The only time a frog has wings is when the heron gets it, and the waterscape ain't pretty from the frog's point of view.
No they wouldn't. It would be treason for anyone to fight against the US government. If you think the National Guard and the US Military are going to rise up against the US government over gun control laws you are nuts. Oh, right....
It depends. Insult away, dear, but I bet you've never taken the oath below: I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me god.
I do not believe that there will be an immediate house to house search and seizure of weapons. Since the 1980s I have witnessed the Democrats outmaneuvering the Republicans each time we get a new Republican president. Little by little, they are taking the weapons. Under Reagan, he outlawed the automatic weaponry; Bush outlawed semi-automatic imports; Trump is signed on to eliminating bump stocks. We've let the government stop certain other weapons as well - like the "Streetsweeper" and even the M1 Garand and M1 carbine (which are still sold LEGALLY by the government to civilians through the Dept. of Civilian Marksmanship.) We just can't import our own weaponry back into the U.S. I think that within the next decade our gun laws will be as socialistic as they are in any other dictatorial country. They aren't going to get rid of the weapons, but the reality is, you won't be able to legally defend yourself with what you've squirreled away. We've allowed one infringement after another to be heaped upon us and when people do stand up, the masses condemn them for not having capitulated to the unconstitutional demands of a tyrannical government. So will we every fight back? When we do gain some semblance of control of the government through the right, they go all arrogant and nasty toward people. You may not be able to have the left as friends, but you don't need them to be your enemy either. If they don't feel threatened, they will stay at home on election day. I agree with you that I do take all of this seriously. I tend to personalize the attacks on the Constitution and am offended that the right will not take preventative measures so that the people will dismiss any future gun control. In any event, I would never register a firearm; don't ask for permission to own one; won't jump through hoops to sell it when I get ready. I don't like the prospect that is the very situation we're headed toward. Me, personally, I know if they outlawed weapons, most idiots with my IQ or better can build their own. But would they? The right is already trying to accept liberalism and then claim it as their own.
Dude, you're taking this faaarrrrr too seriously. 1) ain't gonna happen. 2) if it did, there are better ways of securing an arsenal of firearms. 3) burying a few works, but it would depend on the weapon type and how much ammunition.
You don't know much about American history, do you? Let me tell you what bothers about liberals: Anyone who studies American history knows how our nation came to be. On 5 March 1770 some people called patriots were protesting the occupation of British troops. At one point the patriots were throwing snowballs when one of the British troops fired on a protester. After the melee ended, five unarmed protesters lie dead, others wounded That event was the catalyst for the war that led us to where we are today. It is inconceivable for me to think that we look back on the fact that soldiers fired on unarmed civilians and we ultimately went to war over it only to make this idiotic and pretentious argument that the Second Amendment can be twisted to take the individual Right to keep and bear Arms away from us. Thomas Jefferson knew the lessons of history. He stated: "The natural progress of things is for liberty to yeild (sic) and government to gain ground." The Preamble of the Constitution states: "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence,[note 1] promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America" The basic lesson we learned was from those who fought, bled and died to create this nation of Freedom, Justice, and Liberty. Their words were meant to warn us; admonish us; to call us to action. I want you to have access to some of those words: "Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined." -- Patrick Henry, speech of 5 June 1788 My Liberty is not for sale. And I don't understand you.
If outlawed I would give it up. After all, we are a "nation of laws" and if I break the law I could be deported as our immigrant haters continuously point out. Of course it doesn't apply to them.
"The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land, and any statue, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows: The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted. Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principals follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it . . . A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law. Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby. No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it." — Sixteenth American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Section 177. (late 2nd Ed. Section 256) Stand fast therefore in the liberty with which Christ has made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage. Galatians 5 : 1 "Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men." Acts 5: 29
Read the legislation the gun banners in Congress have been proposing for the past 10 years - its bans almost all semi-auto rifles and shotguns, and many pump action shotguns. None of the gun banner proposals are limited to banning AR and AK style rifles, their scope is far greater. After Sandy Hook, gun banners wanted to ban scoped bolt action rifles calling them sniper rifles. And the Remington 700 platform is the basis for an actual military sniper rifle currently in service, so when the banners say that no civilian should have "military weapons", your bolt action scoped rifle falls in that category. The same with your Remington 850 12 gauge, and a host of other firearms that are common to the military and commercial market. That's not true. Semi-autos are used by snipers, and by designated marksmen. An accurized M14 (semi-auto) makes a fine sniper rifle. Snipers also use 50 cal bolt action and semi auto. A 5.56 will kill a person just as dead as a 460 Magnum. Its not all about the weapon, its all about the person. A highly trained, highly motivated man with a handgun can be more effective than the average person with the worlds best sniper rifle. If you have to apprehend a man, a desperate man with a knife is just as dangerous as a desperate man with a firearm. And very few people can hit a man sized target at 1,000 yards. Without a lot of training and practice, a person isn't going to the go the store, buy the worlds best sniper rifle, and go out and hit targets at 1,000 yards.
