You are doing your argument a disservice by writing people off as nuts and red necks. Some of the most ardent defenders of the 2nd amendment are LEO or military. I wouldn't magically assume they will always be loyal in the face of such a situation.
The kinds of people who would openly defy a peaceable government that made a democratic decision with arms? They are by definition nuts in the modern world.
Such an amendment is even more impossible to envisage than any future armed citizenry uprising in the modern world, so the argument is pretty much academic at this point. ~_^
Such an amendment is even more impossible to envisage than any future armed citizenry uprising in the modern world, so the argument is pretty much academic at this point. ~_^
Not that much. The current trend is increasing numbers of guns own by a decreasing percentage of the population. Over time, the number of people who both own and care about gun ownership is likely to fall.
Even if it is academic, I'm dubious anyone can earnestly defend the relevance of the second amendment in the modern US without resorting to Red Dawn fantasies.
Even then, gun violence is down across the country except for the highly reported incidents such as Newtown, which are much more memorable due to confirmation bias. You have infinitely better chance at reducing overall gun crime by reversing the national policy on drugs and addressing the extremely widening economic gap in our society, both issues which have massively more support from the general public than any sort of firearm related Constitutional amendment. Furthermore, if gun ownership is falling, why not just let it fall naturally as our society changes over time? Why aggravate and aggrandize the gun lobby and waste time and effort against them?
Arguing from the position of gun restrictions only increases political gridlock, regardless of who is correct on the position. We should all learn to chose our battles more wisely.
The kinds of people who would openly defy a peaceable government that made a democratic decision with arms? They are by definition nuts in the modern world.
If the united state government enacted significant censorship of the internet you would support that? Would you defy that legislation? Would that make you a nut?
Just because a decision is made democratically doesn't mean it's a correct decision. Your average citizen is not informed enough about firearms to make a reasonable decision about it. Neither is your average politician.
All that aside, I would expect better than %99 of gun owners wouldn't be willing to turn to violence. Of course the other 1% would still consist of between 250,000 and 750,000 people.
I expect that provoking that %1 would cause far more violence than the legislation would stop.
Edit: If we give it a few decades then maybe gun ownership will recede to the point where the problem solves itself.
The kinds of people who would openly defy a peaceable government that made a democratic decision with arms? They are by definition nuts in the modern world.
If the united state government enacted significant censorship of the internet you would support that? Would you defy that legislation? Would that make you a nut?
What I'm getting at is that one could write volumes upon volumes of justification for the provisions of the first amendment perfectly relevant to modern society. I do not expect one could do the same for the second amendment.
Also, who said amending the second amendment means removing all civilian gun ownership? Maybe it means instituting a national registry of all firearms and other reasonable provisions.
After all, it would require an amendment to the first amendment to enact actual campaign finance reform.
Also, who said amending the second amendment means removing all civilian gun ownership? Maybe it means instituting a national registry of all firearms and other reasonable provisions.
After all, it would require an amendment to the first amendment to enact actual campaign finance reform.
We can have a national registry without a full-blown amendment. In fact I'd say legislation for it would stand a better chance of passing if it WASN'T an amendment.
Comments
Even if it is academic, I'm dubious anyone can earnestly defend the relevance of the second amendment in the modern US without resorting to Red Dawn fantasies.
Arguing from the position of gun restrictions only increases political gridlock, regardless of who is correct on the position. We should all learn to chose our battles more wisely.
Just because a decision is made democratically doesn't mean it's a correct decision. Your average citizen is not informed enough about firearms to make a reasonable decision about it. Neither is your average politician.
All that aside, I would expect better than %99 of gun owners wouldn't be willing to turn to violence. Of course the other 1% would still consist of between 250,000 and 750,000 people.
I expect that provoking that %1 would cause far more violence than the legislation would stop.
Edit: If we give it a few decades then maybe gun ownership will recede to the point where the problem solves itself.
After all, it would require an amendment to the first amendment to enact actual campaign finance reform.