Could the Government Take Our Gun Rights Away?

Factual Questions
41

It’s a little bit over simplistic, but you’re right for the most part.

Our Founding Fathers were fearful of monarchies; everyone knows that. But what most people don’t know is that our Founding Fathers were also very fearful of democracies. And I would have to agree with them on both counts. In fact, given the (only) choice, I’d rather live under a monarchist form of government than a pure democracy. (With a pure democracy, a society will often become a “mobocracy”, i.e. “mob rules,” wherein the minority has no protection whatsoever.)

As some others on this board have already pointed out, we are technically not a “democracy,” though we incorporate some of its elements such as elective representation and delegation. Instead, we are a constitutional republic. In theory, our Constitution could care less what the polls say, and rightly so. But there is a sneaky way around it: Just say the Constitution is a “living document” that is “open for creative interpretation.” My stock reply to anyone who claims our Constitution is a "living document is this: Why even have a Constitution, then?

42

It wouldn’t be a Gun Control Topic without me tossing my two-cents into the machine, so here goes:

I agree with just about everything everyone has so far said; I’m seeing degrees of difference in their answers, rather than differing viewpoints (a subtle distinction, but heck, I can slice the baloney pretty damned thin).

So I’ll instead encapsulate and summarize, with what I perceive as a “chance of happening” blurb.

1. Amend The Constitution.
Probability:<.000001

Yes, the mechanismes are in place to add an amendment repealing the 2nd. This doesn’t automatically equate to a gun ban, but if the repeal-the-2nd-amendment amendment were to be passed, there would certainly be no obstacle to a total gun ban law.

However, as has already been pointed out (and I wholeheartedly agree), to do so would require a massive, unprecedented act of mutual political suicide at the State and Federal level, not to mention a severely “packed” Supreme Court.

And actual implementation would be as problematic as has already been noted. Door-to-door “John Doe” searches would result in a nation-wide massive “Blue Flu” epidemic from almost every level of law enforcement. Activating the military to take over the job of door-to-door confiscations may cause massive desertions; at least the officer corps would mutiny, especially the Marines (who take their jobs, their country and particularly their Constitution very seriously. I am not kidding!).

Now at this point, conspiracy theorists will chime in and tell you about the “U.N. Peacekeepers” who are poised and ready to invade Amerika to enforce the Satanic Rule of the the “New World Order” one-world government. One of the itemds supposedly on their agenda is to go house-to-house searching for guns, confiscating them, and arresting and imprisoning the now former-gun-owners.
Probability: Check the Thermometer in Hell.

Believe as much or as little of the last paragraph as you choose.

2. Incremental Infringement.
Probability: >50%

This method, so far has been the preferred (and somewhat successfull) tactic of the gun-control people advocating total gun-bans. They attempt to throw legislative, regulatory and financial roadblocks into the path of gun-owners, they demonize and disparage gun-owners with offensive stereotypes.

They continuously try to have the bar raised a bit higher every year, with:

waiting periods: hoping prospective buyers become impatient and give up;

mandatory trigger locks: trying to drive up prices and discourage buyers;

mandatory storage laws: same;

mandatory liability insurance requirements: same;

"special" taxes on guns and ammo: same;

gun-owner licensing: to make the licensing process so incredibly byzantine as to make it impossible to obtain

raising minimum age requirements: to break the “generational” cycle of the “gun culture”

Bans on certain types of weapons: with more and more weapons being added over time, until eventually they’re all banned

There are more, but you get the idea.

I’ll point out that not all gun-control advocates are pushing for total bans; I believe that quite a few (maybe as high as 60%, IMHO) merely want an end to violence, and since gun violence is such an attention grabber, guns are quite naturally a focus for them. They seem to want more regulation, but not an outright ban.

The problem with this is that the total-ban faction (the most vocal and visible) would gladly sieze upon any reasonable compromise on the part of gun owners as a springboard for more and more restrictive regulation.

