Stun Guns: Dangerous and Unusual?

[Pertinacious Tom]

Did someone say "Banning and confiscating guns is "reasonable regulation"" other than Publius?

Yes. Hillary, Governor Cuomo,

, and quite a few others with political power have advocated banning and confiscating guns.
If you were asking about people here on the forum, soak_ed and jocal. But jocal calls it "retrieving" because he thinks it sounds better.

And if we're talking stun guns, well, see this thread.

 

[Raz'r]

Did someone say "Banning and confiscating guns is "reasonable regulation"" other than Publius?

Yes. Hillary, Governor Cuomo,

, and quite a few others with political power have advocated banning and confiscating guns.
If you were asking about people here on the forum, soak_ed and jocal. But jocal calls it "retrieving" because he thinks it sounds better.

And if we're talking stun guns, well, see this thread.

Just curious why you seem to conflate me with those terms.

 

[Raz'r]

Did someone say "Banning and confiscating guns is "reasonable regulation"" other than Publius?

Yes. Hillary, Governor Cuomo,

also curious why Publius thinks limited regulations as proposed by some politicians are the same as confiscation of all guns. That dude Publius seems to have a very tentative grasp on reality.

 

[A guy in the Chesapeake]

Did someone say "Banning and confiscating guns is "reasonable regulation"" other than Publius?

Yes. Hillary, Governor Cuomo,

Mightn't it be because several politicians have publicly stated that any "progress" on firearms restrictions are merely a stepping stone to confiscation?

 

[Raz'r]

Did someone say "Banning and confiscating guns is "reasonable regulation"" other than Publius?

Yes. Hillary, Governor Cuomo,

got a cite for that?

I mean a powerful politician with a large coalition that would somehow be able to get a supermajority in congress and 75% of the states to go with him/her. Not some random rep from a statehouse.

 

[A guy in the Chesapeake]

<SNIP>

Mightn't it be because several politicians have publicly stated that any "progress" on firearms restrictions are merely a stepping stone to confiscation?

got a cite for that?

I mean a powerful politician with a large coalition that would somehow be able to get a supermajority in congress and 75% of the states to go with him/her. Not some random rep from a statehouse.

So - now it has to be echoed by someone that you think's got the juice to immediately pull it off before the concerns raised by such a clamor are to be considered valid?

In answer - there are plenty - Barney Frank, Nancy Pelosi, Dianne Feinstein are a few that come immediately to mind. Not gonna do your googling for ya. The sentiment has been expressed, and is regularly by those in our electorate, and the pro-restriction organizations whom those politicians look to for support. Quit quibbling and admit that the point is valid.

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

Did someone say "Banning and confiscating guns is "reasonable regulation"" other than Publius?

Yes. Hillary, Governor Cuomo,

 

[Raz'r]

<SNIP>

Mightn't it be because several politicians have publicly stated that any "progress" on firearms restrictions are merely a stepping stone to confiscation?

got a cite for that?

I mean a powerful politician with a large coalition that would somehow be able to get a supermajority in congress and 75% of the states to go with him/her. Not some random rep from a statehouse.

So - now it has to be echoed by someone that you think's got the juice to immediately pull it off before the concerns raised by such a clamor are to be considered valid?

In answer - there are plenty - Barney Frank, Nancy Pelosi, Dianne Feinstein are a few that come immediately to mind. Not gonna do your googling for ya. The sentiment has been expressed, and is regularly by those in our electorate, and the pro-restriction organizations whom those politicians look to for support. Quit quibbling and admit that the point is valid.

none of them have advocated confiscation of all guns.

Some of them have advocated some restrictions on certain guns.

 

[Raz'r]

Because this post seems to equate reasonable regulation with the confiscation I was talking about in the post to which you replied.

Of course, the odds of confiscation for the majority of CT owners of banned weapons are much lower because they didn't register them.

The supremes have found reasonable regulation is fine. Cry me a river

i do not equate reasonable regulation with confiscation of ALL guns. Reasonable regulation might equate with making certain guns or gun parts illegal to own.

No sidewinder missiles for you!

 

[A guy in the Chesapeake]

<SNIP>

Mightn't it be because several politicians have publicly stated that any "progress" on firearms restrictions are merely a stepping stone to confiscation?

got a cite for that?

