Make Gun Grabbers Physically Take Guns from Gun Supporters

Those who support gun bans should be forced to physically and personally take away the guns from their neighbors. No relying on the police or other contractors.

How will gun grabbers do if they actually have to grab people’s guns?


The problem lies in having a ‘gun culture’. It is literally a culture of violence. Everyone wants to carry their pistol around so they can fantasize about saving the day or taking down bad guys and pretending to be James Bond.

You don’t need a full (or semi) auto machine gun. You don’t need a 30 round clip.

If you want to hunt, fine. Get a wooden hunting rifle. You don’t need an m16 or AR15.

No @GGG YOU clearly do not need any of those things, and that is fine. It is our right to keep and bear arms. If you choose not to keep and bear arms, that is your choice…but don’t you dare put your life choices on me. Now, as the original posts indicated, tell me what you are going to do to come and take my guns that you believe I do not need. I’d love to see the day.

1 Like

Never gonna happen. Any time a liberal touches a gun they go into automatic PTSD shock. Look at this fully automatic AK-AR15 Shotgun that fires grenades with spaces for extra missiles.

No liberal is going to come and take your guns. Come to your senses.

Reasonable Options

What we can do is take steps that go into effect, starting now:

  • We could require licenses for gun ownership. To get a license would require proof of safe storage and extensive proficiency and safety training. This period would allow observation and the opportunity to spot the disturbed. Most people can’t hide extreme emotional pathology for long.
  • Require license candidates to take a test for violence. Psychologists can devise tests with questions that don’t suggest correct responses, thwarting those trying to game the system.
  • Ban the sale of semi-auto pistols, allowing only revolvers of six shots or less.
  • Ban the sale of semi-auto and slide-action rifles. Other systems require a short pause to chamber each new round. Short pauses make the shooter far more vulnerable to being overpowered.
  • Ban magazines of over five shots. Changing mags requires time. Anything that makes the would-be perpetrator of a massacre stop shooting, for a time, would make him think about wasting shots and so, not fire as rapidly.

Other Options

Limit Civilian Firearms to Breechloaders.

Perhaps, the fastest loading firearms allowed to civilians should be single shot breech loaders, which could never be used for a massacre by a single, or even a few, individuals because they require substantial manipulation between shots. But single shot breech loaders equipped with modern aiming optics, still make excellent hunting weapons.

The last alternative would be to ban the sale of firearms to civilians.

The second amendment is being deliberately misinterpreted: Gun advocates take last half of the second amendment literally “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”. And they ignore the first half “A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State”. Back then, the militia was comprised of citizen-soldiers, who, when called, reported for duty, with their own weapons. Today, the equivalent is the National Guard / Reserves who are issued weapons only after they report for duty.

I have an idea. Make the two parties do in their conventions what they advocate for the country.

Republicans have to allow anyone with a permit to carry a gun. Open or concealed, rifle or handgun. This includes people in the front row watching the debate.

Democrats can ban guns at their conventions, but they aren’t allowed to post security at any point of entry or check anyone for a valid ID or tickets. Anyone who wants to may walk in or out, undocumented and unsearched, anytime, and go anywhere within the convention at will.

1 Like

So if some swishy poof corners me with a feather duster, I’m expected to hand over my guns, correct?

The same goes for all of the elites who have armed private security details.

Never going to happen but you can keep dreaming! And no the 2nd Amendment is not deliberately being misinterpreted that is just you trying rewrite its definition!

The problem lies in having a ‘swim culture’. It ls literally a culture of drowning. Everyone wants to have a pool in their backyard so they can fantasize about being Michael Phelps or getting healthy.

You don’t need a deep, Olympic swimming pool. You don’t need a diving board.

If you want to get wet, fine. Take a bath. You don’t need a big pool.

What an astounding display of ignorance and lies. Bravo!

It isn’t up to them to dictate as to our needs nor are our rights predicated on need.

The BOR was specifically passed and ratified to protect our most precious rights.

Chief among those rights is our right to life which is why they ensured we’d have the appropriate means with which to defend ourselves.

The right to self defense would be meaningless without the appropriate means to do so.

1 Like

Reasonable my ass.

As for your misrepresentation of the intent of the 2nd Amendment service in any organized militia was required for the exercise of our rights.

In times of emergency we all become the militia. Every man, woman, and child capable of acting in their or our common defense is “The Militia”.

Er… Wut?

What law allows any person to use physical force to take anything from anyone based upon their opinion or personal beliefs.

Not sure I’m following your logic here.

Who are you responding to DM? It’s unclear.

The OP…

Of course they won’t be doing the work themselves, they’ll be sitting at home surrounded by armed security while sending other armed men and women out to carry out the orders at grave risk to themselves.

It’s rhetorical and pointing out the hypocrisy of those demanding our firearms be confiscated.

You are right, it is being misinterpreted … by you and the rest of the gun-grabbers. “The right of the people to keep and bear arms is an individual right irrespective of the collective of the Militia.” - Majority opinion of the Supreme Court, Heller v. D.C.

1 Like

Actually it’s both according to the ruling.

“The People” both collectively and individually.