- Joined
- Oct 24, 2009
- Messages
- 11,002
- Reaction score
- 5,431
- Location
- Southeast Michigan
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Liberal
I would view it much the same way, as I would view the removal of the 1st Amendment: as a tyrannical government acting to suppress resistance. I doubt they would get popular support for such a thing; if they claimed to have it, I would suspect fraud. Even if I knew they had majority support for it, some rights are too fundamental to surrender to anyone for any reason.
In my view the right to bear arms is an extension of the right to life and liberty, because the right to life and liberty implies a right to defend same. I believe it is properly a natural right of all persons that ought never to be infringed upon.
One of the things to consider is this: if they are taking away something as fundamental as the 2A, what are they planning to take away next, that they need to populace to be disarmed to pull off??
Also consider though, it takes 2/3 of both houses of congress to even suggest an amendment to the constitution, and 3/4 of the state legislatures to actually ratify it. If the constitution were amended to remove the 2nd amendment, it would mean that popular support was incredibly high for doing so. Would you still consider it right to resist something that so much of the country wanted to happen?