• 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
TurtleDude said:
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
Click to expand...

Don't we have a special section for Conspiracy Theories?
 
The number of people stating they would start/join a violent revolution is the primary reason justifying limiting the killing power and destructive force citizens should be allowed to have. In other polls an alarming number of people stated they would murder any politician they believed were passing a law that violated what they see as their constitutional rights.
There are so many irrational and violently dangerous and reactionary people in this country that the ability of anyone to have weapons to kill mass numbers of people or to engage in war or civil war against the government must be severely limited.

People who claim they will kill government officials that see as violating some right they have are exorbitantly irrational and dangerous. Fortunately most are just blow hards. Unfortunately a few are not.

As to the specific question, I would turn in what firearms I have that the government knows about. I would hide a few of those they did not. I would shift to having for personal use the most effective non-lethal weapons allowed under law.
 
joko104 said:
As to the specific question, I would turn in what firearms I have that the government knows about. I would hide a few of those they did not. I would shift to having for personal use the most effective non-lethal weapons allowed under law.
Click to expand...

Please contact me privately so we can arrange for someone to purchase those firearms from you before this occurs; since so far as I'm concerned you don't have the proper mentality to own a firearm.
 
Tigger said:
Please contact me privately so we can arrange for someone to purchase those firearms from you before this occurs; since so far as I'm concerned you don't have the proper mentality to own a firearm.
Click to expand...

Sell you firearms? Is some woman giving you a hard time again?
 
joko104 said:
Sell you firearms? Is some woman giving you a hard time again?
Click to expand...

No. Besides, I've got more than enough firepower of my own already. However, I do know quite a few dealers who I'm sure would be willing to give you a fair price on those items you're not interested in defending your right to hold onto. You know, relieve you of the burden before anything happens.
 
joko104 said:
The number of people stating they would start/join a violent revolution is the primary reason justifying limiting the killing power and destructive force citizens should be allowed to have.
Click to expand...
Incorrect. There is never an excuse to give the government a monopoly on "killing power" they are our employees, not the other way around. When they start feeling completely invincible your rights cease to exist, the founders knew this which was a very strong factor in arming the populace to begin with.
In other polls an alarming number of people stated they would murder any politician they believed were passing a law that violated what they see as their constitutional rights.
Click to expand...
The language I've seen states that this is a last resort scenario, which is perfectly in line with the founding of this country. Whether some have the stomach for that or not is immaterial, tyrants do tend to get murdered, ask Ghaddafi.
There are so many irrational and violently dangerous and reactionary people in this country that the ability of anyone to have weapons to kill mass numbers of people or to engage in war or civil war against the government must be severely limited.
Click to expand...
This is all speculative based on emotion. I could state that it is equally irrational to do nothing and allow your rights to be stripped, it's also irrational to allow those who desire power to expand it at the country's expense. However situations are what they are regardless of reasoning and emotion. You either defend your rights with the appropriate means or you let them slip, there is no third outcome.
People who claim they will kill government officials that see as violating some right they have are exorbitantly irrational and dangerous. Fortunately most are just blow hards. Unfortunately a few are not.
Click to expand...
You are basically repeating the emotional argument. Some people may in fact want the worst of the worst dead, the goal is to stop threats to freedom and liberty, and the greatest percentage want to do it through civil means. Of course that only matters as long as civil recourse still exists.
 
joko104 said:
The number of people stating they would start/join a violent revolution is the primary reason justifying limiting the killing power and destructive force citizens should be allowed to have. In other polls an alarming number of people stated they would murder any politician they believed were passing a law that violated what they see as their constitutional rights.
There are so many irrational and violently dangerous and reactionary people in this country that the ability of anyone to have weapons to kill mass numbers of people or to engage in war or civil war against the government must be severely limited.

People who claim they will kill government officials that see as violating some right they have are exorbitantly irrational and dangerous. Fortunately most are just blow hards. Unfortunately a few are not.

As to the specific question, I would turn in what firearms I have that the government knows about. I would hide a few of those they did not. I would shift to having for personal use the most effective non-lethal weapons allowed under law.
Click to expand...

Well said. I was disturbed during the health care debates that some people got violent. If you disagree with a politician, please voice that disagreement peacefully. Speak your mind. Donate money to causes you believe in. Vote accordingly. DON'T get violent.
 
Things would probably, unfortunately, get messy.
 
Wake up, take a ****, brush my teeth, take a shower, let the dog out, grab some breakfast, go to work, do some work, go to lunch, eat my lunch, maybe take another **** after lunch if I had too much dairy, go back to work, finish work, leave work, go pick up my son at daycare, come hoe, let the dog out, feed my son, change his diaper, make dinner, eat dinner, put my son to bed, watch some TV, maybe take one final **** and go to bed.
 
joko104 said:
The number of people stating they would start/join a violent revolution is the primary reason justifying limiting the killing power and destructive force citizens should be allowed to have. In other polls an alarming number of people stated they would murder any politician they believed were passing a law that violated what they see as their constitutional rights.
There are so many irrational and violently dangerous and reactionary people in this country that the ability of anyone to have weapons to kill mass numbers of people or to engage in war or civil war against the government must be severely limited.

