Repeal of the 2nd amendment

[makarov1]

I'm sure this thread has been hashed and re-hashed before, but let's just say I won't want to be around if a foolish proposal such as an outright ban ever made it to the house floor. Demanding that hundreds of millions of otherwise law-abiding Americans to give up their semi-auto weapons would be a disaster of mega proportions. This political move would be seen as exactly what it is, a "power move" to disarm a hard-working, tax paying, law-abiding citizenry.

I hope I'm not around if this ever happens, but I wouldn't want to be a politician walking around with a bull's eye on my head, or police officer in a city with an anti-gun police chief. Anyone in a position of authority that has any anti-gun leanings or anyone associated with anyone with anti-gun sentiments would be a potential target. Chances are that the shooters would be better trained and more motivated than the D.C. area snipers, not to mention there would be many more of them.

Again, all of this is supposition, and this would probably be the response to an outright ban. The damage to our nation as a result of a foolish gun grab might be irreversible.

 

[seeker_two]

telewinz: What do YOU think, Agent Schmuckatelli?

 

[Black Snowman]

I thought I'd speak up for my Mom (who isn't even that big of a fan of firearms and is quite liberal) "They can take em when they pry them from my cold dead hands!"

So put her on the "Stand and Deliver" list.

 

[carp killer]

When President Hillery Clinton appoints Chuck Schumer as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, then we will see SHTF! And there is a good chance it could happen in 12 years.

Tamara quote:

Yeah, but only a minority of the guns were registered or turned in, too.

I think the Kali DOJ estimated that only 10% of the AW's were registered according to sales records. Quite a bit of disobediance.

 

[cracked butt]

There was somethings mentioned about the chilren and family. I wouldn't want to be the granfather or great grandfather who is viewed as the first generation in America to have no spine and started giving away our hard earned freedoms by some twenty year old in a gulag 100 years from now.

I have a greatgrandfather who died in prison because him and his broher got in a shootout with the feds killing one of them, who tried to break up their illegal alcohol producing business during prohibition. Mind you, my mother's family have been in the alcohol business(either producing or selling) since probably back to the stone age, their are still members of my family who own taverns and liquor stores today. I hold my great grandfather in high esteem for standing up forhimself and his family's business which was taken away by an absurd law.

 

[telewinz]

seeker_two....

"telewinz: What do YOU think, Agent Schmuckatelli?"


Since you asked, I think your mother needs to exercise parental control by taking away your cap guns and rubber knife

 

[seeker_two]

Since you asked, I think your mother needs to exercise parental control by taking away your cap guns and rubber knife

Or what? You'll send in the tanks?...

 

[telewinz]

If you are a family man with kids how do you teach them to pick and choose which laws to obey? Based on some of the "solutions" mentioned, I suspect there are not too many parents on THR and those that are comprise a small minority or lead a secret life.

 

[Chris Rhines]

I would hope that every parent teaches their children to pick and choose which laws to obey. That is part and parcel of teaching them to think.

America needs to get over its perverted obsession with being law-abiding.

- Chris

 

[telewinz]

Chris

Maybe thats why we have the highest percentage of people in prison in the World. There is a right way to do something and a wrong way. It sounds to me like their are too many lazy/emotional people willing to do things the easy/wrong way. How come these people never gain responsible leadership positions either in the private or public sectors?

 

[Chris Rhines]

Maybe thats why we have the highest percentage of people in prison in the World.

Do we? Not that I would be surprised, of course. A government that makes many forms of behaivor criminal is going to have lots of criminals to imprison.

I'll be blunt. The lawmakers in this nation are not any smarter than you or I. Nor are they any more moral, in fact they are generally less so. The position of lawmaker has no moral authority attached to it. The lawmakers are just like you and I.

Obeying a law because it is a moral law, based on first principles, is a good and honorable thing. Obeying a law because you are afraid of the consequences of violation is perfectly understandable; I do it myself all the time. Obeying a law just because it is the law is just pathetic and stupid.

- Chris

 

[Orbital-Burn]

you forgot one choice.....eradicate all liberals and start over with an easier to understand for pea-brains constitution. But the most important is to eradicate all liberals, needs to be done before it's too late.

 

[Bill St. Clair]

Telewinz:

Picking and choosing which laws to obey is extremely simple. If it involves the initiation of force to harm another non-consenting person or to steal or damage their property, personally or via an intermediary, it is a crime, and laws forbidding it are valid. Otherwise, not.

