Poll: Lets pretend the government passes a law stating that you can't have a gun anymore...

[thedarkfreak]

All I know is gun crime has gone down in the US in the last ten years, and gone up in multiple places where guns have been outlawed. (And no, that's not counting based on total incidents; that's counting per capita.)

The majority of gun owners DO take firearm ownership seriously, and conduct themselves in a responsible manner. They HAVE to. But just like everything else, someone following the laws and being responsible isn't news, so you never hear about it. You hear about the ones that weren't responsible.

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2011/07/robert-farago/three-things-you-need-to-tell-a-liberal-about-guns/
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2012/06/robert-farago/three-ways-carrying-gun-makes-you-a-better-person/


You want to ban guns? You think banning guns keeps guns out of the hands of criminals? Go look at Mexico, gun control sure worked for them.

Heck, let's keep it in the US. Chicago, Illinois has some of the strictest gun regulations in the entire country, and they also have the highest crime rates(and that includes gun crime rates). But... I thought legal, law-abiding citizens having guns INCREASED crime!

 

[RonHiler]

It's an invalid question. No such law can ever be passed. Not because of the NRA or because of people's unwillingness to give them up, but because it is specifically prohibited by the second amendment of the constitution.

"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."

That means no such law could never be passed without a constitutional amendment overturning it (and the chance of that ever happening is zero, zilch, nada).

A lot of people don't seem to really understand the purpose of the second amendment. It's not there so we can go around being cowboys and having random shootouts in the street. The purpose of the second amendment is for the people to have a check on the government.

Our constitution works because it is made up of checks and balances. No one part of it can get out of control without the consent/collusion of another part. It's designed that way.

But what is to prevent the current president, at the end of his term, from saying, "screw you people, I'm taking power, and calling myself the king. The congress and courts are now disbanded, I am the supreme ruler of the country and anyone that says otherwise will be shot" (and if you think that can't happen, see Syria).

The second amendment is what prevents that. If a president (any president) tried such a thing, he'd be forcibly removed from power, jailed, and we'd elect another president, life would go on. The government (and this goes for any government) should always be just a little bit nervous about the people it governs. That's what keeps them honest. And that's what the second amendment does.

I'm not pro-gun. Actually, I lean more anti-gun, even though I own one. I think assault rifles and high capacity clips should be banned from private owners. It would be nice if guns would only work for their registered owners (like Kindles or iPhones), and those owners should be thoroughly vetted before being allowed to own them. On the other hand, I fully support the second amendment, because without it, the union may not have lasted as long as it has. At some point in our history, I think it is very possible somebody might really have tried to throw it out and take power.

 

[Kuhkren]

Anyway, suicide fighters do not equal american citizens, much less US home bases do not equal combat bases and FOBs in the field. But while we're talking about hunting rifles, many that a US Citizen can legal purchase can defeat any known body armor. (Remington 700 being one) You know who make the best shots in the US Military? Farm and Hunting boys from rural america. You know who has the most weapons per household in the US? Rural America.

This again sounds like...

"What do we want!? A rebellion! When do we want it!? THE FUCK IF I KNOW!

Yes, I get it, you people don't want to give your government a chance to go dictatorship on you, because you're a country with a democratic tradition. I will not argue against that, I wouldn't want my government to go dictatorship on me.

But our government, that fucked things up and the main party thereof is trying to cling to power harder than a drunk man clings to a fence, going as far as to officially label people protesting against it as "zombies employed by the communist boogeymen" (not in those exact words, of course, but "zombies" was in their official response), is scheduled to fall within the month (I hope, most coalition partners have abandoned ship), and nobody had to shoot up the place to get this far.

There are many checkpoints on the way of a democratic government becoming a dictatorship. If you ignore and walk past all those checkpoints, then, as a peaople, you do not deserve democracy. I'm sorry if that sounds crass, but that's the way I see things.

A democratic nation has so many failsafes to keep a government accountable for their action, elections only being one of such mechanisms, that if you actually do sit comfortably in your armchair and have no idea how your government suddenly turned tyrannical, you are at fault for that, as a people.

First thing, "you people" is a very strong condemning statement, even if its not intended that way. In academia we avoid that phrase altogether for its incredible potency in inciting anger and misunderstanding.

