Thing is when people talk about restrictions they mean “These people shouldn’t have guns, but these people should be allowed to have them.” What I’m saying is they should be banned altogether.
Yeah that is a pipe dream, in a country with more guns than people that is bordered on two sides by 2 foreign governments. It just seems unrealistic to say “Just ban all guns” that seems like a massive oversimplification of the problem. We don’t have some magical button that just deletes all guns in the borders of the US. Restrictions seem to be a realistic option but one would hope the left gets a bit of a better understanding of firearms since at the moment they mostly make laws about things they have very little understanding of and typically ban things based on how they appear rather than how they operate.
Because its the easiest route at the moment yes but you don’t think gun smuggling would be a profitable venture? Seriously part of the reason why the opiate epidemic is so bad is China selling off the supplies for it to the cartels in Mexico, this also isn’t to offload the responsibility of this mess on Perdue Pharma. They got the ball rolling and are 100% responsible for starting this mess but you have to be blind not to see how an enemy foreign nation is exploiting the issue and only making it worse to further destabilize a geopolitical rival. Same exact thing applies to Russia and their Interference in the election, they didn’t make or start the problem, just took advantage of a fire that has been burning for a while and poured more gasoline into it.
Also again you don’t really answer the question of how do you get rid of all those guns. There are 120 guns per 100 people in the US. They aren’t going to magically disappear the minute you ban them. You can’t just do a full ban, hell I would say half this country wouldn’t allow it. So restrictions are the only realistic option.
Oh that ain’t happening. Sorry but you have to get around the 2nd amendment firstly (That ain’t going anywhere unless we rip up the constitution). You would require most law enforcement to be for it while ACAB typically cops are pro guns… I just don’t see it happening in a nation where guns are a fundamental part of this country’s history and ownership has been written into the fabric that bind this nation together. Restrictions are the only realistic option here. They work as we don’t see an abundance of full auto firearms but a full ban would cause quite a bit of unrest.
Edit: did a double post but deleted it since wasn’t sure if the indentation was working correctly and trying to keep the conversation in a single threadline.
Firstly the first 10 are a bill of rights. While technically yes they can be amended it does set a very bad precedence that you are advocating for the repeal of one of those. Not even getting into how unlikely that is since there has only been one amendment that has ever been repealed (18th). You think its a good idea for a nation to get to pick and choose which “natural rights” you are allowed to have at the moment? So if they decide that the 4th or 5th amendments should just disappear, you aren’t going to have an issue with that (Yes, the justice system and police really do love to test the boundaries on those 2 but at least having a line is a good thing)?
You think it’s a good idea for a nation to have its constitution set in stone so the way of life hundreds of years ago sets the way forever? What if the first ten included that women can’t own property or vote? Would that be ok because they’re bill of rights? Would that also be a bad precedent? Is it so hard to accept that maybe they couldn’t envision the issues that could eventually come with their decisions back in the 1780s? Would they have included the second if they had known it would lead to hundreds of shootings every year?
Thing is when people talk about restrictions they mean “These people shouldn’t have guns, but these people should be allowed to have them.” What I’m saying is they should be banned altogether.
Yeah that is a pipe dream, in a country with more guns than people that is bordered on two sides by 2 foreign governments. It just seems unrealistic to say “Just ban all guns” that seems like a massive oversimplification of the problem. We don’t have some magical button that just deletes all guns in the borders of the US. Restrictions seem to be a realistic option but one would hope the left gets a bit of a better understanding of firearms since at the moment they mostly make laws about things they have very little understanding of and typically ban things based on how they appear rather than how they operate.
US guns make their way to Canada and Mexico, not the other way around, because it’s so hard to get them in these countries.
Because its the easiest route at the moment yes but you don’t think gun smuggling would be a profitable venture? Seriously part of the reason why the opiate epidemic is so bad is China selling off the supplies for it to the cartels in Mexico, this also isn’t to offload the responsibility of this mess on Perdue Pharma. They got the ball rolling and are 100% responsible for starting this mess but you have to be blind not to see how an enemy foreign nation is exploiting the issue and only making it worse to further destabilize a geopolitical rival. Same exact thing applies to Russia and their Interference in the election, they didn’t make or start the problem, just took advantage of a fire that has been burning for a while and poured more gasoline into it.
Also again you don’t really answer the question of how do you get rid of all those guns. There are 120 guns per 100 people in the US. They aren’t going to magically disappear the minute you ban them. You can’t just do a full ban, hell I would say half this country wouldn’t allow it. So restrictions are the only realistic option.
Ban, obligatory buyback, criminal charges for those who don’t comply. Just watch as the majority falls in line.
deleted by creator
Oh that ain’t happening. Sorry but you have to get around the 2nd amendment firstly (That ain’t going anywhere unless we rip up the constitution). You would require most law enforcement to be for it while ACAB typically cops are pro guns… I just don’t see it happening in a nation where guns are a fundamental part of this country’s history and ownership has been written into the fabric that bind this nation together. Restrictions are the only realistic option here. They work as we don’t see an abundance of full auto firearms but a full ban would cause quite a bit of unrest.
Edit: did a double post but deleted it since wasn’t sure if the indentation was working correctly and trying to keep the conversation in a single threadline.
Amendments are… Well… Amendments, they can be amended. It’s not happening in the current political climate, doesn’t mean it would be impossible.
Firstly the first 10 are a bill of rights. While technically yes they can be amended it does set a very bad precedence that you are advocating for the repeal of one of those. Not even getting into how unlikely that is since there has only been one amendment that has ever been repealed (18th). You think its a good idea for a nation to get to pick and choose which “natural rights” you are allowed to have at the moment? So if they decide that the 4th or 5th amendments should just disappear, you aren’t going to have an issue with that (Yes, the justice system and police really do love to test the boundaries on those 2 but at least having a line is a good thing)?
You think it’s a good idea for a nation to have its constitution set in stone so the way of life hundreds of years ago sets the way forever? What if the first ten included that women can’t own property or vote? Would that be ok because they’re bill of rights? Would that also be a bad precedent? Is it so hard to accept that maybe they couldn’t envision the issues that could eventually come with their decisions back in the 1780s? Would they have included the second if they had known it would lead to hundreds of shootings every year?