Seems like your point was invalidated with the damn OP. Point is, people will kill and cause tradegy no matter what. Instead of using a stop gap measure, why not look at the actual causes. Its not like these people looked at a gun and said, hey this gives me an idea.

Removing them wont solve the issue, thats one of the things we humans are good at, finding a mean to an end no matter what. You dont stop a man who likes to stab with his right hand by cutting said hand off, you figure out why he likes to do it, kill him, or imprison him.

Yes, because the man wont find another way to satiate his wants. Will you cut his hands off if he strangles someone?

See taking the weapons away from him, or his ability to get them I one thing, but removing them from all for the actions of a few is another. And you know damn well that you cannot take away the guns from the legal owners, much less ever have a chance of removing them from the criminal element. Hence why I never really get the ban guns crowd, it won't work, you need find the actual issue, and stop thinking a stop gap that only affects legal owners will do anything.

[quote]Just for clarification, who is the "all" you're referring to? Is it every citizen minus prohibited persons (ie. mentally handicapped, convicted felons, etc...) or something else? Sometimes people will think the idea of gun control would or should extend to police forces (although I don't agree with that), so I just thought I'd ask.[/quote] The all is people who have the legal right to own, or do own legally. [quote]Now we're crossing from a hypothetical into something more specific, and the question I have to ask is "why?". Assuming the relevant laws or amendments were passed, I don't see why or how that would be an issue. Depending on the method it could take a long time, but also consider that when you reduce the number of them in circulation, you're also reducing the chance one will end up in the hands of a potential wrongdoer. Criminals don't just come from some magical fairy land and pop up overnight, regular people [i]become[/i] criminals. Or, to restate it in NRA-language, a so-called law-abiding gun owner is just a future potential criminal with a gun.[/quote] The amount of guns in the US, as you know is staggering, its part of our culture, and to see a prime example of the issues in trying to take away them, see Connecticut current issue, now just repeat it on a nation wide scale. [quote]Lawmakers in Connecticut have already threatened current gun owners with confiscation in accordance with the new regulation requirements. And despite a fraction of state gun owners deciding to comply with intrusive registration requirements, the Governor has accelerated his anti-gun rhetoric. (Colorado voters decided to hold recall elections… Connecticut gun owners have decided to take the Barack Obama approach: Ignore inconvenient laws.) Letters have been sent to “known gun owners” demanding registration, or the surrender of their “assault weapons”. The birth place of the Constitution, it turns out, is still home to armed students of human liberty.[/quote] Funny thing is 68% of the people refusing to register their guns, are LEOs. [quote]Hence why I never really get the ban guns crowd, it won't work,[/quote]What exactly won't work? Not sure what you're referring to here. Attempting to remove guns from this specific society. [quote]Again, the myriad of socioeconomic issues that lead to unrest, crime, etc... are probably what should be targeted. However, if a society (including the government) in unwilling to do anything to resolve these issues, then that leaves us with these criminal elements, as you referred to them, with their impact exacerbated by the accessibility of weapons. Removing them from the general populace lessens the degree in which wrongdoers are able to commit criminal acts upon society.[/quote] And there lies the issue, one being that we as a people, mainly our government are ignoring the problems, mental health care, education, etc, to actually solve it, and instead approach it by removing one of the core principals of the country, the 2nd amendment. Also, like mentioned before, the impossibility of actually carrying out a ban is a problem, and that the people who want it are in the minority. Hell, the cops or military personnel who may be tasked with enforcing it, wont actually enforce it.

