I don’t think you are, but are you saying that gun confiscation would work(for the purpose of protecting citizens) if it wasn’t enshrined in the Constitution? The Constitution should, and could, be amended to allow such if it would bring on the utopian state gun-grabbers believe it would.
A school shooting every now and then is far better for kids than being taken from their parents by the State, or being executed by the State for X, Y, and Z. The knowledge needed to build a firearm exists, so the right to defend oneself from firearms should not be taken from others.
No, I’m not. I’m saying even discussing it is a waste of time because it’s a constitutionally guranteed individual right as interpreted by SCOTUS. Unless that changes (doubtful) talking about confiscation is a waste of time.
You wanna talk about amending the 2a, sure. But that’s step one.
Really? To paraphrase one of my favorite comedy writers, a gun owner was stopped 46 times by actual jack booted thugs. The 47th time they straight up shot him in cold blood after he’d informed them he had a legal gun in his car. And nobody took up arms against the tyrannical government. Even more, all those second amendment types blamed the deceased gun owner for not complying hard enough.
And thousands of citizens were stopped and frisked in NYC and no citizen army came to the rescue. In fact, after it was ruled unconstitutional, Americans elected someone who thinks it was a good thing and should be used in other cities.
The funny thing is I didn’t bring up confiscation. That was posters revealing their emotional state on this issue. I originally was talking about the role guns play, and explained it further by thinking of a gun as holding a symbolic value, but somehow talking about the role guns play in gun violence means confiscation.
Saying guns should not be treated as untouchable when STUDYING gun violence is not confiscation. And I clarified it further when I said the ROLE guns play should be studied. Like I said, emotional reaction.
You said everything needs to be on the table or nothing will ever happen. We both know confiscation falls under the word “everything” in this context and it is the lefts (not your) goal.
Yes because I outright dismiss the de-arming of lawful US citizens.
Which makes you part of the problem. You can’t approach an argument from a position of fear. If you truly believe you are right then you shouldn’t be afraid. But again, since your emotions are clouding your intellect, I did say in a study of gun violence everything needs to be on the table. In other words, it’s about finding out the causes before coming up with solutions. Confiscation would fall under the latter but the discussion won’t even get past the former as evidenced by your reaction.
How to shut down a conversation 101: Make it personal instead of about a subject.
This whole communication pattern of the last couple of years “If you blahblahblah, insert pet cause, then YOU are part of the problem!” is absolutely toxic to actually understanding another point of view.
You also presented a straw man. I’m not talking about gun owners rising up against the government for other injustices.I’m talking strictly about disarming the American population. For one, do you really think Americans will willingly give up their 250-300 million guns? Do you also think the boys in blue or the military will confiscate from their fellow citizens? Hell, Americans won’t even turn in their bump stocks.
I guess it would all depend how serious the government is on confiscating fire arms.