20 ms·

This would do more harm than good IMO. There is a large proportion of the population that does not want this done, and would actively fight against any attempt

This would do more harm than good IMO. There is a large proportion of the population that does not want this done, and would actively fight against any attempt to remove their constitutional right to bear arms. Guns don't kill people, people kill people. I think focusing on mental health and inequality/poverty alleviation is a more viable option in our country than weapons removal.

maxerickson 9y ago
I think the method matters. Building support for amending the Constitution and then doing that would undermine the argument about arms being a constitutional right. Of course that could happen in parallel with policies that fit into current law and have a more immediate impact.
- TheAdamAndChe 9y ago
  > Building support for amending the Constitution and then doing that would undermine the argument about arms being a constitutional right. My point is that this isn't possible. There is _not_ popular support for these kind of changes, and if you think there is, I implore you to spend some time talking to people from the Midwest. There absolutely would be armed resistance to these kinds of changes, assuming an amendment could be passed(which it can't). You've got to be practical and realistic with legislation. Would it be better if there were no guns? Maybe, but the reality is that millions of people in the US have guns, and millions of people will always have guns. We've got to learn to work around that.
  - maxerickson 9y ago
    I live in the Midwest and understand the challenge. The first step to passing an amendment is obviously creating the conceptual space for that to happen, and gee look where we are.
    - JBlue42 9y ago
      Go the Chris Rock route and charge an obscene tax on bullets for handguns. Also, make it illegal to own handguns. Beyond some of the more obvious ones like our lawmakers know about (gun show loopholes, etc.), maybe something like requiring insurance, just like you have for your car. There's a lot more regulation that can't be done but no willpower or even political power, seeing as that new terrible bill about concealed carry just got passed by the House. No resolution in sight, at least for 2-4 years.
- Feniks 9y ago
  The Constitution talks about militias. Not individual citizens. The Supreme Court ended up INTERPRETING the Constitution so it ended up what we have today. Needless to say 90% of US gun owners wouldn't make it in the military and thus would not be allowed to bear arms. Problem solved.
tluyben2 9y ago
How do you think inequality alleviation is more likely than removing the right to bear arms? The whole society is built on make or break as much as it is on owning guns. In that atmosphere the make part of this equation is conditioned to make sure they make more in the future and protect that. I feel these things are linked somewhat: the word 'fight' is used a lot. There is the seemingly constant struggle to get ahead and stay ahead. And once ahead this must be protected; with guns if need be.
- TheAdamAndChe 9y ago
  > How do you think inequality alleviation is more likely than removing the right to bear arms? Most of the people committing gun violence in the US are in poverty. They use guns and other weapons to earn money(mostly in drugs and robbery) and to gain control of their lives. _Most_ people with guns never use them illicitly, because they are never in a position where they feel the need. I want more people in our country to never feel the need, and I feel poverty alleviation would be a fantastic way to do that.

maxerickson 9y ago

I think the method matters. Building support for amending the Constitution and then doing that would undermine the argument about arms being a constitutional right. Of course that could happen in parallel with policies that fit into current law and have a more immediate impact.

TheAdamAndChe 9y ago
> Building support for amending the Constitution and then doing that would undermine the argument about arms being a constitutional right. My point is that this isn't possible. There is _not_ popular support for these kind of changes, and if you think there is, I implore you to spend some time talking to people from the Midwest. There absolutely would be armed resistance to these kinds of changes, assuming an amendment could be passed(which it can't). You've got to be practical and realistic with legislation. Would it be better if there were no guns? Maybe, but the reality is that millions of people in the US have guns, and millions of people will always have guns. We've got to learn to work around that.
- maxerickson 9y ago
  I live in the Midwest and understand the challenge. The first step to passing an amendment is obviously creating the conceptual space for that to happen, and gee look where we are.
  - JBlue42 9y ago
    Go the Chris Rock route and charge an obscene tax on bullets for handguns. Also, make it illegal to own handguns. Beyond some of the more obvious ones like our lawmakers know about (gun show loopholes, etc.), maybe something like requiring insurance, just like you have for your car. There's a lot more regulation that can't be done but no willpower or even political power, seeing as that new terrible bill about concealed carry just got passed by the House. No resolution in sight, at least for 2-4 years.
Feniks 9y ago
The Constitution talks about militias. Not individual citizens. The Supreme Court ended up INTERPRETING the Constitution so it ended up what we have today. Needless to say 90% of US gun owners wouldn't make it in the military and thus would not be allowed to bear arms. Problem solved.

tluyben2 9y ago

How do you think inequality alleviation is more likely than removing the right to bear arms? The whole society is built on make or break as much as it is on owning guns. In that atmosphere the make part of this equation is conditioned to make sure they make more in the future and protect that. I feel these things are linked somewhat: the word 'fight' is used a lot. There is the seemingly constant struggle to get ahead and stay ahead. And once ahead this must be protected; with guns if need be.

TheAdamAndChe 9y ago
> How do you think inequality alleviation is more likely than removing the right to bear arms? Most of the people committing gun violence in the US are in poverty. They use guns and other weapons to earn money(mostly in drugs and robbery) and to gain control of their lives. _Most_ people with guns never use them illicitly, because they are never in a position where they feel the need. I want more people in our country to never feel the need, and I feel poverty alleviation would be a fantastic way to do that.