I might. I have never been shot or shot at but I have had a couple of loaded guns pointed at my head and yet somehow I still maintain my current views.
Conservatives are renowned for maintaining their views.
Why do you consider taking precautions in an attempt to better ensure public safety a violation of the law?
Because those precautions violate the law in question. And because you already agreed that they do:
Why would it need to be changed if we already violate it by <snipped list of ways you agree that it's violated>
You were right. The 2nd Amendment forbids
any infringement of one's right to bear arms (aside from the whole militia stuff, which of course gets completly ignored). Concealed carry permits - infringement. Criminal background checks - infringement. Etc. Justified infringement? Of course it is. But it still violates the law.
They don't walk around with their weapons while they are on duty either. And yes, if they were allowed to carry their weapons with them then Major Nidal Hasan would not have been nearly as successful.
Why do you think the military has that restriction in place, then, if soldiers would be safer keeping their weapons on them at all times? Has the command structure been infiltrated by bleeding-heart liberals?
Do you only ever deal in absolutes? It's difficult to have a discussion with you because it's always "either" "or"
There are a lot of either-or situations in life. In this case, I laid out a "do or do not" option. "Do X or do not do X" is a valid dichotomy. For any X, you are always either doing X, or not doing X. The rest was an explanation of the rammifications of those options.
That you are unwilling to reason your way through it is very conservative.
Well, I don't make laws. But I'm sure your talking about Congress and Americans in general here.
Yes, the "you" was obviously a general "you" rather than you, specifically. If we were going by personal power to enact and dismantle laws, then there would be no point in discussing anything politcal at all, since neither of us have such power.
You know what's coming next don't you? How, specifically, do you propose we get the guns in circulation out of circulation and keep them out of the hands of criminals?
EDIT: I had a really unreasonable complaint here, given the nature of what I said. I accused you of dodging. You're not. What I'd said didn't really invite much of a response. So, onward - it's time to actually address this, as it's a valid concern...
Is it some sort of sacrifice we will all have to make for awhile until the dust settles?
What sacrifice did you have in mind? I could give an opinion or speculative answer, but I need to know what the sacrifice is supposed to achieve and what it might entail. You've given me nothing to work with here.
Because the reality of the situation is mass revolt if the law is scrapped and people are required to turn in their arms. I am not saying that this is WHY we shouldn't repeal the second amendment just that this is what will actually happen.
The insanity and bloodlust of conservative gun-owners is a valid concern, as you say. Their desire for the ability to take the lives of their countrymen is stronger than their desire for a country in which theatres don't randomly get shot-up by heavily-armed nutjobs.
That's a big problem. How do you deal with the presense of such a conservative culture?
And those gun toten bible thumpin Christians will attack the 14th in order to protect the life and liberty of the unborn.
What liberty of the unborn? The unborn are not people under the law.
I am sure there are other unforeseeable consequences but these will do for now.
What you've described is a problem with changing the constitution in any way whatsoever. If people realize it can be changed, then they will be tempted to change it in other ways. The root problem here is the specific ways in which Americans might want to change it - for example, as you've said, they might change it in order to more effectively punish and oppress women. The problem is cultural.
If we are going to repeal the 2nd amendment we first have to change peoples minds about guns.
On this we are agreed. But I doubt that any legislator would get that far without first changing peoples' minds about guns anyway. These are not problems of law, but problems of culture and public violence. Odd that they would be the main objection to a change in law.
