If guns could be eliminated, would you support a ban?

One of the technologies coming down the line is the ability to detect any weapon at long range. This could be done from space but simpler and less expensive technologies will soon be available. Any weapon can be detected and the location transmitted immediately to the police. This allows the potential to arrest or at least disarm anyone who enters a city with a weapon.

Since it is inevitable that this will eventually be possible and affordable, and probably soon, would you support banning the carrying of weapons in cities? Keep in mind that you would know that nobody has a gun except the cops.

 

Why would we want to arrest or at least disarm anyone who enters a city with a weapon?

Hypothetically (as it will never happen because 2As are incredibly selfish and apathetic), if there was some guarantee that NOBODY has a weapon, I would support a ban.

I read an article yesterday about a 5 year old shooting and killing his 8 year old sibling. I am really burnt out on the 2As talking trash about "good guys with guns". People will hardly call the police when they see a crime being committed. No "good guy" with a gun is going in to help anybody and it's even less likely if the ones being threatened are part of any group of people they hate. That just doesn't happen. It's a talking point to defend their myopic views about rights versus responsibilities.

2As, don't bother quoting or mentioning me. I won't engage.

 

....

 

Yep. I some circumstances, even cops won't even do their jobs. Aren't they the ultimate "good guys with guns"?

 

Thinking you're going to eliminate 400 million guns from this nation is nothing more than an authoritarian fantasy.

The op has proposed this before that you don't need a gun in the city only if you live in the country..... As though you're right or need to defend yourself in the city is somehow less than if you are in the woods.... If anything it's even more so because the most dangerous animals you'll ever meet walk on two legs

 

Seriously? Stopping mass shootings and in fact almost all shootings, for starters.

Back in the days of the old West, you often had to check your guns with the Sheriff's office when you entered a town.

Don't be so sure. State's rights! It won't happen in Alabama or Oklahoma but who cares? What matters are places like Chicago, New York, Philly, Los Angeles and other major cities. Even now there are sound detectors in cities that identify any gunshots and immediately triangulate and provide police with a location. That was the first baby step in weapons detection.

We can stack the SC with 4 more liberal justices and reverse all of this trump and extremist nonsense. The laws can change. That is obvious!!!

 

Not all the time. Only when they are killing black and brown people (for far less provocation in most cases) and handcuffing parents trying to get to their children while the police do nothing knowing an active shooter is in the building.

These officers don't matter.

 

lol, it’s not inevitable. But since this whole thread is based on fantasy I’ll play along.

No.
No, I wouldn’t support the law and definitely not the technology as it’s guaranteed to give a gov authority to abuse the citizens with impunity. This is authoritarian and nanny state bs, weak minded sheep will adore it and spread their rights on the ground to be trampled. They get zero respect.

It’s all a weird fantasy anyway.

 

OK. But your OP states "This allows the potential to arrest or at least disarm anyone who enters a city with a weapon."

I agree disarming people might be a good idea but you can't arrest somebody that hasn't committed a crime. And, are we just talking about guns and bullets and other weapons (mace, 6 point, brass knuckles, cooking utensils, knives, etc.)? I'm all for taking guns from crazy bastards. No doubt. I just don't see how your suggestion doesn't become some kind of "thought police" legislation.

OK.

 

Your premise is faulty, no response can be offered.

 

REALLY?!!!!! Can guns be detected inside houses?

 

Sounds like an invasion of privacy issue.

 

Here is what I would support:
1) Quietly, secretly, covertly pass a law requiring all retail, wholesale, and manufacturing facilities to surrender all ammunition that can be used in any assault-type weapon, then dispatch agents all on the same day to every known retail and wholesale and manufacturing facility to confiscate such ammunition unless a military contract is being filled.
2) Publish the above law and also ban any distribution of such ammo, with the exception of ammo designated for filling of military contracts and track such contracts and ammo.
3) Announce a 60-day assault-type weapon buy-back period with very significant penalties for being caught with banned items after the 60 days. Penalties should be on the order of a $100,000 fine AND one year in prison.
4) Set up buy-back centers and begin the program.

Included in the ban would be all extended magazines, all removable magazines, all weapons capable of holding more than 5 rounds in a magazine, and all semi-automatic weapons and pump-action firearms.

The only legal firearms would be those that have lever action or bolt action, and handguns requiring the shooter to **** the hammer to fire it, and in no case may the magazine hold more than 5 rounds.

Either that or we go back to the flintlock.

 

Is a magnetometer an invasion of privacy issue?

 

2nd Amendment issue. Anyone who seriously thinks that bearing arms is possible without the means to have ammunition to use in them would pass mustard in court hasn't been following very closely what the SC has been ruling. The right to bear arms is meaningless if you can't use them.

 

Depends on where it's set up.

 

Hahahaha no one is quietly passing any of that. The rest is just fantasy, and wouldn’t make a dent in homicides since the criminals and myself included wouldn’t give up a single round.

 

LOL!!!!!!!! "Mustard" overitall? You show consistent "insight". LOL!!!! And sorry no, it's not a 2nd Amendment issue any more than it was to ban citizens from owning flamethrowers and machine guns without special permit.

 

Prove it.

 

No.

 

Your condescending attitude is noted. Enjoy your evening.

 

they could no more be eliminated than drugs

 

I will. Thanks.

Oh. And your choice of the word "condescending" is inappropriate to the situation and words I used. A dictionary might help.

 

I'm glad we have spell checkers like you around. Have you ever considered a career as a professional at it? Spilling ain't ain't no damn game!!

 

This is completely a fantasy scenario. Even forgetting for the moment that the tools and parts necessary to make guns are ubiquitous in a technological society such as ours even 50 or 100 years ago, even if they werent I could still build a firearm from scratch, from mining my own metal ore to mixing my own propellent, if I were so inclined. And if I can, then at least a few violent criminals can as well.

But pretending for a moment a magical wand could exist that would make everyone forget forever how to build a firearm, then sure, I'll support waving the magic wand. Then we can start arguing about assault crossbows or the right to bear lasers.