My proposed firearm amendment

Its actually a 'fewer high capacity weapons out there = fewer funerals argument.

 

Nope. The numbers of high capacity weapons didn’t decrease. It increased substantially.

 

Creative attempt, but no gold star.

More guns equals more deaths. Period.

We have well over 400 million guns in this country already. If there was even a smidgeon of truth to more guns equals fewer deaths, we would be the safest country on earth. You cannot get over that hurdle.

I'm not saying anything about revolvers, shotguns, or any rifle with no more than a 10 round clip. I'm specifically talking about semi-auto long rifles with huge magazines. That combination is too dangerous for any yahoo to walk in and buy what he needs, just like this Lousiville shooter did.

 

why would this do anything positive. Right now constitutional restrictions on using weapons are in place and unconstitutional prohibitions will be struck down. what laws do you think will stop premeditated harm perpetrated by a firearm other than severely punishing the actual harmful conduct?

 

I’ve never made the more guns equals less crime/shootings argument. You did. I’m intelligent enough to understand there are too many factors involved in firearm violence to condense it to just that one variable.

Consider that when we as a country prohibited felons, kids, and mentally ill from purchasing firearms for the first time, the firearm homicide rate skyrocketed from 2.5/100,000 to 7/100,000 over the next couple decades.

More guns does not equal less crime. Less guns does not equal less crimes. The numbers of guns is far down the list of things that impact crime rates.

There are far too many cases of inverse correlation to claim more guns equals more death. The demographic that owns firearms at the highest rates commits less crime per capita than demographics with fewer firearms. Many states with higher ownership rates have lower crime rates than states with lower ownership rates. Same goes for countries.

Just remember, I’m not the one claiming more guns necessarily means less death. But you make that claim every time you say the AWB caused a decrease in shootings because the AWB substantially INCREASED the amounts of assault weapons, it did not decrease the number.

 

national laws are already are of dubious validity based on the fictional use of the commerce clause that FDR's lapdog court allowed. Most of the justices have a dim view of the commerce clause allowing any expansion of that nonsense and I expect that the 1934 NFA is going to get eviscerated within the next three years

 

I still wouldn't agree to it-how is the guy who murdered you or robbed you getting more years going to help you.

 

nope because most don't think they will be caught. And it shows why passing malum prohibitum laws and pretending that will stop those committing malum per se offenses is idiotic. If a murder rap doesn't scare you, being cited for having a 30 round magazine won't either

 

people who want to tell others they cannot own such a firearm are a really good reason to own one

 

well ponder this-the rate of gun violence was steadily going downhill from the 1980s through about 2018 despite adding over 100 million more firearms to US society. what is a HUGE magazine.

 

Have you ever used or trained with an AR platform?

 

Im not opposed to trying to amend the constitution. But its worth noting that this attempt to allow 'reasonable restrictions' will allow those states that wish it to totally ban all firearms if 51% of their legislature views that as 'reasonable'. And as noted, that will not protect the children from getting shot by criminals, it will only prevent their guardians from having access to the same weapons as those criminals.

It also will likely lead to a wave of 'Wacos' across the nation, as urban-centric legislatures pass gun lass that are wildly unpopular outside their dense but relatively small metro areas, and they seek federal assistance in disarming their uncooperative countrysides.

But hey, states rights, I get it.

In the interest of keeping the peace, I think such an amendment would necessarily need to include two provisions:
-a stipulation that areas disarmed/dearmed by their state govt be provided some objective and minimum level oflaw enforcement guarantee to offset their reduction of access to self defense
-and a provision that localities with high enough percentage of the population in opposition to newly constitutionalized gun restrictions be allowed to secede to the nearest state that still respects the original intent of the constitutional they used to abide by, given that most currently lawful gun owners are unlikely to submit to being disarmed by their state govt.

The whole 'just move to a better state' thing is not realistic. Basically all the farmers in gunban states would have to move to gunopen states, and there no farmers looking to move to gunban states. No one is giving up their guns, and no one is giving up their land and moving to the city to keep their guns either. If we're gonna start messing up the constitution, we have to allow a more fluid border situation between states, based on local democratic will of course, or we're just gonna be asking for a giant civil war.

 

I wonder how many of the posters who think the States should have the power (states have powers, citizens have rights) to ban guns in their borders would be in favor of those states being able to ban

1) all abortions
2) homosexual marriages or even homosexual sex
3) getting rid of Title IX or Title VII
4) interracial marriages

 

Yes it does.

 

there is no correlation in the USA between legal gun ownership and crime rates

 

I dooubt it will ever pass constitutional muster. Nor, to be frank, do I see any benefit to it.

 

Which in turn means they aren’t afraid of threat of life in prison or death penalty.

 

What a load of bunkum! We score higher or the same on freedom indices as you do

the original page
https://www.statista.com/statistics/272533/degree-of-internet-freedom-in-selected-countries/

The UK which has equally tight gun laws scores higher than you

THIS is from the CATO institute a very right wing American think tank

https://www.cato.org/blog/personal-freedom-decline-worldwide-new-human-freedom-index

Again we rank higher than the USA https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Press_Freedom_Index

WE are not threatening teachers with imprisonment over library books or removing reproductive rights dictating what can and cannot be worn on the body in public - so long as something is worn - in most places

 

Especially when the bullets can penetrate walls

 

Yep. I owned one.

 

I have been a peaceful law abiding citizen all my life. If that amendment was passed, my very liberal state would pass laws that would force me to turn in guns I have or become a criminal. This peaceful, law abiding citizen says no to that.

 

The problem is how, or IF, the states will enforce this.

I know that if you enter CA through one of the many popular interstate freeways they do have checkpoints for illegal fruit. I guess they could also ask questions about firearms, but something tells me that will be a tricky situation. I really don't see how any other state would be able to enforce it.

 

We see it in other countries.

 

Internet freedom, WTF is that. lol
By they way, Australia and the US both scored 76
What ever the **** that means.

Now you're down to internet freedom? I can't stop laughing

If you didn't catch the post, we are talking about Australia.
You know. THe ones who gave up their guns to their government.

Maybe you should have looked to see that the US wasn't in that chart. lol
The desperation is unbelievable

Neither are we. Or is that your new claim that you aren't putting teachers in prison.

So you have no abortion laws?
Which means you will abort babies in the 3rd trimester?
And you though that was a good thing about Australia
Well, alrighty then

I don't even know what that word salad means

 

not at all-but what I know is that when people are in prison, they cannot harm us. You see-passing laws restricts the behavior of those who follow the laws-incarceration restricts the behavior of those who are punished. Gun banners want to keep passing more laws, rather than enforcing malum per se statutes because their goal is harassing lawful gun owners, not criminals