Don't blame me, I voted for the other guy. (Politics General)

@Background Pony #6B50
You say that like they wouldn’t be given the opportunity to turn in their guns peacefully. Do you really think that it will be a “first day of the new law, kill every fucker with a glock”? No one outside our political parties and their fanatics would do something that dumb.

@Background Pony #6B50
And if we think it over and conclude that it’s still better than the alternatives, including the status quo?

@Meanlucario
The problem is, many Americans see guns as a civil right.

@Background Pony #6B50
If the proliferation of guns is a danger to America, then so are all who promote it.

@Latecomer
And that’s a problem that needs to be fixed. Again, it wouldn’t be easy, but necessary to make the USA safer. I rather not have our children lay down their lives to keep our right to give guns to anyone with money, and I hate kids.

@Meanlucario
Guns are so ingrained in American culture, most guns owners are conservative I’d think and I don’t think they’d surrender them even if given the chance to do so peacefully, I mean, they’d think it’s due to a tyrannical government becoming authoritarian, and the Constitution says that a tyrannical government should be stopped if need be.

@Mikey
Again, that is part of the problem. And they already tried to overturn a constitutional election in favor of a monarchy, so they are already enemies of the constitution.

@Meanlucario
No, I don’t think you’re completely understanding the undertaking and consequences here,

The NY Safe Act was an AWB passed in New York, it had a provision where if you had an assault weapon you had to register it with the state, let’s see how that worked out

“That data shows massive noncompliance with the assault weapon registration requirement. Based on an estimate from the National Shooting Sports Federation, about 1 million firearms in New York State meet the law’s assault-weapon criteria, but just 44,000 have been registered. That’s a compliance rate of about 4 percent.”

This is a case where noncompliance is a felony. This is the “opportunity to turn in their guns peacefully” part. Only 4% turned in their guns peacefully. So a gun confiscation nationwide means millions of felons, and enforcing the law means sending police out after them.

To give you an idea, our current prison/jail population is about 2 million. If you don’t see a problem with the plan your talking about I hope you also don’t complain about our overcrowded prisons.

@Meanlucario
I know for a fact that people in government want to rewrite the constitution. To make people surrender their guns you’d need to change the bill of rights to remove the second amendment, that’s not something many people would be accept.

If your argument boils down to “but the crazies fetishize their guns too much to not shot us for taking them away,” than that’s part of them problem, and not taking away their guns only enables them and mass shooters.

@Mikey
Amendments have been repealed before. Just because people with power doesn’t want to do the right thing, doesn’t change the reality of what would need to happen to make the USA a better country.

@Mikey
And you can bet I would be one of those against them trying it.

@lonewolf
Against trying which one?

@Mikey
And if the politicians had the support to change the second amendment you wouldn’t have as many concerns about people refusing to comply.

@Meanlucario
Oh no, you misunderstand what I was saying. I don’t want gun confiscation because I fetishize my gun so much and will shoot people who try and take them away. I was just pointing out though that if it was passed it would lead to mass non-compliance and the criminalization of millions of Americans leading to our already garbage prison system becoming much worse.

@Background Pony #6B50
I wasn’t calling you a crazy. And again, there would be time for people to turn in their guns peacefully. If your argument relies on the goverment being incompetent in how to start fixing the USA, than you need to rethink your argument.

Muricans who would refuse to surrender their guns, consider gun ownership to be a right. This means they would consider it just to break gun confiscation laws, but they still abide by other laws.

Slavery directly hurts people. Guns might potentially be used to hurt people. If guns were the same as slavery, no guns should be allowed to exist anywhere in the universe. Even you want to confiscate guns only from unlicensed people. Would you free slaves only from unlicensed slave owners? Exactly.

The point that Background Pony #6B50 is trying to make that these people don’t hurt anyone, so there’s no need to hurt them. I’m not sure what to think about it. It’s a dilemma between “we need to enforce laws” and “we should leave these people alone, they are hurting nobody”.

@Background Pony #1D40
Considering what started this discussion, guns are much more than “might potentially be used to hurt people” at this point in the USA.

@Meanlucario
People won’t comply and turn them in peacefully, my evidence is when the 4th most populous state in America passed a law demanding only registration resulted in a 4% compliance rate. Also my argument is actually that the government IS competent, because the only way this ridiculous idea would work is if the government is completely incompetent and undermanned to a point where the law is practically unenforced.

And needless to say they would view UN troops as foreign invaders and have no qualms with shooting them or blowing them up.
Bottom line is the 2A is not going to get repealed, and if somehow it was, the resulting deaths will surpass Corona’s total.

@Meanlucario
Each gun might potentially be used to hurt people. Some guns are. Most are not. Do I really need to clarify this so much? I think there is some kind of misunderstanding.

@Meanlucario
I agree, but it will take a lot of work and societal change.

@lonewolf
And as it is, people just keep dying anyway…

I forgot how much I hate this thread. I’m leaving. If any updates involving Ukraine or Russia happen, I want Mikey or Penguin Dragneel to PM me to let me know to return for that.

@Background Pony #6B50
No, competence is knowing that guns and gun nuts are part of the problem, and repealing the amendment despite likely never going into office again to start fixing a broken system is what is needed. It’s what happen in Australia, and it’s very low on the list of mass shooting per year. And you know what, fuck the gunphiliacs who would rather have children die than having to have to earn their right to bare arms. They are part of the problem, and if all it takes is the law to incontinence them to make them into murderous psychopaths, than they deserve to go to jail.

@lonewolf
Why would the UN need to get involved? Why would the UN be invading us? What conversation have you been following?

Again, if the crazies need to be put down because having to work for owning a gun makes them psychopaths, than they deserve to be labeled as criminals.

@Background Pony #1D40
In theory. The practice has shown otherwise, though.

@Latecomer
And what’s right tends to require a lot. It would be worth it, though.

It’s like they are grasping at straws to justify not fixing a broken system.

Which honestly would be no different than Putin hiring mercenaries to invade Ukraine.

@lonewolf
Yeah, it’s a dumb way of doing it. It’s an internal American issue, no need for foreigners to get involved (says the foreigner shooting off his mouth about it).

I expect Cops who wear body armor while carrying Shotguns, SMG’s, and Auto Rifles to have initiative in taking down actual threats to the public but apparently that’s only reserved for brutalizing unarmed minorities or protecting billionaires.

There’s nothing that can be done about the mass shooting issue. Absolutely nothing. Fuck trying to fix anything about America, it’s a losing cause at this point.

Instead of going through the effort of trying to fix America, which is next to impossible, people should set up a non-profit organization where donaters can pitch in money to some private fund that would help make it easier for financially-challenged people to move out of the US and into safer countries.

Let America destroy itself to ashes, but let the sane and/or vulnerable people move to safety so that after it happens they can move back in and rebuild it from scratch.

@MethidMan
Once again, it all comes down to who has enough money and who doesn’t. The rich celebrities are free to travel about, but middle and lower class people like me are forced to remain in the US. But once it is destroyed, who are we to guarantee that it will try and nuke the rest of the world out of spite?