Just curious, wouldnt ex-post-facto (spell check), state that all who owned a gun before it was illegal to own a gun would get to keep them, and no more could be purchased.
It’s nigh-inconceivable, in my opinion, that any politician would attempt to modify or repeal any of the first ten amendments. There’s too much tradition there, and too much esteem for the Bill of Rights in general.
The right to bear arms enumerated in the Second Amendment might, however, be interpreted out of existence. It’s entirely possible that, by making small steps and piling one law on top of another, Congress may eventually make owning firearms too difficult and/or costly for a typical citizen to deal with. Alternatively, as is happening at present (with cities trying to sue gun makers for the acts of criminals who use their products), it may become so expensive for firearms manufacturers to stay in business that they’ll simply give up and shut down.
See, the anti-gun forces don’t really have to repeal the Second Amendment to make firearm ownership next to impossible. They’d rather make ownership so burdensome that gun owners give up on the exercise of the right.
IANAL, but I don’t think so. Not quite, at least.
What has happened in California is a ban on possession of a particular subset of assault weapons, previously legal. After passage of the law, there was a well-publicized “buy-back” period, during which owners of said guns could sell them to the state. After a certain deadline, though, the guns became illegal even to possess, and you could be prosecuted for it.
If I’ve got this wrong, I’d appreciate a correction.
I assume that this withstood some kind of constitutionality test, and the way it passed was giving people the opportunity to rid themselves of the soon-to-be contraband.
Everyone has their favorite ammendment. What seems to be the problem is there are those who don’t understand that without the second the rest aren’t worth spit.
Just a reminder from your friendly neighborhood moderator: In this thread we aren’t (or at least we shouldn’t be) discussing the merits or the proper interpretation of the Second Ammendment: Both of those discussions belong in Great Debates. Nor should we be smearing specific politicians, which is a topic for the Pit. This thread is asking about whether it is possible for the government to outlaw guns, and if so, how it could be done. This is a general question.
Can we please keep it on topic? It would give manhattan and myself great joy to not have to move a Second Ammendment thread out of GQ.
Just to clarify things, they couldn’t repeal the second ammendment. It would remain in the constitution, just as the
18th ammendment is still in the constituion.
Instead, they would have to ADD another ammendment which would state that the second ammendment was null and void. Really it’s just an issue of semantics, but I just wanted to clear up the fact that nothing can be removed from the constitution.
Flymaster, you are right in that the 2nd Amendment would not just vanish. I assume, though, that the language of an amendment “canceling” it would be similar to that of the 21st, which states in the first clause:
You do make a valid point, but I think the term “repeal” is a legitimate one.
Maxxy said:
That’s not germane to the discussion, the question is, could the 2nd amendment be taken away by our government.
The simple answer is yes it could.
With the ability to change the Constitutional Amendments in Congress comes the ability for politicians to dink around with it. They can toy with any Constitutional law they want as it’s done before. Add, change, destroy, they have the power…
Would they do it? I sure as heck hope not but the fact remains that it is an option for congressional concerns and American society, it is highly likely, given today’s climate that this could be a reality for them to alter the 2nd amendment.
< not to GD this but, be aware folks very aware of this >
To expand on Techchick’s above answer… yes, “Government does have the potentiality to repeal the 2nd Amendment and take guns away”, but that doesn’t mean it would any time soon. As it is with anything that’s deeply ingrained, you can’t just yank it away without large amounts of force. So while it’s possible, it would require a certain amount of foresight and patience on the part of those who wish to remove such rights… that is, any campaign dedicated to the removal of guns from private hands would need to take years in order to succeed, so as to properly steer public opinion.
What’s the required majority to approve a Constitutional amendment? The likelihood of it ever being reached on the gun issue is virtually impossible.
I suppose you don’t even want to go to the area of, “OK; we’ve made guns illegal. Now let’s go get 'em!” How exactly would that work? As Manhattan pointed out, we can’t get hardly any of the illegal guns. And they are a tiny minority of all guns in the U.S.
Short of increasing the size of prisons ten-fold and throwing decent, regular people in them; and short of a very bloody civil war, it is almost a certainty that disarming the American citizenry cannot occur. It is too important of an issue to too many people.
I’d like to make some comments about why some people continue to focus on taking away guns from the well over 90 percent of owners who use them safely and legally, which would still do nothing to take them away from illegal gun-owners, and would do nothing to stop gun-related violence from illegal gun-owners. But that would be GD-ish or IMHO-ish, now wouldn’t it? 
The “government is going to take away our guns” issue was created by Republicans to corral the support of working class white men who enjoy hunting. These people’s economic position would normally cause them to vote Democrats. It is a complete myth that hunters could lose their guns. I have guns and like to hunt deer and ducks and always have but the stuff the NRA is dishing out is bullshit.
Remember when the government banned the private ownership of gold? The government didn’t make raids - it simply told everyone to “turn it in.”
