For the record, I never proposed banning guns and ammo, as in making them illegal to own. I proposed banning the sale of guns and ammo. I actually haven’t even suggesting that anybody be asked to hand their guns in!
And honestly, as has been pointed out, criminals have a harder time holding onto guns than non-criminals do - cops can seize them, parolees aren’t allowed to even own them, and nowadays it can be dangerous to hold onto a gun you’ve used in case it can be connected to a crime. Criminals almost certainly go through more guns than the average person does - if avenues for getting a hold of guns are constricted they’d be hit the hardest.
If guns are no longer sold, the only people who have guns will be people who are not criminals - because they’re the only ones who can easily keep them.
The federal government has enumerated powers. The Second Amendment is not “a declaration that the government has not taken authority in a certain area.” The federal government has NO authority in any area unless there is a grant of authority in the Constitution.
The state governments have plenary legislative authority. Not the federal government.
The Second is a fence that limits the government’s exercise of its other powers, such as regulation of interstate commerce, in ways that contravene the right to keep and bear arms.
Fair enough. Your original point kind of got drowned out in the subsequent discussion by my tongue in cheek reply which sparked this whole hijack. I don’t think that what you are advancing here is what the OP really wanted to discuss but I’d be happy to if it’s ok with him. Otherwise, I’ll drop it at this point, acknowledging that I was overstating what you were getting at.
Of course they’re amendments. An amendment is a change or addition to an existing document. It has nothing to do with adding new laws. The Constitution is not a series of laws anyway; it’s a framework for government. Yes, the Federalists thought the Constitution was sufficient to protect individual rights. They were also concerned that listing individual rights would limit individuals to only the rights listed. The Republicans, aka The Anti-Federalists, agreed to ratify only on the condition the Constitution would be amended to include delineated individual rights. So ten amendments were ratified in 1791, including the 9th Amendment, which states that individuals have more rights than are listed.
Your apple analogy doesn’t work because the topic is not personal property and theft but the repeal of amendments.
And what if by the same means the 1st or 4th amendments are repealed
Do you accept that also?
How about the 13th and 15th and 19th amendments?
Would you accept that if they were repealed by the same means?
How about the 3rd and the 8th?
Is there some place where you would draw the line that it affects you too much
or would you simply keep accepting as long as it looked to be done right?
Japan and England are not anywhere close to the size of the United States. Japan is 145,936 square miles. The U.K. is 93,628 square miles. The United States, however, is 3,796,742 square miles, or almost 16 times the size of the other two combined. The United States’ population is also much more spread out. Population density here is 90.6 people per square mile. It’s 701.1 people per square mile in the U.K., and 870.2 in Japan.
Japan and the U.K. also have the geographic advantages of being islands, which I would imagine presents tougher logistical challenges for would-be smugglers. In contrast, the United States has over 7,400 miles of land borders with Canada and Mexico.
Those differences alone would make it much more difficult to achieve the same level of success with gun control measures that they have had in countries like the U.K. and Japan.
If the 2nd amendment was repealed, you’re already in a place where you’re taking guns by eminent domain and having laws where ownership is limited to a handgun per adult. In that case, keep all the ammo you want, who gives a shit about ammo.
Maybe lock up all the taken guns in armories and set up ceremonial militias as a sop to the 1776-er nuts.
Reputable media should seek to obtain and publish crime scene gore photos of the victims of this type of shit instead of sitting on it when they have it, that is how you will get some movement in this direction.
And then we can eliminate the1st, 4th 3rd, 8th, 13th, 15th and 19th amendments party members of course would still enjoy the some fashion of them, within the party guidelines of course.
Those outside the party must be separated from any rights, because those who oppose the party oppose society and progress and are there fore enemies of the people and they must be eliminated for the good of the whole.
From the thieves who were walking through neighborhoods and forcing their way into houses with a double barrelled shotgun.
I spent some time wondering if the guy who tried to mug my Wife and got caught was smart enough to realize that if the witness against him died he might not be convicted, and dumb enough to realize that he would be the first guy the police would come looking for.
Yeah, I would. Our system is designed to have this feature. Be kind of silly for me to complain about it, or to pick some Amendments that can be changed, modified or removed but not these others. As long as the process was used correctly, I’d accept a change. I might move away if I feel that things have changed too much…which would be the case if, say, the 1st was removed. But it’s a feature, not a bug, and our system is meant to change with the times and changing attitudes. It’s also not an easy thing to do, which is also the way it’s meant to be. Probably why, despite all of the anti-gun types they haven’t actually ever tried to repeal the 2nd.
I would think the inverse is true as well. With the crooks not carrying guns, the cops don’t need to either. And if neither is carrying, then confrontations can be much less tense.
As they don’t have an amendment that protect the use and possession and open carry of acid, there are laws being put into place to control people’s access to acid, as well as stopping people and asking tem why they have containers of acid on their person in public.
It’s almost as though they’ve identified a problem, and taken steps to try to reduce it. Show me a similar effort in the US on guns, and your analogy has relevance.
Random people aren’t walking up to complete strangers and shooting them. Apples and oranges. When you subtract suicide, male 18-35 violence and domestic abuse; there really isn’t a problem. It would be more effective to ban murderous video games and media than guns. But the antigun crowd wouldn’t want to make that sacrifice for the sake of a safer society.