https://www.denverpost.com/2019/08/14/real-estate-agent-commerce-city-assault-knife-bear-mace-gun/ Summary: Female realtor in Colorado prepping a condo for an open house had an ex-con show up at the door and ask to see the unit. Once inside he pulled a knife and bear mace, tried to rob her and ordered her into a closet. She pulled her handgun from an ankle holster (!) and fired at him but missed. He left in a hurry and was later arrested. Imagine feeling you had to carry a handgun to be safe showing a condo. Then imagine that people wanted to take that right away from you.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/2020-dems-assault-weapons-buyback-all-of-them O’Rourke doubled down when he tweeted out video of his comments. “I was asked how I’d address people’s fears that we will take away their assault rifles,” he wrote Monday alongside the video. “I want to be clear: That’s exactly what we’re going to do.” “Americans who own AR-15s and AK-47s will have to sell their assault weapons,” he continued. “All of them.”
_____________________________________________________________ Here is exactly what I posted. Please read it, as you seemed to have not understood what I wrote. I may be mistaken, but i am not aware of any prominant politician, unless taken out of context in some edited video, for example, calling for banning guns in the context of all guns. There are no serious, nor will there be, legislative proposals from politicians on either side of the aisle calling for the banning of ALL guns. The banning of military style assault weapons is, however, entirely consistent with Heller (please read the Scalia opinion , if you have any doubt whether I am correct on this point. I also call your attention to my addendum below in which I quote particularly salient passages from the the Heller opinion, which I have studied at length.) Heller is now the law of the land, until and unless, overturned. We have already made note of some politicians expressing the or opinion that we would all be better off if there were no guns, or various permutations along the same lines, but this is of course wishful thinking on their part. All politicians recognize the second amendment as the law of the land. What would be entirely legal under the second amendment would be a requirement that all firearms be registered. That is something that should strike terror into the heart of the alt right. But isn't that precisely where we are headed if the gun industry's lobby remains steadfastly unresponsive to overwhelming public opinion?
No one believes that folks like Beto, or Corey Booker will stop at one type of gun. What they are going to do is establish precedence and then come for all guns. It is because you have people pushing for extreme positions that the other side of the argument reacts with extreme positions. I don't know why this is so hard to understand.
Addendum to my response to Tsing Tao re 1. whether a banning of all guns is being called for in any serious legislative proposal. And 2. What may reasonably be done re regulation of firearms under the Second Amendment, according to Heller. from the Heller opinion: [quotes below are taken directly from D.C. et al. v. Heller. Please note the page numbers here are the page numbers in the opinion itself and will not necessarily agree with PDF page numbering.] pg 53 We therefore read Miller to say only that the Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns.That accords with the historical understanding of the scope of the right, see Part III, infra.25 pg 54 Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. pgs 54-5 Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. pg 55 We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.” See 4 Blackstone 148–149 (1769); pg 55-6 It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.
It is hard for a reasonable person to understand your view because it supposes, lawlessness among some politicians -- not in itself hard to accept, but it also supposes, at the same time, one of the pillars of the Bill of Rights would simply be ignored by right-minded fellow politicians, by the Courts, and by the people. That is terribly unreasonable. What you suppose is not going to happen, unless people like yourself steadfastly refuse to give an inch on regulation. A large majority of citizens, including you and I, even after all the crazy mass shootings using military style weapons, are standing firm on the right of individual citizens to "bear arms, " -- just not any arms for any purpose. Most of us Democrats, Republicans and Independents believe in reasonable and uniform gun regulation; regulation that in no way violates our Second Amendment Rights. A person who persists in the nutty idea that all guns will be banned is doing themselves no favor. There is likely to be a backlash to unreasonableness. The result could be greater restriction than necessary. As a matter of fact you are witnessing a backlash forming right now. Public opinion is 90% in favor of uniform background checks for gun purchasers, and ~70% are in favor of banning military style weapons. Don't let your unreasonable views cause you to have to put up with more regulation than you should. Instead why not get on the bandwagon for reasonable, not overly intrusive regulation.