People who claim they will kill government officials that see as violating some right they have are exorbitantly irrational and dangerous. Fortunately most are just blow hards. Unfortunately a few are not.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Last edited:
IMO

things would get really ugly.

Dont know exactly what I would it would depend on what other were doing.

I personally would DEFINITELY keep my guns and continue to carry in the limited ways I do.

If people were getting violent then I would just make sure my family is safe first and Id go from there.
 
The simple truth of the matter is, any government official who actively participated in an attempt to delete any of the unalienable freedoms from the Bill Of Rights should and hopefully would be considered a criminal and subject to immediate arrest and prosecution for violating a sacred oath which they voluntarily swore to upon a bible.

I, (Jane/Joe Potus), solemnly swear to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic, so help me God.

If the government refused to act then it could justifiably be labeled a rogue government, it's powers nullified and voided and the highest ranking government or military representative should step in, take charge of the military and seize control, pending new elections and transfer of power__Whoever stepped in would forever be known as a national hero.

No reason should ever be considered valid for striking down the 2nd Amendment nor any other right, even if it is justified by a presidential declaration of Martial Law, which is most likely how gun confiscation would come about.
 
For me, I would join the revolution if our government were stupid enough to ban our gun rights.

If I were against gun rights, I would not, with the mere flick of my hand, ban gun rights without even time for discussion.
 
I try any legal means available to me to get the ban repealed, but that would be the end of it. I don't care enough about the matter to rebel against the government over it.
 
Tucker Case said:
Wake up, take a ****, brush my teeth, take a shower, let the dog out, grab some breakfast, go to work, do some work, go to lunch, eat my lunch, maybe take another **** after lunch if I had too much dairy, go back to work, finish work, leave work, go pick up my son at daycare, come hoe, let the dog out, feed my son, change his diaper, make dinner, eat dinner, put my son to bed, watch some TV, maybe take one final **** and go to bed.
Click to expand...
Good response.
Evidently, sir, you do not live in fear.
Nor do I.
But we still must have gun restrictions.
"Unconstitutional " or not.
 
earthworm said:
Good response.
Evidently, sir, you do not live in fear.
Nor do I.
But we still must have gun restrictions.
"Unconstitutional " or not.
Click to expand...

I'm not in favor of gun restrictions really since they don't appear to achieve the goal they wish to achieve (at least they haven't here in Chicago, by any stretch. It's easier for me to get a handgun in illegally in Chicago than it is for me to get one legally in the burbs, since I don't have a current FOID card).

That being said, if there was a federal ban tomorrow, I'd simply go about my day as normal. I'd disagree with the ban, but I certainly wouldn't go nuts over it.
 
The odds of this happening anytime within the 21st century are only slightly better than me learning how to fly to Brazil by flapping my arms.

But if it did, I would not sit still for it. To me the right to arms and to self-protection are as fundamental as freedom of speech and of religion, and act as a check on those who would infringe on my rights. I would not accept such an act at all.... and that's as much detail as I'm going into about it.
 
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
 
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.
 
teamosil said:
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.
Click to expand...
Couple of things. 1) The military wouldn't be the target necessarily, this comes up constantly on the forum. If people were that PO'd you would probably see politicians having to go into hiding, many lawyers, some activist groups, and most probably beauracrats(sp?). The military in our country are considered our countrymen, and politicians have no guarantee that the military would side with them because they have friends, family, and a sworn oath to uphold the constitution.(I'm not chest thumping BTW as this is a hypothetical)

2) Politicians couldn't just launch a nuke at will, they would be endangering their friends and family, there isn't enough "safe harbor" space available for all of them, so that's off the table during a civilian revolt, tanks, planes, stealth gear are on the table.....but then there is the problem of destroying infrastructure that must be replaced within American borders(not as easy to do when going against your own citizens)

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.
Click to expand...
I got a little ahead with the military example, but you have covered it to a point. Civilians aren't going to be bringing "just" shotguns and .22s, more like long range hunting rifles bored +.306, you don't need automatics if the military isn't the target. (again, a hypothetical) Politicians also do keep in mind that there is only x amount of all resources to protect their sorry asses should they test the water of involuntary citizen disarmament.
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.
Click to expand...
They are useful tools in any defensive situation, location is irrelevant.
In some situations they provide more defensive benefit than the risk of accidents they carry.
Click to expand...
Guns do NOT cause accidents, negligence does.
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.
Click to expand...
Rights and policy are not compatible, constitutional law was designed to trump policy(which is a temporary statutory situation).
 
TurtleDude said:
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
Click to expand...
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.
 
teamosil said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
VanceMack said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
teamosil said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
teamosil said:
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.
Click to expand...
I bet Kaddafi, Mubarak, Milosevic, Pinochet, Ceausescu, Duvalier, etc. all thought they had vastly superior fire power and could never be ousted. :doh

.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom