General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsOK - So let's say we repeal the second amendment.
Allow people handguns with short magazines and bolt action rifles.
Nothing else, no "assault weapons"
Who is going to be responsible for gathering up all those ugly black guns with the bayonet mounts and the suppressors and the big magazines?
How many "gun nuts" would fight to the death? Would their slaughter and the killing of those (10,000? 20,000?, 100,000?) tasked with the removal of said guns be worth it to rid the US of "gun nuts"? (you know, the bloodthirsty small peckered variety so deeply loved here in DU.....)
Are you willing to kill a million people to take ugly guns away? two million?? five million?
What would you use to remove these guns? The military and their firepower? Turned wholesale against the civilian population?
If you use the military, how are they going to restrict movement so guns cannot be smuggled out of areas not yet searched into already 'cleansed' areas??
At gunpoint.
I think banning ugly guns is fine, except that it will solve nothing. That's because once you've banned them, you have to take them away from your neighbors. And that is a whole 'nother thing, amigo.
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)honor system at work, right.
xchrom
(108,903 posts)jaysunb
(11,856 posts)STOP making them or the ammunition, Since making and exporting them is the #1 business in this country, it kinda solves the problem.
You got em...keep em, but there ain't gonna be any more.
A couple generations down the line will thank us.
permatex
(1,299 posts)We can't even stop the smuggling of drugs and immigrants. Criminals will always be able to get guns. The black market will always fill a need.
jaysunb
(11,856 posts)With only 58 total gun deaths last year, seems they may have at least minimized this "smuggling you speak of.
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)backwoodsbob
(6,001 posts)obviously you dont realize those evil black rifles come in pretty much every caliber now.To stop making evil black rifle ammo you would pretty much ban every rifle ammo in make today which would be in violation of the 2nd
jaysunb
(11,856 posts)The perversion of the Second Amendment is such a sick joke until I seriously doubt there's anything said, spoken or privately thought that would NOT be a violation of said law.
OneTenthofOnePercent
(6,268 posts)That'd be like saying published or printed materials are protected under free speech but owning a publishing or printing equipment is not.
jaysunb
(11,856 posts)The stature itself has been perverted. Period.
The founders could not have forseen the 300 million population and the "militia" is more commonly known today as the National Guard.
This new reading is less than 30 years old. It's a perversion of the original intent.
Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)left of this nation's economy. Before you get behind this notion, please look at how large a part of our national economy comes from being the world's largest arms dealers. When it comes to Merchants of Death, nobody even comes close to us.
One of the very few instances where "We're #1" is still valid.
jaysunb
(11,856 posts)sendero
(28,552 posts).. stopping now would accomplish nothing other than possibly raising the price a bit. I can hear the mass murderer now - "I was going to buy an AR15 to kill people but they are too expensive now, I guess I'll get a kitchen knife".
spin
(17,493 posts)and have the necessary equipment to and ability to make their own ammo. It's actually quite easy to do. I made my own rounds for 20 years.
Firearms don't wear out if they have some reasonable care. There's an estimated 300 million firearms in our nation. I have several firearms that have had thousands and thousands of rounds fired through them and they still look new and function perfectly.
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)I imagine many people believe there is no solution possible merely because there is no solution in obvious sight, and then state that opnion as an absolute.
permatex
(1,299 posts)you would probably have a massive revolt in the services if they were ordered to fire on Americans refusing to turn over their weapons, also, I think you would see the majority of street cops refusing to do same, there would be massive civil disobedience, you would probably see a wholesale turnover in the legislative and executive branchs.
There would be complete chaos in the country.
cliffordu
(30,994 posts)the possibility of civil war if it really went bad..
permatex
(1,299 posts)but yeah, your right, after Kent State, I just don't see the military firing on civilians again, oh I'm sure some individual members would but other members would make quick work of them.
Most street cops would tell their superiors, if ordered to enforce confiscation, to go fuck themselves.
AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)Last edited Mon Jul 23, 2012, 07:30 AM - Edit history (1)
You're right that banning "ugly guns" would not solve anything.
Even banning .45 automatics (a type of "automatics" that some people might favor banning) would not solve anything.
Ready4Change
(6,736 posts)Or we should restrict weapons to only black powder, as the American Civil War demonstrated how humans are completely impervious to that type of weapon.
Say, lets just box every individual into a nice box with walls made of NERF foam. We can all communication through the interwebs, suck food from hoses in the walls, and no one will ever be hurt again. That'll be the life.
spin
(17,493 posts)and is also one of the more popular style pistols on the market today. Many gun manufacturers make versions of this timeless handgun.
M1911 pistol
The M1911 is a single-action, semi-automatic, magazine-fed, recoil-operated handgun chambered for the .45 ACP cartridge,[1] which served as the standard-issue side arm for the United States armed forces from 1911 to 1985. It was widely used in World War I, World War II, the Korean War, and the Vietnam War. The M1911 is still carried by some U.S. forces. Its formal designation as of 1940 was Automatic Pistol, Caliber .45, M1911 for the original Model of 1911 or Automatic Pistol, Caliber .45, M1911A1 for the M1911A1, adopted in 1924. The designation changed to Pistol, Caliber .45, Automatic, M1911A1 in the Vietnam era.[1] In total, the United States procured around 2.7 million M1911 and M1911A1 pistols in military contracts during its service life. The M1911 was replaced by the M9 pistol as the standard U.S. sidearm in the early 1990s, but due to its popularity among users, it has not been completely phased out. Modern M1911 variants are still seen in use by some units within the U.S. Navy and U.S. Marine Corps...emphasis added
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1911_pistol
AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)What about all those 30-round "clips" or 50-round "clips" which seem to scare some people?
If you are going to explain the obvious with respect to "automatic" pistols, maybe you'll want to take the time to also explain the obvious that automatic pistols carry magazines, not clips. People don't need to be afraid of 30-round or 50-round clips for automatic pistols. Only some revolvers such as the S&W 625 take clips, and even then the number of rounds per clip is greatly limited in comparison to the number of rounds that can be carried in many magazines.
spin
(17,493 posts)clip and magazine.
I find it sad that many experienced shooters call a magazine a clip.
Another example is the difference between a bullet and a cartridge.
For terminology questions, I prefer the NRA Firearms Sourcebook. This outstanding effort on the part of the American Rifleman Technical staff tells us that a bullet is a non-spherical projectile for use in a rifled barrel... and a cartridge is a single round of ammunition consisting of case, primer and propellant with one or more projectiles. In other words, a bullet is the part of a cartridge that goes sailing downrange to do its work. The terms are not interchangeable and should be used for their specific and individual meanings.
http://www.americanrifleman.org/blogs/bullets-and-cartridges/
undeterred
(34,658 posts)Being in love with weapons is just not a healthy, normal way of being in the world.
permatex
(1,299 posts)Who said anything about love for our weapons? Why does someone always bring up this strawman?
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)We can repeal the 19th also. Im sure women wouldn't cause much of a stir. Nobody fights when a constitutional right is taken away.
<sarcasm> warning... because some peep are so dense.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)So long as there are people, there is a clear need for them to be able to have freedom of their opinion.
The 2nd amendment, however, is obsolete; we no longer rely on citizen militia for defense, and even if we did, your gun collection would not amount to much in a modern war.
However, your statement is flawed; the 1st amendment is not absolute.
Mike_Valentine
(35 posts)I rely on all my rights, including the 2nd.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Truly, honestly, you don't rely in your second amendment rights any more than you rely on your third amendment rights - in all honesty you're more likely to need the third amendment than the 2nd, and that's saying a bit.
The reason is, we do not use the citizen militia system for for defense anymore. The bell in your town will not ring, and you will not be expected to pick up your gun and rush to a rendezvous point to defend the town against Indians, the British, space aliens, whatever. It won't happen.
That is the crux of the 2nd amendment. It's there for purposes of national defense, an addendum to Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution. We have national and domestic defense covered by the military branches and by the police (Well... ideally by the police, these days, they seem more of something that needs to be defended AGAINST...)
The entire premise behind the 2nd amendment is defunct. It's the product of the early United States' paranoia and distrust of standing armies (and not, as some would have you believe, distrust of the government.) In fact, if you flipped back to Article 1, section 8, you'll see there is zero provision for a standing army; a Navy, but no army. it relies on calling the militia to defend on land. This is just not the case anymore; you should know, judging by your avatar.
Now an argument could be made that the army - all the branches of the military in fact, and police forces - are in fact the militia. However, if we make this argument, we have to realize that the arms you carry are provided to you by the service you are part of. You are not required to pick up your own weapons and bring them with you after you enlist. That feature of the amendment is defunct as well.
What you are doing when you play with your gun is exercising a common-law right to property. Same thing you do when you cook a meat loaf or hang a bird feeder. It's your right, but it's not the 2nd amendment.
unblock
(51,974 posts)nevermind that repeal of the 2nd amendment is much more of a gun-lover's strawman than a serious position advocated by those on the gun control side. yes, there are a few out there, but we all know they'll get nowhere.
but let's say for argument's sake that the 2nd amendment were somehow repealed and then a law was passed banning possession of guns. the 4th amendment would still prohibit searches without probable cause, so guns you keep hidden in your house are fine. it would become impossible to (legally) buy more guns, and perhaps more ammo (although of course a black market would instantly appear).
moreover, police forces and prosecutors use discretion all the time in determining who to actually go after. for instance, virtually everyone speeds, but they usually only ticket those who are overly fast or overly black. similarly, they wouldn't even try to go after everyone, they would prioritize the more eggregious gun possession cases along with all the other criminal activity.
as a practical matter, they'd likely go for a slow starvation approach -- just let the ammo run out and focus efforts on keeping the black market in check.
it wouldn't work 100%, of course, but law enforcement isn't 100% effective at anything.
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)So they sure as hell wont stop ammo smuggling. Ammunition will be a lot more expensive, but with people not able to go to a range or just plink, they'll use much less.
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)Stop making sense, it's diluting my outrage, you CAD!
cliffordu
(30,994 posts)I NEVER tried to make any sense.
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)1) There will be a small number who say "i dont use this, and dont need it" and turn their guns in.
2) There will be another small group of collectors, who will render their firearms inoperable so they can continue to own and display them.
3) There will be a group of convicted felons who already own their weapons illegally.. So no change.
4) The remaining group, the vast majority, will simply hide their guns. Even if it were possible to do a massive house to house search, the vast majority wont be found. All kinds of French and Channel Islanders buried their guns in the yard or hid them behind walls when the Germans showed up. Maybe they'll stay hidden, maybe they'll end up sold on the black market, who knows?
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)After the first few thousand died futilely under artillery fire and helicopter gunship attacks I think the rest would come along quietly..
I doubt you'd have to kill more than fifty thousand, tops..
gollygee
(22,336 posts)Or banning all guns.
Maybe some guns.
Anyway, I would not expect people to turn them in. I guess I'd just like it so people couldn't easily walk into any gun shop anywhere and legally buy anything they want and then go on a killing spree. Even if it made them harder to get, or made it so people had to know where to go, it might stop someone who is not an expert on guns but is going a little off kilter and wants to cause a lot of damage quickly.
How many people who go on these killing sprees are gun experts? It seems like I keep reading about people who just start amassing guns only when they come up with a plan to kill a bunch of people. I don't see gun collectors in the news. I see college and high school kids who are getting them very easily, not off the black market.
But yeah in the end I know it's not practical. It's just hard to see this stuff going on over and over again with no solutions.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)cliffordu
(30,994 posts)Beautiful.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)ETA: I only had to go back about two months to find an example..
