Hypothetical For Gun Rights Advocates

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

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

[The Valkyrie]

My flamethrower's safe though, right?

[ignoramus]

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

My flamethrower's safe though, right?

Of course.  Only those weapons noted above will be affected.  Any country that would deny an unbalanced surgeon her God-given right to throw flame on people deserves no place  in the community of nations.

Boru

[Gawdzilla Sama]

The Constitution is sacred because it's convenient. The hardcore gunner will tell you that it is going to be a fight regardless of any changes in the Constitution. Those are the honest ones.

[Whateverist]

I agree with former supreme court judge John Paul Stevens: overturn the 2nd amendment altogether for starters.  Just rip that cloak of entitlement right the hell off.  That would help tons.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/poli...461672002/

[Brian37]

I agree with former supreme court judge John Paul Stevens: overturn the 2nd amendment altogether for starters.  Just rip that cloak of entitlement right the hell off.  That would help tons.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/poli...461672002/

Great if you want a civil war. I agree with the fact that it was never really needed in the first place, but I also am not about to chase a utopia either. I think the better option is to stress "WELL REGULATED". 

There is a long history in court cases that DO allow for stricter firearm laws. Even the late Scalia(sp) said that firearms could be regulated. 

It sounds nice in theory and yes it is an amendment and we have repealed amendments in the past. I just don't know how realistic it is without creating fundy terrorists or a civil war. 

Australia and Scotland and Japan do not have a 2nd Amendment and DO allow for firearm ownership. What they don't have that America does is a obsession with firearms. 

I think short term that may not be realistic. I think attitudes have to change to a great enough degree for what you say to work.

[brewer]

Short answer, yes. I'd even throw in the semi auto hand guns. 

You've left enough wiggle room for me to still have fun. Bang fuckin Bang.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I'll put out this idea again, if I may. Single round guns. Manual reload after a barrel is discharged. Two barrels allowed for hunting rifles and shotguns.

[Pat Mustard]

I agree with former supreme court judge John Paul Stevens: overturn the 2nd amendment altogether for starters.  Just rip that cloak of entitlement right the hell off.  That would help tons.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/poli...461672002/

Hell if the current Supreme court would admit that their current interpretation completely and mendaciously twists the meaning of the second and revert it to it's original meaning i.e. only those part of a state authorised and controlled defence force can own guns, it'd be enough.

I cannot understand why republican lawmakers can think the founding fathers would throw out the previos 150 years of European experience and allow private armies free reign through their infant country.