If a (hypothetical) amendment were passed to ban guns

[Buddhaman]

Assuming you had enough votes to pass such an amendment... I would consider it null and void. Some states may get to where they ban all firearms but you would never get full compliance or enforcement.

 

[Two Gun Warrior]

Nor do I, though I can't imagine outlawing alcohol and it happened.

Alcohol was not protected by an amendment!

 

[Two Gun Warrior]

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)

Which side is outside the law if that happens?

 

[donner]

Which side is outside the law if that happens?

The question was about what people would do if they found that gun control happened in a way that was constitutional (I.e. if there was an amendment that changed the constitutionality of gun ownership abs control). As gun owners there seems like there would be a moment of choice and that choice might put a person outside the legal law of the land.

 

[donner]

Alcohol was not protected by an amendment!

I simply meant that I could t imagine that our country would ban booze, but it did. That is to say, it’s hard to say that anything is truly impossible.

 

[Chuckie]

To even put up this hypothetical question means they're getting to ya.

I can't understand why simply asking a question bothers some people so much, or that by asking a question those asking it are viewed as taking a stance on whatever the question was about. I don't know, maybe some people, despite all their bravado, are actually afraid of facing a 'hard' choice or revealing their thoughts about something.

 

[Chuckie]

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's an interesting statement considering that Republicans would like the GOP as the only political party allowed and Christians would like Christianity to be the only religion. I guess like they say, 'one mans terrorist is another mans freedom-fighter'.

 

[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.

That's an interesting statement considering that Republicans would like the GOP as the only political party allowed and Christians would like Christianity to be the only religion. I guess like they say, 'one mans terrorist is another mans freedom-fighter'.

Now.....read what I said again in regards to the statement above.

 

[HillsideDesolate]

about as likely within my lifetime as an amendment to legalize slavery.

They already did that Sixteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia

 

[donner]

Now.....read what I said again in regards to the statement above.

perhaps i do not follow your point entirely, but i'm sure there are those on both sides of the political spectrum that would like to see parts of the constitution changed (or perhaps simply 'interpreted') to allow for the things that they support to the detriment of another.

But the founders clearly understood that it might be necessary to make changes in some form or other. I'd suspect they were perfectly aware of the 'danger' that could arise from having a process for revision, yet they included it anyway. It's not an easy process by design. And it requires far more 'buy in' than almost anything else in our form of government.

The original question references using the 'proper' method for changing the constitution, rather than these 'gun control' laws that many here view as entirely unconstitutional. We might not like the outcome of changing the constitution, but it's happened before (for good and bad) and will likely happen again. I was just wondering about the 'what if' should a change be made with regards to guns. It's a though exercise, not an endorsement.