Opinion Question

[skinnyguy]

HYPOTHETICAL SITUATION​

If there were no second amendment to protect our RKBA, but we still had firearms availble, would there be any anti-gun lobbies, or polititcians trying to remove the firearms from our posession?

 

[SFT]

There wouldn't be any guns in the hands of civilians, period. That's how governments work, as would ours with that right. We'd also not be having this conversation as you can't have the First without the Second.

 

[Cuda]

SFT

We'd also not be having this conversation as you can't have the First without the Second.

It's to bad more people don't understand how the Constitution works..


W

 

[thexrayboy]

With 20,000+ anti gun laws on the books at present with a Second Amendment in the constitution just imagine how far the socialist power grabbers would go if it was not there.

 

[ReadyontheRight]

We would not be having this conversation.

Mankind would not have invented electrical distribution, mass telecommunications, the personal computer or the internet.

The ruling class might have some interesting toys, but there is no way we would have evolved as far as the power of the internet without the personal freedom RKBA delivers.

Historically, we'd probably be smack dab in the middle of another Germanic dark age.

 

[shield20]

We would have nothing if not for the BOR, and especially the 2nd. We would not 'have guns available', unless you were a soldier, LE, or a criminal.


There would be no need for anti-gun lobbyists or politicians.

 

[taliv]

i disagree. we'd be right where we are right now. it's obvious that no politicians or lawyers respect teh 2A (or any other part of the constitution for that matter) or there wouldn't be 20,000 gun laws on the books.