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 9 of 29 FirstFirst ... 789101119 ... LastLast
Results 81 to 90 of 283

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

  1. #81
    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
    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.



    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.
    Full auto 50 cals aren't like cars and oranges.

    The REALITY is that the overwhelming majority of Americans are fully against people having arsenals of weapons for the purpose of taking on the government. They are seen are exorbitantly dangerous and history shows within those ranks are exorbitantly dangerous people.

    But I also stated it is nonsensical given whatever weapons you have don't equate to slingshots compared to the government's firepower. So it is really isn't that your weapons are to stop a tyranny. It is a desire to be able to become a martyr of a violent death. The government will always fulfill that wish anyone pursues. Explain how your weapons would stop tyranny of the government.

    Don't misunderstand. I'm a big time gun owner. I can likely speculation the firepower of my weapons vastly exceeds whatever you have as I have licensed Class III and Destructive Device licenses and weapons. I have my own views on this subject, some of which are complex in terms of private gun ownership. Where I disagree with you is the notion that guns serve any purpose towards stopping government tyranny and that claiming they do is counter productive to protecting gun ownership rights. The persuasive point is protecting loved ones and yourself against crime, not against the government.

  2. #82
    Sage
    jamesrage's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    A place where common sense exists
    Last Seen
    Today @ 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

    The REALITY is that the overwhelming majority of Americans are fully against people having arsenals of weapons for the purpose of taking on the government.
    Because those people are extremely ignorant about the intent of the 2nd amendment.

    But I also stated it is nonsensical given whatever weapons you have don't equate to slingshots compared to the government's firepower. So it is really isn't that your weapons are to stop a tyranny. It is a desire to be able to become a martyr of a violent death. The government will always fulfill that wish anyone pursues. Explain how your weapons would stop tyranny of the government.
    Americans are the most armed citizens in the world.We have a lot of firepower,plus those military bases,ammo and fuel depots are practically in our back yards, the military can easily be cut off from supplies.

    U.S. most armed country with 90 guns per 100 people | Reuters
    Don't misunderstand. I'm a big time gun owner.
    Being a gun owner does not make you a 2nd amendment advocate.
    "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

  3. #83
    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 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 get so tired reading people claiming the purpose they established the 2nd amendment was so people could fight the USA government. The 2nd amend SPECIFICALLY states it was to allow having a readily available militia - which was immediately necessary in the Revolutionary War. Maybe some people don't understand history. The militia fought THE BRITISH, not the new American government.

    The last of your message makes perfect sense, however. Gun ownership and what level of firepower is allowed civilians is measured in pros and cons - as there are both.

    My concern - shared by almost no one else - is that some consideration should be made as to who wants what firearm? There are many elderly around here and quite a few of those are in various stages of mental ability lose and even dementia. Yet they can buy and have any firearm. There also is the question of competency. It would take all of 10 minutes of training to eliminate 90% of accident gun deaths.

    Fire arms are necessary. An example is going offshore around here into the Gulf. It is WELL understood that if you go offshore you need to be among other boats, have at least some weaponry on board, and get back in before dark. In the past many a boat that didn't was never seen again. Yet merely demonstrating you have significant weaponry means you'll likely never know if you needed it. If a boat approaching did have criminal intent ("pirates/criminals") merely seeing someone on deck with a DMPS Panther 338 with a high capacity magazine and a large nightscope/scope will cause them to alter their course. Or even just a vintage 30.06 Garrand will do the trick. Criminals pick easy and opportunity and that DMPS or Garrand says they have neither on that boat.

    If you live rurally and hear noises outside at night that sound like it could be a person, just stepping out and shining a laser slowly around the area off a Bullpup pretty much has eliminated any potential intruder danger. Or just walk around a bit with an old double barrel 12 gauge.

