If Gun Confiscation Was Legally Passed and Upheld by the Court...

Unless the 2nd is amended, gun confiscation will be unconstitutional thus illegal.

No, I wouldn't. As for blue lives, I never bought into that any more than I did the black lives thing. Life is the cheapest thing on the planet. It's not life that is valuable, but what is done with that life.

 

Sure it can, if it disregards the law.

Of course it would.

Sure, the right of the general populace to keep and bear arms was deemed essential to a well regulated militia. What the hell's your point?

You are of course entitled to your opinion; but seeing Congress has the enumerated power of maintaining a federal militia over and above the NG, and seeing every state has an inherent right to maintain its own militia, your opinion is of no consequence.

No, the problem is people who distort said language in pursuance of nefarious ends.

 

An excellent point and I think this is what frightens gun-nuts more than anything else.

They have been hiding behind the absurd notion that:
1. More guns make less shootings
2. That gun owners save more lives than shooters take
3. That the 2nd. amendment not only guarantees a right to own firearms but is an obligation
4. And that gun-owners are law-abiding "good guys"

By the mere stroke of a pen, the refusal of them to give up their most cherished fallus symbols will reveal both the fiction of the first 3 points ... and single them out as the 'criminals-of-mind' that they have been from the very start.

I can see them shaking in their boots already.

 

The real problem is if you take ANY gun out of the hands of law abiding citizens, the bad guys WILL NOT give their guns up. The
result will be the bad guys, like gang members for instance will have the fire power, and the good guys won't be able to defend
themselves.

 

So should African-Americans have blithely excepted their status as second class citizens. After all Plessy v. Ferguson made that the law of the land?

 

The framers and the states gave us the 2nd amendment for mostly the main purpose of fighting off a tyrannical government. A congress, supreme court and maybe states who took away those rights would be quintessential tyrannical.

 

An unjust, unconstitutional law is not a law--unless the 2nd amendment is totally removed by a constitutional amendment, the right to keep and bear arms still exists (13 states can block that repeal of the 2nd Amendment). That said, I would turn in some of my guns--the ones that could be traced to me.

 

If it's a choice between freedom and law and order, I will choose freedom. Per the legal theory posted in the Declaration of Independence, rights are not assigned by governments, they are given to us by our Creator. Any attempt to get rid of a natural right is unjust and shouldn't be followed. By your views, if freedom of speech were outlawed tomorrow (same situation as gun rights you post), would you stop speaking freely? I wouldn't. I also wouldn't stop believing in God if that were outlawed.

 

Rights can be stripped by due process, otherwise we couldn't have any sort of punishment. I have no problems with punishing convicted felons for life by not allowing them to own firearms or vote or hold many jobs.

 

The Brady Bill is still in place, so I'm not quite sure how this comparison is apt.

The Brady Bill is what set up the current NICS background check system.

To me, this shows the ignorance of the anti-gun left. The Brady Bill is a different thing than the Assault weapons ban. Yes, they were passed at close to the same time (about a year apart), but they are two completely different laws.

 

I will admit that in the heat after 9/11/01, I supported the Patriot Act. That said, I was against it's renewal and it's permanentization in later years. I regret my initial support of it.

 

I agree with you that common sense says to replace incandescents. I've been replacing them for ten years. (I don't ever throw away working lightbulbs, just replace non-working lightbulbs with more efficient ones.) I started with CFLs, and now am replacing the CFLs with LEDs. Hopefully I won't have to replace the LEDs for a while. I still have some incandescents, as they just haven't burned out for whatever reason. If you live in the sunbelt, it's silly not to use the efficient bulbs, unless you have some kind of sight/mental/neurological problem. I don't want to not only have to pay more electricity to light my house with incandescents, but then have to pay to get that heat (excess energy) taken out of my house by my A/C.

 

Any gun confiscation as proposed in the OP would result in many more deaths of gun owners and law enforcement than from mass shootings.

 

All those are fake lenses.

 

Very well written and I agree with much of it.

America is not America without the second Amendment so yes we are willing to fight for America. That's not fearmongering it's fact.

 

Yeh, even though I didn’t like it I was too young and dumb to do anything about it. Didn’t call my Senators or Reps or anything. Just took it.

Policy based on fear and emotion isn’t cool. A lot of us have learned that lesson. Many never will.

 

The 2nd secures the other 9.

 

Very few people want to scrap the second amendment, most just want sensible legislation.

Background checks on non-primary purchases, liability repercussions and insurance would make a huge dent in many issues.

 

I believe there are 27...

In places without variations of the second amendment, do you believe they are at risk of the government removing their rights?
Even with the second, do you believe the civilian population could counter the US military and or Police Forces?

 

A felon had the right and forfeited it.
If it's so easy for a state to remove firearms, why hasn't any state done it. Do you really think you're going to come up with a gun grabbing scheme sitting behind your little keyboard? If it's so easy then let's see you do it.

 

I was speaking of the Bill of Rights of the people, which the 2nd secured and secures.

I don't believe that civilians can defeat the US military militarily, but the US government could not withstand the violence and bloodshed everywhere shown on the nightly news or at least some news, and would have to desist from war, or shut down all news outlets and take away all rights. It's an all will be lost situation.

 

You make the mistake of assuming LE and military forces would obey such unlawful orders. They would most likely split, plus it would be a war in the courts, not in the streets. Yes we would win because LE and the military are us.

 

How can rights be forfeited?
If it’s a right then it cannot be forfeited.
That can only be done if it is a privilege.

You seem triggered, did they close your safe space?

I do not have the power to do anything besides discussing the issue and voting, so I fail to see how you telling me to do something has any purpose.

 

Only if you believe that the word "tyrannical" means "anything I don't like".

Beto O'Rourke has announced his intentions. Most Democratic nominees have announced their intentions. You can agree with them or not vote for them. Polls consistently show that a majority of Americans favor a ban on assault weapons. Recently, even a majority of Republicans (see link at the bottom) favor an assault weapon ban.

"Tyrannical" is most definitely a word that does not apply.

https://www.nationalreview.com/news/poll-majority-of-republicans-supports-assault-weapons-ban/