Would a repeal of the Second amendment result in armed rebellion?

[Ó Cathasaigh]

Would a, most likely democrat led, repeal of the second amendment result in an armed rebellion in the United States? While I find that too many people in America are apathetic to the constitution and what the American Government does, I still find it very possible that a repeal of the Second amendment would in fact lead to rebellion by gun owners. Even if the Democrats used the slow bleed tactic of taking out Assault Rifles, then Handguns, Shotguns, then finally hunting rifles.

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. ... Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God."
--Thomas Jefferson

"I hold it, that a little rebellion, now and then, is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical."
--Thomas Jefferson

"Government is not reason. It is not eloquence. It is a force, like fire: a dangerous servant and a terrible master."
--George Washington


If the government took such drastic action, would people scoff at the idea of disobediance? They certainly supported it during the 30's during the highly rediculous Prohibition of Alchohol. Is it too much to assume that the people of today would not give an unforgettable "**** you" to the Government?

[Kiljan Arslan]

Yes I would be part of it.

[Hereward]

They can have my guns whenever they want them. Having to kill me to get to them is the only problem.

So, yes. As for myself, and 100 million other Americans, we'd say 'bring it on!'

[Rush Limbaugh]

Most likely.

[Captain Blackadder]

Doubt it very much so the most that you would have in reality is a mass of people complaining but not doing anything and possible the occcasional nutter up in the hills who doesnt. People often under estimate just how apathetic most people are bloody hell the majority of france did not join the resistance so I doubt weather the banning of guns would cause more of an uproar. However if it did happen I guess you gun owners would finally be able to use them for what you want them for none of this pussy self-defense crap or i want to go hunting honest to god stop those evil feds form taking my gun.

[Erwin Rommel]

i've been reading soldier of fortune since i was a kid (weird huh?) and judging from what i read, most NRA are honest citizens, just obsessed with guns which i myself am becoming,
most likely a republican will block that.........before i even happens, beside if you do that, who would dick cheney shoot at?

[Kiljan Arslan]

Good one!

[removeduser_487563287433]

It obviously wouldn't - at least not a popular one - seeing the large majority amendments must be passed by.

[Kiljan Arslan]

Well even if it were popular I would fight it.

[Skyler]

Well even if it were popular I would fight it.

But seriously, with guns?

Why?

I mean, I would feel just fine if they just took the assault rifles- and other weapons designed for killing someone quick- and just leave the hunting rifles for people to hunt.

Are the police not up to the task of maintaining civil security without its citizens carrying guns? (I know, it is a very naive question)

If the Netherlands approved of widespread legal gun ownership then I would not go outside because some idiot would shoot me just because I made eye contact with him. Needless to say I would spend most of my life in the hospital... not smoking.

[Gelgoog]

I mean, I would feel just fine if they just took the assault rifles- and other weapons designed for killing someone quick- and just leave the hunting rifles for people to hunt.

Are the police not up to the task of maintaining civil security without its citizens carrying guns? (I know, it is a very naive question)

If the Netherlands approved of widespread legal gun ownership then I would not go outside because some idiot would shoot me just because I made eye contact with him. Needless to say I would spend most of my life in the hospital... not smoking.

why are you so afraid of assualt rifles? their use in crime is so small its not even worth mentioning. and your afraid if gun ownship was legal in your country that it would be to dangerous to go outside? if thats the case then there is something seriously wrong with the people of your nation as they all must be doped up psychos. i know when i go outside i have 20 shootouts before i make it to work

[Medicus]

I mean, I would feel just fine if they just took the assault rifles- and other weapons designed for killing someone quick- and just leave the hunting rifles for people to hunt.

Exactly, what the hell is wrong with these gun nuts? If the only reason you own a ****ING ASSAULT RIFLE is to shoot at targets, then I think you need to set your priorities straight.

then we would all form militias to keep our guns

Then you would be arrested for forming terrorist organizations.

That would be hilarious. Republicans would scream bloody murder, Democrats would whinge about the children, and the rest of world wouldn't care less.

The fact is people do kill, but they are more likely to kill in certain circumstances. In countries like Australia where guns are tightly controlled, homicide rates are far lower than in countries like America, where guns are all over the place.

Australia got rid of most of our guns, and we're better of because of it.

How many school shootings are there in Australia, in comparison to the USA?

[Thanatos]

Australia got rid of most of our guns, and we're better of because of it.

How many school shootings are there in Australia, in comparison to the USA?

Yeah, now everybody's unarmed, except for the criminals who don't obey the laws anyway.

[Medicus]

Yeah, now everybody's unarmed, except for the criminals who don't obey the laws anyway.