Note that this means that the following are invalid: every gun law, every tax law, every drug law, every licensing and registration law, every law that criminalizes any behavior not described by the paragraph above.

Furthermore, every person involved in making and enforcing any such invalid law is himself a criminal. Every arrest for such a law is false arrest, kidnapping by another name, hence a capital crime, punishable by life imprisonment or death.

That's what I'm teaching my two kids (11 and 6). And my son will very soon be big enough to help shoot the bastards, should they ever attempt to take our guns away.

 

[telewinz]

Bill St. Clair

That sounds nice but the people who own the jails, prisons, law enforcement and the public's support don't reconize your "simple" solution. You and others are ignoring the reality of the situation, using legal means to change the system is the ONLY way that has and will work. Demonstrate to the non-believers that YOU own a "black" rifle and YOU are a responsible law abiding citizen. Threats impress no-one but loses our cause support and votes. Its not the easy solution but it will work better than "prying my gun from my cold dead fingers".

 

[St. Gunner]

Dr. Ferris: "You honest men are such a problem and such a headache. But we
knew you'd slip sooner or later- and this is just what we wanted."

Rearden: "You seem to be pleased about it."

Dr.: "Don't I have a good reason to be?"

Rearden: "But after all. I did break one of your laws."

Dr.: "Well what do you think they are for?...

We want them to be broken....

...We are after power and we mean it. You fellows were Pikers, but we
know the real trick, and you'd better get wise to it. There is no way to
rule innocent men. The only power any government has is to crack down on
criminals. Well when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One
declares so many things to be a crime that is becomes impossible for men to
live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens?"

Exchange between Hank Rearden and Dr. Ferris in Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand.


I marked this with a highlighter the first time I read the book, just
came across it again while reading it a second time, it was just as strong
and just as true the second time, thought I would share, give us all
something to think about.

It sounds to me like their are too many lazy/emotional people willing to do things the easy/wrong way.

I assume you are talking about yourself here? What you have proposed seems to be the laziest and most emotional response; far out of line with the founding principles of this nation. Does the phrase, "Give me liberty, or give me death" ring any bells?

My child is being raised the same way I was, that just because a source tells you they are to be listened to, does not mean they should be. Listening is a component of respect, if you can't respect that source, you have no business following its rules or regulations...

 

[pax]

Whatinhell is this thread doing in "General Discussion"?

Y'know, there's a perfectly nice forum titled "Legal and Political." It's for talking over subjects related to LAWS and POLITICS.

That'd be the right place for this 'un.

pax

 

[TimH]

I try very hard to buy used guns that are privately owned. I would turn the ones in that I thought the Govt would know about. hide the rest. I don't think it would bee fair to ask the wife to give up want little property we have accumulated through our life together

 

[Drjones]

What if the 2A was repealed?


I've always been fascinated with sniping...



It would be utterly stupid to try combat of any sort, armed protests, etc. We would be painted worse than the 9/11 terrorists by the media, and would have the Army called in on us, not to mention SWAT teams and the like. Besides, how many people do you REALLY think you'd get to actually fight, get dirty and kill people?

We wouldn't be organized nor centralized. Sure, there might be enough people in the whole country willing to fight, but it doesn't do us any good if we're all spread out across the whole CONUS.

It would be far easier to snipe those key people advocating and implementing the new laws in any way, shape, or form.

Remember the shooter back east? That's what I'm talking about...

I'd get a small pack of similar-minded people together and start sniping...

 

[telewinz]

St. Gunner states

"I assume you are talking about yourself here? What you have proposed seems to be the laziest and most emotional response; far out of line with the founding principles of this nation. Does the phrase, "Give me liberty, or give me death" ring any bells?"

You may assume what you wish, I have never heard/read an emotional arguement yet that didn't rely on some romantic assumption and battle cry. You sir are not willing or are unable to win support for your cause by the use of intelligent thought and the exchange of ideas.

You seem to prefere to live in the past rather than cope with the demands of modern day society. Historically, your method has had a very poor success rate and supports the opposition's most common complaint against the pro-gun movement "its full of right wing radicals". If I weren't progun already your comments would have sent me into the anti-gunners camp. Hopefully visitors to this site will understand that you only speak for yourself and a minority (right-wingers) of gun owners.

