My proposed firearm amendment

We do have a problem with gun deaths in the USA, let's not kid ourselves. One can't appreciate how serious it is until one has lost a child in a drive by or in a school shooting. No, I haven't suffered such a loss, but "there for the grace of God go I."

Nor, fellow gun owners, can we "let the perfect be the enemy of the good," and so a reasonable regulation that might possibly save your or my child should not be rejected out of hand, no matter how annoying the regulation's proponents are, and no matter the fact that bad guys won't ever play ball. (That rationale would even prevent the prohibition of tax fraud and murder, so let's not do that.)

The 2nd Amendment would indeed doom many of the proposals made elsewhere. Now, repealing the 2nd Amendment, which some (not I) read to confer unlimited gun rights on the citizenry, is a bad idea, because the original justification for it is not completely outmoded, and drastic changes are always bad. Anyway it's not going to be repealed. So forget that avenue.

That leaves us with another possibility:
amending the Constitution (probably a vain exercise because half of us hates the other half). None of us wants anyone else to lose a child, or at least I hope not. So I would suggest the following amendment as a starting point towards a compromise that will neither avoid every single death, nor empower Joe Biden to come and take our guns, but it just might create a fresh opportunity for us to at least have a discussion: here's my down and dirty first draft:

"No provision of this Constitution shall be read so as to limit the authority of the People of the several states to enact, by legislation, reasonable restrictions on the number, caliber, and functionality of firearms possessed, sold, purchased or transported within the States, or to enact similar reasonable restrictions on the sale or possession of explosives or of ammunition."

Someone wiill say "Who's to say what's reasonable!?!" The answer is: 1) the people we send to our legislatures to enact the legislation if the majority wants it; and 2) the courts, in that order.

Courts deal with the "reasonableness" of searches and seizures every day, and they do a pretty good job if it In my opinion.

Yes, Vermont will outlaw AK's, high capacity magazines, and bazookas, the legislature giving their "reasons" for it for the courts to review inder the reasonableness standard, and Texas will not. If you can't live with the restrictions, move to Texas. If you hate Texas, move to Vermont.

 

but if i want to move my bazooka from new jersey to vermont i'd have to worry about being stopped in new york or connectecut.

seriously. i think most of us would like that, but i doubt the "cold dead hands" crowd would.

 

How will this prevent someone from traveling to another state to get the weapons and ammo they want to bring it back to the more restrictive state they live in?

 

Nor, fellow gun owners, can we "let the perfect be the enemy of the good,"

We can't stop lawlessness. Only seek to minimize its damage.

Perhaps those who live in states with restrictive laws should be precluded from purchasing items that become illegal once they cross the border back in to their states of residence. But national laws would be preferable.

 

Neh. Pass. Thanks for sharing, though.

 

Enforce the laws on the books. Legislate stiffer penalties for murders involving firearms.

 

Most people buy guns to protect themselves from criminals with guns. The only way I'd be willing to turn in my gun is if they made it a ten year mandatory sentence for criminals to be caught with a firearm. And no parole, ten years to serve.

 

The problem is that it isn't a gun problem. It is a sociopathic shooter problem. We need to return to putting these people in mental hospitals.

 

Liberal DAs give triple murderers 15 years. A person bent on murder isn't afraid of a 10 year stretch.

 

There's a shortage of physical security.

 

What an original idea. If you don't agree with the constitution on gun rights for its citizens, and you can never get enough states to support your wish to repeal it, and your constant fear of guns isn't supported by 2/3rd the population, why not move to a place that aligns with your politics and beliefs.
Sounds more reasonable then fighting a losing battle over guns for the rest of your life.
Australia comes to mind. They haven't seen the full result of giving up their guns yet like Venezuela has so as long as you can put up with a government that jails people for posting Covid information on Facebook they don't like, you should be fine for the next 5 or so years.

 

Seems many aren’t afraid of life in prison or death penalty.

 

Dylan Roof took a plea deal to avoid the death penalty.

 

When I was in school there was no security and no school shootings. Every school I attended left the doors open so people could come and go. The sociopaths were in mental hospitals where they couldn't hurt anybody including themselves.

 

School shootings are a fad crime, now. There needs to be more physical security.

 

If they're not afraid of a ten year stretch then that's the best place for them. And more importantly no parole. No mucky muck psychological defense either.

 

I agree with that statement, but reality requires a pragmatic solution. When there was an assault weapons ban, it did curve the mass shooting trend downwards and only after it sunsetted did it go back up. This isn't a difficult concept.

The point of gun control as I see it is to curb the trend downward, the problem is that too many folks think they have a right to be as armed as the police or military. The entire thinking behind that is what is dangerous and poses a threat to everybody. "Home defense" is a weak excuse to have an AR or AK rifle.

 

And? What does that have to do with the many people who’ve committed 1st degree murder in states where life or death penalty is possible?

 

The murder rate was already going down before the ban started and kept going down after the ban ended. The ban did nothing.

 

You said mass shooters aren't afraid of the death penalty. Obviously Dylan Roof didn't want to be executed.

Name one mass shooter who received the death penalty after being convicted in a court of law.

 

Nope. Never said anything specific about mass shooters. My point is people still commit murders despite the fact that they can face life or death penalty. Of course they will also try to seek something less than death or life…duh. But they aren’t so afraid of either as to STOP them from committing murder.

 

I have news for you. Murderers tend not contemplate the consequences of being caught too much. They are not saying to themselves, "The state legislature increased the penalty for murder with a weapon from 20 years to 30, I'd better not use one." Either they think they can plan the perfect crime and not get caught, or its an impulsive act and they aren't thinking beyond the moment.

 

Cool. Another “more guns equals less crime argument”. Well done!

 

It's the exact opposite.

 

During the 1994-2004 assault weapons ban, the sales of those weapons increased. By 2004, three times as many AR-15s were being sold to the public as were sold in years before the ban. The first noticeable increase in AR-15 sales was a result of the impending ban in 1994.

https://www.discoursemagazine.com/p...-weapons-ban-will-be-to-sell-more-ar-15s/amp/

Not my opinion. Even anti gun groups realize that more guns (and asssult weapons) proliferated during the ban than at any previous time.

https://www.hoplofobia.info/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/2004-Land-of-Post-Ban-Assault-Weapons.pdf

Unfortunately most anti gunners are too limited in knowledge to understand the claim shootings decreased during the ban is a claim (based on facts) that more guns equals less crime.