We didn’t end up in this situation over night. I don’t know why you assume the expectation is that it would be fixed overnight simply by making guns illegal. It would certainly a long time - years - maybe a generation or more, to reduce the available stock of guns to sufficiently low levels that their availability would become scarce enough to be considered a minor threat to the public.
Does that mean mean we should not bother?
Perhaps it means we shouldn’t waste any more time (and lives) and get started as soon as possible.
Again, huh? I didn’t make any comment on what we should or shouldn’t do in this thread. I have another thread on the main page where I gave some suggestions on things we could try. I don’t think banning all guns and ammo is a viable solution at all (and the OP is probably annoyed anyway by this hijack of his thread), but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t do anything about gun CONTROL.
In fact what would probably happen to EXISTING guns is nothing.
The repeal of the Second Amendment, were it possible, would not make guns illegal; it would make it easier to make guns illegal.
What would happen is that states where it was popular to do so would begin to place greater barriers to gun ownership, and restrictions of types of guns. There would likely be a federal initiative to assist the states in gun ownership licensing, which is kind of how Canada does it. After all, it’s legal to own a gun in Canada, but you need a license to do so, the “PAL.” (Possession and Acquisitions Licence.) Most guns themselves - “non restricted” guns, like common hunting rifles and shotguns - aren’t even registered, for the most part; they tried that but it was a logistical disaster.
It is simply not feasible for government to find and repossess all the existing guns. No one knows where 99.99% of them are, and there aren’t enough cops to go find them, and there are still rules about unreasonable search and seizure, after all. Since enforcement would be almost impossible, most people would not bother to give up restricted weapons. Most people don’t stick to the speed limit, either.
It is very likely that many types of weapons, and ownership thereof, would be grandfathered in.
Where additional restrictions might be created wouldn’t be on OWNING existing guns, which would be hopelessly unenforceable, but in acquiring guns and the use of them.
Criminals don’t hold onto their guns forever. They get lost, they get stolen, they get used in a shooting and thrown in a river, they get confiscated by police.
That’s why criminals are always looking to be buying new guns.
A gun is virtually disposable to most criminals. You use it in your drive by, drop it in the river. You don’t want to be holding onto that weapon, even criminals aren’t that stupid.
Removing the ability for a criminal to go to a gun store, and wait for someone shady to come by and straw purchase some guns for them will be much harder when the straw purchaser knows he will get into trouble. That these guns that he is buying will be registered in his name, and any criminal activity that happens with them will be traced back to him.
Quite simply, it sounds like you are saying that it is not worth doing anything about the gun problem unless the gun problem will be completely solved by any action we take. You are also seem to be claiming that no action that we take will have any impact on criminals having guns.
The second amendment says that the govt may not have authority in an area. Repealing it would mean that the govt does have authority. It makes perfect sense
The Bill of Rights, while classified as Amendments, weren’t really amendments. The later amendments actually established new laws. The ten simply clarified that the government understood its limits.
Going back to the apple example, if I tell you that you have ownership of everything you buy, when I later steal your apple, it’s still theft not repeal because there was never any need for me to have granted you the right of ownership to begin with.
The writers of the Constitution didn’t feel that a Bill of Rights was necessary since the things it guaranteed were, similarly, implicitly obvious (by the standards of the time) as to not merit writing down.
If somehow the anti-gun forces got 2/3 of both houses of Congress and 38 state legislatures to repeal the 2nd amendment, then of course I’d accept that.
But 5 liberal justices deciding the Second Amendment applies only state troopers or National Guard units? I’d never accept that, and I’ve never even owned a gun.
For the 2nd Amendment to be repealed, the country would have to be destroyed. It won’t happen. We, the people, understand what the Founding Fathers had in mind when it was implemented.
This country passed an Amendment against drinking alcohol, for ghod’s sake. Sorry for not being able to play our little game-Here is your consolation prize.
If you, Mr. The People, understood what the founding fathers had in mind, you would be screaming about the fact you aren’t allowed to own a tank. As best I can tell what the founding fathers had in mind was to permit the populace to hold an uprising against a tyrannical government and its army - like they had just done against England. That’s what the militia mentioned in the amendment is for, after all.
And I’m pleased to believe that most conservatives aren’t murderous psychotic insane people and thus will be able to tolerate a legal change in laws without going traitor and attacking people.
The effect of the second amendment is to prevent a complete ban on guns, what would motivate people to repeal it if not passing sweeping anti-gun legislation? The third amendment is irrelevant today, but there’s no big push to repeal it because quartering troops to control the local population is outdated and no one has a desire to do it.
This ties back to the base scenario being a bigger change than the repeal itself; you’re proposing some really weird scenario where there’s widespread support for repealing an amendment that blocks a thing, but not support to do the thing that it blocks.
Honestly I’d be thrilled to repeal the thing solely to get second-amendmenters to shut up. But you’re right that the eventual goal is a world where not every criminal and crazy person is armed. And that the most effective way of doing that is to curtail the casual dispersal of guns to the populace. But that doesn’t mean it’s done instantly and via instigating martial law. A more measured approach is possible as well.
We are either talking past each other or I have no idea what you are talking about. You are talking about criminals today who use guns in this fashion. I’m talking about all of the millions of people who aren’t going to go along with a gun ban and grab who would become criminals. Those new criminals aren’t going to be doing drive-by shootings or throwing their guns in the river…that would sort of defeat the whole purpose of wanting to hold onto their guns despite the ban and grab.
Quite simply, I haven’t made any sort of statement one way or the other in this thread about what might, could, would or should be done about the gun problem or what actions we could, should or would take, and have made no claim that we shouldn’t take any action, should take some action or should do anything at all, with the one caveat that I don’t think a total ban would be feasible or desirable. You seem to be reading an alternative universe version of this discussion and having a conversation with an alternative XT who isn’t me in this thread.
And that’s my final word on this in this thread, as the OP is probably about ready to blow a gasket at this point. If you would like to discuss this further go to the other thread I made and ask me whatever you like there. You might want to read the OP first, as it gives some ideas on things I think we could try (which isn’t nothing), or you could just resume your discussion with the alternative XT there if you like. Perhaps he will respond.
I also see the hijack now. Bowing out.
