4 ms·

What would it take? No murders. Just a carefully reasoned persuasive argument that the people are better off without the 2nd amendment, and a realistic path t

What would it take? No murders. Just a carefully reasoned persuasive argument that the people are better off without the 2nd amendment, and a realistic path to getting rid of it in a way that won't trigger riots or another civil war. 1. A majority doesn't matter. We don't have a direct democracy, and for all the bad special interests do to corrupt democracy, sometimes there are special interest groups that understand narrow issues better than the average voter, and should have disproportionate influence on legislation. 2. What gun control law? [1] 3. Between the 2nd and 4th amendments, there's not much room for an enforceable gun control law that will prohibit would-be (but not-yet) jihadists and crazy people from obtaining guns. The good news is that the majority of domestic gun violence (excepting suicides) is related to gangs and the drug war, so a lot could be done—if anyone wanted to do something about that rather than use gun crime rates as political ammunition—without bringing up gun control. [1] Charles Cooke on Morning Joe, late 2015: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lfcWNFPSGVA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lfcWNFPSGVA

wastedhours 10y ago
Nope, it's not like the law could be amended, or anything...
- DefaultUserHN 10y ago
  Good luck getting an amendment banning guns through Congress. And even if it gets through Congress, there will be a bloody civil war afterward. Remember, the goal of banning guns is to prevent American deaths. If you ban guns, it will cause a bloody civil war that will result in the death of 50% of Americans. Congratuatlions, you have just failed in your original goal.
  - krapp 10y ago
    Passing a Constitutional amendment is a perfectly legal, valid process - the Second Amendment, like all amendments, is subject to debate and possible repeal. That some segment of the US population is willing to commit murder over that shouldn't really be relevant to the debate - such people aren't acting in defense of the Constitution, they're just asking like thugs and vigilantes.
    - DefaultUserHN 10y ago
      Congress still have to listen to the people. If Congress goes against the people, then that's exactly what the 2nd Amendment is there for (for when the government go against the people).
      - krapp 10y ago
        Presumably it would be difficult, if not impossible, to repeal the 2nd Amendment without popular support. If it were to happen then by definition, Congress was listening to the people. "The people" also includes people who support gun control.
        DefaultUserHN 10y ago
        If gun owners are a minority, it would be no problem because democracy is all about majority rules. But gun owners are not a minority. And more importantly, they will never agree to give up their guns. So banning guns is never going to happen. This issue of mass shootings will have to be tackle in other ways. You can call gun owners thugs all you want, but that doesn't solve the issue.
        krapp 10y ago
        >But gun owners are not a minority Where are you getting your numbers? Mine say ~26% of Americans own at least one gun. The trend in the US seems to be towards fewer gun owners, but more guns per owner, which would seem to put gun owners in a minority (albeit a heavily armed minority.) Also, you seem to be implying that all gun owners would necessarily be willing to start a war to keep their guns, and that's not an assertion supported by evidence. > You can call gun owners thugs all you want, but that doesn't solve the issue. I'm not calling gun owners thugs, I'm calling gun owners willing to threaten violence over even legitimate political processes thugs. This is supposed to be a government "of the people, by the people, and for the people." Everything is theoretically negotiable given enough support, even the Second Amendment and the Constitution itself. That's meant to be a feature, not a bug.

wastedhours 10y ago

Nope, it's not like the law could be amended, or anything...

DefaultUserHN 10y ago
Good luck getting an amendment banning guns through Congress. And even if it gets through Congress, there will be a bloody civil war afterward. Remember, the goal of banning guns is to prevent American deaths. If you ban guns, it will cause a bloody civil war that will result in the death of 50% of Americans. Congratuatlions, you have just failed in your original goal.
- krapp 10y ago
  Passing a Constitutional amendment is a perfectly legal, valid process - the Second Amendment, like all amendments, is subject to debate and possible repeal. That some segment of the US population is willing to commit murder over that shouldn't really be relevant to the debate - such people aren't acting in defense of the Constitution, they're just asking like thugs and vigilantes.
  - DefaultUserHN 10y ago
    Congress still have to listen to the people. If Congress goes against the people, then that's exactly what the 2nd Amendment is there for (for when the government go against the people).
    - krapp 10y ago
      Presumably it would be difficult, if not impossible, to repeal the 2nd Amendment without popular support. If it were to happen then by definition, Congress was listening to the people. "The people" also includes people who support gun control.
      - DefaultUserHN 10y ago
        If gun owners are a minority, it would be no problem because democracy is all about majority rules. But gun owners are not a minority. And more importantly, they will never agree to give up their guns. So banning guns is never going to happen. This issue of mass shootings will have to be tackle in other ways. You can call gun owners thugs all you want, but that doesn't solve the issue.
        krapp 10y ago
        >But gun owners are not a minority Where are you getting your numbers? Mine say ~26% of Americans own at least one gun. The trend in the US seems to be towards fewer gun owners, but more guns per owner, which would seem to put gun owners in a minority (albeit a heavily armed minority.) Also, you seem to be implying that all gun owners would necessarily be willing to start a war to keep their guns, and that's not an assertion supported by evidence. > You can call gun owners thugs all you want, but that doesn't solve the issue. I'm not calling gun owners thugs, I'm calling gun owners willing to threaten violence over even legitimate political processes thugs. This is supposed to be a government "of the people, by the people, and for the people." Everything is theoretically negotiable given enough support, even the Second Amendment and the Constitution itself. That's meant to be a feature, not a bug.