Re: Robert “Beto” O’Rourke laughs at El Paso shooting
« Reply #20 on: August 05, 2019, 08:56:24 AM »
Irrelevant. His reaction to a situation in the moment in no way dictates how he will tactically use the situation to further an agenda.

I guess you missed the part where he immediately began blaming Trump for the shooting.
I don't see how stating facts is bad.

Since you seem to have fallen into insanity, I guess we're done here.

So President Trump has never said how evil immigrants are?  How bad mexicans are?  How much they bring drugs and rape and murder into America?

*

Offline Fortuna

  • *
  • Posts: 1920
    • View Profile
Re: Robert “Beto” O’Rourke laughs at El Paso shooting
« Reply #21 on: August 05, 2019, 09:05:18 AM »
Irrelevant. His reaction to a situation in the moment in no way dictates how he will tactically use the situation to further an agenda.

I guess you missed the part where he immediately began blaming Trump for the shooting.
I don't see how stating facts is bad.

Since you seem to have fallen into insanity, I guess we're done here.

So President Trump has never said how evil immigrants are?  How bad mexicans are?  How much they bring drugs and rape and murder into America?

I've only ever heard him talk about curbing illegal immigration and stopping criminals and drugs from entering our country. The "Mexican phobia" narrative is something that's been pushed by fringe left wing media, and seems to have caught on due to gullible people and those looking for any reason to hate Trump.

You sound like those people who say BLM is responsible for increased police violence. Next, you'll probably blame the 20+ mass shootings that happened during the last presidency on Obama.
« Last Edit: August 05, 2019, 09:08:31 AM by Fortuna »
I stopped going to the gym because of Trump. Now I can't open jars

Re: Robert “Beto” O’Rourke laughs at El Paso shooting
« Reply #22 on: August 05, 2019, 10:49:43 AM »
I don’t think they’ll be able to take down the 2nd Amendment, but I can see most blue states banning rifle ammo over the course of the next couple of years.
Are you suggesting that would be a bad thing? As a Brit who cannot begin to understand the US’s relationship with guns I cannot begin to imagine why any of you would want a semi-automatic rifle in your houses. If you think they’re fun to shoot then super, go to a range. If you buy the “self defence” argument (which is bollox) then you don’t need a sodding assault rifle for self defence.

You needn’t worry, as a society it’s clear you’re more concerned with your rights than you kids’ lives. I will literally never understand that.
We don't need uninformed people labeling any type of gun as an, "assault weapon."

If I want to own a semi-automatic gun, I should be able to own a semi-automatic gun.
« Last Edit: August 05, 2019, 12:34:56 PM by totallackey »

Re: Robert “Beto” O’Rourke laughs at El Paso shooting
« Reply #23 on: August 05, 2019, 11:10:44 AM »
We don't need uniformed people labeling any type of gun as an, "assault weapon."
I reckon if you can kill 9 people and injure 27 within a minute (reports are that the gunman in Ohio was killed within a minute) then you have an assault weapon.

Quote
If I want to own a semi-automatic gun, I should be able to own a semi-automatic gun.

Why should you? Why should it be your right that you can own a weapon powerful enough to kill/injure that many people that quickly and efficiently?
There are very few countries in the world where that is a right, the reason for that should be obvious.
If you are making your claim without evidence then we can discard it without evidence.

Re: Robert “Beto” O’Rourke laughs at El Paso shooting
« Reply #24 on: August 05, 2019, 12:11:55 PM »
We don't need uniformed people labeling any type of gun as an, "assault weapon."
I reckon if you can kill 9 people and injure 27 within a minute (reports are that the gunman in Ohio was killed within a minute) then you have an assault weapon.
I reckon Bruce Lee or Jackie Chan would qualify as an assault weapon.
Quote
If I want to own a semi-automatic gun, I should be able to own a semi-automatic gun.

Why should you?
Because what I own is none of your business.

Because what you own is none of my business.
Why should it be your right that you can own a weapon powerful enough to kill/injure that many people that quickly and efficiently?
Just in case I need to kill that many people quickly and efficiently.

I do not make it business to go around seeking out trouble, but I have seen instances where gangs of people (two or more) do go around seeking out trouble.
There are very few countries in the world where that is a right, the reason for that should be obvious.
"Obvious..."

The good ole," ...if I need to explain it to you, never mind..." mantra.