You know very well this thread is an attempt to rile people up, and you've already been the victim of name calling. Why persist when you know nothing will come of it? Just curious. Maybe you just have more faith in the community's ability to have this discussion than I. :P

[quote][quote]And there lies the issue, one being that we as a people, mainly our government are ignoring the problems, mental health care, education, etc, to actually solve it, and instead approach it by removing one of the core principals of the country, the 2nd amendment.[/quote]Do you believe these problems are more easily solved than the removal of firearms? If not, what would you suggest?[/quote] Im not an expert, but a stop gap measure wont solve issues that have plagued humanity for as long as we have written history, and thinking it will, is ignorance. [quote][quote]Also, like mentioned before, the impossibility of actually carrying out a ban is a problem, and that the people who want it are in the minority. Hell, the cops or military personnel who may be tasked with enforcing it, wont actually enforce it.[/quote]If an amendment is passed which repeals the second amendment (like how the 21st repealed the 18th), the executive branch of government (police, military) [i]must[/i] obey it. It is the role of the judiciary branch to interpret the law, not the executive. They do not have that power, nor should they (ironically because of the possibility of actual tyranny - that's why the separation of powers exists; a far more effective deterrent than the second amendment could ever hope to be). If they do not obey, they knowingly violate their oath to uphold the constitution wherein the separation of powers is defined.[/quote] You know as well as me, that the 2nd amendment will never be repealed, as it is a founding principle, which was intended to help hold the others in place. Now you can always argue, we dont need it anymore, but as soon as you remove a governments fear of the people, the rest will follow, and even the founding fathers saw that, and thats why they had implemented it. You can say that wasnt the intention of the founding fathers, but youd be wrong. [quote]"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them." George Mason[/quote] [quote]"A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves …" Richard Henry Lee[/quote] [quote]"The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full posession of them." Zachariah Johnson[/quote] [quote]"And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; …" Samuel Adams[/quote] [quote]"Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence … from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable … the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference — they deserve a place of honor with all that's good." George Washington[/quote] [quote]"The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand arms, like laws, discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as property. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside … Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them." Thomas Paine[/quote] [quote]"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." Richard Henry Lee[/quote] [quote]"Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?" Patrick Henry[/quote] [quote]"Those who hammer their guns into plowshares will plow for those who do not." Thomas Jefferson[/quote] [quote]"The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that … it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; … " Thomas Jefferson[/quote] [quote]"The best we can help for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." Alexander Hamilton[/quote] [quote]"There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters. " Noah Webster[/quote] [quote]"What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms." Thomas Jefferson[/quote] [quote]"The people never give up their liberties but under some delusion." Edmund Burke[/quote] [quote]"They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Ben Franklin [/quote] Im sorry, removing that from the constitution, inherently changes what this country set out to be, a country for the people, ruled by the people, and when the government makes the mistake of thinking it can, to be reminded of its place. I dont care for it to be another type of system, some idealist utopia devoid of freedoms, because those dont exist, and never will. I know this is extremist, but its for shits and giggles. [quote]"If you wish the sympathy of the broad masses, you must tell them the crudest and most stupid things." "This year will go down in history. For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration. Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future!" Adolph Hitler Chancellor, Germany, 1933[/quote] Many things can be said and implemented under good pretenses, to do evil.

[quote]Im sorry, removing that from the constitution, inherently changes what this country set out to be, a country for the people, ruled by the people, and when the government makes the mistake of thinking it can, to be reminded of its place. I dont care for it to be another type of system, some idealist utopia devoid of freedoms, because those dont exist, and never will.[/quote]I never understood why people cling to the 2nd Amendment like that. Changing the principle from "must issue" to "can issue" does not strip you of all your rights. It does not turn the country into a de facto tiranny. It is no attempt to create a country "devoid of freedoms". The US will still be a democracy and it will not change what the country set out to be.

[quote][quote]Im sorry, removing that from the constitution, inherently changes what this country set out to be, a country for the people, ruled by the people, and when the government makes the mistake of thinking it can, to be reminded of its place. I dont care for it to be another type of system, some idealist utopia devoid of freedoms, because those dont exist, and never will.[/quote]I never understood why people cling to the 2nd Amendment like that. Changing the principle from "must issue" to "can issue" does not strip you of all your rights. It does not turn the country into a de facto tiranny. It is no attempt to create a country "devoid of freedoms". The US will still be a democracy and it will not change what the country set out to be.[/quote] Going to a registry or banning of guns, sets the stage for it to happen, im not saying it will be an overnight thing, but it sets up the possibility. As jefferson said [quote]The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it.[/quote] [quote]The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.[/quote] [quote]“When the people fear the government there is tyranny, when the government fears the people there is liberty.”[/quote] We have different branches int eh government which are meant to be checks and balances, the 2nd amendment is the check and balance against the government.

