A (group? consortium?) of professional nurses have made such a call, and while I understand and appreciate their angst, I do not agree that this Draconian measure will resolve the gun violence problem with which they are so personally all to familiar.
Gun rights — Constitution needs to be amended to protect the lives of our patients | TheHill:
We need to recognize that the Constitution needs to be at the center of our conversations surrounding gun violence. Organizations such as The American Academy of Nursing, The American Nurse Association, The American Psychiatric Nurses Association, and the American Public Health Association, have rightly called for a ban on firearms. Moving forward these conversations need to be rooted in the context of the Constitution. Unless we can frame our argument in the context of the Constitution, then we are fighting a battle that is already lost. So, let’s roll up our sleeves and get to work fighting for the right to life for our patients by amending the constitution.I hope that readers understand that if a ban on firearms should be (unconstitutionally) imposed on Americans, the consequence would be that only police officers and military would be allowed to carry arms. So much for the rights of The People to protect self, home and family. We're looking at madness here, where The People have no rights at all when their right to support the Constitution no longer exists. Welcome to Venezuela (the least democratic state in South America)!
In 1994, America imposed similar extreme measures. It was an imposition on the Second Amendment rights of our citizens, but Congress agreed to ... "give it a shot" so to speak.
No, it was not a universal ban on all firearms, but it came very close. After the ten-year "experiment" concluded, it was determined that limiting access to firearms played no significant difference in the murder rate in America.
Would a TOTAL BAN ON ALL GUNS be more effective?There are at least THREE ... and probably more ... problems involved on a "TOTAL BAN":
The first problem is that there are more firearms than Americans in America!Very few firearms (relative to the total number) are "Registered", because American gun owners are generally disinclined to register their guns regardless of what the local laws may require. These laws may have made felons of otherwise extremely law-abiding American .. who resent incursions on their civil rights. They *(we)* believe that our Constitution does not "allow" us to be armed; it only acknowledges a "God Given Right" to defend ourselves, our loved ones, and our property.
We do NOT believe that our civil rights are "given", or even "guaranteed" by the Constitution.
The Constitution merely "acknowledges" our God-give rights, and those rights may not be ignored, abrogated, mitigated amended or ignored by Politicians. Our rights cannot, should not, and WILL NOT be undermined by pettifoggers.
The Second problem is that ... when you make felons of armed Americans ... somebody has to go take those guns away from them.Nobody expects nurses to go door-to-door citing Nancy Pelosi: "Mister and Mrs America, TurnThem All In!".
(She couldn't get the votes, and neither shall you.)
You cannot confiscate all of the guns in America,. You can't take them all away ... no matter how many U.S. Marshalls are willing to risk their lives many times a day in an attempt to implement your unilateral opinion.
Oh, and by the way? Many American Law Officers support the Second Amendment.
Even those who would support this proposition realize that confiscation would be a life-threatening project. Not all are willing to make that effort.
The implementation of this plan would be an exercise of "Excessive Force" ... also not a favorite activity of most law-abiding law officers who hope to go home to their families at the end of the day.
And the third problem is that the Majority of Americans are NOT eager to tamper with the Constitution of the United States.Even those who find the Constitution "inconvenient" understand that it requires a clear majority of the states to amend the Constitution, even to make a relatively "minor" change of the text ... let alone delete an entire Amendment!
What does it take to amend the Constitution?
The Constitution’s Article V requires that an amendment be proposed by two-thirds of the House and Senate, or by a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the state legislatures. It is up to the states to approve a new amendment, with three-quarters of the states voting to ratifying it.Unfortunately, a "Constitutional Convention" is rarely a popular action, not the least because if you evoke a Convention, then the ENTIRE CONSTITUTION is subjected to being re-evaluated. It may occur that portions of the constitution with which you DO agree may be discussed ... and are subject to changes which you do NOT wish to happen. It's like herding cats: you may be able to get them moving, but you have little or no control over the direction(s) they choose to take.
I Do Not Think That Word You Use Means What You Think It Means!
Ultimately, this well-intended, pie-in-the-sky proposal has a very good chance of bringing the entire pile-of-bricks which is the U.S. Constitution come tumbling down. It may introduce a Constitutional Crisis which makes the already complex issue even more caustic
It's probably going to be a rough ride.
I sincerely hope you never who hope and pray for a total firearms ban never get your wish;
I can almost guarantee that you never get your wish ... and if you do, you will regret the can of worms you have opened. Not because of anything *-I-* may do or say, but because Americans are historically very jealous of their rights ... which no other nation has the courage to demand.
This is why we live in America: very few Americans migrate to states where their rights are not acknowledged.
Which is perhaps why so many of those states are Kleptocracies.