Re: Robert “Beto” O’Rourke laughs at El Paso shooting
« Reply #25 on: August 05, 2019, 12:32:09 PM »
Irrelevant. His reaction to a situation in the moment in no way dictates how he will tactically use the situation to further an agenda.

I guess you missed the part where he immediately began blaming Trump for the shooting.
I don't see how stating facts is bad.

Since you seem to have fallen into insanity, I guess we're done here.

So President Trump has never said how evil immigrants are?  How bad mexicans are?  How much they bring drugs and rape and murder into America?

I've only ever heard him talk about curbing illegal immigration and stopping criminals and drugs from entering our country. The "Mexican phobia" narrative is something that's been pushed by fringe left wing media, and seems to have caught on due to gullible people and those looking for any reason to hate Trump.

You sound like those people who say BLM is responsible for increased police violence. Next, you'll probably blame the 20+ mass shootings that happened during the last presidency on Obama.
From the mouth of Trump.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/06/16/trump_mexico_not_sending_us_their_best_criminals_drug_dealers_and_rapists_are_crossing_border.html

He literally tells people that Mexico is sending us people with problems who bring crime, drugs, and are rapists.  And some (he assumes but obviously doesn't know) are good people. 

Re: Robert “Beto” O’Rourke laughs at El Paso shooting
« Reply #26 on: August 05, 2019, 12:36:48 PM »
Irrelevant. His reaction to a situation in the moment in no way dictates how he will tactically use the situation to further an agenda.

I guess you missed the part where he immediately began blaming Trump for the shooting.
I don't see how stating facts is bad.

Since you seem to have fallen into insanity, I guess we're done here.

So President Trump has never said how evil immigrants are?  How bad mexicans are?  How much they bring drugs and rape and murder into America?

I've only ever heard him talk about curbing illegal immigration and stopping criminals and drugs from entering our country. The "Mexican phobia" narrative is something that's been pushed by fringe left wing media, and seems to have caught on due to gullible people and those looking for any reason to hate Trump.

You sound like those people who say BLM is responsible for increased police violence. Next, you'll probably blame the 20+ mass shootings that happened during the last presidency on Obama.
From the mouth of Trump.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/06/16/trump_mexico_not_sending_us_their_best_criminals_drug_dealers_and_rapists_are_crossing_border.html

He literally tells people that Mexico is sending us people with problems who bring crime, drugs, and are rapists.  And some (he assumes but obviously doesn't know) are good people.
Can you clarify who you are writing about when you quote Trump?

Surely you cannot consider yourself to be part of the "us."?

Re: Robert “Beto” O’Rourke laughs at El Paso shooting
« Reply #27 on: August 05, 2019, 12:48:05 PM »
Because what I own is none of your business.
Because what you own is none of my business.

Yeah, but that's not true, is it? If you own a bloody great bomb which could blow the whole block sky high and I live on that block then that is my business.
For obvious reasons there are lots of weapons you can't buy legally. Sure, you might be a very responsible owner of a bloody great bomb and will only detonate it in the event of a zombie apocalypse, but is everyone so responsible? Probably not, so the sale of certain things are restricted. Some things you need to have licences for, some things no-one is allowed to own privately.

No society works on the basis that people can do what they like and own what they like. For any society to function it has to have some rules.
You can't buy a bomb which would kill hundreds of people.
You can't drive as fast as you like, not just because you might kill yourself but you might kill someone else. You can't drive when you're drunk.

Unless you think it should be a complete free-for-all and you should be able to do whatever you like in which case you're advocating anarchy, not society.

Quote
The good ole," ...if I need to explain it to you, never mind..." mantra.

The events of the last weekend are the explanation, if I have to spell it out. And the fact that these are far from isolated events, they happen with wearying regularity in the US.
And the response is always the same - we need more guns! If only the "good guys" had guns! Well they did have guns in Ohio and the gunman was dispatched with impressive efficiency. Unfortunately he had a weapon powerful enough to kill 9 people and injure 26 beforehand.

The benefits of you being able to have weapon that powerful (your "rights" and the ludicrously unlikely scenario in which you might need to use a weapon that powerful yourself) are more than outweighed by the huge drawback of mass shootings being a common occurrence in the US. 
If you are making your claim without evidence then we can discard it without evidence.

Re: Robert “Beto” O’Rourke laughs at El Paso shooting
« Reply #28 on: August 05, 2019, 01:04:48 PM »
Because what I own is none of your business.
Because what you own is none of my business.

