So once the Second Amendment is repealed

[sarisataka]

and gun ownership prohibited, who will be entrusted to enforce this?

I am curious how much power we will allow police to have for enforcement. Will police arrest anyone in possession of a gun as they encounter them, will we allow the police to go house to house and confiscate guns or will it be like illegal immigration and left up to Federal enforcement?

Will any additional weaponry be authorized for use in enforcing the new paradigm?

[ileus]

1. It's the thought that matters.

See I'm feeling better already.

[Bluzmann57]

2. We'll never know

It ain't gonna happen, the 2nd amendment will not be repealed. Ever.

[GeorgeGist]

3. Many countries permit gun ownership without a 'Second Amendment'.

[sarisataka]

7. Many are saying,

and with much support, "Guns have no place in modern society".

[RichVRichV]

4. Why would a repeal of the second amendment mean prohibition of guns?

I assume it would mean gun ownership would go from being a right to being a privilege, in the way that drivers licenses are.

[sarisataka]

9. I believe it is the two birds with one stone

You can repeal the 2A and prohibit firearms in the same amendment.

The matter would not be left up to the states. Besides, you need to view this on a mid-21st Century timeline instead of viewing it in the present. Repealing the 2A is a very long term goal, not a short term one.

-quoted with permission

[RichVRichV]

42. Well good for whoever wrote that.

You can write any law you want, but good luck getting the majority of people to pass prohibition.

Some of us are just tired of the second amendment being used to challenge common sense regulations. We're not out to ban guns, just regulate them.

Other people are after prohibition. While others don't even want regulations and hide behind the second amendment for every argument.

[sarisataka]

47. You missed the group I am in

who believe the Second Amendment can be left as is while enacting good gun laws to improve public safety.

[RichVRichV]

67. Hey I'd love to see that happen.

Not sure it can though. The problem is, even if we can get them passed, many of these laws that have gotten passed have been shot down in the courts on second amendment grounds. How can we see what truly works when the most effective parts keep getting neutered. All we can do is dance lightly around the problem because too many judges ignore the amendment's qualifier.

[NowSam]

5. We should not repeal the 2nd Amendment

We should just focus on the part of it that says "Well Regulated". The amendment as written allows for regulation, it seems to me. Licensing of hand guns to those who are taught gun safety, and the handling of their weapon, take an oath to uphold the law, and such. Universal background checks should be done, etc.

There is also the issue of us vs them and that is part of the bigger issue. Other nations arm everyone and they are not going through this. Those nations really are "One nation, indivisible". Here we have a very divided nation - full of distrust and hate. There is still a horrible amount of racism and such as well.

Economic distress is truly a great cause of desperation for so many who are living pay check to paycheck or worse and are one mishap from disaster. Others are medicated out the wazoo in order to cope with the cognitive dissonance of living in such a dog eat dog society. People are desperate. They don't trust their neighbors, the media, the government, or anything. In a grossly greedy for profit society where the marketers are feeding the fears and seducing simultaneously the people - bombarding them with a zillion bytes of that per minute - where the doctors and pharmaceutical industry cares about $$$$$$ but not safety or efficacy, where the NRA, the Church and other lobbies manipulate and stir the pot of discontent - where the police are not held to any standard of civility - Its a powder keg right now and we need to come together with our neighbors. We need to see the cause of who is dividing the people and fermenting the hate. We need to be "We the People." No more us vs them. That's the only way to curb this.

We the people must hold our public servants' feet to the fire and hold them to the highest standards of accountability. Really we must say, "Enough is enough".

[fadedrose]

32. How can our gun owndership laws be in any way

defined as well-regulated? Good point.

The very first words are "A well-regulated....," and until that part is met, the rights to own and bear can be be infringed up until those regulations are defined and met.

[jonno99]

56. "Well Regulated" = "Well Trained". Govt. regulations - especially federal - were almost

non-existent at the time of the founding (there was no EPA, OSHA, IRS, EEOC, DOL, etc, etc.).

So it's safe to conclude that "well regulated" was NOT about govt. rules controlling firearms.

Insert "well-trained" (or "well-equipped&quot and the amendment makes perfect sense - especially when you add the last section: "...the right of the people..."

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

IMHO - "infringed" is actually the key word on which to focus. As Bernie has pointed out 99.9% of guns owners are responsible.

Of course the trick is always: how then do we manage the lawless 0.1% without infringing the rights of the law-abiding?

[LondonReign2]

66. Then perhaps we can focus on gun owners being well-trained

At least as well trained as car drivers.

[beevul]

74. You're starting with a false premise.

The bill of rights restricts only government, and authorizes nothing.

[NightWatcher]

6. Let's start with sensible laws

[sarisataka]

12. Yes, but I'm looking at the long term issue

I'm with you on gun confiscation, so you're not alone.

It really could be done somewhat incrementally. Start be requiring they all be registered and insured. An owner is responsible for any and all guns in his possession. If stolen, he needs to report that theft. If not reported, and the gun turns up used by someone else, that owner gives up all guns forever.

