America Gun Problem Exposes The Truth of America's Failing Democracy

[PakFactor]

In China guns are outright banned, so people use knives and similar blunt objects to attack children at schools. There have been quite a few incidents of such in China recently and have historically been quite common, looks like China has a knife problem. OP what do you think about banning or regulating knife ownership in China?

We'd all be dead when our wives wouldn't be able to operate properly in the kitchen.

 

[Beast]

In China guns are outright banned, so people use knives and similar blunt objects to attack children at schools. There have been quite a few incidents of such in China recently and have historically been quite common, looks like China has a knife problem. OP what do you think about banning or regulating knife ownership in China?

China has a knife problem? How many knife attack in China for past 6 months? You must be a troll trying to tie China knife attack number compare to US mass shooting occurrence. You must be upset China is being safer and doing a good job keeping street safe compare to USA.

Which countries has zero violent attack for past 5 years? Tell me? But I can tell you US is the only country to have violent shooting every month. Your trolling fact and American are going downhill by delude themselves from problem.

 

[gambit]

Origins of the Bill of Rights: Leonard W. Levy: 9780300089011: Amazon.com: Books

Origins of the Bill of Rights [Leonard W. Levy] on Amazon.com. *FREE* shipping on qualifying offers. Origins of the Bill of Rights

www.amazon.com

In chapter 6 'The Right to Keep and Bear Arms'...

​

The right to keep and bear arms is an inheritance from England, as are so many American rights. In 1689, when England adopted its Bill of Rights, which endorsed the right bear arms, that right was already centuries old. In the twelfth century Henry II had obligated all freemen to possess certain arms, and in the next century Henry III required every subject aged fifteen to fifty, including even landless farmers, to own a weapon other than a knife. Crown officers periodically inspected subjects to be certain that they were properly armed. The reason for this requirement was that in the absence of a regular army and a police force, which was not established until 1829, every man had to do his duty at watch and ward, standing guard by day and night in order to confront and capture suspicious persons. Every subject also had an obligation to protect the king's peace and assist in the suppression of riots. In the event of a crime, every man had to join in the "hue and cry" -- summoning aid and joining the pursuit of anyone who resisted arrest or escaped from custody.​

 

[RescueRanger]

I'm glad you clarified "some states".

People here seem to think that gun laws are the same across the US..and so are the personal gun ownership rates.

They don't realize we are basically like the EU with 50 states each with their own gun laws. So asking somebody in Greece if they are worried about some shooting in the UK is a bit ridiculous. Nor are they going to be suddenly worried about their "failing Democracy".

View attachment 848805



View attachment 848806

I'm glad you clarified "some states".

I've trained with both US Law Enforcement and EMS, whilst there I have travelled a little bit around the US and have friends in the US who are members of NRA, so I get to find out about places like Alaska, Alabama and Delaware where gun laws are pretty lax.

 

[RescueRanger]

Each knife must be serial number controlled. Each purchase must be age restricted. Each customer must be registered. There must be a waiting period before the approved customer can pick up the knife. Products must be behind the counter and in a reinforced display case. Only one knife can be viewed at a time. No 'assault' or 'military grade' knife available to the public.

You forgot the 14 day waiting period.

 

[jhungary]

You need to understand two things. This is not a simple "Ban all guns and problem solved"

There are 2 issues at play here. How do you ban them, and what is your plan to get back 400 millions guns that are already in circulation currently?

You can introduce law to ban guns and make them illegal overnight, set aside constitution issue (Which I will discuss later) even if Senate passed the Background check bill or even ban Assault Firearms, then what? You only ban what people can get AFTER the date the bill is signed, as I said, there are already 400 millions firearms in the US both legal and illegal. You have to do something with those thing. Gun buy back only would work if you assume everyone is going to follow the law. If I am going to use my gun and commit crime later on, I would not possibly hand them over because I wouldn't care about the banning.

So the only way is for PD to look at records and go to everyone house and collect them, but then that's another 6th amendment right issue there, you can't go into people homes without either an invitation or a warrant. And accessing which people own what itself is a violation of 1st Amendment right (Government cannot look into privacy detail without a warrant) which mean you would either need a lot of warrant to go after gun owners. I am not sure SCOTUS are all for that, that's a lot of civil right violation there.

