3 ms·

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, t

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.
- DefaultUserHN 10y ago
  Passing an amendment to ban guns is different from, for example, passing an amendment to give women the right to vote. Giving women the right to vote is giving a group a new right. Banning guns is taking away a right from a group. Arms is one of the power granted to the people by the Constitution. Asking the people to give up this power is as idiotic as asking Congress to give up its power. Just because some people prefer not to exercise this right (arms) does not mean they can take it away from those who prefer to exercise it. Just like you can not take men's right to vote without a civil war. Just because some men does not want to vote does not mean you can take away other men's right to vote. All men must agree first, or there will be civil war, because you're infringing on another men's right. Also of note, the Constitution specifically DENIED the government the power to outright ban guns. The government can regulate it, but the government can not outright ban it. >A well regulated militia... Meaning the government can regulate arms. >...arms shall not be infringed. Meaning the government can not outright ban arms. So again, can guns be banned? Yea, but only if everyone 99% of the population agrees. Which is never going to happen, because we all know the gun owners will never agree. And if the gun owners disagree, then the government and those who agrees are infringing on gun owner's rights. At which point, they will exercise their 2nd Amendment right and there will be civil war. Again, guns will never be banned because guns owner will never agree to give up their fundamental rights.

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.

DefaultUserHN 10y ago
Passing an amendment to ban guns is different from, for example, passing an amendment to give women the right to vote. Giving women the right to vote is giving a group a new right. Banning guns is taking away a right from a group. Arms is one of the power granted to the people by the Constitution. Asking the people to give up this power is as idiotic as asking Congress to give up its power. Just because some people prefer not to exercise this right (arms) does not mean they can take it away from those who prefer to exercise it. Just like you can not take men's right to vote without a civil war. Just because some men does not want to vote does not mean you can take away other men's right to vote. All men must agree first, or there will be civil war, because you're infringing on another men's right. Also of note, the Constitution specifically DENIED the government the power to outright ban guns. The government can regulate it, but the government can not outright ban it. >A well regulated militia... Meaning the government can regulate arms. >...arms shall not be infringed. Meaning the government can not outright ban arms. So again, can guns be banned? Yea, but only if everyone 99% of the population agrees. Which is never going to happen, because we all know the gun owners will never agree. And if the gun owners disagree, then the government and those who agrees are infringing on gun owner's rights. At which point, they will exercise their 2nd Amendment right and there will be civil war. Again, guns will never be banned because guns owner will never agree to give up their fundamental rights.