If the Second Amendment was Repealed...

[tytlyf]

Seems if it were repealed it would lead to government genocide on it's people.

[youtube]CnsDDcOBRyk[/youtube]

 

[Twilight Hue]

Well it's prudent to fight it through the courts. Imo there would be justification for revolt in light of the constitution. In reality though, a repeal would likely result in a scenario like that in the UK where everyone just turned in their firearms without so much as a peep from the majority.

 

[Revoltingest]

Well it's prudent to fight it through the courts. Imo there would be justification for revolt in light of the constitution. In reality though, a repeal would likely result in a scenario like that in the UK where everyone just turned in their firearms without so much as a peep from the majority.

They're more unified (sheep-like) over there.
We'd see some states resist by strengthening their constitutional protections.

 

[Twilight Hue]

:

They're more unified (sheep-like) over there.
We'd see some states resist by strengthening their constitutional protections.

That would be the best bet if the feds were to do something so stupid as to repel tenants of the constitution. It would have to be state action to lead a charge. Individual resistance like civilian militias would be quickly eliminated or forcibly disbanded if a revolt were to be in the works.

 

[Revoltingest]

:

That would be the best bet if the feds were to do something so stupid as to repel tenants of the constitution. It would have to be state action to lead a charge. Individual resistance like civilian militias would be quickly eliminated or forcibly disbanded if a revolt were to be in the works.

As a landlord, I'm deeply offended that you use "tenant" instead of "tenet"!
I'll forgive "repel" instead of "repeal" though.

(I'm in an annoyingful mood.)

 

[esmith]

I was just pointing out a way to effectively repeal the amendment without actually repealing it. I wouldn't vote against a nationwide ban on guns, but I wouldn't push for it. I definitely think we need stricter gun control though, at a minimum it should be harder to buy a gun than it is to vote, that's ridiculous to me that our country is that backwards right now.

Well in actuality it is easier to vote in some states and cities than it is to purchase a firearm.
So, in your world what would the requirements for owning/purchasing a firearm be? Be specific now, no generalities. Remember now you have to provide the means of insuring that the laws are enforced.

 

[freethinker44]

Well in actuality it is easier to vote in some states and cities than it is to purchase a firearm.
So, in your world what would the requirements for owning/purchasing a firearm be? Be specific now, no generalities. Remember now you have to provide the means of insuring that the laws are enforced.

Well, if I have to write an ironclad law and detailed plan to enforce the law in order to have an opinion on it, I will just make it easy on myself and say, the law should be absolutely no one should own or handle any projectile weapon of any kind, and those caught doing so or importing them should be immediately put to death as well as their immediate family and close friends.

 

[Reverend Rick]

What am I missing?

Freedom perhaps? I control my safety and destiny and hold the power of life and death on my beltloops.

When people see a truly free person, it scares them because they don't want to admit they are subjects of a government.

 

[Twilight Hue]

As a landlord, I'm deeply offended that you use "tenant" instead of "tenet"!
I'll forgive "repel" instead of "repeal" though.

(I'm in an annoyingful mood.)

Stupid spell check.

:angel2:

 

[Sees]

Is this question even safe to answer?

No, it isn't. Hopefully people are smart enough to ignore it.

 

[CMike]

The other constitutional rights don't have the gun industry behind them.

They all have some industries behind them.

There are newspaper lobbies, radio lobbies, etc.

There are lobbies for just about any popular lobbies out there.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Freedom perhaps? I control my safety and destiny and hold the power of life and death on my beltloops.

When people see a truly free person, it scares them because they don't want to admit they are subjects of a government.

Do you think that "holding the power of life and death on your beltloops" has implications for the freedom of the people around you?

You seem like a nice, reasonable guy, but I could say the same about almost all of the people I know in government.

It seems to me that the concerns about having an armed populace or a strong government are the same: in either case, there's major potential for abuse. If it's unreasonable for a person to think that they have nothing to fear from an armed government, isn't it similarly unreasonable to think that they have nothing to fear from an armed populace?

Often, a person's oppressor isn't the government. Heck, the last military attack against my country was by a group of armed individuals.

 

[CMike]

Do you think that "holding the power of life and death on your beltloops" has implications for the freedom of the people around you?

You seem like a nice, reasonable guy, but I could say the same about almost all of the people I know in government.

