If a (hypothetical) amendment were passed to ban guns

[retrieverman]

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.

Yes sir, there may come a day that choices have to be made, but the problem with asking this kind of question on a public forum is that there are some folks on here that would’ve turned Jesus over to the Romans.

 

[HillsideDesolate]

Yes sir, there may come a day that choices have to be made, but the problem with asking this kind of question on a public forum is that there are some folks on here that would’ve turned Jesus over to the Romans.

 

[Broncos]

I completely and totally disagree.
I have been associated with the poultry industry since the early 90’s, and chicken farmers have been trying to put together some sort of a union since before that. I’ve been to their meetings and heard their proposals and speeches, but in the end, chicken farmers can’t agree that grass is green and the sky is blue. They will NEVER get together and form a union.
Gun owners are the same, and there’s no physical possible way that a kind of “organized” civil conflict will ever happen again in this country. A few rednecks getting together isn’t a civil conflict, and that’s about all you’re going to get. After the Jan 6 debacle, I doubt you’re going to see much of anything like that again.
I’ve never really been a pessimist in my life, but I think we’re screwed as a country and probably as a whole society.

We at one time had manufacturing in the US until unions came about and almost broke the businesses

 

[C_Hallbert]

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'.

WTF?

 

[Hawkstar]

We often discuss any efforts for 'gun control' in terms of the Constitutional protection we enjoy. "Shall not be infringed" is the common refrain whenever the topic of banning guns, types of guns, ammo capacity, etc. But what if that no longer was the law of the land?

My question is, if guns (or specific guns, etc) were outlawed via Constitutional amendment (i.e. using the the method put forth by the founders), what would you do?

We could debate various scenarios or even whether it's possible, etc, but i tried to put forward three very simply choices that get to the heart of the options.

This isn't about the good or bad of guns or anything like that, but a discussion of a hypothetical where the process was followed to amend the constitution and guns were made illegal and our response to it.

Guess your reaction to changing the constitution in order to take guns depends on the depth of your belief that those rights were indeed given us by our creator and not a tax paid public servant. Are they rights or privileges ? I understand your question and the reasoning behind it but it really is a bit bigger than let them take the guns or don't let them take the guns.The constitution is not a tool that stamps out rights on a press. As a whole the constitution lays out how Americans should act in the event of certain things taking place .I don't think the first two amendments landing in those slots was a fluke.

 

[Hawkstar]

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.

Concerning the boat and the safe .Sorry about your loss ........ The open waters are very dangerous indeed .

 

[Judi]

....i'm from the government and i'm here to help.....

 

[John6185]

Guns? Rename them to some other name. If people can change their sex which is far more indepth and invasive, then we can change the name of gun to something else. Maybe call them forearms.

 

[donner]

Guess your reaction to changing the constitution in order to take guns depends on the depth of your belief that those rights were indeed given us by our creator and not a tax paid public servant. Are they rights or privileges ? I understand your question and the reasoning behind it but it really is a bit bigger than let them take the guns or don't let them take the guns.The constitution is not a tool that stamps out rights on a press. As a whole the constitution lays out how Americans should act in the event of certain things taking place .I don't think the first two amendments landing in those slots was a fluke.

I agree to a point. I do think it'd be a big deal. But for the sake of an online poll, i tried to keep it basic and see if the question could foster discussion.

I agree it wasn't a fluke that they were no. 1 and no 2., however nothing i've found said that being the top slots would otherwise protect those amendments from later change. It would have (seemingly) been an easy thing to single out, had the founds wanted to.

Our history if full of moments where belief and faith in the system dictated what did and did not happen. The system needs people to buy into its legitimacy to work, which is one thing people here often point to whenever they feel someone is infringing on their 2nd amendment rights. Illegal measures towards gun control undercut the foundation of the Constitution. So would ignoring a Constitutional change do the same thing?

I honestly don't know and was curious how people here would view such an effort.