Which is why the NRA (and many other gun-owners) are so adamantly resistant to any further compromise.

I’ll readily admit to mud-slinging and fear-mongering on the part of both pro- and anti-gun sides; but the pro-gun side does seem to have a better handle on the math (statistics), history, law and technical aspects [of firearms] than the anti-gun side.

For instance: “Cop-Killer” Armor-Piercing Bullets

The categories of bullets that the gun-control crowd included would have virtually eliminated hunting in America (and animal-rights activists would be happy to see it go, but that’s another Question).

Technical: Bullets specifically designed to pierce armor are rare. They are manufactured in very limited quantities for law enforcement, and not sold to the general public, for reasons described below.

And there is no practical thickness of body armor capable of being worn that will protect a person from a standard hunting round from a medium-caliber, single-shot hunting rifle.

Math: The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms reprted to Congress that no law enforcement officer has ever been killed or even injured because an armor piercing bullet penetrated a bullet-resistant vest.
Law: Armor piercing bullets are already illegal, and have been so since 1986, and prohibit the manufacture and importation, for private use, of handgun bullets made of special, hard metals and (in a 1994 amendment) specially-jacketed lead bullets.

Another example: "Plastic Guns"

Supposedly “detection-proof” guns made from synthetic materials, used for nefarious purposes.

Technical: The entire issue was raised in response to reports concerning a particular firearm, the Glock 17. The Glock 17-constructed of more than a pound of hardened steel, about 83% of its total weight-was fully detectable by airport security systems when it was approved for importation by BATF.

Math and Law: As there are zero instances of any criminal activity with an “undetectable” gun, there are no laws against any particular, non-existent “undetectable” firearms.

The above statements are not meant to engender debate, but to illustrate my point that the gun-ban faction of the larger gun-control crowd will use any tactic to get their agenda of total gun-bans advanced.

And with what appears to be rampant voter apathy, a media that doesn’t bother to get their facts straight in the interest of a few ratings points (it seems fear is the #1 Bestseller in America nowadays) and politicians all-too-willing to jump on the whatever popular band-wagon come along, I give it slightly better-than-even odds of individual, private gun ownership in America completely disappearing by the end of this century.

ExTank
“Mostly Harmless :p”

43

I assume you mean the end of the 21st century, since the 20th doesn’t end until December 31st.

44

I wanted to comment on the “assault rifle” ban in California, and the ex post facto laws regarding ownership. When many specifically-listed firearms were banned in California, owners were allowed to keep them if they registered them with the state. I not only registered my Colt AR-15 (which was listed), but also my two non-Colt AR-15s that were not. I have a document that says they are registered and that I may own them in California.

When the National Firearms Act was passed in the 1920s(?), machine guns were banned. But people who owned them already could still own them after registering them and paying a $200 tax to the BATF (a lot of money at the time). As long as your state permits it, you may still buy a machine gun manufactured before a certain date by undergoing a background check (which I’ve heard could take months) and by paying the tax.

Can California declare an outright ban and confiscate registered guns? Yes. And those of us who are law-abiding citizens who registered our guns will be easy to find. But only a minority of us complied with the law. I have heard nothing in the news about unregistered “assault weapons” being used in crimes. The perpetators of the North Hollywood bank robbery a few years ago used AK-47/AKM-type machine guns that were banned by federal law decades ago. Anyway, while the state can ban guns outright, they have so far been unsuccessful confiscating the guns they’ve already banned.

If the federal government banned all guns, or even hand guns, the people behind the ban would probably soon be without jobs. Better to take “baby steps” to incrimentally strip people of their rights, rather than to make a bold move.

Don’t we also have an Ammendment that says, “Just because we didn’t list a specific right, doesn’t mean you don’t have it.”?

45

I’ve seen armor-piercing bullets kill a cop. It was in “Lethal Weapon 3”. It must be true if I saw it in that fine film.