You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Why does no one explain the semiautomatic firing mechanism?
Well, not to be obnoxiously picky, but that's 6 words.
And we'll still have to repeal the 2nd Amendment before we can we can try that. So everyone should immediately start advocating for repeal. Right? What's the point, otherwise? You can't ban guns until you repeal the Constitutional right to own them.
Fixed it. Thanx.
I don't think so because we didn't have to repeal the 2nd Amendment to outlaw the ownership of guns by convicted felons. The Constitution doesn't prevent such things because it's up to the Supreme Court to interpret the Constitution and the laws that get passed. If the Court says it's not unconstitutional then it's not unconstitutional, and even if the Court says state laws are unconstitutional but the citizens of the states still want to follow those laws there's nothing the Court can do about it. The only thing that can be done about it is the federal government can withhold funds from the states for things like re-paving the interstate highway in those states but the states can just ignore the feds, take a cut in revenue, and go on outlawing certain types of guns or restrict who can own one.
I've very new here and I don't know the culture well yet, so I'm not sure if debate is popular - please let me know. I tend to debate.
What I'm trying to understand about gun control advocates, is what they ultimately want. I'd be willing to debate the merits of the 2nd Amendment - I'm not a lover of firearms - but short of that, I don't understand how we solve the problem, as defined.
And what is exactly IS that problem? We have people in our culture that are deranged and murderous. They can commit mass murder in a number of ways. What makes firearms unique is that they are protected by the Constitution. Concentrating on firearm availability isn't very productive because the average citizen has an ironclad right to own them, and there are already so many in existence. And if semiautomatic weapons have existed for a century or more, something else must have changed. It can't be the weapon itself. Right? But that's a broader subject.
We can debate whether the Supreme Court would uphold a ban on semiautomatics (I seriously doubt they would), but at least that would be a principled approach. And we could budget for a national buyback program, but remember - 400 million of them already. It seems logical that there would still be plenty for deranged people and criminal gangs.
I just don't see the Australian example working in the USA because of the 2nd Amendment and the sheer quantity of them already in existence. But ... it's hard to predict the future.
Thanks for responding.
If it's against the culture to debate then I must be quite the oulaw LOL! The only real "expectation" I know is that we add value, and in my mind explaining why a post misses the mark is adding value. Not to mention a whole lot more interesting than everyone agreeing with each other all the time.
Back to the topic at hand, I see nothing done in Australia that would if done in the US violate the 2nd Amendment in the eyes of the ones making that call which is the Supreme Court. Our 2nd Amendment says, "The right to bare arms shall not be infringed." The Australian public still bares arms. That right was not taken away from them. They just have fewer choices now as to what arms are allowed and which part of the public can own them. The public is still armed, though about half as many are gun owners now compared to prior to the buyback program. Apparently just the reduced supply of firearms in the public was enough to cut gun related suicides in half and eliminate mass shootings altogether.
Felons can't own guns it's already a crime. That's why background checks are NCIS federal checks... Extra fee. Waiting period. Paperwork and Id?