6 ms·

A constitutional ammendment is the most straightforward way.

by huntie 9y ago

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  Yes, just as the 21st amendment repealed the 18th.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.
        withdavidli 9y ago
        agree on the latter statements. definition of words matter, word choice matters to avoid confusion it may cause. if the original argument is that mostly good/moral people are the gun owners, i wouldn't know where to start on how they got that data, and came to that interpretation as both words are relative.

A constitutional ammendment is the most straightforward way.

by 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.
        withdavidli 9y ago
        agree on the latter statements. definition of words matter, word choice matters to avoid confusion it may cause. if the original argument is that mostly good/moral people are the gun owners, i wouldn't know where to start on how they got that data, and came to that interpretation as both words are relative.