Great, then you’ve done something that has probably never happened in the history of an internet message board. You have changed my mind. Rational gun control is impossible because the other side doesn’t want it.
Fuck it. Ban them all.
You have grave ignorance of both guns and gun control laws. The reality is that outside of countries that ban all firearms, many countries have virtually negligible gun homicides and do not impose such silly restrictions. You can easily go on a shooting rampage with any gun legally purchasable in most of continental Europe. Even in the U.K. you can go on a sort of a shooting rampage with legally owned weapons. A few years ago a cab driver did just that, driving around shooting one person at a time. You could do that with a musket from the 1700s since you’re driving around to different locations and not causing any wide panic.
There is no supportable evidence that the restrictions you suggest would be wise. You should read about gun control laws in Germany or Norway or the UK or any other continental European country to get a better idea as to where you should start.
Your proposals as they are combine physical impossibilities and also political ones, and are barely worth comment because of those things.
Physical impossibilities? You mean a gun that fires slowly and one round at a time is physically impossible? That would be news to the guys who wrote the second amendment.
Seriously. I’m out of this debate. I’m now fully in the camp of draconian anti-gun measures.
In another thread, I mentioned how in the last few presidential elections the Republican party has chosen some previously one-sided issues - things like rape and torture - to make a “there’s two sides to this issue” argument. And I asked people to guess what topic they thought was going to be the issue for the 2016 election. I picked cannibalism.
But I’ll admit I could be wrong and you may be right. The Democrats may emerge as the party that takes a stand against murdering children and the Republicans may be the party that argues there are two sides to the issue of murdering children.
You always have been in that camp, judging by your positions expressed in this thread. You’ve admitted knowing nothing about guns, you obviously know nothing about law, and you apparently reject political reality.
Did you know Lewis and Clark had a semi-automatic rifle capable of firing at least 20 rounds without reloading? Of course you didn’t. You know nothing about guns. Rapid fire technology has existed since 1780.
:rolleyes:
Keep going. That’s exactly the kind of rhetoric that will sweep your party to the sidelines for the foreseeable future. I hope it catches on.
If congress begins talking about more gun, and ammo regulations, there will be so much purchasing of both that the 300+ million guns would double almost over night. Manufacturers would not be able to keep up with the demand. Even now I expect to see a huge serge in sales.
I’ll counter your argument by pointing out that the average person eats 35,000 cookies in the course of their lifetime.
I’m more concerned about the effect your kind of rhetoric is having on the future of my party.
I’m a Republican.
I propose changing the First Amendment: “The Congress shall have power to abridge the freedom of the press to deny notoriety to the perpetrator of a capital or otherwise infamous crime.”
I believe that would solve the problem.
I doubt it. Gun nuts already vote overwhelmingly Republican. Let’s give your side all the gun nuts and we’ll take the rational folks.
Yes, but here’s the difference.
The technology does change things. In 1789, I don’t think that there were hundreds of thousands (at least) of easily concealable repeating small guns just lying around everywhere. While there were likely just as many (on a per capita basis) psychotics in the population, they couldn’t just drop by their mom’s house and pick up a couple of handguns and an enormous number of bullets.
Technology and society have changed in ways the founders coudn’t foresee. That’s a fact. What is it about us that makes a schoolteacher who lives in a nic, affluent, relatively crime-free town feel the need to have at least three guns in her home? Along with enough ammunition to blow holes in a hundred people? (Yes, I know a hundred people weren’t shot in this incident, but I did read a newspaper account that said at least a hundred shots were fired. I have no idea whether that’s accurate or not).
Maybe that cabdriver’s rampage wouldn’t have been prevented if we had really stringent gun control laws. But maybe yesterday’s horror would have. The fact that we can’t prevent every mass murder isn’t an argument against trying to prevent some of them.
I’m a New Yorker, and I remember that incident all too well. But the argument that there is more than one way to kill a whole bunch of people is not an effective argument that we should’t try to do something about the most common form of mass murder – gun killing.
But, as is repeatedly pointed out in these gun threads, you could apply the same argument to the 1st Amendment: “Surely the Founders would never have included freedom of the press if they could have foreseen cable TV and the Internet. If people want freedom of the press, let them use a single-sheet screw press like they had in the 1790s.”
I think that the 2nd Amendment does more than just make/keep guns legal. I think it enshrines a way of thinking about guns and elevates guns to national treasure status, and that status, to me, is a major part of the problem.
I don’t see any purpose in rewriting the 2nd to add any specific language. What I would like is to repeal it, reducing guns to their appropriate status which is “not in the constitution” status. Then some places might outlaw them and some places wouldn’t. Maybe a national consensus would eventually come of it, or maybe not. But there is psychological power in having the most important document we have giving a big thumb’s up to guns.
I don’t particularly care about guns. I don’t vote based on guns. I don’t have one, currently, and have no intention of ever owning one again (I only had one before because it belonged to my first husband, so when he died (guns were not involved) I ended up with a gun) but I’m not hysterical about them.
But having them in the constitution is as weird as having ladders in there would be.
Go ahead and run on repealing the Second Amendment. I think you’ll find a lot of the more reasonable members of the Democratic Party moving to the GOP.
Remember back in school when that one asshole did something to annoy the teacher, so the teacher punished the entire class? Probably pissed you off…unless you were that one asshole, of course. That’s the same thing the gun grabbers are trying to do the millions of responsible gun owners in this country. The overwhelming majority of gun owners are never going to use their guns in an unlawful manner. Yet you and your ilk seek to punish us all for the actions of a few maniacs.
Your political predictions have not proven either accurate or reliable unfortunately, or did I miss where President Romney was swept into power by the changing tide of public opinion?
I dunno where you live, but where I live, drugs ARE harder to obtain illegally than, say, prescription drugs.
Well, maybe you could. But you don’t have to. The Constitution contains a process for amending it as our society and its needs change. We can certainly decide that a free and robust press, with many different means of production and avenues of distribution, is a very healthy thing, and at the same time decide that easy access to powerful guns, and especially handguns, is not a healthy thing. There’s no contradiction there at all.