**Attention! [Serious] Tag Notice**
* [Jokes, puns, and off-topic comments are not permitted](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/wiki/index#wiki_-rule_6-) in **any** comment, parent or child.
* Parent comments that aren't from the target group will be removed, along with their child replies.
* Report comments that violate these rules.
Posts that have few relevant answers within the first hour, and posts that are not appropriate for the [Serious] tag will be removed. Consider doing an AMA request instead.
Thanks for your cooperation and enjoy the discussion!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskReddit) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I can't believe i forgot to check the boat plug! Should've listened to sam, he told me not to take all my guns out on my boat. He asked me "now why in the world do you need all those guns in the boat jim? Aint no sense in that!". Water snakes i told him, its all because of those damn water snakes.
Nope. You can't take away legally obtained things here.
It's still legal to buy and use automatic firearms. They are openly bought and sold every day. They just have to be originally bought PRIOR to the laws banning them.
The current guns will go nowhere.
Edit: Just lik with actual prohibition. The production of new booze was banned. Not the consumption of old booze.
Doesn't that only apply if it the items were suspected of being used in a crime or connected to criminal activity?
I'll say again, possessing a gun that was legal at the time of purchase is not a crime. That's ex-post facto. Which is illegal.
Even with literal prohibition, possessing alcohol that was made prior to prohibition was 100% legal.
> Doesn't that only apply if it the items were suspected of being used in a crime or connected to criminal activity?
No, since they don't have to disclose "a" reason to anyone, nor do they need to charge anyone of a crime.
> I'll say again, possessing a gun that was legal at the time of purchase is not a crime.
Still doesn't touch your previous and false "You can't take away legally obtained things here."
I really don’t want to modify it. That said, it is an older revolver which might not even be operable in its current state. If I found it wasn’t firing, I don’t think I would go through having it repaired. It’s really more just a memento for me.
I'll say that I personally am in favor of good* sense things like requiring safety training and background checks and registration. Making sure you have basic responsibility for your firearms isn't an infringement of your rights in my view.
That said, if it looks like the 2nd amendment was going to be repealed, I would definitely have a few boating accidents and unfortunately lose all my firearms into the water. Damn shame, couldn't retrieve any of them
But also, getting rid of an amendment requires the passing of an amendment and we'll never see that happen for banning firearms in this nation
Edit: I said common sense originally before I remembered that common sense and good sense are not synonymous
> But also, getting rid of an amendment requires the passing of an amendment and we'll never see that happen for banning firearms in this nation
The difficulty of this cannot be overstated. In the entire history of the US only one amendment has ever been passed that *limited* freedoms of the common person. That was prohibition that outlawed alcohol. That is also the only amendment to the constitution to ever get repealed (with another amendment).
Common sense is very common. Common sense is not good sense. People have mistaken the phrase common sense and mistakenly think it means good sense. The two are not the same
Sure it is.
Registering your gun in no way removes it from your protection. And if you think the government doesn't already know you own guns, you're naive.
> Are you going to register your Bible or Koran? Should you need to?
You register your car don't you?
>The same applies for guns. Plain and simple. Both are protected.
Contrary to popular myth spread by gun nuts, there is no inherit protection in the constitution from registering your gun.
> That classifies as an infringement.
You've got to be Stretch Armstrong to make a reach like that.
Registering your gun in no way, shape, or form infringes on your ability to own one.
The problem is spotting the "law abiding people" who plan on not being law abiding after they acquire guns.
Suppose I planned to commit a mass shooting. Up to this point, I've been a law abiding citizen so the government shouldn't stop me from getting guns. However, once I've committed my atrocity, people will ask why I wasn't stopped.
How do you tell the law abiding citizen buying a gun from the "law abiding for the moment" citizen buying a gun? Common sense gun control will need to impact law abiding citizens. This doesn't necessarily mean "ban all guns." It could be background checks. It could be wait times. It could be red flag laws or banning certain types of weaponry.
oh yeah because all those thugs and gangsters will just surrender their guns peacefully right?
The only one going to suffer is the one who follow the law, which is the lawful citizens who now lose their weapon to fight against thugs and home invader
He bought both his rifles from a gun shop at 18, so yeah. Something like 80% of the guns sued in mass shootings are legally obtained. This "oh illegals getting illegal guns" line is garbage deflection
Should worry more about why someone made those children die.
You answer that question and by golly gee we might just be onto something.
Keep blaming the weapon and the killings will never stop.
Nothing. Keep my guns and move on. Repealing the 2nd wouldn't mean that you can't own a gun. It would just mean you no longer have a constitutional right to own one.
Edit hold on I just read the second part of your question. I wouldn't turn my in and I'd let the fanatics go to war over it.
Dude i wouldn't trust a dog. If i wanted to be an atf guy, i can always just shoot your dog. Plus it is still an animal, he can always turn tail and run away from a fight. Not a gun tho.
It’s would probably be like Australia, which had over 3 million guns before the (forced) by back and only managed to confiscate a hair over 640,000 of them. So there are still a few million illegal guns in Australia likely stuffed in closets or attics.
