If a (hypothetical) amendment were passed to ban guns

[Cold Smoke]

Good luck in getting any major level of support on that view. In actuality, the Constitution is the "Law of the Land".

?

 

[conditionzero]

An amendment of the 2nd would likely start some sort of civil conflict IMO.

 

[Shadowrider]

Okay, kind of a loaded question (pun intended). 1994 There was an "assault weapons ban" and what did everyone do? Held on to what they had, let it increase in value, sold in some cases. Because of grandfathering all it changed was what could be sold as new. Before you can really ask the question you need to ask will their be confiscation? Will possession be a crime? Will there be registration. Regardless of the specifics I found out a few years back that a Tracker Pro Team 175 and a firearms safe don't go together so well.

Shoulda bought a Ranger or Skeeter...

 

[TANSTAAFL]

Shoulda bought a Ranger or Skeeter...

Rather have a cigarette anyway...

 

[Gunbuffer]

We all gonna die some time right?

 

[HillsideDesolate]

 

[HMCS(FMF)Ret.]

For me it would depend on what places like Oklahoma and Texas did in response. If they said we don’t care what anyone says, guns are legal in our states, then I’d side with the state. If they caved to the Feds, I’d take a long vacation out of the country.

 

[cmc tom]

44 million? Wut?

More like 1 billion

I think he left of a zero. 440 million guns for 327 million people.

 

[Cold Smoke]

I think he left of a zero. 440 million guns for 327 million people.

I’m kind of ashamed that we as a society have failed to achieve a greater density than that for the preservation of life and liberty. Tsk tsk tsk...

 

[C_Hallbert]

The suggestion that rendering millions of citizens as ‘individuals’ defenseless in an attempt to attenuate the relatively low frequency of incidents in which small clusters of citizens have been killed or injured ‘collectively’ by firearms leaves the overwhelming majority of citizens with a profoundly greater risk of death or injury from a myriad of sources than the actual risk to which a relatively insignificant collective subgroup is exposed. Remember, there are around 350 million citizens, and God only knows how many illegal aliens, now residing in our country. The argument in question intentionally does not take into account of the enormous number of incidents where privately owned firearms are used to prevent citizen deaths or injuries often without ever being fired. The rationale behind this dangerous suggestion is based a on a fallacy appealing to the emotions of the audience (argumentum ad passiones) and it smells to me like another Marxist dialectic narrative. I call to mind that Hillary Clinton was a protégée of Saul Alinsky, Marxist author of ‘Rules for Radicals’; so, It’s not much of a reach to imagine from where this idea arises…..