What Would Happen if the Right to Bear Arms was Taken Away.

Page 3 of 8 [ 128 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 8 Next

Previous topic | Next topic

AceOfSpades
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Feb 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,754
Location: Sean Penn, Cambodia

25 Apr 2011, 2:27 pm

aghogday wrote:

This scenario is assuming that it would be understood by the majority of the American public that the anarchy was bad and the confiscation of guns was a necessary measure to reduce danger as a whole.

What widespread danger does banning "assault weapons" based on nothing more than cosmetic features reduce? It's like banning big spoilers, fart cans, body kits, and stickers from Honda Civics cuz they make the car look like they have 500 hp.

Pistol grips do not make it easier to empty clips from hips. First off, your stance and your shoulder weld (putting the buttstock of the gun against your shoulder) are the biggest factors to reducing recoil, which is why new shooters are always told to lean forward into the gun. Secondly, militaries even train their soldiers to use semi-auto while clearing rooms. Thirdly, no one is gonna hit s**t spraying from the hip so it's smarter to either use the sights or spray from the shoulder. They also say pistol grips allow you to shoot one handed. What kinda dumbass uses one hand to shoot a rifle with?

Also they wanna ban flash suppressors cuz apparently they make muzzle flashes more concealable at night. A muzzle flash is a muzzle flash, a Y shaped one isn't any harder to see than a regular one.

Pistols are used in 90-95% of shootings (I don't remember the exact statistic but it's somwhere around there) which make sense since crooks need a gun they not only have quick access to, but one they can easily dispose of.

Based on these facts, it's reasonable to believe that either the people making the laws dunno s**t about guns (Carolyn McCarthy ROFL) or they have an agenda.

aghogday wrote:

Do conspiracy beliefs, in themselves, pose a potential danger to the country as a whole?

Ridiculous gun control laws are revenue generating streams at best and tyranny at worst. In Canada you have to pay $60 each year to renew your gun licence and they have ridiculous tax stamps in the states.

aghogday
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 25 Nov 2010
Age: 65
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,100

25 Apr 2011, 2:28 pm

Inuyasha wrote:

aghogday wrote:

Inuyasha wrote:

aghogday wrote:

ManBearPig wrote:

I think the ironic thing about the world some anti-gun extremists want to create, is that it would be far more violent than the one we have now. Think about it:

1) If all guns are illegal, then you have to either turn your guns in or keep them hidden forever. A lot of people would keep at least some of their guns because they value their life and the lives of their family in case of a break in, but that will now make them criminals in the eyes of the anti-gunners.

2) If all guns are illegal, you can't use your guns in self-defense. If a criminal breaks in your home, you can't hold them at gun point until the police arrive, because the police will put you in jail for life for having a gun in the first place. You also can't let the criminal go because they might tell someone about your guns and then you'd go to jail for the rest of your life. So that only leaves one option. Anyone who breaks into your home has to die and you have to dump the body Soprano's style, not-to-mention that you'd have to break another federal law by constructing illegal silencers for any guns you plan to use to defend your home from criminals, as you would want to lessen the chance of anyone hearing the shot when you defend your home. The only thing in your favor here is that you'd be harder to catch, as killing someone who randomly breaks into your house is like killing a complete stranger; which is much harder to solve than someone who kills a friend, neighbor, lover, or ex-lover.

3) So in the anti-gunner's world, they've taken people who would have otherwise gone the rest of their lives as law-abidding, and turned them into criminals over night for keeping property the anti-gunners find distasteful, turned them into law breakers for constructing illegal silencers, and turned them into premediated murderers who dump bodies in order to defend their lives and the lives of their families, all in the name of hating the 2nd Amendment and the right to self-defense with a firearm. Way to go anti-gunners, way to go.

Guns are a huge part of our culture. There is no chance they will be taken away, unless there was a drastic change in our country, like anarchy, or another country establishing rule over us

If another country would actually dare try, we're the most heavily armed nation in the world.

HK-50 Unit: Fully armed? One can never be armed Enough.

aghogday wrote:

Thank you for this comment, given the current status of our country, with out enough demand for such an action, it is obvious it won't happen. And, given the recent ammo buyout, when the administration changed, the response you gave, I think is one that might be more common among the general public.