Yeah, but that's not true, is it? If you own a bloody great bomb which could blow the whole block sky high and I live on that block then that is my business.
For obvious reasons there are lots of weapons you can't buy legally. Sure, you might be a very responsible owner of a bloody great bomb and will only detonate it in the event of a zombie apocalypse, but is everyone so responsible? Probably not, so the sale of certain things are restricted. Some things you need to have licences for, some things no-one is allowed to own privately.

No society works on the basis that people can do what they like and own what they like. For any society to function it has to have some rules.
You can't buy a bomb which would kill hundreds of people.
You can't drive as fast as you like, not just because you might kill yourself but you might kill someone else. You can't drive when you're drunk.

Unless you think it should be a complete free-for-all and you should be able to do whatever you like in which case you're advocating anarchy, not society.
Where did I advocate the strict policy of bomb ownership you stated?

Nowhere is the answer.

Semi-automatic weapons are not assault weapons.

Automatic weapons are already banned.

You could have spared everyone the extended and unsubstantiated diatribe and strawman you erected.

Now, is Bruce Lee and Jackie Chan to be considered an assault weapon or no?

Quote
The good ole," ...if I need to explain it to you, never mind..." mantra.

The events of the last weekend are the explanation, if I have to spell it out. And the fact that these are far from isolated events, they happen with wearying regularity in the US.
Do you even live in the US?

Answer - no.

Can you have an opinion on things in the US?

Answer - Sure, uninformed as they are.

Should you be trying to influence policy decisions in the US?

Answer - no.

How many more lives are spared via the use of firearms in the US than are lost?

Do you even know that answer?

Not sure anyone does, but light may start to be shed...
https://www.capitalismmagazine.com/2019/04/how-many-lives-are-saved-by-guns-and-why-dont-gun-controllers-care/
Besides, no one can argue those calling for more strict gun control laws are those hiding behind the comfort and safety of...you guessed it...ARMED SECURITY GUARDS!!!
And the response is always the same - we need more guns! If only the "good guys" had guns! Well they did have guns in Ohio and the gunman was dispatched with impressive efficiency. Unfortunately he had a weapon powerful enough to kill 9 people and injure 26 beforehand.

The benefits of you being able to have weapon that powerful (your "rights" and the ludicrously unlikely scenario in which you might need to use a weapon that powerful yourself) are more than outweighed by the huge drawback of mass shootings being a common occurrence in the US.
No, they're not.

Nothing matters to me more than my own life.

I can do nothing without having my own life to worry about.

Nothing outweighs my own life.
« Last Edit: August 05, 2019, 03:25:48 PM by totallackey »

*

Offline Rama Set

  • *
  • Posts: 5629
  • Round and round...
    • View Profile
Re: Robert “Beto” O’Rourke laughs at El Paso shooting
« Reply #29 on: August 05, 2019, 02:07:49 PM »
I wouldn’t consider Bruce Lee I’d Jackie Chan to be assault weapons. One is dead, the other is a senior citizen. Should an elite martial artist be out in the same category as a weapon that can kill dozens of people a minute at range? No, a martial artist is not anywhere remotely as dangerous as even a person with a knife nevermind a gun.
You don't get races of anything ... accept people.

Re: Robert “Beto” O’Rourke laughs at El Paso shooting
« Reply #30 on: August 05, 2019, 03:21:08 PM »
I wouldn’t consider Bruce Lee I’d Jackie Chan to be assault weapons. One is dead, the other is a senior citizen. Should an elite martial artist be out in the same category as a weapon that can kill dozens of people a minute at range? No, a martial artist is not anywhere remotely as dangerous as even a person with a knife nevermind a gun.
Glad you brought up knives.

Handguns are the type of weapon preferred by murders by far...

And personal weapons is within the range of remote (roughly 40 percent).

https://www.statista.com/statistics/195325/murder-victims-in-the-us-by-weapon-used/

Re: Robert “Beto” O’Rourke laughs at El Paso shooting
« Reply #31 on: August 05, 2019, 03:41:40 PM »
Where did I advocate the strict policy of bomb ownership you stated?

