I think part of that plays into the mythical thinking that it would be a grand adventure as patriots took up bolt action rifles and bravely stood their ground against armies! Wolverines!!!11
[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
Considering that our troops in Iraq have been rounding up the personal weapons of the general population in Iraq without revolting, I think the gun lovers here grossly overestimate what the troops are willing to do to protect their sacred chunks of metal.
[/QUOTE]
Do you have a cite for this? I see pictures of civilians with guns in Iraq all the time. I thought this was one of the hardest things for our troops, distinguishing the difference between armed civilians, the various militia groups and insurgents. Not that it matters much, since comparing how Iraqis would react to having their guns taken away isn’t relevant to how Americans would react. Think of it this way…how would the French react to changes in their work and employment entitlements? Answer…badly, based on the fact that they generally cause riots and protests galore. Same thing if you tried to take away the guns by fiat in the US.
As for the OP, I agree with those saying that what happens entirely depends on how the 2nd is repealed and how guns are subsequently banned. If it’s done in some distant future when it’s coming from a very large majority of the public (and through a new amendment), then it probably won’t be much of a much-ness, with perhaps only a few die hard types hiding their guns or buying them covertly on the black market. If it were to happen today by fiat, then it would probably cause a revolt, with the political parties at each others throats, the military and police split and the majority of citizens (even those non-gun owners like myself) extremely unhappy at the least…and probably pissed off to the point of violence at worst. I don’t believe it’s even possible to make this liberal fantasy come true in the current political climate and trying to do so by fiat (which is the only way you COULD do it) would set the country off like a time bomb.
-XT
Well, if anyone has good reason to want to keep their guns, it’s probably the people of Iraq. American revolutionary culture is pretty much purely theoretical at this point; I imagine the average Iraqi gun owner has probably fired it at least once in anger over the last 10 years (to defend their homes or businesses from looters and the like, if not against insurgents or foreign troops).
They don’t (afaik) have the culture of gun ownership as a ‘right’, so it’s a different situation. They certainly have practical reasons for wanting to keep their guns, especially the militia and insurgent types, but the general population is probably more ambiguous about it.
I’d also like to see that cite from DT, since, like I said, I’ve seen a lot of pictures from Iraq and a lot of them show openly armed Iraqis, generally not in uniform. I’ve also read a lot of things that indicate that the armed Iraqi populace has given us problems in the past, since it makes it hard to distinguish who is just an armed civilian, an armed militia and an armed insurgent that may be trying to kill you. It would certainly make things a lot easier on the troops if they could simply open fire on any armed Iraqi not wearing a uniform, but this seems as much a fantasy as the supposition that the 2nd could be repealed in the current political environment. However, if DT has a cite I’d certainly be interested in seeing how we are rounding up all the civilian arms in Iraq.
-XT
I’m agreeing with those who say that this could not happen overnight in the USA at this time. I’m really not worried that tomorrow morning, there will be jackbooted thugs doing door to door searches for guns. At this time, I really do believe that the citizens would be upset enough to do more than just tweet about it.
However, I’ll play along. The President is setting himself up to be dictator. This will mean that most of the military will be discharged for various “reasons” and the recruitment process will change. It takes quite a while for military people to be trained well enough to send a whole army into the country they are sworn to defend for door to door searches, and the news would get out.
During that time, many people will do what I would do. MOVE! Canada will be overrun with political refugees. English would become the common language in Mexico. I don’t know a single person who would willingly live somewhere that they know that jackbooted thugs roam the streets and kick in doors.
If I couldn’t figure out a way to leave, I’d turn in the guns I’m sure are known and start making quiet noises about wanting to be compensated for them. I wouldn’t make loud noises. I also wouldn’t turn in all of my guns, only the ones that are known, and maybe that worn out Taurus revolver. (yes, guns do wear out. Some people are naturally good shots, some need lots of practice. I’ve also worn out a a semiauto.)
When the jackbooted thugs kicked my door in, I’d go down, but I don’t think I’d go alone. I’ve read enough history to know that I’d rather be dead than live in Nazi Germany.
That’s exactly my point. Even the most ardent 2nd Amendment worshipper is not going to be as opposed to giving up his guns as someone who may or may not see it as a civil right, but sees the barbarians at the gate, as it were.
i think the point of Trih’s observation was to note the willingness of US forces to confiscate arms rather than the willingness of Iraqis to give them up. The fact that some Iraqis still had weapons after others had theirs confiscated has no bearing on that.
Cite that US forces confiscated weapons to follow.
This is not “playing along” with the OP-this is adding crap to the OP so that you can play out some sort of fantasy.
[QUOTE=Really Not All That Bright]
That’s exactly my point. Even the most ardent 2nd Amendment worshipper is not going to be as opposed to giving up his guns as someone who may or may not see it as a civil right, but sees the barbarians at the gate, as it were.
[/QUOTE]
Let’s put it another way then. How willing would the average American be to give up their freedom of speech, say? Would they be willing to give that up? What if, by fiat, the government decided to re-institute slavery (it was legal under the original Constitution after all)? Would they just go along?
The difference between the situation in Iraq and the US wrt snagging up all the guns is that there would be a small minority of citizens in Iraq who would go ballistic if you tried to take their guns away, and it would probably spark further insurgency. However, if you tried to do this in the US you would spark a general revolt wrt large scale protest and a hell of a lot more heated political dissension than we currently have. What do you suppose the Republican party would be doing if this were happening? Hell, what would a non-zero portion of the Democratic party be doing? What would be happening at the state and local levels?