I agree completely with what you are saying, a sedentary citizenry is the death of any democratic entity.

I believe citizens do not need assault rifles or other military grade gear to protect themselves, however they should have access to some guns. I grew up in a poor rural area of the United States. At night, there would only be one police officer on duty for a county of around 50,000 people. Many of those people did not live in to, and even those who did could not rely on police protection in case of danger. Its like this in many areas across the United States, even in some cities.

 

[DataSnake]

But what is to prevent the current president, at the end of his term, from saying, "screw you people, I'm taking power, and calling myself the king. The congress and courts are now disbanded, I am the supreme ruler of the country and anyone that says otherwise will be shot" (and if you think that can't happen, see Syria).

The second amendment is what prevents that. If a president (any president) tried such a thing, he'd be forcibly removed from power, jailed, and we'd elect another president, life would go on. The government (and this goes for any government) should always be just a little bit nervous about the people it governs. That's what keeps them honest. And that's what the second amendment does.

No, what prevents that is that the police and military wouldn't obey his "new regime". He can't just call up every law enforcement officer, soldier and marine in the country and say "would you kindly betray the laws you've sworn to uphold in order to crown me king?" and expect them to obey him.

 

[RonHiler]

No, what prevents that is that the police and military wouldn't obey his "new regime". He can't just call up every law enforcement officer, soldier and marine in the country and say "would you kindly betray the laws you've sworn to uphold in order to crown me king?" and expect them to obey him.

Do you think so? I'm not so sure. The police and military seem to be following the orders of President Bashar al-Assad right now, more or less (granted some of them have defected to the other side), in this exact situation we are hypothesizing. So I'm not entirely sure your premise is correct.

The police and military are, remember, a government entity. They are trained to follow a hierarchical command structure, and the president is at the top of that hierarchy. They are not sworn to uphold the constitution, they are trained to follow orders. I don't know that you could count on them to fall on the right side.

I guess it would depend on the situation. Maybe (like Syria), there would be a split in their loyalties.

 

[Vegosiux]

Do you think so? I'm not so sure. The police and military seem to be following the orders of President Bashar al-Assad right now, more or less (granted some of them have defected to the other side), in this exact situation we are hypothesizing. So I'm not entirely sure your premise is correct. The police and military are, remember, a government entity. I don't know that you could count on them to fall on the right side.

I guess it would depend on the situation. Maybe (like Syria), there would be a split in their loyalties.

*groan* I do not know whether to be amused or exasperated every time USA gets compared to Syria and the like in such context. Yes, some countries do not have a democratic tradition, most of the countries in the world, actually. That's a rather important difference between them and USA, Germany, France, or even the ex-Yugo and ex-USSR countries.

You know how many governments Italy has had since WWII? Plenty. I don't think most of them were deposed by a citizen's rebellion.

What a bunch of submissive, non-confrontational little pansies. "Here's all my guns, sir! You'll get no resistance from me!"

These left-wing "gun control" nut-jobs would have a field day if this "solution" was ever enacted. "If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have them". Such a true statement. It's proven that "more guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens equals less crime".

But as soon as you start throwing facts at these authoritarian imbeciles, they immediately dismiss your opinion as ignorant, simply because they lack the average level of intelligence required to comprehend it.

I am sure the mature and respectful tone of your post will make people see the light and start following the truth.

 

[RonHiler]

*groan* I do not know whether to be amused or exasperated every time USA gets compared to Syria and the like in such context. Yes, some countries do not have a democratic tradition, most of the countries in the world, actually. That's a rather important difference between them and USA, Germany, France, or even the ex-Yugo and ex-USSR countries.

I agree with you, given our history, it's unlikely the scenario I propose of a presidential takeover would ever happen. On the other hand, power does strange things to people (see: Republicans). I wouldn't leave the continuance of our democracy in the hands of "tradition". I prefer the 2nd amendment be there to ensure that can't happen, however unlikely it is.

 

[Vegosiux]

*groan* I do not know whether to be amused or exasperated every time USA gets compared to Syria and the like in such context. Yes, some countries do not have a democratic tradition, most of the countries in the world, actually. That's a rather important difference between them and USA, Germany, France, or even the ex-Yugo and ex-USSR countries.

