Making the ownership of handguns illegal

True, true.

You don't think a ban, voluntary submission, plus the confiscation of (now) illegal handguns would cause the availability of guns to dwindle?

Why do you say that? What part of it "doesn't work"? What is the common thread between guns and drugs that makes the failure of one necessarily the failure of the other? Can you think of no ban that does work?

I don't think that can be said in the long term:

FIRST: "Hands up" and/or being punched rather than shot has to be an improvement.

SECOND: Plastic bank cards have made personal hold-ups less likely, (ie. no cash to steal).

So I think your "robbery, burglary, home invasion and assault" can be dealt with (maybe, maybe, maybe) if we put our minds to it . What do you think?

 

Dwindle sure. The casual hobbiest will find it difficult to get a handgun. But casual hobbiests arent shooting people. Guns, especially handguns, are easy to make and smuggle. They will never be harder to get than weed, meth or heroin.

The ban on nuclear weapons works pretty good because of the vast resources required to manufacture the components. Likewise with high explosives and biological weapons, tho more because of how hard it is to do so safely, and of course the relative lack of demand for all these things makes black market manufacture unprofitable. Things like guns and drugs that people can make in their home or shop with inexpensive and commonly available tools and materials will never be effectively controlled so long as there is any demand at all.

Maybe. But can we meet halfway and 'deal' with them first before taking away peoples most current effective means of protecting themselves before we have a better solution? You figure out how to stop robberies, assaults and home invasions, then use it as an argument for gun control. Not 'maybe, at some point, in the future...'

 

Not true, for sure. Anyone can plant a seed and water it. I do it every day. But making a handgun … naw .. I don’t think so. I remember “zip guns”. That is, after all, what you are taking about and they seldom work well enough to actually be of any use.

Dwindle, by the way, is not a stationary goal. Dwindle is a continuous progression that improves indefinitely.

The question in the OP is one of - absolute, better, worse, or no change.

I already know how to deal with robberies, assaults and home invasions but no one wants to talk about that so I am approaching the problem from the bottom end.

 

I support the 2nd Amendment - not because I am afraid of a crime, I am afraid of the government. Donald Trump presidency convinced that in order to keep democracy in the US me WE NEED THE 2ND AMENDMENT.

 

I think you probably know BS when it's face to face but you can't see it behind the smokescreen.

 

"Being punched rather than shot would be an improvement." More likely sliced up or stabbed, maybe clubbed with a brick. Yessiree, get rid of them guns and all will be unicorns and pixie dust. Humans have found ways to exercise our proclivity for violence, individually and en masse (as in armies) long before the advent of gunpowder. Change that aspect of human nature first and I'll give up every firearm and knife I own, until then, no dice.

 

Hmm.. "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." The bill of rights are immutable civil rights. Shall not be infringed is pretty specific. The only gibberish here is yours.

 

There is already a valid reason for we, the people, to own an AR-15 or AR-10 since everybody is their own bodyguard / security guard and, according to your own criteria, eligible to own a semi automatic rifle in .223 or .308 unless you believe that the lives of politicians, the rich and the famous are more worthy of protection than everyday citizens.

 

If they were made illegal, meaning no one would be able to buy a new one, there would still be lot of guns already out there, so it would take a long time for the numbers to come down, but eventually they would come down. I am not saying this because I support making them illegal (I don't). I think suicides by firearm would decrease almost immediately, since most are committed by legal gun owners. Unfortunately there are many ways to take your life, so the total number of suicides might not change, only the ones by firearm.

The poll question is not about the Constitution. It is a hypothetical question about number of firearm deaths

In most countries this dispute about showeling snow might have resulted in a broken nose, but in US it ended up with a shooting that left 3 people dead. This happened only few days ago. They got into a shouting match about the snow on their drive way, and the guy shot his neighbors with a handgun and finished them off with head-shots from AR-15 and then he shot himself

 

No. And here's why....



