Scenario: Food For Thought

C

Capt. Charlie

Moderator Emeritus
(Hopefully) hypothetical scenario for folks that believe in a government of the people, by the people, and for the people.... and also believe in the 2nd Amendment.

Put them hoglegs down, fellers! :D This one's just food for thought.

Lets say that, for whatever reason (doesn't matter), gun ownership in America is brought to a public vote. 100% of the voting public responds and for the purposes of this scenario, the vote is certified legit, but it goes against gun owners. 82% (nice round number :D ) vote no to gun ownership. The law is enacted and signed (remember, with the approval of the majority of Americans.) What would you do?
 
M

mooreshawnm

New member
Take that 18% who voted yes, invade British Columbia and form a new Republic! Hey you started with the unrealistic (hopefully) Hypotheticals ;) !

Shawn
 
B

butch50

New member
Hope the Supreme Court is packed with Constitutional Conservatives - because their job is to over-rule the majority when the majority votes for anyting uconstitutional - which has happened on many occasions. Part of the genius of our Founding Fathers.
 
R

Rich Lucibella

Staff
Can't change the Constitution by popular vote, Captain. As you know, it requires a 2/3 vote of the States. That allows those with the greatest vested interest in the subject to lobby the most.

Sure, 82% of Americans might vote against firearms ownership in a referendum. But put it to a Constitutional challenge and most wouldn't bother to notice. Hopefully those on our side of the "barricade" would.

No, we're not going to loose the Second that way. More likely, it'll be another SCOTUS "interpretation".

And, to answer your direct question (sorta).....I'm already a criminal. As are we all.....I just haven't poured through enough of the rooms full of Federal Laws to discover which one(s) I'm guilty of violating.
Rich
 
A

ATW525

New member
If somehow we lost the 2nd, I think I would send a polite letter to my local and federal law enforcement agencies informing them that they should consider getting thier affairs in order before they come to collect my guns so as to minimize the hardship on the families they will leave behind.
 
T

tyme

Administrator
I can see it now, ATW vs the city of Manchester.

Maybe you should send that letter to yourself.
 
A

Avizpls

New member
butch said:
Hope the Supreme Court is packed with Constitutional Conservatives - because their job is to over-rule the majority when the majority votes for anyting uconstitutional - which has happened on many occasions. Part of the genius of our Founding Fathers.
Click to expand...

Real bang up job they've been doing lately. :rolleyes:
 
W

Wraith

New member
If somehow we lost the 2nd, I think I would send a polite letter to my local and federal law enforcement agencies informing them that they should consider getting thier affairs in order before they come to collect my guns so as to minimize the hardship on the families they will leave behind.
Click to expand...

Hahaha :D

I'm right beside you.
 
C

Capt. Charlie

Moderator Emeritus
Rich

Agreed, but there was a method to my madness. The scenario was only a tool to try to induce a "moral dilemma" in readers, although it probably wasn't the best example. By moral dilemma, I mean the creation of mental conflict when a person, who has strong feelings or beliefs of a "moral" nature, encounters a situation in which two or more of those beliefs come into conflict. It's a lot easier to do this with individuals than it is with a basically anonymous group, but TFL members seem to be for the most part type A personalities with strong beliefs in several areas. My dept's annual refresher training includes 4 hrs of ethics training, and moral dilemmas are a big part of it. The purpose? They make you think and fine tune your beliefs and principles so that, when the time comes that there is a REAL moral dilemma, there's less confusion, and you have more confidence in your stand, and in your priorities. It wasn't even necessary to respond to this scenario. Most who read it didn't, but I'll bet they thought about it. These "dilemmas" also usually make for a jolly good debate :D .
 
C

CarbineCaleb

New member
Actually progunner1957, I have a healthy respect for Capt Charlie, I think he is really a good man - intelligent, cautious, reasoned, and with a good heart.

Hope that I haven't made you guility by association by some kind words from a "DemoSocialist", Capt :p
 
A

ATW525

New member
I do wonder if push came to shove, how many people would actually fight and how many people wouldn't want to give up thier comfortable lives. If events "across the pond" and "down under" are any indication, the chances of an armed resistance to gun confiscation would seem bleak.
 
M

mooreshawnm

New member
If events "across the pond" and "down under" are any indication...

I don't think pepole from those nations grew up with the same heritage that many of us did (us being rural folks of course). Revolting as opposed to being granted independance over a period of time should count for something when it comes to differing views on social progress.

Cpt...I heard a police officer on talk radio today in Seattle saying basically what you have been about SCOTUS, that he wouldn't assist in the confiscation of private property. So if police in the Soviet of WA are of this opinion I imagine it is less of a concern than we may fear...assuming the citizens who are about to lose land or guns or what ever stand up for their rights.

But if it comes down to it....ATW, Wraith I am with you. I was just brought up that way
 
U

USP45usp

Moderator
Well, our Forefathers were considered criminals and were considered treasonous so I guess I would be in good company to fight, and die if need be, for the same values and freedoms that they fought, and died for.

In other words, I guess the government would just have to dig me out a spot in the mass grave they would make.

Wayne
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top