View Poll Results: If America banned the Second Ammendment tomorrow what would you do?

Voters
89. You may not vote on this poll
  • Join a violent revolution

    25 28.09%
  • Start a National Petition to repeal the act

    21 23.60%
  • Move out the Country

    3 3.37%
  • Celebrate

    5 5.62%
  • Go on with my life and comply with the new law

    19 21.35%
  • Other - state opinion below

    16 17.98%
Page 8 of 29 FirstFirst ... 67891018 ... LastLast
Results 71 to 80 of 283

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

  1. #71
    Klattu Verata Nicto
    LaMidRighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Louisiana
    Last Seen
    07-21-17 @ 02:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    30,534

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

    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
    I'd take out a multi-million dollar life insurance policy on every politician or judge who created such a thing

    I'd be worth several billion within 5 months
    I don't even think those policies would be underwritten due to external risk factors TD. Deep sea divers, drug addicts, and drag racers would have an easier time being accepted.
    Neither side in an argument can find the truth when both make an absolute claim on it.

    LMR

  2. #72
    Sage
    VanceMack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:33 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    54,662

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

    Quote Originally Posted by teamosil View Post
    Back in the founders' day the right to bear arms played a critical role in counterbalancing the threat to liberty that the government could potentially pose. It was like a safe catch. If all else failed to prevent the rise of some kind of totalitarian regime, if a lot of people had guns, they could put the regime down with force. At that time, it really was a serious right and a meaningful check on totalitarianism.

    But that isn't the case anymore. In order for the general population to be able to serve as an effective counter to the US military the general population would need to have destructive capabilities far, far, beyond anything society could survive. Nuclear weapons, stealth bombers, spy satellites, bioweapons... Stuff we can't possibly let people have. Look at Iraq. Tons of people with years of military or even terrorist experience, equipped with military weaponry and explosives... Surface to air missles, land mines, even chemical weapons... And still they don't pose a serious threat to our military. American civilians with shotguns wouldn't be 10% of the threat that the insurgents in Iraq are. So, the right to bear arms has lost it's role as the last defender of liberty.

    The real check now in that regard is that the military may choose not to comply with the orders of a totalitarian regime. But that's what would determine the outcome- how much of the military resisted and how much military hardware they were able to secure- not civilians with 22s.

    So, what we're left with is just a policy analysis- do guns provide more benefit than harm. I tend to think that they provide marginally more benefit than harm. They're useful tools if you live somewhere rural. In some situations they provide more defensive benefit than the risk of accidents they carry. But that isn't like a real "rights" type issue to me. In my view it's just a policy issue at this point. Actually, I think it would probably be more appropriate for it to be handled like other policy issues by the legislature rather than a constitutional right, but I don't really care either way. So I would not join a violent revolt or whatever.
    Funny how today after all these years people pretend to know the intent of the founders...who thought this right was such an important component they made it the second platform in the Bill of Rights...and that for some strange reason, those people today all seem to know that really...the founders believe just as they do...that people these days dont REALLY need this right after all.

  3. #73
    Sage
    teamosil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    San Francisco
    Last Seen
    05-22-14 @ 12:47 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    6,623

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

    Quote Originally Posted by VanceMack View Post
    Funny how today after all these years people pretend to know the intent of the founders...who thought this right was such an important component they made it the second platform in the Bill of Rights...and that for some strange reason, those people today all seem to know that really...the founders believe just as they do...that people these days dont REALLY need this right after all.
    You don't understand. Or at least you didn't present a counter argument.

    It was important in those days. The founders believed that and they were right. In those days the military's main weapon was the musket- same like any joe blow would have. But the world changed. That isn't true anymore.

  4. #74
    Sage
    VanceMack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:33 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    54,662

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

    Quote Originally Posted by teamosil View Post
    You don't understand. Or at least you didn't present a counter argument.

    It was important in those days. The founders believed that and they were right. In those days the military's main weapon was the musket- same like any joe blow would have. But the world changed. That isn't true anymore.
    Perhaps the rights of THE PEOPLE extend to more than just keeping the government in check. Perhaps the founding fathers saw a need for the citizens to maintain their right to self defense against both crown and the literally hundreds of thousands of violent criminal acts perpetrated against citizens daily. Considering the right WAS enumerated in the constitution...Id say you are doing nothing more than projecting your own personal bias against guns onto the issue. Just a thought.

