What do you think the outcome would be of a total gun ban? (suspected, school)

[ryanms3030]

What do you think the outcome would be of a total gun ban?

North Korea

[ryanms3030]

Originally Posted by Ted Bear

Fewer guns means fewer gun deaths. It is not very complicated.

It's a million times more complicated then that

[JanND]

I think it would be a disaster. And, while I am not a gun advocate, I think people have a right to have guns. We should not punish responsible people that own guns for the actions of criminals.

There isn't talk of banning alcohol or cars and there are plenty of alcohol related vehicle accidents.

[phantompilot]

Originally Posted by staywarm2

The AR-15 and similar models should be out-lawed. I realize there are probably a million of these unnecessary guns in the US, but a law could prevent any more from being manufactured and sold. Really, anyone who has one of these AR-15's is just a guy short on testosterone and trying to make up for it.

Why do gun-banners always tend to sexualize guns? Maybe you should think about Freud's finding that a fear of weapons is a sign of retarded psychosexual development.

Originally Posted by staywarm2

Personally, I'd trust the police far more than some moron with his concealed gun. I'll take my chances with a gun ban...

Well I carry a gun because I can't fit a cop in my pocket. And have you MET the police? A lot of them are morons themselves. You know they screen out applicants that are too intelligent, right? They want people that can out-think the average criminal (not exactly a challenge since the average criminal is a full SD lower than the norm in IQ), but not smart enough to think for themselves and question the injustice or inanity of the laws they are ordered to enforce.

Originally Posted by JanND

I think it would be a disaster. And, while I am not a gun advocate, I think people have a right to have guns. We should not punish responsible people that own guns for the actions of criminals.

There isn't talk of banning alcohol or cars and there are plenty of alcohol related vehicle accidents.

The left isn't interested in punishing criminals. They are interested in controlling the population. There is only one reason for someone to want to disarm someone else, whilst remaining armed themselves....and that is to be able to exercise force against that person that cannot be effectively resisted.

[Crashj007]

Originally Posted by aliasfinn

Why would the police need guns if none of the citizens had any ?

Are you Robert Peel?

[Retired in Illinois]

Originally Posted by ffaemily

Although unlikely, what if Congress ratified the second amendment with a total gun ban for civilians. Would it be like the prohibition era where citizen just hid their guns and sold them illegally?

Would there be a massive civil disruption?

Would Senators complain that the economy in their respective states has suffered an irreparable blow due to the lost tourism that depended on hunting? Similarly, all the industries that depend on guns would join the complaints: sporting goods stores, local places that host gun shows, gun and ammo stores, manufacturers, etc?

Would the National Rifle Association of America (NRA) be sued by the government to force it to surrender its database? Would its members be targeted to make them relinquish their weapons?

Would crime rates go down?

Would the government also ratify the 4th Amendment right against search and seizure without a warrant based on probable cause of a specific crime and the 5th Amendment right to due process of law and just compensation for property taken by the government?

I'm just curious I know a very small minority is talking about a total gun ban but I was wondering what you all thought the outcome would be?

To eliminate all guns would be to lay America bare to hostile attack from any other country on this planet. That is what the fore fathers knew ,from revolutionary war with Britain, so that caused the 2nd amendment about a militia.

[RaleighBill]

Originally Posted by ffaemily

Although unlikely, what if Congress ratified the second amendment with a total gun ban for civilians. Would it be like the prohibition era where citizen just hid their guns and sold them illegally?

Would there be a massive civil disruption?

Would Senators complain that the economy in their respective states has suffered an irreparable blow due to the lost tourism that depended on hunting? Similarly, all the industries that depend on guns would join the complaints: sporting goods stores, local places that host gun shows, gun and ammo stores, manufacturers, etc?

Would the National Rifle Association of America (NRA) be sued by the government to force it to surrender its database? Would its members be targeted to make them relinquish their weapons?

Would crime rates go down?

Would the government also ratify the 4th Amendment right against search and seizure without a warrant based on probable cause of a specific crime and the 5th Amendment right to due process of law and just compensation for property taken by the government?

I'm just curious I know a very small minority is talking about a total gun ban but I was wondering what you all thought the outcome would be?

First, what I think would happen would be nothing less than the Second American Civil War - because (a), a large percentage of the country would see it as the government taking Constitutional rights away from citizens, and (b) most of those same people would see it as our slide into a totalitarian government, no different than Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia (BOTH of whom took guns away from citizens as one of their first acts not long after the Nazis and the Communists took power). In that scenario, many people would see no other choice than to rebel - and this time, I think the casualties would be way more than the almost 700,000 who died in the Civil War.

