News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Gun-control protest sparks chaotic scenes in US Congress by harshreality on Thursday June 23, 2016 @06:23AM (#11959916)
What would it take? No murders. Just a carefully reasoned persuasive argument that the people are better off without the 2nd amendment, and a realistic path to getting rid of it in a way that won't trigger riots or another civil war.

1. A majority doesn't matter. We don't have a direct democracy, and for all the bad special interests do to corrupt democracy, sometimes there are special interest groups that understand narrow issues better than the average voter, and should have disproportionate influence on legislation.

2. What gun control law? [1]

3. Between the 2nd and 4th amendments, there's not much room for an enforceable gun control law that will prohibit would-be (but not-yet) jihadists and crazy people from obtaining guns.

The good news is that the majority of domestic gun violence (excepting suicides) is related to gangs and the drug war, so a lot could be done—if anyone wanted to do something about that rather than use gun crime rates as political ammunition—without bringing up gun control.

[1] Charles Cooke on Morning Joe, late 2015: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lfcWNFPSGVA

Re:Gun-control protest sparks chaotic scenes in US Congress by wastedhours on Thursday June 23, 2016 @06:54AM (#11960063)
Nope, it's not like the law could be amended, or anything...
Re:Gun-control protest sparks chaotic scenes in US Congress by DefaultUserHN on Thursday June 23, 2016 @10:26AM (#11961090)
Good luck getting an amendment banning guns through Congress.

And even if it gets through Congress, there will be a bloody civil war afterward. Remember, the goal of banning guns is to prevent American deaths. If you ban guns, it will cause a bloody civil war that will result in the death of 50% of Americans. Congratuatlions, you have just failed in your original goal.

Re:Gun-control protest sparks chaotic scenes in US Congress by krapp on Thursday June 23, 2016 @10:32AM (#11961135)
Passing a Constitutional amendment is a perfectly legal, valid process - the Second Amendment, like all amendments, is subject to debate and possible repeal.

That some segment of the US population is willing to commit murder over that shouldn't really be relevant to the debate - such people aren't acting in defense of the Constitution, they're just asking like thugs and vigilantes.

Re:Gun-control protest sparks chaotic scenes in US Congress by whamlastxmas on Thursday June 23, 2016 @11:32AM (#11961771)
>they're just asking like thugs and vigilantes.

said the British about the American Revolution

Re:Gun-control protest sparks chaotic scenes in US Congress by DefaultUserHN on Thursday June 23, 2016 @10:53AM (#11961348)
Congress still have to listen to the people. If Congress goes against the people, then that's exactly what the 2nd Amendment is there for (for when the government go against the people).
Re:Gun-control protest sparks chaotic scenes in US Congress by krapp on Thursday June 23, 2016 @11:05AM (#11961486)
Presumably it would be difficult, if not impossible, to repeal the 2nd Amendment without popular support. If it were to happen then by definition, Congress was listening to the people. "The people" also includes people who support gun control.
Re:Gun-control protest sparks chaotic scenes in US Congress by DefaultUserHN on Thursday June 23, 2016 @11:17AM (#11961614)
If gun owners are a minority, it would be no problem because democracy is all about majority rules.

But gun owners are not a minority. And more importantly, they will never agree to give up their guns.

So banning guns is never going to happen. This issue of mass shootings will have to be tackle in other ways. You can call gun owners thugs all you want, but that doesn't solve the issue.

Re:Gun-control protest sparks chaotic scenes in US Congress by krapp on Thursday June 23, 2016 @11:32AM (#11961760)
>But gun owners are not a minority

Where are you getting your numbers? Mine say ~26% of Americans own at least one gun. The trend in the US seems to be towards fewer gun owners, but more guns per owner, which would seem to put gun owners in a minority (albeit a heavily armed minority.)

Also, you seem to be implying that all gun owners would necessarily be willing to start a war to keep their guns, and that's not an assertion supported by evidence.

> You can call gun owners thugs all you want, but that doesn't solve the issue.

I'm not calling gun owners thugs, I'm calling gun owners willing to threaten violence over even legitimate political processes thugs. This is supposed to be a government "of the people, by the people, and for the people." Everything is theoretically negotiable given enough support, even the Second Amendment and the Constitution itself. That's meant to be a feature, not a bug.

Re:Gun-control protest sparks chaotic scenes in US Congress by DefaultUserHN on Thursday June 23, 2016 @11:55AM (#11961959)
Passing an amendment to ban guns is different from, for example, passing an amendment to give women the right to vote.

Giving women the right to vote is giving a group a new right. Banning guns is taking away a right from a group.

Arms is one of the power granted to the people by the Constitution.

Asking the people to give up this power is as idiotic as asking Congress to give up its power. Just because some people prefer not to exercise this right (arms) does not mean they can take it away from those who prefer to exercise it. Just like you can not take men's right to vote without a civil war. Just because some men does not want to vote does not mean you can take away other men's right to vote. All men must agree first, or there will be civil war, because you're infringing on another men's right.

Also of note, the Constitution specifically DENIED the government the power to outright ban guns. The government can regulate it, but the government can not outright ban it.

>A well regulated militia...

Meaning the government can regulate arms.

>...arms shall not be infringed.

Meaning the government can not outright ban arms.

So again, can guns be banned? Yea, but only if everyone 99% of the population agrees. Which is never going to happen, because we all know the gun owners will never agree. And if the gun owners disagree, then the government and those who agrees are infringing on gun owner's rights. At which point, they will exercise their 2nd Amendment right and there will be civil war.

Again, guns will never be banned because guns owner will never agree to give up their fundamental rights.