Making the ownership of handguns illegal

sorry thinga but you are sadly mistaken. TO amend the Constitution is not as simple as to get all Democrat votes in congress and away we go. That would be what is called a pipe dream for you and your fellow Democrat voters

 

I cannot answer this poll since none of the options are what I think would happen. More law-abiding people would be hurt since they would be the only ones to follow the law and give up their guns.

 

So, you don't believe it would end shooting deaths. You don't believe it would decrease the number of shooting deaths. You don't believe it would increase the number of shooting deaths. And you don't believe the number of shooting deaths would remain the same.

What?

 

I think that this is like those polls that try and screw results. The options you provided are not nuanced in any way. For instance I think it would increase the number of shooting deaths of innocent people by criminals. But it would decrease accidental deaths from people cleaning weapons and mishandling them. More guns would get into the hands of criminals as people offloaded their now illegal guns which would increase shootings but that also means that you may see a decrease in suicides. So I dont know if criminals having more weapons would balance law abiding people having no weapons.

 

You are certainly correct in saying, "Criminals will still get their hands on them anyway." And that's WHY shooting-deaths and all violent crime would actually increase -- because as the old saying goes -- "When guns are outlawed, ONLY outlaws will have them!"

Let's say you're a criminal and you want to rob people on the street. Would you feel more likely to be successful if you KNEW that only police officers had any weapons to use against you? Ha! And when was the last time you saw a police officer patrolling any neighborhood ON FOOT, ON THE STREET, where such crimes occur? Easy pickings! And if the victim doesn't give you his money, just shoot him and take the money anyway...right...?

Or, as an enterprising criminal, would you think you could just smash down a person's front door and rob him at gunpoint and be happily free of worry that your victim would have a weapon of his own...? No police officer around to see robberies like that... right...?

Fortunately, not even the most rabidly anti-self-defense, radical Democrat will be successful in destroying the 2nd Amendment to our Constitution. If Donald Trump did ONE thing that will vitally protect our rights as American citizens for many years to come, it was the addition of three Justices to the Supreme Court that will support our Constitution AS WRITTEN AND AMENDED!

 

This may be getting kind of off-topic, but it's my personal belief there are virtually zero people in society who actually want to make handguns illegal but do not want to make other guns illegal.

So any discussion we have about this proposal would probably be more of a purely theoretical debate.

 

Yes, it is.

 

I think it would cut the number of shooting deaths, question is, is America willing to pay that price?

 

That IS a good question.

 

Making the ownership of handguns illegal

Would take handguns away from law abiding citizens while changing nothing for criminals.

 

One thing that would happen is that murder by stabbing and bludgeoning would increase. Australia has a much higher rate of murder by those means than does the U.S.

 

This would not violate the 2nd amendment. It's a ban on handguns, not all guns. The 2nd amendment has to do with bearing arms. It doesn't specify what kind of arms. That should probably be defined better. Bows and arrows anyone?

A ban would need to be partnered with very stiff penalties to be affective. Like 30 years to life.

As an aside, look at The Walking Dead. At first, everyone just shot walkers in the head. Eventually, they ran out of ammo and now they just use knives and pointy things (like Morgan's magical walking stick that can somehow pierce through hard skull lol). Only Eugene knows how to make bullets and it takes too long. Point is, they figured out how to defend themselves without guns. We can too. Necessity is the mother of invention.

 

Everyone's a law abiding citizen until they're not.

 

What are going on about? We've already had amendments repealing earlier amendments (or changing them). rahl is correct.

 

I disagree.

 

You would not need to confiscate any guns. This should be grandfathered in. A generous buy-back program would take care of some of it.

 

Take care of what? Why shouldn't law abiding people own guns? The constitution says they can.

 

Take care of not needing to confiscate them. ftr, I am not in favor of trying to confiscate them, nor do I think it is possible.

 

Hmm.. Not ONE of the original 10 are or have been amended. Your comment is as baseless as it is offensive.

 

It is a violation of the second amendment to ban a type of firearm that is in common usage. DC v Heller. It would require an amendment repealing or amending the 2nd.

 

Any one of the first 10 amendments can be repealed by a subsequent amendment. This is literally 6th grade level civics.

 

Perhaps it's just because your 6th grad civics was taught by a collectivist who understood that the first 10 precluded a collectivist kind of authoritarian state that you might prefer....

 

Why would I sell any guns to someone as irresponsible as the US gov?

 

Exactly the point. I have the right, duty, moral obligation, to defend myself and my loved-ones, up to and including lethal force.

 

Cliff notes version is simple. It would require 3/4 of the Congress - both House AND Senate - to vote together to achieve it. THAT will never happen in a nation as divided as we now are.
ERGO - the assumption, based on recent efforts by the Left, is that an EO or some kind of law that is approved by a politicized SCOTUS, would suffice to either repeal 2A or to so infringe on the original intent as to make it of no value. THAT is a place we really, REALLY need to avoid for the sake of all Americans.