So after the sensible laws reduce numbers somewhat, how will we complete the matter?

[ancianita]

93. Sensible laws will only reduce official numbers, not real numbers. Seriously, the long-term "gun

horse is out of the barn" for good. You're not going to put it back in your lifetime.

There's no taking back over 300 million guns that we know of.

And did you hear about the recent public sales of flamethrowers?

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

8. Is this before or after we stop guns from being smuggled in?

Supply will somehow meet demand.

Maybe the Great Wall of Trump ...

nah, we still have coastlines, as well as that pesky country to our north

[Spider Jerusalem]

14. Stop guns from being smuggled in? Hah.

You are aware that the USA is one of the world's leading points of origin for gun-smuggling, yes? (Most of the guns used by Mexican gangs? Where do you think they come from?)

[Lurks Often]

121. You mean like these guns being smuggled in?

California Senate's Top Gun Control Advocate Arrested In Firearms Trafficking Plot:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/26/leland-yee-gun-traffickin_n_5038152.html

[sarisataka]

16. Supply and demand

once the U.S. pipeline is cut off, the flow will reverse. Canada will become a supplier of weapons to U.S. criminals.

[Taitertots]

23. Most peaceful era in human history!

AND other people don't live in a fantasy where draconian gun laws will reduce violence.

But keep beating that dead horse and pushing people away from progressive candidates.

[Taitertots]

28. And they have failed in other places

[Lizzie Poppet]

41. Did those countries see a REDUCTION is such crimes...

...after their strict gun regulations were enacted? Or did they already have far lower rates of violent crime, and those regulations changed very little, statistically? I think you'll find that in most cases, the latter is true. Our problem with violent crime is a lot more complicated than the single issue of large numbers of guns in civilian hands.

[CTyankee]

72. Australia.

[Recursion]

108. But Australia'a decrease in gun violence was smaller than the US's over the same period (nt)

[CTyankee]

120. here

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/05/gun-control-in-australia/

things are looking up down under...

[beevul]

125. Australia also confiscated guns.

And lets not quibble about the definition of confiscated, mkay? If people were compelled by law to give up guns against their wishes, compensated financially or not, its confiscation.

Can I assume you support confiscation?

[sarisataka]

24. Well since there are no magic fairies

to wish guns away, it is necessary to look at how to apply suggested solutions and consider the logistics needed. One must actually work to achieve a set goal. To expect it true come true without effort is extremely ignorant.

I would be willing to place a bet that I am far more familiar with guns, violence and death than you are, so yes I actually care quite a bit.

[sarisataka]

38. I never said it can't be done.

If we assume you achieve repeal/prohibition it surely can be done.

I am asking how?


Oh and my gun needs are quite minimal, but thank you for your concern.

*Dear alerter- thank you but it was not necessary. My skin is quite thick.

[CTyankee]

30. "pesky" again...wow you guys love that word, as in pesky 2nd Amendment...it's kinda like a mantra...

[linuxman]

10. We'll let our trusted police force collect them under threat of death at the end of a gun.

You know, so nobody gets hurt by guns anymore.

DU can never decide whether we don't need guns because the police protect us, or if the cops are all idiot racists with guns.

I vote that anyone using anything other than fists in a fight be executed on sight (by a good fist pummeling, of course ) so that nobody has an unfair advantage. Better start hittingg the dojo, grammy.

[JT1979]

21. So where does you plan go

when those gun owners do not let the police take there guns?

[LonePirate]

40. You arrest and jail those people like you would any other felony lawbreakers.

[JT1979]

52. So what hapens when

Those police get shot trying to arrest and take guns?

[LonePirate]

60. Those so-called law abiding gun owners are wanted for homicide/attempted homicide among others.

Fear of enforcing a law should never serve as a deterrent for not having or enforcing the law in the first place.

If gun nutters truly support the Constitution, then they will obey it when it eventually prohibits the possession of firearms.

[beevul]

75. What if theres 25 million of them?

Then what.

[LonePirate]

78. Unless all 25M converge on Washington at the same time waving their guns

then it is merely an issue for local law enforcement officers.

[beevul]

80. Have you ever heard of assymetrical warfare?

Insurgents generally do not line up all gentlemanly like the british did in the revolutionary war, and say 'here I am, come get me'.

See Viet Nam and Iraq for examples.

[LonePirate]

85. I don't see it ending any differently than the countless police standoffs that occurred up until now

The criminals will either end up dead or in jail if they attempt to shoot an officer of law. If they shoot and hit, they should expect even more LEOs to come after them.

The vast majority of gun owners will either voluntarily turn over their guns or they will quietly maintain possession of them without it impacting anyone.

Then you have the small percentage of Dumbfuck Billy Bob gun owners who think they are brave and skilled enough to outgun and outlast a much larger and better armed group of LEOs. If they then choose to fire on those LEOs, then they can pay the consequences of such illegal activity with either jail time or their life. Fortunately, there are fewer and fewer of these idiots with each passing year.

