• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

If America banned the Second Ammendment tomorrow what would you do?

If America banned the Second Ammendment tomorrow what would you do?

  • Join a violent revolution

    Votes: 20 29.9%
  • Start a National Petition to repeal the act

    Votes: 17 25.4%
  • Move out the Country

    Votes: 2 3.0%
  • Celebrate

    Votes: 2 3.0%
  • Go on with my life and comply with the new law

    Votes: 17 25.4%
  • Other - state opinion below

    Votes: 9 13.4%

  • Total voters
    67
yes. Congress passed the Brady Bill, and folks who didn't like it put different people into power.

see? no need for mass-murder.

Did they repeal the Brady Bill? No? So putting different people in office did not do any good.
 
Last edited:
most background checks are completed while they're still on the phone.

No poop dude? having bought at least 50 guns since the instant background check was instituted I already knew that. back in the 1993 era you had to wait several days for no legitimate reason
 
Thus, military backing would be necessary in order to repeal the second. With full military support, It's not unreasonable to assume that 600 or so people could be protected from threats.

I think the Posse Comitatus Act would be relevant, here. It's illegal for the government to use the military to go to war against our own people.

I should hope that a significant majority of those in the military would refuse to do so anyway.
 
and no, we should not immediately resort to violence to address our political grievances. that is the resort of thugs & criminals.

This country would not exist if your way if thinking prevailed two centuries ago. Such cowardice may be what will ultimately doom this country.
 
So its gone from violent revolution for abolishing or violating the 2nd amendment to "rapes and pillages its own citizenry" that you'll stop with your 308?
IF the majority of the people demanded that the 2nd amendment be repealed in its entirety, would you, Turtle, go alone with this ??
We do NOT really have a "peoples democracy" (where the majority rule)...but still, IF a majority of the Congress voted to end the 2 nd admendent...
This action (limited ?) has occurred in England...are we that far behind ???
 
This country would not exist if your way if thinking prevailed two centuries ago. Such cowardice may be what will ultimately doom this country.

even in a thread about a parallel universe, you still feel the need to insult me.

sad.

and btw, wanting to use violence as a last resort, when more peaceful & democratic mans of addressing political grievances exist, is very American.

by your logic, because we didn't IMMEDIATELY resort to deadly violence to protest against British tyranny, and instead tried more peaceful means first, our Founding Fathers were in fact "cowards".
 
Last edited:
This country would not exist if your way if thinking prevailed two centuries ago. Such cowardice may be what will ultimately doom this country.
There are plenty of modern day Tories who think the government is above all else and infallible. These people have always had a dependent mentalility since the beginning of civilized society and have always done their best to enjoy the powers that come with "being kept" by an authoritative nanny such as a king, the state, or politbureau.
 
There are plenty of modern day Tories who think the government is above all else and infallible. These people have always had a dependent mentalility since the beginning of civilized society and have always done their best to enjoy the powers that come with "being kept" by an authoritative nanny such as a king, the state, or politbureau.

American Revolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

How come the Colonists didn't start using deadly violence in 1733, against British tyranny????

those pathetic cowards. They should have immediately risen up and killed the Brits right away. Cowards...all of them!!

;)
 
No but the idiotic waiting period went down the toilet a it should

Which disproves Thunder's point that you can simply elect new politicians to undo what was done.
 
And of course Bob, the Tories must defend their masters else they lose their umbrella. They must demonize those looking to reign in tyranny and oppression in order to protect their special treatment, kind of like little pets of the state, they must do all they can to rabble rouse against the rights of people so that theiir masters will remain happy. These modern day Tories use words like rights where they have none, they try their best to sell disarmament under the transparently and patently false premises of public safety, they constantly contort the "social safety net" definition to fit the agenda, and they always hide behind "the people" that they so disdain.

The reason they cower so is because they know that once their masters tyranny ends, not only does their lifestyle as they have no actual use in polite and open society but they also know that they too could be called to answer for their empowerment of the tyrants and it scares them too. After all, tyrants and Tories tend to be cowards.
 
Which disproves Thunder's point that you can simply elect new politicians to undo what was done.

its one thing to talk about immediately resorting to violence to oppose tyranny, when you live in the USSR, East Germany, North Korea, or Iran. these countries are/were police states, where political dissent was/is crushed with an iron fist.

But in the USA, Canada, Britain, France....we have the freedom & right to address political grievances loudly & peacefully, without any fear of having our rights trounced upon.

