Just read a study from YouGov that said 82% of self-identified democrats favor banning semiautomatic weapons (almost all of them), and 

Pelosi, Feinstein, Biden, Cuomo, Clinton, Schumer, etc. etc. have all expressed interest in an outright ban or a ban on semiautomatic rifles. This doesn't include politicians that have shown unfettered support for the gun control protests that often ask for full confiscations. This isn't an isolated issue among certain democrats. This is a widely held view, and people like Clinton openly admit that she has a public view and a private view.

"expressed interest in" versus knowing damn well what they admittedly can't accomplish with actual legislation is the distinction I've already pointed out.  

Clinton (who I did not support BTW) even frankly stated in a 60 minutes interview of all places "I'm not coming for the guns of law abiding American citizens." 

I find it strange that statements like that, of which there have been many, cannot be taken at face value but must be painted as subterfuge.

I'm sure there are independent and liberal-leaning politicians out there that take harder lines than others on their approach to assault weapons and semi-auto rifles and wish to blur the line between the two. 
However  - I trust the constitution and the system of checks and balances in place to sort it out. I guess I'm patriotic that way.  I've witnessed no egregious infringement on the rights of gun owners in my lifetime and seriously doubt I ever will. 

Folks that live in fear of gun confiscation seem oddly fearful to me. I just don't see the reason to fear that, and believe me I've heard all about it from more than a dozen friends and family members.

"Expressed interest in" is to mean they have openly stated they want to ban those guns. They can know they'd be unsuccessful, but several have also said that they would ban them if they knew they could get the votes. You can't simply dismiss that because they're saying they first need legislation because they're saying they would if they could get that legislation. 

Clinton said what would moderate her to more people. She's also the one that said she has a public and private view on gun control. Clinton, by the way, said by email that she would close the gun show "loophole" by executive order. So, it isn't quite implausible to believe that they would supersede legislation through executive orders given the chance.

I wouldn't say I live in fear. I just believe that it isn't unreasonable to believe democrats want to take your guns. There have been enough of them to openly state this opinion. I also don't think it'd be outright confiscation.

---

If you think the complete disarming of the civilian populace is not the agenda you either do not understand plain English or you are a willing participant in a treasonous deception to rob the people of their natural, civil and Constitutional right of self defense.

So which is it?

I do not believe that is the agenda of those allowed by our system of checks and balances to ultimately represent any large number of constituents. 

I do trust the system of checks and balances we have in place. It has proven effective time and time again to help moderate any "agendas" or trends in legislation that drift too far into dangerous territory. 

Extreme measures are difficult to implement in our system for a reason and the system works pretty darn well. 
It's the same system that kept Obama from going in a far more socialist direction than he did, and the same system that will likely prevent the current POTUS from building a border wall anywhere near the scale he's proposed. 

A confiscation legislation would be FAR, FAR more difficult to pass than many of the things we see commonly shut down by designed partisan voting.

Consider just a ban on the mentally ill from owning firearms. What happens when someone in charge decides that anyone who takes an antidepressant is in that category? Or anyone who has ever taken an antidepressant? Or a sedative. Or ... It's very easy to get practically the entire citizenry into a "mentally ill" basket.

Don't think it could happen? How about the no-fly list? There is no accountability to that list, you can't appeal it. Ted Kennedy was on the no-fly list. Of course he could get off the list since he was a ruling class person above the law, but ordinary citizens are screwed.

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

I do not believe that is the agenda of those allowed by our system of checks and balances to ultimately represent any large number of constituents. 

I do trust the system of checks and balances we have in place. It has proven effective time and time again to help moderate any "agendas" or trends in legislation that drift too far into dangerous territory. 

Extreme measures are difficult to implement in our system for a reason and the system works pretty darn well. 
It's the same system that kept Obama from going in a far more socialist direction than he did, and the same system that will likely prevent the current POTUS from building a border wall anywhere near the scale he's proposed. 

A confiscation legislation would be FAR, FAR more difficult to pass than many of the things we see commonly shut down by designed partisan voting.