    A female officer I know has explained that if a group of men become too unruly in response, she's found a laser dot off a 45 on the chest of the most unruly calms them down real quick. In 2 extreme situations she actually shot the guys dead chest center knocking them down hard, but the first round a plastic/rubber bullet. It took a few seconds before any of them realized she hadn't killed him. Her next round wasn't rubber if it came to it. She is very small, often alone in remote areas and the people she approaches often armed and drunk. She is known to pull her sidearm quickly to stop escalation potential and often approaches with it drawn. She is a particularly fast and deadly shot at close quarter and at random moving targets, top 1% shooter.

    When in remote and rural areas or offshore, we do not hide our primary weapons. We want people to see them. Whether alone or in a group - far more if alone - we want everyone to know they would be coming up against a highly armed person almost to the degree of trying to convince we each are true "gun-kooks" hoping to have good reason to shoot someone. Thus we never know what we prevented happening. We never want to look like an easy victim.

    In short, it is never known what having a firearm prevented happening because it didn't happen. I sincerely believe the presence of a firearm has done far more good 100 times more often than actually using one has.

    It is only a far stretched extrapolation that the founding fathers meant the 2nd amendment was for personal self defense and exactly wrong to claim it was so citizens can take arms against the USA government. Your making such a claim does NOT make you a 2nd Amendment advocate and there would be no successful armed revolutions against the government in my county as long as I and the other officers I know are here.
    Last edited by joko104; 01-17-12 at 01:25 PM.

  4. #84
    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 joko104 View Post
    Full auto 50 cals aren't like cars and oranges.
    Full auto .50 cals are protected if the constitution is properly interpreted, actually so are cars and oranges under property rights. But you are right, the second amendment actually gives the gun the largest circle of protection.

    The REALITY is that the overwhelming majority of Americans are fully against people having arsenals of weapons for the purpose of taking on the government. They are seen are exorbitantly dangerous and history shows within those ranks are exorbitantly dangerous people.
    Doesn't matter. We live in a democratic republic with supreme law called the constitution. Meaning if you were even right about the numbers it doesn't matter because their rights are protected as long as they don't do anything illegal(under a proper law).
    Neither side in an argument can find the truth when both make an absolute claim on it.

    LMR

  5. #85
    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 LaMidRighter View Post
    Full auto .50 cals are protected if the constitution is properly interpreted, actually so are cars and oranges under property rights. But you are right, the second amendment actually gives the gun the largest circle of protection.

    Doesn't matter. We live in a democratic republic with supreme law called the constitution. Meaning if you were even right about the numbers it doesn't matter because their rights are protected as long as they don't do anything illegal(under a proper law).
    The constitution doesn't say what you want it to. There is no inherent right to own anything granted in it. Quote the section that says you have a constitutional right to have oranges and cars. It's not there. There is a process the government has to go through to take away property that you already have. The government outlaws possession of stuff all the time and has for a very long period of time.

    The government - to sidestep the 2nd amendment issue - didnt' directly outlaw full autos, short barrel shotguns, silencers etc. Rather, the government imposed a HUGE tax (for the time) of $200 each PLUS a requirement for "approval" of ownership. That was such a large sum of money few did or even could pay it. The penalty for not having the license (which technically is a tax receipt) is MAJOR jail time.

    So to challenge it first you would have to argue the government can't tax items - which it can - and second if you paid the tax that you were unfairly denied approval. Ever price a trip to the Supreme Court?

    "Law" is none so simplistic as people like to make it.

    But here is a relevant question then. If you BELIEVE the constitution says you can have a full automatic and IF you believe protecting your gun rights worth a revolution over, why not instead convert a semi-auto to auto, go to the cop-shop with it, and then tell your court appointed lawyer you want to take the issue to the US Supreme Court for a determination? Or is it just more fun to think of gunning down members of Congress or the BATF?

    Exercise your legal rights and then go to court over it - OR go to court asking for a declaratory ruling that you can own a full auto before having one. That would seem the first step and armed revolution the last.

