Will Doing Away with the 2nd Amendment Cause a Civil War?

[floydefisher]

Dude, I’ve been watching this awhile now, and it’s appearing more and more like you want a dictatorship on your terms.

It’s not just guns…you also seem to want speech codes,and lately I’ve been reading about how you now also want to tell people what they can and can’t eat…in the name of ‘Climate Change’ of course!

Where does it all end with you?

[adroit]

@zantax

You don’t have to do any of that to own a car. That is to drive a car on public roads. So you should be comparing it to concealed carry, which already requires all of that and more.

I’m curious how one obtains a firearm without it traveling across a public road.

[BillBrown]

@WuWei

@moonshine

dont ban guns. tax the hell out of bullets.

maybe $2 a round to start

Great idea! Another black market item to smuggle.

An ammo cartel will make the drug cartels look like church bake sales.

[zantax]

@adroit

@zantax

You don’t have to do any of that to own a car. That is to drive a car on public roads. So you should be comparing it to concealed carry, which already requires all of that and more.

I’m curious how one obtains a firearm without it traveling across a public road.

The same way you get a car to your garage that you don’t need a license to keep on your private property I imagine. Transport, back of a truck for a car, in your trunk for a gun.

[DOLOOP]

@zantax

@Forcefield

@zantax

Strange comment, its already harder to buy a gun than it is to get a drivers license. For example, you can’t legally buy one if you are a felon, have a drug or domestic abuse conviction, an open warrant, dishonorable discharge or history of mental illness resulting in commitment, all of the above can get a drivers license.

“Driver’s License” is just an example, not an apples to apples comparison.

I didn’t say “hard” i said “hassle”. Registration. Taxes. Safety Classes. Inspections. Paperwork. Insurance. It should require a level of knowledge, accountability, instruction, in my opinion. It’s a right, yes. So is peacefully assembly and if you want to do that you gotta get the permits.

Again, most of that is required to carry a gun in public. None of that is required to keep a car on your property.

Where is most of that required to carry in public? Sure, some permits have pretty robust standards, like Utah, but not all.

I am licensed to carry concealed in two states with reciprocity across many more.

Here are the things in that list I had to do.

• Paperwork.
• A fee for the license.

Here are the things I did not have to do:

• Registration of the device
• Taxes on the device
• Safety classes,
• Inspections
• Insurance.
• A demonstrated level of knowledge, accountability, or instruction.

ETA: I live in an open carry state. There are absolutely no requirements for open carry. Anyone can do it as long they’re not proscribed outright from possessing a firearm.

[tnt]

@Ceasar

Of course, the left wants to ban guns for “Safety” just as I said in the OP, then they will run over us on the right setting up a socialist 3rd world country & leaving us with no weapons to fight back with. We already understand that from the left’s track record all over the world so it will cause a civil war at the outset of a total gun ban. My point is a civil war won’t make us safe.

Since when is fighting back with a gun a constitutionally appropriate response to legislation you don’t agree with?

[tnt]

@zantax

And I pointed out it is already more of a hassle when you make accurate comparisons instead of conflating keeping a gun on your private property with driving a car on public roads.

huh? I can buy a gun tomorrow morning and legally use it in public before lunch with out any hassle whatsoever.

[zantax]

@tnt

@Ceasar

Of course, the left wants to ban guns for “Safety” just as I said in the OP, then they will run over us on the right setting up a socialist 3rd world country & leaving us with no weapons to fight back with. We already understand that from the left’s track record all over the world so it will cause a civil war at the outset of a total gun ban. My point is a civil war won’t make us safe.

Since when is fighting back with a gun a constitutionally appropriate response to legislation you don’t agree with?

No such thing as legitimate legislation that includes the part I bolded.

[WuWei]

@tnt

@Ceasar

Of course, the left wants to ban guns for “Safety” just as I said in the OP, then they will run over us on the right setting up a socialist 3rd world country & leaving us with no weapons to fight back with. We already understand that from the left’s track record all over the world so it will cause a civil war at the outset of a total gun ban. My point is a civil war won’t make us safe.

Since when is fighting back with a gun a constitutionally appropriate response to legislation you don’t agree with?

1776…

[BlueTex]

@WuWei

1776…

1794…

Whiskey Rebellion

[zantax]

When and if our government ignores the constitution and bans guns by legislative means that contract is nullified. It will no longer be a legitimate government.

[tnt]

@zantax

No such thing as legitimate legislation that includes the part I bolded.

If a law passes both chambers and is signed, and survives challenges in the SCOTUS, it is constitutional.

[tnt]

@zantax

When and if our government ignores the constitution and bans guns by legislative means that contract is nullified. It will no longer be a legitimate government.

No, then you sue and take it to the SCOTUS.

[zantax]

@tnt

@zantax

No such thing as legitimate legislation that includes the part I bolded.

If a law passes both chambers and is signed, and survives challenges in the SCOTUS, it is constitutional.

Not if it ignores the plain language in the document it isn’t. Would you make the same claim if they brought back slavery and SCOTUS approved it as constitutional?

[zantax]

@tnt

@zantax

When and if our government ignores the constitution and bans guns by legislative means that contract is nullified. It will no longer be a legitimate government.

No, then you sue and take it to the SCOTUS.

SCOTUS is not the final arbiter of what is and isn’t constitutional, the people are.

[tnt]

@zantax

Not if it ignores the plain language in the document it isn’t. Would you make the same claim if they brought back slavery and SCOTUS approved it as constitutional?

Sorry Captain Hypothetical, but I’m not getting myself into a lather thinking that congress, the president and the SCOTUS will someday affirm a law upholding slavery.

[tnt]

@zantax

SCOTUS is not the final arbiter of what is and isn’t constitutional, the people are.

lol.
Another constitutional conservative who doesn’t give a ■■■■ about the constitution.

Please cite the section of the constitution that affirms your position.

[zantax]

@tnt

@zantax

Not if it ignores the plain language in the document it isn’t. Would you make the same claim if they brought back slavery and SCOTUS approved it as constitutional?

Sorry Captain Hypothetical, but I’m not getting myself into a lather thinking that congress, the president and the SCOTUS will someday affirm a law upholding slavery.

No more of a stretch than thinking they would do so for a total gun ban.

[WuWei]

Both apply. In the latter merchants used mercenaries. Great job.

[WuWei]

@tnt

@zantax

Not if it ignores the plain language in the document it isn’t. Would you make the same claim if they brought back slavery and SCOTUS approved it as constitutional?

Sorry Captain Hypothetical, but I’m not getting myself into a lather thinking that congress, the president and the SCOTUS will someday affirm a law upholding slavery.

Irony. Good Lord that is a stupid post.