Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 02-20-2018, 02:05 AM
AgingLiberalD AgingLiberalD is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 67
I solved the gun control problem.

Now to be fair, I'm fairly certain my idea is not unique, however I feel that it is a fairly good solution for limiting access to firearms while still allowing access to the general public.

Before I get started, I want to point out that I am not implying that I solved the issue of gun violence. That is a separate debate. Furthermore, my use of the word "solved" in the title was just to get people to read my ideas and debate the merits of them, so don't be a nit-picker.

The local and federal government could regulate an industry that maintains structures meant to secure firearms and ammunition. We can call these buildings "armories".

At these armories, members of the public could register for a club. For the sake of argument, let's call these clubs "militias".

Members of these militias would be required to undergo background checks and regular therapy as a condition of membership. Another condition of membership is regular and mandatory training.

All firearms will be stored at the armories at all times. If a member wants to use a firearm off premesis, they would be allowed to check out certain weapons. Possible reasons for checking out a firearm include: registered organized shooting events, or hunting. (I'm not really sure what guns are useful for outside of shooting things or killing things. Cross-country skiing practice?) Well-trained members of this militia may even be allowed to check out firearms to assist the police in protecting the community in the very unlikely event they are nearby a situation which requires their training. Ammunition would also have to be checked out, and all spent shell casings and unused ammunition must be returned to prevent diversion of ammunition. This has the added benefit of recycling spent casings. Otherwise, all members would be allowed to use all other firearms on premesis.

As for implementing this plan, existing guns could be grandfathered in, with laws allowing voluntary donation of firearms to licensed armories. These laws could also establish reasonable limits for gun possession, preventing citizens from attempting to skirt regulation and operate illegal armories as personal firearms are phased out.

I feel like after a few decades there would be a significant reduction in the availability of firearms, correlating with a decline in gun violence. As stated before, this plan doesn't solve the problem of gun violence, but it does effectively curb the availability of guns which in turn lowers the instances of gun related crimes.
  #2  
Old 02-20-2018, 02:23 AM
MEBuckner MEBuckner is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Atlanta, Georgia, USA
Posts: 11,617
Well, gosh, we could solve all our apparently intractable political debates this way!

Let's move on to abortion:

"Pro-life" version: Women who are pregnant should just carry their babies to term and then give birth to them.
"Pro-choice" version: We should just all agree that it's totally the woman's choice whether or not she gets an abortion.

See? Easy!
__________________
"In our obscurity, in all this vastness, there is no hint that help will come from elsewhere to save us from ourselves." -- Carl Sagan

Ceterum censeo imperium Trumpi esse delendam
  #3  
Old 02-20-2018, 02:30 AM
AgingLiberalD AgingLiberalD is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by MEBuckner View Post
Well, gosh, we could solve all our apparently intractable political debates this way!

Let's move on to abortion:

"Pro-life" version: Women who are pregnant should just carry their babies to term and then give birth to them.
"Pro-choice" version: We should just all agree that it's totally the woman's choice whether or not she gets an abortion.

See? Easy!
Wow, you seem like an accomplished master-debator.

Unfortunately this thread is about gun control. If you would like to talk about abortion you can certainly start a separate thread.

Maybe next post you can add something productive to this discussion.

Last edited by AgingLiberalD; 02-20-2018 at 02:31 AM. Reason: Poor word choice
  #4  
Old 02-20-2018, 03:00 AM
HurricaneDitka HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 9,585
"Regular therapy", really? I'm a bit surprised you didn't add in there that gun owners will be required to wear a scarlet letter. This whole thing is a dumb idea that would be opposed by the NRA, Republicans, and many gun owners. It is not politically viable in today's political climate. It holds absolutely no appeal for me as a gun owner, and if it ever got any serious momentum, I'd oppose it vociferously.

Last edited by HurricaneDitka; 02-20-2018 at 03:03 AM.
  #5  
Old 02-20-2018, 03:35 AM
AgingLiberalD AgingLiberalD is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
"Regular therapy", really? I'm a bit surprised you didn't add in there that gun owners will be required to wear a scarlet letter. This whole thing is a dumb idea that would be opposed by the NRA, Republicans, and many gun owners. It is not politically viable in today's political climate. It holds absolutely no appeal for me as a gun owner, and if it ever got any serious momentum, I'd oppose it vociferously.
What seems bad about regular therapy to you? Therapy is not indicative of a mental health problem, but it can help identify them sooner. And according to republicans, many people who commit gun violence are mentally unstable. This is a solution to reduce the amount of mentally unstable people with access to firearms. Unless of course, republicans don't actually want a solution to the problem they invented.

Of course the idea would be opposed by the NRA and republicans. They oppose all solutions that aren't sell more guns.