[beevul]

86. "a much larger and better armed group of LEOs."

a much larger and better armed group of LEOs.

You mean like at the bundy ranch? Why didn't the bundy ranch incident follow your script?


There are approximately 900,000 state federal and local LEOs in America.

If 25 million people decide they've had enough, 900,000 leos will soon be half that many, and that's before any fighting starts - probably at least half of them would suddenly be looking for another line of work, or be sympathizers to the insurgent cause. Many leos like guns, and see things different when its their guns being taken away.


I hope none of the above ever happen, and I think you have not thought this through very well.

[LonePirate]

89. You are overestimating the bravery and ability of Joe Gun Owner to take down LEOs

Besides, after the reports start coming in of failed resistance by their brethren, the idiots will abandon their illegal dreams of holding on to their guns.

[Lizzie Poppet]

90. You're greatly overestimating the average LEO's combat ability.

As I mention elsewhere, the average beat cop fires their weapon a handful of times a year. They're no more skilled that Joe Gun Owner. The SWAT guys tend to be pretty good (although the couple of SWAT snipers I've seen at the range don't impress me all that much). But there are a few thousand of them, nationwide.

But I can see this is a pointless discussion. If you insist on believing that a proactive attempt at confiscation wouldn't turn into a bloodbath, there's obviously nothing I can do to change that. Hopefully, the demonstration of just how wrong you are never comes to pass.

[LonePirate]

91. There might be a bloodbath but you are mistaken about who the victims are going to be.

The vast majority of them will be Joe Gun Owner, who is no more skilled at using his weapon than the idiot who leaves his gun unsecured for his child to find.

[Lizzie Poppet]

98. To be blunt, you have no idea what you're talking about.

I spend a fair bit of time at shooting ranges on a very regular basis (I practice weekly with my self-defense pistols and I'm a pretty serious long-range rifle competitor, which requires a LOT of practice). I've seen plenty of "Joe Gun Owner" types who are obviously not spending a lot of time at the range...but the thing is, I also see a lot of average beat cops at the same pistol range (and occasionally share the rifle range with some of the SWAT marksmen). Those beat cops are no better than ol' Joe.

Of course, pistol shooting skill would be largely irrelevant in the sort of scenario we're discussing. Those kinds of fight happen with rifles. With rifles, I'd say the average gun owner who has rifles at all is probably a better shooter than the average cop. Again, the average cop only shoots that rifle to keep their qualification current. The average civilian AR-15 owner probably goes through several times more rounds in a year. The average hunter, with a scoped high-power bolt-action rifle, spends range time meticulously sighting in their rifle.

More serious shooters will have a significant skill advantage over the average LEO. Those serious shooters are far fewer in number that Joe Average Gun Owner, but would probably be the group from which the majority of insurrectionists would be drawn. That group includes a good number of combat veterans. I assure you that combat vets aren't remotely afraid of the average cop.

Yeah, there are serious shooters and combat vets on police forces, too...but they are few in number compared to gun owners, and I'm betting that a big chunk of them would refuse confiscation orders (they tend to be strongly pro-gun).

[GGJohn]

99. You truly believe that nonsense?

Stop and think how many combat vets, like me, who are gun owners, stop and think how many police officers are in favor of civilian ownership of firearms, stop and think about LEO's in CT, CO, NY who have flat out said that they refuse to enforce those gun control laws just passed.

You, my friend, are living in a fantasy world if you think that gun owners won't fight back, whether through the courts, elections, or direct action.

[LonePirate]

101. Stop and think about the type of society that would exist to enact a 2A repeal.

You are applying today's mindset to a future scenario that would only occur if hearts and minds change dramatically (or without the terrorist organization known as the NRA). And yes, hearts and minds are slowly changing if you hadn't noticed, especially among millennials and their offspring who would be leading the country by this time.

[branford]

104. You're right, hearts and minds are changing,

more and more people are supporting gun rights (apart from the significant legal and electoral victories)

?_ga=1.227316372.821904105.1440527851

[GGJohn]

109. Every poll out there refutes what you're saying here.

https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nation/2014/12/12/more-americans-support-gun-rights-over-controls-pew-poll-finds/UvPRleToyrwDDSFqs1gqPL/story.html

Poll finds more Americans favor gun rights over controls

By Timothy Williams New York Times December 12, 2014



NEW YORK — Two years after the mass school shooting in Newtown, Conn., a majority of Americans say it is more important to protect the right to own guns than for the government to limit access to firearms, a Pew Research Center survey released this week found.

The center said in a statement that it was the first time in two decades of its surveys on attitudes about firearms that a majority of Americans have expressed more support for gun ownership rights than for gun control.



Fifty-two percent of respondents said it was more important to protect gun ownership rights, while 46 percent said the priority should be controlled access to firearms.

In a 2000 Pew survey, 29 percent chose gun rights over gun control, and in a 2013 survey conducted a month after the Newtown shooting, 45 percent favored gun rights.

