What would it take for you?

[TxKronik]

It’s funny I see the same people talking about “boat accidents” and “they are coming for them” posts while also posting in the “Show off your new our coolest gun/rifle” posts. Seems like posting what you have openly on the internet is a bad idea. This includes Facebook and others.

[tminc]

THANKS, Chew. Im with ya!

[Sasqy]

I don’t own any guns !
They could be dangerous .
I borrowed the one in my avatar !

[Gunnyart]

It’s funny I see the same people talking about “boat accidents” and “they are coming for them” posts while also posting in the “Show off your new our coolest gun/rifle” posts. Seems like posting what you have openly on the internet is a bad idea. This includes Facebook and others.

Ha. Guilty (here anyway. never FB)

[BlackoutRam2500]

Personally I don't pay much attention to the politics of this because we have the 2nd amendment and we have the Supreme court. First of all you have to get **** near everyone 2/3s both House and Senate to agree to change an ammendment. Secondly, at every turn the Supreme court has upheld the constitution and the rights of citizens to own firearms under the 2nd amendment.

Here is an interesting article that talks about the only 2 items in the constitution that CANNOT be amended. The first deals with slavery and the 2nd deals with the makeup of the Senate. The makeup of the Senate is the most important one because it ensures that one political party cannot steamroll the other strictly based on majority rules. This is critical for 2nd amendment rights and the electoral college system staying in place.

Prohibition on Amendment: Equal Suffrage in the Senate

...no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.
ARTICLE V

Article V specifies the means by which the Constitution of the United States can be amended. It ends by forbidding amendments that would repeal the language in Article I, Section 9, which prohibits a ban on the importation of slaves prior to 1808, or the language in Article I, Section 3, which provides for equal representation of the states in the Senate. These are the only textually entrenched provisions of the Constitution. The first prohibition was absolute but of limited duration—it was to be in force for only twenty years; the second was less absolute—"no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate"—but permanent.
The first unamendable provision of the Constitution was part of what Frederick Douglass called the "scaffolding" necessary for the construction and adoption of the Constitution's "magnificent structure, to be removed as soon as the building was completed." The second unamendable provision shows how seriously the smaller states were committed to protecting the "original federal design." Its sponsor was Roger Sherman of Connecticut, architect of what is often called the Connecticut Compromise or "the Great Compromise," whereby states were to be represented proportionately in the House and equally in the Senate. Two days before the Convention ended, on September 15, Sherman "expressed his fears that three fourths of the States might be brought to do things fatal to particular States, as abolishing them altogether or depriving them of their equality in the Senate." He therefore proposed language barring amending the Constitution to deprive states of their equal suffrage. When his motion failed, Sherman indicated how profoundly concerned he was by proposing the elimination of Article V altogether. This motion also failed, but it prompted Gouverneur Morris to propose the language ultimately adopted by the Constitutional Convention. As James Madison wrote in his notes, "This motion being dictated by the circulating murmurs of the small States was agreed to without debate, no one opposing it, or on the question saying no."
The provision does more than protect the equal representation of small states. As Madison noted in The Federalist No. 39, it ensures a polity of mixed sovereignty, one in which the states are an integral part of the federal government. This, of course, is precisely why those who do not think the Constitution "democratic" enough would wish to remove that portion of the Constitution. They argue variously that Article V can be amended through the convention mechanism; or by the people as a whole as stated in the Preamble; or, more brazenly, by first amending out the provision of the Fifth Amendment, and then requiring the Senate to be apportioned by population. Professor Henry Monaghan points out that such proposals are inconsistent with the vision of the Framers and would undermine the structural plan of the Constitution. That plan was an integrated and dynamic federalism.
As Chief Justice Salmon Chase declared in Texas v. White (1869):

Not only, therefore, can there be no loss of separate and independent autonomy to the States, through their union under the Constitution, but it may be not unreasonably said that the preservation of the States, and the maintenance of their governments, are as much within the design and care of the Constitution as the preservation of the Union and the maintenance of the National government. The Constitution, in all its provisions, looks to an indestructible Union, composed of indestructible States.

