Australia got a hell of a lot of guns turned in voluntarily when they tightened gun laws, but I have no idea how it worked. I think the biggest problem is getting a consensus on what to do and working within the Constitution to effect change. Any big restriction on gun rights seems unconstitutional to me, which means that we would either have to amend the Constitution or shred it further. No chance amending the Constitution any time soon and I value the rest of my rights enough that I'd rather not see the Constitution sullied any more than it already is. I have to effective solution to the problem of gun violence. The public is too divided, politicians are too cowardly and the Constitution is too hard to amend for any significant,meaningful change to be made anytime soon.
Actually, the Second Amendment is worded oddly, and can be read two different ways. For the majority of its existence it was read in the "well regulated militia" sense. However fairly recently (in the last two decades, IIRC), another Supreme Court case interpreted it as "an individual's right to own pretty much anything". The Constitution didn't change, nor was it amended. Case law determines how we implement the rights outlined in the constitution. So we don't have to change the Constitution. And there are oodles of steps we can take in case law and other laws that could make gun ownership a more respectable and regulated thing. Like cars.
You cannot own a gun if you are a convicted felon. Even if you aren't a felon, there are vast classes of weapons you can't legally own. The constitutional canard is a tired one and easy to parry. Even if you want to get federalist about it, you'd still be limiting citizens to black powder muskets. It's a cultural issue, not a constitutional one, but people go to the Constitution fast and first because nobody has a clue how to effect a cultural solution without going down dark roads.
The fourth amendment has been shredded by technological advancements. The government can peak at all kinds of our personal communication because it's electronic. The first amendment has held up pretty well. You don't lose your right to free speech because it's in the form of a phono recording for instance. To act like the 2nd amendment is some old canard to be cast aside seems dangerous to me. I value other rights to the extent that I wouldn't like to see the 2nd amendment harshly degraded without going through the motions of changing or repealing it. There is still a constitutional problem in enacting a solution. It's a huge bulwark for those that don't want to see change to hide behind even if it's the cultural clash that real battle must be fought. If gun control advocates won the culture war than we could amend the constitution and implement some real gun control without the threat of legislation being overturned by the courts. If progressive gun legislation gets passed only to die on the steps of the court than no good has been done. I know that I've started to sound like one of the people I used to think were nut cases but I don't think our constitutional rights are in such swell shape now a days. I don't know of any way in which the government encroaching on our 7th amendment rights, but I can find plenty of examples of the government trying to brush aside the remainder of the bill of rights. I'd feel better if we cleaned up the constitutional ambiguity of the second amendment rather than twist it all around. I don't feel that way because I'm resistant to reducing the number or more stiffly controlling the use and ownership of guns in the U.S. The Bill of Rights is a laudable document who's values we should strive to uphold. I'll almost always lean toward an interpretation that grants greater protection and freedom. I think the degradation of any of the amendments makes the whole weaker. But maybe I'm getting nutty and fearful as I get older. I have three relatives that have died by the gun. Two were suicides and who knows, they might have found a different way or they might not have. One was murdered, and she certainly wouldn't have been murdered if she had lived some place like England. I've been robbed at gun point. It was with an old gun that didn't work and it might have gotten in the same meth head's hands regardless of the laws but I think there is a chance that those moments of terror wouldn't have happened if we had tighter gun laws. I don't own a gun and have never shot a gun. More rigorous gun control would only make my life safer, it would be nice if it happened but I'm not counting on it.It's a cultural issue, not a constitutional one, but people go to the Constitution fast and first because nobody has a clue how to effect a cultural solution without going down dark roads.