Consider just a ban on the mentally ill from owning firearms. What happens when someone in charge decides that anyone who takes an antidepressant is in that category? Or anyone who has ever taken an antidepressant? Or a sedative. Or ... It's very easy to get practically the entire citizenry into a "mentally ill" basket.

Don't think it could happen? How about the no-fly list? There is no accountability to that list, you can't appeal it. Ted Kennedy was on the no-fly list. Of course he could get off the list since he was a ruling class person above the law, but ordinary citizens are screwed.

The first statement highlighted is ludicrous fantasy or severe paranoia. Take your pick. 

As for the next bit - People are in fact able to be removed from no fly lists. There is a process and it is slow, but it happens frequently. 

You are trying to make exceptions to the rule into "the rule."  I'm sorry, but it's a weak stance that you've taken here.

---

"expressed interest in" versus knowing damn well what they admittedly can't accomplish with actual legislation is the distinction I've already pointed out.  

Clinton (who I did not support BTW) even frankly stated in a 60 minutes interview of all places "I'm not coming for the guns of law abiding American citizens." 

I find it strange that statements like that, of which there have been many, cannot be taken at face value but must be painted as subterfuge.

I'm sure there are independent and liberal-leaning politicians out there that take harder lines than others on their approach to assault weapons and semi-auto rifles and wish to blur the line between the two. 
However  - I trust the constitution and the system of checks and balances in place to sort it out. I guess I'm patriotic that way.  I've witnessed no egregious infringement on the rights of gun owners in my lifetime and seriously doubt I ever will. 

Folks that live in fear of gun confiscation seem oddly fearful to me. I just don't see the reason to fear that, and believe me I've heard all about it from more than a dozen friends and family members.

"Expressed interest in" is to mean they have openly stated they want to ban those guns. They can know they'd be unsuccessful, but several have also said that they would ban them if they knew they could get the votes. You can't simply dismiss that because they're saying they first need legislation because they're saying they would if they could get that legislation. 

Clinton said what would moderate her to more people. She's also the one that said she has a public and private view on gun control. Clinton, by the way, said by email that she would close the gun show "loophole" by executive order. So, it isn't quite implausible to believe that they would supersede legislation through executive orders given the chance.

I wouldn't say I live in fear. I just believe that it isn't unreasonable to believe democrats want to take your guns. There have been enough of them to openly state this opinion. I also don't think it'd be outright confiscation.

As usual, I appreciate your perspective.  You make good points even if I disagree with the degree of plausibility.

---

And where this thread has gone is a huge reason why this Country is going down hill and will continue to keep going down hill. Nobody can hardly ever discuss anything anymore without it becoming some idiotic political matter.

Politics are literally brought up in every single thing we do now days and it's a huge reason why our Country is in a down fall. Yet the people who rule this Country just sit back and laugh their [BLEEP] off all the way to the bank, while us peons argue back and forth like a bunch of idiots.... AKA a bunch of Sheep.

Divide is what they want and we're dividing farther and farther away from each other as the days go by, yet you're all too stuck in your own idiotic political beliefs to even realize it.

A divided and scared nation is easy to control, which is exactly what our corrupt Government wants and it's exactly what they're doing/getting.

---

Consider just a ban on the mentally ill from owning firearms. What happens when someone in charge decides that anyone who takes an antidepressant is in that category? Or anyone who has ever taken an antidepressant? Or a sedative. Or ... It's very easy to get practically the entire citizenry into a "mentally ill" basket.

Don't think it could happen? How about the no-fly list? There is no accountability to that list, you can't appeal it. Ted Kennedy was on the no-fly list. Of course he could get off the list since he was a ruling class person above the law, but ordinary citizens are screwed.

The first statement highlighted is ludicrous fantasy or severe paranoia. Take your pick. 

As for the next bit - People are in fact able to be removed from no fly lists. There is a process and it is slow, but it happens frequently. 

You are trying to make exceptions to the rule into "the rule."  I'm sorry, but it's a weak stance that you've taken here.

---

"Expressed interest in" is to mean they have openly stated they want to ban those guns. They can know they'd be unsuccessful, but several have also said that they would ban them if they knew they could get the votes. You can't simply dismiss that because they're saying they first need legislation because they're saying they would if they could get that legislation. 

Clinton said what would moderate her to more people. She's also the one that said she has a public and private view on gun control. Clinton, by the way, said by email that she would close the gun show "loophole" by executive order. So, it isn't quite implausible to believe that they would supersede legislation through executive orders given the chance.

I wouldn't say I live in fear. I just believe that it isn't unreasonable to believe democrats want to take your guns. There have been enough of them to openly state this opinion. I also don't think it'd be outright confiscation.

As usual, I appreciate your perspective.  You make good points even if I disagree with the degree of plausibility.

1 in 8 Americans currently use a prescribed antidepressant, up nearly 70% from the year 1999. Every one of them could be medically disqualified. Further, I've served on medical ethics review boards a few times. You would probably be shocked to learn how easily your right to self determination for yourself, and more so your children, can be stripped away by a doctor working in conjunction with the government. Your chart is not private from the government, its admissible evidence, and I can find a dozen legal ways to take your rights from you, every one starting with the Duty to Report laws that exist in some form in every State.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

The first statement highlighted is ludicrous fantasy or severe paranoia. Take your pick. 

As for the next bit - People are in fact able to be removed from no fly lists. There is a process and it is slow, but it happens frequently. 

You are trying to make exceptions to the rule into "the rule."  I'm sorry, but it's a weak stance that you've taken here.

---

As usual, I appreciate your perspective.  You make good points even if I disagree with the degree of plausibility.

1 in 8 Americans currently use a prescribed antidepressant, up nearly 70% from the year 1999. Every one of them could be medically disqualified. Further, I've served on medical ethics review boards a few times. You would probably be shocked to learn how easily your right to self determination for yourself, and more so your children, can be stripped away by a doctor working in conjunction with the government. Your chart is not private from the government, its admissible evidence, and I can find a dozen legal ways to take your rights from you, every one starting with the Duty to Report laws that exist in some form in every State.

What grounds do you have to make this grand assumption?  Proposing a vetting process for the mentally unfit to purchase a new weapon does not somehow magically encompass everyone taking an antidepressant. That's just silly. 
Clearly - any legislation seeking to limit one's power to purchase a weapon would need to require clinical proof that an individual's prohibitive condition would need to pose a greater threat to public safety than the millions of people in therapy and medicated for depression. 

I think it would be tough to nail down the guidelines - and the majority of disturbed individuals would slip through the cracks anyway - but it would be a worthy effort if it makes it tougher for someone like that kid the other day to obtain weapons so easily.

---

1 in 8 Americans currently use a prescribed antidepressant, up nearly 70% from the year 1999. Every one of them could be medically disqualified. Further, I've served on medical ethics review boards a few times. You would probably be shocked to learn how easily your right to self determination for yourself, and more so your children, can be stripped away by a doctor working in conjunction with the government. Your chart is not private from the government, its admissible evidence, and I can find a dozen legal ways to take your rights from you, every one starting with the Duty to Report laws that exist in some form in every State.

What grounds do you have to make this grand assumption?  Proposing a vetting process for the mentally unfit to purchase a new weapon does not somehow magically encompass everyone taking an antidepressant. That's just silly. 
Clearly - any legislation seeking to limit one's power to purchase a weapon would need to require clinical proof that an individual's prohibitive condition would need to pose a greater threat to public safety than the millions of people in therapy and medicated for depression. 

I think it would be tough to nail down the guidelines - and the majority of disturbed individuals would slip through the cracks anyway - but it would be a worthy effort if it makes it tougher for someone like that kid the other day to obtain weapons so easily.

You're entitled to your opinion, but the government doesn't want mandatory adoption of EMR for your benefit, it's for theirs.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Look at the upside, if the evil government has their way, we won't be menaced by all those well armed mentally ill transsexuals.

---

If something can corrupt you, you're corrupted already.
- Bob Marley


 

Look at the upside, if the evil government has their way, we won't be menaced by all those well armed mentally ill transsexuals.

We both know that "mentally ill" isn't interchangeable with "murderous", but it's silly that you guys think the government won't use it against us when they feel like it.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Look at the upside, if the evil government has their way, we won't be menaced by all those well armed mentally ill transsexuals.

