It's time. It's time to repeal the second amendment (revisited)

Well since you want to do it like cars you don't get to Cherry pick.

 

One group sure. Unless that group is backed by other groups and all the groups combined equal in the thousands, or even the millions. Its already been proven that our military is ineffective against guerilla tactics. If you thought that I was only talking about one singular group of 20 people or so then you are thinking way too small. And just proves you cannot think tactically.

No "gun nut" fantasizes for a civil war. But history does tend to repeat itself, especially by those that refuse to learn from history. And don't confuse knowing history, with learning from history. The very fact that you state "There isn't going to be any civil war, that's nonsense talk" in such a definitive tone shows that you haven't learned from history.

 

Don't be ridiculous. The car comparison is a way to make the point society recognizes the ownership and use of what can be a dangerous device requires heavy regulation. Surely you understand the need for flexibility in setting rules when it comes to the hypothetical regulation of lethal weapons. Again, the goal is saving lives, not the childish, rigid adherence to uniformity.

 

The problem with what you've "proposed" here is that no one HAS to do any of that in order to own a car. Indeed, there are tons of farmers out there that have multiple vehicles that the State doesn't even know about. They also do not have insurance. Also, the State does not require locks on a vehicle. And gun manufacturers are trying to manufacture safer guns, but there is only so much that can be done with something that fits in your hand, especially compared to something that you can sit in and store stuff in all at the same time. Thought you were trying to be equivalent?

And then there is the simple fact that no one has a Right to own a vehicle, but there is a Right to own Arms.

 

Except that anti-gunners don't just want regulation. They want them banned. Regulation would imply things like requiring permits, training etc etc and leaving it at that. But all anti-gunners manage to holler about the most is getting rid of "military style assault weapons". When was the last time you heard of a car being banned? And if they can't get something banned then they make the requirements as hard as possible to attain. Take New York City for instance. They require something like 5 different types of permits to own a gun depending on various things. For instance they had a permit requirement just to have a gun in your place of business. Another separate permit just to have one at home. And another separate permit to carry a gun between home and your place of business. Another permit required just to own antiques that were usable. And another permit required to take your gun from home to a shooting range. And regardless of those permits they required that your gun be put in a locked case stowed in the trunk of your car with ammunition in a separate locked case. All of these are designed not to prevent criminal activity, but to make it as hard (or useless) to own a gun as possible. And god forbid you are on a flight that happens to stop in NYC and you have a gun in your belongings. If you don't have a NYC permit for that then you WILL get prosecuted. Even if you are just in a stop over flight and have no intentions of leaving the airport.

 

I'm not comparing guns to cars. I'm comparing guns to alcohol and marijuana. Is there a permit requirement to buy alcohol, or marijuana? Should their be?

What safety features would you have manufacturers engineer into guns to make them safer, that aren't already in place?

A trigger lock won't stop that. They can be busted off with a hammer.

 

One suggestion I've seen is making it more difficult to disable trigger locks.

 

Drunk driving doesn't kill people. People kill people. So why make laws against drunk driving?

 

The common sense response to vehicular fatalities has been...............

The steady decline in motor vehicle deaths over the past 65 years can be attributed to a combination of improved technology and smarter regulation. The federal government mandated the presence of seat belts in the 1960s. The '70s brought anti-lock brakes. The '80s brought an increased focus on drunk driving and mandatory seat belt use. Airbags came along in the '90s. More recent years have seen mandates on electronic stability systems, increased penalties for distracted driving and forthcoming requirements for rear-view cameras.

The result has been safer cars, safer roads, better drivers and a decades-long decline in motor vehicle fatalities, according to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ow-killing-as-many-people-as-cars-in-the-u-s/

I wonder how many of these safety improvements would have been blocked if there was a lobbying group like the NRA trying to keep cars unsafe to use.

 

That would be the absolutely 100% accurate response to that nonsense. However, it would not meet the attention deficit requirements of anybody who is incapable of reading anything with more words than would fit in a bumper-sticker.

 

Driving drunk is a conscious act. Now, you said "alcohol doesn't kill people traffic accidents", your post would have actually made sense...lol

 

so tell us who actually understand firearms-how you make them "safer" without preventing them from being useful in defensive situations. There is no tradeoff (other than cost) in making a car more able to protect its occupants in a high speed crash or making the car better able to handle slick roads or other dangerous conditions. most of the safety (alleged) improvements gun banners want to make to guns detracts from the weapon's usefulness in an emergency. People who try to make cars safer for drivers are not interested in banning car use or possession. Most of those howling for gun safety are gun banners

 

Usually LESS conscious than shooting people.

