Gun prohibition, will it happen?

Discussion in 'Politics & Law' started by pro2A, Jun 23, 2007.

  1. pro2A

    pro2A Hell, It's about time!

    If congress tomorrow voted to strike down the 2nd Amendment and take all guns, do you think there would be armed revolts in the streets or do you think everyone would go peacefully? Who would enforce this dangerous new prohibition of arms? The military and police? Or do you think they would know better? And would it be political suicide for anyone who voted to repeal the second amendment? How long would this last? Only temporary or would it stick?

    This is based on the assumtion that it did or will happen. So please refrain from answering "It won't happen" thanks.

    Note: Please try to remain within the topic and explain what you think would happen if the 2nd was repealed. I want to see if we can go for something other then a pro/anti gun debate again.
     

  2. Moiraine

    Moiraine Guest

    I think many people would simply ignore it and hide the guns so they wouldn't be found. Since congress is issuing out this mandate, the army would be in control of collecting the guns I would say, but imagine that the police would also be very involved in enforcing any law passed down.

    However, people would not agree with this at all. Not only is this an enfringment of the basic rights of a person to have the capability to defend themself, but it places the population at more of a risk to theives or other intruders. For example, take the recent incident in Japan where the Mayor of Nagisaki was shot despite handguns being banned. It simply proves criminals will still obtain weapons. Therefore, keep everyone on an equal level, and allow people the right to have a weapon.
     
  3. pro2A

    pro2A Hell, It's about time!

    I guess I should post what I think would happen.

    1. It would be political suicide. Need I mention the '94 Brady Bill and all those who voted for it. It went from Democrat to Republican over night. Now imagine that on an all out ban.

    2. I believe in more urban areas people would either give them up, or two hide. I doubt there would be wide scale armed revolts. I think there would definitely be at most moderate armed skirmishes in cities, but not the wide scale armed conflict we see in the Middle East.

    3. I believe more liberal areas of the nation i.e. Chicago, New York, DC, San Francisco the police would join with the government in confiscation. In more rural and conservative areas I believe the military and police would in fact side with the people knowing it was wrong to violate the 2nd Amendment.

    4. I really think once people looked at it, after some cops and citizens died the Supreme Court would strike the new prohibition down as un-constitutional, the NRA and GOA would stir up a big stink. It would not last more then 6 months to a year before everything was over turned, and guns were legal again.
     
  4. ChinUp

    ChinUp ¤ Breathe

    You are really really scared of having to face your fellow citizens unarmed aren't you .. the only good reason for disarming somebody is if they are not operating in a disciplined & community oriented capacity with firearms ..

    this is grade school stuff really ..
     
  5. MrCarolina77

    MrCarolina77 Guest

    I am of the ones who feel like they don't need to obey the law. The only good reason is if they have committed a crime and is not trusted enough in the community to have a gun. Like I fucking trust my community. Hell my community can do diddly do shit.

    I think this would be against the constitution and my natural born right as a law bidding citizen who has not broken a single law.
     
  6. ChinUp

    ChinUp ¤ Breathe

    I see after somebody misuses a gun they get it taken away .. that makes lots of sense NOT .. seems to me its smart to have safeguards in place that insure people are operating in a disciplined & community oriented manner with firearms in order to prevent any damage ahead of time .. the way you tell it being free to own a firearm for personal protection is more important than being able to represent your ability to be responsible & accountable to your peers .. seems pretty backwards to me .. I would expect somebody to be able to prove their ability to handle the responsibility of a firearm, before they were in possession of one ..

    Operating independently with a firearm in public is an offense IMo // an individual must be accountable to a community focused group 100% of the time they are in possession of a firearm .. firearms are not a need they are a luxury item .. & thus need to be regulated accordingly .. especially when the luxury people are wishing to enjoy is the power to shoot people/animals ..
     
  7. MrCarolina77

    MrCarolina77 Guest

    Thats why they are given to law obeying citizens. I don't trust the community worth a shit. My community could not do diddly do shit, I could not trust them with a bag of cheetos. It has other purposes like being used to go hunting, sport *shooting targets for gun practice*. Cars, Glass, and rope are luxury items too, shouldn't they be regulated too? Why single guns only. Do you know how much glass hurts when it gets deep in your skin. More people die of Car accidents in one month then gun deaths in ONE YEAR!!! Its not a need either. It just helps us get places faster.
     
  8. KayceeKay01

    KayceeKay01 Guest

    Ha! I'm from the south and I can safely say as long as there is a south with rednecks living in the back woods, there will never be a gun prohibition. It would never stay passed....thats like banning alcohol from the south, equally uneffective.
     
  9. Merc

    Merc Certified Shitlord V.I.P. Lifetime

    Want gun problems and issues to rise in intensity and negativity tenfold?

    Then ban them.

    The outright banishment of anything usually doesn't bode well and is usually not a good solution.
     
  10. CMK_Eagle

    CMK_Eagle Registered Member

    Yes, because the law is, by nature, reactive. Intervention to restrict a person's liberty can only be justified when that person actually has injured (or has attempted to injure) another. It's a very important part of the notion that individuals are to be treated as innocent until proven guilty.


    If Congress were to vote to repeal the 2nd Amendment tomorrow, I think it would go to the States for ratification.



    OK, fine, if 2/3 of both chambers of Congress, and 3/4 of the States agreed to revoke the 2nd Amendment and enacted a ban on firearms, I think the result would likely be a second civil war, though I think it's one the government would win as such an amendment would have to be overwhelmingly popular in order to pass.
     

Share This Page