> that in America there is a constitutional right to bear arms that shall not be infringed.
That's not clear-cut. The language of the amendment is more nuanced than that, and the interpretation you're using is a modern one. In the not-so-distant past, it was interpreted as meaning that states could have well-regulated armed citizen militias, not that everyone has a right to carry a firearm.
> The second amendment was always intended as an individual right.
Well, I disagree. However, this underlines that the issue isn't so easy. It's one of several areas where the constitution isn't nearly clear enough in its meaning and can be reasonably interpreted in contradictory ways. That's the very essence of not being clear-cut.
We don’t have to guess or interpret the founders intentions on this. There are several quotes from them that affirm this as being intended as an individual right from the very beginning of our founding…
“No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.”
-Thomas Jefferson
“The advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition.”
-James Madison
“The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed.”
-Alexander Hamilton
By most estimates we have more guns than people in this country and a not insignificant amount of people would refuse to willingly turn over their firearms to the government. The toothpaste is already out of the tube.
In a world where the second amendment was repealed, what gun control laws would you like to see passed and what would you expect them to accomplish?
Also, how would you account for the increased violent crime rate due to average citizens being unable to defend themselves against armed criminals?
Additionally, how would you propose that we the people keep our government from becoming tyrannical in the absence of our right to bear arms? It seems particularly absurd to give up our right to firearms when so many people are expecting our current president to become a tyrannical, fascist dictator.
With no second amendment, you could plainly ban firearms altogether.
Demonstrate that there would be an increase in violent crime without guns.
The current government was elected in a society with guns. The best way to prevent tyrannical governments is an educated populace that doesn’t vote for tyrants.
> With no second amendment, you could plainly ban firearms altogether.
Banning them doesn’t get rid of them. As the saying goes, if you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns.
> Demonstrate that there would be an increase in violent crime without guns.
As a corollary to my previous point. Criminals will still have guns because they are criminals and they don’t have any respect for the law. They will be emboldened by knowing that every potential victim they come across will be unarmed.
> The current government was elected in a society with guns. The best way to prevent tyrannical governments is an educated populace that doesn’t vote for tyrants.
What is preventing a government from declaring marshal law and suspending elections as soon as the citizens are disarmed? You greatly underestimate how afraid the elites are of an armed populace.
Most rural communities will not be willingly surrendering their firearms under any circumstances. They are heavily armed, yet they have very low rates of gun violence, at least until tyrants come for their guns that is.
Contrast that to urban areas where extensive gun control laws are in place. The issues are social and cultural and are not something that a gun ban will solve.
We are not Western Europe or Australia.
Also, like I said in another comment, guns are everywhere here and that toothpaste is already out of the tube. Most guns are not registered. No one knows for certain how many there are and who owns them. There will at best be no cooperation with forced confiscation, and most likely there will be active resistance against such a tyrannical incursion upon the rights of free people. Even law enforcement and large swaths of the military are unlikely to cooperate with confiscation efforts.
> The issues are social and cultural and are not something that a gun ban will solve.
Citation needed. Where have gun bans failed and why? Mexico, central, and South America, primarily because it’s so easy to obtain weapons in the U.S. and smuggle them down.
> There will at best be no cooperation with forced confiscation, and most likely there will be active resistance against such a tyrannical incursion upon the rights of free people.
Citation needed. There are absolutely nut jobs that won’t follow the law, but that’s true of any law. The solution isn’t to not pass laws. These folks will be dealt with like any other criminal.
You make a lot of assertions that seem to stand up to even the tiniest bit of scrutiny. You don’t back any of it up with any data.
Also remember that in America there is a constitutional right to bear arms that shall not be infringed. So please keep your proposal constitutional.