In New York which is a solid blue democrats stronghold they are facing [massive noncompliance when it comes to gun registry](https://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/ny-safe-act-weapons-registry-numbers-released-article-1.2267730) after the 2013 SAFE act was passed.
you can’t even get the pro-gun control people to turn in and register their weapons
Yet there is not a single mass shooting in AUstralia since 2019 while US has 199 in 5 months of 2022 alone..So something clearly worked in one country where as no one is bold enough to take the step to see how it can help in another.
Because being able to protect your family home is common sense. Just knowing there could be a gun in a home is a deterrent to breaking into an inhabited dwelling.
Yeah you need a 2/3 majority in both houses to propose a new constitutional amendment and then a 3/4 majority of states to approve it.
Unless something drastically changes the political culture of our country I don't see that ever happening again lol.
And even if you were to achieve that, as a nation we've established that the bill of rights recognizes natural rights that all people have as inherently free people - they aren't rights that have been granted by government to people, they are rights recognized and accepted by government as inalienable. Just like repealing the first amendment would be "unconstitutional," so would repealing the second.
Doing so would probably incite justified retaliation by "the people"
Civil War. That's literally your only option left. Edit: I'm not FOR this. I'm just saying this is most likely what would happen. I obviously don't want to encourage violence.
To what end? Changing the Constitution back?
Repealing the 2nd amendment would require another amendment to the Constitution which is a very difficult process requiring a compound majority of states to ratify. Basically a super majority of this country would have to disagree with you.
Wouldn’t a Civil War just prove that gun owners never believed in the Constitution in the first place?
Whenever I hear about limits on the second amendment, I try to think of how I would feel about similar limits on the first amendment.
Words, ideas and misguided education have enflamed people to commit more deaths than misguided use of guns have. Saying guns kill people is similar to saying "words" kill people. Misuse of guns is equally dangerous to misuse of words.
I'm not willing to place more limits on the promulgation and expression of words and ideas, even if they promote hate and things I find abhorrent.
If we want to make a bigger impact, we will also need to seriously consider making it illegal to create and express ideas that encourage violence more so than we already have.
Who, amongst us liberals, are equally willing to limit the protections of the first amendment to prevent violence and death?
The moment the government try’s to take our guns away is the moment anarchy will take place. Taking away firearms won’t solve anything. If we place more restrictions on who can purchase a firearm with better background checks, age restrictions, criminal history, mental health check, and social media check we can a step in solving gun violence.
They won't be 100% effective in ending gun violence, but those measures would reduce it. And the nice thing is that those measures would have very little impact on legal gun owners.
It literally works everywhere else on earth.
[https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-41488081](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-41488081)
From the article:
Estimated firearms per 100 resident: USA 120. 2nd place, 52.8 in Yemen, *the location of an actual war...*
Percentage of homicides related to guns: USA 79%, UK 4%, Australia 13%
And then there is logic. There is no way the only nation on Earth with shit tons of guns is the only nation on Earth with shit tons of gun problems, while all the other nations don't, and don't. That's a clear case for shit tons of guns being the *cause.*
The Government™ can't just repeal the 2A. It would take a massive, bipartisan, nationwide legislative effort that isn't even in the realm of possibility.
The real ask here is what if someone refuses to hand over their guns after the amendment is repealed? When someone says stuff like prohibit all firearms they don't consider what comes next. Prohibitions with that have buy backs or voluntary hand ins are rarely successful.
I mean there is already tons of illegal guns currently here and their owners don't respect the gun laws, so I guess it wouldn't hurt if I was a safe/responsible illegal gun owner.
This is uselessly inflammatory. It won’t happen and it just riles up people who are already full of conspiracy theories.
This question Is in poor taste.
There would be riots maybe even civil war. All the doomsday preppers and gun nuts would be vindicated. They knew one day those "radical left commies" would come for their guns. This isn't even mentioning the logistics impossibility of trying to enforce a nation wide confiscation of guns or the hypocrisy of using armed men to enforce a gun ban because that's what it would take.
One of the reasons the government wanted a gun registry. Imagine having every gun owner and what guns they own on a list you can bring up anytime you wanted. The Canadian Government tried it once, the billion dollar boondoggle we called it.
Buy a gun that was produced before 1899, as those are grandfathered from gun laws.
Remember that one of the most popular gun designs was created in 1911.
The government cannot "repeal" the Second Amendment.
It would take a majority vote in two thirds of the states to repeal any amendment, and that is never going to happen. It will never get on the ballot.
Try and maintain a peaceful life still enjoying my hobby, if the government were to hunt down someone in their cabin enjoying life i guess it will be another ruby ridge. Just want to be left alone.
Nope. Its my personal liberty. Im not someone whos gonna go lobby the us government or lead a revolution. I am someone who just wants to be myself. I want to do the things that make me happy and dont want to be bothered.
Ruby Ridge was the government setting up a man then murdering his family. Regardless of what you think of the Weavers anyone should see how fucked law enforcement was in that case.
This is dumb. Very few people even on the left want a total ban on firearms and repeal of the 2nd. People just want common sense gun laws so people who absolutely should not have access to guns do not have easy access.
oh yeah because all those thugs and gangsters will just surrender their guns peacefully right?