It’s not some crack pot 2nd Amendment ‘worshipper’ types who would be freaking out, with the rest of us just sort of mildly interested in the outcome. Were that the case then the gun snatcher types would already be doing a hell of a lot better in snatching those evil guns from our collective grasp…and that doesn’t seem to be happening. Basically, the folks who want to outlaw all gun ownership have about as much chance of having that happen through the normal channels and processes of our political system as someone who wants to bring back slavery or get rid of the Freedom of Speech. Ain’t gonna happen in the current political climate and using the Constitutional process. Maybe in 50 years, or a hundred years, or 500…but not today, not as things are right now. And trying to simply force it would be more akin to the French trying to reduce entitlements and cut out some of the dampers on employment…it would be explosive.
-XT
[QUOTE=kevlaw]
i think the point of Trih’s observation was to note the willingness of US forces to confiscate arms rather than the willingness of Iraqis to give them up. The fact that some Iraqis still had weapons after others had theirs confiscated has no bearing on that.
[/QUOTE]
The devil is in the details. Confiscate weapons randomly from every citizen they see with a weapon, or confiscate them from people engaged in using those weapons? It certainly has bearing depending on which of those is true. Because, if they are confiscating them from every citizen they see with said weapon, then they aren’t doing a very good job. If the later, then the assertion is flawed.
Fair enough.
-XT
Giving the OP the benefit of the doubt, if the 2nd Amendment were repealed AND laws were passed that banned ownership and possession of all firearms, I would turn them in upon demand. I am a law-abiding citizen, and if that’s the law I’m going to follow it.
Under other less-lawful circumstances, however, I would be more resistant. How resistant I would be and what measures I would take are entirely dependent upon the scenario involved.
Huh?
Dude, this is not the thread for this not to mention this has been done before.
If you think it is only in the minds of liberal graduates at a handful of universities that…
“A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”
…is the same thing as…
*“The right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
*
…then you apparently do not understand English.
I know you want it to be the latter but, news flash, it is written as the former.
Certainly it is not amiss or retarded or making shit up to point out the language difference there.
Indeed it is you who wishes to ignore a distinct part of the Constitution because it suits you.
Of the two of us that would make you someone who does not support the Constitution. You rather support something in your imagination that looks a bit like it.
I wondered at the time what gun-rights people would say about confiscating guns from people that needed them to fight against a hostile government.
Here’s what the libertarian party had to say at the time.
As far as I know, the NRA supported the confiscation or, at least, had no comment.
It’s the interpretation of what those two sentences MEAN (separately as well as together) that is the little fly in the ointment, Whack-a-Mole, not the ability to read and understand English. Since it’s highly controversial and there is a hell of a lot of debate on this, I’d say it’s not as cut and dried as you seem to be saying.
-XT
And I agree with you-on both parts.
Fair enough but my original post, that he was replying to, merely noted that there existed an honest and legitimate contention on what the words meant.
He responded with, “Your “honest and legitimate contention” exists in the minds of the graduates of a handful of liberal universities (albeit prestigious ones) on the east and west coasts, and a few northern cities like Chicago.”
Do you think the debate is reasonable or a matter of an odd interpretation of a few graduates of a handful of liberal universities?
i think your average citizen would willingly give up their freedom of speech or, more likely, watch it gradually eroded to nothing. No fiat required.
Due process, protection from warrantless search, suspension of habeus corpus, right to a trial… Most americans would shrug as those things disappear. I have no reason to think that 2nd amendemnet rights would be any different.
The percentage of people who care about those things is very small. The last 8 years have demonstrated that.
[QUOTE=kevlaw]
I wondered at the time what gun-rights people would say about confiscating guns from people that needed them to fight against a hostile government.
[/QUOTE]
First off, this was in 2003, and it was by the CPA, so I’m unsure how relevenat it is today. If such a ban has been put in place it’s been particularly unsuccessful, since as far as I can tell the Iraqi populace is still pretty heavily armed. Secondly, this was a ban on fully automatic and crew served weapons…weapons that have been banned in the US for decades. Third, it seems to have an, um, certain political skew to it (the title is ‘NRA Weasel Watch, Day 7’, not exactly going for the unbiased and balanced view point there, ehe? :p), so it’s sort of grain of salt time.
From your cite (first paragraph):
My emphasis. So…this ‘ban’ is actually less invasive than the current bans we have here in the US. Not exactly the horror of a total ban that DT implied, since most of the weapons on that list aren’t ones that most civilians could or would under any circumstances need (stuff like crew served machine guns and rocket propelled grenades).
-XT
Yep. Me too.
I think the OP distills down to:
If the constitution were changed by lawful means, would you support the constitution, or would you oppose it.
[QUOTE=Whack-a-Mole]
Do you think the debate is reasonable or a matter of an odd interpretation of a few graduates of a handful of liberal universities?
[/QUOTE]
No, certainly not…the other side of the coin is that if it were simply a handful of intellectuals and ivory tower types then the anti-gun movement wouldn’t have gotten any traction either. While I think that the anti-gun movement (as opposed to the gun regulation folks, of which I’m actually one) has always had less numbers and traction than the opposite side, they aren’t just a few college professors and intellectuals smoking pipes and passing the faculty fodder about.
-XT