Technically, sure, repeal of the Second doesn’t mean a roundup of all guns in America. However, in our current political climate and with 250 years of gun ownership by right in this country, repealing the Second would be cast as doing exactly that, which would in turn lead to exactly what I describe. Realistically repealing the Second is off the table.
You don’t need to repeal to legislate effectively though. You just need Republicans to listen to constituents instead of plugging their ears with $1000 bills given them by NRA lobbyists. The Second Amendment shouldn’t be an impediment to effective gun control legislation, such legislation should be complimentary to the Second.
I agree with you, but again, realistically, any action that requires physically removing GUNS from the possession of people who have legitimately purchased and own them is not going to be feasible.
Honestly, we’re in the same boat right now with accessories like the bump stock. Sure, we can pass legislation making the sale of new modifications like it illegal, and we can state that possesing and using one is now illegal as well, and we can put in place a limited time amnesty program that offers to buy back such modifications from legitimate owners who purchased them pre-ban for fair compensation, but realistically we’re never going to get the majority of these devices back from the general public, and we have the NRA and Republicans to thank for it.
You’re right, it’s one hell of a task. But I think a reasonable step forward would be a buy back grace period, followed by simply a law making them illegal. You don’t have to physically track them all down NOW, that would incur a huge amount of work for little gain. Making it illegal to own and have in possession forces people to do the right thing on their own, or to be fibbed on by others, etc. It doesn’t get them all out of the way, but you have to start SOMEWHERE, and starting with preventing anyone from getting more is step one on that journey.
The biggest issue is the notion that we have to completely solve a problem, right now. We don’t, we just need steps to take to make it better going forward. Change the direction of the train, don’t try to put it in reverse and expect a quick stop.
Yeah I think the way the Australians did it was pretty solid. Just have everyone turn in their guns, have an amnesty period after which it would no longer be legal to possess them. Going door to door confiscating guns is going to be bad optics at a minimum and just asking for an armed confrontation at worst.
I’m with you. It’s far better to do something, even if it’s not an all-inclusive or total solution, than it is to do nothing. In this very thread are many examples of regulations and legislation that, while not preventing all gun violence ever, would certainly make strides towards reducing it while still allowing for the spirit of the Second Amendment and for the daily lives of hunters, farmers, sportsmen, enthusiasts and the like to continue unimpeded.
The NRA disagrees with us though. Their solution is to arm everyone. Nobody gets frisky when even grandmas are packing heat! What a stupid and juvenile fantasy that is, and how accurately it reflects on much of the ideology of the far right these days.
Campaign finance reform and the expulsion of lobbyists from Washington would effectively gut the NRA and organizations like it. It would also effectively impoverish most members of Congress…so not ever happening. =)
Thing is that the people of Australia basically wanted the gun ban to happen. All i’m hearing about in Texas, for ex., is we better buy bump stocks while we can and need to get that AR i’ve always wanted and everyone should apply for silencers before it’s too late. To take guns from these people means de-militarization on what amounts to a national scale, like de-Nazification or something. You’re going to have to force them at the barrel of a gun to give these up.
The alternative is to defang conservative unreality media, get the NRA out of politics, and create a large scale cultural consensus over the next 20 or 30 years from the ground up, and then, maybe, there will be some sensible gun laws able to be passed.
Or, you know, heavily regulate ammo sales. There are too many guns to repossess and the optics of that will be the black helicopter FEMA-camp fantasy they’ve been dreaming about for years. In many ways the diseased minds of Conservatives today actually push things in that direction - they stockpile heavy weapons and then glare at the horizon, daring the 'man to come git them. Just like they complain about “fake media” when their own media is infantile propaganda. And when the man doens’t come… they stockpile even more, daring the 'man. And when the country is overrun with high powered weapons and one day “the man” actually does something, that they actually caused the thing they’ve been predicting, is their subconscious goal.
Oh yes, that’s absolutely key. People have to decide that the costs of unmanaged gun ownership outweigh the benefits before anything like this can happen. And maybe it never will.
Theoretically, a bill or nomination could pass out of the Senate with the support of senators representing only 16.2 percent of the population. If the two senators from the 25 smallest states agreed to support a bill — and Vice President Pence concurred — the senators from the other 25 states and the 270 million people they represent are out of luck.
IOW there is a built in advantage for rural states which are not particularly centrist. But with respect to gerrymandering, we can see the result since 2010 with the asymmetric polarization of the GOP and House representatives. While there have always been cases of extreme loons, they were few and far between. Now, not so much. They only have to appeal to the ‘base’ and that results in a race to the extreme edge.
Senate demographics nudging in favor of less populous states is by-design.
The House of Representatives is naturally tilted in favor of states with higher population. Part of the Senate’s purpose Is to balance out that disparity in power.
Some states having larger population isn’t a new development. Griping now about two Senators per state is a couple centuries too late.
One of the problem with getting a conversation started between anti and pro-gun people is that anti-gun people really don’t understand exactly how a firearm works. So making broad generalizations and bans really piss off pro-gun people. Then pro-gun people lash back, and then both sides just shut down, and start yelling at each other. Take the whole bump-stock thing. The reason is was allowed by the ATF is that it doesn’t modify HOW a semi-auto action works. It still is 1 trigger pull, 1 round fired. There is NO modification to the trigger group to allow full-auto fire. It simply games physics of the recoil. So people are saying BAN BUMP-STOCKS… but then they throw in, ban anything that modifies the trigger, but it never modified the trigger. We use double-stage triggers, polished triggers, lighter springs, Teflon coated triggers, drop-in triggers, etc. We use those to lighten the trigger for more accuracy, better feel, but none of that changes it from semiauto to full-auto. I have a number of ARs like a golfer has a number of clubs. Each one is used differently, and has a specific use, SPR, SBR, AR-Pistol, Home-Defense, hunting, etc.
I confess I know little about guns. I would just like to make it so that we can be like other developed countries that don’t have a mass shooting every 20 minutes. Whatever it takes to get us there, I’m for.
While this is true, our system is not designed for parliamentary style party discipline; there is now very little bipartisan agreement on virtually any topic. (Even infrastructure has become a partisan issue.) Although minority interests absolutely deserve consideration, we’ve now flipped that on its head. Our current political system is not tenable any longer.
