He seems to be saying people keep suggesting Y, but can't recall seeing anyone suggest Y. It seems nothing at all been suggested, and Y is simply assumed. Of course that's me assuming Y is outright banning guns in the US.
Y would be restricting measures on guns (gun control). It gets instant push back and is bought up again and again with the same result. Insanity is doing the same thing again and again and expecting a different result.
In 1993 the Brady Act was adopted for handguns and extended to long guns in 1997. While this act may not be completely effective, statistics show background checks to have been effective by preventing the legal sale of firearms to convicted criminals, people with warrants, people with known substance abuse issues, perpetrators of domestic violence, and illegal aliens. Since 1993 US homicide rates and gun related crime rates have dropped over 50%. One might argue, the US already has gun control and it's effective because the facts show it's working, so better gun control isn't an insane suggestion.
Yes and No.
These 1990's Acts (no doubt there was some pushback on both) were at least viable to those with a "from my cold dead hands" view of any gun control on the basis that it did not affect them. "They were not taking their guns away from decent honest law abiding folks who were not at risk", they were taking it from the people they were at most risk from. The people THEY did not want in possession of guns.
Saying that you will stop mentally ill people or criminals from obtaining guns as a measure of gun control is a much easier sell than "Hey there friend, I know you are a decent person who loves their gun collection and considers it your constitutional right to bear those arms but in case YOU turn into a Psycho or a criminal, I am taking that big one off you there and that one over there too. It is for your own good." That sounds to some Americans as the government trying to disarm or reduce their rights.
It is like the gay marriage thing in Australia. Most of us are ambivalent about gay people getting married because it simply does not affect us. A gay person getting married does not hurt me or anyone else, so why would I care? It is completely reasonable for me to agree to this. However, if that means that for instance, the Church going crowd in Australia HAS to include gay friendly services and change the way they practice their religious doctrine to be more gay friendly, I would strongly object.
Not sure anyone has suggested taking anyone's property. There's several things the US could do to better gun control. Better enforcement of the existing laws is a good one. There's also requiring licensing, safety courses, hands-on and written testing to obtain licensing. Requiring the registration of firearms, and closing the backdoor in background checks via private sales. These are things the public supports.
I think that enforcing existing laws which I have mentioned again and again here is absolutely important.
The registration of Firearms unfortunately runs into a BIG problem. IF we can believe that the Constitution's amendment makes a case for the abstract concept of a possible Tyrannical Government needing to be defended against, then we have to think that 1) IF you want to tax all taxable citizens, you need to know who is earning taxable income and have databases of this, 2) IF you need to know who to target to put in religious/ethnic/racial internment camps, you need to have a database of who those peopel are before you round them up 3) IF you are a Tyranical Government and you wish disarm citizens from their lawful and Constitutional right to bear arms to protect themselves fom you......what do you need?
Safety Courses ARE offered by the NRA. But much like the services that are offered by Planned Parenting do NOT ONLY comprise of Abortion, these safety courses do not get as much publicity with the NRA as the thing the NRA is best known for which is gun Activism and promotion.