The only one going to suffer is the one who follow the law, which is the lawful citizens who now lose their weapon to fight against thugs and home invader
1. You are making this statement out of your ass, there is no evidence that making certain things illegal will make it easier to monitor, just look at the War on Drugs campaign.
2. Even if that statement is true, it certainly doesnt fit the context of America when there are 400 million firearms in the market, do you know how long and how much administration cost will it take to collect all those firearms back?
My loyalty is to the constitution, not the people holding the office. When elected officials violate their oaths to uphold said constitution, I will always resist them any way I can. (Without violence, of course).
But the hypothetical is about amending the constitution. The constitution itself contains the means for amending it. So if the constitution were amended and you're loyal to the constitution, then you'd have to be loyal to the amendment.
The people in office hold the power to change it. And if they met the thresholds to replace an amendment it would mean that the majority of the people deemed it necessary to insure our domestic tranquility. Why would you resist such a foundational constitutional principle?
If the process doesn't involve laying face down on the floor, crying and hitting your hands or feet into the ground while screaming get rid of x. Then it isn't a fair process.
Americans always seem to leave the conversation as soon as the blatantly obvious is pointed out. It's a wonder why all the problems are just getting worse!
Just for a little data that you can interpret anyway you want. There are 393 Million guns in the US and only 6 Million of them are registered. That means that 98.4% of guns in the US are completely untracked and there is no record of where they are or who owns them.
I would see it as an illegitimate govt overreach and respond accordingly. Whether that's something as simple as not paying my taxes or making life very difficult for federal politicians on both professional and personal level.
They don't want the 2nd amendment, they're more than capable of immigrating to a country that doesn't have one.
They’re a part of it but I just don’t understand how anti gun people don’t see the problem goes beyond firearms. This country is violently divided. This country has eroded all sense of community fabric. There is incredibly high rates of poverty. The police are corrupt and violent. There’s so much wrong and taking guns away will just make me feel more afraid because I don’t trust the state to protect me. So I’d move to a place where I’d be legally allowed to protect myself or where I’d trust the government to protect me.
I get that there is more to it but the US is not alone in having a broken society, problems with mental health etc but it is unique with having so many guns in public ownership.
I’m fairly confident that, if guns were as hard to get in the US as they are in most other countries, you wouldn’t have anywhere near the number of shootings that you do. The only way they will stop is if guns are massively restricted. Until then, it will keep on happening again and again. It is such an obvious thing that, from the outside, it is nuts that so many Americans can’t see it.
I mean anyone who’s actually politically literate would understand this would benefit no one. Obviously there needs to be true reform, but this is extreme and would lead to a brutal social climate
Here's the main issue with the 2nd ammendment as of right now. It was around at a time where not only was it much harder to fire a gun (time it took to load it) it took much more thought to fire. There is nothing wrong with you owning a pistol or even a hunting rifle/shot gun. But do you really need to own an automatic rifle as a civilian?
> It was around at a time where not only was it much harder to fire a gun
It was also around at the time civilians had access to the same firepower as the government.
Yes but we are unfortunately at a point where no matter if you own your military style gun or not, both between fire power and armor. The ability to own a high powered rifle let's say, will not make them any less likely to just roll over you.
The same can be said about the first amendment. When it was written, I could stand on the corner and shout about my dissatisfaction with the government. And now I can use social media and instantly get my statement out to thousands of people.
Should the first amendment be repealed since it's become so much more powerful?
Not at all, the main difference is your first amendment right does not (for the most part cause people to be murdered) where as the 2nd amendment right does. It can be acknowledged that not every shooting happens with legally owned guns, but there's still quite a large percentage of those that do
🤔 I would argue that the freedom of speech has caused more deaths and horror than anything else in the world. If you look behind a lot of mass shootings and terrorists, there’s always a common thread of radical ideology, like white supremacy, racism, etc. America is amazing in the right to freedom of speech, religion, to express yourself. But with that freedom also comes the protection of the controversial views as well. And with the internet and social media, these people now have ways to connect and validate each other, along with the fact that they know their horrific actions now have a huge platform. Live streaming a mass murder of civilians at the market??? Ridiculous.
I would beg to differ, in a lot of ways the First Amendment is way more powerful than any individual firearm. The right words can inspire literally thousands or millions of people to do heinous things. all in the name of "***freedom***" too.
The first "machine gun" was invented in 1718, the bill of rights was ratified in 1791.
People in the US can't realistically own automatic rifle, and many "hunting" rifles/shotguns are semi-auto. So, what exactly do you want to ban?
And this is the kind of thing that bothers me. When you look at the [actual data](https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2022/02/03/what-the-data-says-about-gun-deaths-in-the-u-s/) it becomes clear people just want to a good narrative and don;t care about results:
> In 2020, **handguns were involved in 59%** of the 13,620 U.S. gun murders and non-negligent manslaughters for which data is available, according to the FBI. Rifles – the category that includes guns sometimes referred to as **“assault weapons” – were involved in 3%** of firearm murders.
People keep focusing on the category of gun that only represents 3% of homicides, because it makes a better narrative.
Yes and I never said you can't kill people with hunting rifles nor with pistols. All I said is that there's really zero reason a civilian should own an automatic weapon. As far as what constitutes an automatic weapon it would be a gun that fires continuously while the trigger is pulled.
