Quote:
Originally Posted by oilers_fan
I get you can't snap your fingers and change the constitution, but burying your heads in the sand over guns isnt working. Clearly.
|
I get what you're saying and I'm not arguing for the pro gun lobby here. Ask anyone I'm as antigun as anyone here, my posting history would show that.
But in order to change a entrenched amendment like this you have to beat the argument of individual rights to purchase, own and carry firearms and it goes beyond just saying, well look at the mass murders.
The constitute guarantees the right to have these weapons, but it doesn't define the use of these weapons beyond arming militias.
The justice system and the enforcement of laws is supposed to define the usage and protect citizens from the illegal usage of guns. and in the extreme sense the type of guns, that's why you've seen attempts to ban high capacity magazines and fully automatic weapons.
So the only way that you're going to change things is by toughening the laws against the usage of firearms, which means tougher enforcement on gun crimes and increased investigations. You could also argue about the requirements for ownership but that would be a massive court battle because the requirements for ownership would attempt to contravene the right for all individuals without exception to bear arms.
I hope I'm making sense here.
The only other way to limit firearms is to appeal to the gun manufacturers not to release hand guns or automatic weapons for civilian markets, but what makes that tougher is that foreign nations like China and Russia and others don't care about that and export their weapons like crazy via criminal gangs.
In Canada its easier because we have no right or guarantee to bear arms so there's no constitutional argument that can collide with the justice system so you can change the availability of types of weapons by merely changing the legal system and it doesn't impeded on the Bill of Rights.
I'm hoping I explained this right.