Then you have the 2A thing you need to go over, everything I said above is not going to happen unless you can somehow overturn 2A, which itself entrenched quite strong and there are no possibility on this is going to overturn, not with 6 Republican justice on SCOTUS. And then even if some how SCOTUS overturned 2A, you still need a bunch of Senator (This will probably fly pass the house) to agree on the bill, which mostly likely you will get is a filibuster.

Sadly, what I see from the school shooting is that gun sales are going to spike, because either people have a misconception of guns bring you protection (It's not true if you don't know how to use them responsibly) or they are afraid something is going down with gun law and stock it just in case, school shooting is good for firearms business, especially when those shooting is in Texas or Arizona or Florida.

 

[beijingwalker]

 

[WotTen]

There are 2 issues at play here. How do you ban them, and what is your plan to get back 400 millions guns that are already in circulation currently?

I hope no one misinterprets my post, but couldn't the same argument have been applied to banning slavery in terms of practicality?

Once guns are outlawed, the only people who would refuse to turn their guns in would be criminals or would-be-criminals. That is such a small number as to be manageable by law enforcement.

I think the real reason the federal government is wary of this issue is because any serious challenge to the 2A would almost certainly lead to a civil war or secessionist movements in several states.

 

[jhungary]

I hope no one misinterprets my post, but couldn't the same argument have been applied to banning slavery in terms of practicality?

Once guns are outlawed, the only people who would refuse to turn their guns in would be criminals or would-be-criminals. That is such a small number as to be manageable by law enforcement.

I think the real reason the federal government is wary of this issue is because any serious challenge to the 2A would almost certainly lead to a civil war or secessionist movements in several states.

Key word "Once guns are outlawed"

How are you going to get around 2A issue? That's the first thing. Second things is, even if Federal code banned 2A, then it is up to individual state to apply those changes to it, banned 2A does not mean banning gun, it get you the premises to ban gun, but state can still legalise them. It's like in Australia, you have federal law defining what is a firearms and the legality, but it is up to individual state in Australia to have them the way they wanted it, that's why Queensland and WA allowed Replica weapon, while those things are treated like real firearms in other states.

Then you have an enforcement issue. Cops cannot just go around people house collect contraband. Same as anything illegal, you will need a probable clause and then issue a warrant. Otherwise that's illegal search and siezure. And how do you know which people have what guns at their home? LE have to had another warrant to just look up those Federal/State paperwork. And that is if they have paperwork to begin with, only a few state register their firearm sales.

Slavery is another issue, first of all, it was never written in the constitution that we can have slave (I don't believe it had ever happened) which mean you can simply outlaw it, and you kind of easy to spot a slave, because unlike guns, how do you conceal a slave??

 

[WotTen]

Slavery is another issue, first of all, it was never written in the constitution that we can have slave (I don't believe it had ever happened) which mean you can simply outlaw it, and you kind of easy to spot a slave, because unlike guns, how do you conceal a slave??

I believe the 'right' to hold slaves was challenged and upheld by a previous SCOTUS when the Justices decided that slaves were not human (or 2/3rd human or something) and were not protected by the Constitution. But that's going off on a tangent so ...

 

[jhungary]

I believe the 'right' to hold slaves was challenged and upheld by a previous SCOTUS when the Justices decided that slaves were not human (or 2/3rd human or something) and were not protected by the Constitution. But that's going off on a tangent so ...

You are talking about 3/5 compromise, it's more about prisoner or anyone in "enslavement" than actual slave.

 

[gambit]

I believe the 'right' to hold slaves was challenged and upheld by a previous SCOTUS when the Justices decided that slaves were not human (or 2/3rd human or something) and were not protected by the Constitution. But that's going off on a tangent so ...

There was no 'right' to hold slaves in the US Constitution. There is what is called the 'three fifth' compromise where southern states wanted to count slaves as quasi-citizens for purpose of Congressional representation. The northern states objected that slaves cannot be citizens by any interpretation. So a morally repugnant compromise was reached that each slave was counted as three-fifth of a person.