How do you defend yourself vs a intruder with a gun, without one?
The Second Amendment doesn’t say anything at all about “guns”; it talks about arms. Looking over this list of state constitutional right to keep and bear arms provisions, they mostly don’t say anything about “guns” either. (Florida has language in there about having a waiting period for handguns; Idaho has several provisions which specifically mention “firearms”.)
But as DrDeth points out, the American tradition of a right to keep and bear arms means that you can’t put law-abiding people on a lesser footing, arms-wise, than ordinary criminals. I would also point out that jurisdictions which ban (or massively restrict) guns tend to then move on to ban other sorts of arms as well. Following on the Heller and McDonald decisions, in the 2016 Caetano v. Massachusetts case the Supreme Court had to strike down a state law outlawing electric “stun guns” (which the SCOTUS actually did unanimously). Further afield, there have been recent reports of a crackdown in the UK on people carrying knives; and a couple of threads from here on the SDMB–from 2002 and 2017–make it clear that, in Canada, you may not carry anything for self-defense against your fellow humans; not even pepper spray. You may only be armed for self-defense in public places against bears and such. Which presumably makes it hard for law-abiding Canadians walking around in, say, downtown Toronto, to be anything but completely disarmed at all times.
I’m not understanding something here, probably I’m reading it wrong. Are you saying that these anti-gun folks imagine a country where if the 2nd Amendment no longer exists that means other constitutional rights will be forfeited as well? But only by gun owners?
Are there actually anti-gun people who seriously want to see gun owners lose Constitutional rights (other than the 2nd Amendment)?
Human rights are not natural rights. Human rights are instituted by humans to protect humans from other humans. Human rights are not respected by nature. I would not expect a tornado to change its path to avoid killing people. I do expect humans to eschew slavery, even where permitted by law. You have no human right to own a gun, as evidenced by societies around the world. That is uniquely American.
If the government is willing to use deadly force to strip Americans of their 2nd Amendment rights, I feel like that’s exactly the sort of scenario the 2nd Amendment was designed with in mind.
Yes, there are proposals in this thread that mention same.
So my question for 2nd amendment types what if it was done in a completely above board constitutional fashion? A constitutional convention is called, which decides to revoke the 2nd amendment, and explicitly gives the government the right to confiscate the now illegal arms. It is ratified by the states and becomes law. No executive orders or tyrants involved, all legit and by the book.
Not that I think that is either a good idea, or a remotely likely outcome (IMO a constitutional convention is a sure fire way to make sure all thoughts of extremist nonsense ends up in the constitution).
But as a hypothetical, what do you do gun owners? Are you still waiting in the attic with your assault rifle when feds come for your guns?
Well, what King George did to the Colonists was legal. Yet they took up arms against him.
So, it depends.
There would be sporadic violent resistance. Most people would probably just allow it. But if the government took away everyone’s guns, they would of course be violating the right to bear arms that’s in the 2nd amendment. And if they did that, whatever political party was behind the decree would be “dead to me” in terms of whether I would ever vote for them again.
I’m willing to accept regulation around gun ownership, such as background checks, concealed carry laws, and so forth. But having my guns confiscated is a no-no. I have handguns, shotguns, and rifles at home. They’re mine, and no government should be able to take them from me. It’s tyranny. Would I resist with violence? No. But I would become more politically active than you can ever imagine if my 2nd amendment rights were taken away.
There will be pockets of violence though. You can rest assured that not everyone will allow this without a fight. Guns are hugely important in rural areas of America, and I do believe some cops would be killed.
As a law-abiding Canadian who occasionally has a need to walk around downtown Toronto, I don’t see any problem with this at all.
With fairly little effort, I’m sure I could come up with 1000s of ways to defend against an intruder with a gun, without a having a gun.
This can’t possibly be a serious question.
Criminals don’t have guns in Canada? I haven’t read of bands of illegally-armed criminals holding the good citizens of Canada hostage in their homes. With Canadians unable to practice self-defense with even the most rudimentary of weapons, why aren’t criminals running rampart in the streets with illegally obtained weapons, terrorizing everyone and everything?
Banning private guns will accomplish things without confiscation. It will dry up the market for guns and ammo. It will severely limit opportunities to use your guns or show another person your gun collection without risking imprisonment.
Owning a handgun will be like owning a brick of cocaine. You can’t display it, you can’t show it off to your friends, you can’t use it, and you can’t sell it.
The only reason to keep it is to defend yourself from a violent criminal, knowing that actually using it for that purpose will put you in jail right next to him.
I hate to break this too you, but folks actually do sell bricks of cocaine. All the time. As for the rest of that, ammo will probably not be that much of an issue…there is a LOT of it out there after all, plus it’s not exactly rocket science to make new. Along the lines of the cocaine thingy, I’m fairly sure that if there is a market for now illegal ammo that folks will be more than happy to make it and sell it illegally.
As for displaying them to others, again, folks display illegal shit to their friends and family quite often, so I don’t see that as a big deal. I also don’t see a ban along the lines you are implying being realistic in any way. Hell, even in countries with very heavy restrictions on guns they don’t generally go that far. And, ironically, even in countries with the sorts of draconian measures you are implying, such as China or North Korea, there are STILL (illegal) guns out there in private hands. And these are countries that have no issue with shooting folks who cross the line in the head or cutting them up for parts.
You find a brick of cocaine on the street, who do you sell it to?
Sure, if you’re part of a cocaine syndicate, I’m sure you have your pick of possible buyers, but you’re not. You’re just some otherwise law abiding rando with this brick of shit that would get you 10 years in jail, and that might net you a decent amount of cash if you managed to sell it.
The value proposition of owning a gun changes dramatically. It’s not going to make them all go away overnight, but over time, the pressure of no legal market, no legal ability to use, even for self defense, will cause people to give up their guns voluntarily.
Yeah. In 1776. Welcome to the 21st century. It’s a little different.
You just have to love how some of these people who in every other instance will side with The Forces of Law and Order (especially when it deals with questionable shootings of minorities) threaten to go Full-On Rambo in a scenario where law-enforcement personnel, acting completely within the bounds of the law, knock on their door and ask nicely for the items now proscribed by law. The Bundy incident illustrated this all too clearly, with militant gun-owners crouching behind concrete walls aiming sniper rifles at federal marshals who were doing their job.
I thought we were talking about gun owners? Are you shifting the goal posts? If I OWN a gun, then I’m fairly sure I can find a buyer. If I’m IN the cocaine business, then, again, I could probably find a market for my wares. If I find a gun or brick of cocaine on the street and I don’t have any interest in it or knowledge of it, then I’ll probably turn it in to the police, or drop it in a dumpster.
As for the value of guns, let’s look at one of the types of guns that has been heavily restricted in the US and what that has done to market value. Fully automatic weapons are under heavy restrictions in the US. Of course, since this is reality and not fantasy, what the government did was grandfather in the existing owned weapons while clamping down on new ones being purchased. What that has done is make automatic weapons very expensive for private owners in the US. What making all guns illegal would do is…well, I’m not sure. The US would be such a different place that I can’t predict what that would look like, to be honest. Currently, I seriously doubt it’s possible at all. If you tried to do it, I doubt law enforcement would be uniform in enforcing the ‘law’, since it would be unconstitutional, illegal, and also because a lot of them wouldn’t believe in it…sort of like the mix in enforcement for, say, smoking pot. SOME LEOs will come down on it hard, some look the other way, some in-between.
You legally own a gun, you presumably participate in the legal gun market. Now that guns are illegal, you have to join the illegal gun market. Are your current market contacts any good? You have to find a buyer willing to commit a felony, and who isn’t working with the cops. Is your friend’s willingness to buy related to his interest in owning another illegal weapon, or is he getting a deal with the DA on his weapons arrest from 6 months ago?
It’s quite a different thing than knowing someone willing to hide his pistol collection in his basement.
Since they are almost certainly friends and family, I’m going to go with a really strong ‘maybe’. If you, by fiat, made guns illegal, then my guess is most gun owners would be pretty pissed at that, and aren’t going to play along. If you, through our process, gradually shift public opinion to where the majority don’t want or think they need a gun, and voluntarily give them up, then you put in something like a change of the Constitution that shifts or revokes the personal right to keep and bear arms and throws it on the states to decide what they will do, then you have states that for all intents and purposes bans guns, THEN you will probably get more buy in wrt gun owners voluntarily giving up the remaining guns or ratting out their friends trying to sell them an illegal gun.
Let me put this into context. Ever had a friend that smoked pot or used other illegal drugs? I’ve had…many. Did you rat them out to the police when you saw them using those drugs? Why or why not? And, more generally, do you think that most people who see friends or family using illegal drugs go to the police to turn them in? I’m guessing that there are very few, if any 'dopers or just general citizen who doesn’t know someone, personally, who uses or has used illegal drugs…and I’m guessing that for the most part, they don’t turn in their friends or family unless the situation is threatening (like they are a drug dealer who has a very good chance of getting not just themselves but their friends and family killed in the crossfire).
And 999 of them, you die.
Certainly it’s a serious question. :rolleyes: