Hypothetical question about Constitutional gun rights

--- "no law abridging,... the right to keep and bear arms..." The founding fathers had a reason for sticking that phrase in the Bill of Rights, and it wasn't because they were concerned that government was going to impose an animal rights or vegetarian agenda on the populace. (And I'm fairly certain there are a few more active hunters out there as a result of the Bush economy.)

--- We have seen discussed here a variety of related subjects which are pertinent to the gun control issue. Bush builds secret detention facilities. Bush co-opts National Guard authority from the respective states. The "Patriot Act" with its implied SS tactics and revocation of habeas corpus rights. Domestic spying. The unprecedented Blackwater private mercenary (and GOP-owned) army. The potential for a martial law declaration following a "staged" terrorist event. And the post-Katrina firearms edicts in New Orleans. I'm sure there are others I've omitted, but these are all "real" events and situations, and it sounds like We the People are, in fact, the "enemy."

--- Now the hypothetical part. The neocons have gotten breathtakingly close to their objective of dictatorial oligarchy... but, if left to popular disposition, their vision is about to go down the toilet. (and maybe a few of them along with it) Do they give up when they are this close, and risk never geting the chance again? Remember, in their own delusional view, they are misunderstood heroes.

--- Suppose there IS a terrorist event in the next 18 months, actual or staged,.. one which makes Bush salivate over the prospect of martial law, suspension of elections, round-up of dissenters,.. etc, etc. (This is the question part) Do any DU'ers believe that the presence of 80 million armed adults in the population-at-large is a factor which would stay Bush's hand and give him pause? Would this not be the point at which the military drew a line, rather than attempting to collect all those firearms by going door-to-door? Do you think the aristocracy would fancy seeing the peasants at the gates of their gated communities,.. but with the proverbial pitchforks replaced with deer rifles?

--- I think that Jefferson, Franklin and Adams knew what the hell they were doing.

"no law abridging,... the right to keep and bear arms..."

Here is what it says:

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

If we're going to discuss the second amendment, I think a good starting point is to transcribe it correctly.

--- I also should have mentioned that I am hardly blind to the problem of societal violence,.. but I sincerely hope we can settle on ways of dealing with it, other than possibly jeopardizing the "security of a free State," albeit with all good intentions, by drastically altering the original intent of the 2nd amendment.

As long as people realize that a "well regulated militia" doesn't equate to crazed gunmen or any other isolated nutcases, there might be better ways to reach common ground between what gun enthusiasts want to hang onto and what gun control people are asking for. I think common ground could be reached without any fear of messing with the Constitution.

They always seem to conveniently forget the first clause, "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State...". Why is that? Does editing the 2nd Amendment make it easier to explain your unquestioning support for it? Perhaps the Founding Fathers screwed up and should have made it the 1st Amendment because it obviously is the most important?

First and foremost, many of the typical single-issue gun voters I know voted for Bush, which I would find laughable were it not so fucking sad. They stood by the good ol' second amendment, even though they happily gave up most of the others. So to use that as an argument for why the second is needed - while it is a valid argument - seems a bit short sighted. Not so much on the gun-owning left's part as America in general. On the other hand, I think he lost both elections, but that's another issue altogether.

Secondly, how many people would turn their guns over to the authorities if asked to do so? Yes, many would refuse, but many would do it (as long as it is not a Democrat asking for the guns.... :eyes: ).

I do think an armed populace could give doubt to the powers that be, but I am not totally sure how well it would work. It would depend in part on how well They (the aristocrats in charge) could convince the people in army to be on their side, although with groups like Blackwater, that may be less of a problem for them now.

And while I think an armed insurgency could give pause to a better armed force (using history and current events as proof), it's hard to say which way it would go, and again it might depend on propaganda and message, meaning that if they were able to convince large numbers of the population to turn on each other - and frankly they have shown they can do so on some level - that would muddy the waters considerably. How many people would turn on their "commie pinko terrorist-loving" neighbors because they were told it is the right thing to do? Even if we said it would only be 20-30%, that's still a lot of people.

I don't know the answer. Honestly, I see guns as tools, so am not anti-gun at all, but I do with we as a nation were smarter about guns, and I don't have a problem with better regulation of them, but am not sure how possible that would be anyway with various loopholes out there.

There are new court rulings that may bring the 2nd amendment to the Supreme for review and clarification, and its about time. SCOTUS has been avoiding these cases like the plague because it may well cause more controversy than roe v. wade.

As others are beginning to say, we need to be smarter about firearms in our society instead of posturing against straw men of "no regulations at all" and "ban them all". We have the opportunity to redefine the gun ownership debate without alienating gun owners or violence reduction advocates.

But only if we are smart about it.

Maybe there should be more emphasis on that.