You're off having this other discussion and that's fine, but look: That's it. Soup to nuts. No footnotes, no parenthetical expressions, no "see alsos." 2nd amendment is 22 words, two commas and a period. But ignoring the presence of a standing army, those twin titans "arms" and "infringed" are all the vagueness you could possibly want. - Want a 20mm cannon? Too fucking bad, unless it was imported back in the '60s, in which case absolutely, buy a Swedish Lahti anti-tank cannon. After all, they sold them in the back of Popular Mechanics. - How 'bout a .50 cal? Sure, but not in California. You also can't have mags over 10 rounds, folding stocks or bayonets. - Sawed-off shotgun? Totally illegal thanks to the National Firearms Act. How 'bout a booby trap that uses shotgun shells as if they were Claymore mines? Totally legal because nobody has banned them yet. - Thompson submachine gun? Perfectly legal during the reign of Al Capone, now a Class III controlled weapon. - Under indictment for a crime whose punishment is greater than a year? Can't own a gun, even if you haven't been convicted. - Addicted to a controlled substance? Can't own a gun since '68. What's a "controlled substance?" Well, marijuana, for example. So if you're allowed by the state of Washington to smoke a bowl, are you allowed by the government of the United States to own a pistol? Stay tuned as we hash this out in court. - Ever been committed to a mental institution? Even for, say, depression? Guess what? You're out. - Dishonorably discharged from the army? Guess what? this is not a constitutional issue. Find the constitutional consistency, I dare you. People throw up the 2nd amendment because then they don't have to think about it. It's a sop to quench discussion or forethought. It's bullshit, though. We've been infringing the fuck out of the 2nd amendment ever since we decided that the military gets guns we don't. and that's entirely appropriate. We've twice said "that gun is too scary" and had it stick and that's why Randy Weaver ended up in a mountain siege - a BATF guy talked him into taking a hacksaw to a shotgun and then threatening him with a 20-year prison term if he didn't turn informant. So bummer 'bout your history (we won't go into mine) but when I say the 2nd amendment shtick is a feint, I mean it. We've got angry people who would rather shoot someone in the face than deal with their problems and the founding fathers have fuckall to do with that.A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right to bear arms shall not be infringed.
Current Supreme Court precedent is that people are allowed to own handguns and some types of rifles. They just declined to hear a case where a state had an assult weapon ban where the appeals court found the ban Constitutional. What types of gin regulations are legal is murky right now but the unambiguous right forost citizens to own guns is not. The six shootings near my house this summer were all with handguns. All of the arrests made in connection were of felons that didn't have the legal right to have a gun. As long as handguns are widely available and their purchase is protected by Supreme Court precedent there are significant Constitutional road blocks to real gun reform.
There's a plausible (to me, but I am not a lawyer) argument that floats around from time to time that the Second Amendment should be interpreted to protect the the right to carry a gun for the purposes of being in a state militia, not necessarily in general. That is, that it's really protecting states rights to have their own armies, not the right to carry a gun for any purpose whatsoever. The supreme court doesn't agree, but that's a recent thing and it's always possible for a future decision to supersede it. I'm not sure there should be a gun ban, but I don't think it would require an amendment to or particularly creative interpretation of the Constitution to do it.
Here's a starter for you. Here's another. Essentially, the gun confiscations weren't voluntary, but people were compensated for the cost of the weapons.
Cash for clunkers was very different, No one was forced to give up their cars. Gun buy back programs usually net a bunch of shitty non or barely function weapons that have sat in the basement or under the bed for a few decades. Guns aren't shitty old cars.
Ok, you went off the rails here... forced? Who is talking about forcing anyone to do anything? Read my post... voluntary. Shit... I'll just quote it here: If our goal is to reduce the number of guns available to loonies today - in addition to stricter background checks and waiting periods and sales rules - what kind of incentive to turn over a gun, would a gun owner respond to?
Sorry, not so off the rails. Gun buy back gets ya shitty old guns and widows guns. Voluntary gun buy backs don't do shit. You want a gun buy back program to work you have to force the sale. Cash for clunkers you got money toward a new car. People who had cars got new better cars. They already showed that they would trade money for cars and this program incentivised them to do so again sooner than they would have done eventually any way. Gun buy back gives people money for something they have already shown they are willing to pay money for. When they bought the gun they already showed that they value guns more than a certain sum of money. Thus the only guns you get from gun buy backs are ones that are busted or have ended up in the hands of someone who didn't buy them in the first place.a few people who need money will sell off guns they otherwise would choose to keep if they had more cash. It doesn't compare well with cars and if you want to make a buy back worthwhile you have to either mandate it or offer super valuable incentives.