I was just making the point that societies have rules. Some of those rules include things you can and cannot own. Those rules are not there to "oppress" you, they're there to have some order. Now, different societies have different rules. The right to bear arms is pretty hard baked into your constitution and psyche, in many countries that is not the case. But remember that the amendment was ratified in 1791, before guns were efficient enough to kill 10 people and wound 26 in under a minute. Now you do have weapons that efficient then you might want to think about whether it should be your right to own one. Because you might be nice and responsible and not go around killing loads of people with it, but not everyone is that responsible

Quote
Now, is Bruce Lee and Jackie Chan to be considered an assault weapon or no?

If they are efficient enough to kill 10 people and wound 26 in under a minute with their bare hands, then yes. But I don't think you should be able to own Bruce Lee either.

Quote
Should you be trying to influence policy decisions in the US?

I doubt you are in a position to make policy decisions. I doubt anyone reading this is either. So me expressing my opinions, which you have agreed I'm entitled to, is not doing that.

Quote
How many more lives are spared via the use of firearms in the US than are lost?

Good question and I'd suggest it's one that's very hard to answer.

Quote
Besides, no one can argue those calling for more strict gun control laws are those hiding behind the comfort and safety of...you guessed it...ARMED SECURITY GUARDS!!!

Aren't they just people who see the number of mass shootings as "a problem" and think that problem should be addressed?
Do you see it as a problem? If not then...wow. If you do then what do you think should be done about it?
Realistically, disarming is going to be difficult, even if the gun lobby weren't so powerful the genie is out of the bottle in the US.

Quote
No, they're not.
Well, nuh-uh isn't much of a response but you might want to think about whether you want to live in a society where you're in fear of your life.
Maybe if other people didn't have powerful weapons you wouldn't feel the need to own one yourself.
After the nightclub shooting there was some ridiculous quote (I think from your mate Trump) about how if more people had had guns then the shooter could have been neutralised.
Two stupid things about that:
1) Would having more people in a dark room shooting in panic really have helped the situation?
2) Do you want to live in a society where you feel the need to go for a night out armed?

The trouble is in the US you can't even start the debate without people screaming THEY WANT TO TAKE AWAY ALL YOUR GUNS!
Didn't Trump do just that in the run up to the last election? Claiming that Clinton was going to take away all your guns? The NRA certainly did.
But it was a complete lie, Clinton never said no-one should have guns but any hint at better control leads to that reaction.
If you are making your claim without evidence then we can discard it without evidence.

Re: Robert “Beto” O’Rourke laughs at El Paso shooting
« Reply #32 on: August 05, 2019, 03:59:47 PM »
Where did I advocate the strict policy of bomb ownership you stated?

I was just making the point that societies have rules. Some of those rules include things you can and cannot own. Those rules are not there to "oppress" you, they're there to have some order. Now, different societies have different rules. The right to bear arms is pretty hard baked into your constitution and psyche, in many countries that is not the case. But remember that the amendment was ratified in 1791, before guns were efficient enough to kill 10 people and wound 26 in under a minute. Now you do have weapons that efficient then you might want to think about whether it should be your right to own one. Because you might be nice and responsible and not go around killing loads of people with it, but not everyone is that responsible.
You are correct. Not everyone is that responsible.

I am.

And I don't need you or someone else telling me I cannot own what I want to own.
If they are efficient enough to kill 10 people and wound 26 in under a minute with their bare hands, then yes. But I don't think you should be able to own Bruce Lee either.
The people capable of instituting policy decisions such as those you advocate in this instance have at their disposal multiple Bruce Lees and Jackie Chans, effectively owning them.
Quote
Should you be trying to influence policy decisions in the US?

I doubt you are in a position to make policy decisions. I doubt anyone reading this is either. So me expressing my opinions, which you have agreed I'm entitled to, is not doing that.
I have been in such positions, but you are correct. Not any longer.

So, you admit the Russian Hoax was a hoax?
Good question and I'd suggest it's one that's very hard to answer.
Actually, not that hard to answer.

"Criminologist and researcher Gary Kleck, using his own commissioned phone surveys and number extrapolation, estimates that Americans use guns for defensive purposes 1.2 million times each year — and that 1 in 6 Americans who have used guns defensively believe someone would have died but for their ability to resort to their defensive use of firearms." -comes out to roughly 200,000 US lives saved per year.
Quote
Besides, no one can argue those calling for more strict gun control laws are those hiding behind the comfort and safety of...you guessed it...ARMED SECURITY GUARDS!!!