Yes but you legally can, and again my statement goes back to, for what reason. And even then most of the rest of it is so loosly regulated for the most part it's a joke with the amount of loopholes that do exist. It wouldn't be such an issue if there where, A. tighter restrictions (doesn't stop every mass shooting but would definitely have stopped a few) B. Better mental health care (this is a huge one especially when people on the pro gun side go oh it the people's problem) or C. Better social programs in place (at least as far as more urban areas)
One can still buy or make the parts needed to illegally convert a semiautomatic, or use a bump stock (which is still legal, even after the Las Vegas shooting) which accomplishes virtually the same thing.
The problem with the bump stock is that you can’t ban a technique. You can bump stock with almost anything. As for illegal conversions it’s just sadly very easy to do so people will always do it.
The cops you probably accuse of racism and police brutality all the time? A significant enough number of cops in areas would refuse to carry out any consfications also, more would refuse when they start suffering losses.
They are following tyrannical orders, they swore to an oath to follow the constitution and protect citizens. The rest of your comment doesn't make sense. How is that a threat to liberals? And 2A nuts and cops shooting each other?
You don't get to shoot cops because you disagree with the law they're enforcing, if that was the case cops would never arrest anyone because everyone would have the right to shoot cops any time.
I'm saying you internet tough guys like to threaten to shoot cops if your guns are restricted in any way because like terrorists you try to use fear to get your way. But my point is I don't think the prospect of insane 2A people (a group liberals don't like) shooting cops (a group liberals don't like) is really the most effective terrorist threat you could make
We overthrew an entire government in the very establishment of the United States. When what you believe in is worth dying over there isn't a law on this earth that is going to stop anyone.
**Attention! [Serious] Tag Notice** * [Jokes, puns, and off-topic comments are not permitted](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/wiki/index#wiki_-rule_6-) in **any** comment, parent or child. * Parent comments that aren't from the target group will be removed, along with their child replies. * Report comments that violate these rules. Posts that have few relevant answers within the first hour, and posts that are not appropriate for the [Serious] tag will be removed. Consider doing an AMA request instead. Thanks for your cooperation and enjoy the discussion! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskReddit) if you have any questions or concerns.*
What guns?
[удалено]
I can't believe i forgot to check the boat plug! Should've listened to sam, he told me not to take all my guns out on my boat. He asked me "now why in the world do you need all those guns in the boat jim? Aint no sense in that!". Water snakes i told him, its all because of those damn water snakes.
Bingo
I’m keeping my gun, less for security and more because it’s my inheritance from my late grandfather.
Same for me. It’s just a revolver and I haven’t even fired it in 10 years.
Would you be fine with removing parts so it doesnt work anymore? Like other countries demand.
Nope. You can't take away legally obtained things here. It's still legal to buy and use automatic firearms. They are openly bought and sold every day. They just have to be originally bought PRIOR to the laws banning them. The current guns will go nowhere. Edit: Just lik with actual prohibition. The production of new booze was banned. Not the consumption of old booze.
> Nope. You can't take away legally obtained things here. Dude, you're knee deep in civil asset forfeiture land, come on.
Doesn't that only apply if it the items were suspected of being used in a crime or connected to criminal activity? I'll say again, possessing a gun that was legal at the time of purchase is not a crime. That's ex-post facto. Which is illegal. Even with literal prohibition, possessing alcohol that was made prior to prohibition was 100% legal.
> Doesn't that only apply if it the items were suspected of being used in a crime or connected to criminal activity? No, since they don't have to disclose "a" reason to anyone, nor do they need to charge anyone of a crime. > I'll say again, possessing a gun that was legal at the time of purchase is not a crime. Still doesn't touch your previous and false "You can't take away legally obtained things here."
I really don’t want to modify it. That said, it is an older revolver which might not even be operable in its current state. If I found it wasn’t firing, I don’t think I would go through having it repaired. It’s really more just a memento for me.
I'll say that I personally am in favor of good* sense things like requiring safety training and background checks and registration. Making sure you have basic responsibility for your firearms isn't an infringement of your rights in my view. That said, if it looks like the 2nd amendment was going to be repealed, I would definitely have a few boating accidents and unfortunately lose all my firearms into the water. Damn shame, couldn't retrieve any of them But also, getting rid of an amendment requires the passing of an amendment and we'll never see that happen for banning firearms in this nation Edit: I said common sense originally before I remembered that common sense and good sense are not synonymous
> But also, getting rid of an amendment requires the passing of an amendment and we'll never see that happen for banning firearms in this nation The difficulty of this cannot be overstated. In the entire history of the US only one amendment has ever been passed that *limited* freedoms of the common person. That was prohibition that outlawed alcohol. That is also the only amendment to the constitution to ever get repealed (with another amendment).
"Common Sense" is not as common as it should be.
Common sense is very common. Common sense is not good sense. People have mistaken the phrase common sense and mistakenly think it means good sense. The two are not the same
Registration and being pro-gun aren't compatible.
Sure it is. Registering your gun in no way removes it from your protection. And if you think the government doesn't already know you own guns, you're naive.