 

[Baba Louie]

What if games are fun.

What if someone could actually talk 34 state's (2/3 of the states) legislatures/constitutional conventions into agreeing on language to repeal one of the original 10 Bill of Rights that were required waaaaaaay back when or no ratification of said Constitution?

What would you do? Would you fight it then in committee or sit and await the porking?

What if Superman was a NAZI?

What if, after 34 states HAD agreed to repeal one of the original 10 Bill of Rights required to activate our government's rules of conduct, 38 of the States (3/4 of them now) said OK, Good Idea, lets DO take away just one of those pesky original amendments (I mean, they probably read Orwell's Animal Farm too) and the world as we know it will be a better place for the ... children... That's right... for the children, and they all voted for it and did it.

What if John, Paul, George and Ringo got back together one more time? (Oops... too late for that one now)

Would you make darn certain that 13 states congress critters would say Hell no?

Any one of the original 10 repealed, the Constitution and thus the Republic is gone.

Null.

Void.

Grounds for Civil War. Pure and simple.

Rebels against the Empire

Another Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin, James Madison, Patrick Henry and George Washington would arise out of the ashes like the proverbial Phoenix -or- Julius Ceasar with his legions (probably be named something catchy like... Republican Guards) would declare himself (herself?) annoited and appointed by... him.

And what about all those pesky State Constitutions that would also need revamping, taking it down to the State Assembly/County level?

But, in keeping with the "Spirit" of things, Oh yeah, I'd turn my lonely, single semi-automatic Ruger 10/22 assault rifle in like the vast majority of AR-15 owners in California did, since I want to be a good boy and not upset my elected officials who are my superior in every way and I always follow my superiors orders cause I sure wouldn't want them to be forced to pry anything from my cold dead... I scare waaaaay too easily.

Or maybe I'd become an outlaw. It worked for Robert of Locksley

Adios

 

[rick_reno]

Carp Killer posted "I think the Kali DOJ estimated that only 10% of the AW's were registered according to sales records. Quite a bit of disobediance"

Sure, but how many of those were bought using 4473 forms? What happend to the records of those thousands of gun dealers who were put out of business under Bill Clinton? They had to send in their bound books and 4473's to the BATF - where paper records were computerized. I'm convinced here is a gun registry being built in this country - it's slow - but they've got time on their side. While they educate and train the next generation of Americans to find firearms distasteful - we're all getting older and the database of what is where continues to be built.

Didn't they recently implement the scenario presented in this thread in Austrialia? I'd look there for an example of what you might see happening here - I didn't see any reports of armed resistance. People seemed to be willing to obey the law, turn in their guns and take their money. I expect we'd see identical behavior here. 12 years in the future, they can have a lot of new voters ready to repeal certain objectionable Amendments.

 

[Skofnung]

telewinz:

I do not consider myself to be "Right Wing" individual. I lean more toward the Libertarian POV, you know; life, liberty, and property? Some of my views would probably offend the sensibilities of some on this board, as they do not always go along with "Right Wing" philosophy.

All that said, do what you will. Calling someone irrational for wanting to live free is silly. Human beings do irrational things all the time. If rational thought dictated all of human endeavors, we would be in sad shape.

Principles my good man, principles are very seldom rational. If your principles dictate that you should abide all laws, then by all means do so. That to me is irrational. If self preservation is your goal, then I would venture a guess that you would turn yours in. If self preservation is your goal, you can rationalize anything.

I do not know what I would do. I THINK I know, but until the day comes, all of this is just talk.

Some laws are wrong, and need to be changed. When all peaceful means have been exhausted, is it not right to resist?

 

[Chris Rhines]

You and others are ignoring the reality of the situation, using legal means to change the system is the ONLY way that has and will work.

I hope to life that you're right. So, what happens if your way doesn't work? Do you have a backup plan?

Demonstrate to the non-believers that YOU own a "black" rifle and YOU are a responsible law abiding citizen.

You're being silly. The citizenry-at-large aren't going to care about your gesture of respect for the government. In fact, a signifigant minority of them are probably going to think that the government should imprison you for merely owning an Evil Black Rifle.

Now what you have demonstrated (to the government) is that you're willing to give up one liberty, and you're probably willing to give up more. Nice job.

BTW, I'm not a law-abiding citizen, and I have no desire at all to pretend that I am. Blind obeidence to the law is not something to be proud of.