What is the basis of your opposition? Is it because the plan would be ineffective, or because it doesn't fit your ideology? If it's the former, than why? Also, if you have any better ideas, now would be the time to post them.
  #6  
Old 02-20-2018, 03:40 AM
AgingLiberalD AgingLiberalD is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
I'm a bit surprised you didn't add in there that gun owners will be required to wear a scarlet letter.
Actually, I was thinking an American flag armband would get a sizeable amount of Trump's base on board.
  #7  
Old 02-20-2018, 05:07 AM
HurricaneDitka HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 9,585
Quote:
Originally Posted by AgingLiberalD View Post
What seems bad about regular therapy to you?
I don't want it mandated as a necessary step to exercise my RKBA.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AgingLiberalD View Post
Unless of course, republicans don't actually want a solution to the problem they invented.


Quote:
Originally Posted by AgingLiberalD View Post
What is the basis of your opposition?
It sounds like it would take away my ability to defend myself and my family, so thanks but no thanks, I think I'll pass.

Last edited by HurricaneDitka; 02-20-2018 at 05:08 AM.
  #8  
Old 02-20-2018, 06:46 AM
Bryan Ekers Bryan Ekers is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 57,523
I suppose there are arguments to be made for mandatory military service, or even military service as a requirement to get certain rights, so I'd start with those and if it reduces gun violence as a result, I'd consider that a happy side-effect.
__________________
Don't worry about the end of Inception. We have top men working on it right now. Top. Men.
  #9  
Old 02-20-2018, 06:47 AM
QuickSilver QuickSilver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 17,489
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
It sounds like it would take away my ability to defend myself and my family, so thanks but no thanks, I think I'll pass.
Defend them from who?... Ze Germans?
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.
  #10  
Old 02-20-2018, 07:07 AM
Fear Itself Fear Itself is offline
Friend of Cecil
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Flavortown
Posts: 35,186
Quote:
Originally Posted by QuickSilver View Post
Defend them from who?... Ze Germans?
From liberals coming to take his guns, of course.
  #11  
Old 02-20-2018, 08:04 AM
Jonathan Chance Jonathan Chance is online now
Domo Arigato Mister Moderato
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: On the run with Kilroy
Posts: 21,386
The Moderator Speaks

Quote:
Originally Posted by AgingLiberalD View Post
Wow, you seem like an accomplished master-debator.

Unfortunately this thread is about gun control. If you would like to talk about abortion you can certainly start a separate thread.

Maybe next post you can add something productive to this discussion.
That's enough of that.

AgingLiberalD, we pride ourselves on being able to debate without making ad hominems or other forms of personal attack. If you feel you must, please do so in the BBQ Pit. That's what it's there for.
  #12  
Old 02-20-2018, 08:25 AM
Lamoral Lamoral is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Fenario
Posts: 1,942
This is an awesome idea. The political climate in America is definitely ripe for such a solution to be implemented, and it will no doubt be trivially easy to accomplish. I mean, the political will is there, on both sides of the aisle, for sure. And Americans don't generally feel that firearms are useful for self-defense; everyone knows that a true gentleman carries a rapier, and for citizens of common stock, machetes and axes will suffice. There certainly aren't enough gun advocates to raise much of a public hue and cry about this proposal; and those that exist, are far too strapped for cash to make their voice heard.

In summation, I think this is an excellent idea. I think, in fact, that the Democratic Party should adopt this as an official platform, and campaign hard on it for the next few years. The voting public will definitely see the light, and it's a sure thing that Donald Trump will be voted out of office and replaced by a Democratic president.
  #13  
Old 02-20-2018, 08:38 AM
Shodan Shodan is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 37,056
Quote:
Originally Posted by AgingLiberalD View Post
Members of these militias would be required to undergo background checks and regular therapy as a condition of membership.
Do you have figures on how good mental health therapists are at predicting who will be violent, and how effective therapy is in reducing violent incidents? Especially for people who don't show any symptoms of mental illness.
Quote:
All firearms will be stored at the armories at all times. If a member wants to use a firearm off premesis, they would be allowed to check out certain weapons. Possible reasons for checking out a firearm include: registered organized shooting events, or hunting.
Could I check out my weapon if I wanted it to defend myself or my home?

The Second Amendment guarantees two things - the right to keep, and the right to bear arms. If I am required to turn my rifle in to an armory for them to keep, that appears to violate the "keep" part, and if I have to get permission to check my weapon out, that would appear to violate the "bear" part.

Keep also in mind that the Second Amendment guarantees the right of the people, not the states nor the federal government, to keep and bear arms. It also says that a militia is necessary to a free state. There are already two kinds of militias in the US - the organized militia, like the National Guard, and the unorganized militia, which is every able-bodied man between 17 and 45 (cite). So that part is taken care of.

Gun violence has been decreasing in the US for several years, so you will also need to show the necessity for this kind of regulation. Whatever we are doing now, seems to be working, despite some recent incidents. So that also is a burden needing to be overcome when you go to prove that what you suggest is effective, and necessary.

Go ahead and prove it. I don't want to be that guy who says we can't debate gun control.