Denying the states their intended role in the federal government by abolishing their equality in the Senate would destroy the grounding of the Union: "without the States in union, there could be no such political body as the United States," Texas v. White, citing Lane County v. Oregon (1869). Moreover, as the text itself stands, at most the provision could only technically be voided by the unanimous consent of all the states.
This provision has been seldom invoked. Most recently, it has been employed by those opposed to proposed constitutional amendments that would give the District of Columbia full representation in the Congress. Their argument is that an amendment that would allow the District—a nonstate—to have two Senators would deprive the states of their equal suffrage in the Senate and would therefore require unanimous ratification by all the states. Others have suggested that the provision would void a constitutional amendment requiring a supermajority to pass tax increases.


But to answer the OPs question. No, I would not physically go to war with my country over my guns no more than I would go to war with them over tax increases or Obamacare. If it got too bad I would just leave... retire to Costa Rica or some place like that.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

[AtTheWall]

Over 300 million guns in the USA. Good luck with that shiat Mr Government Man!

Let's get back to OPEN BORDERS and SANCTUARY CITIES!

Till they fix broken laws - in plain violation of Federal and many State rules - I will never take any gun control initiative SERIOUSLY!

This is a DEFLECTION TACTIC - Keep the narrative on GUN CONTROL so the BROKEN IMMIGRATION SYSTEM & BORDER, gets buried.

San Francisco and the State of California are now demanding citizens - ignore helping LAW ENFORCEMENT if they get in a bind with criminals.

The REPROGRAMMING OF AMERICA - Socialism is well underway.

Not drinking that KOOLADE

[bwssr]

If and when this happens....the constitution will have been distorted as well as the U.S.A. will no longer be a republic.....so...then they want them...well..good luck

[Artos]

Everyone would have plenty of time to think about where you stand when dealing with a tyrannical govt willing to confiscate from the law abiding, but a lot will happen before any knocking starts. Just think about it...you have a huge portion of the LE community & Military that will not comply & I think this issue is big enough to where there would be a split within going likely very high up the ladders. Many Sheriff / Counties have already gone on file they will not comply on confiscating firearms due to new red flag laws without due process. It's a complicated & frankly, quite a frightening situation to ponder. My guess is a lot of folks who say they will not engage with the govt right now may very well have a completely different view if you are watching your freedoms & liberty being attacked day after day on the news & the constitution being destroyed. It's one thing to play what if & you hear a knock on the door vs an opinion once it is visualizing the destruction of your country & see the divide happening.

I think confiscation is my answer. Few things are worth dying for, but Liberty is one of them. If they go to that extent, what else is at risk?

[Randell]

Debate what you will: Chicago has the toughest guns laws and the highest shooting/murder rate. It’s not the gun. Criminals don’t give a rats behind about laws.

[ChristenHoer]

I think gov need to disarm the gun abusers instead of doubting the normal gun users.

[Gunnyart]

Personally I don't pay much attention to the politics of this because we have the 2nd amendment and we have the Supreme court. First of all you have to get **** near everyone 2/3s both House and Senate to agree to change an ammendment. Secondly, at every turn the Supreme court has upheld the constitution and the rights of citizens to own firearms under the 2nd amendment.

Here is an interesting article that talks about the only 2 items in the constitution that CANNOT be amended. The first deals with slavery and the 2nd deals with the makeup of the Senate. The makeup of the Senate is the most important one because it ensures that one political party cannot steamroll the other strictly based on majority rules. This is critical for 2nd amendment rights and the electoral college system staying in place.

