1930s machine guns, short barrel rifles and shotguns, destructive devices and AOWs got a $200 tax, cost prohibative at the time for most people. 1960s more restrictions on FFLs and on types of guns especially imports, both raise prices and reduce availability more. 1980s new transferrable machineguns banned so now existing ones cost more than a car. 1990s handgun age raised to 21. And you steppers keep saying "it's not enough". If the cost of freedom is school shootings then so be it. We could cut down lots of other crime with a police state but don't because it's wrong.
You may as well support banning E2EE because nobody needs it.
We should amend the constitution and then make permitted ownership of single shot bolt action rifles the only widespread form of personal gun ownership. Plenty capable enough for sport hunting.
That would be enough.
There would be people made less safe by such a restrictive regime! Of course a much larger number would be safer. Tradeoffs are exactly what they sound like.
Nitpick: "single shot" and "bolt action" are a contradiction in terms. A "single shot" rifle has no magazine, only a single cartridge can be loaded at once. A "bolt action" rifle has a magazine to hold more than one cartridge, with a bolt that the user manually actuates to eject a spent case and load a new cartridge from the magazine.
If actually proposing legislation such distinctions would be important. For an internet discussion what you meant is clear enough.
Not quite no. There are plenty of bolt action rifles with no magazine, they're still bolt action. Like there are other single shots that aren't bolt action, and there are other bolt action single shot. Stupid policy this person is proposing but their language is technically correct.
Police states tend to reduce crime very well. They're still wrong. And i hope if somebody like you ever gets power and tries to do this Americans resist them by force.
We should uphold the Constution as it is now and remove every single gun law.
> there are enough armed forces personnel to police the third or fourth largest country by land mass in the world (the United States)
If you count the standing paramilitary forces (“police") that work for the government and do this job already, plus all the other armed forces, that's not that much of a stretch.
> that every single armed forces personnel would unquestioningly obey what constitutes illegal orders (military deployment on American soil)
Military deployment on US soil is not illegal. (That would make defensive war, as well as suppression of armed rebellion, impossible.)
Military deployment to enforce domestic order isn't illegal, either, though for federal regular military troops there are procedural requirements for it under the Insurrection Act (mostly, a completely discretionary Presidential determination of one of several specific kinds of need—some of which involve a request from a state governor and some of which do not—and particular notifications to the civilian population and any potential insurgents before employment of the military for certain uses.) State forces not called in to federal service may have their own procedural rules for law enforcement deployments, but most state forces can also be activated federally under federal rules.
You may as well support banning E2EE because nobody needs it.