Aren't they just people who see the number of mass shootings as "a problem" and think that problem should be addressed?
Do you see it as a problem?
Not the biggest problem.

What is to prevent a person from simply grabbing a a car and motoring these people down?
If not then...wow. If you do then what do you think should be done about it?
Apprehend the perpetrators, kill them if they cannot be apprehended, reinstitute the National programs on mental health and substance abuse.
Realistically, disarming is going to be difficult, even if the gun lobby weren't so powerful the genie is out of the bottle in the US.
Yep.

And criminals and those intent on using such weapons will...wait for it...find a way to get them anyway.
Quote
No, they're not.
Well, nuh-uh isn't much of a response but you might want to think about whether you want to live in a society where you're in fear of your life.
I am not in fear of my life from morons like any of these idiots committing these acts.
Maybe if other people didn't have powerful weapons you wouldn't feel the need to own one yourself.
After the nightclub shooting there was some ridiculous quote (I think from your mate Trump) about how if more people had had guns then the shooter could have been neutralised.
Explain Switzerland?
Two stupid things about that:
1) Would having more people in a dark room shooting in panic really have helped the situation?
2) Do you want to live in a society where you feel the need to go for a night out armed?
Personally, I don't.

But if I did go out in such a place, I am armed and ready.
The trouble is in the US you can't even start the debate without people screaming THEY WANT TO TAKE AWAY ALL YOUR GUNS!
Didn't Trump do just that in the run up to the last election? Claiming that Clinton was going to take away all your guns? The NRA certainly did.
But it was a complete lie, Clinton never said no-one should have guns but any hint at better control leads to that reaction.
Which side are you arguing again?

You just said "better control," while ceding it is out of control.
« Last Edit: August 06, 2019, 10:20:40 AM by totallackey »

*

Offline timterroo

  • *
  • Posts: 697
  • domo arigato gozaimashita
    • View Profile
Re: Robert “Beto” O’Rourke laughs at El Paso shooting
« Reply #33 on: August 05, 2019, 07:10:42 PM »
Wow folks, I'm not sure where to start with this one....

There are a lot of arguments that I agree with, on both sides.

First off, and to be clear, I am not in favor of removing guns from private citizens. I am a hunter and a "country kid" - I understand the value of guns. You do not need a so-called "assault rifle" to hunt big game, but I'm not going to get into the ambiguity of what can be considered an assault rifle because that is irrelevant. All guns kill. That is what they are designed to do. It is true that semi-auto and fully auto will kill more people more quickly, respectively.

I love shooting guns. For all you UK people out there, if you don't understand the pleasure in shooting a gun, you might never - and that is ok. It must be an American thing, but let me tell you. It is AMAZING! It is a huge stress reliever to fire off round after round and not only hear the sound of the bullet, but feel it, the recoil, the explosion, the sound of the bullet cutting the air, and as it hits the target.

This enjoyment is increased with semi-auto and fully-auto weapons. That is the number one reason I would like to have one in my home - I currently do not. I own one gun (30/30 winchester lever action, open site). It is a good brush gun for hunting deer - and oh so fun to shoot. Any other reasons for owning one of these seems superficial and moot. We are not under attack and we are not being oppressed by our government. You certainly don't need a semi for self-defense, at least not in the US.

People do not become murderers due to them owning an assault rifle. Eliminating guns will not stop the violence. The violence will adapt/evolve, and there will be other ways to mass-murder.

What's happening, and what will happen with each shooting is an attempt by some law makers to exploit the tragedy for their own agendas. This adds salt on the wound and fuel to the fire. We need to take the focus off of guns for a moment, and focus on our families. We are in the midst of a crisis, and that is called, lack of parenting. Our children are being influenced in ways that weren't imaginable 20 or 30 years ago, and parents of the previous generation suffocated by their own struggles are unaware and incapable of dealing with the social influences on their offspring.

America is indeed in crisis, but it is not a gun crisis. It is a humanitarian crisis. America is lost. Let's stop fighting about whether or not we should control guns, and start worrying about why our children want to destroy each other.
"noche te ipsum"

"If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough."  - Albert Einstein

Re: Robert “Beto” O’Rourke laughs at El Paso shooting
« Reply #34 on: August 05, 2019, 08:33:46 PM »
America is indeed in crisis, but it is not a gun crisis. It is a humanitarian crisis. America is lost. Let's stop fighting about whether or not we should control guns, and start worrying about why our children want to destroy each other.
Loads of good stuff in that post but just wanted to respond quickly to say that the UK is facing that exact same crisis.
Because of our different laws that manifests itself as stabbings but it is still a big problem in London and while cuts in policing numbers is a factor I agree a lack of parenting and breakdown of family units is a root cause of a lot of this.
If you are making your claim without evidence then we can discard it without evidence.