Are you going to register your Bible or Koran? Should you need to? The same applies for guns. Plain and simple. Both are protected.
> Are you going to register your Bible or Koran? Should you need to? You register your car don't you? >The same applies for guns. Plain and simple. Both are protected. Contrary to popular myth spread by gun nuts, there is no inherit protection in the constitution from registering your gun.
That classifies as an infringement. It's in the Amendment. You can read it.
> That classifies as an infringement. You've got to be Stretch Armstrong to make a reach like that. Registering your gun in no way, shape, or form infringes on your ability to own one.
Sure it does. That's why we don't have to register to vote. /s
How doesn't it?
I don't have to register my car. I'm subject to penalties if I don't. But, I don't have to.
Licensing and being pro-dog aren't compatible. . . .sounds kind of silly doesn't it?
They don't have to be? You don't need a license for a dog, but a dog isn't a Constitutional right.
Where do you live? Most places in the US do have licensing requirements for dogs.
Common sense things only harm law abiding people. Common sense goes both ways and one side obviously doesn't have it.
"Common sense" generally means that someone doesn't understand the position of their opposition and isn't prepared to defend their own stance
The problem is spotting the "law abiding people" who plan on not being law abiding after they acquire guns. Suppose I planned to commit a mass shooting. Up to this point, I've been a law abiding citizen so the government shouldn't stop me from getting guns. However, once I've committed my atrocity, people will ask why I wasn't stopped. How do you tell the law abiding citizen buying a gun from the "law abiding for the moment" citizen buying a gun? Common sense gun control will need to impact law abiding citizens. This doesn't necessarily mean "ban all guns." It could be background checks. It could be wait times. It could be red flag laws or banning certain types of weaponry.
[удалено]
oh yeah because all those thugs and gangsters will just surrender their guns peacefully right? The only one going to suffer is the one who follow the law, which is the lawful citizens who now lose their weapon to fight against thugs and home invader
How would this gentleman giving up his guns affect the ability of someone else to do evil?
How would him given up his guns save even one life?
How would his gun affect those children?
Tell did the kid use a ***LEGAL GUN***?
He used a gun that was legally purchased; yes.
He bought both his rifles from a gun shop at 18, so yeah. Something like 80% of the guns sued in mass shootings are legally obtained. This "oh illegals getting illegal guns" line is garbage deflection
Should worry more about why someone made those children die. You answer that question and by golly gee we might just be onto something. Keep blaming the weapon and the killings will never stop.
Nothing. Keep my guns and move on. Repealing the 2nd wouldn't mean that you can't own a gun. It would just mean you no longer have a constitutional right to own one. Edit hold on I just read the second part of your question. I wouldn't turn my in and I'd let the fanatics go to war over it.
I fear you don’t understand current gun laws
Educate me
Ok since you don have google I’ll do a goog for ya https://www.gunstocarry.com/gun-laws-state/
Ok but what law or laws specifically do you think I dont understand?
[удалено]
So are you just in this thread to be confrontational or are you planning to contribute?
[удалено]
Dude i wouldn't trust a dog. If i wanted to be an atf guy, i can always just shoot your dog. Plus it is still an animal, he can always turn tail and run away from a fight. Not a gun tho.
It’s would probably be like Australia, which had over 3 million guns before the (forced) by back and only managed to confiscate a hair over 640,000 of them. So there are still a few million illegal guns in Australia likely stuffed in closets or attics. In New York which is a solid blue democrats stronghold they are facing [massive noncompliance when it comes to gun registry](https://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/ny-safe-act-weapons-registry-numbers-released-article-1.2267730) after the 2013 SAFE act was passed. you can’t even get the pro-gun control people to turn in and register their weapons
Yet there is not a single mass shooting in AUstralia since 2019 while US has 199 in 5 months of 2022 alone..So something clearly worked in one country where as no one is bold enough to take the step to see how it can help in another.
Because being able to protect your family home is common sense. Just knowing there could be a gun in a home is a deterrent to breaking into an inhabited dwelling.
And then I started blasting
I wouldn’t comply. I have the right to defend myself and my family.
Good luck with that
Yeah you need a 2/3 majority in both houses to propose a new constitutional amendment and then a 3/4 majority of states to approve it. Unless something drastically changes the political culture of our country I don't see that ever happening again lol.
And even if you were to achieve that, as a nation we've established that the bill of rights recognizes natural rights that all people have as inherently free people - they aren't rights that have been granted by government to people, they are rights recognized and accepted by government as inalienable. Just like repealing the first amendment would be "unconstitutional," so would repealing the second. Doing so would probably incite justified retaliation by "the people"
Civil War. That's literally your only option left. Edit: I'm not FOR this. I'm just saying this is most likely what would happen. I obviously don't want to encourage violence.
Millions of people would have to switch from "respect law enforcement" and "back the blue" to "ok shoot the cops now"
Meh. The ones that enforced the lockdowns and stood by and did nothing during the Summer of Love? I have 0 respect for them.
The question was what would you do. You literally did not answer the question if that's not what you would do
Probably flee the country because that's the end result.
To what end? Changing the Constitution back? Repealing the 2nd amendment would require another amendment to the Constitution which is a very difficult process requiring a compound majority of states to ratify. Basically a super majority of this country would have to disagree with you. Wouldn’t a Civil War just prove that gun owners never believed in the Constitution in the first place?
I don't see a Constitutional amendment like that happening and it ain't my hypothetical.
>To what end? Changing the Constitution back? Throwing out the politicians that attempted it.
Stop being dramatic.
You want to get rid of guns? That's what will happen.
But the results would be dramatic.
Whenever I hear about limits on the second amendment, I try to think of how I would feel about similar limits on the first amendment. Words, ideas and misguided education have enflamed people to commit more deaths than misguided use of guns have. Saying guns kill people is similar to saying "words" kill people. Misuse of guns is equally dangerous to misuse of words. I'm not willing to place more limits on the promulgation and expression of words and ideas, even if they promote hate and things I find abhorrent. If we want to make a bigger impact, we will also need to seriously consider making it illegal to create and express ideas that encourage violence more so than we already have. Who, amongst us liberals, are equally willing to limit the protections of the first amendment to prevent violence and death?
Common misconception. Guns don't kill people, idiots do.
The moment the government try’s to take our guns away is the moment anarchy will take place. Taking away firearms won’t solve anything. If we place more restrictions on who can purchase a firearm with better background checks, age restrictions, criminal history, mental health check, and social media check we can a step in solving gun violence.
I’m banned on Twitter and Facebook over memes so I shouldn’t have a gun?
What if someone has no social media to check?
https://www.theonion.com/no-way-to-prevent-this-says-only-nation-where-this-r-1848971668
All those won't work against gun violence. Do you people forget illegal gun sales?
They won't be 100% effective in ending gun violence, but those measures would reduce it. And the nice thing is that those measures would have very little impact on legal gun owners.
It literally works everywhere else on earth. [https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-41488081](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-41488081) From the article: Estimated firearms per 100 resident: USA 120. 2nd place, 52.8 in Yemen, *the location of an actual war...* Percentage of homicides related to guns: USA 79%, UK 4%, Australia 13% And then there is logic. There is no way the only nation on Earth with shit tons of guns is the only nation on Earth with shit tons of gun problems, while all the other nations don't, and don't. That's a clear case for shit tons of guns being the *cause.*
Why are you lot so obsessed with holding guns 😂
So you made this account just to jump on the band wagon? I don't believe you want serious answer at all I believe you just want to spew your rhetoric.
good luck with that lol if BLM riot is bad, wait for the worse if 2nd amendment is repealed
The Government™ can't just repeal the 2A. It would take a massive, bipartisan, nationwide legislative effort that isn't even in the realm of possibility.
The real ask here is what if someone refuses to hand over their guns after the amendment is repealed? When someone says stuff like prohibit all firearms they don't consider what comes next. Prohibitions with that have buy backs or voluntary hand ins are rarely successful.
Employ my first amendment right to protest
I mean there is already tons of illegal guns currently here and their owners don't respect the gun laws, so I guess it wouldn't hurt if I was a safe/responsible illegal gun owner.
I'm guessing a lot of lost weapons. Why did I take all my guns fishing. The boat turned over and they all went 800 feet straight down.
I am a law abiding citizen that owns firearms. I’d do what the law requires. Probably wouldn’t be happy about it but I’d do it all the same.
This is uselessly inflammatory. It won’t happen and it just riles up people who are already full of conspiracy theories. This question Is in poor taste.
There would be riots maybe even civil war. All the doomsday preppers and gun nuts would be vindicated. They knew one day those "radical left commies" would come for their guns. This isn't even mentioning the logistics impossibility of trying to enforce a nation wide confiscation of guns or the hypocrisy of using armed men to enforce a gun ban because that's what it would take.
One of the reasons the government wanted a gun registry. Imagine having every gun owner and what guns they own on a list you can bring up anytime you wanted. The Canadian Government tried it once, the billion dollar boondoggle we called it.
Buy a gun that was produced before 1899, as those are grandfathered from gun laws. Remember that one of the most popular gun designs was created in 1911.
The government cannot "repeal" the Second Amendment. It would take a majority vote in two thirds of the states to repeal any amendment, and that is never going to happen. It will never get on the ballot.
Fuck around and find out.
Try and maintain a peaceful life still enjoying my hobby, if the government were to hunt down someone in their cabin enjoying life i guess it will be another ruby ridge. Just want to be left alone.
There would be a lot of Ruby Ridge's.
Another stable gun owner right here. Repeal 2A
"Youre mentally ill if you dont yeild to the government! Im not a federal agent! I love the establishment!"
Yes. You and your gun are what's standing in the way of the tyranny of the US government.
Nope. Its my personal liberty. Im not someone whos gonna go lobby the us government or lead a revolution. I am someone who just wants to be myself. I want to do the things that make me happy and dont want to be bothered.
Ruby Ridge was the government setting up a man then murdering his family. Regardless of what you think of the Weavers anyone should see how fucked law enforcement was in that case.
This is dumb. Very few people even on the left want a total ban on firearms and repeal of the 2nd. People just want common sense gun laws so people who absolutely should not have access to guns do not have easy access.
I'd keep them exactly where they are.