So your assertion that attitudes are changing is true, just not the way you say it is.

[friendly_iconoclast]

111. Would the confiscations all be over by Christmas?

History is full of examples of people proclaiming short, easy military actions and finding
out the hard way that war doesn't work that way. The invasion of Iraq is the most
obvious recent example.

[beevul]

92. Answer the question.

Why didn't the bundy ranch incident follow your script?

Besides, after the reports start coming in of failed resistance by their brethren, the idiots will abandon their illegal dreams of holding on to their guns.

I thought gun people loved their guns more than kids? That's what a whole lot of posters have been saying for years here on DU. Yet You really believe, that reports coming in of friends and family and fellow insurgents dead at the hands of what they perceive to be tyrants, would take the wind out of their sails instead of strengthen their resolve? Why didn't your theory hold water in Iraq and Afganistan and Viet Nam?

You do not understand human beings, or history for that matter, very well at all, and I'd dare say Pitcairn and Smith probably held similar sentiments. History tells those of us who will bother to listen, how that worked out.

[LonePirate]

100. Most of these hypothetical gun owners would likely be little more than cowards and windbags

Keep in mind that all of this would occur after the 2A repeal had passed and 80% or more of Americans would be in support of the repeal and confiscation. The hold outs stupid enough to engage LEOs and society deserve whatever fate befalls them. You

Oh, I'm not the Director of the FBI so who knows what script they are following or why.

[beevul]

103. Like I said...

You don't understand human beings or human nature very well.

Keep in mind that all of this would occur after the 2A repeal had passed and 80% or more of Americans would be in support of the repeal and confiscation.

If you're going to invent a fictional future, why don't you invent one in which people are not harmed when shot with a firearm. At least that has some chance of becoming reality.

[sarisataka]

105. We've heard this before

on DU-

2. I have often wondered about that, it should be assumed that they are potential terrorists

Maybe if a few of these jackasses get taken down maybe some of the others stop being such assholes.

Gun owners in general are cowards, one or two times should be enough to have them cowering under their bed.

9. Takes mere seconds to un-sling and shoot.

I say shoot them on sight , just to be safe. No sane person would carry a rifle around a grocery store. Only the insane and the criminally motivated. So, again, I say shoot them on sight, let their bodies rot in the streets as a message to other hell-bent gunners.

Nothing but good could come of this.

10. Nonsense.

That gun can be readied and fired in only seconds. Best to just shoot them.

Funny how quickly people who proclaim to be against gun violence turn to the thoughts of guns to eliminate those they oppose.
Drones and using military weaponry against civilians become real popular too.

[GGJohn]

110. Cowards and windbags?

It's painfully obvious that you know nothing about firearm owners.

[Lizzie Poppet]

87. I agree, but if (and only if) there's no attempt at aggressive enforcement.

Should the unlikely occur and a ban be enacted but no attempt at widespread confiscation be made, I have no doubt it would be as you say (sort of: I don't see many gun owners turning in anything beyond a few "red herring" junk guns...but most would simply quietly retain their weapons).

However, if there is an aggressive attempt to confiscate weapons, the situation would be very, very different. I absolutely assure you that there would be widespread resistance. The police are almost ludicrously outnumbered in such a scenario. There are approximately 750,000 to 900,000 law enforcement personnel with arrest powers in the entire nation. There are about 80,000,000 gun owners, and even if a fairly small percentage of them were willing to resist, that's a ridiculous force mismatch (particularly since there's no way on earth a lot of cops would obey such orders).

Cops are not better armed than civilians, with the exception of some SWAT units and some of the heavy military gear that we've let trickle into police hands. The semi-automatic rifle (AR-15, usually) or shotgun in the average cop's police cruiser is the same weapon millions of civilians own. Same for their service pistol (most often a Glock or Smith & Wesson M&P, both readily available and in widespread circulation) Millions of hunters have rifles that are the functional equivalent of a SWAT team's sniper's weapon.

I'm not sure the average beat cop is all that much better a shooter than the average civilian, either (and is absolutely not as good as a serious shooting enthusiast...most cops go to the range once or twice a year, for qualification). Moreover, a whole bunch of gun owners are ex-military with combat experience. Guys and gals like that consider cops to be amateurs.

The upshot? If a ban is basically just security theater, designed to give the uninformed a false sense of security, I don't see bloodshed in significant amounts. An aggressive confiscation attempt, however, would be a bloodbath.

[DonP]

96. Ummm, a lot of gun owners are veterans too

It's a lot easier to see this whole confiscation idea going easily with nobody to deal with but "Good Ole Boy Billy Bob", the fat old white redneck that ignorant stereotypers love to use in cartoons.

Of course they never actually go to a range and see who is out there shooting. They are far too morally superior to ever actually learn who they are demeaning.

