8 ms·

Offtopic: What legal mechanism do you propose to use to ban the private ownership of firearms in the United States of America? Edit: Additionally, what do you

Offtopic: What legal mechanism do you propose to use to ban the private ownership of firearms in the United States of America? Edit: Additionally, what do you want done about all of the currently legal guns that exist in this country when this ban goes into effect?

huntie 9y ago
A constitutional ammendment is the most straightforward way.
- cuckcuckspruce 9y ago
  So a repeal of the Second Amendment to the Constitution?
  - huntie 9y ago
    Yes, just as the 21st amendment repealed the 18th. I'm not suggesting this is easy, but any other method gets messy due to the 2nd.
- swalsh 9y ago
  Bumpstocks were banned in multiple steps, here in MA where they have a list of ALL people registered to own a firearm they sent a letter out "if you own a bump stock after x date, you're committing a felony". They got back 4 devices. In the WHOLE state. Even though everyone received a letter. It's not going to be easy. source: http://boston.cbslocal.com/2018/02/02/bump-stock-massachusetts-ban/ http://boston.cbslocal.com/2018/02/02/bump-stock-massachuset...
  - hartator 9y ago
    Not everyone owns a bump stock. Anyway, you can also destroy it yourself.
    - TaylorAlexander 9y ago
      Or... you can keep it and ignore the law. The above comment was highlighting the futility of this kind of ban, so I don’t see what voluntary disposal would do to realize it.
    - alsetmusic 9y ago
      > Not everyone owns a bump stock. Anyway, you can also destroy it yourself. This is an absurd comment. The parent stated that four units were returned state-wide. Asserting the ability to manually decommission them attempts to give the appearance of undermining the parent’s statement without actually addressing the issue. I don’t think anyone here, even you, likely believes that even a majority of these were destroyed by the owners, let alone all but four.
      - hartator 9y ago
        Parent makes it sounds that most gun owners are not law abiding when they are. A gun ban will effectively confiscate guns from good people. Like it did in other countries.
        withdavidli 9y ago
        Law abiding to not law abiding if new law / repeal of amendment happens, and they gave an example of a relavent instance. Is your argument that you believe most/all law abiding citizens that currently own guns will willing destroy/turn over their guns of new laws pass against ownership? Looking at reports on Australia it seems the effectiveness on turning in guns was anywhere from 40-80 percent. Effectiveness for prohibited guns was at 70%, so ~30% went from law abiding to not law abiding. Page 11 of 36 is most of the stats for this: http://faculty.publicpolicy.umd.edu/sites/default/files/reuter/files/gun%20chapter.pdf http://faculty.publicpolicy.umd.edu/sites/default/files/reut...
        deno 9y ago
        When we say majority of gun owners are ‘law-abididing citizens’ we mean they’re good and moral people, and not that they’re obedient subjects. Your argument seems to be focused on semantics, which is fine, except you’re missing the point of this statement. There’s very much a difference in disobeying a natural law like murder and an arbitrary, reactionary, and most of all, unconstitutional, law that’s designed to limit freedom and achieve nothing. Civil disobedience is amoral. In fact, when the law in question is unjust or unconstitutional to disobey it is a virtue.
yequalsx 9y ago
I would like it to be illegal for people to own guns. Those who violate the law (as the ban would be in the form of a law) would go to jail. Current owners would turn in their guns and those guns would be destroyed. The 2nd Amendment is oddly worded. It does speak of a well regulated militia. I'm not a lawyer or a legal expert but it seems to me that banning the ownership of guns except for members of the militia should be constitutional. I could be wrong. It also seems to me that for those who tend toward original intent interpretations (majority of current Supreme Court) would agree that the founders only saw it fit that people be able to own guns with similar firepower and lethality as muskets. So I could see a law saying that we can own guns but they are quite limited in comparison to what is currently legal to own. There are far more people in the country now versus 250 years ago. The population density is far greater. We are much more of an urban society. In such circumstances I see no necessity for allowing gun ownership. I don't think the propensity to assholeness has increased but by virtue of having far more people now than in the past the number of assholes has greatly increased. It's best that the lethality of devices we can carry be very much curtailed than what it currently is.
- ameister14 9y ago
  > It also seems to me that for those who tend toward original intent interpretations (majority of current Supreme Court) would agree that the founders only saw it fit that people be able to own guns with similar firepower and lethality as muskets. You'd be wrong there. The Supreme Court agrees that the founders saw fit that people are armed with weapons similar to those used by the military, with certain restrictions.
  - yequalsx 9y ago
    And those weapons at the time were....muskets, bayonets. They had no vision of the M-16, AK-47, etc. The statement of the 2nd Amendment begins with, "A well regulated militia..." So let's well regulate it. According to Wikipedia: In United States v. Cruikshank (1876), the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that, "The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence" and limited the scope of the Second Amendment's protections to the federal government.[11] In United States v. Miller (1939), the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment did not protect weapon types not having a "reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia".[12][13] As I stated, I have no expertise in this matter. If it requires a repeal then that is what I would favor. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United...

