The so-called “well-regulated militia” that is currently in place has no chain of command, no roster of troops, no inventory or armory of weaponry or ordnance, no system of logistics… It is not well-regulated by any possible definition of that term, no matter how archaic or whimsical.
Assume the Second Amendment is repealed and We The People decide to ban firearms. Under the Fifth Amendment, ‘nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.’ Per Cornell Law:
How much would confiscation cost the taxpayers, given that owners must be compensated at fair market value?
The thing I find fascinating is the hypocrisy of this argument (that is NOT directed toward you, BobLibDem, as I’ll make clear).
I see an correlation between this argument of illegal manufacture, etc. and the right’s fervor regarding banning Muslim immigration.
In each case, it’s a twisted form of authoritarianism at its worst, ostensibly for the public good.
And neither would work.
I’m as anti-gun as the next liberal, but c’mon, going door-to-door and locking up gun owners? (Assuming BobLibDem is serious, but somehow, I suspect not – but let’s look at it anyway.) That’s as bad and stupid as rounding up 11 million undocumented workers and deporting them.
How could that be done in the real world? Who would pay for it all? It’s as stupid an idea as arming teachers in schools. It’s a fantasy, and belongs on a fictional TV show.
Look at it this way. Regardless of how America feels about guns, guns and gunpowder have been around for nearly 1,000 years. In a sense, guns are in our DNA, evoutionarily speaking. (Generations and generations of people have grown up with and around guns, in every part of the world; they’ve been such a part of human society, it’d be like banning the internal combustion engine.)
Sure, we can ban certain types of guns (assault rifles), but all guns? Not possible. Control is the way. Even if it’s a constitutional right, I see no other right in the US Constitution that allows literally unlimited freedom. For instance, we have freedom of speech; but it’s limited. We have the right to vote–once for each election. Allowing unlimited guns and types of guns is akin to allowing people to vote as often as they want, whenever they want, wherever they want, with no consequences.
TL;DR: Guns are here to stay, but we have to control them. Banning (except certain types) doesn’t work.
I’m the ‘next liberal’ (well, the previous one in this thread) and I’m not anti-gun. 
Under the Fifth Amendment, the government would pay for it all, which means the taxpayers.
My point exactly.
You say you want a revolution…just try making the taxpayers foot the bill for that.
And I’m the liberal-after-next and I’m not anti-gun. Oh sure, in an ideal, wave-a-magic-wand world I might consider a gunless America but it’s antithetical to the culture and, short of said wand which can not only remove guns but change minds, it won’t happen. And of course they have their uses.*
What I would like is the ability to put in place some sensible restrictions on gun use (something akin to driver licences, with mandatory training and so forth), as my main issue with guns in America is that there are too many armed idiots. I mean, if you think other drivers are bad now imagine if people could buy cars and drive them around with as little effort as it takes to obtain a gun in some parts of the country. Even a little more idiot-proofing would reduce the number of toddler shootings and suchlike.
But we can’t even do that, because “The Constitution says I get to have a gun so neener neener neener!”. So sad.
*That said, the UK gets by just fine without guns and armed thugs aren’t constantly breaking into my home despite predictions to the contrary. So there’s that.
If We The People want to ban guns, or certain kinds of guns, then we have to pay for it. TANSTAAFL. Conservatives want all sorts of government goods and services, but they don’t want to pay for them and insist taxes be lowered. As a liberal, I think we need to be responsible and pay for the things we get (or want, like UHC). Conservatives say ‘We don’t like [name a social program], so we’re not going to pay for it!’ We (liberals) can’t say ‘We don’t like guns, so we’re not going to pay to get rid of them!’
I could live with this. I would like to see these steps implemented then check back in, say, ten years to see if there are measurable results across the board.
Civil Liberties groups have a problem with #1. I don’t, but I see their point.
I don’t like #5. Maybe have it if you don’t have homeowners’ insurance.
AFAIK, #8 isn’t a problem.
I’m a little uncomfortable with licensing. When I was in L.A. you needed a license to carry (not to own) a handgun. It was virtually impossible to get a license. I don’t carry a gun, but I have a permit for the novelty. As long as buyers pass the ‘reasonable safety test’ (which I had to do, the last time I bought a handgun in California – and it’s a one-time test) and buyers are otherwise legally allowed to own a firearm, licenses should be ‘shall issue’.
A couple of years ago Washington mandated that all firearms (not just semi-autos) sales be subject to a background check, which means licensed dealer involvement. It sounds reasonable to me, but it will personally be a PITA because I’d like to divest myself of 50-some guns.
I could live with it too, with a couple of exceptions.
as far as the semiauto vs automatic definition goes, non gun types get the two sides easily confused, the differences are;
Automatic weapon; will continuously fire as long as the trigger is held back, one trigger pull = multiple cartridges fired
Semiauto; one cartridge fired per trigger pull, keep the trigger back, nothing happens after the chambered cartridge is fired, to fire again requires the trigger to be released and pulled again
The only “automatic” operations a semiauto performs is to eject the fired cartridge brass and chamber the next cartridge
The AR-15 is Semiautomatic (also referred to more accurately as “self-loading”)
Over twenty years ago I wrote my legislators and asked them to repeal the Second Amendment. I think it’s a fantastic idea.
It won’t happen because a significant percentage of Americans are irrational about guns.
Fair market value for an illegal firearm would be at most the scrap value of the metal used to make it. It should be mere pennies per gun.
Well, the study of economics would correct that erroneous notion. How much is an hour with a prostitute worth? She surely won’t accept pennies merely because of words in a law book.
I agree, and you’re right. Most people wouldn’t want to pay.
Personally, I don’t mind being called a “tax and spend liberal,” because at least that way, things get paid for (theoretically). It’s better than being a “tax cut and spend conservative”.
Incorrect. Fair market value would be the value before the ban. Unless you’re suggesting that the government can take property and say, ‘Well, we’re taking it anyway so it’s worth nothing to you anymore.’?
I agree. We pay taxes, and we receive value for the taxes we pay. No one gets all of the direct benefits of taxes, but everyone benefits directly and indirectly. As a nation, we need to decide what value we receive for the money we’re paying to the government. I would rather pay the amount of my health insurance premium to the government so that everyone will have ‘free’ health care. If we decide to ban guns, or certain guns, then we need to pay the price for the value Society receives.
Instead of actually handing people cash for guns & ammo, perhaps a tax credit would be a more attractive solution.
I think a tax credit would not be more effective. On the other hand, suppose I have $50,000 worth of firearms and my tax bill is $1,600. A $48,400 tax refund check would be the same as cash. Either way, it would be a logistical nightmare.
But what if there is no public use? What if they are confiscated and destroyed? Not being a smartass, I probably don’t understand the legal definition of “public use.”
Would severely limiting the carrying and transportation of firearms be unconstitutional / feasible?
Damn those voters for getting their way. They should be told what’s best for them.