Second - the 2nd Amendment is already ratified, and has been a part of the Constitution since 1791:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

And, no.....it's NOT "limited" to a militia. Three important things to notice about that amendment: "being necessary to the security of a free State" (there is NO freedom, unless the people have the ability to defend themselves AGAINST a tyrannical government that's out of control), "the right of the people to keep and bear arms," (notice they wrote the right of the people - NOT "the right of the people when they are a part of a militia," and "shall not be infringed," which basically means the government CANNOT take that right away.

The ONLY way you can get rid of an Amendment, is to do so by adding another Amendment to the Constitution forbidding it, or repealing the original amendment. That's what happened with Prohibition - and, when it was repealed, it was done so legally; 3/4 of the states agreed, along with 3/4 of Congress. That's how things are set up. A President CAN'T do it himself; Congress can't do it itself - you need to change the Constitution itself in order to make that kind of change....and I can't see that EVER happening in this country.

If it (the government) tries to......CIVIL WAR.

At last count, there are more guns in this country than there are people....so, I think it would be next to impossible for the government to confiscate ALL weapons (just as Prohibition couldn't confiscate all alcohol products).

Although I think the economy WOULD suffer, this is a RIGHTS issue - not an ECONOMIC issue as such.

I would be VERY shocked if the government (specifically the FBI and ATF) didn't already have the NRA's database. That data isn't a matter of national security; the government has a legal right to the data, and I'm sure the NRA would agree. BUT, if the government FORCED the NRA to hand over its' latest copy of the database WITHOUT DUE PROCESS....then there would be TROUBLE. BIG TROUBLE. Because that act WOULD violate the 4th amendment. You're wrong about the 5th Amendment - that amendment protects citizens from being forced to be a witness against themselves in a criminal case.

I don't believe crime rates would go down; just look at the places in this country where there are strong firearms ownership laws (Chicago, Washington DC, Baltimore, Detroit, etc.) - ALL of those cities have the HIGHEST murder rates and felony crime rates of American cities. If you take guns away from law-abiding people, you leave them more defenseless against the criminals who will still have access to THEIR guns, and be more encouraged to use them. The statistics prove this over and over again. Trying to take guns away from everybody, or make it very difficult for law-abiding citizens to get access to, or permits for guns, only makes crime - and criminals' lives - easier.

As long as the people who want a total gun ban remain a small minority, we'll be OK - Constitutionally. But, if Congress or the Supreme Court (which has ruled in the Heller decision that laws restricting gun ownership are unconstitutional on 2nd Amendment grounds):

https://cga.ct.gov/2008/rpt/2008-R-0578.htm

understands what the Constitution, the Founders, and common sense laws say about the 2nd Amendment and gun ownership....we'll be fine. If that ever changes. then the people who will be forced to give up their guns by the government, or anyone else, WILL fight back; just as citizens will fight back if the 1st Amendment were repealed, or the 4th, or the 5th. These are all basic rights that have been a part of the fabric of our country from its' founding. Every single time there's a mass shooting, this comes up....and taking all guns off the streets ISN'T the answer. The answer is making it difficult for people who shouldn't have access to guns because of mental health issues from getting weapons. This is a MENTAL HEALTH issue; it's a FAMILY issue; it's a SOCIETAL issue - it's NOT a "let's just take the right away" issue.

Three things I'd do right away, though: I'd let ALL schools, universities, and churches let themselves get armed guards (who have had proper training, and no criminal background), and I'd let concealed carry laws be reciprocal across every state and territory in the US - which means, if I have a legal permit to carry a gun in Texas, I'm automatically allowed to carry it in EVERY other state and territory, with NO exceptions. The other thing I'd do is insert into federal law a law that states that anyone who commits a mass shooting, gets NO publicity: their names are withheld from the public, from the media, and from the Internet - UNLESS THEIR FAMILY ALLOWS IT. That way, people who commit this crime get NO publicity, no attention, no "notoriety" from the crime.


Sorry about the length of my response....but you did ask a lot of questions!

[foundapeanut]

There is going to be no total ban. No way not ever.

We still need hunters to keep down populations of deer, boar, etc. Not a gun person but understand certain types are needed. Just not guns of war. And I dont want veterens to lose their guns, they get the short end of the stick as it is.

Seems some on here would like a total ban so they can start 'something.'

[Sunbiz1]

Originally Posted by Nonesuch

An ammo ban would be just as much a violation of the second amendment (and the inalienable natural right of self defense) as a gun ban would be. Many states would simply refuse to enforce any such attempt.

The trigger to the revolutionary war was just as much about the British attempting to confiscate colonists powder and bullets (Lexington and Concord ring a bell?) as anything else.

So long as the option to manufacture your own ammo exists, no constitutional provision is violated.

[corydon]

:Guns are good.
A naked person on TV, Oh my God... the horror....

Yep, it is ****ed up... Now politicians are crying about protesters being paid, What about them selves... And BTW, the rest of the world does not nearly have these problems. You can outrun a knife, fight back with a chair, or get training.
A bullet wil kill you.