• 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
If they do this, I hope there is a revolution. Taking our gun rights away would show just how out of touch our politicians have gotten.

Clearly our founding fathers felt strongly enough to make it unmistakeable: "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
 
Guns should stay in our past.
Only if we have guaranteed protection against the uprisal of monarchies, dictatorships, or any other oppressive type government that so desperately wants to be in power. Can you head this effort up and make it happen?
 
Last edited:
Personally if this happened I wouldn't consider it America anymore, so I'd probably go with violent revolution.

How could we go violent revolution if they take away our guns?!

JK, I know people would still have guns, but I don't think this would be worth violent revolution. This may hurt my libertarian credentials, but here goes... I think some amendments rank higher in terms of the "violent revolution" scale. Second amendment is obviously important, but I'd be more likely to go violent if they repealed the first, fourth or fifth. Not that all of them aren't important of course! Love my constitution!
 
How could we go violent revolution if they take away our guns?!

JK, I know people would still have guns, but I don't think this would be worth violent revolution. This may hurt my libertarian credentials, but here goes... I think some amendments rank higher in terms of the "violent revolution" scale. Second amendment is obviously important, but I'd be more likely to go violent if they repealed the first, fourth or fifth. Not that all of them aren't important of course! Love my constitution!

If they repeal the 2nd, what would stop them from repealing the 1st, 4th or 5th?
 
How could we go violent revolution if they take away our guns?!

JK, I know people would still have guns, but I don't think this would be worth violent revolution. This may hurt my libertarian credentials, but here goes... I think some amendments rank higher in terms of the "violent revolution" scale. Second amendment is obviously important, but I'd be more likely to go violent if they repealed the first, fourth or fifth. Not that all of them aren't important of course! Love my constitution!

Under the DCMA, freedom of speech is severely curtailed due to the threat of educators, programmers, and other groups being threatened with cease and desist letters. (source) So far no outrage from people regarding the loss of the First Amendment. The Fourth and Fifth Amendment has been eviscerated under Patriot Act, Patriot Act II, the new military appropriations bill, and other laws that override the Fourth and Fifth Amendments. Not surprisingly there's no outcry from the American people. I doubt that anything will happen if the Second Amendment gets the axe and people are rounded up as 'terrorists' into concentration camps. Such is what history has shown.
 
Did the Britons pay people for their firearms when they enacted a ban?

No, which is why I'd demand it before turning them over or fight them in court for the value. I'm guessing that any real attempt would grandfather in existing legal guns rather than pay for them or anger all the gun owners even more than they already would be... IIRC that's what the UK did. You can still own some guns in the UK, with the right permits, etc.
 
Last edited:
Realistically speaking, even with the second in place, we the people would never be able to outgun the government.

You assume the military would back such a move?
 
No, which is why I'd demand it before turning them over or fight them in court for the value. I'm guessing that any real attempt would grandfather in existing legal guns rather than pay for them or anger all the gun owners even more than they already would be... IIRC that's what the UK did. You can still own some guns in the UK, with the right permits, etc.
For what it's worth, if politcians had the nerve to go after the second the first base they would cover is the courts. I am pretty sure if they did actually try to repeal the second they would make sure you didn't have a chance of ever seeing legal recourse to recover your losses.
 
Wouldn't military backing be necessary to repeal the second to begin with?
Turtledude pointed this out in the past, in a domestic political meltdown it isn't necessarily the military that would have to be engaged. The politicians would be the probable targets, there simply aren't enough resources to protect all of them.
 
No, which is why I'd demand it before turning them over or fight them in court for the value. I'm guessing that any real attempt would grandfather in existing legal guns rather than pay for them or anger all the gun owners even more than they already would be... IIRC that's what the UK did. You can still own some guns in the UK, with the right permits, etc.


You think the US government is going to pay for 270 million civilian owned firearms if they did a ban on the 2nd amendment? If the government banned guns that means they are illegal product.Last I checked the feds don't reimburse pot growers and drug dealers whose crops were burned and property seized. The UK has been working on their firearms ban for decades to whittle down the gun owners and I do not think there were 270 million civilian owned firearms in the UK.

U.S. most armed country with 90 guns per 100 people | Reuters
U.S. citizens own 270 million of the world's 875 million known firearms, according to the Small Arms Survey 2007 by the Geneva-based Graduate Institute of International Studies.
 
Last edited:
Turtledude pointed this out in the past, in a domestic political meltdown it isn't necessarily the military that would have to be engaged. The politicians would be the probable targets, there simply aren't enough resources to protect all of them.

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.
 
if American banned the 2nd Amendment, that would mean the will of the people called for this to take place, and I would respect the will of the people.

its very...very difficult to change or add to our Constitution, but when it does happen we should respect it.

and no, we should not immediately resort to violence to address our political grievances. that is the resort of thugs & criminals.

if a democratic process to deal with differences exist, that is the way to go. violence is the last resort in such a system. you don't protect democracy...by destroying it.
 
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 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.
 
For what it's worth, if politcians had the nerve to go after the second the first base they would cover is the courts. I am pretty sure if they did actually try to repeal the second they would make sure you didn't have a chance of ever seeing legal recourse to recover your losses.

True... Now that I think about it, I'd actually probably end up selling them as soon as such a bill seemed close to being passed. I'd probably take a loss still, depending on who I sold them to (legal vs. not), but anything's better than 100% loss...
 
True... Now that I think about it, I'd actually probably end up selling them as soon as such a bill seemed close to being passed. I'd probably take a loss still, depending on who I sold them to (legal vs. not), but anything's better than 100% loss...
I agree with the loss part. I don't think that everyone would be of the same mindset of yourself but it's a personal decision. I don't even know what I would do dependent on the situation at hand.
 
It would have to take something pretty serious to make me want to join a revolution. Without due process, by just banning guns at a whim, I think it'd be safe to assume the worst and combat the tyranny.
 
I'd like to see how the OP would suggest "America" could simply "ban" the 2nd Amendment.

Does he mean by Presidential Executive Order? Some sort of extra-Constitutional power-grab by the Senate?

this poll is more appropriate for a parallel-universe kinda scenario, and it really does nothing more but enable the paranoid fantasies of right-wing extremists, fearful of a fascist dictatorship in the USA doing all sorts of things that are pretty much impossible, in our current universe.
 
Last edited:
Not at all imagine a president and congress that would seek to pass another ammendment or act to ban arms in the name of security it's that easy. They did it with the 4th Amendment with the Patriot Act they could do it with the 2nd Amendment. Also the Supreme Court with enough justices who believe the same way could easily define it a different way and say only police should have arms.
 
Not at all imagine a president and congress that would seek to pass another ammendment or act to ban arms in the name of security it's that easy. They did it with the 4th Amendment with the Patriot Act they....

The President & Congress can't pass an Amendment to the Constitution without the consent of 3/4ths of the State legislatures.

And if they pass gun-rules the people do not support, they can put new folks into office to undo their actions.

There is no rational, logical, nor reasonable reason to immediately resort to violence to redress such a thing..unless one is simply looking to start **** and kill people.

But again, this thread simply enables the paranoid fantasies of right-wing extremists.
 
Realistically speaking, even with the second in place, we the people would never be able to outgun the government.

but killing a few hundred fascist congresspeople wouldn't be that tough
 
that's....um.....interesting.

the way to handle a terrorist government is not to slug it out with the military but to surgically remove the cancer
 
Back
Top Bottom