Well of course the action would be violative of the 2nd Amendment but it also would violate the basic principles the Constitution rests upon.
I doubt you are up for such a discussion so I will just say that since the right to arms is not granted, transferred, given, established or otherwise conferred to the citizen by the 2nd Amendment, modifying or striking the words of the 2nd from the Constitution would not empower government to do, what it previously was forbidden to do. That attempt to "take back" that which was never under its control would be an illegitimate action and would expose the government to the original purpose of the 2nd Amendment; the people rescinding their consent to be governed.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Thanks for confirming what I've already pointed out - the downside of a Constitution is that it constricts the authority of We The People to run their own country as they see fit, and forces them to abide by the best intentions of 18th century politicians.
Nations that don't have to labour under these archaic restraints have benefited by having vastly reduced murder rates.
Since many of them did not exercise the right to be armed and their right to self defense then perhaps no "accommodation" should be made for them.
People who rely on the state for protection and think that they are absolved of being responsible for their personal security are sadly mistaken. The government and police in particular are not responsible for your safety; they are completely exempt from being duty bound to protect anyone. The individual is responsible for their personal security; not taking the duty seriously is rolling the dice .
>>>>>>>>>
Are you seriously suggesting that when someone is shot dead it was really their fault for not carrying a gun?
Do you really want America to look like a cowboy movie?
Your obsession with guns is quite sickening.
It's not a strawman just because discussing it makes people uncomfortable! You don't want to allow the topic to be breached because the label of racism is so easily thrown about. The
FACTS can not even be discussed because some are afraid of being labeled.
I'm not a racist, I'm a realist and I do not shy away from discussing all aspects of this problem.
Is it your contention that the fact that murder is so over-represented in the black community
should not be a factor in the discussion of remedies?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I'm saying it's completely irrelevant.
The fact remains that the US has a murder rate 5-10 times higher than its industrialised peer nations.
Your attempts to divert attention from that fact or minimise it by blaming it on the "black folks" is utterly transparent.
As usual you have it completely backwards . . . Should regular citizens be treated as Yardies? Should the conduct and actions of everyone be ruled and mandated by the government's reaction to violent drug gangs;
that's the question.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
Another bogus, inverted, emotional argument.
Firstly, Yardies who are British citizens are also regular citizens.
Secondly, the law doesn't differentiate between people who can drive safely at 100 mph, or with more than the legal blood alcohol level.
The law sets absolute standards. Sometimes that adversely affects those who can perform or behave above those standards. Infact they are only a tiny, localised problem. Hardly a justification for disarming a whole nation saying we are risking another Dunblane/ Virginia Tech style massacre if John Q. Citizen doesn't give up their guns.
There, that's much, much better!