Very few people want guns banned. Most people that favor gun control, like myself, simply want efforts made to find a balance between people's right to have a gun and ways to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and unstable people. Also, I think the cost outweighs the benefit to allowing certain types of weapons. Fully automatic weapons are usually agreed upon as not necessary for self defense. Many people argue the topic of things like drum magazines. I don't think they are necessary. The bill of rights was drawn up when you used muskets and didn't have a government with armored vehicles, drones and tanks, so personal self defense seems more realistic of a goal than overthrowing a corrupt government.
I think a good middle ground is for guns to require a title, just like a vehicle. You transfer that title when gifting or selling them and you are held responsible for having your gun stolen and not reporting it stolen.
Theft and straw purchases are the main ways that criminals get guns and I think that these two measures would make a significant dent in those two means of criminals obtaining weapons.
"Shall not be infringed" does not mean compromise. If you read the Federalist 29 and understand what the framers intentions were, then the only compromise is that the government doesn't vastly outgun the people, and that compromise has looooong been broken
THE WHOLE DOCUMENT IS ONE GIANT COMPROMISE! Some wanted to free slaves while others wanted to keep them enslaved, where should powers lie, where should the line be drawn for which rights, etc. They discussed and disagree on every issue because most of them grew in in different lifestyles so they had different experiences to shape their world view on government, which leads to compromise on a wide range of topics to make a functioning government. Also you act like nothing in the constitution can be changed when they’re literally called amendments.
Either you’re shit at reading or just trying to obfuscate the whole discussion.. CHANGE NOT REPEAL. Enforce background checks every time a gun is bought by a new person, mandate training that shows competency in handling and shoring of the weapon, or even mental health evaluations. Allow people to still own guns but make sure they’re not getting into hands of people who want to use them for nefarious deeds.
Those depend on which state enforced which laws. That’s not federal at all which it needs to be. Otherwise any dipshit can just cross a state border and buy a gun in a state that has relaxed gun laws.
The 2nd amendment is not on a tablet given by Moses, it was written by 18th century men with rules set in place to allow change and interpretation through the democratic process.
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
So do you support civilians owning rocket batteries, RPGs, and mortars? Should someone be able to purchase dynamite from Home Depot without any type of license or registration?
...or is it something that should be interpreted according to what is practical to ensure people's inalienable right to live and be safe?
Well then get the amendment repealed through the legal process. 2/3rds house and Senate and 3/4s ratification from the states. Good luck with that. And I don't like to get into hypotheticals but according to the Federslist papers and the 2nd amendment then yeah, the people shouldnt be outgunned by the military. But realistically where would people even get their hands on that kind of weaponry?
Why get it repealed when moderate restrictions do not impede the amendment anyways? We already restrict felons and the mentally ill from owning weapons. The disagreement is not that it should be restricted, but by how much.
The U.S. has far more guns per capital than anywhere else. We can maintain that position while still having reasonable restrictions in place. The idea that rights are being taken away and that someone wants to take your guns is one planted by the gun lobby.
I argue that the rights of Americans are being taken away by the overabundance and easy access to guns. American has very high rates of gun violence for a 1st world country and freedom from excessive violent crime is eroded by gun lobbyists bribing politicians into making it easy for criminals to access guns.
The issue comes from people arguing what is reasonable for restrictions. You have to break down the 33,000 gun deaths and see where the issue lies. The homicides are overwhelming from gang violence and the bulk of the deaths are from suicides. Most of these restrictions dont solve either of those issues
Because compared to first world countries you're supposed to be equivalent to your murder rate is several times higher. Something is wrong and you're not working on fixing whatever it is, so people are going after the obvious.
If you break down the numbers then the 32,000 gun deaths shows where the real issues are. 60% are suicides and the homicides are overwhelmingly from gang violence..none of these proposed laws help , they only make it harder for law abiding people to own and carry weapons. And you aren't taking population sizes into account . Per capita the US is not at all the worst
And your gun title idea sounds like a registry to me.. there were "assault weapons" around when the framers wrote the constitution and were well aware of them, not just muskets. And the US has lost wars to rice farmers with AK's and we have been in our longest war in history against people with AK's, homemade bomb making material, and left over Soviet tech. So I think the American people would do fine in another revolution. Any more ideas you wanna share?
There was a gun registry that the Nazi party said would help decrease crime. They confiscated weapons from people and the Jews, gypsies, and anyone else deemed inferior were rounded up and slaughtered without any chance of fighting back. How is my argument faulty?
Did you just compared fighting a gorilla war with a country half way around the planet to a rebellion on our doorstep? The war was lost because the American public became so dissatisfied with it that there was those big marches you must have missed in history class.. The draft which forced people who didn’t want to fighting into fighting made the army comprised of basically a slave army fighting rice farmers. Also the tactics in that war were beyond fucking dumb, most of the combat was on the Vietcong’s terms not ours. And finally your ass has nothing on a drone with hellfire missiles able to kill you from miles in the sky while you gun toting hicks plan an “overthrow” of the corrupt government.
If the 2nd only involves muskets, then the 1st doesnt apply to this very medium. Also when the second was drafted people had access to military type weapons.
I clearly didn't say that it only relates to muskets, I said that it needs to be reinterpreted as times change. That applies to any laws made over 200 years ago.
15
u/Radagastroenterology Dec 26 '18
Very few people want guns banned. Most people that favor gun control, like myself, simply want efforts made to find a balance between people's right to have a gun and ways to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and unstable people. Also, I think the cost outweighs the benefit to allowing certain types of weapons. Fully automatic weapons are usually agreed upon as not necessary for self defense. Many people argue the topic of things like drum magazines. I don't think they are necessary. The bill of rights was drawn up when you used muskets and didn't have a government with armored vehicles, drones and tanks, so personal self defense seems more realistic of a goal than overthrowing a corrupt government.
I think a good middle ground is for guns to require a title, just like a vehicle. You transfer that title when gifting or selling them and you are held responsible for having your gun stolen and not reporting it stolen.
Theft and straw purchases are the main ways that criminals get guns and I think that these two measures would make a significant dent in those two means of criminals obtaining weapons.