So,
  • a cite showing that mental health therapists can accurately predict who will be violent in the general population
  • a cite showing that therapy reduces violence when required for the general public, and
  • an explanation on how requiring me to store my guns under government control does not violate the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

Regards,
Shodan

PS - Welcome to the SDMB.
  #14  
Old 02-20-2018, 08:47 AM
XT's Avatar
XT XT is offline
Agnatheist
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Great South West
Posts: 33,560
So this seems like a 'solution' where the gun control and anti-gun folks get everything they want while the pro-gun side gives up basically everything they have currently and for no apparent gain. I realize that to liberals who are anti-gun this seems a fair trade, but I seriously doubt many on the pro-gun side are going to be too keen.

Quote:
The local and federal government could regulate an industry that maintains structures meant to secure firearms and ammunition. We can call these buildings "armories".
Quote:
At these armories, members of the public could register for a club. For the sake of argument, let's call these clubs "militias".
I'm assuming you are using all this contrived language because you plan to re-reinterpret the 2nd as a collective right and this will make it fit.

You left out the part where " the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"...you seem to be advocating in your solution a pretty heavy infringement.

Quote:
Members of these militias would be required to undergo background checks and regular therapy as a condition of membership. Another condition of membership is regular and mandatory training.
So, for the privilege of having their weapons taken from them and put in 'armories' that they can only access when they are there or under very limited circumstances they have to also qualify to be in the club and they have to jump through these hoops as well to qualify. Who is paying for this btw? Have each member to pony up for background checks and 'regular therapy' as well as training? All that costs money. Of course, since the idea is to make things as difficult as possible for...um, I guess we can't even call them gun owners anymore, so...members? Since the idea seems to be to put up barriers and make things as difficult as possible there probably won't be that many people who are willing to jump through all these hoops and pay for the privilege, so it's most likely a win-win for you and your side.

Quote:
As for implementing this plan, existing guns could be grandfathered in, with laws allowing voluntary donation of firearms to licensed armories. These laws could also establish reasonable limits for gun possession, preventing citizens from attempting to skirt regulation and operate illegal armories as personal firearms are phased out.
Existing guns (all 360+ million of them) will still be out on the streets? I seriously doubt more than 10% would be donated, unless that's a subtle way of saying you plan to do similar things to your clubs to encourage people to 'donate'. I see you've put the hooks in with 'could also establish reasonable limits for gun possession, preventing citizens from attempting to skirt regulation and operate illegal armories as personal firearms are phased out', so I'll assume that's part of the plan.

Quote:
I feel like after a few decades there would be a significant reduction in the availability of firearms, correlating with a decline in gun violence. As stated before, this plan doesn't solve the problem of gun violence, but it does effectively curb the availability of guns which in turn lowers the instances of gun related crimes.
I'm not seeing it unless you are going to get very draconian on your grandfathered in guns...which, based on the rest of your OP I'd guess is part of the plan anyway. I know you put a lot of thought into this, but sadly I don't think you know much about the subject or your opposition side or even the politics involved in even attempting what you are proposing. Simply put, it won't work unless you become God King of America and can just push through the legislature by fiat and your gods-given authority.

I also have my doubts that, even if you managed to put it in place it would really have that big an effect on lowering gun violence in the US. You might drop the number of gun murders a few thousand a year (say, from ~11K to ~7-8K) but my WAG is we'd simply go from ~5K non-gun related murders to ~7-8K. I don't think it would have much effect on suicides, which are the majority of deaths caused by guns in the US.
__________________
-XT

That's what happens when you let rednecks play with anti-matter!

Last edited by XT; 02-20-2018 at 08:51 AM.
  #15  
Old 02-20-2018, 08:55 AM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos Chronos is online now
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 78,093
Unfortunately, such an idea would never pass, because the Constitution says absolutely nothing about well-regulated militias, just that gun control of any form is absolutely prohibited.
  #16  
Old 02-20-2018, 09:02 AM
XT's Avatar
XT XT is offline
Agnatheist
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Great South West
Posts: 33,560
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
Unfortunately, such an idea would never pass, because the Constitution says absolutely nothing about well-regulated militias, just that gun control of any form is absolutely prohibited.
Naw, you got that wrong...the Constitution ONLY talks about a well-regulated militia and never mentions whether the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. That's why the OPs plan will work so well...there is nothing in there protecting the right of the people, only militias!
__________________
-XT

That's what happens when you let rednecks play with anti-matter!
  #17  
Old 02-20-2018, 09:04 AM
Shodan Shodan is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 37,056
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
Unfortunately, such an idea would never pass, because the Constitution says absolutely nothing about well-regulated militias, just that gun control of any form is absolutely prohibited.
Just the opposite - the idea doesn't fly because of what the Constitution does say. Would you care to address that?