It will be the same way with guns. I highly doubt the government will knockdown every door and perform searches. It will simply tell everyone that they have 1 year to turn in their guns, and anyone caught with a firearm afterwards in any capacity will be subjected to a $10,000 fine and a minimum 2 year prison sentence.
And allow me to recapitulate from my previous post (above): The government can (and will) ban the private ownership of firearms. There is nothing stopping it from doing so. While a Constitutional amendment to ban guns would obviously make the government’s job easier, it really doesn’t need one; Congress can just go ahead and ban guns, the Constitution not withstanding.
Bull.
The end result would go right back to what I said. Eventually, you’d have to start putting millions of “regular people” into prisons. It can’t happen without civil war; without an attempt to overthrow the government that is trying to perpetrate it.
And if there is no prison sentence initially attached to it, just a fine, it will still end up with throwing millions in jail, because these people won’t pay it. If they attach it to their wages, they would strike.
So, if it is without penalties, and there is no knocking door-to-door to round up the guns (which also wouldn’t work, BTW), the guns ain’t going anywhere. And guns have a tendency to last.
Milossarian: I don’t disagree with you that banning firearms could cause a civil war. But the truth is, no one really knows what the response of the people will be, correct?
The original question asked if it was possible for the federal government to ban the private ownership of firearms. My answer is a resounding yes. There is absolutely nothing to stop the government from doing so. Nothing.
As far as “throwing millions of people in jail”: This depends on how many people comply. Let’s face it, an overwhelming majority of people complied when the government told them to turn their gold over to the Federal Reserve, correct?
The unfortunate fact is that anti-gun sentiment in this country grows every year. It is only logical, then, to assume there will come a time in the future when a majority of the people no longer think we have a personal right to keep and bear arms. When this time comes, Congress and the states will attempt to pass an amendment to the Constitution. If the amendment fails, Congress will simply pass a prohibition law anyway, claiming that “only the National Guard has right to keep and bear arms.” A “progressive” Supreme Court will agree, and the rest, my dear friend, is history.
If you think I’m being overly pessimistic, then please answer the question: Do you think Americans will still be allowed to practice their right to keep and bear arms 100 years from now? Or 200 years from now?
Note to moderator: As you can see, I’m trying real hard to answer the original question, and not debate the issue of gun control. It’s tough to abstain, but I think I’ll pull through O.K…
I believe what may be happening is a question of semantics.
is it ** possible **? well, it’s ** possible ** for Ronald Reagan to be elected president again. All it would take is for the Constitution to be changed, and then, and then.
I think what the others are saying is that:
What it would take is for a majority of them to be willing to commit political suicide, ALL at the SAME TIME, AND in both houses as well as each state government AND the president. Since all of the above are elected officials who want to keep their jobs, it’s unlikely to the point of absurdity to believe that it would happen.
AND, even if you believe that those rotten SOB’s we elected have this agenda in mind and will enact it accordingly, keep in mind that each would be subject to recall (probably within seconds) AND that any such legislation would have legal wrangling to go through before it became enforceable law (if it DID go into law, I’d think it would be only seconds again before some one got a court challenge going on it), so in addition to the colusion by all these legislators, you’d also need the judges to all stand in line in agreement. And by the time court challenges would wind their way, new public officials could be voted in to repeal such legislation.
So, given all of the components that would have to go into effect before it happened, you’re probably better off worrying about some thing else.
Or the majority could come to believe that there is no need to keep and bear arms and stop buying them.
Ok now this might be a dumb question but I thought the constitution doesn’t care about the majority. It is to protect the rights of the minority.
Am I wrong on this?
wring and I agree on a topic that involves guns and bullets?
If I were dead right now, I’d be doing a triple sow-cow in my grave. 
Crafter Man:
Perhaps you don’t. I, however, have no doubt whatsoever as to what the response would be. Doesn’t take great prognosticative skills; just common sense.
Millions of people, you can be assured, wouldn’t comply. And comparing this subject to gold might win the “Apples and Oranges of the Year Award.”
Are you saying that private citizens stopped possessing gold at any time? When?
How many people had gold bars around the house that they turned in to the federal reserve?
If you’re talking about what I think you might be talking about, people may have had dollars that indicated they were worth a certain amount of gold. Those dollars were replaced with other dollars of an exactly similar value, just not based on gold.
The constitution doesn’t mention gold. It does mention the citizenry’s right to keep arms.
To give a more General Question-like answer to the OP: Could the government take our gun rights away? On paper, it is theoretically possible for the government to amend the Constitution and abolish gun rights. The things that would have to happen, socially and politically, for this to occur, however, are so unlikely as to make it an impossibility in practical terms.
And I’m only talking about the elimination of the public’s gun rights. You move into a whole other realm of impossibility when you discuss the actual implementation of this gun rights removal, and actually undertake to remove firearms from the populus.
yea, I suspect that it’s a sign of the apocolypse. better get them generators a -runnin’