I think it goes deeper than that, people stocked because they didn't trust the Government. If the government tried to ban guns, I can guarentee you there would be a revolt, and I don't think the government would win if that happened.

aghogday wrote:

The question assumes enough support for the action to take place and also questions what might precipitate such support and/or action. I'm thinking the only thing that would precipitate support is anarchy that a large number of Gun owners didn't support. If another country were to establish dominion over us; that would be the least of our problems.

Doubtful, because in this environment a lot of gun owners would believe that the entire thing was caused by people in the government trying to create a crisis so they could take away people's rights.

aghogday wrote:

My thought here is if there were internal anarchy in the country that was threatening the country as a whole, and the confiscation of arms was seen as a necessary measure to reduce the danger to all, would more people be willing to comply.

Doubtful, people on the right have listened to what Glenn Beck has said that the left wants the right to act violently so that they have an excuse to institute these kind of "crisis measures." Most gun owners would probably believe the internal anarchy is manufactured. If something like what you are suggesting were to happen I would suspect gun owners would be getting together, also grapping pitchforks and torches, and marching on DC. I seriously doubt that they would give up their firearms.

aghogday wrote:

I'm thinking some people would, but some people would want to hold on to their guns for self defense, more vigorously than if we did not have anarchy. The question then becomes would a person be willing to give up their life to the authorities for taking their guns away by force, or be more concerned that they might lose their life to those responsible for the anarchy because they didn't have the guns to defend themselves?

Again, I really think you don't get it. People don't trust the Government, they aren't going to give up their sole means of defense to someone they don't trust.

aghogday wrote:

So, when it comes down to a life or death situation, who would people support, the government or themselves? And finally, is the United States and the Government of the United States equivalent or are the opinions of the individual citizens that compromise the country more important than the decisions made by our method of Government?

If it came down to the Government threatening the lives of citizens because they refuse to turn over their firearms, the Government officials are going to be lucky to just be out of a job. Especially right now with people's distrust of the government and anger at the government.

aghogday wrote:

I've often heard movie stars, talk show hosts, and the wealthy, talk about leaving the country if this or that political decision is made. So, I guess that is another option, that people can choose if they have the means to do so.

Rush Limbaugh already moved out of New York.

aghogday wrote:

But, who do is to blame, the elected officials, or the people that elected them. I personally think the people are the Government; there are no perfect governments, but ours doesn't work without the support of the citizens.

I would blame the media for not doing their jobs of vetting the candidates.

This scenario is assuming that it would be understood by the majority of the American public that the anarchy was bad and the confiscation of guns was a necessary measure to reduce danger as a whole.

It is doubtful that people would hand over their firearms to the individuals they believe caused the mess in the first place.

aghogday wrote:

If the majority of the American Public was for it and the Government had to enforce it, would you still think there was a conspiracy and the government was out to get you?

The 2nd Amendment exists for a reason, and I know pro-gun individuals make up a large enough percentage of the population that the 2nd Amendment is not going to be amended legitimately.

aghogday wrote:

If no matter what, people are going to believe in these conspiracy theories, what is going to happen if we have a real problem?

You mean conspiracy theories like "Journ-O-list?" Hate to break it to you, but that was conspiracy fact.

aghogday wrote:

Do conspiracy beliefs, in themselves, pose a potential danger to the country as a whole?

Depends, but a conspiracy can actually exist.

I agree that a conspiracy actually can exist, but if people distrust the whole government because there was an isolated conspiracy here or there, it's just not logical. Our country is not perfect, but when people get upset with one party, the other party gets a chance to make things right.

That is what has happened so far, and it was evident in the last election like it was evident in the previous election. So, it is evident that the voters still run the country. No one party get's complete control even if they have complete control; that was evident in the result of what we got with healthcare.

It's hard to say what might cause anarchy among the people in the country. But there is a tipping point to all things and it is hard to say what factors might come together to make things much different than they are now in the future.

Other countries don't allow private ownership of guns; they have their reasons, and it is generally supported among there people. We as a country support private ownership of guns and the constitution guarantees it. That is today, though. The conditions of today are not guaranteed for tommorrow.

My point assumes that conditions change that motivate majority support for this change. Are you saying conditions can't possibly get bad enough for such a change to be supported by the majority of the general public?

The majority of the public supports gun ownership at this time, but it is not a majority of the American public that believes in Conspiracy theories that the government as a whole is out to get them.

