• 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
This is just the kind of political paranoia that is pushed by the NRA and others to keep the memberships rolling in and them well funded.

Obviously you don't spend a lot of time looking at the gun laws in MA, CA, NYC, Chicago, Washington DC, etc.... There are MANY places that would look to implement full and complete bans on private gun ownership the moment they felt they would be able to get away with it. Look at how quickly the residents of Scotland and Australia lost their ability to own most firearms. Obviously they did not have a Constitutional guarantee of the Right, but considering the current makeup of the American citizenry I can see the potential for it to happen here; and I find it quite disgusting.
 
We strongly differ on that. In this nation today, you cannot even get small changes in gun laws because of the political environment. Wholesale slaughter takes place with nationwide publicity and nobody even introduces a law in reaction to it. The pendulum has swung that far the other way. The idea that you are going to completely ban guns through a mere court decision in the face of the Second Amendment and the support for it is simply a denial of political reality.

This is just the kind of political paranoia that is pushed by the NRA and others to keep the memberships rolling in and them well funded.
Do you not read posts to which you are responding or is it a comprehension problem?

As I stated before, I have not said it would happen in the current envionment. I've only posited that repealing the SA is not necessary for the USA government to ban private citizens from owning guns. Many USA citizens already believe the SA only applies to militas.

.
 
Ban the notion that a well-regulated militia is necessary for the for the security of a free state?

I can't imagine getting rid of that, myself.
 
Obviously you don't spend a lot of time looking at the gun laws in MA, CA, NYC, Chicago, Washington DC, etc.... There are MANY places that would look to implement full and complete bans on private gun ownership the moment they felt they would be able to get away with it. Look at how quickly the residents of Scotland and Australia lost their ability to own most firearms. Obviously they did not have a Constitutional guarantee of the Right, but considering the current makeup of the American citizenry I can see the potential for it to happen here; and I find it quite disgusting.

So in those places that you mentioned in the USA, there were complete and full bans on private gun ownership?
 
Do you not read posts to which you are responding or is it a comprehension problem?

As I stated before, I have not said it would happen in the current envionment. I've only posited that repealing the SA is not necessary for the USA government to ban private citizens from owning guns. Many USA citizens already believe the SA only applies to militas.

.

And I completely and utterly disagree. We are not talking about a right that was invented by a court - abortion rights let us say - we are talking about the Second Amendment and the Right to Bear Arms. The only way to bring in a total and complete ban on private gun ownership in the USA would be to repeal the Second Amendment with a new constitutional amendment. And I cannot envision the type of political environment that would need to be created to make that possible.
 
So in those places that you mentioned in the USA, there were complete and full bans on private gun ownership?

Not full and complete bans on ownership. Though there have been attempts to do so in some of those locations. There ARE some municipalities in the Communistwealth of Massachusetts that have de facto bans on all gun ownership inside the town boundaries. Springfield and Boston being among them. This is accomplished by the allowance of the local police chief setting the rules on who is allowed a permit; and then the hiring of a police chief who simply won't issue permits. Worcester is very close to the same way. Shrewsbury was that way until about four or five years ago.
 
Not full and complete bans on ownership. Though there have been attempts to do so in some of those locations. There ARE some municipalities in the Communistwealth of Massachusetts that have de facto bans on all gun ownership inside the town boundaries. Springfield and Boston being among them. This is accomplished by the allowance of the local police chief setting the rules on who is allowed a permit; and then the hiring of a police chief who simply won't issue permits. Worcester is very close to the same way. Shrewsbury was that way until about four or five years ago.

As I thought. None of these efforts you hold up as a worst case scenario were in fact a worst case scenario.

So in places like Boston - no private citizen is permitted to have a firearm? Is that what you are contending?
 
I'd buy all the ammunition I could get today because there's gonna be a really profitable black market tomorrow. That'd be capitalism. Always pay taxes on your profits.
 