I mean a powerful politician with a large coalition that would somehow be able to get a supermajority in congress and 75% of the states to go with him/her. Not some random rep from a statehouse.

So - now it has to be echoed by someone that you think's got the juice to immediately pull it off before the concerns raised by such a clamor are to be considered valid?

In answer - there are plenty - Barney Frank, Nancy Pelosi, Dianne Feinstein are a few that come immediately to mind. Not gonna do your googling for ya. The sentiment has been expressed, and is regularly by those in our electorate, and the pro-restriction organizations whom those politicians look to for support. Quit quibbling and admit that the point is valid.

none of them have advocated confiscation of all guns.

Some of them have advocated some restrictions on certain guns.

OK Flash - can you provide a cite that refutes that they've each one in turn made comments that indicated that any restriction implemented now was merely a first step towards greater restrictions and ultimately confiscation? Keep quibbling - it doesn't make anyone on the pro-rights side feel like affording more consideration to your perspective, not that I think that's a concern for anyone on the prohibition side of the discussion.

 

[Raz'r]

<SNIP>

Mightn't it be because several politicians have publicly stated that any "progress" on firearms restrictions are merely a stepping stone to confiscation?

got a cite for that?

I mean a powerful politician with a large coalition that would somehow be able to get a supermajority in congress and 75% of the states to go with him/her. Not some random rep from a statehouse.

So - now it has to be echoed by someone that you think's got the juice to immediately pull it off before the concerns raised by such a clamor are to be considered valid?

In answer - there are plenty - Barney Frank, Nancy Pelosi, Dianne Feinstein are a few that come immediately to mind. Not gonna do your googling for ya. The sentiment has been expressed, and is regularly by those in our electorate, and the pro-restriction organizations whom those politicians look to for support. Quit quibbling and admit that the point is valid.

none of them have advocated confiscation of all guns.

Some of them have advocated some restrictions on certain guns.

OK Flash - can you provide a cite that refutes that they've each one in turn made comments that indicated that any restriction implemented now was merely a first step towards greater restrictions and ultimately confiscation? Keep quibbling - it doesn't make anyone on the pro-rights side feel like affording more consideration to your perspective, not that I think that's a concern for anyone on the prohibition side of the discussion.

that's not how it works. You have made an assertion that a powerful national politician has advocated the overturning of the 2nd and the subsequent confiscation of all weapons.

I've not heard that. I'd like to see it.

 

[A guy in the Chesapeake]

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2013/03/11/schakowsky-assault-weapons-ban-is-just-the-beginning/

http://www.gunscholar.org/gunban.htm#politicians

http://www.gunscholar.org/gunban.htm#advocacy

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/336373/cuomo-confiscation-could-be-option-eliana-johnson

Just a couple - wasting my time to provide citations that you'll look at simply long enough to find something to quibble about isn't really something I'm interested in doing. I know you'll deride the sources - prove they're wrong.

 

[Raz'r]

ok, so I picked one at random - Cuomo proposing to ban assault rifles, including possible confiscation of the same.

And do you think this is the same as confiscating ALL weapons?

Interesting. Did you pass 4th grade English?

 

[slatfatf]

So as long as someone is willing to let me keep my flintlock, they are not advocating for confiscation of guns and I am just being paranoid when I voice concern over the plans to "retrieve" the other guns I own. Is that what I am supposed to buy into? Because even on my worst day, I can see that as a crock of malarkey from a mile away.

 

[Raz'r]

So as long as someone is willing to let me keep my flintlock, they are not advocating for confiscation of guns and I am just being paranoid when I voice concern over the plans to "retrieve" the other guns I own. Is that what I am supposed to buy into? Because even on my worst day, I can see that as a crock of malarkey from a mile away.

the entire country had an "assault weapons" ban for awhile.

it did not lead to broad confiscation. Sorry for your confusion.

 

[A guy in the Chesapeake]

ok, so I picked one at random - Cuomo proposing to ban assault rifles, including possible confiscation of the same.

And do you think this is the same as confiscating ALL weapons?

Interesting. Did you pass 4th grade English?

Nope - I failed 3rd grade english and pass all my posts thru my English teacher wife for editing/proofreading. thanks for making my point.