Suppose the country gets in bad enough fiscal shape that social programs are completely discontinued and anarchy starts in the country; then the majority of the country gets behind the idea of confiscating guns in the country. Will people support the will of the majority of the country and government authority to confiscate guns if the government were to gain the legal right to do this?

ManBearPig
Butterfly

Joined: 24 Apr 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 13

25 Apr 2011, 3:39 pm

The Bill Of Rights and Civil Rgihts are not at the "whim of the majority". As a matter-of-fact, the Bill Of Rights and our Civil Rights, such as Free Speech, is there to protect all rights, even those hated by the majority. It's the reason that people can burn American flags, even though most people in America are against it. It doesn't matter for two craps if the majority of America were ok with disarming people, that little matter doesn't get around that there is a 2nd Amendment. That's what the Bill Of Rights is in this country; it's set in stone. We don't get to change it everytime the American people get a new flavor of the month feeling regarding this or that right, and the process to amend the constitution is all but impossible (especially in this politically biased climate). You'd never get 3/4ths of the States to vote "yes" to amend the Constitution on guns or anything else for that matter; to political in today's world.

The bottom line is, the gun lobby owns Congress, both sides (either in GOP or in Blue Dogs) and owns the Supreme Court. We can pretty much do whatever we want and the anti-gunners can't do a damn thing about it. They'll never reverse Heller or MacDonald, because the SCOTUS doesn't just up and reverse it's decisions everytime a new majority takes place; that's not how it works. And we have at least a few more years or so to squeeze out even more 5-4 2nd Amendment decisions in our favor before a majority switch happens. And when a switch on the SCOTUS does happen, the worst that will happen is the gun side will stop bringing cases before the court. Because unlike the anti-gun side, we are smart enough to know not to bring gun cases to a SCOTUS that is sure to rule against us. Whereas the anti-gun side are so stupid, so stubborn, and so aroggant, they keep fighting all these gun cases to a SCOTUS that they damn well KNOW is going to rule AGAINST them in a 5-4 decision. The anti-gun side has nobody but themselves to blame for the recent victories; all because of their constant foot dragging and fighting tooth and nail to keep their draconian gun laws.

aghogday
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 25 Nov 2010
Age: 65
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,100

25 Apr 2011, 3:56 pm

AceOfSpades wrote:

aghogday wrote:

This scenario is assuming that it would be understood by the majority of the American public that the anarchy was bad and the confiscation of guns was a necessary measure to reduce danger as a whole.

What widespread danger does banning "assault weapons" based on nothing more than cosmetic features reduce? It's like banning big spoilers, fart cans, body kits, and stickers from Honda Civics cuz they make the car look like they have 500 hp.

Pistol grips do not make it easier to empty clips from hips. First off, your stance and your shoulder weld (putting the buttstock of the gun against your shoulder) are the biggest factors to reducing recoil, which is why new shooters are always told to lean forward into the gun. Secondly, militaries even train their soldiers to use semi-auto while clearing rooms. Thirdly, no one is gonna hit sh** spraying from the hip so it's smarter to either use the sights or spray from the shoulder. They also say pistol grips allow you to shoot one handed. What kinda dumbass uses one hand to shoot a rifle with?

Also they wanna ban flash suppressors cuz apparently they make muzzle flashes more concealable at night. A muzzle flash is a muzzle flash, a Y shaped one isn't any harder to see than a regular one.

Pistols are used in 90-95% of shootings (I don't remember the exact statistic but it's somwhere around there) which make sense since crooks need a gun they not only have quick access to, but one they can easily dispose of.

Based on these facts, it's reasonable to believe that either the people making the laws dunno sh** about guns (Carolyn McCarthy ROFL) or they have an agenda.

aghogday wrote:

Do conspiracy beliefs, in themselves, pose a potential danger to the country as a whole?

This is a fictious scenario, of what ifs; in this scenario all guns would be banned and confiscated. It also assumes a major change would have to precipitate the majority of Americans supporting such an action. Personally, I don't think it would ever happen, but I can't see into the future.

aghogday
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 25 Nov 2010
Age: 65
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,100

25 Apr 2011, 4:12 pm

ManBearPig wrote:

I'm not suggesting this will ever happen. It could never happen in our political climate and would never happen unless there were catastrophic circumstances that would lead to such an action. And, personally, I don't see a need for it to happen, as things stand now. My father is a gun collector and he would stand to lose a fortune, if this were to happen, as many others would.