And I completely and utterly disagree. We are not talking about a right that was invented by a court - abortion rights let us say - we are talking about the Second Amendment and the Right to Bear Arms. The only way to bring in a total and complete ban on private gun ownership in the USA would be to repeal the Second Amendment with a new constitutional amendment. And I cannot envision the type of political environment that would need to be created to make that possible.
Please explain why, if the USA SC ruled that the SA only applied to well regulated militas, the government could not go about banning private gun ownership.

.
 
Please explain why, if the USA SC ruled that the SA only applied to well regulated militas, the government could not go about banning private gun ownership.

.

The American people would not stand for it..... or I should say a segment of the American people would not stand for it. Why could then a state government declare that every able bodied citizen adult was a member of the militia? I strongly suspect that such a thing would happen and happen very very quickly.

Is this site an accurate site for information?

http://www.enotes.com/civil-rights-reference/firearm-laws
 
Last edited:
Everyone always speaks big on this issue but they have been restricting it when they have no authority to do so for decades and which one of them did anything about it? A big fat none. I can't just say I will revolt because no one will ****ing join me! It will be a party of one getting shot in the street. and why is this ?
What is this "no authority" business ?
In truth, a majority of our people do want restrictions on guns and gun ownership..
And as long as we have a "democracy" (more or less), the controls/rules/regulations/restrictions will remain.
 
Everyone always speaks big on this issue but they have been restricting it when they have no authority to do so for decades and which one of them did anything about it? A big fat none. I can't just say I will revolt because no one will ****ing join me! It will be a party of one getting shot in the street.
Don't flatter yourself, Henrin. There will be a civil war in this country, and it'll probably be a response to something like a ban on the second amendment. When we get to that point, Barack Obama, or someone like him, will be turning the Oval Office into his throne room.
 
The American people would not stand for it..... or I should say a segment of the American people would not stand for it. Why could then a state government declare that every able bodied citizen adult was a member of the militia? I strongly suspect that such a thing would happen and happen very very quickly.

Is this site an accurate site for information?

Firearm Laws (Encyclopedia of Everyday Law) - eNotes.com
Damn you are obtuse. I have said several times I am not suggesting it could happen in the current enviornment, just that banning guns would not require repealing the SA. Since you seem to be incapabile of understanding this concept, I will leave you to play with yourself. :2wave:

.
 
I have already explained to you the process of overriding a portion of the Constitution like the current Second Amendment. 2/3 of both houses of Congress then the ratification by 3/4 of the individual state legislatures.
As TOJ pointed out, there really is no need to officially amend the constitution in order to gut the 2nd amendment. All that has to happen is for congress to pass a law infringing on the right to keep and bear arms, the president to sign it, and the supreme court to rule that the law is constitutional. Under our system, it is the supreme court, and the supreme court alone, that decides whether a law is constitutional.

So while the 2nd amendment remains on the books, only the supreme court determines whether and to what level the 2nd amendment protects our right to keep and bear arms.
 
As I thought. None of these efforts you hold up as a worst case scenario were in fact a worst case scenario.

I never held them up as a worst case scenario. I held them up as very bad locations for private gun owners that would BECOME worst case scenarios the moment they are allowed to.

So in places like Boston - no private citizen is permitted to have a firearm? Is that what you are contending?

I am contending that the issuing agency for Firearms permits in Boston will not issue such permits to residents of the City. In Massachusetts you have a STATE permit that is issued by CITY/TOWN police departments. This means that depending on where you live in the state, the requirements to get a license may vary dramatically. Massachusetts is a MAY-ISSUE state. There is a set of disqualifying factors set up by the state and then the local police chiefs may ADD to that as they see fit. In the three MAJOR cities in Massachusetts, you can get a pepper-spray license and POSSIBLY a license that allows you to possess (not own) a rifle or shotgun for hunting purposes. Unless you are "connected" you will not get a license that allows you to purchase or own a firearm, nevermind carry one. However, since it is a STATE permit, those of us who live in less restrictive areas and can get Class A LTC's are allowed to carry in those Cities.
 