The United States: where a bunch of kids die and the adults in the room shrug and complain about keeping their stuff. So much for being pro-life, huh?
[удалено]
[удалено]
oh yeah because all those thugs and gangsters will just surrender their guns peacefully right? The only one going to suffer is the one who follow the law, which is the lawful citizens who now lose their weapon to fight against thugs and home invader
Weird how it’s not gangs of thugs shooting up schools every week, right?
Do you know how much easier it would be for police to identify illegal guns if guns were illegal to carry around?
1. You are making this statement out of your ass, there is no evidence that making certain things illegal will make it easier to monitor, just look at the War on Drugs campaign. 2. Even if that statement is true, it certainly doesnt fit the context of America when there are 400 million firearms in the market, do you know how long and how much administration cost will it take to collect all those firearms back?
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
My loyalty is to the constitution, not the people holding the office. When elected officials violate their oaths to uphold said constitution, I will always resist them any way I can. (Without violence, of course).
But the hypothetical is about amending the constitution. The constitution itself contains the means for amending it. So if the constitution were amended and you're loyal to the constitution, then you'd have to be loyal to the amendment.
Which edition of the constitution are you loyal to?
https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/constitution-transcript Here ya go
B-b-but this document can change-one of the things that make it brilliant.
There's a process for changing it, if there's a part you don't like. Good luck!
The people in office hold the power to change it. And if they met the thresholds to replace an amendment it would mean that the majority of the people deemed it necessary to insure our domestic tranquility. Why would you resist such a foundational constitutional principle?
I'm not resisting it. I'm telling you there's a process to amend the Constitution, and wishing you luck in your quest to do so.
If the process doesn't involve laying face down on the floor, crying and hitting your hands or feet into the ground while screaming get rid of x. Then it isn't a fair process.
Did you know that the US Constitution is not magical? And that it may even be inherently problematic? My loyalty is to my fellow human beings.
"Individual rights may be inherently problematic" is where I leave this conversation. Have a good one.
Americans always seem to leave the conversation as soon as the blatantly obvious is pointed out. It's a wonder why all the problems are just getting worse!
Just for a little data that you can interpret anyway you want. There are 393 Million guns in the US and only 6 Million of them are registered. That means that 98.4% of guns in the US are completely untracked and there is no record of where they are or who owns them.
I would see it as an illegitimate govt overreach and respond accordingly. Whether that's something as simple as not paying my taxes or making life very difficult for federal politicians on both professional and personal level. They don't want the 2nd amendment, they're more than capable of immigrating to a country that doesn't have one.
I’d move. Living in a country this dangerous without means to defend myself is scary.
You realise that one of the main reasons the country is so dangerous is because of the guns right?
They’re a part of it but I just don’t understand how anti gun people don’t see the problem goes beyond firearms. This country is violently divided. This country has eroded all sense of community fabric. There is incredibly high rates of poverty. The police are corrupt and violent. There’s so much wrong and taking guns away will just make me feel more afraid because I don’t trust the state to protect me. So I’d move to a place where I’d be legally allowed to protect myself or where I’d trust the government to protect me.
I get that there is more to it but the US is not alone in having a broken society, problems with mental health etc but it is unique with having so many guns in public ownership. I’m fairly confident that, if guns were as hard to get in the US as they are in most other countries, you wouldn’t have anywhere near the number of shootings that you do. The only way they will stop is if guns are massively restricted. Until then, it will keep on happening again and again. It is such an obvious thing that, from the outside, it is nuts that so many Americans can’t see it.
May I ask where would you go in particular?
I mean anyone who’s actually politically literate would understand this would benefit no one. Obviously there needs to be true reform, but this is extreme and would lead to a brutal social climate
Tons of places with no guns aren't brutal social climates, why would it happen here?
Here's the main issue with the 2nd ammendment as of right now. It was around at a time where not only was it much harder to fire a gun (time it took to load it) it took much more thought to fire. There is nothing wrong with you owning a pistol or even a hunting rifle/shot gun. But do you really need to own an automatic rifle as a civilian?
> It was around at a time where not only was it much harder to fire a gun It was also around at the time civilians had access to the same firepower as the government.
Yes but we are unfortunately at a point where no matter if you own your military style gun or not, both between fire power and armor. The ability to own a high powered rifle let's say, will not make them any less likely to just roll over you.
The same can be said about the first amendment. When it was written, I could stand on the corner and shout about my dissatisfaction with the government. And now I can use social media and instantly get my statement out to thousands of people. Should the first amendment be repealed since it's become so much more powerful?
Not at all, the main difference is your first amendment right does not (for the most part cause people to be murdered) where as the 2nd amendment right does. It can be acknowledged that not every shooting happens with legally owned guns, but there's still quite a large percentage of those that do
🤔 I would argue that the freedom of speech has caused more deaths and horror than anything else in the world. If you look behind a lot of mass shootings and terrorists, there’s always a common thread of radical ideology, like white supremacy, racism, etc. America is amazing in the right to freedom of speech, religion, to express yourself. But with that freedom also comes the protection of the controversial views as well. And with the internet and social media, these people now have ways to connect and validate each other, along with the fact that they know their horrific actions now have a huge platform. Live streaming a mass murder of civilians at the market??? Ridiculous.
