- Joined
- Jan 13, 2012
- Messages
- 946
- Reaction score
- 714
- Location
- Al
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
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?Guns should stay in our past.
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 Second amendment is obviously important, but I'd be more likely to go violent if they repealed the first, fourth or fifth.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 Second amendment is obviously important, but I'd be more likely to go violent if they repealed the first, fourth or fifth.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?
Did the Britons pay people for their firearms when they enacted a ban?
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?
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.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.
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.Wouldn't military backing be necessary to repeal the second to begin with?
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.
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.
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.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.
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.
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.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...
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....
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
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?