But the reality is, a lot of gun owners are veterans and not necessarily REMF type paper pushers. About 75% of the shooters at my local range are veterans, a few WW II and Korea, a lot of Vietnam and plenty from Operation Iraqi Freedom/Afghanistan, men and women, black, white and brown.

They know how to use their firearms in stressful situations and spend a lot more time at the range then the police do, qualifying once a year.

But let the gun confiscation fans have their little fantasy. They can't even get anyone to show up and vote their way in the first place. They need something to cheer them up.

[Lizzie Poppet]

83. More like 80 million.

Obviously not all would be willing to take up arms against confiscation...but I think gun control extremists grossly underestimate the numbers that would resist...and overestimate the numbers of police (or military) that would be willing to enforce such laws.

[beevul]

88. Also in question...

How many who do not own guns would be outraged enough, in our hypothetical, to get involved?

I think it would likely be a number far greater than zero.

[Fla_Democrat]

112. How does one know...

who has a gun? Stop and frisk? House to house? Certainly you can't expect someone to declare they have an illegal weapon, that would violate the 5th amendment.... oh, wait... I guess amendments are just not what they use to be....

[DetlefK]

11. No need to search houses.

If any weaponized contraband shows up in your possession in any way, it gets confiscated and you get a massive fine based on a percentage of your wage.

You can hide that gun in your drawer or bury it in your backyard. No problem. But if anybody ever finds that gun, then you have a problem.

[sarisataka]

13. While that would work eventually

it will not prevent criminals from acquiring guns via theft. As there is no registration, the provider of the gun gets off scotfreo

[DetlefK]

17. Theft? What theft?

There won't be guns left to steal.

- Some ordinary owners will get rid of their guns. -> Nothing to steal.
- Some ordinary owners will get licences for "oldtimer"-guns (e.g. inherited). -> Very rare.
- Some ordinary owners will hide their guns. -> Too well-hidden to steal.
- Public servants will own guns. -> Too dangerous to steal, plus they are registered.

And as the number of gun-owners dwindles, the market for guns shrinks. Many gun-manufacturers go out of business, the rest is monitored. And there will also be no more use for gun-sellers. As the only gun-sellers will be the companies themselves and as they can only legally sell to agencies of the government, the way of every illegal gun found at a crime-scene can easily be traced back.

[CTyankee]

81. Yep. Not too hard to understand...

[CTyankee]

19. well, why don't you do some research and see what happens in modern constitutional democracies

that have sensible gun control laws?

What happened in Australia? There, too, dystopian visions were spread around by the usual ones interested in doing so.

[sarisataka]

29. I am aware what has been done else where

I am asking what will we do here.

As I stated to another poster- it is necessary to look at how to apply suggested solutions and consider the logistics needed. One must actually work to achieve a set goal. To expect it true come true without effort is extremely ignorant.

[CTyankee]

33. just ignore other countries experience...yep...why?

Methinks you just do not want to hear it...sorry, but you cannot magically wave that away...

[sarisataka]

35. When did I say ignore it?

I never ruled out a buy back scheme, voluntary turn in or anything else.
Given a mix of incentives I would expect 20-80% compliance, probably around 30%.

However even 80% compliance would leave six million or so guns out there. That is the minimum figure you need to deal with.

I think you just want to wave it away.

[CTyankee]

39. well, then consider what happens when other countries control guns better than we do.

why do they have success? And what stands in our way from emulating them, since they get positive RESULTS?

[sarisataka]

44. IMO nothing stands in the way

except political will and effective popular support.

Some seem to believe we must eliminate the Second Amendment first. I disagree, believing we can do everything needed as is, but prohibition/confiscation is not my end goal.

[CTyankee]

48. Well, there's that pesky NRA controlling Congress on this issue...

THERE is your answer to both your "except" instances which you choose to ignore (I wonder why...but never mind...)

[sarisataka]

54. OK let me answer with a question...

Why does the NRA control Congress? Are we not "of the People, by the People and for the People"?

The NRA has what 5 million maybe, of 100 million gun owners+/-. Those 95% non-member could stomp the NRA policies out in a heart beat. And IIRC gun owners are a minority of the population...

As I said elsewhere, it can be done but it takes work.

Last year Minnesota had a DV bill that removed guns from those under an RO. I read it, felt it was good and contacted my rep. I volunteered time explained it to other gun owners, sold them on the benefits and they took it to others. With a lot of hard work it flew threw legislature. It was so popular with gun owners it was backed by the NRA. You can read about it on Bloomberg's MDA site, though they fail to mention some details.

We have a strong law protecting victims of DV because we worked at it.

[CTyankee]

65. first, I congratulate you on your work on behalf of DV victims. Great job.

I don't know why the NRA keeps those gun safety bills out, even after Sandy Hook and in view of the huge surge in public opinion for stronger gun safety laws. But the fact of the matter is, they DO. And people do work for those candidates who support more regulations. But their proposals don't make it through. But there's this http://www.publicintegrity.org/2013/05/01/12591/gun-lobbys-money-and-power-still-holds-sway-over-congress

[sarisataka]

68. Thank you

protection of vulnerable and at risk people is important to me for personal reasons.