Regards,
Shodan
  #18  
Old 02-20-2018, 09:15 AM
shunpiker shunpiker is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Central North Carolina
Posts: 1,449
Who's gonna pay for it?
  #19  
Old 02-20-2018, 09:22 AM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos Chronos is online now
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 78,093
I said the idea wouldn't fly because of what the Constitution says. You say that it's the opposite, that the idea wouldn't fly because of what the Constitution says. I think you might not have gotten my point.
  #20  
Old 02-20-2018, 09:24 AM
Crotalus's Avatar
Crotalus Crotalus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Chillicothe, Ohio
Posts: 5,887
Dude, you joined the board to post this crap? This is a left-leaning (by US measures) board where your (and my) lefty politics will find plenty of friendly support, but your solution is laughably one-sided and decidedly unclever.
  #21  
Old 02-20-2018, 09:27 AM
XT's Avatar
XT XT is offline
Agnatheist
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Great South West
Posts: 33,560
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
I said the idea wouldn't fly because of what the Constitution says. You say that it's the opposite, that the idea wouldn't fly because of what the Constitution says. I think you might not have gotten my point.
I figured you were being facetious. Because the Constitution doesn't say anything about regulation or gun control, and we have certainly regulated other protected rights such as free speech...you just can't completely abolish access without vacating the amendment first (or doing what the anti-gun types tried in the past, which is re-interpret it so that they can circumvent it and take the right away by legislative sleight of hand). The OPs plan wouldn't work because it's a major infringement on the right of the people to keep and bear arms, so my guess is the OP plans to have his new USSC re-re-interpret the 2nd to be a collective right so that he can get around that stuffy technicality and make it all about the militias.
__________________
-XT

That's what happens when you let rednecks play with anti-matter!
  #22  
Old 02-20-2018, 09:32 AM
Ashtura Ashtura is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,045
With all due respect, this isn't going to accomplish squat.

If all existing guns are "grandfathered in" then we're still going to have a massive, MASSIVE amount of guns out there. There are more guns in america, then there are Americans.

And, c'mon, "regular therapy?' Many, many mentally ill people, especially on medication, KNOW what "normal" looks like, because they observe it every day, even if they aren't, and can fake it to some therapist. I have little doubt Paddock would have passed this test.

This does nothing, practically nothing, to stop some guy from doing a checkout and shooting up a school.

There is only ONE solution. Repeal the 2nd amendment and do a massive gun grab. That will be a bloody, bloody day that will make school shootings look like child's play.

Then, perhaps allow for bolt action rifle sales, small capacity pump shotguns, and that's it. That should reasonably cover hunting, target shooting, and home protection.
  #23  
Old 02-20-2018, 09:34 AM
HurricaneDitka HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 9,585
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ashtura View Post
... There is only ONE solution. Repeal the 2nd amendment and do a massive gun grab. That will be a bloody, bloody day that will make school shootings look like child's play.

Then, perhaps allow for bolt action rifle sales, small capacity pump shotguns, and that's it. That should reasonably cover hunting, target shooting, and home protection.
You think your side would win that "bloody, bloody day"?
  #24  
Old 02-20-2018, 09:37 AM
Jonathan Chance Jonathan Chance is online now
Domo Arigato Mister Moderato
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: On the run with Kilroy
Posts: 21,386
The Moderator Speaks

Quote:
Originally Posted by Crotalus View Post
Dude, you joined the board to post this crap? This is a left-leaning (by US measures) board where your (and my) lefty politics will find plenty of friendly support, but your solution is laughably one-sided and decidedly unclever.
Let's try to keep it civil, Crotalus. We like civil.
  #25  
Old 02-20-2018, 09:41 AM
Ashtura Ashtura is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,045
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
You think your side would win that "bloody, bloody day"?
You're being presumptuous. I don't even own a gun. I have no stake in this whatsoever. But I know plenty of people that aren't giving up their guns unless you pry them from their cold, dead hands. SWAT style raids against the uncooperative is going to be a bloody, bloody day. Don't fool yourself.
  #26  
Old 02-20-2018, 09:41 AM
Thudlow Boink Thudlow Boink is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Lincoln, IL
Posts: 25,342
Quote:
Originally Posted by AgingLiberalD View Post
The local and federal government could regulate an industry that maintains structures meant to secure firearms and ammunition. We can call these buildings "armories".
...
All firearms will be stored at the armories at all times.
Many (though not all) of the pro-gunners are motivated by fear of governmental tyranny. The idea of giving control of all the nation's guns to one powerful entity is naturally going to alarm them, and perhaps some of the rest of us.
  #27  
Old 02-20-2018, 09:43 AM
Jonathan Chance Jonathan Chance is online now
Domo Arigato Mister Moderato
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: On the run with Kilroy
Posts: 21,386
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
You think your side would win that "bloody, bloody day"?
Honestly, Ditka, the US would win in a walk. A repeal of the 2nd amendment - along with the attendant laws about seizure and such - would bring law enforcement and potentially the National Guard into the process. Posse commitatus prevents the full time military from getting involved.

But once professional military units get involved gun owners would lose. It's hard for your hobbyists to stand up against police, much less professionals with top of the line equipment.

I've heard this argument before, that there's no means by which people could be disarmed at this point. That's true under current circumstances. But under a repeal situation it would just be a matter of being willing to pay the price.

The reason such standoffs seemingly function - Waco, the Bundy stuff and so forth - is that the government, in the persons of law enforcement and the military - has decided the goal isn't worth the price. The minute that calculus changes the guns will be taken and a lot of people will die quickly. After that collecting the remaining guns - from those who like them but aren't willing to die for them (doubtless later referred to as summer soldiers and sunshine patriots) - will be a simple matter of administrative headaches.
  #28  
Old 02-20-2018, 09:43 AM
Beckdawrek's Avatar
Beckdawrek Beckdawrek is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: So.Ark ?
Posts: 8,481
If they stopped 'all' gun manufacturing today, it would be several decades before there would any kind of shortage. I am married to a Redneck, southern guy. You won't pry his gun out of his hand. He will not give them up freely. My son; same. Everybody I know; same. It ain't happening. And if it starts getting pushed upon them, I promise they will start hoarding.
My people are all ex-military, they know guns and how to use and store them.
Your idea won't fly around here.
They are not the ones going around shooting up soft targets,though.
All solutions must target the 'problem' gun owner. I don't know how they will determine this, but that can be the only solution.

Last edited by Beckdawrek; 02-20-2018 at 09:46 AM.
  #29  
Old 02-20-2018, 09:45 AM
watchwolf49 watchwolf49 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: State of Jefferson
Posts: 8,474
Which Constitution? ... from the State Constitution of Indiana (for example):

Quote:
Section 32. The people shall have a right to bear arms, for the defense of themselves and the State.
If Them the People of Indiana wanted Federal gun control, you'd think they would amend their own constitution first ... quite a few states have this kind of language in their state constitutions so the first battles to be fought will have to be in the State Houses across the land ... whatever the magnitude of difficulty of getting 2/3's of each house of the US Congress to agree, now try getting 38 States to ratify ...
  #30  
Old 02-20-2018, 09:54 AM
XT's Avatar
XT XT is offline
Agnatheist
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Great South West
Posts: 33,560
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonathan Chance View Post
Honestly, Ditka, the US would win in a walk. A repeal of the 2nd amendment - along with the attendant laws about seizure and such - would bring law enforcement and potentially the National Guard into the process. Posse commitatus prevents the full time military from getting involved.

But once professional military units get involved gun owners would lose. It's hard for your hobbyists to stand up against police, much less professionals with top of the line equipment.

I've heard this argument before, that there's no means by which people could be disarmed at this point. That's true under current circumstances. But under a repeal situation it would just be a matter of being willing to pay the price.

The reason such standoffs seemingly function - Waco, the Bundy stuff and so forth - is that the government, in the persons of law enforcement and the military - has decided the goal isn't worth the price. The minute that calculus changes the guns will be taken and a lot of people will die quickly. After that collecting the remaining guns - from those who like them but aren't willing to die for them (doubtless later referred to as summer soldiers and sunshine patriots) - will be a simple matter of administrative headaches.
As unlikely as the image of the heroic gun owner fighting off the federal government Red Dawn style. The thing is, a lot of people who are in the police force and national guard are also gun owners...same with every branch of the military. And even if the police and military obeyed in lockstep, even a few incidents of Americans being killed defending their guns would be a huge PR cluster fuck of epic proportions. Hell, Waco was a bunch of religious nuts who WANTED the government to come in to fight and kill them in some sort of apocalypse trigger event a la ISIL, and that was still a PR nightmare. Something like average Joe American and his wife and 2.5 kids being killed or injured to take their guns away is not going to play well on the news.

More likely what you'd have is a lot of people just hiding their weapons. We don't have enough police or military to do complete searches of everyone who MIGHT own guns home.

I agree that, eventually, over time it will reduce the number of guns in the US substantially if you vacated the 2nd and put in more draconian gun controls or bans...but I think there will still be 10's if not 100's of millions of guns out there, and the pain of doing it this way would be pretty bad, even if it didn't spark a civil war...and it will make those who already see liberals under their bed ready to grab their guns even more fervent in their desire to hold onto them.
__________________
-XT

That's what happens when you let rednecks play with anti-matter!
  #31  
Old 02-20-2018, 10:00 AM
watchwolf49 watchwolf49 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: State of Jefferson
Posts: 8,474
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonathan Chance View Post
Honestly, Ditka, the US would win in a walk ... [snip] ... But once professional military units get involved gun owners would lose. It's hard for your hobbyists to stand up against police, much less professionals with top of the line equipment ... [snap]
That's insane ... FBI, Marshall's office and the National Guard fighting it out with State Police and local sheriff's offices ... then what, Federal authorities will have to occupy the county because the people can't be trusted to elect compliant officials ... take away the guns, the pressure cookers, the charcoal briquets, kitchen knives, nails ... all the time under sniper fire ...

Blood bath ... how many millions of cold dead fingers will the Feds have to pry open? ... how many Nation Guardsmen will refuse to gun down American civilians? ... "What if you knew her and saw her dead on the ground" ...