Personally if this happened I wouldn't consider it America anymore, so I'd probably go with violent revolution.
I wouldn't do anything but make sure my passport is up to date so I could leave when the gun lovers lose their ****.
 
.... I'd tell America that we should sit down and talk about this like sensible adults. America can't do whatever she wants. You know, because America is not even 250 years old yet. She can't do as she please. First she bans guns, then what? She'll start smoking weed, hanging out with North Korea and as we all know, it's all down hill from there. No, America can't do whatever she wants so we'll just all have an intervention if she ever decides to just up and ban the 2nd amendment.

They're not allowed to smoke weed in North Korea; they don't get anything which could result in fun there.
 
A ban of the right to bear arms in the USA will never happen. The only way to do it legally would be to repeal the Second Amendment. You would get ZERO support for that in Congress, and even if we somehow elected a Congress nuts enough to commit political suicide, an amendment has to be ratified by three quarters of the state legislatures. No way that's happening.

Even if somehow it did, I would expect the ban to be even less effective than prohibition.
 
A ban of the right to bear arms in the USA will never happen. The only way to do it legally would be to repeal the Second Amendment. You would get ZERO support for that in Congress, and even if we somehow elected a Congress nuts enough to commit political suicide, an amendment has to be ratified by three quarters of the state legislatures. No way that's happening.

Even if somehow it did, I would expect the ban to be even less effective than prohibition.
It wouldn't just be political suicide, they would be messing up their underwear every time a car backfired. As dumb as our politicians are, I don't think they are THAT stupid.
 
I voted other. I would be ready to revolt, but as was pointed out if I am a "one man army" that would be me basically throwing my life away. This really is a situational response based on a hypothetical that probably won't happen. Then again the anti-second activists are annoyingly persistant even though they tend to be absolutely uninformed.
 
Same as what I did today. Go to work. I would LOVE to see the Federal government try to enforce the repealing of the 2nd Amendment. Probably cause a coup.

Same here. But this hypothetical is not really likely to happen in our lifetime, or our children's lifetime, or their children's, if ever. We have a rather weird love of guns in this country, and no one who voted to ban them would be in office next election. Politicians know this.
 
It wouldn't just be political suicide, they would be messing up their underwear every time a car backfired. As dumb as our politicians are, I don't think they are THAT stupid.

Oh, it would definitely be political suicide. They would so be thrown out of office at the next opportunity! However, you're probably right that it would be literal suicide too. Congress has done a lot of dumb things, but they're almost always self-serving things. There's no way repealing the 2nd even remotely serves the interest of any American politician.
 
what's more likely to happen is a couple more Obama or the next dem's supreme court justices replacing say Scalia and Kennedy (both are getting up there) and finding the same way QuotaMayor or Breyer did. that would kill the election chances of the next dem candidate's election chances but the damage would be done. and if someone were to take out the justices who voted that way, the public might support unconstitutional restrictions on weapons
 
We The Governed are faced with two problems which are the result of ignorance, denial and fear.

(1) At some point We The People and the Federal Government are going to have to come to terms with the ever increasing violations of The Constitution.

(2) Many of the state governments have a loophole in their individual constitutions that make it arguably possible for citizens to democraticly vote their inalienable rights out the door.

It is not only our Second Amendment that is in jeapordy, but all our freedoms__It's not that our government is evil, it is simply doing what all governments inevitably do__Expand and grow more powerful with time.

Inalienable vs Unalienable__Please allow me to explain;

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Declaration of Independence, 2nd para.

"Jefferson's original draft of this phrase in the Declaration of Independence was written: "We hold these truths to be sacred and undeniable; that all men are created equal and independent, that from that equal creation they derive rights inherent and inalienable, among which are the preservation of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Members of the Declaration committee of the Continental Congress that had been selected to write the document included Benjamin Franklin and John Adams who had different beliefs. The word "inalienable" was changed to "unalienable" and read: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness."

