If a (hypothetical) amendment were passed to ban guns

[bigred1]

why? I know i'm not the first to suggest it.

It could just as easily be an amendment to outlaw communism as a political party or to superseed the first amendment and establish christianity above all other religions.

It's probably more a question of what people would do with regards to a major shift in something we've grown up believing was a fundamental right. I just picked guns because we are here.

You start jacking around like that with the 2A and you're more likely to get communism as the only political party or Islam as the only religion.

 

[Aku]

I believe that would require a Constitutional Convention and ratification by majority of the States. Before something like that would pass, I could see many States secede from the Union, or kick out the offending big cities, or reallocation of land, like separating California into different States. Or Civil War.

We really don't have a problem with the left. IMO the real problem we have is with the media, and spineless Republicans turning the party into the Uniparty.

 

[sherrick13]

44 million guns in private hands. Don’t see it happening

44 million? Wut?

More like 1 billion

 

[trekrok]

Oh i fully agree. But many gun owners like to cast themselves as the 'follow the constitution' types so i was genuinely curious what people would do/think if the constitution was changed.

There is a video that pops up from time to time where a retired SCOTUS justice argues that gun control should happen via the prescribed methods of altering the constitution and not via congressional laws. It's always interested me as a hypothetical

I would submit that most that you refer to as the 'follow the constitution' types, follow it because of the ideals the Constitution embodies, not just a mindless adherence to the document.

 

[donner]

I would submit that most that you refer to as the 'follow the constitution' types, follow it because of the ideals the Constitution embodies, not just a mindless adherence to the document.

i can see that.

Though i'd submit that the founders recognized that their document was imperfect and allowed for a method to change it. I'm not arguing gun ownership is or should, just that the 'ideals the constitution embodies' also include that i can change.

It's a difficult process by design and seemingly can only happen with a lot of buy in, but that doesn't mean a change would be universally received or respected.

 

[donner]

I believe that would require a Constitutional Convention and ratification by majority of the States.

There is a clear process for the change. And it isn't easy.

I suspect there could be unrest, but i was only asking about a situation where it happened via the process and how people here would react to finding themselves outside the law (but in a situation that wasn't unconstitutional)

 

[Shadowrider]

There is a video that pops up from time to time where a retired SCOTUS justice argues that gun control should happen via the prescribed methods of altering the constitution and not via congressional laws. It's always interested me as a hypothetical

If they want to ban gun ownership and possession, this is the correct way to go about it. If they did that I could actually have some sort of respect for them.

When they pass unconstitutional laws wittingly just to let the courts deal with them, well I got nothing to give in respect for that.

 

[donner]

You start jacking around like that with the 2A and you're more likely to get communism as the only political party or Islam as the only religion.

That certainly could happen. No denying it.

But that system does allow for a change to the constitution.

I'm not arguing that it should. Only asking if people would comply given that the matter was no longer 'unconstitutional'

 

[donner]

If they want to ban gun ownership and possession, this is the correct way to go about it. If they did that I could actually have some sort of respect for them.

When they pass unconstitutional laws wittingly just to let the courts deal with them, well I got nothing to give in respect for that.

I think this is the (often missed) point from the interview with the SCOTUS i mentioned. I will try to dig up the interview for reference.

There *is* a way they could go about doing it within the founding framework, but the know it wont happen.

 

[Glockisgood17]

Nunya…. As in nunya business…

Regards,