• Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    Ban, obligatory buyback, criminal charges for those who don’t comply. Just watch as the majority falls in line.

    • ThunderingJerboa@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Oh that ain’t happening. Sorry but you have to get around the 2nd amendment firstly (That ain’t going anywhere unless we rip up the constitution). You would require most law enforcement to be for it while ACAB typically cops are pro guns… I just don’t see it happening in a nation where guns are a fundamental part of this country’s history and ownership has been written into the fabric that bind this nation together. Restrictions are the only realistic option here. They work as we don’t see an abundance of full auto firearms but a full ban would cause quite a bit of unrest.

      Edit: did a double post but deleted it since wasn’t sure if the indentation was working correctly and trying to keep the conversation in a single threadline.

      • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Amendments are… Well… Amendments, they can be amended. It’s not happening in the current political climate, doesn’t mean it would be impossible.

        • ThunderingJerboa@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Firstly the first 10 are a bill of rights. While technically yes they can be amended it does set a very bad precedence that you are advocating for the repeal of one of those. Not even getting into how unlikely that is since there has only been one amendment that has ever been repealed (18th). You think its a good idea for a nation to get to pick and choose which “natural rights” you are allowed to have at the moment? So if they decide that the 4th or 5th amendments should just disappear, you aren’t going to have an issue with that (Yes, the justice system and police really do love to test the boundaries on those 2 but at least having a line is a good thing)?

          • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            You think it’s a good idea for a nation to have its constitution set in stone so the way of life hundreds of years ago sets the way forever? What if the first ten included that women can’t own property or vote? Would that be ok because they’re bill of rights? Would that also be a bad precedent? Is it so hard to accept that maybe they couldn’t envision the issues that could eventually come with their decisions back in the 1780s? Would they have included the second if they had known it would lead to hundreds of shootings every year?

            • ThunderingJerboa@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Except you are going with a hypothetical but I’ll take the bait, seeing as it also goes against the spirit of the declaration of independence, although they did betray that spirit because they ignored the plight of the slaves, I think the removal of the clause of that women can’t own property or vote would be just but again the 2nd amendment has a huge part in our founding myth so its basically going to be impossible to remove. Also do you not think people in the Rural areas are safe from the wilderness? How the fuck are they going to ward off coyotes, foxes, razorbacks, bears, etc. You were suggesting a blanket ban of all firearms.

              " Would they have included the second if they had known it would lead to hundreds of shootings every year?"

              Also seeing as they literally just won a revolutionary war and failed to make an initial government to form a new one but the nation at that time was based on state militias. I think they would have still included that.

              • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Let’s not pretend that the shootings happening now have anything to do with a militia.

                I live in a rural area, close to 30 years outside the city, both in the middle of the woods and in the middle of a field, never had to own a firearm. Heck, my uncle used to live in a northern village and didn’t own one, there’s trained services to take care of wildlife.

                • ThunderingJerboa@kbin.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Were you a farmer or a rancher? Where your livelyhood is connected to the net worth of animals/food in your possession, you know something that a wild animal may want to take/kill? If the answer is no, then sure a gun isn’t a requirement but its still a handy thing to have.