    As for me? I'm really easy going. I do come across guys who have converted to full auto. My response is "give me that!" and that they can come pick it back up in a couple of days after I tore it down, removing whatever made it full auto, and explaining I wouldn't give them another break - or if they don't like that instead I can just call the BATF and we'll let them decide how to proceed.

    Without exception they all liked my way better. But if they'll pay for the bullets I'll let them fire one of my legally licensed full autos - or they can just buy a bumpstock which the BATF allows and it's virtually the same as full auto in rate of fire. Where most people get tagged is on short barrel shotguns not realizing the SEVERE penalties the BATF imposes - real jail time. I like the "good ole backwoods boys" and just take care of it at the time rather than making a criminal or federal case out of it (literally). I don't like angry kooks that make threats though. Big difference between guys who want to play with guns and want to arm for revolution.
    Last edited by joko104; 01-17-12 at 02:04 PM.

  6. #86
    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 joko104 View Post
    The constitution doesn't say what you want it to. There is no inherent right to own anything granted in it. Quote the section that says you have a constitutional right to have oranges and cars. It's not there. There is a process the government has to go through to take away property that you already have. The government outlaws possession of stuff all the time and has for a very long period of time.
    No need to emotionalize. Amendments 2-5 pretty much spell out the right to property. The second protects the property deemed as arms, the third states that no soldiers are to be quartered in a time of peace(read into it this means that your home is your domain(or property), as well many states deem your vehicle to be an extension of your property(domain)) the fourths amendment sets the table for search and seizure, if one cares to read into that it explicitly means that your property(cars, oranges, etc.) are in fact yours and ONLY through due process may they be forfeit. The fifth reasserts the due process within the 3rd and 4th. So yes it "does say what I want it to" from a logical perspective, the only way someone would not read into it is if they do not agree with the writings.

    The government - to sidestep the 2nd amendment issue - didnt' directly outlaw full autos, short barrel shotguns, silencers etc. Rather, the government imposed a HUGE tax (for the time) of $200 each PLUS a requirement for "approval" of ownership. That was such a large sum of money few did or even could pay it. The penalty for not having the license (which technically is a tax receipt) is MAJOR jail time.
    How wrong you are. Yes you must have a register on silenced weapons, "sawed off" shotguns are banned by law(state I think), and any full auto weapons after 1986 are outright banned, even with the FFLIII license they are not legal to be owned by citizens. These are infringements, some have slight merit, but would never survive a true necessary and proper test.
    So to challenge it first you would have to argue the government can't tax items - which it can - and second if you paid the tax that you were unfairly denied approval. Ever price a trip to the Supreme Court?
    The second argument is easy, one only has to point to the intent of the poll tax and relate it to a government using overpricing to disbar ownership, an unbiased court would have to throw out the requirement.
    "Law" is none so simplistic as people like to make it.
    Laws can be very easy, you only need a few factors. 1) Necessary 2) Proper 3) Enforcement. Convoluted laws only serve one purpose, they are harder for the average person to follow which is why we have so many long ones.

    But here is a relevant question then. If you BELIEVE the constitution says you can have a full automatic and IF you believe protecting your gun rights worth a revolution over, why not instead convert a semi-auto to auto, go to the cop-shop with it, and then tell your court appointed lawyer you want to take the issue to the US Supreme Court for a determination? Or is it just more fun to think of gunning down members of Congress or the BATF?
    This is a non-sequitur, also a strawman. You are creating an image of people who do not want their property and rights stripped without due process as murderers, this does not follow the language presented. If the courts side with the people that is a win, if the courts side with the politicians against the very plain writing of the constitution there is less recourse. The "revolutionaries" you are describing have no intention of doing harm until it is a last resort. This is why I've been clear throughout that this is currently a hypothetical. Again, you are bringing in emotional words like "fun" to describe something I would say 99.9% of people do not want, which is violence.
    Exercise your legal rights and then go to court over it - OR go to court asking for a declaratory ruling that you can own a full auto before having one. That would seem the first step and armed revolution the last.
    What part of this are you missing? I am being serious, the whole point of the intial question is what people would do when the rights are stripped by extra constitutional methods and thus circumventing due process. At that point one doesn't have a peaceful recourse. As well, what makes you think the counter suits by second amendment activists aren't actions seeking legal recourse?
    Neither side in an argument can find the truth when both make an absolute claim on it.

