Should the US government ban firearms for civilians?

Yes, I know we've asked this question many times over the years, but I believe it to be a subject where opinions can change over time. What say you? Please vote and add your commentary below.

There isn't a "no" option

Josie said:

Yes, I know we've asked this question many times over the years, but I believe it to be a subject where opinions can change over time. What say you? Please vote and add your commentary below.

Click to expand...

No.
And it would be impossible to do so anyway...physically impossible, fiscally impossible and logistically impossible.
There's almost four hundred million guns in private hands now. Trying to pass some kind of 2A prohibition would drive three hundred million of those guns underground almost immediately, my guess.

Imagine the budget for trying to go around all over the country in an effort to track them down, confiscate them, penalize the owners, etc.
We're talking a budget larger than Medicare, with about three to five percent seizure success, and double the number being manufactured and sold in a brand new black market anyway.

If people think the "war on drugs" was a massive failure, imagine the "war on guns".
Liberals are going to have sit down and ponder the fact that there is no such possibility. Banning firearms is impossible.

Last but not least, seeing as how the Right have already decided long ago that they're itching for a civil war (any of a dozen excuses) liberals had better make their peace with the 2A and arm themselves.

uptower said:

There isn't a "no" option

Click to expand...

That would be option 3 or 4.

uptower said:

There isn't a "no" option

Click to expand...

"Those firearms already banned should be allowed" is a no option.

Josie said:

Yes, I know we've asked this question many times over the years, but I believe it to be a subject where opinions can change over time. What say you? Please vote and add your commentary below.

Click to expand...

What happened to "No?" (Or my real preference, HELL NO!)?

"Something else" doesn't quite do it. :no:

I agree with others here, there should of been a better Hell No option.

Captain Adverse said:

What happened to "No?" (Or my real preference, HELL NO!)?

"Something else" doesn't quite do it. :no:

Click to expand...

That's option 3 or 4.

AProudLefty said:

That's option 3 or 4.

Click to expand...

Hmmm, I saw those options and the other response...

But IMHO neither of those options really catches the absolute, firm, forceful spirit of NO!, or "No way in hell!," or even it's shorter version "HELL No!"

"No".

I believe the only reason that politicians want to restrict firearms from law abiding citizens is because the politicians want to do things to the citizens that will likely get those same firearms used against them.

Captain Adverse said:

Hmmm, I saw those options and the other response...

But IMHO neither of those options really catches the absolute, firm, forceful spirit of NO!, or "No way in hell!," or even it's shorter version "HELL No!"

Click to expand...

Yeah I understand what you mean.

Josie said:

That would be option 3 or 4.

Click to expand...

Your poll is one of the uncommonly non-bias in its wording. Many to most polls started are so bias and pointedly so as to be worthless.

Well done!

Since it is only about firearms, I voted to lift all bans.

Machine guns are not anywhere near as lethal as people believe. Proof? The US military dropped full autos for most infantry, opting for a 3 round burst or single shot choice only. The Marine we knew who was in a lot of combat as a squad leader in the Helmand District of Afghanistan at the height of fighting years ago said they NEVER used the 3 round burst because round 2 and 3 is in the air. The one full auto was for "suppression fire" - meaning "scare 'em" fire. They killed with repeated single shots - meaning only pulling the trigger when back on target. That's not as fast as full auto, but full auto faster misses are worthless.

The other reason is people who want to mass kill will opt for bombs, vehicles, aircraft, poisons, disease and other ways to kill FAR more people than AR15 .223s.

The lying political activism of Google is apparent if you search "greatest mass murders in USA history." Instead, it will NOT give this at the start, but automatically diverts to "largest mass shootings."

Why? The greatest mass murders have NOT been by guns. Rather, they have been by deliberate arson and bombs. Even the greatest number killed in mass murder by firearms was NOT by ANY high capacity fire arm and before ARs even existed, back in the 1920s.

You will NEVER hear this by the media - ever. To them, unless a gun is involved they pretend the mass murder never happened at all. Why? It is NOT about murder. It is about the rich and powerful who buy their own small protective armies wanting us peasants to be defenseless.

Which firearm did the terrorists use for the 9-11 attack?

Not offered in poll: No

4 & 5 do not accurately portray my opinion.

No is my answer.