Too many people have blinders on when it come to the NRA. Gun advocates, Gun control advocates, politicians see this money monolith speaking for all gun owners. They do not even speak for all of their members views, let alone all gun owners. Money wise they are big but far from the biggest.

It isn't easy to beat an opponent that has become a mythological giant but it can be done. Gun owners will support good gun laws; connecting to them is the difficult part.

[world wide wally]

22. It's ironic that the Constitution uses the words "well regulated" and in the 21st

Century, those are dirty words because....the Constitution, ya know .

[hack89]

25. States will simply enforce their own constitutions

and do nothing.

[BlueCaliDem]

27. "So once the Second Amendment is repealed" - NOT going to happen.

So there's no use in speculating the ifs and whats.

[LonePirate]

45. It won't happen today but let's see what happens in the next 25 years.

[BlueCaliDem]

50. I'm not convinced it will ever happen. The 2nd Amendment is here to stay.

The best we can hope for is sensible gun laws. It could be the start of gutting the 2nd Amendment, but we can't even get a simple background-check law through, so I'm not as optimistic as some people about repealing that all-American 2nd Amendment.

[davidn3600]

94. It will never happen

You will never get enough votes in Congress (2/3rds of both chambers) and enough states (38) to repeal it.

[LonePirate]

113. Never huh?

By 2025 and maybe even by 2020, amendment levels of support for marriage equality will exist in Congress and the states. How many people would believe that back in 2000? Massive social change is possible in this country over the course of a couple of decades. By 2040, there could well be amendment levels of support for a repeal.

If you hadn't noticed, urbanites and millennials are not big gun supporters. Who do you think will be leading the country in 2040? All of this gun violence is only turning more people against guns and once demographics or a focused electorate ends the Republican majorities in Congress, we will start seeing small changes to gun laws. These changes will only accelerate us towards a repeal of that antiquated amendment.

[GGJohn]

114. Uh huh, suuuree it will.

But hey, if believing that floats your boat, have at it, in the meantime, my children, grand children, great grand children will be fighting the likes of you and your fellow prohibitionists at the polls, in the courts, etc.

[LonePirate]

115. Your grandchildren and great grandchildren will be standing with their peers and not with you

Just like with marriage equality, when it comes to guns, the younger generation will support a position their grandparents oppose. You might want to open your eyes and take a look at the trends in this country before adopting any position currently espoused by the right.

[GGJohn]

116. You couldn't be more wrong.

My grand children already are gun owners and hunters and they'll pass on to their children the virtues of gun ownership and hunting, who'll pass it on to their children and so on and so forth.

Now, just imagine millions upon millions of rural and millions of suburban families doing the same.

But, as I said, if it floats your boat to believe that.............................

[davidn3600]

117. Gay marriage wouldnt pass as a constitutional amendment

You are confusing national opinion polls..
True, something like 60% of Americans support marriage equality. But do you really think you would get 2/3rds of both chambers and 38 states to agree to gay marriage? Not a chance in hell. The only reason we have gay marriage legal right now is because the Supreme Court acted to make it legal.

We cannot even get 38 states to agree to the Equal Rights Amendment.

You cannot change the Constitution through only Congress. You need 38 states to agree.

And it's not only Republicans...there are a lot of Democrats who favor guns. The DNC platform is recognizing the 2nd amendment as an individual right.

[LonePirate]

118. You didn't pay attention to what I said.

I said by 2025, maybe by 2020, there would be amendment levels of support for marriage equality in this country. I never said we had it today. I'm not sure how you missed that point.

You and others who share your opinion are all speaking in the here and now while others and myself are speaking about things 20-30 years down the road. You may disagree and that's fine. However, this country is headed towards a tipping point in its views about guns. It may be several years away but it will happen. People will finally decide it is time to seek solutions to all of the gun violence. Repealing the 2A is simply the end goal, albeit an exceptionally long term goal which I believe we can and must achieve.

[beevul]

127. What about the state constitutions that explicitly protect RKBA?

You can't just ignore those.

[Motown_Johnny]

34. So many things wrong with that post.

Even if somehow the impossible happened and the Second Amendment is repealed, it would only remove the Constitutional right to own a firearm. This does not mean that people won't be able to own a gun. It would simply mean that we could pass stricter regulations on it.

Gun ownership would continue. The vast majority of gun owners would not be affected at all. Maybe a background check would be needed if they went to buy a new weapon. Not much else.

Some of the more deadly weapons would be harder to obtain. But there are extremely deadly weapons which are difficult to obtain now. Expanding those protections to military style rifles would not be a big deal.

As for new weapons for law enforcement, the police are militarized enough now. No new weapons would be needed. In fact, once some time has passed and some of the worst weapons are no longer on the street, police may find they need fewer weapons than they now have.