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)Out of 100 million gun owners. Dont know about the others, but in this case it appears the guy started buying his guns after he decided to go on a murderous rampage. He also booby-trapped his apartment with homemade napalm, apparently just anyone can go right up to a gas station and buy gasoline, no questions asked.
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)They'll go in the wrong house, and shoot Aunt Bea sleeping on the sofa.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)You see Barney was a damn deputy sheriff and Andy only let him have one bullet and then only sometimes because Andy knew damn well that most people can't be trusted with more than one bullet..
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)Now Barney would have a tazer.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)I can just imagine Barney Fife with a fucking tazer, that could be an epic routine..
Shoots himself in foot with tazer, can't let go of button, starts foaming at mouth and acting even more spastic than normal.
Actually I think Andy Taylor had some gentle wisdom and I think keeping Barn's bullet safe was one of the prime examples of that wisdom, I wish more chiefs of police were like him and less like the one in that Dirty Harry flick..
ChoppinBroccoli
(3,764 posts)(Simpsons reference).
cbrer
(1,831 posts)That's a fact!
JVS
(61,935 posts)Nobody is going to repeal the second amendment to go after just one type of gun. There's already precedent for banning certain types of guns without going through all the trouble of an amendment.
cliffordu
(30,994 posts)Too bad you didn't read the rest.
"Nothing ensures ignorance like contempt prior to investigation."
Good luck with everything, though!
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)As in, you have a right to own property, but it is not an absolute, unlimited right.
The logical process of it would be grandfathering firearms already in possession, with a payout program for those who wish to voluntarily cede their guns. With this comes a halt in sale of new weapons, and limitations on ammunition purchase (licensing, or some other similar thing.)
I understand gun nuts love the fantasy of the ATF shootout - you're all Randy weaver at heart - but it's very unlikely to play out that way simply becuase it'd be awfully inconveniant.
cliffordu
(30,994 posts)Really?
I don't own a gun. I could if I wanted to, but I simply do not.
How's that Randy Weaver thingy supposed to work for me, now??
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)cliffordu
(30,994 posts)Nice try, but really, you need a better set of lines.
The bait on the ones you've been using are a little......ripe.....
DirkGently
(12,151 posts)First, what you describe, whether or not it's a good idea, is not a repeal of the Second Amendment. The only reason to repeal the Second Amendment would be to allow for a complete ban of weaponry of all kinds, so that scenario would make sense as a response to a proposal for that, and nowhere else.
Second, anyone who would fight to the death over "just" having handguns and rifles has serious mental issues, and would probably shed blood over a lot of other things, so I don't think we can base our policies on how they would react. In fact, the implication that we can't change gun laws at all because millions of gun owners "won't allow it," is another problem with the entire conversation. If our current firearms policies have created a class of people who intend to kill us if we don't do what they say, we may as well just get that over with, because that's an intolerable state of affairs.
Last, the entire premise that any kind of firearm restriction = door-to-door "gun grabbing" AND civil war is gun lobby apocalyptic propaganda nonsense. There is no reason to foster that vision other than to rationalize the exact attitude which suggests we have a gun problem in America. So far no one's society has collapsed into ashes because they limited firearms.
I don't have the answers on what we need to do regarding America's gun violence problems. And I'm as sick of these in-the-wake-of-Aurora gun threads -- from either side -- as anyone, but it would be an improvement if these issues could be discussed without declaring that the streets will run red with the blood of true patriots if any attempt is made to do *anything* about these issues.
cliffordu
(30,994 posts)A bit melodramatic, don't you think??
"So far no one's society has collapsed into ashes because they limited firearms".
True dat, but no one has ever tried to seize a hundred million of them, either.
"If our current firearms policies have created a class of people who intend to kill us if we don't do what they say, we may as well just get that over with, because that's an intolerable state of affairs."
I have no idea what the fuck you're talking about here. Where did I say or imply that?
the real gist of MY op was to ask the simple question:
What are you willing to do or sacrifice to eliminate the guns?