You sir are not willing or are unable to win support for your cause by the use of intelligent thought and the exchange of ideas.

I'm not buying it. The pro-gun side has always had the intellectually superior arguments, the statistics, the numbers, and it hasn't bought us anything.

I'm not suggesting that it's time to start shooting - that's a last resort of last resorts. If it comes down to an armed conflict, then the fight is 90% lost already. But if you're serious about freedom, then you'd better be prepared to fight for it. I truly hope not, but it may come down to a fight, and it'll be too late to prepare when the raid team is kicking down your door.

So I repeat; if you decide that you're not willing to fight (and that's fine), get rid of your guns before they become a liability for you.

Historically, your method has had a very poor success rate...

I cannot, at least off the top of my head, think of a single pro-liberty social or political movement that made any signifigant progress without resorting to civil disobedience at least.

...and supports the opposition's most common complaint against the pro-gun movement "its full of right wing radicals".

Radical? Well, yeah. Moderation in the pursuit of justice, and all that. I doubt, however, that anyone will confuse an athiest, pro-abortion, anti-war, libertarian activist with Rush Limbaugh.

If I weren't progun already your comments would have sent me into the anti-gunners camp.

Who cares if you are pro-gun? If you're not pro-liberty, you're only halfway there...

Hopefully visitors to this site will understand that you only speak for yourself and a minority (right-wingers) of gun owners.

You're being silly again. While you might be right that only a small minority of gun owners have the strength of their convictions, there is no doubt at all that most gun owners are politically conservative.

If you're going to debate the merits of armed revolution vs. civil disobedience vs. political action, that's well and good. But tossing around the 'right-winger' label only confuses the issue. Let's hear some good reasons why we should reject the use of force out of hand.

- Chris

 

[St. Gunner]

Telwinz,

If I weren't progun already your comments would have sent me into the anti-gunners camp. Hopefully visitors to this site will understand that you only speak for yourself and a minority (right-wingers) of gun owners.

Funny while at one of the most liberal of the local colleges I wrote much the same things as I am writing now, actually maybe a tad more revoltist in nature. I made lots and lots of headway with what where at one point in time your normal college gun grabbing liberals. See the part of human nature you fail to comprehend, because you have already chosen your leader(government laws and rules), is most of society far and away is still searching for their sheep herder. You don't get to be that individual by spouting the proper government sponsored rhetoric as the good little citizen.

Switch the debate, Telewinz, if on Monday morning you awoke and a law had been passed allowing any government official alive to have his way with your wife, daughter, mother, or yourself(if that was his fancy), and pay you $25 for each visit they paid, would you just submit; take your money? Hide em out, or dare em to come and try? It is in essence the very same debate, deals with the same moral premise. If you would do what you say in the first and hide or fight in the second, your moral premise is flawed by some subconcious stickler that tells you guns have an evil heinous side.

There is no difference in the two debates, simply because they both infringe on basic human rights, and both are morally corrupt. If you support different premises in these situations, you are totally mixed up in your own life and truly don't believe the 2nd amendment is an inalienable right.

If you think I am a right wing whacko, you are so far to the left of all issues you can't see the libertarians from where you are standing.

You sir are not willing or are unable to win support for your cause by the use of intelligent thought and the exchange of ideas.

Interesting and I could have sworn that you where the first one who when they couldn't make their point or more to the point, nobody believed your point decided to try a different tactic and said,

It sounds to me like their are too many lazy/emotional people willing to do things the easy/wrong way.

But then it must have been a different Telewinz, cause you are the all knowing all seeing God of submission to government whims or some such thing.

Sir the easy/lazy/wrong way is 99% of the time the way that is easiest on the backside as we deal with government. We aren't talking about discipline at home with mom and dad when you did what you where told because it involved getting your butt swatted, we are talking about rules and laws that if you obey them, if you simply follow rules out of fear of the power of government, you give up all future ability to resisit tyranny and oppresion. That sir is morally corrupt thinking for you and leads to devastating or lethal oppresion for any children you may have.

When your moral premise for operation means giving up all means to resist, you really have no moral premise, only your government sponsored rules. Do you really think the sheep are stupid enough to follow you all the way to their slaughter, at least from our perspective they have a chance to lead a life on something other than their knees.

 

[LostOneToo]

Put me on the list!!!! I am afraid they'd have to come and get them.