    LMR

  7. #87
    Transcend~
    Empirica's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Lost at Sea
    Last Seen
    11-24-17 @ 07:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    3,662

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

    Quote Originally Posted by joko104 View Post
    The constitution doesn't say what you want it to. There is no inherent right to own anything granted in it. Quote the section that says you have a constitutional right to have oranges and cars. It's not there. There is a process the government has to go through to take away property that you already have. The government outlaws possession of stuff all the time and has for a very long period of time.

    The government - to sidestep the 2nd amendment issue - didnt' directly outlaw full autos, short barrel shotguns, silencers etc. Rather, the government imposed a HUGE tax (for the time) of $200 each PLUS a requirement for "approval" of ownership. That was such a large sum of money few did or even could pay it. The penalty for not having the license (which technically is a tax receipt) is MAJOR jail time.

    So to challenge it first you would have to argue the government can't tax items - which it can - and second if you paid the tax that you were unfairly denied approval. Ever price a trip to the Supreme Court?

    "Law" is none so simplistic as people like to make it.

    But here is a relevant question then. If you BELIEVE the constitution says you can have a full automatic and IF you believe protecting your gun rights worth a revolution over, why not instead convert a semi-auto to auto, go to the cop-shop with it, and then tell your court appointed lawyer you want to take the issue to the US Supreme Court for a determination? Or is it just more fun to think of gunning down members of Congress or the BATF?

    Exercise your legal rights and then go to court over it - OR go to court asking for a declaratory ruling that you can own a full auto before having one. That would seem the first step and armed revolution the last.

    As for me? I'm really easy going. I do come across guys who have converted to full auto. My response is "give me that!" and that they can come pick it back up in a couple of days after I tore it down, removing whatever made it full auto, and explaining I wouldn't give them another break - or if they don't like that instead I can just call the BATF and we'll let them decide how to proceed.

    Without exception they all liked my way better. But if they'll pay for the bullets I'll let them fire one of my legally licensed full autos - or they can just buy a bumpstock which the BATF allows and it's virtually the same as full auto in rate of fire. Where most people get tagged is on short barrel shotguns not realizing the SEVERE penalties the BATF imposes - real jail time. I like the "good ole backwoods boys" and just take care of it at the time rather than making a criminal or federal case out of it (literally). I don't like angry kooks that make threats though. Big difference between guys who want to play with guns and want to arm for revolution.
    Joko, you don't appear to be very well versed in civil law, american history or the constitution, although you definately view yourself as somewhat of an authority.

    I could be wrong but I suspect you're a product of the public school system, which is OK providing you realize you must seek out for yourself what they failed or neglected to teach you.

    Good luck and I wish you the best_
    When a crime is ignored ~ it becomes flagrant;
    When a crime is rewarded ~ it becomes epidemic:

    No Amnesty No Exception

  8. #88
    Student Justice For All's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Last Seen
    11-10-12 @ 03:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    192

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

    It wouldn't be a easy thing to do, but this scenario is definately possible. I would ask those who are against guns or that would merely stand by and let this happen, what if you needed guns in the future? I just got done watching "Schindler's List" the other day and I noticed when the SS Nazis came to do, take, and murder whomever or whatever they pleased none of the jews had any power to do anything because they had no weapons. If they had weapons they'd atleast go down with a fighting chance. Now I do not believe anything like that is in sight now or any time soon, but in the future who's to say? Once a right is gone it's usually gone forever.
    "Rome is the mob. Conjure magic for them and they’ll be distracted. Take away their freedom and still they’ll roar. The beating heart of Rome is not the marble of the senate, it’s the sand of the coliseum. He’ll bring them death – and they will love him for it.” - Senator Gracchus (Gladiator)