The question is what would happen, if it did happen. What if circumstances were dire enough where the support needed to actually change the constitution did happen. How would the minority that didn't support the decision respond. Would they accept the will of the majority of the country, in this ficticious scenario, or would they take action against it?

Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,997
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

25 Apr 2011, 6:28 pm

aghogday wrote:

ManBearPig wrote:

Anything like anarchy or whatever other rationale the government (with or without a majority consent) comes up with to ban all private gun ownership would meet disaster in this day and age. During times of that kind of crisis the people most need to be armed for the obvious reasons of self preservation. The cops can't even do much to protect anyone in the relatively peaceful society we live in now.
Factor in widespread anarchy and what all that brings and law enforcement coverage will be non-existent for all practical purposes even with the help of the National Guard and/or regular military.
As far as the "will of the majority of the country" go it's not the choice of the majority to make.
What I'm going to say next is going to sound internet commando-ish but I'll say it anyway.
My right to own guns (for any reason) and protect my life and liberty are worth fighting and dying for and it is a growing sentiment in the USA at the time.
I hope this answers your question.

aghogday
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 25 Nov 2010
Age: 65
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,100

25 Apr 2011, 6:39 pm

Raptor wrote:

aghogday wrote:

ManBearPig wrote:

Yes, I've heard this many times before in relationship to gun ownership, and there is no doubt in my mind that people would be willing to die to keep their rights to own guns regardless of the reason that someone had to try to take them away. Other than the fear of losing gun ownership, is there any other reason people feel like their life and liberty are at stake now, in relationship to the government?

And finally, while I don't personally think that the second ammendment would be changed, do you see a possibility of the government trying to do this, sometime in the future? I know that some people are really afraid that the government might try to take their guns or ban the sale of guns, and they believe it could happen at anytime.

Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,997
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

25 Apr 2011, 6:59 pm

Quote:

Other than the fear of losing gun ownership, is there any other reason people feel like their life and liberty are at stake now, in relationship to the government?

Theoretically your life and liberty are always at stake. Most of us, including me, don't harp on it or let it control our lives but history shows us that the threat is real enough to at least keep in mind.
I'm not talking about government sponsored genocide but more along the lines of potential loss of life and/or liberty facilitated by government carelessness and indifference.

aghogday
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 25 Nov 2010
Age: 65
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,100

25 Apr 2011, 7:07 pm

Raptor wrote:

Quote:

Other than the fear of losing gun ownership, is there any other reason people feel like their life and liberty are at stake now, in relationship to the government?

I agree that your life and liberty are always at stake, but that doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the government. With guns a person is able to protect their life and liberty from armed intruders into their home, but they don't get to do it with the IRS or any other government institution that they personally feel is invading their liberty, when done under legal authority.

Just for my own clarification, what kind of government carelessness and indifference would present a need for people to take up arms against the government?

AceOfSpades
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Feb 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,754
Location: Sean Penn, Cambodia

25 Apr 2011, 8:09 pm

aghogday wrote:

AceOfSpades wrote:

aghogday wrote:

This scenario is assuming that it would be understood by the majority of the American public that the anarchy was bad and the confiscation of guns was a necessary measure to reduce danger as a whole.

What widespread danger does banning "assault weapons" based on nothing more than cosmetic features reduce? It's like banning big spoilers, fart cans, body kits, and stickers from Honda Civics cuz they make the car look like they have 500 hp.

Pistol grips do not make it easier to empty clips from hips. First off, your stance and your shoulder weld (putting the buttstock of the gun against your shoulder) are the biggest factors to reducing recoil, which is why new shooters are always told to lean forward into the gun. Secondly, militaries even train their soldiers to use semi-auto while clearing rooms. Thirdly, no one is gonna hit sh** spraying from the hip so it's smarter to either use the sights or spray from the shoulder. They also say pistol grips allow you to shoot one handed. What kinda dumbass uses one hand to shoot a rifle with?

Also they wanna ban flash suppressors cuz apparently they make muzzle flashes more concealable at night. A muzzle flash is a muzzle flash, a Y shaped one isn't any harder to see than a regular one.

Pistols are used in 90-95% of shootings (I don't remember the exact statistic but it's somwhere around there) which make sense since crooks need a gun they not only have quick access to, but one they can easily dispose of.