huntie 9y ago

A constitutional ammendment is the most straightforward way.

cuckcuckspruce 9y ago
So a repeal of the Second Amendment to the Constitution?
- huntie 9y ago
  Yes, just as the 21st amendment repealed the 18th. I'm not suggesting this is easy, but any other method gets messy due to the 2nd.
swalsh 9y ago
Bumpstocks were banned in multiple steps, here in MA where they have a list of ALL people registered to own a firearm they sent a letter out "if you own a bump stock after x date, you're committing a felony". They got back 4 devices. In the WHOLE state. Even though everyone received a letter. It's not going to be easy. source: http://boston.cbslocal.com/2018/02/02/bump-stock-massachusetts-ban/ http://boston.cbslocal.com/2018/02/02/bump-stock-massachuset...
- hartator 9y ago
  Not everyone owns a bump stock. Anyway, you can also destroy it yourself.
  - TaylorAlexander 9y ago
    Or... you can keep it and ignore the law. The above comment was highlighting the futility of this kind of ban, so I don’t see what voluntary disposal would do to realize it.
  - alsetmusic 9y ago
    > Not everyone owns a bump stock. Anyway, you can also destroy it yourself. This is an absurd comment. The parent stated that four units were returned state-wide. Asserting the ability to manually decommission them attempts to give the appearance of undermining the parent’s statement without actually addressing the issue. I don’t think anyone here, even you, likely believes that even a majority of these were destroyed by the owners, let alone all but four.
    - hartator 9y ago
      Parent makes it sounds that most gun owners are not law abiding when they are. A gun ban will effectively confiscate guns from good people. Like it did in other countries.
      - withdavidli 9y ago
        Law abiding to not law abiding if new law / repeal of amendment happens, and they gave an example of a relavent instance. Is your argument that you believe most/all law abiding citizens that currently own guns will willing destroy/turn over their guns of new laws pass against ownership? Looking at reports on Australia it seems the effectiveness on turning in guns was anywhere from 40-80 percent. Effectiveness for prohibited guns was at 70%, so ~30% went from law abiding to not law abiding. Page 11 of 36 is most of the stats for this: http://faculty.publicpolicy.umd.edu/sites/default/files/reuter/files/gun%20chapter.pdf http://faculty.publicpolicy.umd.edu/sites/default/files/reut...
        deno 9y ago
        When we say majority of gun owners are ‘law-abididing citizens’ we mean they’re good and moral people, and not that they’re obedient subjects. Your argument seems to be focused on semantics, which is fine, except you’re missing the point of this statement. There’s very much a difference in disobeying a natural law like murder and an arbitrary, reactionary, and most of all, unconstitutional, law that’s designed to limit freedom and achieve nothing. Civil disobedience is amoral. In fact, when the law in question is unjust or unconstitutional to disobey it is a virtue.

yequalsx 9y ago

I would like it to be illegal for people to own guns. Those who violate the law (as the ban would be in the form of a law) would go to jail. Current owners would turn in their guns and those guns would be destroyed. The 2nd Amendment is oddly worded. It does speak of a well regulated militia. I'm not a lawyer or a legal expert but it seems to me that banning the ownership of guns except for members of the militia should be constitutional. I could be wrong. It also seems to me that for those who tend toward original intent interpretations (majority of current Supreme Court) would agree that the founders only saw it fit that people be able to own guns with similar firepower and lethality as muskets. So I could see a law saying that we can own guns but they are quite limited in comparison to what is currently legal to own. There are far more people in the country now versus 250 years ago. The population density is far greater. We are much more of an urban society. In such circumstances I see no necessity for allowing gun ownership. I don't think the propensity to assholeness has increased but by virtue of having far more people now than in the past the number of assholes has greatly increased. It's best that the lethality of devices we can carry be very much curtailed than what it currently is.

ameister14 9y ago
> It also seems to me that for those who tend toward original intent interpretations (majority of current Supreme Court) would agree that the founders only saw it fit that people be able to own guns with similar firepower and lethality as muskets. You'd be wrong there. The Supreme Court agrees that the founders saw fit that people are armed with weapons similar to those used by the military, with certain restrictions.
- yequalsx 9y ago
  And those weapons at the time were....muskets, bayonets. They had no vision of the M-16, AK-47, etc. The statement of the 2nd Amendment begins with, "A well regulated militia..." So let's well regulate it. According to Wikipedia: In United States v. Cruikshank (1876), the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that, "The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence" and limited the scope of the Second Amendment's protections to the federal government.[11] In United States v. Miller (1939), the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment did not protect weapon types not having a "reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia".[12][13] As I stated, I have no expertise in this matter. If it requires a repeal then that is what I would favor. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United...