(08-29-2018, 08:04 PM)MalabarJag Wrote:

(08-29-2018, 11:31 AM)NYC4jags Wrote: 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.

---

(08-29-2018, 06:41 PM)JagNGeorgia Wrote:

(08-29-2018, 06:19 PM)NYC4jags Wrote: "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.

---