2nd Amendment Repeal - Need Your Vote - Poll

[1911RONIN]

I'm trying to find data for an argument. I appreciate honest feedback. (PLEASE NOTE: "SUCCESSION" IN THE POLL OPTIONS SHOULD READ "SECESSION")

The argument.

1. Meaningful reductions in gun violence requires the repeal of the 2nd Amendment, followed by mass gun-confiscation/buyback. All semi-automatic weapons are banned from personal ownership by non-LEO citizens. (Basically, this follows the Australian Model)

2. But, repeal and confiscation will have two overriding problems. The first is that due to porous borders, especially with Mexico, guns will be readily available to criminals, leaving the average citizen unprotected. Secondly, the gun-owning community's distrust of government is so high that repeal of the 2nd amendment would generate a genuine secession movement (no doubt, spearheaded by Texas I imagine).

3. Thus, meaningful reductions in gun violence vis-a-vis the Australian model will both a) leave citizens unprotected from criminal elements and b) lead to a genuine secession movement. (it is this latter point that I'm interested in)

Now, the thrust of my argument depends on the willingness of the gun-owning community to end the U.S. as it currently exists. Most elites are out of touch with this notion because they dwell in a sphere of ignorance about the average gun owner. None of the articles that I have read point this out.

Bear in mind that the following conditions are being assumed as part of your answer: a) the 2nd amendment has been repealed (or gutted by a progressive SCOTUS) and b) the Australian model has been implemented. That being said, here are your options (answer in poll):

1. You accept the legal changes and surrender all but your deer rifles.

or

2. You reject the legal changes and work toward secession, risking life, liberty, finances should it be necessary to the success of the movement.

I don't want to know what some idealized macho form of yourself would do, but what you would ACTUALLY do.

Thanks for your participation and feedback.

[Marquand]

A reference to "...pry it from my cold, dead hands" seems fitting at this point.

If "ending the U.S. as it currently exists" means surrendering our personal, privately owned firearms and living as subjects to a defacto PC dictatorship then the U.S. as I know it no longer exists anyway...therefore, bravado aside, I hope to live up to the measure of the 77 brave souls who stood with Captain Parker at the Battle of Lexington and "...let it begin here."

And I won't be alone.

[BigStiCK]

Argument #1 assumes that Evil will just give up & go home without access to firearms. Evil finds a way. Human beings have been killing themselves en-masse long before firearms were invented.

[Sir Toast]

As a former Marine, I would not surrender my arms to the "state." The Second Amendment is the insurance policy to the Constitution that people far younger and smarter than I wrote to protect the PEOPLE, not the government.

I'm sorry the people are mostly too stupid to understand that fact and that too many veterans have paid the price protect it. Most people know more about Kim Kardashian's ***** than what the Second Amendment stands for or what my beloved Constitution represents.

When I signed up, put on the uniform, picked up a rifle, and took the oath, I vowed to protect that Constitution with my life and I will continue to do so by not surrendering my weapons.

Come and take them!

[SonofWWIIDI]

The 2nd Amendment doesn't endow our rights to us. The 2nd Amendment protects rights endowed by our creator. Removing the wording of the second amendment has no bearing on the actual God (insert you preferred creators name here) given individual's right to keep and bear arms.

The problem is that the overlords and the sheeple incorrectly believe that the government has bestowed that right (among others) to each and every person.

[wjc]

[Wallabing]

You can all fight back, but I guarantee you all that do, you wont survive. Be willing to accept death if you want to fight for your rights.

[1911RONIN]

You can all fight back, but I guarantee you all that do, you wont survive. Be willing to accept death if you want to fight for your rights.

Most likely, if it comes to a battle rather than successful political withdrawal from the union, this will be the outcome. This is why I want people to seriously think about what they would ACTUALLY do, rather than what their egos are telling them to vote.

[Loubot10]

History would be on the side of those that calmly prepared. Starting with not listing the firearms you own in your interweb signature.

Those that seek Martyrdom will always find it but the backbone of a rebellion is the quiet individual who works diligently towards a goal.

[teg33]

You can all fight back, but I guarantee you all that do, you wont survive. Be willing to accept death if you want to fight for your rights.

What's the point to be alive without life, liberty and freedom to pursuit happiness ? Werent our founding fathers risking their life by pursuit these ? So why we American have to be afraid of death

[Rosereader]

Well, as you risk life, liberty and (potentially, depending on your line of work) finances either way..

Yeah, fight it. Fortune favors those the daring.

Or at least, history remembers when it pays of.

[frontierjustice]

This qoute from denis leary in demolition man came to mind reading this:

"That's right. You see, according to the *government's * plan. *I'm* the enemy. Because I like to think, I like to read. I'm into freedom of speech, freedom of choice. I'm the kind of guy who would sit in the greasy spoon and think "Gee, should I have the T-bone steak or the big rack of Barbecued spare ribs with the side order of gravy fries?" I *want* high cholesterol. I want to eat bacon, butter and buckets of cheese alright? I want to smoke a Cuban cigar the size of Cincinatti in a non-smoking section. I wanna run around naked with green jell-o all over my body reading a Playboy magazine. Why? Because maybe I feel the need to okay pal? I've *seen* the future, you know what it is. It's made by a 47 year-old virgin in gray pajamas soaking in a bubble bath, drinking a broccoli milkshake and thinking "I'm an Oscar-Meyer Wiener".

I changed it a tad to fit this thread...
Freedom is the bottom line.

And our Constitution protects all Americans to defend themselves. It's our duty as americans to uphold the constitution.

Take away one basic right, might as well do away with them all.

[ROMEOHOTEL]

The poll does not allow for a 3rd option which more accurately describes my response. I have thought at length upon such a scenario as presented by the OP. I conclude that the best answer is for the people to assemble en masse to reclaim their country. Yes, that especially includes to put down government by whatever force is necessary. With great certainty I feel this is not bravado but honoring to that commitment which those who came before us sacrificed so much to pass unto posterity.

To disassemble the country because of a wayward government connotes a certain passivity which allows that offending government to remain in power as the people take up the burden of shifting allegiance to newly formed countries/provinces. Attendant to that is the burden of migration.

That option of migration was something that existed across Europe before the Peace of Augsburg which gave only temporary relief to the people. History repeats itself.

[Tere_Hanges]

I think there is a third option. Civil disobedience. If all gun owners pled innocent to whatever crime it was to own prohibited firarms, it would be a total catastrophe for the legal system. Think about it. Millions of trials going on at the same time then mass encarceration of non violent people. It would totally break the system.

[FresnoRob]

Argument #1 assumes that Evil will just give up & go home without access to firearms. Evil finds a way. Human beings have been killing themselves en-masse long before firearms were invented.

+1
This sums it up pretty well for me.