You mean the amendment that was passed because a majority of Americans approved of the measure which was ratified by all but two states? And then was repealed via the same ratification process?
Nobody is saying we should repeal the Second Amendment. WE ARE NOT TRYING TO TAKE YOUR GUNS. OK?
We’ve have a lot of success over the years in lowering the number of people hurt or killed due to drunk driving. We’ve had a lot of success in reducing exposure to second-hand smoke and lowering smoking rates. None of the measures involved banning the lawful consumption of alcohol or cigarettes.
The problem with “gun control” is that it’s actually people control: telling people that they can’t have some kinds of guns or gun accessories because they’re just too dangerous in the hands of the [del]sheep[/del] [del]proles[/del] [del]great unwashed[/del] [del]hoi polloi[/del] [del]plebs[/del] [del]subjects[/del] [del]masses[/del] public.
You might say, so what’s wrong with that? The problem with some gun control is that it firmly establishes that firearms are just another thing that falls under the general police power of the government- the government’s general power to pass laws regulating, restricting or banning anything that isn’t constitutionally protected as a fundamental right. Our ancestors fought a rebellion against the British government precisely because the British parliament is sovereign and therefore has an unbounded police power limited only by the conscience of the m.p.'s. And our ancestors created a constitution and a Bill of Rights to explicitly declare that some things are outside the purview of a 51% vote of a legislature. Owning guns cannot be a check upon potential tyranny* if they could be banned any time the government they’re supposed to be a check upon wanted to.
*such as the State of California banning carry so that the Black Panthers could no longer resist police brutality. Or a local sheriff turning voters away from a polling place, which sparked the “Battle of Athens” in 1946. Or New York passing the Sullivan Act, more or less to ensure that the gangs that were paying protection money to the political machine would have unarmed victims to rob.
Based on comments in this and other gun threads, I gather the impression that a great many people consider guns being a check upon government to be an archaism. We can only dearly hope that isn’t true yet, because if it is than our country has a much bigger problem than gun massacres.
Gun control has to involve people. They fire the guns. They are the things that kill people, rather than say guns for instance, right? So the laws are trying to influence the intersection of people and guns, which society has found problematic at times. This is the way I see it anyway.
Do gun fans feel that the best example of someone trying to control them in this world is over their guns? I’m trying to find some sympathy for gun owners in this but it’s very difficult.
That’s a vague term. So maybe make it more detailed?
What kind of freedom is it to kill someone else? You are not going to be defending anyone against any government I assume. Right?
I think we’re all in the same boat. Our freedoms need to be preserved. And I think guns are the least of your worries and none of mine at all.
The mentality of gun ownership at least here and in my mind as a solar panel for media, is an attempt to defend something invisible, both in their politics and in their psychology. Your guns will not prevent any of your fears though. Your fears have already come true. That’s the problem and the source of the angst and invective.
But most people who live in large urban areas, maybe much larger than yours, never had a violent crime occur to them. So they are not filled with daydreams about pistol play.
Has this been posted yet? A poll taken after the Las Vegas massacre shows a majority of Americans selecting the pro-gun control position on a number of questions. Even when restricted to Republicans or gun owners, a majority selects the pro-control answer.
Well heck, with polling numbers like that, It’s a bit of a mystery how Hillary Clinton is not President. Any idea how that happened? Or why the Dems don’t control Congress?
So would you guess that most of those poll respondents care about the issue a lot or not very much? Would you guess that they understand the issue very well or no better than your average Doper (which is dismally-ignorant on the subject)?
Because those numbers are in reaction to the Las Vegas shooting and thus meaningless except for that data point.
This is common, everytime there is a mass shooting the polls change like this.
In general Americans are in favor of mild gun control and against banning.
Umm, “*a ban of the sale of guns to people convicted of a violent crime” *is already a law.
Universal Background checks is mostly a law, except private sales.
Mandatory waiting, ban on the sale of assault weapons, stricter regulations on ammunition sales and ban on high-capacity magazines that hold more than 10 rounds- are all law in CA, but have not affected violent crime stats in any way.
That poll shows the public reacting to a terrible tragedy.
Here are some better polls, showing how opiniosn trend:
You see, the public does slightly want more gun control- unspecified. It seems Universal background checks are popular. That gun control would not effect mass shooting much.
Gun violence across California dropped 56% from 5,500 gun deaths in 1993 to 2,935 in 2010, even as the state’s population increased from 30 million to 37 million.
During that time, gun deaths declined by 29% for the nation overall.
a) The first numbers (1,548,000 and 426,000) are total fatal and non-fatal firearm violence. The second numbers (7.3 and 1.8) are for non-fatal firearm violence only.
b) The numbers don’t include accidental shootings, suicide attempts etc.
Crime overall has declined, and fewer people should be dying from gunshot wounds due to advances in healthcare, GPS/navigation, improved first-response times, and better medical technology overall.
But overall firearm deaths have not declined, and in fact looking at the overall trend, deaths have generally increased since 2000 or so.