[quote]Going to a registry or banning of guns, sets the stage for it to happen, im not saying it will be an overnight thing, but it sets up the possibility.[/quote]That possibility is already there. If the US government decided on a violent tiranny, your guns won't save you. Your shotgun in your garage isn't going to stop the most advanced military in the world. You're not going to stand a single chance against highly trained soldiers, tanks, jets, drones and the rest of the US military's massive military means. The reason the violent tiranny won't happen isn't because of the gun you keep in your night stand, but it's because the military is the people. They're not robots that Obama can just set to "enslave" by pressing a button. They're all people like the rest of us. People with families, friends and wives. People that won't wage a full-fledged war against their own. Besides, there's only a select few countries that hav a "right to bear arms" enshrined in their constitution. Are you implying that they're off worse? That they're already nearing tiranny? That they're not as free? I hear this doomsday fear all the time. "Take away our right to arms and we'll be forced into tyranny". But look around you. What about countries like France, UK, Belgium, Netherlands, Spain, Germany, Norway, Luxembourg, Finland, Sweden, Denmark, Australia, New Zealand... All succesful democracies without guns.

[quote]That possibility is already there. If the US government decided on a violent tiranny, your guns won't save you.[/quote] ill stop here, and this is why it wont happen. Its a common response from the anti gun crowd, and here is why what the government has wont matter, from the pro gun nut, and its very true. [quote]From time to time, we see variations of comments like this one, pulled from one of our Facebook posts: [i]Curious, I do not care if people own guns, each their own, but people say we should own guns to keep the government in check. How does a gun help against a rocket fired miles away, a drone or airplane flying overhead, or a massive tank driving through your house?[/i] It’s a fairly common question, and it deserves an answer. The simple answer to the question is “assymetric warfare.” Smart fighters don’t put their troops in front of the enemy’s best weapons. They use their best troops against their enemy’s weak points, and exploit those weak points mercilessly. In the hypothetical event that the federal government attempted to impose tyranny upon the citizenry of the United States, it would likely trigger the largest insurgency that the modern world has ever known. Despite all of our awesome technology, we stink at fighting insurgencies. We lost in Vietnam. We won the conventional war against the Iraqi military easily, but we didn’t defeat the insurgency. We’re losing Afghanistan, and our leadership has no intention of fighting to win. All of these insurgencies have been overseas, where the supply lines were long, but relatively well-protected. The producers and supply chain itself were never threatened. In the event of an American insurgency, it wouldn’t be a straight-up fight of partisans with rifles fighting against regime tanks, helicopters, and drones. It would be a war where “killing” a fighter jet occurs by assassinating aircraft mechanics, or burning the homes of employees of the companies that make crucial replacement parts. It would be a war where every elected official, government employee, and skilled worker in the supply chain would be a target, every day of their lives. In short, it would be a nasty, brutish conflict full of atrocities with no battle lines, no rear areas, no retreat, and little chance for government forces to survive over the long term. As long as the American public outguns the military—and they do by more than 90 million firearms—no sane government would dare turn on the American people. That is the reason it is so important for the citizenry to jealously guard their Second Amendment rights.[/quote]

[quote]The reason the violent tiranny won't happen isn't because of the gun you keep in your night stand, but it's because the military is the people. They're not robots that Obama can just set to "enslave" by pressing a button. They're all people like the rest of us. People with families, friends and wives. People that won't wage a full-fledged war against their own.[/quote]

And it's also a far more efficient item for protection and defense, which is why is keeps us safer. Also, a recent knife attack lead to the deaths of over 20 people. Knives are still extremely lethal and easy to kill with.

Comparing crimes to China and the US is a fools move.