    Stepping away from that...I believe the founding fathers would PUKE on anyone that would willingly disarm themselves and expect someone else to provide for their own security and the safety of their families.

  5. #75
    Guru

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 01:50 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,469

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

    Quote Originally Posted by teamosil View Post
    Back in the founders' day the right to bear arms played a critical role in counterbalancing the threat to liberty that the government could potentially pose. It was like a safe catch. If all else failed to prevent the rise of some kind of totalitarian regime, if a lot of people had guns, they could put the regime down with force. At that time, it really was a serious right and a meaningful check on totalitarianism.

    But that isn't the case anymore. In order for the general population to be able to serve as an effective counter to the US military the general population would need to have destructive capabilities far, far, beyond anything society could survive. Nuclear weapons, stealth bombers, spy satellites, bioweapons... Stuff we can't possibly let people have. Look at Iraq. Tons of people with years of military or even terrorist experience, equipped with military weaponry and explosives... Surface to air missles, land mines, even chemical weapons... And still they don't pose a serious threat to our military. American civilians with shotguns wouldn't be 10% of the threat that the insurgents in Iraq are. So, the right to bear arms has lost it's role as the last defender of liberty.

    The real check now in that regard is that the military may choose not to comply with the orders of a totalitarian regime. But that's what would determine the outcome- how much of the military resisted and how much military hardware they were able to secure- not civilians with 22s.

    So, what we're left with is just a policy analysis- do guns provide more benefit than harm. I tend to think that they provide marginally more benefit than harm. They're useful tools if you live somewhere rural. In some situations they provide more defensive benefit than the risk of accidents they carry. But that isn't like a real "rights" type issue to me. In my view it's just a policy issue at this point. Actually, I think it would probably be more appropriate for it to be handled like other policy issues by the legislature rather than a constitutional right, but I don't really care either way. So I would not join a violent revolt or whatever.
    I bet Kaddafi, Mubarak, Milosevic, Pinochet, Ceausescu, Duvalier, etc. all thought they had vastly superior fire power and could never be ousted.

    .

  6. #76
    On Vacation
    joko104's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Last Seen
    12-03-17 @ 03:32 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    31,568
    Blog Entries
    2

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

    Quote Originally Posted by jamesrage View Post
    What is actually alarming is the number of people who think that if the government decided to take away your constitutional rights that signing petitions and voting for other politicians will somehow restore those rights.If they can take away your rights or falsely reinterpret a right as a means of denying you a right then they can do the same thing with the first amendment,your right to vote and other many other rights.
    Why do some people who can't get what they want via elections (it would take a large majority vote to repeal the 2nd amendment) then conclude they will get what they want by violence?

    It is dunderhead talk and one the public would radically oppose, as would the government. Tens of millions believe what the government did at Waco with the Branch Dravidians was horrifically wrong. Even a jury found so. I did. Yet the public profoundly opposed Timothy McVey resorting to his act of terrorism against the government. My view as to kill the SOB. So was the view of the vast majority, regardless of the "injustice" of government he was retaliating against.

    It is known how the government always has and will react to revolution, violent or non-violent. The oft excessive opposition to the non-violent OWS the most recent example.

    The government and citizens both don't just have muskets face off with each other with now. The government has vast spying networks, massive numbers of law enforcement and military at all levels. Mini-guns and F16, tanks and helicopter gunships. Angry citizens revolting with their banana clip AR15s over the their right to keep them would either surrender or die quickly. And, like McVey, the vast majority of Americans would cheer their capture or deaths.

    If you can't keep your rights as you see them within the structure of our democratic republic - such as however it is - you will lose those rights. Democracy by design is ongoing NON-VIOLENT revolution.

    If you cannot win in our non-violent democratic election-revolution-option system, you absolutely cannot win by violence. The response to violent revolution is you get blown away. And you should. If you want to try to secure and hold your "rights" with weapons and violence, there are numerous countries you could move to where that is how rights are fought over.

    Here's the reality in the USA. Most people just want to live their lives, raise their kids, have a secure income, decent house and food, some hobbies, their Internet, cell phone and TV. They just want to live their own lives. When someone starts shooting? The overwhelming number of people want that person or group completely eliminated ASAP anyway possible. They won't care why the person is shooting. The shooting endangers them so they want that person or group wiped out right away.