Prohibition on Amendment: Equal Suffrage in the Senate

...no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.
ARTICLE V

Article V specifies the means by which the Constitution of the United States can be amended. It ends by forbidding amendments that would repeal the language in Article I, Section 9, which prohibits a ban on the importation of slaves prior to 1808, or the language in Article I, Section 3, which provides for equal representation of the states in the Senate. These are the only textually entrenched provisions of the Constitution. The first prohibition was absolute but of limited duration—it was to be in force for only twenty years; the second was less absolute—"no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate"—but permanent.
The first unamendable provision of the Constitution was part of what Frederick Douglass called the "scaffolding" necessary for the construction and adoption of the Constitution's "magnificent structure, to be removed as soon as the building was completed." The second unamendable provision shows how seriously the smaller states were committed to protecting the "original federal design." Its sponsor was Roger Sherman of Connecticut, architect of what is often called the Connecticut Compromise or "the Great Compromise," whereby states were to be represented proportionately in the House and equally in the Senate. Two days before the Convention ended, on September 15, Sherman "expressed his fears that three fourths of the States might be brought to do things fatal to particular States, as abolishing them altogether or depriving them of their equality in the Senate." He therefore proposed language barring amending the Constitution to deprive states of their equal suffrage. When his motion failed, Sherman indicated how profoundly concerned he was by proposing the elimination of Article V altogether. This motion also failed, but it prompted Gouverneur Morris to propose the language ultimately adopted by the Constitutional Convention. As James Madison wrote in his notes, "This motion being dictated by the circulating murmurs of the small States was agreed to without debate, no one opposing it, or on the question saying no."
The provision does more than protect the equal representation of small states. As Madison noted in The Federalist No. 39, it ensures a polity of mixed sovereignty, one in which the states are an integral part of the federal government. This, of course, is precisely why those who do not think the Constitution "democratic" enough would wish to remove that portion of the Constitution. They argue variously that Article V can be amended through the convention mechanism; or by the people as a whole as stated in the Preamble; or, more brazenly, by first amending out the provision of the Fifth Amendment, and then requiring the Senate to be apportioned by population. Professor Henry Monaghan points out that such proposals are inconsistent with the vision of the Framers and would undermine the structural plan of the Constitution. That plan was an integrated and dynamic federalism.
As Chief Justice Salmon Chase declared in Texas v. White (1869):

Not only, therefore, can there be no loss of separate and independent autonomy to the States, through their union under the Constitution, but it may be not unreasonably said that the preservation of the States, and the maintenance of their governments, are as much within the design and care of the Constitution as the preservation of the Union and the maintenance of the National government. The Constitution, in all its provisions, looks to an indestructible Union, composed of indestructible States.

Denying the states their intended role in the federal government by abolishing their equality in the Senate would destroy the grounding of the Union: "without the States in union, there could be no such political body as the United States," Texas v. White, citing Lane County v. Oregon (1869). Moreover, as the text itself stands, at most the provision could only technically be voided by the unanimous consent of all the states.
This provision has been seldom invoked. Most recently, it has been employed by those opposed to proposed constitutional amendments that would give the District of Columbia full representation in the Congress. Their argument is that an amendment that would allow the District—a nonstate—to have two Senators would deprive the states of their equal suffrage in the Senate and would therefore require unanimous ratification by all the states. Others have suggested that the provision would void a constitutional amendment requiring a supermajority to pass tax increases.


But to answer the OPs question. No, I would not physically go to war with my country over my guns no more than I would go to war with them over tax increases or Obamacare. If it got too bad I would just leave... retire to Costa Rica or some place like that.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

The States have already lost their direct representation by senators with the enactment of the 17th amendment.

[Brazos Hunter]

https://youtu.be/L49JRd2N0Ho

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[billfromtx]

No one will come on my property and take my belongings, of any kind...against my will while I’m still have a breath left in my body.

[TXBRASS]

I truly feel that the anti's will wise-up and soon come after ammunition and ammo components. Making it too expensive for the regular joe to purchase. There is already talk about future laws where ammunition has to be produced with a very short shelf life. (year or less) and this would cause quite the stir. I realize there are trillions of rounds owned by the US public, but remember what happened to ammo a few years back. If components were unavailable and the only factory rounds produced were expensive and only lasted for a short time, then the rounds already in circulation would be worth their weight in gold and would be sold individually on the black market. They could easily make all existing ammo "illegal" for some reason or the other because ammo is not covered by the Second....
Ammo control is the key to gun-control for the average citizen..... That's how it will be eventually done if I had to guess.

[tradtiger]

I think you should not answer this on a public forum.

What guns?


Sent from my SM-J327V using Tapatalk