Original Statement
Will the implementation of a government mandated gun buyback program have a significant enough impact on violent crimes to justify the abolishment of 2nd Amendment rights?
Assumptions
A proposed gun buyback program will be mandatory and cover all firearms rather than applying specific types.
This is a generalization. Some States and Cities already have optional gun buy-back programs in place. There’s no evidence that a federal program of similar nature will become mandatory or that such a policy will apply to all firearms. Due to variations on state legislation on gun registration requirements, there’s really not a feasible way to ensure people relinquish every legally owned firearm in the country. This also assumes that the courts will interpret the 2nd Amendment in such a way as to allow the government to implement a seizure policy.
Guns don’t make a significant contribution to the number of violent crimes cases that occur.
It’s implied that responsible gun ownership is more of a deterrent to violent crime than a contributing factor. People who intend harm will do it regardless of what weapon is readily available. Just because someone can’t get their hands on a firearm doesn’t mean that they can’t commit an assault, robbery, or homicide. This is oversimplifying the problem, implying that the availability of guns drives a person to violence.
Restated
Some politicians and Liberal supporters advocate harsher restrictions on gun ownership. One of the ideas being proposed is a gun buy-back program similar to those implemented in other countries. The 2nd Amendment is a right to gun ownership provided us by the Constitution. Will abdicating that right prevent violence to such a degree that it’s a reasonable solution?
My personal feelings on the matter lead me to make generalizations. I’m a military veteran and have extensive safety, handling and maintenance training on firearms. I’m also a responsible gun owner who enjoys sport...