The following is a link to where you can download all the cad files necessary to build a 3D Printed gun: LINK: Grabcad.com And that is just one site. The blueprints are already out there and there is nothing that anyone can do to get them all. As the saying goes "once something is on the net, its on there forever".

You don't even have to be a gun smith to make a gun anymore.

 

You didn't address the question

What would be the consequence of making handguns illegal?

[Whether by repealing the 2nd Amendment, amending the 2nd Amendment or making guns illegal by ignoring the 2nd Amendment] …. whatever. Would the consequence be ......

* End shooting deaths?
* Decrease the number of shooting deaths?
* Increase the number of shooting deaths?
* Make no difference what so ever?

The choices are there. All you need to do is choose one.

 

That is both undemocratic and unconstitutional.

The parameter has been established right in the OP. You only have to read it.

As a side note, making an amendment "immutable" is gibberish. The fact that you don't see it leaves you in the dark. Try getting over it and stick to the basis of this poll.

 

You literally have no idea what you're writing about anymore. All of the states ratified the constitution and bill of rights. All of them. And to this day EVERY state constitution restates that. You seem to believe that there are no inherent rights. A lefty and their tyranny. What else isn't surprising today...

 

I see that you do not understand the poll.

Guns ≠ "human rights". Please confine yourself to the on-topic thread or don't bother responding at all.

 

You make no sense. We are flush with firearm regulations. The issue isn't the gun. The issue is the person. The best way to address all crime, including those involving firearms, is to stop funding out of wedlock births, single Motherhood and Fatherless homes. That's where this nations overabundance of predators are being bred. Promote chastity, marriage, and Fatherhood, if you even care one whit about life. Anything less is procrastination and irresponsible.

 

The problem with your poll is that it asks a dishonest question and only provides answers that support your dishonest narrative. Your observation that the right to bear arms and provide self defense is not a human right is flatly wrong, and frankly underscores just how looney your position is.

You just don't seem to understand the US constitutional construct. It seems to entirely undermine the effort of your poll....

 

Self defense is a human right. Including the right to defend yourself against a tyrannical government (in fact that is what America was founded on). That means guns since the government has guns. Is the government going to give up their guns? Of course not. Why should everyone else?

 

None apply.

No, the issue here is the gun. The issue with the person is something I have lots to say about but not on this thread.

Are you on this earth? If so, please stay on topic.

 

Have to correct you here. There is nothing special or extra constitutional about the first 10 amendments to the US constitution. They are an amendment like any other, and can be repealed with a subsequent amendment. We could pass an amendment tomorrow abolishing both the first and second amendments, and if the required states ratify, you no longer have a constitutional right to free speech, press, religion or arms.

 

And, of course, you believe that the government can shut down internet sites that report certain things they don't want us to know, can see exactly who has accessed certain sites and who downloads them, and know what time I took a dump on the 12th. of August last year ... yet have no control over your link. Yeah, sure.

 

Exactly.

 

Every amendment to the constitution, including the second, can be repealed by a subsequent amendment.

 

And yet, we could not. These are the inalienable rights that government cannot take from you. Read the amendments. Most of them start with congress shall make no law, or use phrases like "shall not be infringed" meaning that the are immutable. Are you really suggesting that you'd be good with being able to suspend these rights?

 

well, of course we could as I pointed out. Every amendment, including the first 10, can be repealed by subsequent amendment. There is nothing special or extra constitutional about the first 10.

an amendment could be passed tomorrow abolishing the 2nd amendment, and if ratified by the required amount of states, you no longer have a right to bear arms.

I have.

irrelevant. subsequent amendments can and do repeal prior amendments.

my agreement or disagreement with losing them has no relevance to constitutional law. Every single provision, article, and amendment to the constitution can be and has been changed by subsequent amendments.

 

Gosh, ok, cite a founder who established the bill of rights that agrees with you. No one believes that the mob can take these rights through the use of any additional amendment. I understand that this concept is hard for folks not from the US as it doesn't exist elsewhere which is why the US is special in the world. The idea is that no majority of constituents may in the future alienate these rights of the people. Bone up on your Madison.