Unless the NYT editors live in some fantasy world(which they just might), they must realize that any attempt at confiscation of firearms would lead to another civil war. Are they really that stupid, or do they think they can win that type of confrontation? I believe their true aim is to simply eliminate all those who think differently, by any means necessary. Same type of convoluted thinking concerning a so called "assault weapons" ban. They know that it will have absolutely no effect on crime. Clinton knew that as well, as the released memos now show clearly, but it was enacted anyway. So, what was the real purpose behind it?
New York Times Calls for Confiscation in Page 1 Editorial
- Thread starter Bartholomew Roberts
- Start date
Let's try to keep this discussion on the topic of the Times's op-ed, and not wander off into general politics and the election and Hillary, however tempting it may be. Anything Hillary has said that's on point is on point. Discussion of the election isn't on point, isn't on-topic for the forum, and is pointless. I doubt anyone who might comment on this thread wants to see Hillary voted anywhere except prison in 2016. You're preaching to the choir.
I don't think "stupid" is quite the right word.
Asinine Arrogance comes to mind. Narrow minded bigotry also suggests itself.
Unshakable faith in their own moral rectitude...
No one, and nothing else is important as what we want, but we won't say that, outright, we will just SELL it to you disguised as altruistic concern for the safety of the great unwashed....
Wake up, people the NYT is sneering at us....again...
Did Obama get a ban?
Once in the hands of the White House staff a lot of the campaign rhetoric gets dumped. Is GTMO still there? Did someone say we need to get out of Iraq, but now is saying we need to send SF teams into Syria?
They have to make common sense decisions, and they get input from experienced leaders in the Cabinet and Chiefs of Staff who tell them what their real options are.
Hillary in the clutches of their machine won't stand a chance any more than any other President. Any.
Ban? By what authority? It takes Congress passing legislation, if an EO could be written it would be already. Congress won't be complicit with another ban, they let it slide and sunset.
Confiscation? Paying $100 per gun for 330 million of them will directly cost $33 billion dollars. Ms Clinton states we could do it the Australian way, by forcing a tax increase on the citizen to pay for it all. Add some kind of bureaucratic layer of management to oversee it, appointing a Commissioner of Compensation, and fighting off thousands of lawsuits. Where do we turn them in? States won't do it as it would be an unfunded mandate. More bureaucracy. I would expect TSA levels of incompetence and mismanagement, fraud, and theft as the incoming guns are pilfered to arm the disarmament stooges.
House to house searching? How long does it take an experienced team to search every nook and cranny to find one gun, what scanners are they going to use, are there enough ground searching radars to sweep the entire lot, or acreage? Who's going to do it? Not the Sheriffs in NY state, they won't even support the SAFE act. 75% of the owners of guns under that law aren't registering them, either.
Incarcerate those who refuse to turn them in? Not hardly. If the individual is over 60, on medication, poor, and would like improved health care, better quarters, friends of like mind, free food - hey, beats the VA or a nursing home. So where do you incarcerate thousands of old guys needing eldercare - the jails are already overcrowded in most areas. No local jurisdiction would even consider it. And GTMO won't be nearly big enough. We would need those fabled detention camps that don't exist to house them all - and where do we get the staff? More red tape, overhead, and bureaucracy.
Each and every one will need legal counsel and that will jam the courts to a complete standstill. A huge number of lawsuits would reach the Federal level and the risk is that they would prevail in just one decision.
If patience lasts that long - the Second Amendment is working and alive and well. WE HAVE THE GUNS - force can and will be met with force. Given the overreaction that an incident like the Brady Ranch created, all over unpaid grazing rights, it wouldn't take much for some hotheads to drag us all into the Second Civil War long before we could resolve it peacefully. Ask our forefathers - that opinion existed at the time, to continue a peaceful resolution despite the outrages of the Crown against it's own citizens.
Sure, the Times is calling for confiscation. Actually, the more talk the better. All the above needs to be laid out for the public to see and reason over. There will be no confiscation, and bans won't work as they only leave the guns in the hands of the public anyway. No, they can't get what they want, guns are here, like it or not, and now it's time THEY compromise and get over it.
They don't have any choice about it anyway.
Once in the hands of the White House staff a lot of the campaign rhetoric gets dumped. Is GTMO still there? Did someone say we need to get out of Iraq, but now is saying we need to send SF teams into Syria?
They have to make common sense decisions, and they get input from experienced leaders in the Cabinet and Chiefs of Staff who tell them what their real options are.
Hillary in the clutches of their machine won't stand a chance any more than any other President. Any.
Ban? By what authority? It takes Congress passing legislation, if an EO could be written it would be already. Congress won't be complicit with another ban, they let it slide and sunset.
Confiscation? Paying $100 per gun for 330 million of them will directly cost $33 billion dollars. Ms Clinton states we could do it the Australian way, by forcing a tax increase on the citizen to pay for it all. Add some kind of bureaucratic layer of management to oversee it, appointing a Commissioner of Compensation, and fighting off thousands of lawsuits. Where do we turn them in? States won't do it as it would be an unfunded mandate. More bureaucracy. I would expect TSA levels of incompetence and mismanagement, fraud, and theft as the incoming guns are pilfered to arm the disarmament stooges.
House to house searching? How long does it take an experienced team to search every nook and cranny to find one gun, what scanners are they going to use, are there enough ground searching radars to sweep the entire lot, or acreage? Who's going to do it? Not the Sheriffs in NY state, they won't even support the SAFE act. 75% of the owners of guns under that law aren't registering them, either.
Incarcerate those who refuse to turn them in? Not hardly. If the individual is over 60, on medication, poor, and would like improved health care, better quarters, friends of like mind, free food - hey, beats the VA or a nursing home. So where do you incarcerate thousands of old guys needing eldercare - the jails are already overcrowded in most areas. No local jurisdiction would even consider it. And GTMO won't be nearly big enough. We would need those fabled detention camps that don't exist to house them all - and where do we get the staff? More red tape, overhead, and bureaucracy.
Each and every one will need legal counsel and that will jam the courts to a complete standstill. A huge number of lawsuits would reach the Federal level and the risk is that they would prevail in just one decision.
If patience lasts that long - the Second Amendment is working and alive and well. WE HAVE THE GUNS - force can and will be met with force. Given the overreaction that an incident like the Brady Ranch created, all over unpaid grazing rights, it wouldn't take much for some hotheads to drag us all into the Second Civil War long before we could resolve it peacefully. Ask our forefathers - that opinion existed at the time, to continue a peaceful resolution despite the outrages of the Crown against it's own citizens.
Sure, the Times is calling for confiscation. Actually, the more talk the better. All the above needs to be laid out for the public to see and reason over. There will be no confiscation, and bans won't work as they only leave the guns in the hands of the public anyway. No, they can't get what they want, guns are here, like it or not, and now it's time THEY compromise and get over it.
They don't have any choice about it anyway.