The Second and gun control are both related and separate. They are related in the sense that the Second is a form of gun control, i.e., through the Militia Acts, it enforced the use of arms through mandatory national service for male citizens of a certain age range. They are separate because the right to bear arms is a natural one, i.e., it exists even without the Second.
The Second is archaic because of the presence of a large military force, the National Guard, etc. However, if it can useful if something goes wrong and mandatory military service is needed once more.
Gun control can involve varying degrees, from the need to register firearms to disallowing ownership of one type of firearm or any. This does not go against the Second because the latter does not refer to civilian gun use. (For police and military, regulation takes place by default.) Also, local laws may abridge one natural right or another given particular reasons. Those who oppose these laws may of course vote against them.
I am really baffled by the number of people who seem to think the 2nd Amendment dictates gun ownership one way or the other. The 2nd Amendment doesn’t grant us the right to bear arms - We WANT the right to bear arms and wrote the Amendment to codify it. The fact that the amendment continues to exist reflects the will of the people, not the other way around.
I get so sick of hearing people say, “We can’t ban guns because of the 2nd Amendment.” No, you can’t ban guns because people WANT guns and this is a democracy.
presumably if there were a total ban on guns the government itself would still be in the gun purchasing business. Especially as they try to create the sort of police state necessary to confiscate 300+ million firearms. So just compensation would need to be based on the price the government would need to pay for an equivalent firearm from a gun manufacturer. The best example I can imagine would be when Roosevelt confiscated everyone’s gold. Although since guns are less fungible than gold the program would be far more complex. Personally I have no interest in living in the country that we would have to become in order to enforce such a ban.
In 1996 Australia conducted a gun buy back upon outlawing possession of many firearms. The expected cost was A$500,000,000 and resulted in the buy back of 660,959 firearms (per Wikipedia’s numbers). That is A$756 per firearm in 1996 Aussie dollars. Adjust for 30 years of inflation and that is A$1220 in 2015 Aussie dollars. That is right about US$900 at present exchange rates.
I’m not digging too far on estimates of number of gun ownership in the United States but Wikipedia cites a Washington post article from 2015 that there were 310 million privately owned firearms as of the year 2009. Let’s assume for the sake of this calculation that the number is right and hasn’t changed.
A little quick math and 310 million multiplied by US$900 is $279 billion as a cost estimate for a similar buy back in the United States. For perspective, that is pretty close to the $283 billion we pay in interest on the national debt per year.
While we’re on the topic of compensation, I’m reminded of the “perverse consequences” incident in Vietnam where the government offered money for rat pelts (the idea being to reduce the rat population,) but in fact people responded by farming rats.
We live in the era of 3D printing. If the US government offered $500 per gun, couldn’t someone quickly assemble a gun factory in his basement, print out thousands of guns using 3D printers quickly and easily - perhaps for a cost of less than $100 per gun - and turn them in for a massive profit?
No way, did you not get the memo that humans are born good and 99.9% will do the right thing. Just look at the percentage of good & honest elected officials in our state and national governments. :eek: :smack:
The Orlando massacre involved semi-automatic rifle with large replaceable magazines — weapons that would be restricted in many states. Sadly, the gun-obsessed whiners will be calling for lifting those restrictions. New Yorkers, instead of being happy that such guns are not available in their state, will be encouraged to obtain such guns for self-defense. :smack:
Reality and gun nuts mix about as well as oil and water, but we’ve been fighting ignorance since 1973 and aren’t going to give up yet!
The latest Gallup poll shows 55% of Americans feel that laws restricting the sale of guns should be stricter than they are at present. 11% want less strict, and 33% answered “same as they are now.” That’s right — Americans who want stricter gun laws outnumber those who want less strict gun laws by 5 to 1! You wouldn’t know it when monitoring discussions at Yahoo, Youtube or SDMB because those who want stricter gun laws tend to be rational observers who have a wide range of opinions and interests. Those who whine continually about their guns and their “Second Commandment Rights” tend to be one-issue obsessives.
"A CNN/ORC poll shows that 67% of Americans are in favor a series of executive actions Obama proposed earlier this week … Obama will expand background checks in an effort to reduce gun violence, while making the process more efficient. "
“In a Pew Research poll in July, 85 percent of Americans favored background checks on all private gun sales and gun show sales – a step further than the president is set to propose. We had a very similar result in an ABC News/Washington Post poll in April 2013, with 86 percent support for background checks on gun sales at shows or online.”