You'd be surprised how low gun-related deaths are in Australia.

Has anyone ever gone into a school in Australia and proceeded to gun down everyone they could see? No. We have the right to own a gun, but it is strictly regulated, and that's the way it should stay.

I'd rather live in a society where I had the right to buy a gun to protect myself from both the criminal who would attempt to invade my propertyt and the goverment who would overstep its bounds, and thus have a greater chance to be shot by accident. Than to live in a socitety where my right to own a gun to protect myself isn't there, and the goverment if it wanted could just force me around I feel that the 2nd amendemnt is a great form of Insurance that the American peoilpe have to protect themselves from a goverment which would overstep its bounds.

I'm not advocating the complete removal of guns, just the military-grade stuff. A machine pistol or an assault rifle has no use outside of killing people. It's not like you can hunt deer with it.

[Oldgamer]

Exactly, what the hell is wrong with these gun nuts? If the only reason you own a ****ING ASSAULT RIFLE is to shoot at targets, then I think you need to set your priorities straight.

Point: You don't want an assault rifle. I do. My priorities are my own.

The only way you can keep me from owning an assault rifle is to get the government to do your dirty work, for you. And this is exactly why I vote for people who support the individual, as opposed to the collective.

If I could legally own mortars and shoulder-fired missiles, and a functional M1 Abrams in my garage, I would. The collectivists are on the march, and don't want me to have any guns. Why? They've decided that I would be better off without them. It's the Nanny State.

I have never hunted with my AR15a2 (one of my military-style weapons). I have used it for target practice. I would use it for self-defense, although there are other weapons that are more effective, inside my home. I initially bought it because of its collectors' value. All of these are valid reasons for owning such a weapon.

However, the most important reason for owning it is that it makes the government nervous. A nervous government just might decided that taking it away from me is not worth the potential trouble.

However, if Congress outlaws guns today ... and I don't hear about it ... and the ATF pushes in my door, tomorrow, and collects all of my weapons, there is a solution. I can put a 4-blade broadhead from my 65-pound compound bow into a human profile target from 100 yards. After using my hunting bow, I would then have a gun.

Bring on the rebellion ...

[Cluny the Scourge]

However, the most important reason for owning it is that it makes the government nervous. A nervous government just might decided that taking it away from me is not worth the potential trouble.

However, if Congress outlaws guns today ... and I don't hear about it ... and the ATF pushes in my door, tomorrow, and collects all of my weapons, there is a solution. I can put a 4-blade broadhead from my 65-pound compound bow into a human profile target from 100 yards. After using my hunting bow, I would then have a gun.

Bring on the rebellion ...

Your owning an assault-rifle makes the government nervous? What do you think the government thinks you're going to do with it - assassinate the President? If you started brandishing an assault-rifle around screaming about government plots to oppress you, you would simply be killed. What room is there for nervousness?

[removeduser_487563287433]

Well even if it were popular I would fight it.

Yeah but that is what is inherently retarded about this thread - it requires an assumption of a massive sea change in American opinion over guns.

[Trax]

Even if the Democrats used the slow bleed tactic of taking out Assault Rifles, then Handguns, Shotguns, then finally hunting rifles.

I don't think any country in the world has banned guns completly, why do you think that any American government would do such a thing?

[El Brujo]

The most likely scenario is that the Supreme Court decides to interpret the 2nd amendment as protecting the rights of militias rather than individuals, and subsequent gun restrictions passed by liberals in Congress. A lot of people will complain bitterly, but they won't actually take action. They have too much to lose for fighting over guns to be a viable option. Most people who have guns already will flip the bird to anyone who attempts to take them away, and maybe hide a few in secret caches if police start searching houses for illegal firearms.

[MaximiIian]

subsequent gun restrictions passed by liberals in Congress.

Real liberals would never support gun restrictions, as a true liberal, by definition, supports civil liberties. Hence why I consider myself a liberal- I support civil liberties for all humans, including the right to own and carry protective weapons.

In response to the OP:
1. I doubt very much that the Democrats, or anyone for that matter, would pass legislation banning firearms.

2. If that happened, hypothetically speaking, a wide-scale revolution/rebellion would occur, in defence of our civil liberties. Not only would there be a popular revolution, the Federal Government would be slapped with a massive lawsuit by the ACLU.

3. I would participate in such a rebellion. The people should not fear the government. The government should fear its people, and I would gladly participate in the humbling of tyrants, especially tyrants who would misuse the name of "liberal" for tyrannical purposes. Such a rebellion, to me, would not only be an insurrection for the perpetuation of civil liberties, but would also be a revolution of the people against tyranny.