*

Offline timterroo

  • *
  • Posts: 697
  • domo arigato gozaimashita
    • View Profile
Re: Robert “Beto” O’Rourke laughs at El Paso shooting
« Reply #35 on: August 05, 2019, 09:12:31 PM »
Here is an argument against gun elimination:

Consider the drug market....

Heroin and crack are illegal and punishments for  possession of even small amounts are extreme. Does anyone who wants heroin or crack have a hard time obtaining it? .... No. Even without money people seem to find a way to get it.

Suppose you outlaw guns... Do you think it will be enforced or eliminated any better than heroin or crack? No.

In fact, what will likely happen is that it will create an underground black market in which only criminals will be able to obtain guns because law abiding citizens will of course obey the law.

So, effectively that monopolizes guns for criminals. If I were trying to start a militia, I would be in favor of gun control because that ensures my enemy will have a difficult time arming themselves.
« Last Edit: August 05, 2019, 09:15:13 PM by timterroo »
"noche te ipsum"

"If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough."  - Albert Einstein

*

Offline Rama Set

  • *
  • Posts: 5629
  • Round and round...
    • View Profile
Re: Robert “Beto” O’Rourke laughs at El Paso shooting
« Reply #36 on: August 05, 2019, 11:33:21 PM »
I’m in favor of gun control but think banning them is silly. License them to ensure competence. Maybe have firearms inspected as part of the license renewal, so that authorities can ensure you still possess the guns you claim to. Don’t sell guns to mentally ill or criminals. Make people whose guns are involved in a crime that haven’t been properly reported either criminally or civilly liable or both.
You don't get races of anything ... accept people.

*

Offline junker

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8745
    • View Profile
Re: Robert “Beto” O’Rourke laughs at El Paso shooting
« Reply #37 on: August 06, 2019, 02:49:08 AM »
I’m in favor of gun control but think banning them is silly. License them to ensure competence. Maybe have firearms inspected as part of the license renewal, so that authorities can ensure you still possess the guns you claim to. Don’t sell guns to mentally ill or criminals. Make people whose guns are involved in a crime that haven’t been properly reported either criminally or civilly liable or both.

Going to have to repeal/replace the 2nd amendment for any serious restrictions to actually be put in place.

*

Offline Snupes

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 1829
  • I summon my love back to me
    • View Profile
Re: Robert “Beto” O’Rourke laughs at El Paso shooting
« Reply #38 on: August 06, 2019, 02:59:31 AM »
Quote
If I want to own a semi-automatic gun, I should be able to own a semi-automatic gun.

Why should you?
Because what I own is none of your business.

And how far does that extend? Do you believe one should be able to own any form of weapon?
« Last Edit: August 06, 2019, 03:01:10 AM by Snupes »
Quote from: garygreen date=1480782226
i also took an online quiz that said i was a giraffe.  and i guess you're dumb enough to believe that i must be because the internet said so.

Re: Robert “Beto” O’Rourke laughs at El Paso shooting
« Reply #39 on: August 06, 2019, 05:52:40 AM »
Here is an argument against gun elimination:

Consider the drug market....

Heroin and crack are illegal and punishments for  possession of even small amounts are extreme. Does anyone who wants heroin or crack have a hard time obtaining it? .... No. Even without money people seem to find a way to get it.

Suppose you outlaw guns... Do you think it will be enforced or eliminated any better than heroin or crack? No.

In fact, what will likely happen is that it will create an underground black market in which only criminals will be able to obtain guns because law abiding citizens will of course obey the law.

So, effectively that monopolizes guns for criminals. If I were trying to start a militia, I would be in favor of gun control because that ensures my enemy will have a difficult time arming themselves.

This is a flawed argument.
I don't know how to get cocain, heroine, or even weed.  Most people don't.  Those that do were either introduced by someone who used it or someone who sold it. 

Also note: those drugs are super expensive.  People get them but its not like its easy or cheap.  And there are far less drug users than gun owners.