The above two paragraphs come from Mary Mostert in an article she wrote on January 11, 2006 "Unalienable vs. inalienable rights". She explains the change; as Thomas Jefferson reflected a Deist philosophy and did not believe in a loving and caring Heavenly Father vs. the 18th century version of "intelligent design" reflected by Franklin and Adams.

"Unalienable: incapable of being alienated, that is, sold and transferred."

Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, pg. 1523

"You cannot surrender, sell or transfer unalienable rights, they are a gift from the creator to the individual and cannot under any circumstances be surrendered or taken. All individual's have unalienable rights"

"Inalienable rights: Rights which are not capable of being surrendered or transferred without the consent of the one possessing such rights." Morrison v. State, Mo. App. 252 S.W. 2d 97, 101

"You can surrender, sell or transfer inalienable rights if you consent either actually or constructively. Inalienable rights are not inherent in man and can be alienated by government. Persons have inalienable rights. Most state constitutions recognize only inalienable rights."

"It has been well said, by one of the ablest judges of the age, that a "constitution is not to receive a technical construction, like a common law instrument or a stature. It is to be interpreted so as to carry out the great principles of the government, not to defeat them." Per Gibson, C.J. in Commonwealth v. Clark, 7 Watts & S. (Pa.), 133. Butler V. Com. of Pennsylvania, 51 U.S. 402 (1850)

"The very highest duty of the States, when they entered into the Union under the Constitution, was to protect all persons within their boundaries in the enjoyment of these "unalienable rights with which they were endowed by their Creator.", U.S. v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875)

"....The first ten amendments to the Constitution, adopted as they were soon after the adoption of the Constitution, are in the nature of a bill of rights, and were adopted in order to quiet the apprehension of many, that without some such declaration of rights the government would assume, and might be held to possess, the power to trespass upon those rights of persons and property which by the Declaration of Independence were affirmed to be unalienable rights. United States v. Twin City Power Co., 350 U.S. 222 (1956)"

Above quotes from Unalienable Rights vs Inalienable Rights
Unalienable Rights New
Sadly, very few americans today know from whence we came because rather than read for themselves, they believe the interpretations of The Talking Heads who have an agenda other than truth.

As the delegates left the building, a Mrs. Powel of Philadelphia asked Benjamin Franklin, “Well, Doctor, what have we got?

With no hesitation, Franklin replied, “A republic, if you can keep it.” Not a democracy, not a democratic republic. But “a republic, if you can keep it.”

Back in the 18th and 19th centuries, every American who could read and write (and probably most of those who couldn’t), knew we were a republic. The campaign to brainwash us into believing we were a democracy didn’t begin until 100 years ago. Today, if you take a poll of high school or college students, the overwhelming majority will tell you that we are a democracy.

Our Founding Fathers Feared And Hated Democracy

In Federalist No. 10, James Madison, often referred to as “the father of the Constitution,” had this to say:

“…democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they are violent in their deaths.”

“A Republic—If You Can Keep*It” : Personal Liberty Digest™
I would suggest you begin with the The Federalist Papers:
Federalist Papers In Modern Language, The: Indexed for Today's Political Issues, (0936783214), Mary E Webster, Textbooks - Barnes & Noble

It is not only the Second Amendment that is in jeapordy, but all freedoms__It's not that government is evil, it is simply doing what all governments inevitably do__Expand and seek more power.

The size of government has a direct affect on the lives of the governed__As government increases, individual liberty decreases__It is absolute.

The United States is presently 15 trillion dollars in debt as government is busting at the seems and still yet seeks to grow__It can't help itself__It is the nature of the beast.

There is but one solution__ Ignore the media sweethearts and elect people who will strip government of all powers not delegated to it by the constitution.

As long as this criteria is met, we shouldn't care if the candidate's IQ is average at best, ugly as sin, wearing rinkled clothes, stutters when they talk and has never set foot in Washington DC.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom