Dare I say it? Repealing the Second Amendment. Is this an idea worth exploring?

Nope.

 

I'll try this one more time (you responded by climbing on your soap box and extolled all the evils of "assault-weapons", but didn't address this post. Not that you can define assault-weapon.):

Your problem is ... guns are not the problem. That we've built a society of extreme have-nots, full of disaffected Americans that have no idea what "the American Dream" is anymore; if they ever did, IS the problem. Our broken society IS the problem.

We have multitudes of countrymen without ANY hope or any hope of hope. And we are doing NOTING!!!to reach out and find them much less help them overcome whatever pathology they are experiencing and suffering. And when they act out you want to blame the guns.

California is a good example of good meaning gun law gone bad. They have all kinds of regulations on how a rifle can be configured; grips, fore-grips, sights, stocks, magazines, barrel length ... ad infinitum ... AND they haven't saved ONE life.

IF, gun regulators could have their biggest wet dream and ban the sale of all ... ??? ... AR's, and confiscate all of them in circulation; they wouldn't save a life. Because as soon as the AR's were gone then the lunatics committing the kind of violence AR confiscation would supposedly solve, those poor desperate countrymen of ours, would find the "next thing" and be just as lethal. Extrapolate that and give them (gun banners) the"next-next thing", of course the gun banners wouldn't give the AR's back, and the "next-next-next thing", and the "next-next-next-next thing"... and so on. And still, they would never save a life.

You know how I know? Because Charles Whitman showed the world how to do "mass shooting" and he did it with two bolt action hunting rifles; chalking up a kill count (14) that went unchallenged for decades. Guns are NOT the problem. I wish they were;but they are NOT.

We have a broken, inequitable society. Until we fix that, heal "THAT", until we invest in AmeriCANs and America again, we won't solve our problem of domestic violence. Not even if you take ALL the guns and leave American's open to tyranny.

The Second Amendment is ONE of the Bill of Rights. They are NOT optional.

 

Anecdote is not evidence of the efficacy of gun laws.

California Ranked #1 for Gun Safety, Death Rate 37% Lower than National Average
In 2021, California was ranked as the #1 state for gun safety by Giffords Law Center, and the state saw a 37% lower gun death rate than the national average. According to the CDC, California’s gun death rate was the 44th lowest in the nation, with 8.5 gun deaths per 100,000 people – compared to 13.7 deaths per 100,000 nationally, 28.6 in Mississippi, 20.7 in Oklahoma, and 14.2 in Texas. California’s gun death rate for children is also lower than other states, and is 58% lower than the national average.

Since Early 1990s, California Cut Its Gun Death Rate in Half

From Brady California: “From 1993 to 2017, California’s firearm mortality rate declined by 55 percent—almost four times the decrease in the rest of the nation. Many of California’s most important firearm laws went into effect in the early 1990s. As California continued to enact strong firearm laws, its firearm death rate continued to decline.”




Source: https://www.gov.ca.gov/2022/06/02/f...provide-model-for-a-nation-seeking-solutions/

 

This fails as a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy - correlation does not even imply causation, much less prove it.

 

That's rich considering you tried using anecdotal evidence, vague assertions and loaded language to support your premise, which definitely does not prove any data claim, ever.

Stats are used to measure the efficacy of laws, but more so if shown over a long period of time. Short intervals, you'd have a point. If the stat were just a recent development, you'd have a point, but the graph shows over many years, so that strengthens the premise considerably

so, no, I stand by my post as a legitimate counter to your argument that 'gun laws do not work'.

Clearly, they do. Of course, it depends on the law.

 

What's interesting is the California law that has had the most affect reducing gun violence isn't their laws directed AT firearms but those directed at individuals. Ten day waiting periods to purchase, mental health screening, prior civil disobedience and jail time; those are the laws that have really made a difference. The laws directed at firearms, butt stocks, pistol grips, fore grips, barrel length, sights, 2nd Amendment stuff, none of those actually prevent violence AT ALL. The most recent mass murders at "the orchard" and "dance hall" were executed with pistols, not scary "assault weapons" (please define that term).

I reiterate, if any class of gun could be outlawed and confiscated it wouldn't save one life because the poor maniacs committing the violence you're trying to solve, would move on to whatever else the could buy. Repealing the Second Amendment would make Americans less NOT more safe.

 

Noting here changes the fact your claim fails as a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy - correlation does not even imply causation, much less prove it.

 

there is no proof that gun laws make us any safer

 

Repealing the second amendment would give states more control over their gun legislation. A city should have the right to ban handguns, if it wants to, in my opinion. We could rewrite the amendment to assure that a state cannot ban guns at the state level, but municipalities should have the ight, if they want to, and they can't ban rifles which are common to self defense and hunting. Cities did for years, and no one complained about the second amendment, it's only been a thing since the NRA became a marketing wing of gun manufacturers.

That's why I support it.

 

No, you are misapplying the logical fallacy.

It's called a 'fallacy fallacy'.

"Correlation is not causation' is not a true statement.

This would be a more accurate statement:

"Correlation may, or may not, be causation, it depends".

It depends, and I presented the data as to why the stats support the contention.

 

How many crimes committed with fully automatic machine gun rifles since the NFA?

I have heard of only 2.

Sensible gun laws work.

 

red herring.

 

your facts are faulty. Those are legal ones. lots more have been committed by illegally possessed ones including the shootout in Miami where FBI special agent Jerry Dove and another was killed. And that law =clearly unconstitutional, essentially banned (that was the goal-even the ATF admitted it) those firearms right as they were coming on the market. There is nothing sensible with banning firearms and there are over 40 million semi auto rifles already in circulation.

 

that he thinks what was essentially a ban is sensible shows what were are dealing with

 

good luck with that. Liberals want to ban guns because they pretend it is crime control that doesn't require them to actually harm one of their main constituent groups-violent street felons. municipalities should never have such a power. But thanks for proving what I already known-lefties hate the NRA far more than criminals because the NRA votes against the socialists and felons do not

 

Your being in denial aside....

Hardly. It proves that sensible gun laws work.

 

I checked several reports of the Miami 1986 shoot out, and the culprits were using the following firearms

Culprits William Matix Michael Platt used the following weaponry

1. Ruger Mini-14 rifles: The suspects used two Ruger Mini-14 rifles, which were semi-automatic rifles that fired .223 caliber rounds. These rifles were modified to use 30-round magazines, which allowed the suspects to fire a large number of rounds without reloading.
   
   
2. Smith & Wesson Model 459 handguns: The suspects also carried two Smith & Wesson Model 459 handguns, which were semi-automatic pistols that fired 9mm rounds. These handguns were also modified to use high-capacity magazines.
   
   
3. Shotguns: The suspects carried two shotguns, but they did not use them during the shootout.
   

How many crimes using fully automatic machine guns, legal or otherwise, since the NFA? Only two, maybe three, that I can find.

Your anecdote doesn't refute this fact.

Sensible gun laws work.

 

The debate isn't a right versus left debate, it's a public safety debate. It's not a 'ban all guns across America debate', the OP doesn't even recommend it. The reasoning offered in the OP, if you had read it, is that repealing 2A would give states more control over their state's gun legislation. I also suggested that a new amendment would disallow states from banning rifles, those that are common to self defense and hunting across the state, and allow the banning of handguns only at the municipality level, should a given town or city so desire it. It would allow practice shooting at gun ranges using guns for rent at the ranges in those cities that choose to ban them. That is my proposal.

I acknowledged in the OP the improbability of repealing the second amendment, my only objective was to discuss the pros and cons.

 

If you had read the OP, it states that repealing 2A would allow states more control over gun legislation. It wasn't about banning all guns.

 

A statement you cannot support w/o resting on post-hoc fallacies.

 

Correlation does not even IMPLY causation.

 

“PRACTICALLY”, there are no pro’s, because a replacement would never be ratified. “IDEALISTICALLY” better, more understandable wording would result.


The con’s would be a watered down version that opens The United States up to tyranny.

 

if the tenth amendment was taken seriously, it would NOT allow the federal government any more gun control power but clearly those who want to repeal the second see it allowing national federal bans. and yes it is about banning guns-maybe not all at first but that is the end game. Gun banners are stuck with their views. They claim banning some guns will decrease crime. now if they ban some guns and some crime decreases-that will embolden them to ban more guns. If their first wave of bans does not decrease crime-they will claim=as they always have-that more bans are needed because criminals are using currently non banned guns

 

I’m not sure the States should have more control over fundamental rights protected by the Bill of Rights. Insuring those rights is why we have a bill of rights.

Your, apparent, goal is to dilute the 2nd amendment not clarify it; I’m against that.

 

and why the fourteenth amendment was enacted because democrats in southern states tried to deny black CITIZENS their constitutional rights through the color of state law