[sarisataka]

58. While the thought of police

becoming less militarized is nice, I fear that like a "temporary" tax they are here to stay

[X_Digger]

119. The bill of rights grants no rights. Repealing an amendment would not remove a right. n/t

[Motown_Johnny]

123. The bill of rights grants no rights?

So if the fourth amendment was repealed, you would't lose the right to be secure against unreasonable searches?




Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

[X_Digger]

124. No, the right would become protected by the ninth amendment.

Here's the preamble to the Bill of Rights, it's quite illuminating-

[div class='excerpt']The Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution.

Abuse of whose powers? Declaratory and restrictive clauses against whom?

The Bill of Rights is a 'the government shall not' document, not a 'the people may' document- Congress shall pass no law.. No person shall be held to answer.. (by whom?) Excessive bail shall not be required.. (required by whom?)

[beevul]

126. I find it funny in a real sad way, how many politically active people do not understand the basics.

It used to be taught in high school civics class.

[X_Digger]

129. I've often said that civics should be a refresher test every 5 years like driver's licenses.

What a 10th grade high school student knows about government (assuming they pass) should be common knowledge.

[GGJohn]

128. The BoR does not GRANT rights,

it's a restriction on the govt.

Jeeez, that's Civics 101.

[sarisataka]

130. This will help correct ignorance

notice the word "grant" is not used. I have taken the liberty to highlight a portion of the text.

The First 10 Amendments to the

Constitution as Ratified by the States

December 15, 1791
Preamble

Congress OF THE United States
begun and held at the City of New York, on Wednesday
the Fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.

THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution

RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.:

ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.

[Trajan]

36. I have been on an ignore kick the last two months or so

And threads like these are gold mines for ridding my feed of all manner of 'Liberal Democrats' who's sole purpose is to promote gun nuttery in a liberal bastion.

You are today's first ... Congratulations.

[CTyankee]

43. so have I! It's fun. Like a nice cleansing shower...

[sarisataka]

51. Should I feel honored

I am not promoting any gun nuttery. I am asking a good question- as you pointed out below.

How will the plan be implemented?

[Trajan]

37. Good question though

[sarisataka]

49. Perhaps you would care to answer it n/t

[jberryhill]

53. With mass strip searching and dog attacks, like they did in Australia

Oh, wait, they didn't do that in Australia. Hmmm....

[sarisataka]

55. That is one possibility

and I don't think everyone would be opposed to it...

[jberryhill]

57. I believe you missed the point

Why don't you take a look at what they actually did in Australia.

[sarisataka]

59. I addressed it previously

I never ruled out a buy back scheme, voluntary turn in or anything else.
Given a mix of incentives I would expect 20-80% compliance, probably around 30%.

However even 80% compliance would leave six million or so guns out there. That is the minimum figure you need to deal with.

[ellisonz]

82. I'm cool with that so long as the dog doesn't bite me in the nuts or the butt.

[samsingh]

61. just enforce it the way it was written and not perverted by the gun lobby

nra, cowardly politicians, 5 repugs on the supreme court (who I guess don't allow guns into their chambers), and gun manufacturers.

then the gun problem in America will become like the gun problem in other countries. still a problem, but not as much a gun culture or epidemic.

people will still have guns, we just won't feel like its patriotic to shoot them - and we won't have presidential candidates who think they should be elected simply because they like to hump their guns.

[Agschmid]

62. I don't want the second amendment repealed...

I just want us to update it, it's 2015... Things have changed.

IMO the constitution should be updated now and then.

[sarisataka]

63. I believe Jefferson alluded to that

though it is most often taken out of context.

It would have been nice if the authors included the calling of a Constitutional Convention every 20 years or so to allow changes easier than the Amending process. I shudder to think, however, what such a Convention would look like today.

[davidn3600]

97. We'd rip each other apart

Imagine if they had put a sunset clause in the Constitution where you have to form a convention to rewrite it after a few hundred years.

We would never agree. Literally we would annihilate ourselves in civil war. There is no way the American people would be able to come together and form a document like we did in 1789 and everyone be happy enough to accept it. We would break into pieces and you'd have multiple blocks of states declaring independence. We are today so incredibly politically-polarized it's amazing we've held together this long.

[cherokeeprogressive]

64. Guns would come across the border by the thousands. n/t

[TeeYiYi]

69. America needs to keep its 2nd Amendment rights intact...

...To do otherwise would further open the door to an authoritarian philosophy of government where American traditions of freedom and liberty continue to erode. We're already balancing precariously on that particular slippery slope, with the gradual acceptance of our newly militarized and weaponized, unified 'homeland' racist police force and the privatized school to prison pipeline…along with the loss of any presumed right to privacy.

To seek out a society without guns is to further invite an intrusive breach of basic privacy laws in America's 'land of the free' and to readily submit to unlimited police power. Banning guns won't stop murderers from killing people. Killers with weapons have been killing fellow citizens since the dawn of time with their favorite weapon du jour, be it rock or pointy stick.

