Except that it works in countries and cities that are able to effectively enforce it. So except for that....lol
And as has been demonstrated in the united states, the ability to effectively enforce firearm-related restrictions simply does not exist.
This is the rational rebuttal to the straw man caricatures from the OP, who, it seems, would throw out the baby with the bathwater.
Those limits are not spelled out in the constitution. You are rewriting it. There is a process for that
more nonsense. you dance around the fact that those societies you praise do far more than demand a piece of paper. in most of those societies, many guns are banned, private sales are banned, and people need to jump through several hoops to get licenses to merely own guns. There is no society where the only difference between the USA and that society is a "mere piece of paper"
Guns are banned in the US and people jump thru hoops to get some guns here. Face it....gun control works in these places and the most impact it has on most people is that they have to fill out a form. And somehow they survive.
'Limits', are not spelled out in any of the amendments. There is some flexibility, in placing reasonable limits, on any of the bill of rights. That is for scotus to decide. But the 'all or nothing!' caricature you present is an absurd deflection, to ridicule the 2nd amendment..
Then any limit is possible. I guess I no longer need to hear that any limit I want would be unconstitutional because that is not for you to decide. Scotus can decide any limit is constitutional. And thus my point
In practical reality, that is the case. The scotus has a long and illustrious history of legislating from the bench, with notorious rulings that went beyond any reasonable display of jurisprudence. So, do you throw out ALL law, because it can be overruled, redefined, or revised? To you reject the entire bill of rights, because 'limits!' can be decided by scotus? Is it all bathwater, to you, and no baby?
My point remains the same. Any gun law can be ruled constitutional. So no need for you to say a gun law can not be passed because it is unconstitutional. Only scotus can say that. And anything is up for grabs
Here were your 'points'.. Scotus deciding about a limit was not a point i can see. ..just an 'all or nothing!' demand on constitutional limits. There is also 'precedence'. Previous rulings carry more weight, on constitutional issues, than state statutes.
There are either limits or there are not limits. If limits exist due to a scotus opinion then it is possible for them to hold any opinion at any time.
How pro gun? Well, if I had one, I'd let it play with another and try to mate. I would not abort the child. I'd love and care for it. I'd take it out and break it in, allowing it to become an adult. I'd never use ammunition I knew was going to hert it. I would clean it. Oil it. I would gently place it in a locked cool humidity controlled environment with others of it's kind and of other kinds, so it didn't learn to be racist or bigoted. I'd allow it to flirt and have sex as soon as it wanted, so that it didn't feel controlled and learned to be sex positive. I'd make sure it knew how to safely and legally have sex with it's desired gender and race while learning to pleasure them fully, so it was never labeled as a rapist, pervert, or molester. I'd make sure it knew to ask before, and along the way throughout sex, so it knew that it's partner was fully aware and consenting, while making sure to tell it's partner it wanted to voice record the session and get permission to do so beforehand, so both could agree there was consent throughout.
