.
I'm not impressed with his stance at all and will fight this policy any way I can except for not voting for Democrats.
Takket
(21,631 posts)No one needs a weapon designed to slaughter the maximum amount of people in the shortest time possible to hunt or defend their homes. I am personally offended by piles of blood soaked children.
There are perfectly reasonable distinctions that can be made between guns for defense and sport and guns designed to wage war on the public. These "slippery slope" arguments is designed to keep us spinning in circles so nothing ever gets done.
I am sure you are a perfectly harmless person that wouldn't kill another if you owned an AR-15 or a bazooka or a nuclear missile but you don't need and should not have ANY of those things. Find some other way to amuse yourself.
gay texan
(2,476 posts)What an M-16/AR-15 does to human flesh in the Tet Offensive is insane. As far as I am concerned nobody needs one of the damn things.
He will be the first to tell you that it was made to kill people, and do it quickly. It is a weapon of war. Same thing goes for the AK-47. The VC would spray bullets until it was impossible to hold on to it. They would throw it into a creek to cool it off and go again.
I'm my experience, the vast majority of the owners are non-military types want to look tough. Its bullshit.
Out here on the farm, I do just fine with an old clapped out bolt action and a shotgun. .
hack89
(39,171 posts)He can't gain traction and is running out of time.
Polybius
(15,485 posts)He should have said every owner will have to give them back, but the government will pay them three times the amount that they paid for them. That way you give them an incentive. Might actually get some votes out of them too.
BlueTexasMan
(165 posts)How about forming well regulated militias run by federal authorities. You have to be in one to own an assault rifle. You have to train and be qualified (stable) to be a member.
50 Shades Of Blue
(10,049 posts)Response to kentuck (Original post)
Chin music This message was self-deleted by its author.
BruceWane
(345 posts)It has been shown in the most graphic terms that semiautomatic weapons are an unacceptable danger to the public.
There is no reason that private citizens should be able to own them without restriction. If you can't "git 'er done" with a non-automatic weapon, the answer isn't "more bullets faster", 'cause you're a lousy shot - you need a shotgun.
We already restrict gun ownership based on type. Prohibiting automatic guns (full and semi) doesn't mean you can't own a gun, period.
We need to expand the same regulations we have on fully automatic guns to include semiautomatics. Create a buyback program for those who would rather not bother with compliance.
maxsolomon
(33,400 posts)Buy-back programs for MSSAs, definitely. Ending the sale and manufacture of new MSSAs, sure. Even disallowing sales of existing weapons, fine.
But the cat's out of the bag on the rifles that are already in circulation.
So many Rampage Shootings are committed by alienated young men who acquire SA firearms just to commit the crime. It's key to keep that impulse checked and that's a legitimate reason to infringe on the 2nd.
I favor extending waiting periods for SA firearm purchases to 6 months (or a year), especially under 30 years old. Let that impulse fade.
sarisataka
(18,774 posts)Has approximately 0 percent chance of happening in the near future, helps NRA recruiting/ retention and places a major pothole in the path of every Democrat seeking election.
cwydro
(51,308 posts)jcgoldie
(11,647 posts)Beto described very well the only thing these guns are designed for and thats killing people.
Vinca
(50,308 posts)ooky
(8,929 posts)receive the weapons who will give you a tax credit receipt. I don't see a realistic scenario whereby police are just walking up to front doors and demanding people to turn over the weapons. Offer the buy back period for a certain period of time and then once it expires you find yourself owning an illegal weapon you can't take anywhere without risking getting caught with it. Give the new law teeth by making it a felony to be caught with it, with a mandatory minimum one year sentence in a federal pen. You'll recover a lot of the weapons that way.
bluedigger
(17,087 posts)ananda
(28,877 posts)Good idea!
albacore
(2,406 posts)I've already noted people posting elsewhere that they'd refuse to give up their AR's or whatever. I respond that if Congress passes a law, and you refuse to obey that law, you know that makes you a lawbreaker...an outlaw, if you will. They respond that they are defending a Constitutional right. I respond that the SCOTUS interprets the Constitution, not them. They respond that this is different. I ask if they would shoot at the cops if they came for their weapons, and I get crickets.
No fucking hope. 30% of Americans own guns, and only a small percentage of that number own "assault" weapons. And they think they can override the laws of the US because their interpretation of a 18th Century document is correct, and everybody else's is wrong. No fucking hope!
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)Gun-lovers -- even some here -- try to persuade us that it's the looks of the rifle that turn people off. They ain't being truthful.
Here's a physician's description of what the ammo does to a person:
"In a typical handgun injury, which I diagnose almost daily, a bullet leaves a laceration through an organ such as the liver. To a radiologist, it appears as a linear, thin, gray bullet track through the organ. There may be bleeding and some bullet fragments."