Last edited by watchwolf49; 02-20-2018 at 10:02 AM.
  #32  
Old 02-20-2018, 10:08 AM
Jonathan Chance Jonathan Chance is online now
Domo Arigato Mister Moderato
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: On the run with Kilroy
Posts: 21,386
Quote:
Originally Posted by XT View Post
As unlikely as the image of the heroic gun owner fighting off the federal government Red Dawn style. The thing is, a lot of people who are in the police force and national guard are also gun owners...same with every branch of the military. And even if the police and military obeyed in lockstep, even a few incidents of Americans being killed defending their guns would be a huge PR cluster fuck of epic proportions. Hell, Waco was a bunch of religious nuts who WANTED the government to come in to fight and kill them in some sort of apocalypse trigger event a la ISIL, and that was still a PR nightmare. Something like average Joe American and his wife and 2.5 kids being killed or injured to take their guns away is not going to play well on the news.
Well, I've heard this response, too. But doesn't that imply there's no reason to be scared of the government taking guns from people? It's a catch-22 in gun debates.

You're absolutely correct that it would be a PR nightmare. But in the scenario described, that the people as a whole had approved an Amendment, I'd feel comfortable postulating that the PR nightmare would be on the other side. If we're at the point where we're repealing the 2nd amendment people are going to see the National Guard and Police as heroes of the national will. Those resisting will, on the whole, be seen as criminals being arrested or mad dogs being put down.

Not that I think it's ever going to happen. And I agree that the 2nd Amendment allows for private ownership of guns. I'm just enormously opposed to argument from emotion - which is what the above seems to be - rather than argument from procedure and data.

Not unlike my position on marijuana. It's internally inconsistent to have marijuana illegal and have beer and whiskey legal. Inconsistency in policy bugs the fuck out of me.

While, I'm ranting - forgive me - I really resent how polarized this issue is. I don't actually give a fuck about ownership of guns but it becomes impossible to discuss it without the other side assuming one is an extremist on the other side. It's a Gresham's law of discussion. There's got to be a reasonable middle, but the whack jobs on both sides prevent the vast middle from even coming together to discuss it.
  #33  
Old 02-20-2018, 10:11 AM
ElvisL1ves ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 47,036
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
You think your side would win that "bloody, bloody day"?
How many tanks, jets, bombs, and missiles does "your side" have? Better get cracking.

Besides, what resistance? If you all really are "law-abiding citizens" like we keep hearing, you'll abide by the law, won't you? Or is that term somewhat selective?
  #34  
Old 02-20-2018, 10:25 AM
Shodan Shodan is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 37,056
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
I said the idea wouldn't fly because of what the Constitution says. You say that it's the opposite, that the idea wouldn't fly because of what the Constitution says. I think you might not have gotten my point.
I don't think your point was very well taken - the Constitution does say what I said it did, and it doesn't say what you said (apparently facetiously) it did.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonathan Chance
Honestly, Ditka, the US would win in a walk. A repeal of the 2nd amendment - along with the attendant laws about seizure and such - would bring law enforcement and potentially the National Guard into the process. Posse commitatus prevents the full time military from getting involved.
It's a difficult hypothetical to talk about, because repealing the Second Amendment would mean that a super-majority of state legislatures and/or Americans wanted it, and therefore a super-majority would not fight.

A slightly more reasonable hypothetical might be where the Supreme Court simply announces (asChronos facetiously suggested) that the Constitution doesn't mean what it says, that there is no right of the people to keep and bear arms, and tries to impose the kind of restrictions suggested in the OP. That would not be a walk, because there would not be a super-majority in its favor.

There are various figures on defensive gun uses in the US ranging from 400,000 to 3 million per year. Suppose we take the lower figure - does the US have the will, or the resources, to prosecute 400,000 people a year for using an illegal gun to defend themselves?

shunpiker asks who is going to pay for the armory, and storage, and treatment, and administration of the whole program. That is a perfectly valid question, which is why I asked above for figures on how effective it would be. Who tracks if I am showing up for my regular therapy sessions? If a psychologist decides I am not sane enough to own a gun, do I have due process rights to appeal, or to confront witnesses against me? Am I presumed innocent? What are my privacy rights to this diagnosis? Do I have the right to an attorney, and if I cannot afford one, will one be provided for me? Do I have the right to remain silent in the therapy sessions? Etc., etc.

Regards,
Shodan
  #35  
Old 02-20-2018, 10:33 AM
watchwolf49 watchwolf49 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: State of Jefferson
Posts: 8,474
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
How many tanks, jets, bombs, and missiles does "your side" have? Better get cracking.

Besides, what resistance? If you all really are "law-abiding citizens" like we keep hearing, you'll abide by the law, won't you? Or is that term somewhat selective?
You're going to blow up people's homes to get their guns? ... that's Waco all over again ...
  #36  
Old 02-20-2018, 10:38 AM
ElvisL1ves ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 47,036
Just pointing out how ridiculous a fantasy it is.
  #37  
Old 02-20-2018, 10:38 AM
Jonathan Chance Jonathan Chance is online now
Domo Arigato Mister Moderato
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: On the run with Kilroy
Posts: 21,386
Well, technically the Branch Davidians blew their ownselves up. Let's not forget that.