If legislation is passed in the USA that you do not like, you have MANY legal & peaceful methods to address these concerns, and change things to the way you like.

There is ZERO need to see deadly violence as the first & best way to address political grievances in the USA. Such is an attitude of an angry mob, who respects not democracy & peaceful coexistence. It is the attitude of fascists & terrorists, who first & foremost look towards violence to intimidate others into getting their way.

Its very unAmerican, and has no place in our society.
 
its one thing to talk about immediately resorting to violence to oppose tyranny, when you live in the USSR, East Germany, North Korea, or Iran. these countries are/were police states, where political dissent was/is crushed with an iron fist.

But in the USA, Canada, Britain, France....we have the freedom & right to address political grievances loudly & peacefully, without any fear of having our rights trounced upon.

If legislation is passed in the USA that you do not like, you have MANY legal & peaceful methods to address these concerns, and change things to the way you like.

There is ZERO need to see deadly violence as the first & best way to address political grievances in the USA. Such is an attitude of an angry mob, who respects not democracy & peaceful coexistence. It is the attitude of fascists & terrorists, who first & foremost look towards violence to intimidate others into getting their way.

Its very unAmerican, and has no place in our society.

Hmm it's unAmerican to advocate removing a tyrannical government. I beg to differ and I'll give you the first set of founding fathers on the matter.

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

From the bolded sections above it's obvious to see that a violent overthrow of the government is a right and duty of the people to do when a government becomes despotic. My state's Constitution enshrines the right to alter and abolish the government in its Bill of Rights.

Section 3. That the people of this state have the inherent, sole and exclusive right to regulate the internal government and police thereof, and to alter and abolish their constitution and form of government whenever they may deem it necessary to their safety and happiness, provided such change be not repugnant to the Constitution of the United States.

It is not against the Constitution of the United States to violently overthrow the government. I know, I know that you're going to say that the Constitution of the United States has a clause about the militia being called up in the cases of insurrection, but insurrection does not mean overthrowing the government. An insurrection's goal is to disrupt the current government not overthrow it. A good example of an insurrection would be the violent protests of the G8 summit in Seattle and in London. Here is the definition of insurrection as used by the founding fathers (compliments of Webster's 1828 Dictionary).

A rising against civil or political authority; the open and active opposition of a number of persons to the execution of a law in a city or state. It is equivalent to sedition, except that sedition expresses a less extensive rising of citizens. It differs from rebellion, for the latter expresses a revolt, or an attempt to overthrow the government, to establish a different one or to place the country under another jurisdiction. It differs from mutiny, as it respects the civil or political government; whereas a mutiny is an open opposition to law in the army or navy. Insurrection is however used with such latitude as to comprehend either sedition or rebellion.

There is nothing in the Constitution of the United States that is against a rebellion against the government. To claim that rebellion and overthrow of the government is unAmerican is very unAmerican as evidenced by the founding fathers' own words on the subject.
 
I agree with your first point completely, politicians would never risk a complete American disarmament without heavy backup. On the second point, while there may be 600 elected officials there are other targets in line as well. Even with the best technology people still find ways to get through the cracks and take opportunity shots at politicians, this is with a relatively sane populace that will not engage violence without a good reason. If, and of course this is a big if enough people felt that their last recourse was an armed attack the statistical probability of security breaches goes up incrementally. It's basically mid-level math which states the number of armed citizens with a signifigant percentage willing to engage severely stresses resources.

Obviously no one wants that but the logic and probability seems to fall with the populace.

If they repealed the 2nd, I was assuming they'd be OK with the collateral damage that would be those other targets.

Ultimately, though, my point was that repealing the second would have no impact on repealing further amendments because in order to repeal the second, they'd have to have more than enough power to render it meaningless to begin with.
 
Last edited:
If they repealed the 2nd, I was assuming they'd be OK with the collateral damage that would be those other targets.

Ultimately, though, my point was that repealing the second would have no impact on repealing further amendments because in order to repeal the second, they'd have to have more than enough power to render it meaningless to begin with.
I understand your point, think about this further. We are talking about people who would need to have the courts and bureaucrats to enforce their will, after the first wave of losses you would see less people willing to risk and or sacrifice their lives getting shot for a tyrannical law. Also of note is the idea that these politicians would pretty much have to be sequestered in a central location to fully allocate resources and they obviously get stir crazy as evidenced at how quickly they leave Washington when session ends. I don't think most of these politicians have the stomach for a long, drawn out security detail with a terminus uncertain. To summarize, I truly don't think it would be in their best interest to test the waters.
 