Based on these facts, it's reasonable to believe that either the people making the laws dunno sh** about guns (Carolyn McCarthy ROFL) or they have an agenda.

aghogday wrote:

Do conspiracy beliefs, in themselves, pose a potential danger to the country as a whole?

Oh sorry dude I just kinda jumped on that. I highly doubt it'll happen since it is so deeply ingrained in the culture.

Cash__
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 Nov 2010
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,390
Location: Missouri

25 Apr 2011, 8:39 pm

There are so many guns out there that they could not possibly collect them all if outlawed. Half of my guns do not have serial numbers and are not traceable to me. So they wouldn't even know they should be collecting them.

(lack of serial numbers and non-traceability are not for criminal reasons. They are workable antiques.)

AceOfSpades
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Feb 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,754
Location: Sean Penn, Cambodia

25 Apr 2011, 10:05 pm

Inuyasha wrote:

aghogday wrote:

ManBearPig wrote:

Guns are a huge part of our culture. There is no chance they will be taken away, unless there was a drastic change in our country, like anarchy, or another country establishing rule over us

If another country would actually dare try, we're the most heavily armed nation in the world.

I'd like to put my rifle between her blades of glass

Vexcalibur
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 17 Jan 2008
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,398

25 Apr 2011, 10:09 pm

^(Misattributed)

_________________
.

TheBicyclingGuitarist
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 27 May 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,332

25 Apr 2011, 10:17 pm

While I tend to vote towards the left on many issues, gun control is one where I sit on the far right.

If more citizens were allowed to legally carry guns, some of the massacres used by anti-gun nuts as rhetorical devices could have been nipped in the bud. Nowadays, with all the smart weapons, robots and lasers, having a simple firearm really doesn't pose much of a threat to the government. Even if we wanted to take the government down, it wouldn't work unless we had the military refusing to fire on their own people. So the right to bear arms as a means of keeping the government in check is pretty much bogus, in my opinion.

For defending oneself from criminals though, that's where it makes a difference. Sure you can call the police, but you will be raped or murdered before they get there. Now when toddlers get hold of parent's guns and accidentally shoot themselves, siblings, or others, that's bad. But that's why if you have guns you need to train your kids young to respect them. Back in the day, hundreds of years past, firearms were part of daily life for survival some places. You can bet that children were taught about them, and toddlers watched carefully. It is tragic whenever a kid uses a gun on purpose or accidentally to hurt or kill someone, but that's no reason to outlaw guns.

The laws suggesting that one keep one's gun locked up and the ammo locked up separately are stupid though. Do you think an intruder is going to patiently wait when you ask, "Pardon me while I unlock my gun cabinet and load my firearm?" No, it is on the parents to teach their children to not mess with guns, or if they do mess with them, how to aim and hit your target. That's my opinion FWIW.

_________________
"When you ride over sharps, you get flats!"--The Bicycling Guitarist, May 13, 2008

Vexcalibur
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 17 Jan 2008
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,398

25 Apr 2011, 10:20 pm

TheBicyclingGuitarist wrote:

If more citizens were allowed to legally carry guns, some of the massacres used by anti-gun nuts as rhetorical devices could have been nipped in the bud.

Aren't guns already allowed? Or do you think that for example, teens should carry guns with them in their schools to prevent those massacres?

Hey, I don't think it is beneficial at all to ban guns, but I do think you should have a license, just like with cars. In anyway, illegalizing guns wouldn't prevent massacres but I cannot really agree with the notion that making them more easily available would help people stop massacres...

_________________
.

Vigilans
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 19 Jun 2008
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,181
Location: Montreal

25 Apr 2011, 10:21 pm

AceOfSpades wrote:

Inuyasha wrote:

aghogday wrote:

ManBearPig wrote:

Guns are a huge part of our culture. There is no chance they will be taken away, unless there was a drastic change in our country, like anarchy, or another country establishing rule over us

If another country would actually dare try, we're the most heavily armed nation in the world.

I'd like to put my rifle between her blades of glass

_________________
Opportunities multiply as they are seized. -Sun Tzu
Nature creates few men brave, industry and training makes many -Machiavelli
You can safely assume that you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do

Page 3 of 8 [ 128 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 8 Next

Jump to:

What Would Happen if the Right to Bear Arms was Taken Away. Post Reply New Topic

What Would Happen if the Right to Bear Arms was Taken Away.