"I was looking at a CT scan of one of the mass-shooting victims from Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, who had been brought to the trauma center during my call shift. The organ looked like an overripe melon smashed by a sledgehammer, and was bleeding extensively. How could a gunshot wound have caused this much damage?
"The reaction in the emergency room was the same. One of the trauma surgeons opened a young victim in the operating room, and found only shreds of the organ that had been hit by a bullet from an AR-15, a semiautomatic rifle that delivers a devastatingly lethal, high-velocity bullet to the victim. Nothing was left to repairand utterly, devastatingly, nothing could be done to fix the problem. The injury was fatal."
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/02/what-i-saw-treating-the-victims-from-parkland-should-change-the-debate-on-guns/553937/
Now, you tell me why anyone wants rifles like this available on demand.
mwooldri
(10,303 posts)I'd somehow reframe it but we need to do the following:
1. Ban sale of new "weapons of war".
2. Optional government buyback.
3. Registry of said "weapons of war" and all existing weapons to be registered.
4. Owners of said weapons must be licensed.
This kills the "coming for your guns" meme IMO.
kentuck
(111,110 posts)Their debate is amongst themselves. Will they all march in lockstep or will some of them say, "Enough"?
Any damage to Beto or the Democrats is exaggerated, in my opinion. They are not holding a very popular position, as far as the majority of Americans are concerned.
shanti
(21,675 posts)There was an audible gasp from the audience when he said it though.
gopiscrap
(23,765 posts)in fact I think all guns should be confiscated
LeftTurn3623
(628 posts)Loved it. I was like "Hell Yeah!
calguy
(5,327 posts)They will be able to raise a lot of money sending out those comments in a fund raising promotion.
LudwigPastorius
(9,178 posts)I don't think the House or the Senate would pass such a law in the foreseeable future, and if they did, the Supreme Court would strike it down in short order.
LonePirate
(13,431 posts)Disarming all of the gundamentalists is the real national emergency we face.
dalton99a
(81,598 posts)Wounds From Military-Style Rifles? A Ghastly Thing to See
Trauma surgeons tell what it is really like to try to repair such devastating injuries. Bones are exploded, soft tissue is absolutely destroyed, one said.
By Gina Kolata and C. J. Chivers
March 4, 2018
Left, an X-ray of a leg showing a bullet wound delivered by an assault rifle used in combat. Right, an X-ray of a leg that sustained a bullet wound from a low-energy bullet, inflicted by a weapon like a handgun in Philadelphia. (Dr. Jeremy W. Cannon)
Perhaps no one knows the devastating wounds inflicted by assault-style rifles better than the trauma surgeons who struggle to repair them. The doctors say they are haunted by their experiences confronting injuries so dire they struggle to find words to describe them.
At a high school in Parkland, Fla., 17 people were recently killed with just such a weapon a semiautomatic AR-15. It was legal there for Nikolas Cruz, 19, the suspect in the shooting, to buy a civilian version of the militarys standard rifle, while he would have had to be 21 to buy a less powerful and accurate handgun.
Many factors determine the severity of a wound, including a bullets mass, velocity and composition, and where it strikes. The AR-15, like the M4 and M16 rifles issued to American soldiers, shoots lightweight, high-speed bullets that can cause grievous bone and soft tissue wounds, in part by turning sideways, or yawing, when they hit a person. Surgeons say the weapons produce the same sort of horrific injuries seen on battlefields.
Civilian owners of military-style weapons can also buy soft-nosed or hollow-point ammunition, often used for hunting, that lacks a full metal jacket and can expand and fragment on impact. Such bullets, which can cause wider wound channels, are proscribed in most military use.
A radiologist at the hospital that treated victims of the Parkland attack wrote in The Atlantic about a surgeon there who opened a young victim in the operating room and found only shreds of the organ that had been hit.
What follows are the recollections of five trauma surgeons. Three of them served in the military, and they emphasized that their opinions are their own and do not represent those of the armed forces. One has treated civilian victims of such weapons in American cities. And a pediatric surgeon treated victims of a Texas church shooting last year.
An X-ray of a rifle bullet wound to an arm. (Dr. Jeremy W. Cannon)
TheRealNorth
(9,500 posts)Most Everything else (background checks, restrictions on clip size, closing the gun show loophole) I am for.
We will still have problems if they get rid of the assault rifles- people inclined to murder will just go back to using handguns.
homegirl
(1,434 posts)sliding scale--more firing power higher premium. Every gun required to have its own liability coverage. In return for this boon to the insurance companies the American people will get Medicare for All.
A buy back program for military type weapons would help.
randr
(12,417 posts)A buy back program and elimination of ammo purchase is a start
Yonnie3
(17,486 posts)Please discuss Democratic Primary Candidates and their policy positions in the Democratic Primaries Forum
Per the announcement on Feb 20, 2019 by site administrators, all discussion of the Democratic Primaries and candidates belongs in the Democratic Primaries Forum. Please re-post there if you like.