Like it or not, we’re on that slippery slope right now.
I wish everyone would go read Lumpy’s post #80 a few times. Well done, Lumpy.
Fair enough. But understand that people need to realize other people do. And this thread is asking about those other people. The OP’s question asking, “What scary thing might happen after all the government thugs kick in doors and take everyone’s guns following a gun ban?” That’s the scary thing people fear. It’s not necessarily what happens next. That’s the terminal event; the sum of all fears. Every piece of gun legislation, they fear, puts us one step closer to the day when guns are banned and the government comes to get them. It would be more productive to discuss why they fear that. The question should be, “Why are people so scared of the government stripping away their constitutional rights, entering their home without permission, and taking their legally purchased property?” And in my opinion, it’s because it’s a scary thought to live in a country that could so easily vote away a major right, and a major part of their identity, and then send in armed government thugs to enter their homes to take their property.
I dunno, the OP just struck me as strange to frame a question that basically says, “Suppose the country becomes a dystopian police state. What is the feared result of that?” The country becoming a dystopian police state is the feared result.
Oh Hell yeah. The NRA and its core membership is like the ACLU (when they fought for the Nazis who wanted the march near Chicago) in that they will fight tooth and nail for people they may not like very much whenever it involves what they see as “gun rights”. You can love them, hate them, or be totally meh about the whole thing; but they are consistent like that.
If you went through the regular process to abolish any amendment, then you’d assume at that point that most people would be okay with it.
If you waved a magic wand and abolished say, the 2nd amendment, then you’d find that a good number of states would immediately make their own 2nd amendment. Many of them actually already have that language in their constitutions (40 of them, apparently), though it remains to be seen what force they actually have. In other words, a repeal wouldn’t change a whole lot, but fighting for it is against the political will of most people. The point is that none of the amendments actually grant rights, they only recognize what is believed to be a natural right, and redistrict infringements of said rights.
I haven’t read the entirety of the thread, but I have to ask: why does abolition of the Second Amendment mean that guns are banned?
I live in a country where guns are allowed, but are not a constitutional right. Nobody in a uniform has shown up on my doorstep demanding to see papers, or demand to see storage. Sure, they could (well, no, not without a search warrant), but they aren’t. I don’t have the right to possess firearms, but I am allowed the privilege to own them. And I have, for years, as a responsible gun owner.
Abolishing the right to gun ownership is not the same as a gun ban. You can still own guns–you just have to do so within parameters laid down by the government you elected, and if your breach those parameters–wll, bye-bye gun privileges.
I do, but there’s a lot being sold every day as well. I’m not a proponent, but I’m thinking the easiest way to eliminate firearms is to 1) stop selling them, and 2) stop feeding them. The desired result would not be immediate, but it would come gradually, which is a necessary pace when you’re looking for a peaceful cultural change. But it won’t happen because no single politician would have a result to crow about in their reelection campaign–there’s no money in stepping in the right direction and letting the next generation reap what you’ve sown.
But we’re turning this into a gun control thread.
Please tell us what *you *think it takes to amend the Constitution. You could read it and find out, if you’re not sure.
Yes, and that’s one of the ways we advance as a society.
There is, as you might admit, *considerable *disagreement about that claim. To put it mildly.
Yet the concealed-carry types claim they’d be heroes, and even victorious, when seeing such a thing in the hands of a Bad Guy. The anonymous Internet claims are brave, but the reality, not so much.
It’s just silly, especially given your acknowledgment right above, in thais very post, about the changes that would have to occur among We The People before the gun-grabbing could commence. You really ought to be ashamed to bring it up.
Except for most of the world. :rolleyes:
That is, essentially, what people who cannot make a convincing argument to the majority in a democracy has to do. Your claim is that it constitutes tyranny, not your own failure.
Why do you think the Founding Fathers thought they’d need militias to suppress insurrections?
Several in the thread have mentioned the Siege of Waco as the government tyranny “we” need our guns to protect against. For the young’uns, here’s an excerpt from Wikipedia to give some insight into these all-American gunlovers that the oppressive Feds besieged.
The actions of the jackbooted gun-grabbing state seem, if anything, over-restrained here. I’m rather befuddled that the events at Waco are cited by gun nuts as a point in their favor.
(No, I don’t know know who Anna Hughes is either.)
Timothy McVeigh was a real person, not a one-dimensional character. I’m not saying all gun lovers will turn into Timothy McVeigh, but it won’t take a whole lot of them and based of some of the militia stuff I’ve seen there are probably hundreds that are a hair’s breadth away from him right now.
And the only way to confiscate all the guns is through armed ransacking. knock knock knock “Ya got any guns? No? Okay have a good day citizen.” ain’t gonna work.
You’re right, it doesn’t. IIRC, 44 states have gun rights built into their constitution. So it still fall into a states right’s issue. But the first step to nation-wide gun confiscation would be repealing the 2nd (which isn’t going to happen either).
Actually, the first step is a national gun registry, but that’s another topic.
Why else go through the process of abolishing the amendment?
Cite? Because whenever I’ve seen any issue about blacks or Hispanics with guns, the NRA never seems to have their backs. Like, that black guy who was shot because he told a cop that he had a concealed carry, and then followed the cop’s instructions: Did the NRA push for the cop’s prosecution?
Yeah, I gotta admit the NRAs position vis-a-vis persons of color is dodgy at best.
There’s clearly a disconnect there in which the organization’s communications people are stuck between ‘defend from crime’ and ‘black men with guns’.
Which, I might point out, is what other conservative - I won’t speculate on the overlap between the gun guys and the anti-abortion guys - have been doing for a few decades about abortion. Small steps, chipping away at a right defined by the Supreme Court leading to a hoped-for ability to ban abortion completely.
What the gun guys fear, outlined above, is a reasonable thing given that their own allies are using the same approach. A man fears most what he knows HE would do in the same situation.
I’m actually an advocate of fairly strict licensing requirements for gun ownership; the problem isn’t with the guns themselves, and there are too many extant guns to reasonably deal with in any realistic time period, so I’d think that putting the emphasis on the people buying/using the guns is the right place to go. Mostly in hopes of identifying and prohibiting the mentally ill from having access to guns, as criminals already don’t pay attention to the laws (why they’re criminals!). It’s not a perfect scheme either- someone could be duly licensed and still commit a crime of passion, but if done right, could prevent a lot of the mass shootings we see. (part of my idea would be that licensing would require insurance, and that insurance would require verified secure storage or else the premiums would be astronomical)
Russia Today is a propaganda website. I suggest you search for another, legitimate source for this supposed information.
Can you say specifically which “black guy” this is who you are referring to?
I’m not a gun “guy” (female) and the anti-abortion folks are definitely not my allies. I consider myself as leaning liberal and I own a gun. I am concerned about government’s relationship to gun ownership, as well as many people on this very thread who I believe identify as “liberal” and yet are willing, even eager, to give up rights to their “government” without recognizing that yes, one thing really does lead to another. As for fearing most what he (sic) knows HE (sic) would do: I know I would not paint the whole world with the broadest brush possible.
A cursory glance at the article shows it was sourced from Reuters. Is Reuters good enough for you?