I'm not equalizing guns and nukes. It was just a way to highlight how I think focusing on the law-abiding gun owners is a bit of a fallacy.
The example you provided is so off it isn't congruent
How so? It clearly proves that solely focusing on the percentage of law-abiding owners is irrelevant. That should not be our first concern.
What exactly is "fixing less than 1% of a problem" here? Removing guns?
Putting regulations and restrictions on the purchase of weaponry will lower gun violence at the most by 1-2%. Placing regulations and restrictions require the criminals to actually obtain the weapons legally to be effective. This is not the case.
If we'd remove all guns then from where would criminals steal theirs?
It's probably true that restrictions, regulations, buybacks or bans won't actually decrease the number of guns out there enough to lead to a decrease in gun violence. The limitations are practical and not theoretical however, which is why I argued the latter in our last thread because it sounded like you didn't even want to entertain the link between number of guns and gun deaths. Somehow, despite getting rid of all guns, criminals would still find enough guns elsewhere.
If you are primarily focused on the practicalities of it then I agree removing guns isn't really a viable option. I still think certain restrictions would help though, such as forcing gun owners to get a license from a nearby gun range and more stringently forbidding various types of people from purchasing a gun.
Not only did I answer it in the past, I've already provided an explanation for it in my posts here. It isn't worth jeopardizing the integrity of the constitution to fix less than 1% of a problem. Put the effort into the bulk of the problem and not just the clickbait minority portion of it.
What is the click bait minority portion?
I also still don't understand how it'd jeopardize the constitution. Unless you just mean that any change to it would be bad because it'd make it different?
Isn't that phrasing just there to make the amendment itself very clear? It shouldn't affect the difficulty in changing or replacing it.
No. Those words were chosen intentionally, this isn't some dated language issue. It's very clear by its priority in amendments and its wording it isn't to be touched.
I'm not saying it's dated language. I'm saying the language in the constitution does not legally matter when amending it. The only reason you'd care about how they phrased it is if you see their authors, still, as an authority on how to design 21st century gun laws.
Why would it lead to a domino effect? Amendments have been passed before but only after A LOT of work. I don't see why changing the 2nd amendment would suddenly be any different.
There's a certain paradigm a lot of Americans have that is unique to our country the more I speak to foreigners. It's that you aren't to trust your government and assume they are doing whatever they can to diminish your rights for their benefit. We worship revolution and it is the most American thing you can do in my opinion to hold a constant skepticism of your government at all times.
I very much believe it was envisioned for it to be ideal for the populace to hold the government at gunpoint when the amendment was made.
I get that you (and a lot of other Americans) feel like this. It doesn't make for a very good rational argument though. How would a realistic scenario look like where the US government chose to trample on the rights of its people so badly that it caused an armed uprising?
I still don't get the domino effect you and TC are talking about. There are dozens of amendments to the US constitution, why would another one suddenly make it easier for the government to ratify new ones faster?
America is in a better place to hold their own against a tyrannical government than before. It'd be a miracle for the government to win an insurgency in the first place(it's never been done), let alone against histories most armed populace who just happen to be zealous on their rights not being infringed
I think you should be far more skeptical of your elites than the government. Seems like they pulled a really successful bait and switch.