Show of HandsShow of Hands

Proveit August 10th, 2016 1:45am

Liberals, would you be ok with the government outlawing and confiscating guns in America?

2 Liked

Comments: Add Comment

VolunTyrant Narnia
08/10/16 12:44 am

SoH once again proving how stupid democrat women are.

mim formerly 97123
08/09/16 9:00 pm

There is no way that would ever happen.

Allsports my world
08/09/16 8:46 pm

Another scare/scam tactics used by trump to scare the weak minded

Reply
DeusOrbus Stay Positive
08/09/16 7:40 pm

Yes.

I wouldn't advocate for it since it's idiotic but if the government were to decide to do this I wouldn't be in vocal opposition.

Linc100 Michigan
08/09/16 7:39 pm

I'm more liberal and I COMPLETELY understand why conservatives want to keep it. More power to the people, but I don't know a reasonable common ground because I hate how easy it is for some idiots with religious or bigoted intolerant beliefs to acquire them sometimes. But it is an easy step towards "Big Brother"

HoosierFan
08/09/16 7:14 pm

It's unconstitutional. What would be fully constitutional is stricter regulation of gun ownership. The Second Amendment specifically calls for gun owners to be "well regulated."

Reply
Zfilakas Eleftheria i Thanatos
08/09/16 7:35 pm

Again, I respond every time the term "well-regulated" gets misunderstood. It's meaning in the context of the amendment is being well-practiced in the use of your own arms. Being that the American people are in essence the militia, it was (and still is) impossible for the government to properly offer both proper arms and proper training, therefore it was implied that people would become well-regulated with their own arms on their own.

HoosierFan
08/11/16 9:44 am

My quick research is that the contemporary usage of "well regulated" is closer to "smoothly functioning".

Mass shootings, rampant criminal gun violence and the number of accidental gun deaths all are examples where gun ownership is not functioning smoothly.

It's clearly a public good for the government to make laws and rules to address these concerns, so long as a persons right to buy and carry weapons is unlimited.

Of course, in practice, even the NRA has accepted unconstitutional restrictions on weapons such as nuclear weapons, ground to air missiles, chain fed machine guns, etc.

Arms are weapons and the amendment makes no distinction between them, so "shall not be infringed" applies to 9mm handguns and nukes equally.

That means the only thing preventing common sense gun laws is politics, now the law.

Zfilakas Eleftheria i Thanatos
08/11/16 9:54 am

Please, stop with the Nuke argument (I'm not just referring. To you, but to anyone who uses it.) the second amendment protects the ownership of firearms that would be used by a regular infantryman. This includes both long guns and handguns. It does not include explosives, it does not include artillery, it does not include armored vehicles. Just small arms.

HoosierFan
08/11/16 11:12 am

Z, if true, and I believe you may be right, the amendment was only meant to apply to commissioned and enlisted personnel of the armed forces and not civilians. The problem is, that is not how it was written.

And the framers would no more have know of AR15s than nukes, so neither would be protected by the amendment. Extending second amendment protections to any type of weapon that didn't exist at the time it was ratified should require further amendment.

We either have to go by the words as written, using only the 18th century definitions of those words and nothing else or we have to admit that the Constitution is a living document.

Zfilakas Eleftheria i Thanatos
08/11/16 11:26 am

That's not what I mean though. The amendment is not intended for only military personnel. It is intended for all citizens in good standing of this nation. The people are the militia, which is why the amendment ends with "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." As a member of the militia, you are basically an infantryman, relegated to the small arms necessary to an infantryman.

HoosierFan
08/11/16 12:45 pm

Let's get back to your point about artillery. The framers must have understood the difference between cannons and rifles as both existed at the time and we're both "arms."

They could easily have added the word "small" into the amendment, but they did not.

Alexander Hamilton gives us a clue in Federalist 29: "... if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens."

Limiting the citizen militia to small arms would make them inferior to the US Army, contrary to Hamilton's intent.

And Madison, the author of the Second Amendment, wrote in Federalist 46 of the "last successful resistance of this country against the British arms." It's likely he used arms in the broader sense here.

RyBar Tennessee
08/09/16 7:10 pm

Do you want an all out civil war? Because that's how you get an all out civil war.

There are over 315 million privately owns guns in the US. They will never be confiscated. It's a fantasy to even pretend they could be.

The vast majority of police in the US would refuse to enforce a law like that even if it was passed,, because they don't have a suicide wish.

susanr Colorado
08/09/16 7:00 pm

No.

Also, being "OK with it" and having it as an ultimate goal are very different things.

Reply