Prohibition is not the answer. Any gun violence map is a testament to that fact. The states with the highest gun ownership have the lowest murder rates... Prohibiting guns might slow down gun death statistics but it won't influence the overall rate of crime and murder in America.

Countries that have capitulated to a societal call for a gun ban, never had the equivalent of American individual rights to lose in the first place. Take Japan and Russia as examples. Their citizens are already used to having a dearth of privacy and civil rights; and yet, Russia has a higher murder rate than the United States, in spite of their gun ban. In fact, America is in seventh place on that list:

In the 46-page study, which can be read in its entirety here, Kates and Mauser looked at and compared data from the U.S. and parts of Europe to show that stricter laws don’t mean there is less crime. As an example, when looking at “intentional deaths,” or murder, on an international scope, the U.S. falls behind Russia, Estonia, and four other countries, ranking it seventh.  More specifically, data shows that in Russia, where guns are banned, the murder rate is significantly higher than in the U.S in comparison. “There is a compound assertion that guns are uniquely available in the United States compared with other modern developed nations, which is why the United States has by far the highest murder rate. Though these assertions have been endlessly repeated, [the latter] is, in fact, false and [the former] is substantially so,” the authors point out, based on their research.

But when it comes to examining nations as a whole, the Harvard study suggests otherwise. “If more guns equal more death and fewer guns equal less death, areas within nations with higher gun ownership should in general have more murders than those with less gun ownership in a similar area. But, in fact, the reverse pattern prevails,” the authors wrote.

And, banning guns most certainly won't have an effect on the incidence of suicide, which has been around for millennia. Poison, prescription drugs and a hot bath with razor blades or a kitchen appliance are just as effective, if not moreso in the event of a gun ban.

PS and FYI--->> 90% of gun crimes are committed by men. Instead of banning guns, perhaps we should just consider banishing men… /sarc

TYY

[LanternWaste]

70. The Muppets have always been our best defense against reductio ad absurdum fallacies.

The Muppets have always been our best defense against reductio ad absurdum fallacies. Good thing they're re-airing soon in the light of this disturbing, melodramatic new paradigm you prophecize.

Hope that helps... though a prescription may be more effective.

[sarisataka]

71. I am looking forward to the Muppets return

hopefully it will be as good as the original.

It is not my prophecy but I am willing to act as devil's advocate to help others achieve their goals. It is one thing to say I want this to happen. It is another to determine how to make it happen.

Much like the old Soviet five years plans- they rarely realized their expected goals but they were always better off than when they started five years previously.

[Hoyt]

76. Won't all those responsible, law-abiding gun owners comply. Or is that another NRA lie?

[sarisataka]

84. Indeed they will comply

Although may choose to engage in civil disobedience.

[Hoyt]

95. Funny, "civil disobedience" over their precious gunz just doesn't ring true.

[Half-Century Man]

77. I've brought this up before; The second ammendment says nothing about guns. Not one word.

It ensures some form of weapon be available to every citizen. Not all weapons be available.
We already regulate the open carry of most weapons. If you wish to test this statement; strap on a Katana and walk down your street. You will be stopped and at the very least questioned, most probably arrested. The open carry of swords is heavily regulated, out of the fear that if you are carrying it, you will use it to randomly hack down people.

Think about that, we outlaw the carrying of a weapon with an effective range of 1.8 meters and the ability to engage 6 or less targets a minute in the hands of a master; and glorify the open carrying of weapons with an effective range of 100 meters and the ability to engage 30+ targets a minute in the hands of a rank amateur.

We should regulate firearms according to mass lethality. Much the same way we regulate the private ownership of fully automatic weapons, suppressors (silencers), sawed off rifles and shot guns, stocked pistols, etc.

I say any weapon feed with a detachable magazine or belt needs a much higher standard of secure storage (facilities subject to state level inspection before acquiring the weapon), stricter background checks, and very limited circumstances for legal carry in public.

[HassleCat]

102. I wonder how serious it is

All this talk of repealing the 2nd. Well, it's not a popular idea because most people understand what would happen if we started tinkering by repealing parts of the Constitution. Our freedoms come in a package, and once you start picking at the ribbon that holds the package shut, you can't be sure the entire contents won't spill out and end up in the mud. This applies just as well to talk of repealing the 14th or any other part as it does the 2nd.

[sarisataka]

107. I believe some are so blinded

by ideology that they would be willing to make the effort. As you say it applies to any of the Amendments.

I rank the 2nd no higher than the 1st, 5th, 14th, 24th or any other.

[Reter]

106. It couldn't even get the two thirds majority to repeal on DU

Put up a poll. There is nothing close to 66%, and we are vastly more liberal than the average American, who is vastly more liberal than Congress.

[Oneironaut]

122. It would be as bad, if not worse than the drug war.

There would be no way to enforce it other than SWAT raids. We all know how well those turn out.

Luckily, the "ban guns or do nothing" is a false dilemma thrown into the mix to destroy the gun control debate. We can form good gun laws while keeping the second amendment intact.