And of course Bob, the Tories must defend their masters else they lose their umbrella. They must demonize those looking to reign in tyranny and oppression in order to protect their special treatment, kind of like little pets of the state, they must do all they can to rabble rouse against the rights of people so that theiir masters will remain happy. These modern day Tories use words like rights where they have none, they try their best to sell disarmament under the transparently and patently false premises of public safety, they constantly contort the "social safety net" definition to fit the agenda, and they always hide behind "the people" that they so disdain.

The reason they cower so is because they know that once their masters tyranny ends, not only does their lifestyle as they have no actual use in polite and open society but they also know that they too could be called to answer for their empowerment of the tyrants and it scares them too. After all, tyrants and Tories tend to be cowards.


using violence to address political grievances, when peaceful & legal means exist, is a form of tyranny...and a form of terrorism.

killing people that you don't like, or that have views that you don't like, is murder.

its one thing to talk about immediately resorting to violence to oppose tyranny, when you live in the USSR, East Germany, North Korea, or Iran. these countries are/were police states, where political dissent was/is crushed with an iron fist.

But in the USA, Canada, Britain, France....we have the freedom & right to address political grievances loudly & peacefully, without any fear of having our rights trounced upon.

If legislation is passed in the USA that you do not like, you have MANY legal & peaceful methods to address these concerns, and change things to the way you like.

There is ZERO need to see deadly violence as the first & best way to address political grievances in the USA. Such is an attitude of an angry mob, who respects not democracy & peaceful coexistence. It is the attitude of fascists & terrorists, who first & foremost look towards violence to intimidate others into getting their way.

Its very unAmerican, and has no place in our society.


Quod erat demonstrandum.
 
Last edited:
As others have pointed out, how would those repealing the amendment protect themselves from the danger imposed by the repeal?

They would protect themselves by not destroying the 2nd ammendment.
 
Hmm it's unAmerican to advocate removing a tyrannical government.....

who said anything about tyranny?

the OP only talks about a future where the 2nd Amendment has been repealed. It says nothing about democracy, free speech, freedom of association, being destroyed.

and the fact is, if freedom of expression, freedom to protest peacefully, and other democratic & peaceful means of addressing political grievances still exist, ONLY terrorists seek to change things through violence.

Let me say this again: if peaceful, legal, & influential means exist to address political grievances, only a terrorist seeks instead to use violent means to get his way.



...but to cool the engines of all those chest-beaters here, I shall also say this: in a parallel universe, where freedom of speech, assembly, & protest have been destroyed, and the USA has become an authoritatian police state like North Korea, East Germany, Iran, or China, then yes......violence may indeed be the only way to address legitimate political grievances.

But until such a parallel universe version of America exists, you have no ****ing business resorting to violence, when there are peaceful & powerful legal ways of addressing your grievances. You would be a terrorist, and deserve to treated like a terrorist.
 
Last edited:
who said anything about tyranny?

the OP only talks about a future where the 2nd Amendment has been repealed. It says nothing about democracy, free speech, freedom of association, being destroyed.

and the fact is, if freedom of expression, freedom to protest peacefully, and other democratic & peaceful means of addressing political grievances still exist, ONLY terrorists seek to change things through violence.

Let me say this again: if peaceful, legal, & influential means exist to address political grievances, only a terrorist seeks instead to use violent means to get his way.

When the government removes an unalienable (means it cannot be taken away) right then it has become a tyranny. I've already proven that freedom of expression has been destroyed by the DCMA earlier in this thread. Protesting peacefully puts you into a government database as possible terrorists which practically destroys that right. source in pdf It's nice of you to say that all of the people that fought the War of Independence are terrorists.

As for changing the government, when you have rampant computer voter fraud going on and the government enforcing a two party system it's very difficult to change the government. I point to the last 150 years of abuses heaped upon the American people by despotic government.
 
When the government removes an unalienable (means it cannot be taken away) right then it has become a tyranny. I've already proven that freedom of expression has been destroyed by the DCMA earlier in this thread. Protesting peacefully puts you into a government database as possible terrorists which practically destroys that right. source in pdf It's nice of you to say that all of the people that fought the War of Independence are terrorists.

As for changing the government, when you have rampant computer voter fraud going on and the government enforcing a two party system it's very difficult to change the government. I point to the last 150 years of abuses heaped upon the American people by despotic government.

so you're saying that the USA is now a tyrannical regime?

who says the right to own a gun is an "inalienable" right? The Constitution surely does not.
 
Back
Top Bottom