mornelithe said:
My argument is discussion of the issue, all options on the table, is a far far better way to find a solution, than to insinuate that a 'large amount of freedoms' being given up (Right to bear arms, is actually just 1 freedom) What you just said is hyperbole, and it's also intellectually dishonest, because few American's would ever support an across the board gun ban, let alone the members of the House and Senate actually passing such a measure to amend the Constitution. It's not going to happen, so let's cut that out, shall we? It really doesn't move the discussion further. Besides, there's more here than just guns going on. There's extremism, there's mental health, there's America's actions abroad, the amount of illegal guns in circulation in the US and I'm sure a plethora more that I'm not thinking of at the moment. I firmly believe solving this issue will require us to analyze all of these things, and address the holes in policy, enforcement, etc... whereever it is. But, that's not going to happen if everytime this issue comes up, everyone only voices fear about the Government coming after our guns! I would like to point out, the Government hasn't, in recent memory (added because I'm not going back throughout history to find it), ever suggested they were going to go door to door to 'take our guns'.
|
Actually there are corollaries to the "right to bear arms", depending on the purpose of bearing said arms: to hunt, to defend oneself, to collect, etc. So yes, it is indeed, more than one freedom.
I understand that few Americans would ever support such bans. Nevertheless, the continual comparison is with European bans, which are very much unpopular in the U.S. Is that then not dishonest in this dicussion as well?
Certainly they wouldn't say such things. As you noted, the political climate isn't conclusive to it. But certainly if the majority of politicians had a button that could eliminate all non-priveleged guns they would do as such: republicans and democrats alike. Fortunately, such a thing doesn't exist, but there is a great deal of incrementalism that can happen, and that is far more frightening than any outright ban. An interesting tactic, used in recent years is to make the cost of guns and ammunitions expensive, with is not only unegalitarian (poor people don't have the same ability to ownership as affluent) but it is also deceptive.
Most Europeans in this thread are arguing that the U.S should outright ban or make it elaborately difficult to achieve gun ownership. So I really don't see how the opposite argument is out of context.