  9. #89
    Light△Bender

    grip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    ☚ ☛
    Last Seen
    12-04-17 @ 04:12 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    17,186
    Blog Entries
    2

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

    Hide my gat.
    Einstein, "science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

  10. #90
    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 LaMidRighter View Post
    No need to emotionalize. Amendments 2-5 pretty much spell out the right to property. The second protects the property deemed as arms, the third states that no soldiers are to be quartered in a time of peace(read into it this means that your home is your domain(or property), as well many states deem your vehicle to be an extension of your property(domain)) the fourths amendment sets the table for search and seizure, if one cares to read into that it explicitly means that your property(cars, oranges, etc.) are in fact yours and ONLY through due process may they be forfeit. The fifth reasserts the due process within the 3rd and 4th. So yes it "does say what I want it to" from a logical perspective, the only way someone would not read into it is if they do not agree with the writings.

    How wrong you are. Yes you must have a register on silenced weapons, "sawed off" shotguns are banned by law(state I think), and any full auto weapons after 1986 are outright banned, even with the FFLIII license they are not legal to be owned by citizens. These are infringements, some have slight merit, but would never survive a true necessary and proper test.
    The second argument is easy, one only has to point to the intent of the poll tax and relate it to a government using overpricing to disbar ownership, an unbiased court would have to throw out the requirement.
    Laws can be very easy, you only need a few factors. 1) Necessary 2) Proper 3) Enforcement. Convoluted laws only serve one purpose, they are harder for the average person to follow which is why we have so many long ones.

    This is a non-sequitur, also a strawman. You are creating an image of people who do not want their property and rights stripped without due process as murderers, this does not follow the language presented. If the courts side with the people that is a win, if the courts side with the politicians against the very plain writing of the constitution there is less recourse. The "revolutionaries" you are describing have no intention of doing harm until it is a last resort. This is why I've been clear throughout that this is currently a hypothetical. Again, you are bringing in emotional words like "fun" to describe something I would say 99.9% of people do not want, which is violence.
    What part of this are you missing? I am being serious, the whole point of the intial question is what people would do when the rights are stripped by extra constitutional methods and thus circumventing due process. At that point one doesn't have a peaceful recourse. As well, what makes you think the counter suits by second amendment activists aren't actions seeking legal recourse?
    Again, no article of the constitutions says you have a right to own apples and cars. It only describes the steps of the government to take those away if you already have them.

    I am equally being serious. All people live under some level of government oppression and denial of rights. The overwhelming vast majority of people in the world, including the "free world" are extremely restricted from gun ownership. I do not read you calling for worldwide revolution as the universal cry of human rights.

    Slogans don't make realities. Other than as a sniper assassin until caught/killed, a firearm has no relevancy in terms of a modern armed revolution in the USA. Nor would people support one. Its just not reality. In terms of reality, it has little more meaning than if a bumpersticker read "You'll take my pocket knife when you pry it from my dead cold hand." This isn't a 3rd world country where guns rule government. The only successful violent revolution in this country could be by the military and military takeovers - though my start of good motives - don't turn out good for the people in the long run.

    Remember the OP - armed revolution if the government repealed the 2nd amendment or declared in nullified AS YOU SEE the 2nd amendment. It already did so, decades ago, in relation to all but the least potent of weaponry. The OP is NOT if the government abolished all rights and became a mass murderous oppressive dictatorial regime ala Joseph Stalin. The OP is what would you do if the government outlawed private gun ownership.

    I was speaking of the history of federal gun laws, not state laws. For most states they are far more restrictive than federal laws.

Page 9 of 29 FirstFirst ... 789101119 ... 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
  •