2017/2018 Gun Control debate

Fox123 said:

Yeah was talking how if the rest of the country had marylands strict laws this wouldn't have happened

Click to expand...

trickg said:

I've effectively killed several threads on Facebook this week, which is probably because I've switched up tactics a bit.

The first thing I ask is what they really want, or what they realistically think will help. I bring up a couple of simple truths, the first of which is that we now have current legal precedent regarding the meaning of the 2nd Amendment and what it means - i.e., Heller and McDonald.

For those who insist that banning guns is the only way, I've pointed out that it would mean a repeal of the 2nd Amendment, and that can only be accomplished by:

1.) 2/3rds majority in both houses of congress
2.) 3/4ths majority ratification by the US States (Article 5 of the US Constitution)

I then point out the fact that there are millions of guns across the nation that have been accumulated over the last 150+ years and that it would essentially boil down to Government men with guns disarming the populace of their guns, and then what do we have? We have a totalitarian government. That's when I ask them if that's the kind of country they want to live in, and that's usually where the conversation dies - liberals don't really want that kind of governmental control once you spell it out that way.

One of my acquaintances suggested a mandatory psyche evaluation, but of course that comes with issues too, because once the government has the ability to mandate a psyche eval for guns, there's nothing preventing them from instituting a psyche eval for anything else, which brings us right back to a totalitarian (aka "tryannical") government.

I've also added that even if guns were banned, we have so many of them that are undocumented that it would instantly create both a black market for guns, and a whole new class of criminal, and none of that would effectively prevent someone intent on doing harm from obtaining and using guns in the commission of that act.

It's truly an all-or-nothing approach. More restrictions are little more than half-measures that aren't going to prevent anything and only infringes upon good people, and an outright ban would bring about a level of governmental control that would be fundamentally opposite of everything our founding fathers stood for.

Click to expand...

fidelity said:

Good arguments.

As an extension, I sometimes add that it will be necessary to also get rid of the 4th amendment if people want to rid the country of civilian held firearms, and it’s the only fair thing to do because the criminals won’t turn theirs in and will otherwise have a monopoly of firearms power to tyrannize the populace (kind of like Mexico). Of course, if one eliminates the 4th amendment, then gov’t agents can use anything that they find in your home to potentially charge you with a crime.

What is scary, in talking to folks, you can discern from some that they wouldn’t also mind giving up the 4th (although they might hesitate to verbalize this). These are sheeple that are primed to live under a dictator.

Click to expand...

thomfantomas said:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...new-regulations-after-las-vegas-shooting.html

Well this is gonna piss alot of people off....kinda speechless

Click to expand...

thomfantomas said:

Ben Sharpio is probably one of my favorites to listen to when it comes to the gun control debate

Click to expand...

thomfantomas said:

Well this is gonna piss alot of people off....kinda speechless

Click to expand...

trickg said:

For what it's worth, what if they just changed the designation to be similar to that of a silencer and they made it a class III item rather than an outright ban?

Click to expand...