My understanding is that to achieve what the OP is trying to do, you’d have to repeal the 2nd and possibly the 4th amendments and add a new one that says the government has authority to outlaw and confiscate guns.
One could argue that ignoring such drastic changes to the Constitution would be defending it. To answer the question, there is nothing I legally own today, including a gun, that I would voluntarily turn over if it were made illegal tomorrow.
The 2nd amendment did not apply to CA until 2010. Prior to that, the legislature did not ban all guns.
Are we talking about actually amending the Constitution, or a scenario where five Justices decide the Constitution is a living document and doesn’t say that guns can’t be banned?
Regards,
Shodan
If they repealed the first amendment, would you be content to give up your free speech right and never say anything negative about the government again?
Show your work.
I’m not trying to do anything. The poll comes from a discussion I had that is summarized in the first post. For the record, I don’t own any guns, nor do I favor banning them as the right to bear arms is in the Constitution, something that I swore to defend during my enlistment in the military.
My poll is related to the fact that many people seem to simply use “Constitutional Right!” as a reason why they have guns, which is fine by me. I simply wanted to know what people would do if they no longer HAD that Constitutional right, and personal ownership of firearms was made illegal. I felt that my friend (mentioned in the first post) didn’t really care what the Constitution said, it just so happens that NOW it agrees with her “I want to own a gun” position. I wanted to see if her opinion, and others here, would change if the Constitution, and related laws, DIDN’T support their position of “I want to own a gun”
Also, I highly doubt in the extreme the 2nd Amendment will be repealed in my lifetime, it is simply a mental exercise. If people were honest, which most aren’t, they would simply say “I want to own a gun no matter what any piece of paper says, or what laws are made”
Actually amending the Constitution, to avoid “Those judges can’t tell me what to do” arguments.
If you would like to create your own poll and find out, please feel free. However, that is not what is being discussed in THIS thread.
Let’s say for sake of argument, the former. Does it really make that much a difference? For me, it wouldn’t. (I don’t own any guns and am generally for stricter gun control, but if I did have a gun, I’d most likely squirrel it away somewhere, regardless as to the manner of how it is deemed unconstitutional.)
No, would be the answer.
That’s ridiculous, just because we can’t stop every single mass shooter and get rid of every single gun we shouldn’t try? Gun laws work, this is blatantly obvious to anyone not mired in the idiotic US gun culture. That said, there are so many guns around that even if we completely banned them today it would still be decades before it made a damn difference.
You miss the point. I’m not actually polling anyone. I’m just inviting them to understand what the answer to that question is for people who view self defense and the tools thereof as a fundamental human right.
That’s great, so your answer would be “I don’t care what the Constitution says, I have a fundamental human right to own a gun”?
In other words, vote “NO” in the poll above.
I’d give up my guns right now for fair market value. Under rulings on the 5th Amendment:
While the federal government has a constitutional right to “take” private property for public use, the Fifth Amendment’s Just Compensation Clause requires the government to pay just compensation, interpreted as market value, to the owner of the property. The U.S. Supreme Court has defined fair market value as the most probable price that a willing but unpressured buyer, fully knowledgeable of both the property’s good and bad attributes, would pay.
So if the 2nd Amendment were repealed, and if the government abided by the 5th Amendment and paid market value, then of course I’d surrender my guns.
Want to speed it up? Start a kickstarter campaign. Send me $50,000 and I’ll surrender my collection to the entity of your choice (as long as transfer to it is legal).
If the US changed so radically that the 2nd amendment were annulled. . . then, by that time I might be able to turn in my guns. But, these days I think we’re so far from that, then if it happened anytime soon it would impossible to believe that some fraudulent activity didn’t take place.
Also, if the 2nd amendment were gone it wouldn’t make guns illegal. But when a federal ban of some type became law afterward. Then there would be states fighting it, yadda, yadda, yadda, lines might be drawn and we might end up with the blooding revolution we’ve all been waiting for.
But, I think the OPs question is pretty dumb. . . if the 1st ammendment were annulled would you turn in your bible? If there was no Bill of Rights would you still support the constitution? If, would you? gotchas like this are pretty lame.
Interesting that many gun owners, who often cite the Second Commandment as the centerpiece of their philosophy, would apparently ignore its repeal, taking their guns illegally into hiding!
Some people make fun of gun nuts by referring sarcastically to that centerpiece as the “God-given Second Commandment.” But we see that the reality is as strange as the parody.
Eh, whatever. If the law changes and The Government tells me I can’t have guns anymore, then I get rid of my guns. It’s not like I need one (or many) for anything.
How is it strange?
If there were no first amendment, would you still consider yourself to have the right of free speech? Why? Don’t you believe that the right of free speech is created by the first amendment? If it were repealed, would you stop speaking freely? Would you stop practicing your religion? The second amendment codifies the protection of a pre-existing human right, just as the first amendment does.
Almost all of your misconceptions of what people who believe in gun rights are stem from this fact: We believe it to be a fundamental human right, to have access to the tools of self defense. You disagree and don’t believe that to be a fundamental human right. But instead of simply acknowledging this difference in values, you have to exaggerate your position by pretending everyone who believes in gun rights is insane, random, capricious, clueless, moronic, and inconsistent. It’s all bullshit circle jerking to make yourself feel superior to those hated “gun nuts”, not an accurate assessment of the differences in philosophy.
Your premises and reasoning are flawed. The Constitution does not tell people what they can do. It’s a charter that tells the government what it can do and redundantly what it can’t.
Another who doesn’t understand junior high civics. Seriously how is it that voting age adults not understand the idea that power is delegated to the government by the people?
Thing is, your poll is pretty dumb, which explains people are instinctively trying to reframe it as an actual discussion. A rescue effort, if you will.