What purpose do 2,3, or 5 serve?
People don't seem at all concerned that Doctors kill vastly more people than virtually any other inanimate object.
I'd like to add "Hold medical professionals responsible for mass shooters whom they prescribed anti-depressants to."
I'd like to see voting age increased too.@Kneeblock - I can go along with #1, but only if you raise the minimum age of enlistment to 21.
I think all of those should be HS diploma, or 21+ without HS diploma
I'm not sure you're getting what I mean by community centers here. People don't buy the guns at the centers. They use them. Basically your guns are kept at the range. Also they are multi-service centers where multiple services are offered, mental health, financial counseling, jobs counseling, etc. We have a long tradition of these places in the US. They're from the tradition of settlement houses and YMCAs. The gun club would essentially become a multi-service community center in reflection of guns embeddedness in American communities. Rather than making them about individualism and the home, they'd be recentered in communities in the actual spirit of the 2nd Amendment.
How does limiting people to shotguns and rifles at home for defense limit one's ability to defend themself? Do you mean in the street?
Not understanding your opposition to stiffer penalties for illegal possession.
IMO
When you have a central lockup of anything, you create a target for theft.
The logic for something like an AR ban for example is that "They're too dangerous." That contention is nonsense, but for the sake of the conversation I'll concede it. If someone is using a firearm for home defense because they're in fear for their life; why would you force them to use what you're deeming to be a less effective platform?
Mainly because it can ensnare people with little or no moral fault and who pose little or no danger to the public. The other side of it is that an illegal possession charge is almost always thrown out in favor of the sexier crime. Ie. it's extremely common here for the illegal possession charge to go away if the person pleads guilty to the crime they were committing with said gun.
All of these are arguments that basically say the risk of change would also come with risks. The question is whether those risks are greater than the current risks. I'd argue they aren't. Alternate scenarios have lately included enhancing the distribution of arms, and on a macro-sociological level we've seen how that kind of game theory leads to a tense detente with eventual spillover into arbitrarily designated lower stakes conflicts. I'd argue that's been the prevailing Western logic for decades and, in the US at least, it's encoded into our values via the second amendment. My proposal is obviously flawed, but its central premise is moving away from the former logic of peace through accumulation toward peace through reduction. Reduction of access and distribution carry their own risks, of course, but by and large societies who have adopted this paradigm have been internally less tragic. I don't think a society should go fully unarmed because I do think there is merit to taking arms against both tyranny and unwanted invaders, but I also think that changing the primary ownership philosophy from individual to collective changes the meaning of the instrument. It also moves us closer to the intentions of the framers of the Constitution.
With 2/3 of the House and Senate and 3/4 of the states.
right. How are you going to get 2/3 of the senators, and 3/4 of the states, to ratify a Constitutional Amendment. And it's a modification to the Bill of Rights, an enumeration of Natural Rights which cannot be superseded by a government without that government losing it's moral legitimacy.
This is pretty much the attitude. There's no real logic or argument, just "2nd amendmant says i can have guns, so i'm gonna have'em". Can't reaaon someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into.
There will never be another amendment to the constitution, ever. We can't even deploy decent healthcare which is domething both parties want to do.
Identity politics sucks.
Actually I have no problem with some of the gun control shit being thrown around. My problem is where does it end? Why would I give a inch when they want to take a mile. I think alot of people feel the same way.
Why does rural America have more of a right to hunt or protect themselves than that of urban America? People in the city are safer? People in the city dont hunt or have a need to hunt? Have you ever been to the midwest or known anyone from there outside of a forum?
It doesn’t end. They’ve been tightening the grip on gun control slowly for the last 8 decades. With every restriction introduced, they get closer to full disarmament. Take the bump stock... 3/4 of Americans didn’t even know of their existence until the Vegas shooting. It then became the new talking point for more 2A restrictions. The guy could have bought some magazine fed bolt-action rifles and had more fatalities with accurate shots, but the bump stock became the new boogie man and a way to tighten the choke hold on the 2A.
high capacity magazines and bump stocks are far more prone to failure. IIRC, that happened to the Vegas shooter and the Aurora shooter.
They somehow seem to think that passing a law will be the end of it. No one wants to see the bloodbath that will occur if police tried to go door to door and disarm people.
They fail to realize that most of our military, police, and security are pro-2A. There will never be a door-to-door confiscation. That’s how you get an armed populace to form a militia.
The data disagrees.
