If the feds passed a total ban on guns what would you do?

Question

would you just sit there and take it? would you something about it? Would you fight back?

Answer 1

never going to happen

I say that as a liberal

Answer 2

A total ban can never be "passed", but which I assume you mean make it a law. The only way this could happen would be with a constitutional amendment, which will never happen.

But given the mindsets of my fellow citizens, if a Hitler type ever became dictator here and started outlawing and confiscating guns, I would buy more, the way the criminals do now.

Note to JXT: good thing for the founding fathers you weren't around at Valley Forge, telling everyone they were breaking the law against armed revolution. It's only illegal if you lose.

Answer 3

Don't know. You need a lot of physical force to kill someone by just about any other means except poison. The need for force isn't there with a gun. That is the simplicty of the gun.
The main reason for the 4th amendement was to counter the fear caused by the English restrictions on guns and to protect the citizens in the wilderness by allowing them to protect themselves. It was also designed to support a SMALL professional Federal army and navy,and for the State Militias and volunteers to provide the main body for defense of the nation. Nowadays, it's more a counterwieght to the complete takeover of the Government,by illegal means.

Answer 4

There wouldn't be much to do since I don't own any firearms, but I expect that the NRA would file for and receive an injunction pending a Court review of the law and the the Court would overturn it. Such a law would have to preceded by a Constitutional Amendment redefining the Second Amendment.

Answer 5

I'd vote for politicians opposed to such a measure, and I would likely write a number of letters to my Senators, Congressmen, and local officials, but I wouldn't do more. I own no guns, and while I have no desire to ban all of them, some things (assault rifles, fully automatic, and supressed weapons) really have no place in commercial or private use. The right to bear arms does not specify that any arms may be bourne, and clearly the bill of rights was drafted in a time of single shot ball rifles and pistols. There should be some restrictions, or does that mean we should allow private sales of f-22 Raptors and Javellin anti-tank missiles? They are 'arms' as well.

Answer 6

1st off we elect the officials that would be doing the band so if that were to happen we would have no one to blame but our selves.
2nd it works for England, maybe they are more sophisticated than we are and we should take some lessons from them.
3rd if we fight back we will look barbaric. We will only be showing the government they were right to take them away.
4th if you live anywhere that you think you need a gun to protect you or your family or your way of life ,you need to do something intelligent about it to change it. If you cannot find a reasonable way to make it safer than move to a safer neighborhood. No one should feel like they "need" the right to bare arms. If you don't feel safe, you need to address those reasons and fix them. then you will not need guns.

Answer 7

I'd lock and load my arsenal. Between my dad and I we have enough to support a small militia. Because the next step after a ban on firearms is a ban on this and a ban on that... and you aren't taking away my freedoms with out a fight.

Answer 8

Not give up my guns, that's for sure! And I would think it a disgrace to the Bill of Rights. (Yes, I am aware of the debate on the "meaning" of the 2nd amendment, but I believe it gives every individual the right to own firearms, not just the militia.) I would seriously consider moving to another country if I couldn't get involved in a movement to stop it. If the government starts taking away our constitutional rights, that's a sad state to be in. What would be next? Freedom of speech? Freedom of religion? It would be setting a precedent that our basic rights are up for auction to the highest bidder.

A gun ban would not be constitutional, nor would it work. Criminals will always have guns. If you outlaw guns, then law-abiding citizens will not. Australia's gun ban proved disastrous. ( http://www.geoffmetcalf.com/aus.html )
* Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2%
* Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6%
* Australia-wide, armed-robberies are up 44%
* In the state of Victoria, homicides-with-firearms are up 300%

Answer 9

Listen and learn:

An assault gun law was passed under Clinton.
It lapsed under GW Bush.
Then a foreign student named Cho Seung-Hui bought some automatic pistols with extra-capacity clips that were banned under the previous law.
Now 32 students are dead.

USA has little or no gun restrictions.
USA has the highest rate of gun fatalities (except for Iraq).
Do you see any connection?

Answer 10

Since seven new states are now permitting licensed hand guns (concealed weapons) It is not likely this would happen.Terrorism and natural disasters(looting) are a given more than ever.I would fight back.It is our right to bear arms.Many shopkeepers in my city have saved their lives by self defense.The wrong people always get guns to attack us.We need to defend ourselves,as is our legal right.

Answer 11

I would join the rest of the sensible people in this great nation and keep mine, and defend my home against anyone who tried to take them. The government would be overthrown and sensible laws would be returned by the new and more reasonable government. It would only take a few weeks.