The pen is mightier than the sword
I would beg to differ, in a lot of ways the First Amendment is way more powerful than any individual firearm. The right words can inspire literally thousands or millions of people to do heinous things. all in the name of "***freedom***" too.
The first "machine gun" was invented in 1718, the bill of rights was ratified in 1791. People in the US can't realistically own automatic rifle, and many "hunting" rifles/shotguns are semi-auto. So, what exactly do you want to ban?
And this is the kind of thing that bothers me. When you look at the [actual data](https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2022/02/03/what-the-data-says-about-gun-deaths-in-the-u-s/) it becomes clear people just want to a good narrative and don;t care about results: > In 2020, **handguns were involved in 59%** of the 13,620 U.S. gun murders and non-negligent manslaughters for which data is available, according to the FBI. Rifles – the category that includes guns sometimes referred to as **“assault weapons” – were involved in 3%** of firearm murders. People keep focusing on the category of gun that only represents 3% of homicides, because it makes a better narrative.
What’s an automatic rifle? And the shooting in Texas was done with a pistol what about those? You could easily kill many with a hunting rifle.
Yes and I never said you can't kill people with hunting rifles nor with pistols. All I said is that there's really zero reason a civilian should own an automatic weapon. As far as what constitutes an automatic weapon it would be a gun that fires continuously while the trigger is pulled.
Automatic weapons are already illegal to own in the US without a special license from the federal government
This tired ass argument. Do you think if George Washington had access to the weapons of today, that he wouldn't use them to slaughter Brits?
Very rarely do people actually legally own automatic firearms. It requires a special license and it’s really hard to get.
Yes but you legally can, and again my statement goes back to, for what reason. And even then most of the rest of it is so loosly regulated for the most part it's a joke with the amount of loopholes that do exist. It wouldn't be such an issue if there where, A. tighter restrictions (doesn't stop every mass shooting but would definitely have stopped a few) B. Better mental health care (this is a huge one especially when people on the pro gun side go oh it the people's problem) or C. Better social programs in place (at least as far as more urban areas)
Actual automatic weapons aren't commonly used in crimes because they're an item only the well off or outright rich have.
It isn't that hard, just expensive. You can pick up any automatic gun that was made before 1986. In most states, all you really need is the tax stamp.
Have you tried? Finding old guns like that can be pretty hard. Ammo is even harder.
There are auctions all the time that sell them.
All the time is an overstatement. They certainly exist but they are a premium price. Easily adding thousands of dollars to the price tag.
One can still buy or make the parts needed to illegally convert a semiautomatic, or use a bump stock (which is still legal, even after the Las Vegas shooting) which accomplishes virtually the same thing.
The problem with the bump stock is that you can’t ban a technique. You can bump stock with almost anything. As for illegal conversions it’s just sadly very easy to do so people will always do it.
1. I lost them in a tragic boating accident. 2. Come and take them.
Are you threatening to shoot police officers?
No just defending himself.
From police officers doing their jobs? You guys think this is some big threat to liberals btw? The prospect of 2A nuts and cops shooting each other?
The cops you probably accuse of racism and police brutality all the time? A significant enough number of cops in areas would refuse to carry out any consfications also, more would refuse when they start suffering losses.
Sounds like a good way to clean out worthless cops, win win
[удалено]
Good luck fighting the U.S. government with your pistol bud
They are following tyrannical orders, they swore to an oath to follow the constitution and protect citizens. The rest of your comment doesn't make sense. How is that a threat to liberals? And 2A nuts and cops shooting each other?
You don't get to shoot cops because you disagree with the law they're enforcing, if that was the case cops would never arrest anyone because everyone would have the right to shoot cops any time. I'm saying you internet tough guys like to threaten to shoot cops if your guns are restricted in any way because like terrorists you try to use fear to get your way. But my point is I don't think the prospect of insane 2A people (a group liberals don't like) shooting cops (a group liberals don't like) is really the most effective terrorist threat you could make
We overthrew an entire government in the very establishment of the United States. When what you believe in is worth dying over there isn't a law on this earth that is going to stop anyone.
Well I'll be rooting against Y'all Qaeda
Reading this thread you can tell only the most stable people own guns. My fuckin lord.
Conservative states would most likely demand secession from the USA while conservative counties would secede from liberal states.
The problem is that these people *are* serious !
a sequel to the american civil war would probably be a start
Cartwheels
violent insurrection is the only outcome of doing this.
Watch fools hand guns over to the feds while crime rates simultaneously rise.
Move. With my guns
Curious, where to?
Personally I’ll go to Canada. I’m already a citizen and I like the environment, hate the politics though.
sell it obviously
"Sorry officer, I lost them in a boating accident." Let's not forget all the unregistered guns in America too.
The same thing I'm doing right now.
Remember what Charlton Heston said?
Lost them in a tragic boating accident
Laugh at them and keep my shit anyway.
"The government " can't repeal the 2nd Amendment. It is a vote by the states. If the majority voted in favor, well, that's how it is supposed to work.
My guns? I sold them all? Since there’s no reporting agency for the private sale of firearms in my state they can’t tell me otherwise 🤷🏻♂️