In theory its a decent idea, but I keep thinking, in practice, how far does the US government need to go for this scenario to happen and how exactly do people expect to fight back? Would you define the NRA as a well regulated militia? Does said Militia exist?
A "militia" does exist. It was defined by the Supreme Court in United States v. Miller (1939). If I recall, this specifically mentioned males (being 1939), but I believe was officially, and rightly, extended to everyone protected by the Constitution, in Justice Scalia's opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008). The Miller case also established that people in the militia would show up with arms "in common use at the time." The Heller case extended the "Right to Bear Arms" to individuals for lawful purposes, and specifically elevated handguns to arms "in common use at the time." They did find that the Second Amendment was not unlimited, due to the "common use" phrase from Miller, and that "dangerous" and "unusual" weapons were not protected. "Machine guns" proper, the definition of which has been discussed here, fell under that definition. If I am to assume, the limitation on clips, accessories, etc., for the semi-automatic rifles is probably being placed under this umbrella for this reason.
Regardless of what people personally believe, the President is an intelligent person, with a background in Constitutional Law. He's going to find loopholes, and then it falls to the Supreme Court.
I also find it odd that President Obama gets hammered on about this issue, yet received an "F"-grade from the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, a leading gun control advocacy group (named after James Brady, the Press Secretary shot during the Hinckley's attempt on Reagan in the early-1980s)
Should we ban cars too?
And guns don't?
Guns could be for sport, protection and hunting.
So lets say 10 people own Assault riffles,one decides to shoot up a school. So we ban Assault riffles. Now lets say 10 people drive a school bus. One decides to drive off a cliff we aren't goint to ban buses are we?
I can't stop seeing this argument soon enough. Buses, cars, etc. are transportation tools. Rocks are a naturally occurring object used for foundational purposes. Knives are cutlery and tools used for manufacturing and building. Guns are used to either kill or get better at being able to kill something, if need be. The comparison is a poor one.
How the fuck are we supposed to fight off the zombies now? Pistols? Fuck outta here.
The Walking Dead SPOILER: Gun shots bring Walkers. More gun shots bring Walker herds. Everyone knows that.
Why don't we check out the homicide rate in Chicago to see how effective gun bans are first? Chicago has the strictest firearm bans in the nation, so it must be so low.
Turns out that there's a cultural, illegal gun ownership, and gang problem in this nation, not necessarily a gun problem.
Unfortunately, I believe that homicide and other violent crime rates follow economic lines, with an exception, ironically, being the District of Columbia. Texas, for example, has relatively loose gun laws AND the Death Penalty, so one would expect to find them near the bottom of violent crime rates. They are in the middle, however, but in the higher part of the middle. Consequences don't appear to be a deterrent, either, as states without the Death Penalty had higher homicide rates from the sources I found quickly on the web (you'll have to do your own search, and take what I said with a grain of salt).
I do not own a gun of any kind, so any kind of weapons ban is not going to have any effect on me. I don't want to own a gun and don't feel the need to.
But lets be honest here. Any kind of weapons ban is only going to affect law abiding citizens. Criminals are still going to get guns somehow someway.
It is like the people that say the Death Sentence is a deterrent when it clearly isn't. Some people in this world are just fucked up and if they want to kill, they are going to kill. They'll find a way to get guns, and if they can't do that, they'll make a bomb, or use knives, set a fucking building on fire, or whatever they have to do.
Some people are just fucking nuts and are not going to comply with any law.
EDIT: I also find it funny that among my circle of friends, the ones that support gun control also smoke weed. Last time I checked, weed wasn't legal for recreational use. The law didn't stop any of them, did it?
One could apply that same logic to the voter registration laws some wanted to enact, and I found a surprising amount of parallels to that. That didn't stop those people, and many of them are the same ones who are now decrying this action as Unconstitutional, from pressing forward, going so far as to get legislation on the books. The fact of the matter is, any law is only followed by law-abiding citizens, whether it be something as substantial as what we are discussing here or something that seems innocuous enough to most (who do it every day), like speeding in your car. The law is the law (that's what I kept hearing in October and November).
Someone brought up the previous "ban" (quotes are mine). The reason events still happened during that 10-year span is likely because the ban didn't include older models or those already in circulation. The guns were already out there, they weren't being asked to turn them in (nor would most, anyway), so, in effect, there was no ban. It was strictly lip service. A proper ban would have resulted in melting them all down.
Most of the logic I've seen on this stuff is trash, so. . .
By the way, can anyone tell which side of the debate I'm on?