Nice to see my last point is still valid, though.
  #38  
Old 02-20-2018, 10:39 AM
watchwolf49 watchwolf49 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: State of Jefferson
Posts: 8,474
Don't forget the massive re-structuring of the various DFW's ... if there's no guns about who will go and shoot all the extra deer? ...
  #39  
Old 02-20-2018, 10:40 AM
XT's Avatar
XT XT is offline
Agnatheist
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Great South West
Posts: 33,560
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonathan Chance
Well, I've heard this response, too. But doesn't that imply there's no reason to be scared of the government taking guns from people? It's a catch-22 in gun debates.
I don't think they need to be scared that the government will take their guns, no, because I don't see that as a realistic scenario. But there are a lot of people on the pro-gun side who lived through what they saw as a slippery slope of increasing gun control headed towards (or in some local cases at) outright bans of whole categories of guns...or all guns.

Quote:
You're absolutely correct that it would be a PR nightmare. But in the scenario described, that the people as a whole had approved an Amendment, I'd feel comfortable postulating that the PR nightmare would be on the other side. If we're at the point where we're repealing the 2nd amendment people are going to see the National Guard and Police as heroes of the national will. Those resisting will, on the whole, be seen as criminals being arrested or mad dogs being put down.
Even if we posit that the US has changed so much that the 2nd could be vacated by a new amendment and then very strict national gun control regulations or outright bans could be put in without the majority of Americans having an issue with that and in fact going along, I don't think that federal troops or police killing a family over their guns is going to be bad PR on the pro-gun side. I can't see Americans so changing that they would think of a family with kids being 'mad dogs being put down', regardless of what they did. Hell, I doubt if this happened in Europe that they would view it that way, even if they agreed that the family absolutely shouldn't have guns and were completely in the wrong.

Quote:
Not unlike my position on marijuana. It's internally inconsistent to have marijuana illegal and have beer and whiskey legal. Inconsistency in policy bugs the fuck out of me.
I completely agree, and it bugs me too.

Quote:
There are various figures on defensive gun uses in the US ranging from 400,000 to 3 million per year. Suppose we take the lower figure - does the US have the will, or the resources, to prosecute 400,000 people a year for using an illegal gun to defend themselves?
That would be almost half again the number of prisoners we currently have, and we are already straining resources at the local levels to fund and adequately provide that level of detention centers and prisons. It's hard to say what the legal results would be, but it would certainly add quite a few prisoners to our system if you were going to really enforce the bans once all the legislative hurdles were crossed.

Quote:
While, I'm ranting - forgive me - I really resent how polarized this issue is. I don't actually give a fuck about ownership of guns but it becomes impossible to discuss it without the other side assuming one is an extremist on the other side. It's a Gresham's law of discussion. There's got to be a reasonable middle, but the whack jobs on both sides prevent the vast middle from even coming together to discuss it.
Yeah, I again totally agree. I've been accused in multiple of these threads of being rabidly pro-gun because I disagree with things like what's in this OP. Myself, I see room for compromise, but sadly both sides are so polarized and there is such a small level of trust (read: non-existent) along with demonization of the opposing side that I don't see a viable way to compromise. Instead, depending on which way the pendulum is moving one side or the other is able to do what they want and beat up the other side until it swings the other way.
__________________
-XT

That's what happens when you let rednecks play with anti-matter!
  #40  
Old 02-20-2018, 10:40 AM
Jonathan Chance Jonathan Chance is online now
Domo Arigato Mister Moderato
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: On the run with Kilroy
Posts: 21,386
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
A slightly more reasonable hypothetical might be where the Supreme Court simply announces (asChronos facetiously suggested) that the Constitution doesn't mean what it says, that there is no right of the people to keep and bear arms, and tries to impose the kind of restrictions suggested in the OP. That would not be a walk, because there would not be a super-majority in its favor.
Hell, I support the 2nd Amendment, don't own a gun - I've fired two and have the first brass from each right here on my desk - and believe that moderate regulation for the protection of all should be achievable and I'd back rebellion over that. That's the end of the United States as a functioning unit.
  #41  
Old 02-20-2018, 10:48 AM
watchwolf49 watchwolf49 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: State of Jefferson
Posts: 8,474
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonathan Chance View Post
Well, technically the Branch Davidians blew their ownselves up. Let's not forget that.

Nice to see my last point is still valid, though.
Yup ... millions of cold dead fingers ...

However ... as a gun advocate I agree 100% with your "There's got to be a reasonable middle, but the whack jobs on both sides prevent the vast middle from even coming together to discuss it."

Training, registration, limits on types of weapons ... perfectly sensible and in no way impedes our right to own a gun ... THEN let the local jurisdictions decide further regulations, my experiences with guns in this 1,000 sq miles of forest is different from someone living in Orange County, CA ...

We all want to know if outlawing handguns within Chicago city limits works or not ... I say let Chicago try if they want ...
  #42  
Old 02-20-2018, 10:51 AM
ElvisL1ves ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 47,036
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonathan Chance View Post
Well, technically the Branch Davidians blew their ownselves up. Let's not forget that.
And the last time there was an armed insurrection against We The People's government, the overwhelming response was to snicker and send them bags of dicks.

