Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe they repealed that policy. The problem is they will face economic hardship in 70-80 years when the larger population retires, same as the issue we have in the US with the baby boomers but 10X worse because their problem is more severe.

"When nothing happened after Sandy Hook I knew nothing ever would." What new law would have prevented Sandy Hook?

i completely disagree.
Do you really think that goinig to keep gun out of people hand of course not. What will happen is the criminals will have gun and to law obeying citizen will be left unprotected

@Rdurham Recent history shows that countries that outlaw firearms have fewer murders.

while your at it look at how many people are killed in car crashes
comparing the world with the us is like comparing apple to oranges.
well live very diiferent lifestyles and have some of the highest crime rate.
So taking awat people right to bear are is only the beginning of a worst problem.

That sounds like almost all the Central and South American right-wing dictatorships.

You are 100% correct. Either repeal the 2nd Amendment, or stop infringing on the 2nd Amendment.

@irascible, @BestWithoutGods "Recent history shows that countries that outlaw firearms have fewer murders." None of those countries had 315,000,000 guns in civilian hands, nor a Constitutional Right to own guns nor a segment of population that will likely use armed violence to maintain the right to own firearms. Do you really think that U.S. gun owners would peacefully surrender their arms?

"Once the Second Amendment is repealed, we should allow guns only for the police and the military." Just like those South American military dictatorships...countries by the way that have stricter gun control laws than in the U.S. but way more gun murders...they must not be one of those "other industrialized nations".

@dahermit If they don't peacefully surrender their firearms, we'll pry them out of their cold, dead hands.

@Bobby9 You’re wrong on a number of points. But, let me offer this: why do gun proponents seem to think that if what we do is not 100% successful, we can’t do it? It’s about saving lives. It’s better to save some than to save none.

@Bobby9

1. A constitutional amendment also required a 2/3 vote in the House.
2. While repeal of the 2nd Amendment is remote at best, it is is not absolutely zero, as you stated.
3. This US is a democracy and specifically takes the form of a Representative democracy.

@kodimerlyn . First just because i disagree with a ban doesnt make me part of the problem. Now yes canda has a much slow population that the us 350 million USA to canda 37 million at best.
Almost none of the ban on gun either federal or state level hasnt stopped gun from getting into the crimminal hands. I just make it hard for law obeying people to protect there families.

Now what is the first thing a dictator does when taking over a country unarm them so they can protect themself...
Now The us doesnt have mass shooting 3 times a week... I not sure where your getting your infor from

There are State in the US that do have tough gun laws, This hasnt stop people from getting guns

@Bobby9 that is a democratic form of government. And, I already pointed out that you forgot to include the House in your amendment process.

“The United States is not a direct democracy, in the sense of a country in which laws (and other government decisions) are made predominantly by majority vote. Some lawmaking is done this way, on the state and local levels, but it’s only a tiny fraction of all lawmaking. But we are a representative democracy, which is a form of democracy.

And indeed the American form of government has been called a “democracy” by leading American statesmen and legal commentators from the Framing on. ” — [washingtonpost.com]

As for the chance of repeal... that’s your opinion. You were already wrong in saying that US isn’t and has never been a democracy, so I’ll defer to the idea that it is highly unlikely.

@BestWithoutGods not really guns are not the only way to kill someone...

@Rdurham Sure, a person can be killed with a knife, but knives have other purposes, such as cooking. A person can be killed with a car, but that is not the purpose for having a car. Firearms have no other purpose than killing or injuring. That's the difference.

@kodimerlyn How do you say, STFU and mind your own buisness in Canadian?

@kodimerlyn We would have to repeal the 2nd Amendment to get anywhere near what you're suggesting. There is nothing simple nor sane about that.

@kodimerlyn Clearly you do not have a sufficient grasp of American constitutional law, or you'd understand how difficult it would be to remove the 2nd item from the original Bill of Rights. Even if the required majority (which we would never have) made an attempt to do so, it would still be extremely unlikely to succeed for a variety of reasons. Being Canadian, I do not expect you to understand how our constitution works, but I do wish you would please do me the favor of respecting the notion of polite discourse in this discussion.