It seems to me that the concerns about having an armed populace or a strong government are the same: in either case, there's major potential for abuse. If it's unreasonable for a person to think that they have nothing to fear from an armed government, isn't it similarly unreasonable to think that they have nothing to fear from an armed populace?

Often, a person's oppressor isn't the government. Heck, the last military attack against my country was by a group of armed individuals.

The problem is that criminals don't care about laws, by definition.

Therefore, 99% of the gun laws do absolutely nothing for curbing gun related crime.

What they do is keep honest citizens from the ability to defend themselves when they need to do so and how they need to do so.

The honest citizens will actually follow the laws. The criminals won't.

Therefore, futher restricting rights to own and carry gun effect honest citizens, and not criminals, other than making it easier for criminals to have easier prey.

 

[freethinker44]

Therefore, 99% of the gun laws do absolutely nothing for curbing gun related crime.

99% of all laws do nothing to curb their respective crimes. Yet we still have them. They serve to punish and/or remove those who don't follow the laws.

 

[CMike]

The difference is that you aren't punishing crimes, you are punishing people form being able to own and carry a gun. A crime hasn't been committed yet.

If someone robs a house that is a crime. That should be punished.

Outlawing guns for the whole population because a gun may be used in the robbery is retarded.

 

[freethinker44]

The difference is that you aren't punishing crimes, you are punishing people form being able to own and carry a gun. A crime hasn't been committed yet.

If someone robs a house that is a crime. That should be punished.

Outlawing guns for the whole population because a gun may be used in the robbery is retarded.

So what? Speeding on highways is a crime too. Speeding is banned because some people don't know how to drive and get into accidents, speeding is illegal to prevent those accidents. Even though it doesn't.

Outlawing speeding on highways for the whole population because some people don't know how to drive is not retarded.

Your whole argument can be applied to just about every other law, so either your argument is invalid or you are really arguing we shouldn't have any laws.

 

[McBell]

So what? Speeding on highways is a crime too. Speeding is banned because some people don't know how to drive and get into accidents, speeding is illegal to prevent those accidents. Even though it doesn't.

Outlawing speeding on highways for the whole population because some people don't know how to drive is not retarded.

Your whole argument can be applied to just about every other law, so either your argument is invalid or you are really arguing we shouldn't have any laws.

Except in order to bring your analogy up to speed (pardon the pun) you will need to ban all vehicles.

Otherwise, your analogy does not compare with banning guns.

 

[freethinker44]

Except in order to bring your analogy up to speed (pardon the pun) you will need to ban all vehicles.

Otherwise, your analogy does not compare with banning guns.

Given guns' specialized use, I think the analogy does apply. Guns are made for one thing, killing stuff. Banning people from speeding doesn't invalidate the use of vehicles, it makes their use safer. Banning people from killing stuff with guns effectively renders them useless, except for going to a shooting range for fun which I have no problem with. We can ban guns and still allow people to store and use them at a shooting range.

 

[McBell]

Given guns' specialized use, I think the analogy does apply. Guns are made for one thing, killing stuff. Banning people from speeding doesn't invalidate the use of vehicles, it makes their use safer. Banning people from killing stuff with guns effectively renders them useless, except for going to a shooting range for fun which I have no problem with. We can ban guns and still allow people to store and use them at a shooting range.

Huh?
Banning people from speeding does not stop people from speeding.
It only allows for punishments when one gets caught speeding.

Thus we have two problems right from the start:

1. The ban does not physically prevent people who want to speed from speeding.
2. The ban only allows for punishments IF the speeder is caught speeding.

So we can see that it is already the same when it comes to using guns.

Do you consider targets at shooting ranges "alive"?
How about clay pigeons?
Cans?

if not, then guns are NOT solely for killing things.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The problem is that criminals don't care about laws, by definition.

Therefore, 99% of the gun laws do absolutely nothing for curbing gun related crime.

What they do is keep honest citizens from the ability to defend themselves when they need to do so and how they need to do so.

The honest citizens will actually follow the laws. The criminals won't.

Therefore, futher restricting rights to own and carry gun effect honest citizens, and not criminals, other than making it easier for criminals to have easier prey.

That makes no sense. The legal gun market is the source for guns on the illegal market. They're very much related.