Confiscation is confiscation - once you accomplish the first one, it's a much smaller step to stretch the precedent than it was to establish it in the first place. None of this addresses the inefficacy of any as of yet proposed bans/confiscations to achieve the results which were proffered as support for the proposals in the first place. It also suggests that in this one case, we should ignore the well established tendency of enforcement agencies to stretch precedent and statute well beyond initial intentions to the growth/self perpetuation of those enforcement agencies.

If we're going to accept intrusion on an enumerated right, with the understanding and expectation that the government will use this precedent to further intrude upon other liberties, shouldn't we at least be permitted to insist that the change will accomplish its stated intent?

How 'bout this - let's accept whatever limits the prohibitionists want for the 2nd, and apply those same constraints to every other enumerated right in the BOR. Accept that, and I'll begin to think that the prohibitionists understand the gravity of their suggestions, and are willing to actually consider real, effective changes that should result in a positive change in the personal behaviors that are responsible for the terrible instances of violence that we've come to see all too often.

Padding the corners simply invites the lunatics to find better ways to pull off the padding.

 

[A guy in the Chesapeake]

So as long as someone is willing to let me keep my flintlock, they are not advocating for confiscation of guns and I am just being paranoid when I voice concern over the plans to "retrieve" the other guns I own. Is that what I am supposed to buy into? Because even on my worst day, I can see that as a crock of malarkey from a mile away.

the entire country had an "assault weapons" ban for awhile.

it did not lead to broad confiscation. Sorry for your confusion.

Would you conflate attempts at further bans being politically defeated to not having been proffered?

 

[Raz'r]

So as long as someone is willing to let me keep my flintlock, they are not advocating for confiscation of guns and I am just being paranoid when I voice concern over the plans to "retrieve" the other guns I own. Is that what I am supposed to buy into? Because even on my worst day, I can see that as a crock of malarkey from a mile away.

the entire country had an "assault weapons" ban for awhile.

it did not lead to broad confiscation. Sorry for your confusion.

Would you conflate attempts at further bans being politically defeated to not having been proffered?

To answer the question preceding this - each of the "rights" in the BoR has regulations that have been deemed ok by the Supremes, so I'm very comfortable with regulatory regimes for each of them. I assume you are as well.

As to the 2nd, the cry from the gun club seems to be "give an inch and they'll take a mile!" I don't buy it. I think you've been whipped into a NRA fundraising frenzy.

 

[slatfatf]

Good grief. If you applied the same logic to abortions, then it is completely reasonable to:

have a 7 day cooling off period before the procedure

forced transvaginal ultrasounds

limit all procedures to the first trimester

allow biological fathers to veto the procedure

etc. etc. etc.

Just because you have not completely eliminated a right, does not mean you have not substantially infringed on that right. I know that many many people here fail to see that having the govt ban and threaten confiscation of the most popular types of handguns and rifles is nothing to be concerned about, but for those of us affected, it most certainly is. Further, if you want us to take you at all seriously, then you need to stop with the dishonest bullshit. At least Soak Ed is honest, I can respect that. I do not agree with him on it, but I can respect it because he is not being dishonest.

 

[A guy in the Chesapeake]

So as long as someone is willing to let me keep my flintlock, they are not advocating for confiscation of guns and I am just being paranoid when I voice concern over the plans to "retrieve" the other guns I own. Is that what I am supposed to buy into? Because even on my worst day, I can see that as a crock of malarkey from a mile away.

the entire country had an "assault weapons" ban for awhile.

it did not lead to broad confiscation. Sorry for your confusion.

Would you conflate attempts at further bans being politically defeated to not having been proffered?

To answer the question preceding this - each of the "rights" in the BoR has regulations that have been deemed ok by the Supremes, so I'm very comfortable with regulatory regimes for each of them. I assume you are as well.

As to the 2nd, the cry from the gun club seems to be "give an inch and they'll take a mile!" I don't buy it. I think you've been whipped into a NRA fundraising frenzy.

I respect your right to disagree, but, I think that we've all seen property confiscation, increased personal scrutiny, policing for profit, IRS intrusions, etc establish the precedent for increasing restrictions rather than rationally evaluating them for consideration of their continuation or cessation. I don't think that it's wrong to be concerned about the same enforcement behaviors being applied to the 2nd absent constant and vigorous opposition.