We both know that "mentally ill" isn't interchangeable with "murderous", but it's silly that you guys think the government won't use it against us when they feel like it.

I think it's silly that you think the government of The United States of America is looking for something to use against you. 

What ill will is our government harboring against its citizens exactly?

---

We both know that "mentally ill" isn't interchangeable with "murderous", but it's silly that you guys think the government won't use it against us when they feel like it.

I think it's silly that you think the government of The United States of America is looking for something to use against you. 

What ill will is our government harboring against its citizens exactly?

250 years ago ask the Colonists.

150 years ago ask Freedmen in the South.

100 years ago ask Suffragettes.

50 years ago MLK.

Right now you can ask Donald Trump, Susette Kelo, and Justina Pelletier.

There's always a reason, you just have to be in the way.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

I hear Lois Lerner is offering her services for tax preparation.

---

We both know that "mentally ill" isn't interchangeable with "murderous", but it's silly that you guys think the government won't use it against us when they feel like it.

I think it's silly that you think the government of The United States of America is looking for something to use against you. 

What ill will is our government harboring against its citizens exactly?

You might want to look up how police departments around the country used the RICO act to confiscate property without redress. That was in the US, and not ancient history since the law was passed in the 1980s (Reagan's biggest mistake). You can also look at Title 9 expanding to micromanage just about everything to make things exactly equal between males and females, and the EPA grabbing way more control than it was created for under Obama.

If you are really think that local PDs  or even whole Left-leaning states would never expand the scope of "mentally ill" to the utmost limit allowed (which would include everything not explicitly forbidden), then you really are naive.

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

Look at the upside, if the evil government has their way, we won't be menaced by all those well armed mentally ill transsexuals.

We both know that "mentally ill" isn't interchangeable with "murderous", but it's silly that you guys think the government won't use it against us when they feel like it.

What's silly is finding government a menace in every situation Why must the only remedy for possibly denying a gun to a qualified person due to a flaw in determination criteria be to not try at all?

---

If something can corrupt you, you're corrupted already.
- Bob Marley


 

I think it's silly that you think the government of The United States of America is looking for something to use against you. 

What ill will is our government harboring against its citizens exactly?

250 years ago ask the Colonists. Wait, what? 

150 years ago ask Freedmen in the South.

100 years ago ask Suffragettes.

50 years ago MLK.

Right now you can ask Donald Trump, Susette Kelo, and Justina Pelletier.

There's always a reason, you just have to be in the way.

Do you really think the examples in bold were not supported by a majority of U.S. citizens who had the ability to freely vote?

---

If something can corrupt you, you're corrupted already.
- Bob Marley


 

250 years ago ask the Colonists. Wait, what? 

150 years ago ask Freedmen in the South.

100 years ago ask Suffragettes.

50 years ago MLK.

Right now you can ask Donald Trump, Susette Kelo, and Justina Pelletier.

There's always a reason, you just have to be in the way.

Do you really think the examples in bold were not supported by a majority of U.S. citizens who had the ability to freely vote?

So the government can be used as weapon against disfavored groups? You don't say. I'm glad you recognize the need, from the very beginnings of this country, that we must keep the government in check to prevent it's perversion for nefarious purposes against minority groups including the tiniest majority of all, the individual.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Consider just a ban on the mentally ill from owning firearms. What happens when someone in charge decides that anyone who takes an antidepressant is in that category? Or anyone who has ever taken an antidepressant? Or a sedative. Or ... It's very easy to get practically the entire citizenry into a "mentally ill" basket.

Don't think it could happen? How about the no-fly list? There is no accountability to that list, you can't appeal it. Ted Kennedy was on the no-fly list. Of course he could get off the list since he was a ruling class person above the law, but ordinary citizens are screwed.

The first statement highlighted is ludicrous fantasy or severe paranoia. Take your pick. 

As for the next bit - People are in fact able to be removed from no fly lists. There is a process and it is slow, but it happens frequently. 

You are trying to make exceptions to the rule into "the rule."  I'm sorry, but it's a weak stance that you've taken here.