Yours doesn't no matter what.

 

No, drinking and driving is just as intentional of an act as shooting someone. No one accidentally drives under the influence.

 

Trigger locks can be cut off, no matter how you build them. They won't prevent theft.

 

Sorry, if the subject weren't serious, I doubt I would have gotten many replies, and I have. Clearly, passions are strong on the subject, so it has to be a serious subject.

Now, I realize where your confusion comes from, which no doubt has something to do with the notion that repealing the second amendment is unrealistic in today's society. But that fact doesn't mean the subject under discussion isn't serious.

That point was addressed insofar as that fact is not being debated, which is to say, the debate is a theoretical exercise. I see nothing in the rules that theoretical exercises are disallowed in the opinions and beliefs forum.

 

It wasn't the insurrectionists that 'almost toppled democracy'. In fact, Trump might have succeeded with his scheme WITHOUT the attackers. If you take a look, you will notice that most of the charges in the GA indictment have nothing to do with the attack. If you look at the various documents which outline the scheme to overturn the election, NONE mention 'attack the capitol' or 'rile up a mob to attack the capitol'. In fact, the attack wasn't part of the plan at all. It was the predictable result of Trump's telling his base, for months on end, that democrats stole the election, and if they didn't 'fight like hell' they would 'lose their country'. That was all impromptu crap that occurred due to Trump's myopia and incompetence.

The hail mary of the plan was this:

What's amazing is you can't see how specious your reasoning is.

I've got one word for you. Desert Storm.

Guerrillas are hard to root out and kill, true, but guerrillas will not defeat the US Military, all that will happen is that they will slowly get caught, one by one and be prosecuted. And that is because it will occur on American soil, in American suburbs, or wherever, that AMerica which has all the resources available America (APB's FBI infrastructure, dragnets, wanted lists, rewards, etc) not available in some frickin' sand dune nation.

 

Guerrillas are hard to root out and kill, true, but guerrillas will not defeat the US Military, all that will happen is that they will slowly get caught, one by one and be prosecuted.

But guerrilla methods won't be the desire of the gun nuts. Those who imagine there is going to be a civil war won't be guerrillas, anway, that is now their plan. Civil wars are about a lot of people fighting en masse, and there will NEVER be group large enough, no where near large enough, to take on the US military. they will be reduced to guerrillas, and one by one they will be caught and prosecuted, And that is because it will occur on American soil, in American suburbs, or wherever, that AMerica which has all the resources available America (APB's FBI infrastructure, dragnets, wanted lists, rewards, etc) not available in some frickin' sand dune nation.

No, you haven't learned from history.

There is no 'confederacy' or anything close to what happened in the mid 19th century. There is nothing like 'slavery' to bond the south together and some 45% of the south are liberals and independents, whereas during the civil war, the south was united (because the economy depended on slavery).

I'm sorry, there isn't going to be a civil war. The idiots who attacked the capitol were shouting 'this is our 1776' and look what happened to them. One by one,. they are all in jail.

That is the more likely scenario. See above. ANd I stand by my previous comment.

 

given the constantly sound legal rulings that are striking down state attacks on gun rights, what do you think will happen in terms of gun ownership in the USA over the next several decades?

 

People commit murder with cars every year. Why can't we restrict violent criminals from driving?

 

I think the evidence is clear that restricting criminals is not what motivates those who want to ban normal capacity magazines or semi auto rifles

 

It's like saying I'm not anti Free speech but I just want to do away with the first amendment

 

The problem is the heller ruling which is wrong and was based on historically incorrect interpretations.

In the DC vs Heller decision,Justice Scalia's reasoning misrepresents the historical context of the Second Amendment and the eighteenth-century militia.

The concerns of the founding generation were more about the role of militias and the avoidance of standing armies than an individual's right to bear arms.

Scalia's decision is criticized for not understanding the militia's nature as a state institution and for overlooking the importance of civilian control over the militia.

While the Heller decision contains some accurate historical points, its emphasis on an individual's right to bear arms is said to distort the original purpose of the Second Amendment.

Despite the 5-4 split in the Heller decision, it is the misinterpretation of the amendment's intent that makes it problematic from a historical perspective.

See
https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/2020/10/why-heller-is-such-bad-history/

 

They want to ban guns so they can send their militants out into the country to intimidate the people and kill the ones who won't be intimidated.

 

The 2nd Amendment doesn't have **** all to do with being a member of the militia. Just like a free press doesn't mean one has to do with being a government ordained journalist and the free expression of religion doesn't have anything to do with being a member of a a government recognized religion.