Hypothetical For Gun Rights Advocates

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Voting on an amendment to alter or null the 2A? Remember the Equal Rights Amendment?

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Voting on an amendment to alter or null the 2A? Remember the Equal Rights Amendment?

I don't, actually. What about it?

Boru

[Foxaèr]

*doesn't own any guns*

[vorlon13]

If the idea behind it all is to save lives, there are VASTLY cheaper ways of saving many, many more.

Hell, for 0.001% of the dollar value of the litigation and brouhaha necessary to just modify the Second Amendment we could vaccinate every third world kid for EVERYTHING.


There, I just saved millions of lives and potentially trillions of dollars, a potentially bloody secession and Civil War II scenario.

So, there is more to this issue than simply saving lives.

[Anomalocaris]

My flamethrower's safe though, right?

Yes. For You that’s a professional tool for cauterizing the sort of surgical incision you normally make.

---

If the idea behind it all is to save lives, there are VASTLY cheaper ways of saving many, many more.

Hell, for 0.001% of the dollar value of the litigation and brouhaha necessary to just modify the Second Amendment we could vaccinate every third world kid for EVERYTHING.


There, I just saved millions of lives and potentially trillions of dollars, a potentially bloody secession and Civil War II scenario.

So, there is more to this issue than simply saving lives.

Yes, but you can’t easily bankrupt the gun nuts for less.

---

Voting on an amendment to alter or null the 2A? Remember the Equal Rights Amendment?

Make it clear why guillotine and starting over sometimes bubble to the top.

[Jackalope]

Hell, for 0.001% of the dollar value of the litigation and brouhaha necessary to just modify the Second Amendment we could vaccinate every third world kid for EVERYTHING.

This is probably true, but it isn't necessary to modify the 2nd to do effective things. The National Firearms Act of 1934 treats machineguns, silencers, short barrel rifles/shotguns, and other types of arms differently from everything else. It has, so far, passed constitutional muster. You *can* own those at least under Federal law (your state may vary), but there are a lot of hoops to jump through to purchase one. I won't go into the details. Suffice it to say that you are thoroughly vetted to make damn sure you are not prohibited.

The point is that there does not seem to be a Constitutional impediment to place other classes of weapons deemed to be a public safety hazard under those or similar restrictions into a similar category. I also don't see a Constitutional impediment to safe storage laws, setting national training requirements for concealed carry or other related issues concerning firearms in the commons, and that sort of thing. I don't see a mass confiscation or buyback ever happening.

---

To answer the OP, I'm going to answer it in two parts.

Back when I was a gun nut (I was one of the very extreme ones that thought any regulation was an infringement and therefore unconstitutional. I would have declined to participate in such a program, at least with respect to the guns I owned that didn't have a paper trail leading to me (i.e. they were bought in private party face-to-face sales with no background check or paperwork. I had an AR-15 and many others that fall into that category.)

Clearly I don't hold that position any longer, and haven't since I got out of the gun nut bubble. I don't even own a gun any longer. However, if I did, I would comply. Rule of law and all of that.

My interpretation of what the 2nd amendment means hasn't changed much, except in that I now think that there's plenty that can and should be done constitutionally.

[brewer]

*doesn't own any guns*

*does own many guns*

[vorlon13]

Well, let's be honest about why the proposals are being made. If bankrupting gun zealots is a prime goal, let's get some cheap ideas on the table on how to maximize their expenses while minimizing the other sides.

(one side gets to sue class action style, other side has to defend individually? That would be pricey if one side needed millions of lawyers and the other could have a team of hundreds)

We have finite resources, and what looks like an supra-exponetiatingly expensive task here. Some thought up front to efficiently apply limited resources will make the difference between success and failure.

But let's focus and enunciate just what we're trying to do.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Voting on an amendment to alter or null the 2A? Remember the Equal Rights Amendment?

I don't, actually. What about it?

Boru

It directly benefited half the people in the country, the females, and it didn't pass. If the women had voted in the interest of their gender and enough men were sympathetic enough to do so as well then it would have passed. 

Voting for an amendment to override the 2A would not be as clear cut as that.

[The Grand Nudger]

Imagine, if you will, a sea change in USians' views on gun ownership, so much so that the Second Amendment is modified to prohibit the manufacture, sale and possession of semi-automatic rifles, fully automatic rifles and semi-automatic shotguns.  It isn't a ban on all firearms (you would still be permitted handguns, hunting riles and so forth). Bear in mind that this is a constitutional action, and as such requires the overwhelming support of voters in your country. 

Would you comply with the new law and hand over the now-proscribed weapons you own (for the sake of argument, let's assume that the new laws take the form of a 'buy back' scheme, where the government pays you fair market value for the weapons you turn in)?

Boru

I'd think that we the people got suckered if handguns somehow escaped a gun ban, when handguns account for more gun death than all other classes of guns combined, and not even by a little bit.  

Personally, I'd be unlikely to comply...I have two firearms that would get rolled up in that ridiculous ban that are worth more than money to me.  I'd just put em in the attic and leave them there and go about my shooty, shooty day with all of the others.