A good idea. I heartily agree. However, in a country where a child is suspended or expelled for doodling a gun in his notebook, I am not holding my breath.
This is effectively (from the standpoint of confiscation) not any easier than outlawing all guns.
On the other hand, perhaps you don’t want to confiscate all handguns, just make it illegal to manufacture, buy, or sell them. With any luck, this may work as well as the similar laws regarding marijuana and ripped movies.
[quote=“LDoBe, post:18, topic:67416”]
I’d also like to ban STANAG magazines
[/quote]Won’t be long until they are home-printable.
If you have a couple of specific laws in mind, and if you also are willing to say “Once A and B are enacted, that’s enough. We need no more gun laws”, I’d say you totally deserve a fair hearing.
If there was a way to wave a magic wand and immediately get rid of all the guns… then hell yeah I’d do it.
And while I’m waving the wand I’d also fix the climate and racism and sexism and make everyone get along and cure cancer and end poverty and everyone would live happily ever after.
Meanwhile in the real world:
Entering peoples’ homes and taking guns away, by force if necessary, is not even on the table and never has been. That’s just the idea that the NRA pushes to make gun control sound ridiculous and sell more guns.
Reality – in the form of every other country in the world, and every study of gun violence, proves that basic gun control measures are quite effective in reducing the number of people killed by guns.
The NRA is all “they’re coming to take away our cars!” when we just want you to wear a fucking seat belt.
Or the Supreme Court could go back to the original and long-standing interpretation of “well regulated militia” and we can consider the last 7 years (since D.C. vs Heller) to be like the period of Prohibition.
I’m sure you’re aware that as recently as 1939 the U.S. Supreme Court stated the federal government and the states could limit any weapon which did not have a “reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia”.
We’ve been having that discussion for the last fifty years (it was JFK’s being killed by a mail order rifle which really started serious gun control discussion).
You are of course free to advocate for your POV, as are those who disagree with you. We’ll see how it all works out.
Gun owners suppose that armed men will be going door to door searching for guns. Unlikely. Probably guns will be seized and destroyed when they are found, without the help of SWAT teams.
(I love irregardless, and I love the confused look on people’s face when I use it properly. That and, “I could care less”, moot, and a ton of other words that have mutated over the years)
Most illegal weapons that are destroyed will probably be those seized during arrests and those turned in during amnesty programs. This applies whether all guns are illegal or just some subset of them. Knocking down doors and searching houses with no probable cause isn’t very likely. If that kind of search does happen they will be searching for some targeted minority group, not for guns.