Now, the gun nuts may be careful to phrase their whining to be about “banning all guns.” But note that even repealing the Second Amendment would not automatically ban any guns. It would merely allow legislatures to pass rational legislation without running into that obsolete Constitutional provision.
By now we know OP’s question was disingenuous, but I’ll answer it anyway. The possibility of repealing the Second Amendment will not exist until American political mental health improves.
Pretty much none? Why would a criminal buy a gun when they can just steal it?
Nonsense. First, guns don’t protect you in the slightest from the government; if anything they make you more vulnerable, since it gives them an excuse to kill you out of hand “in self defense”. That happens all the time right now; the prevalence of guns means that the cops can get away with offhandedly killing people and claiming they thought he had a gun.
And realistically, the gun nuts are the ones who would be* on the side* of any likely tyrannical US government. They wouldn’t be fighting heroically against the Evil Government, they’d be hunting down and killing dissenters. They’d be the death squads kicking in doors and killing people who are suspected of being liberal, homosexual, non-Christian or overly brown-skinned.
And no, it’s not unfair to characterize people who talk about wanting to kill off their political opposition with “Second Amendment Solutions” as being of political violence. One of the most prevalent characteristics of the pro-gun crowd is their thuggishness, their willingness to use intimidation, threats and violence.
Idiocy such as this really points out that a large part of the divide between people who wish to remain secure in their rights and those who want to brutally oppress fine, upstanding citizens (using inflammatory language is fun) is cultural.
It’s incredibly damaging to stereotype people goes the pc mantra, unless of course those people oppose the pc worldview, in which case stereotype to your heart’s content.
I continue to be amused that gun nuts continually refer to their “rights rights rights!” without having the cognitive consonance to question whether those rights are good or bad. This is why I refer to the Second Commandment. Note that some gun nuts actually refer to guns as a “God-given right.” Other gun nuts, forgetting the U.S. idiosyncrasy of 1791, call guns a “universal human right.” :smack:
I’d love to postulate an alternate universe in which the 2nd Amendment referred not to guns, but to the right to parade naked down Main Street while fornicating with ocelots. If the words of the gun nuts were taken seriously they’d be defending that right just as vociferously.
Let’s look at similar precedents - for instance, were people compensated for booze that was confiscated and destroyed with the onset of Prohibition? I don’t know, they might have been, can’t find anything saying either way.
I think the key wording in the Fifth is “for public use” - that’s what distinguishes between taking e.g. land for a road via eminent domain, vs making booze illegal then confiscating and destroying the booze. I personally think the seizure of outlawed guns is more like the latter than the former, but IANA(Constitutional)L
Such as those who wish to be secure in our right to life?
Such as those armed self-styled vigilantes who want to operate outside the law? Somehow I don’t think that’s what you meant.
Breaking through the claim of gun ownership and use being a *right *is necessary to end the pandemic. That’s why the Second, and all the excuses it permits, needs to be repealed. What would be the gun-rights argument then?
One of the most popular misstatements about the Second, as you know, is that the explanatory militia clause means nothing more than an explanatory ocelot clause. IOW it isn’t an alternate universe.
Pass a law that as of a certain date, all guns or a certain class of guns will be illegal to own. No compensation for anyone who currently owns one. Allow owners of those guns to sell them legally until that date. The only market will be people who plan to keep them past the date they become illegal.
And you think that will reduce gun violence? Literally forcing the adage “If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will own guns” to become true?
Indeed. “It shall be illegal to have a residence at 123 Fake St.” Sorry Mr. & Mrs. Homeowner, your house is now illegal, we’re confiscating it to knock it down. We’ll be sure you pay you pennies on the dollar for the land it’s sitting on though.
Is it? I thought it was for home defense against robbers and kidnappers and the like? Or for hunting? or for sport shooting or whatever?
People actually think that whatever amount of guns they have in their house will defend against a military drone strike, which is what will happen if the “tyranny of an out-of-control government” comes to pass.
How it would happen:
“Hey, Chihuahua is in that house with 144 rifles and 50K ammunition, should we get in a shoot out?”
“Naw, call in a drone missile strike and take out his entire house”
:smack: