If I wanted to drag this thread off-topic so damn fast your head would spin I could attempt to accede to your request, because both you and I know there would be no reasons given that everyone would approve of as satisfying your questions. This would turn into “No-THAT wouldn’t make the hypothetical happen!” thread. If you want to start such a thread, go right ahead-In the meantime, why don’t you just make-up any answer that you like and go on from there to the questions in this thread.
If you cannot do this, then all I can do is say “Sorry”.
He’s not happy to see you?
I think that would be the main driver that would lead to a huge black market for guns. Police respond after the fact - they don’t protect.
I don’t agree that your conclusion is true.
Here are two possible answers:
(1) Buttfrack the Stinky Mage casts a spell over the entire country that every adult of voting age very interested in, and amenable to, repeal; the spell vanishes the moment the 38th state legislature finalizes its vote with all affected persons retaining their memory of events but restored to whatever attitudes they had pre-Buttfrack.
(2) Armed terrorists simultaneously gun down hundreds thousands of Christmas shoppers in every state, following a landmark court ruling extending the Second Amendment to fully automatic weapons; the backlash allows adroit anti-gun-rights politicos the room to quickly ram through repeal.
Which is closer to your hypothetical?
The two will produce different answers.
Wayne LaPierre and Ted Nugent mow down the Mormon Tabernacle Choir on Christmas Day using legally acquired weapons, and leave behind a note thanking every single politico by name that took their money/support over the years, okay? Now can we get back to the actual topic of this thread?
In countries without a 2nd Amendment, there is not “huge black market for guns”. There are illegal means of obtaining a gun, but they are not “huge”, to my knowledge.
The police, in the US, act like police in most first world countries. They respond to calls. We don’t live in a police state, under constant surveillance and lock-down. Nor would most people wish to do so.
I prefer the “For no clear reason every single state and district elects Democrats into every federal seat, and they go on a drunken celebratory bender and when they wake up the second amendment is gone” model. The discussion is more interesting the fewer changes we make to public attitudes; if the second amendment is repealed because every non-criminal has started hating guns and already disposed of theirs things are too easy.
This is the topic of this thread.
So, reasonably close to my (2) offering.
In such an event:
Would you accept such a repeal, or deny its legality?
A: Accept it; it’s clearly legal.
How do you think various factions will react?
Anti-gun activists will immediately begin lobbying for legislation to restrict gun rights similar to, and stronger than, prior legislation thwarted by the Second. Complete bans on handguns and semi-auto rifles would be common goals.
Prog-gun-rights folks would be working on re-instating the Second, in the same way that the 21st undid the 18th. This would be an uphill battle.
What about sort range and/or long range results of such an action?
Blue states would be essentially legal-gun free while red states would be relatively unchanged. Crime in red states would remain low, and climb in blue states, which anti-gun activists would claim was the result of guns coming in from the red states.
Not one-third, but a sizable percentage would, yes. I grew up in Chicago but lived in Wyoming, which has the highest gun-ownership rate per capita in the country, for a very long time. Talk of armed rebellion in the event the government should repeal the Second Amendment was surprisingly frequent. I realize this is anecdotal, but I’m unaware of any polls on the subject of armed rebellion. I can assure you, however, that should the Second Amendment somehow get repealed, it would indeed mean just that.
Guns certainly take a relatively high level of technology to produce…or the machine tools and stock if you aren’t mass producing them. But wrt guns, there are more guns in the US today than there are people, so even if you ban them and then do some sort of buyback (I assume that’s the plan) and then make them illegal there will still be 10’s if not hundreds of millions of them out there. Making ammo is, of course, much easier…I know at least a dozen people who reload and have the materials to reload for years if not decades. And those materials would be pretty easy to smuggle in…at least as easy or easier than smuggle in drugs. So, I do see the situation as being comparable, as I think that even if you got the majority on board, the minority would still be comparable in numbers to the number of Americans who, say, abuse illegal drugs today. Millions in other words, if not 10’s of millions.
Um…huh? We are talking about after getting rid of the 2nd Amendment and, presumably, banning guns and ammo. Of COURSE, it’s more convenient to go to the store today to buy a gun or ammo, but that wouldn’t be an option, just like today you can’t go to the store for some heroin or cocaine…or in Soviet Russia for a pair of western jeans. The point is, there would be a black market for guns and ammo in the event of such a ban, and a lot of people would still have access to guns and ammo in the real world. In countries that have bans, after all, people still have access to guns…and in most of those countries they didn’t start out from a position where there were more guns than there are people, which is the current case in the US.
Not sure. Why aren’t there unicorns sticking up virgins in Mongolia? Have you thought of that?
IOW, WTF are you talking about?
You presume wrong-That was never even implied in the OP. You are jumping down that particular “slippery slope” all on your own.
You mentioned 3 countries who presumably have crackdowns on blue jeans, South Korean dramas, and Internet access through a VPN. And you postulated that people still buy blue jeans, watch South Korean dramas, and access the Internet through VPNs despite the illegal nature of those actions. I assume you are comparing that to a crackdown on guns in the US, whereby only criminals would still have access to weapons, and a crackdown wouldn’t stop them, similar to Russia not being able to stop blue jean connoisseurs from purchasing their highly sought after wares on the black market.
My question to you is, what are Japan and England doing differently that prevents a huge black market of guns? One whereby all manner of criminals are illegally purchasing weapons to terrorize the unarmed populace with. If “If we criminalize guns, only criminals will have guns” is such a universal truth, why does it not apply to other countries with stricter gun laws than the US?
It wasn’t the case with your OP, but it was certainly the case with the posters I was replying too. So, no…it wasn’t all just me jumping down that slippery slope. The thread has moved further than your OP…which, btw, I answered in the spirit of the OP.
Nice try though. Bet you didn’t know about that scroll up function. It trips up a lot of folks…
So, you agree that it would decrease the number of guns in the hands of criminals, then?
Or are you saying that we shouldn’t do anything that would decrease the number of guns in the hands of criminals unless we can guarantee that no criminal anywhere, can ever get a gun, otherwise, ti’s not worth it?
I’m saying neither. I doubt it would decrease the number of guns in the hands of criminals, it would merely increase the number of people who would be criminals, since by definition if we banned guns and ammo, as begbert2 suggested in the post I was originally responding to, people who chose not to turn in their guns or ammo would be criminals. Right? As to the second sentence, I have no idea where that’s coming from or what sort of gotcha you are going for. I’m frankly mystified by both your response and whatever the hell manson1972 is on about. He was one of the people I responded to and it’s almost like he didn’t recall the conversation that was going on and can’t scroll up to just look at how it panned out.
Since the 2nd Amendment is a declaration that the government has not taken authority in a certain area, I’m not sure that it can be repealed.
If you have just bought an apple, for example, and I reach over and pluck it out of your hand and take a bite, have I just repealed your ownership of the apple?
The usage doesn’t make sense.
For the people of the country to delegate authority to control weapons to the government, sans limites, would be something more like “dismissing the 2nd Amendment” rather than “repealing”.
Huh? There is the precedent for repealing an Amendment. The 18th Amendment was specifically repealed by the 21st, so this would be the same thing.
my scrolly dohicky is broken!