I agree with you, given our history, it's unlikely the scenario I propose of a presidential takeover would ever happen. On the other hand, power does strange things to people (see: Republicans). I wouldn't leave the continuance of our democracy in the hands of "tradition". I prefer the 2nd amendment be there to ensure that can't happen, however unlikely it is.

But that's just the thing. Amendment II doesn't prevent a government from going all crazy. It just provides a legal foundation for people to rebel against it more easily than without it after that happens. And if you come as far as that, I'm pretty sure the people would rebel, amendment or no amendment.

It's not a preventative measure. If you want to prevent the government from going tyrannical, you need to be politically active.

 

[DefinitelyPsychotic]

Do you think so? I'm not so sure. The police and military seem to be following the orders of President Bashar al-Assad right now, more or less (granted some of them have defected to the other side), in this exact situation we are hypothesizing. So I'm not entirely sure your premise is correct. The police and military are, remember, a government entity. I don't know that you could count on them to fall on the right side.

I guess it would depend on the situation. Maybe (like Syria), there would be a split in their loyalties.

*groan* I do not know whether to be amused or exasperated every time USA gets compared to Syria and the like in such context. Yes, some countries do not have a democratic tradition, most of the countries in the world, actually. That's a rather important difference between them and USA, Germany, France, or even the ex-Yugo and ex-USSR countries.

You know how many governments Italy has had since WWII? Plenty. I don't think most of them were deposed by a citizen's rebellion.

What a bunch of submissive, non-confrontational little pansies. "Here's all my guns, sir! You'll get no resistance from me!"

These left-wing "gun control" nut-jobs would have a field day if this "solution" was ever enacted. "If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have them". Such a true statement. It's proven that "more guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens equals less crime".

But as soon as you start throwing facts at these authoritarian imbeciles, they immediately dismiss your opinion as ignorant, simply because they lack the average level of intelligence required to comprehend it.

I am sure the mature and respectful tone of your post will make people see the light and start following the truth.

Well sometimes the truth hurts. If we allow our governments to come into our homes and take our possessions, what next? Where does it stop?

 

[Tyelcapilu]

Societies make laws for the good of society, not the good of particular individuals. And I will once again remind you that regulating guns does not automatically equate to an endangerment of your, or anyone else's ass.

Except that it does endanger me. And that's why I oppose banning their carry for self defense.

And I'll drop the strawmanning when the other side stops pretending that people can't die unless a firearm is involved. Because to hear it, with no guns involved, I'll just get a bop on teh nose by criminals and nothing more than that.

You shouldn't pull a strawman to defend a strawman.
Really, you can't defend a strawman, unless you're citing how you formulated your misinterpretation, in which case you would move on and reply to their actual argument.

 

[RonHiler]

But that's just the thing. Amendment II doesn't prevent a government from going all crazy. It just provides a legal foundation for people to rebel against it more easily than without it after that happens. And if you come as far as that, I'm pretty sure the people would rebel, amendment or no amendment.

It's not a preventative measure. If you want to prevent the government from going tyrannical, you need to be politically active.

We disagree there. I think is certainly DOES prevent a government from becoming a tyranny. To do so would be suicide, I think, given the number of weapons in the populace's hands. I hope the people we elect are smarter than to commit (literal) suicide by trying something like that (a questionable assumption, I know).

But it comes down to "are guns really a deterrent"? Who knows. I don't think that's a question that can be answered, we don't have any data. Would someone in the government over the past 200+ years tried a tyrannical takeover if the 2nd amendment wasn't there? No one can say. I think it's possible (or at least more likely than otherwise). Perhaps you do not.

 

[Vegosiux]

Well sometimes the truth hurts. If we allow our governments to come into our homes and take our possessions, what next? Where does it stop?

It stops where the people stop supporting stuff. See, "the government" isn't some kind of an extraterrestial council, it's of the people, by the people, and for the people. Those government officials, they're not some soulless, faceless soul eaters, they're all your fellow countrymen that have been given a term in office by the rest, to lead a nation - a fact many people forget, on both sides of this equation.

So if you want to make sure your government doesn't go power mad, be active, withdraw support when you disagree, endorse and support people you want to be leading your nation. Easier said than done, takes awareness and active approach from the people as a whole.

I do not what to people when they start being afraid that whoever they put in charge is actually in charge.

 

[AldUK]

Societies make laws for the good of society, not the good of particular individuals. And I will once again remind you that regulating guns does not automatically equate to an endangerment of your, or anyone else's ass.

Except that it does endanger me. And that's why I oppose banning their carry for self defense.

And I'll drop the strawmanning when the other side stops pretending that people can't die unless a firearm is involved. Because to hear it, with no guns involved, I'll just get a bop on teh nose by criminals and nothing more than that.

After reading your responses in this and other threads on this topic, I'm actually really, genuinely concerned for your mental health. You seem to live each day terrified of what might happen and to compensate for that, you have these thoughts of it's you against them, it's an arms-race to keep yourself safe. This is just not a healthy attitude in any way in a modern, civilized society. I have to admit I'm pretty skeptical about just how bad you paint your area really is and if it is such a dangerous, lawless wasteland then surely you should move?

Note, this is not to 'troll' you or insult you, this is a real observation, you worry me and I think you should talk to a professional.

 

[Schadrach]

Hypothetically of course. But what would YOU as a gun owner do? Hide your guns? Would you kill the person that comes to your house trying to take them? Is gun ownership worth your life or the life of another?

Beseech the courts for an injunction against having my property taken until such time as the Court can evaluate the Constitutionality of the law, since I'm pretty sure that "it's illegal to own any gun" and "the right to bear arms shall not be infringed" are mutually exclusive. Possibly have them "stolen" if that fails.

 

[Strazdas]

Anyway, suicide fighters do not equal american citizens, much less US home bases do not equal combat bases and FOBs in the field. But while we're talking about hunting rifles, many that a US Citizen can legal purchase can defeat any known body armor. (Remington 700 being one) You know who make the best shots in the US Military? Farm and Hunting boys from rural america. You know who has the most weapons per household in the US? Rural America.

Oh really? who would have though that people who learn to kill and slaughter since childhood make better shots than people who dont. this is such a discovery.

Cept I don't have the money for armed bodyguards and trained attack dogs.

but you have money for guns....

I'm thinking of my own butt here. Maybe I never made that entirely clear before, and I know it comes off selfish, but I'm not terribly persuaded by numbers. I take this issue purely personal.

which is the WORST way to take this issue.

I don't trust anyone, actually. That mechanism is already in place.

yes, you made it pretty clear that your paranoia is of medical condition level.

Then I get my leg shattered in a random assault in a nightclub parking lot by someone with a crowbar.

and nightclub parking lot is wilderness how?

It's an invalid question. No such law can ever be passed. Not because of the NRA or because of people's unwillingness to give them up, but because it is specifically prohibited by the second amendment of the constitution.

"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."

here we go again. YOU are NOT a well regulated militia. you are not even a badly regulated militia. and anyone claiming otherwise, supreme court including, is simply wrong.

 

[xDarc]

I'm going to be blunt: Give us a reason to give a damn about your butt instead of our own.

Societies make laws for the good of society, not the good of particular individuals. And I will once again remind you that regulating guns does not automatically equate to an endangerment of your, or anyone else's ass.

What this guy says is ridiculous. What does banning assault rifles have to do with public safety when they account for 3% of firearms homicides? Don't you have better odds of dying in a plane crash or winning the lotto? It's just like all the nonsense they passed after 9/11. Your odds of being killed by a terrorist are practically ZERO, but look at all the rights they have taken away, all of the power to be judge, jury, executioner- to detain indefinitely without charges, to kill by executive order, look at all of the power they have given themselves.

They say that regulating guns does not endanger you, I say that's a load of shit. It's your only means to fight back and people are willing to give it all away because a few crazy people used these weapons to shoot up defenseless people who would have been screwed with little difference depending on had they used an assault weapon or a cheap handgun.

It's as big a lie as any other the federal government has used to expand it's power, and it works because people are irrationally afraid.

 

[RhombusHatesYou]

Provide factual evidence that not carrying a gun in a society where guns are heavily regulated will automatically endanger you.

You're asking that from someone who's stated outright they believe they'd be raped in Australia for being a white american woman.

I was so shocked when I read such nonsense that I dropped my favourite drinking skull and spilled blood all over the floor of my cave.