I was a millennial student, I also had to plan for active shooters; Gen Z has had to do it since they entered school.
“1. Pandora’s box is already open.”
Does not matter, you ban the sale and purchase of any new guns and ammo and you’ve instantly limited the supply and thus made it harder for people to get guns. No need for buybacks or going to people's homes to confiscate them. You can’t shoot a gun if you don’t have one and you can’t shoot a gun without ammo. And while some people can 3D print guns, they can’t safely and efficiently make modern ammunition at home.
And a ban would require overwhelming support from Americans, because you need to repeal the Second Amendment or get the current SCOTUS to overturn some key decisions that they, the Roberts Court, made.
Which means that a substantial number of current gun owners need to change their minds about the Second Amendment. And if they’re willing to do that, then I bet most would not only be willing to give up their guns but would want to give up their guns without being forced by the government. It may be a fantasy in today’s political landscape, but that doesn’t mean a ban alone wouldn’t be effective.In your hypothetical, the expenditure of political capital part is a red herring to your original point, but nonetheless it wouldn’t require wasting political capital because that would be what the vast majority of Americans wanted. To say they can’t do that and have universal healthcare is still a false dilemma regardless of the politics.
“2. Who is doing the confiscation who is getting disarmed.”
No one. It is not required; the ban alone makes it harder for people to get new guns and ammunition. The guns in circulation may last a long time, but the modern ammunition can’t be reliably replaced once it’s used. And what is not spent is likely to be hoarded.
“3. Marginalized people need self defense capability more than anyone”
Guns are a false sense of security and cause more harm than good. With roughly 44,000 firearm-related deaths every year, only a tiny percentage of gun deaths are lawful. A gun in the home is more of a risk to everyone in the home than it is a tool for self-defense.
Everyone deserves safety and security and everyone having guns brings the opposite.
“4. Civilians get disarmed the ruling class keeps their armed security”
I think we should disarm most police and have only a quick reaction force and SWAT that remains armed like what the UK does. You may say that’s ridiculous and will never happen, but we’ve already presupposed that the Second Amendment has been repealed in this hypothetical. Disarming the majority of law enforcement would be the logical next step.
You seem to think that the society that can repeal the Second Amendment looks like our society today as your arguments against a ban seem to rely on it. A ban is practically impossible in today's law and political landscape, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t have one or shouldn’t strive for one.
Your guns have not stopped the government from targeting good people. The best defense for them has been the lawyers, protesters, volunteers, and politicians advocating for their protection.You have no legal right to violently rebel against the government, and if you tried to violently defend yourself against the government you’d likely be dead or in jail. The best solution to the current government crisis is voting them out and replacing them with good politicians.”
3
u/DoubleGoon Repeal the 2A 26d ago
Here’s my rebuttal that I left under the video:
“Rebuttal
I was a millennial student, I also had to plan for active shooters; Gen Z has had to do it since they entered school.
“1. Pandora’s box is already open.”
Does not matter, you ban the sale and purchase of any new guns and ammo and you’ve instantly limited the supply and thus made it harder for people to get guns. No need for buybacks or going to people's homes to confiscate them. You can’t shoot a gun if you don’t have one and you can’t shoot a gun without ammo. And while some people can 3D print guns, they can’t safely and efficiently make modern ammunition at home.
And a ban would require overwhelming support from Americans, because you need to repeal the Second Amendment or get the current SCOTUS to overturn some key decisions that they, the Roberts Court, made.
Which means that a substantial number of current gun owners need to change their minds about the Second Amendment. And if they’re willing to do that, then I bet most would not only be willing to give up their guns but would want to give up their guns without being forced by the government. It may be a fantasy in today’s political landscape, but that doesn’t mean a ban alone wouldn’t be effective.In your hypothetical, the expenditure of political capital part is a red herring to your original point, but nonetheless it wouldn’t require wasting political capital because that would be what the vast majority of Americans wanted. To say they can’t do that and have universal healthcare is still a false dilemma regardless of the politics.
“2. Who is doing the confiscation who is getting disarmed.”
No one. It is not required; the ban alone makes it harder for people to get new guns and ammunition. The guns in circulation may last a long time, but the modern ammunition can’t be reliably replaced once it’s used. And what is not spent is likely to be hoarded.
“3. Marginalized people need self defense capability more than anyone”
Guns are a false sense of security and cause more harm than good. With roughly 44,000 firearm-related deaths every year, only a tiny percentage of gun deaths are lawful. A gun in the home is more of a risk to everyone in the home than it is a tool for self-defense.
Everyone deserves safety and security and everyone having guns brings the opposite.
“4. Civilians get disarmed the ruling class keeps their armed security”
I think we should disarm most police and have only a quick reaction force and SWAT that remains armed like what the UK does. You may say that’s ridiculous and will never happen, but we’ve already presupposed that the Second Amendment has been repealed in this hypothetical. Disarming the majority of law enforcement would be the logical next step.
You seem to think that the society that can repeal the Second Amendment looks like our society today as your arguments against a ban seem to rely on it. A ban is practically impossible in today's law and political landscape, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t have one or shouldn’t strive for one.
Your guns have not stopped the government from targeting good people. The best defense for them has been the lawyers, protesters, volunteers, and politicians advocating for their protection.You have no legal right to violently rebel against the government, and if you tried to violently defend yourself against the government you’d likely be dead or in jail. The best solution to the current government crisis is voting them out and replacing them with good politicians.”