---

"Expressed interest in" is to mean they have openly stated they want to ban those guns. They can know they'd be unsuccessful, but several have also said that they would ban them if they knew they could get the votes. You can't simply dismiss that because they're saying they first need legislation because they're saying they would if they could get that legislation. 

Clinton said what would moderate her to more people. She's also the one that said she has a public and private view on gun control. Clinton, by the way, said by email that she would close the gun show "loophole" by executive order. So, it isn't quite implausible to believe that they would supersede legislation through executive orders given the chance.

I wouldn't say I live in fear. I just believe that it isn't unreasonable to believe democrats want to take your guns. There have been enough of them to openly state this opinion. I also don't think it'd be outright confiscation.

As usual, I appreciate your perspective.  You make good points even if I disagree with the degree of plausibility.

You admit then that the "process" is slow.  Going back to my original post in this thread, what protections are there for law abiding innocent people to prevent them from being added to "a list"?  You can call me paranoid all you want, but the reality is I am looking out for your rights, my rights, our kids rights and even their kids rights.  You speak of checks and balances and being confident in them, yet when I am asking about those very protections you suggest I am paranoid.  Is it too much to ask for caution?  Is it too much to look at unintended consequences?  Is it too much to look out for law abiding citizens rights in the current zeal to protect us from mentally ill individuals?  Finally where is the zeal to enforce the current laws on the books that are not being followed?

---

Original Season Ticket Holder - Retired  1995 - 2020


At some point you just have to let go of what you thought should happen and live in what is happening.
 

You really have no clue what the opposition is concerned about do you?  Ranger just spelled it out to you yet you missed it.  There is not one single sane gun advocate that is opposed to credible, unbiased background checks.  The issue is who administers them, and what protection is there against a rogue government hell bent on confiscation.  Just like most everything political these days, empathy is non-existent, and should someone disagree with "my" position they must be a mental midget and not worthy of civil discourse.

Not a South Park fan. Noted.

Whooshed?  My bad.

---

Original Season Ticket Holder - Retired  1995 - 2020


At some point you just have to let go of what you thought should happen and live in what is happening.
 

We both know that "mentally ill" isn't interchangeable with "murderous", but it's silly that you guys think the government won't use it against us when they feel like it.

I think it's silly that you think the government of The United States of America is looking for something to use against you. 

What ill will is our government harboring against its citizens exactly?

Are you serious with that question?  The last administration employed the IRS to harass the opposition.  Do you trust the current administration to not do the same?

---

Original Season Ticket Holder - Retired  1995 - 2020


At some point you just have to let go of what you thought should happen and live in what is happening.
 

The first statement highlighted is ludicrous fantasy or severe paranoia. Take your pick. 

As for the next bit - People are in fact able to be removed from no fly lists. There is a process and it is slow, but it happens frequently. 

You are trying to make exceptions to the rule into "the rule."  I'm sorry, but it's a weak stance that you've taken here.

---

As usual, I appreciate your perspective.  You make good points even if I disagree with the degree of plausibility.

You admit then that the "process" is slow.  Going back to my original post in this thread, what protections are there for law abiding innocent people to prevent them from being added to "a list"?  You can call me paranoid all you want, but the reality is I am looking out for your rights, my rights, our kids rights and even their kids rights.  You speak of checks and balances and being confident in them, yet when I am asking about those very protections you suggest I am paranoid.  Is it too much to ask for caution?  Is it too much to look at unintended consequences?  Is it too much to look out for law abiding citizens rights in the current zeal to protect us from mentally ill individuals?  Finally where is the zeal to enforce the current laws on the books that are not being followed?

I'm sorry if I offended you. Wasn't my intention. 
I think part of the problem here is that we can't debate an actual proposed concrete piece of legislation. We are debating a hypothetical legislation. Due to that - I can't possibly defend every single imagined loophole or outlier "unintended victim" that other posters invent.  

I can only say that - big picture - I'm not nearly as fearful of those scenarios becoming reality as you are. And I think not even trying to limit the ability of the mentally unfit to easily purchase a gun is just giving up on something that can be at least better mitigated. 

That said. I feel like I'm needlessly repeating myself to those fundamentally opposed to what I'm saying, so I'm backing out of this one.

---