Quote:
Originally Posted by watchwolf49 View Post
We all want to know if outlawing handguns within Chicago city limits works or not ... I say let Chicago try if they want ...
The bulk of handguns used in Chicago crimes were bought literally next door in Indiana, where sales restrictions are as close to non-existent as it gets. It would be a shock if anything else were to be the case.

Last edited by ElvisL1ves; 02-20-2018 at 10:52 AM.
  #43  
Old 02-20-2018, 10:53 AM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos Chronos is online now
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 78,093
OK, since it needs to be spelled out explicitly: The Constitution really does say that well-regulated militias are essential, but gun-grabbers like to pretend that that clause doesn't exist, and because so many of them pretend that, this wouldn't work, never mind that it's perfectly consistent with what the Constitution actually says.
  #44  
Old 02-20-2018, 10:59 AM
XT's Avatar
XT XT is offline
Agnatheist
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Great South West
Posts: 33,560
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
OK, since it needs to be spelled out explicitly: The Constitution really does say that well-regulated militias are essential, but gun-grabbers like to pretend that that clause doesn't exist, and because so many of them pretend that, this wouldn't work, never mind that it's perfectly consistent with what the Constitution actually says.
I think you mean that pro-gun types ' like to pretend that that clause doesn't exist, and because so many of them pretend that', yes? Not getting into whether you are right or not, but as written it doesn't really make much sense.
__________________
-XT

That's what happens when you let rednecks play with anti-matter!
  #45  
Old 02-20-2018, 11:04 AM
Little Nemo Little Nemo is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 77,685
Quote:
Originally Posted by AgingLiberalD View Post
Wow, you seem like an accomplished master-debator.

Unfortunately this thread is about gun control. If you would like to talk about abortion you can certainly start a separate thread.

Maybe next post you can add something productive to this discussion.
I think MEBuckner made a valid point. Your proposal is essentially that your position be enacted into law. Lots of people would like to see the same principle applied to things they believe in. MEBuckner pointed out how the same principle you're using on gun control would look if it was applied to the issue of abortions.
  #46  
Old 02-20-2018, 11:06 AM
Shodan Shodan is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 37,056
Likewise, the Constitution really does say that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. And gun grabbers like to pretend that clause doesn't exist.

Now that we have established that, we need to concern ourselves with proposals that address both without invalidating either. The proposal of the OP seems to assume that only the first clause is operative, which I think we agree is not the case.

So we need proposals that both make a well-regulated militia possible, and do not infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear arms. The OP is good with the first, but falls down on the second. Given that we agree that the pro-gun side is wrong to deny the militia clause, and the anti-gun side is wrong to deny the RtKaBA clause, what proposals can we come up with?

Regards,
Shodan
  #47  
Old 02-20-2018, 11:07 AM
Crotalus's Avatar
Crotalus Crotalus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Chillicothe, Ohio
Posts: 5,887
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonathan Chance View Post
Let's try to keep it civil, Crotalus. We like civil.
Me too. Sorry.
  #48  
Old 02-20-2018, 11:10 AM
ElvisL1ves ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 47,036
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
Likewise, the Constitution really does say that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. And gun grabbers like to pretend that clause doesn't exist.
Absolutely wrong. It's been patiently explained to you over and over. The context given by the other half of that single sentence, and the broader background of the Convention's discussions, show it to be limited to establishing a well-regulated militia, in lieu of a standing army. Outside that context, the Constitution says nothing whatever about arms.
  #49  
Old 02-20-2018, 11:13 AM
HurricaneDitka HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 9,585
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ashtura View Post
You're being presumptuous. I don't even own a gun. I have no stake in this whatsoever. But I know plenty of people that aren't giving up their guns unless you pry them from their cold, dead hands. SWAT style raids against the uncooperative is going to be a bloody, bloody day. Don't fool yourself.
I know those sort of people too. I know SWAT guys too. Did you know there's a good bit of overlap between those two groups?

In other words, what makes you think the SWAT teams will be on the side of the gun-grabbers?
  #50  
Old 02-20-2018, 11:13 AM
msmith537 msmith537 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 26,902
Quote:
Originally Posted by AgingLiberalD View Post
The local and federal government could regulate an industry that maintains structures meant to secure firearms and ammunition. We can call these buildings "armories".
Likely to receive strong resistance from people who are concerned about government. Particularly government confiscation of firearms.

Does not solve the problem of how to get 300 million firearms collected, categorized and stored in these armories.


Quote:
Originally Posted by AgingLiberalD View Post
At these armories, members of the public could register for a club. For the sake of argument, let's call these clubs "militias".
See previous comments on "government".

I was going to comment on the rest, but it's generally more of the same theme.

Also doesn't address the issue of using guns for home defense. I don't want to drive to the armory every time I think I'm going to get robbed.



The fundamental problem of gun control is that the country can't reach a consensus on what level of "control" is appropriate. Not that we don't understand the mechanism for securing objects in a vault and having authorized people sign them out.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:56 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017