I don't know a single person, not even Bernie Sanders, who would ever call for confiscation of all firearms, even assuming the 2nd Amendment were repealed, which it won't be. But if that were to happen, no, I of course would not turn in my guns. I don't see this discussed much, but the firearms industry employs tens of thousands of people directly, and indirectly (the suppliers and vendors) even hundreds of thousands. They pay billions in taxes every year. Sure you want to abolish that industry?
Oh hell, that industry would not be abolished even by such a sweeping measure as that. Police and military will always need them, not to mention hunters and enthusiasts who would still have some kind of access to them.
Nice slogans but not accurate. No, a man with a knife is not as dangerous as a man with a 12 gauge shotgun or 44 magnum. No, the 5.56 does not have the same killing power as a 460 magnum. It is fortunate these mass shooters believe the MYTH that the 5.56 is the ultimate firearm. The result being usually a higher ratio of wounded than killed, even with delays in medical services. Had the Las Vegas shooter been firing a .308 probably to 4 times as many would have died - and still more if he was using black tip or other piercing ammo. Hit a person anywhere in the torso with a 460 and that person will not survive. Not hit a vital organ with a 5.56 and with prompt medical care the person will likely live. MANY a Vietnam vet I've spoken to would have gladly traded their M16 for an ordinary AK47. The 5.56 is a "compromise" cartridge/bullet combination that allows lower recoil and the ability to carry much greater amounts of ammo because film footage in Vietnam showed the majority of draftees never fired and those that did just sprayed out bullets fast as they could reload without aiming. It is about glamouring the AR15 by the MSM, the pro gun crowd and anti gun crowd. Because the patent expired it is popular to promote by gun manufacturers and parts makers. If they incessantly talked about evil Tommy guns with 50 round canisters, mass shooters would be using Tommy guns. When the MSM was fixated on double stack 9mm, mass shooters were using those. If the M1A .308 was nonstop debated, praised and condemned, they would be using M1As. There is nothing special about the AR15 and among high velocity rifle rounds it is the lightweight in lethality. Then again, I never liked AR15s. I like our bullpup 5.56 with 42 round mag for how short and lightweight it is with little recoil. Had a Mini 14 .223 but got rid of it. But stop and think what you posted. You basically negated your entire argument. IF the weapon is irrelevant and it only the person who matters, then banning AR15s, high capacity magazines or even all firearms would change nothing since you explained a man with a knife is just as dangerous. If you are right, then no one needs any firearm for defense as all a person needs is a knife. When people start just reciting slogans, often their arguments evolve to being self defeating. My premise is simple. Unless all firearms are banned, a person is not left defenseless nor without firearms for self defense. No, I do not support gun bans. But it should be discussed in terms of realty, not just slogans and platitudes.
Our points of departure are too different to have a reasonable discussion on this: my own is that the government has no "rights", but rather mere powers conferred by the governed. So I'd rather have a statist justify the enactment of legislation empowering government to outlaw weapons. Your question, however, asks libertarian/conservatives to justify our preferences to the state. In other words,if I want a firearm, I don't need, care for, or want your or the government's blessing. Obviously I mean by "firearm" something necessary for self-defense, not a cannon, a fully auto automatic pistol or rifle, or a nuke. Sawed off shotguns I am ambivalent about. I don't see why we homeowners cannot own and keep short barreled shotguns in their homes.
The justification is the same as that for outlawing personal possession of other dangerous items and placing restrictions on activities, such as operating motor vehicles. Society is safer for it on the whole. Government and its enactments are an extension of the people, a power structure. Libertarians seem to live in a fantasy land where people are all good and government is somehow not necessary for a civil society. Hate to break it to you, but government has been a reality since the day civilization expanded beyond the tribe.