Would YOU go take guns from people?
DirkGently
(12,151 posts)If you want to set aside the fact that the example of a restriction you used -- pistols and bolt-action rifles only -- is not that onerous of a change to begin with, you're still left with the false implication that gun owners will fight to the death if they believe their rights are being infringed.
That's 1) unlikely and 2) not a valid basis under which to consider policy. It feels a lot like other pro-gun fallacies having to with the idea that laws just don't work so ... you can't.
Yes we can. And it won't be the end of society, and it won't lead to bloodshed.
And, to the extent someone is inclined to kill people over something as universal as limiting firearms in a civilized country, they're welcomed to go down fighting.
Clearer?
sofa king
(10,857 posts)Forget, for the moment, that there is probably still a 500 year old blunderbuss that can be cleaned up and used, and that there are millions of guns already properly stored, packaged, and hidden which will certainly be functional for much of the rest of this century and some of them just as certainly will be functional for hundreds of years.
That's the easy problem.
The hard problem is this: There are thousands of designs and drawings which have been in the public domain for decades, which can already be translated into CAD files.
And there are already three-dimensional printers which can make the parts needed for individual gun designs. It is already happening.
It won't be long before someone creates a 3D printer which can recreate some or all of itself, meaning it will be simple to set up a miniature armory anywhere, one which can grow exponentially to meet demand, one which can make firearms from classic designs, or from new ones, with nearly impossible to identify machining marks (the illicit manufacturer can simply interchange parts in the printers so that none bear the same machining marks).
No high-capacity clips? You can make one in your basement overnight. Want to kill off guns by restricting the manufacture or sale of critical parts of them that wear out, like firing pins or cartridges? Soon, the high school kid down the street can make and sell new ones.
If guns were already banned, we would be in one hell of a mess not dissimilar to our war on drugs (and yes, I'm sure the cartels will be pushing this technology off the bat). But as it happens, our society may be better adapted to the wild-west insanity that awaits than some others where totalitarian governments maintain their power from the barrel of a gun.
Soon, nobody is going to be able to control guns, anywhere, ever again.
So we as a people had better figure out how to control ourselves, how to raise our level of discourse and our ability to peacefully settle our grievances so that violence is less often an option, how to spot those who do not know how to ask for help before they explode in violence, how to take care of each other so that people cannot fall to the level of desperation where they feel the need to take up arms to survive or carve out a better place for themselves in society.
Because if people have to do that, they can, and they will, and nobody can stop that now.
sofa king
(10,857 posts)... But it's real today:
http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/133514-the-worlds-first-3d-printed-gun
baldguy
(36,649 posts)And if they wouldn't follow that law, why should we trust them to follow any other?
Reasonable_Argument
(881 posts)A great many people hold their 2nd Amendment right in high esteem and you would have just turned them into felons with the stroke of a pen. Why shouldn't they resist that?
spin
(17,493 posts)If 90% of the owners complied and turned their firearms in you would still have 8 million well armed gun owners.
baldguy
(36,649 posts)They can't be fine, upstanding, law-abiding & trustworthy citizens if they don't abide by the law.
Reasonable_Argument
(881 posts)What other rights would you so flippantly surrender if told to?
baldguy
(36,649 posts)And my original question stand: If they refuse to follow this law, how can they be trusted to follow any other?
Reasonable_Argument
(881 posts)bighart
(1,565 posts)If so, why should you be trusted to follow any other law?
baldguy
(36,649 posts)Do you know why there's a difference?
Do you know which one owning an illegal firearm is treated as?
spin
(17,493 posts)How much bloodshed would result if you tried?
baldguy
(36,649 posts)And those who don't follow the law can't be considered to be law-abiding citizens.
spin
(17,493 posts)on the interstate.
ileus
(15,396 posts)Reasonable_Argument
(881 posts)Your answer to this tragedy would be to start and even greater one by having a 2nd Civil War? Very well thought out opinion you have there.