    People wanting AR15s, 50 cal sniper rifles and such because they may have to fight the government is a major reason both the government and many people don't want anyone having those weapons. It's bad PR for the 2nd Amendment to claim weapons are needed to protect our rights from the government. You protect your rights at the ballot box. In THIS country you protect your rights with words and votes, not bullets and bombs.
    Last edited by joko104; 01-17-12 at 10:01 AM.

  7. #77
    On Vacation
    joko104's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Last Seen
    12-03-17 @ 03:32 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    31,568
    Blog Entries
    2

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

    Quote Originally Posted by TOJ View Post
    I bet Kaddafi, Mubarak, Milosevic, Pinochet, Ceausescu, Duvalier, etc. all thought they had vastly superior fire power and could never be ousted.

    .
    That doesn't work because they were taken out with superior firepower - for the most part specifically OUR MILITARY firepower. It wasn't revolutionaries and citizens with AK47s that make the difference. It was our military air superiority.

    The only revolution that could possibly succeed in this country would be if it had overwhelming military support in pro-active ways. Either way, private citizens' AR15s would add up to irrelevancy in that fight. And a military coop would not see the military handing out weapons to citizens, but taking them away. A military take-over rarely brings enhanced civil rights.
    Last edited by joko104; 01-17-12 at 10:08 AM.

  8. #78
    On Vacation
    joko104's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Last Seen
    12-03-17 @ 03:32 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    31,568
    Blog Entries
    2

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

    Quote Originally Posted by VanceMack View Post
    Perhaps the rights of THE PEOPLE extend to more than just keeping the government in check. Perhaps the founding fathers saw a need for the citizens to maintain their right to self defense against both crown and the literally hundreds of thousands of violent criminal acts perpetrated against citizens daily. Considering the right WAS enumerated in the constitution...Id say you are doing nothing more than projecting your own personal bias against guns onto the issue. Just a thought.

    Stepping away from that...I believe the founding fathers would PUKE on anyone that would willingly disarm themselves and expect someone else to provide for their own security and the safety of their families.
    Except in warfare I can't recall any accounts of any of the founding fathers carrying a musket or sidearm. Can you?

    The actual purpose of the 2nd amendment is exactly what is says - specifically to maintain a militia and in a time when the government maintained essentially no military and even minimal law enforcement personnel. It says nothing about self defense from criminals.

    People can debate and vote on gun rights issues. However, most claims of a constitutional right or intent of the "founding fathers" isn't accurate.

  9. #79
    Sage
    VanceMack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:33 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    54,662

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

    Quote Originally Posted by joko104 View Post
    Except in warfare I can't recall any accounts of any of the founding fathers carrying a musket or sidearm. Can you?

    The actual purpose of the 2nd amendment is exactly what is says - specifically to maintain a militia and in a time when the government maintained essentially no military and even minimal law enforcement personnel. It says nothing about self defense from criminals.

    People can debate and vote on gun rights issues. However, most claims of a constitutional right or intent of the "founding fathers" isn't accurate.
    Understanding what we do about the character and nature of our foundign fathers, I cant see them creating or allowing for a revolving door criminal justice system that puts so many violent offenders on the street, nor do I see them tolerating the "wah, poor me take care of me", entitlement system that breeds sloth and has contriubuted to the decline of our society. People tended to do everything they could do for themselves before turning to others. They worked to til lands, farm fields, build a nation, not sit on mommies couch playing Xbox and then complaining about how hard and unfair life is. It wasnt in the nature of people that stood up a great country to be dependent...on anyone or anything...to do for them what they themselves could do.

  10. #80
    Sage
    jamesrage's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    A place where common sense exists
    Last Seen
    12-10-17 @ 09:23 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    31,067

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

    Quote Originally Posted by joko104 View Post
    In THIS country you protect your rights with words and votes, not bullets and bombs.
    If the government strips away your constitutional right to keep and bears then words and ballot boxes will be completely useless because the government can take those away to.

    People wanting AR15s, 50 cal sniper rifles and such because they may have to fight the government is a major reason both the government and many people don't want anyone having those weapons. It's bad PR for the 2nd Amendment to claim weapons are needed to protect our rights from the government.
    Considering one of the intents of the 2nd amendment to stop a tyrannical it is not bad PR to claim that weapons are need to protect our rights.What you are claiming amounts to saying it is bad PR to say that a car is for driving or that it is bad PR to say that oranges are orange.
    "A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murder is less to fear"

    Cicero Marcus Tullius

Page 8 of 29 FirstFirst ... 67891018 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •