Disarming the public is not even remotely a solution to the actions of criminals or insane people. In fact, it only makes matters worse, by leaving the innocent helpless in the face of miscreants and sociopaths. Failure to see this is a sign of untreated hoplophobia.
One way of fighting this, untested at the current time, is creed discrimination. It is illegal to discriminate based upon creed. Though creed is often viewed in a religious context, it is also equally valid in a socio-political context. The fierce attachment with which many Americans cling to their right to arms is indeed a creed, dating back to Colonial times. Singling citizens out for special legal action is creed discrimination and illegal under civil-rights statutes. Where are the creative and ambitious civil-rights attorneys looking to break new ground and make a name for themselves…
Infringement is Constitutionally Banned
September 22, 2018
[Interesting idea. It’s worth a try. Toss it into the same lawsuit with the 2nd Amendment claim.
But if the courts won’t recognize the 2nd Amendment then why would one anyone think they would recognize your gun-owner creed?—Joe]
“Disarming the public is not even remotely a solution to the actions of criminals or insane people.”
True, but that’s never been the purpose of citizen disarmament. The purpose of citizen disarmament is to render the people more vulnerable to absolute control by governments.
“In fact, [disarmament] only makes matters worse, by leaving the innocent helpless…”
THAT is the intent behind all restrictions on weapons.
America’s founding principles of “liberty and justice for all” have irritated and outraged authoritarians worldwide ever since. So they’re doing something about it, utilizing resources and partners worldwide.
If that’s not seen as obvious, as a given, as the predictable, guaranteed situation given the ages-old war of evil against good, so long as we are responding to the lies and distractions rather than addressing the motives behind the actions of authoritarians, so long as we fail to address the global, murderous authoritarian conspiracy, then we are far, far away from any Man-made solution.
Some would say there IS no Man-made solution, because we’re not dealing with a Man-made problem, per se (“…for we wrestle not with flesh and blood…” and all).
Your response may well be the correct interpretation of their illegal actions. But offering this interpretation to people who are undecided or mildly opposed to people exercising their right to keep and bear arms may not be the best way to turn them around. Instead, explain the proposed solution cannot possibly do what is implied it will do, reduce violent crime, then ask them, “So, what is the real reason?” Let them, perhaps will a little help, figure it out mostly on their own. They will then “own the answer” and it will stick with them far better than you “cramming it down their throat”, so to speak.