The murder rate has been going down since 1993. We have at least twice as many guns in the country now as we did then. AR-15s have been very popular for that entire time as well.
As with any civilized society, we should make murder illegal and punish people for it, which we already do. IMO just because murder exists and the danger to your average person is over-sensationalized by the media, we still should not infringe on the Constitutional rights of all law-abiding citizens because of the actions of a very few people out of 300,000,000.
With rights come responsibility. People lose their right to be free when they abuse that right by hurting others. That’s why we have prisons. When they drive drunk, they lose that right because they are abusing it. Gun ownership should be no different. To say that right should not be legislated or controlled is absurd and a corruption of the concept itself.
Agreed on responsibility. Drinking alcohol isn’t a constitutional right. But anyone 21+ yeas of age is free to drink themselves drunk any time they want. That is them exercising their freedom to drink. It is when drinkers recklessly put others in danger, like drunk driving, that the law can and should get involved. A drunk driver would be like someone firing their gun recklessly into the air. Both should be prosecuted because they are abusing a freedom and may harm others.
To me regulating firearms is like thought crime. It’s fear of inanimate objects and what could be done with those objects. Most firearms just sit in safes, dressers or closets. They are tools, they are objects. Sometimes the guns are taken out to go hunting, target shooting, and much more rarely are used for self defense. It’s the extremely rare times when people choose to do harm with firearms that they can and should face legal action. Not before.
Regulating firearms is not like (prosecuting) thought crime - it’s doing one thing to get an indirect desired result. The goal is not to keep guns away from people who responsibly never take them out of their safes except to dust them, it’s to reduce the number of guns in the hands of criminals, terrorists, lunatics, and dangerously irresponsible people - which in turn reduces the justified fear and trigger-happiness of the police. It’s thing A causing thing B causing thing C.
I don’t mind you having a gun because you’re a crazed lunatic. I mind you having a gun because you having a gun means that crazed lunatics have guns.
Miller, I think the sentence is correct, but suffers from an inability to emphasize.
“I don’t mind you having a gun because YOU are a crazed lunatic… I mind you having a gun because it means THAT (hypothetical) crazed lunatic also has a gun.”
Please explain why the general public should freely “keep and bear” belt-buckle knives and guns, throwing stars, brass knuckles, sawed-off “alley-sweeper” shotguns, full-auto combat rifles, explosive rounds, and/or backpack nukes, which I think quality under “concealed explosive substances.”
Spoiler: If you accept that banning any weapons (such as those listed) for civilian use is legitimate, then you must accept that banning ANY weapon is legitimate. You have the right to keep and bear whatever arms are allowed. No nail-clippers on airplanes.
He asked *“Its the occasional news coverage that discusses how there may be gun control/confiscation could be in our future. Also how the lawmakers think or even can have discussions about it. (taking all guns from the citizens)”
*
That is a complete ban on all guns.
He isnt talking about, for example- a ban on selling “Assault weapons.” Nor even a ban on owning them with confiscation like Beto and Booker and Harris (all of whom dropped out).
No, a full gun ban. And yes, he has a point, there are like 70 million adult, voting gun owners in this nation. There is NO fucking way they are gonna vote for a gun ban. Not even a ban on semi-autos (lots of deer rifles and duck guns are semi-auto) nor handguns.
But yes, there is room to discuss a ban on “Assault weapons.”
Serious Democratic candidates have proposed a door to door confiscation of all “Assault weapons.”. And a ban on all semi-automatics. Bans on handguns have been passed (and SCOTUS overruled them.
So while no one is suggesting a ban on ALL guns, if you ban handguns, semi-auto weapons and “Assault weapons” (mostly covered under semi-autos anyway) that would be a ban on over half the guns in this country.
So yes, that would be a “mass round-up of guns”. Even a confiscation of Assault weapons could ban 10-17 million guns, and that certainly qualifies as a “mass round-up of guns”. And quite a few of the democratic candidates have gone along Betos ideas.
Thus, even if that’s all that happens , a confiscation of “assault weapons”- yes that would certainly be a “mass round-up of guns”. That isnt some weird right wing gun nuts conspiracy theory, it was openly proposed on stage and seconded by several others.
Former Congressman Beto O’Rourke appeared to take his mandatory assault weapons buyback proposal a significant step further Wednesday, when he described a process whereby police officers would manually confiscate unlawful weapons.
Harris and Booker also want a confiscation of all assault weapons.
So, if three serious Dem candidates supported confiscation of all assault weapons, then it’s not just some* " bullshit for the gullible masses."*
Warren and Sanders want a ban on sale and waffle on mandatory buy back. Biden wants a ban on sale and a voluntary buy back.
Altho I have no problem with “universal background checks and prohibiting guns from being sold to people with violent misdemeanors” people with CCW permits are not the ones to be worried about. Felons cant get them, etc. Generally CCW holders dont commit violent crimes.
Your purchase would be illegal, you cant buy heavy weapons, you cant take them across state lines, and you cant sell them legally.
You would violate several Federal laws and also state laws by doing so.
Since what you propose is totally, absolutely illegal, tell me why we need more laws to make it* more* illegal?
I mean, you can drive to Indiana, buy heavy drugs with cash out of a suitcase, be tracked by zero paper work, and drive back to Chicago and sell them clandestinely with no way to be tracked also.
sawed-off “alley-sweeper” shotguns, full-auto combat rifles, explosive rounds, and/or backpack nukes, Are all illegal under Federal law, and are not protected by the 2nd, according to SCOTUS.
belt-buckle knives, throwing stars, brass knuckles,- are actually fairly harmless and were never a major causer of homicides, and are a perfect example of Silly California laws.
I am in favor of pretty much most gun laws that would be legal under the 2nd ad as per *Heller. * Of course most are useless but maybe they would make people feel safer.
For example, a ban on sale of “assault weapons” wont reduce the violent crime rate, but if it makes people feel safer, why not?
It seems to me that the most logical course of action would be to get a list of the registered Democrats and confiscate their guns first. After the dramatic decrease in gun injuries and deaths as well as crimes in general, the other people will eagerly turn in their guns. If this gun confiscation is so good, the results will speak for themselves.
And this is really the correct response and should be a sticky in these threads. I don’t understand why otherwise intelligent people believe that banning guns will stop gun violence. Recreational drugs are banned, but I’ll bet any poster here could go out and buy them tonight if they were so inclined.
And those are consumable. You have to keep getting more. When one gun will last not only your whole life, but you great-grandchildren’s lives, any idea of stopping gun traffic is a fool’s errand.