Will New Federal Gun Control Lead To States Seceding?

[TripleB]

Personally, the second amendment is the most important, because without it, none of the other ones matter. It's the only one protecting the rest from a future tyrannical government. I know a lot of people feel similarly.

If the new gun control measures proposed in January are extremely restrictive, does anyone think some states may attempt to secede from the union?

The Constitution did originally allow for secession but I believe the "greatest president in the history of the US," Abe Lincoln, eliminated that as part of his dynasty.

Personally, if any state did actually go through with it in response to some form of draconian gun control, I would move there and join the state militia because inevitably, the action would result in civil war as it did 150 years ago. I'm hoping it won't and we would just be left alone, but I doubt it.

Then again, perhaps no state actually has the balls to do it, even if the president attempts to ban all guns.

[Pointedstick]

No, I don't see any states seceding. We've been through far, far worse than what we don't even know is coming yet. I say don't put your tinfoil hat on just yet.

[Benko]

Remember all those on this board who didn't think there was any significant difference between Romney and Obama?

Of course there won't be any successions.  And the country continues to be transformed just as Obama promised. 

Hopefully it will be a long while before they can completely mess up things. 

[TripleB]

Remember all those on this board who didn't think there was any significant difference between Romney and Obama?

Of course there won't be any successions.  And the country continues to be transformed just as Obama promised. 

Hopefully it will be a long while before they can completely mess up things.

Guess I really did waste my vote by going for a 3rd party candidate. As much as I despise Romney, I don't think he'd piss on the 2nd amendment as much as Obama.

I suppose in spite of all other big "issues" in recent years, this one involves guns... which means the people who the government are alienating... all have guns.

One might argue, "well that just proves people shouldn't own such deadly guns if legislation could result in violent gun-filled protests"

Another might counter argue, "the entire point of the second amendment IS to have gun-filled protest against a government who seeks to destroy the constitution."

I couldn't imagine gays marching on DC with rifles to protest for their right to marry. I can imagine a hundred thousand pissed off gunowners taking to the streets. That's what makes this issue different, in my mind.

I have many gun owners and gun rights advocates on social networking sites and they are PISSED. These are people you wouldn't want to piss off. I'm not talking about gang bangers. I'm talking about professional firearms instructors, dentists, lawyers, carpenters, who own "assault rifles," carry a concealed handgun daily, and train with their guns regularly, to a degree significantly higher than 99% of police. Under normal circumstances they are the nicest guys you will ever meet. They are currently VERY pissed, and with good reason.

This is not going to end well.

On the "bright side" I don't think the government is stupid enough to incite things, unless their plan is to institute martial law and permanently suspend the second amendment for good.

[RuralEngineer]

Secession is from a different time. We don't have locally homogeneous areas like we had in the 1800's. The reddest and bluest states still have about 30% of the opposing party. If anything were to happen that consists of more than angry chatter, it's likely to be scattered violent acts. Probably against Democrat political figures.

A good protest IMO if they pass something truly heinous would be to gather a hundred thousand armed people and march peacefully into D.C., carrying openly. Put the onus on the government as to how far they're willing to go to enforce such a ban.

Alternatively, strides have been made in the courts in recent years. I suppose a ban being overturned is remotely possible.

[Pointedstick]

I suppose in spite of all other big "issues" in recent years, this one involves guns... which means the people who the government are alienating... all have guns.

One might argue, "well that just proves people shouldn't own such deadly guns if legislation could result in violent gun-filled protests"

Another might counter argue, "the entire point of the second amendment IS to have gun-filled protest against a government who seeks to destroy the constitution."

I couldn't imagine gays marching on DC with rifles to protest for their right to marry. I can imagine a hundred thousand pissed off gunowners taking to the streets. That's what makes this issue different, in my mind.

The Black Panthers tried that.



They just got loaded open carry of rifles banned.

Seriously, TripleB, calm down. We don't even know what's being proposed, but it's absolutely not going to lead to a revolution. Don't let your brain work you up into a state of terror and rage.

[doodle]

When people start getting all steamed on this, I refer you over to lazyboys new thread concerning the simulation hypothesis.....this might all be a simulated computer exercise.

When reality sucks and you have little power to change it...sometimes the sanest course of action is to question whether it really exists at all. 

[RuralEngineer]

It's a lot easier to ignore that kind of demonstration if you have 100 people show up than if 100,000 do.

I'm not convinced revolution is required to convince politicians, many of whom I expect are cowards, that the strife associated with a draconian ban isn't worth it.

[doodle]

I'm just curious...

What would hard core gun advocates do if there were a string of these mass murders that carried on every month or so and public sentiment began to swing to the point where Congress was pressured to change the second amendment? I mean the constitution is a living breathing document. There is no reason why Amendments are set in stone. If this type of gun violence continues at elementary schools, there will be pressure placed on politicians to deal with it. Voters will want to know how their elected officials plan to solve the problem.

[Pointedstick]

I mean the constitution is a living breathing document.

That reminded me: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nMvARy0 ... u.be&t=29s

[Benko]

gun bans have become a bit of a third rail lately in politics, i expect with media's over hype of tragedy and Obama having "more flexibility" some pointless and utterly infective bans and restrictions will get passed to make the liberals feel good .... nothing will change.... violent crime will continue to be a bigger problem in city's and especially in city's with stricter laws... and less of a problem in CC P states. eventually we will get a better president and the gun laws will begin to sunset and be eliminated.. guns exist the genie cant be stuffed back in the bottle, and the second amendment cant be taken away by scratching a line through it on some piece of paper...

The left is patient, determined, and devious (see Alinsky, see how obamacare was passed).    They are going to do their best to limit guns; they didn't care about the protests about obamacare (remember how democrats were hassled at and then avoided town halls?) and they will not care now.  Plus they have virtually all the major news outlets doing for guns what they recently did for Romney.  It would be nice to see people stand up to Obama and prevent some of what he is trying to do.

You will note that Ayn Rand did not have John Galt try to stand up to the gov't, or try to change it, she had him extricate himself from it.  Not that the gulch is realistic, but lets just say I'm glad that with a US medical degree moving to other countries is possible should that become appropriate, and I hear New Zealand is nice.

[D1984]

All of this is speculation at this point anyway. If the Republicans have any more spine than jellyfishes then no gun ban can be passed (they control the House; without the bill being passed by the Senate AND the House President Obama can't sign it because there would be no bill to sign in the first place). If they decide to roll over and play dead (like they did with the '94 Crime Bill and the 1996 "anti-terrorism" law) then something may indeed get passed. Hopefully they have enough sense to know that if they vote for a gun ban then they will get primaried (and probably lose to the primary challenger) in the next election. I'd say we're probably safe until at least 2021 or thereabouts (districts will be redrawn at that point after the 2020 census and if anti-gunners control the redistricting suffice it to say that the new districts will be be drawn to seriously gerrymander pro-gun Representatives' districts).

[Benko]

. If the Republicans have any more spine than jellyfishes

They don't.  That is part of the problem.

[melveyr]

I guess I don't really understand the whole "guns protect us from government" argument. Maybe they would have 300 years ago.

War is an entirely different animal today. You can watch youtube videos of people trying to fight against the US using mere guns. It's not very effective. As long as a president has command over the military it really doesn't matter how many guns the citizens have. To think otherwise is just prepper fantasy used to justify an expensive and fun hobby.

[Pointedstick]

I guess I don't really understand the whole "guns protect us from government" argument. Maybe they would have 300 years ago.

War is an entirely different animal today. You can watch youtube videos of people trying to fight against the US using mere guns. It's not very effective. As long as a president has command over the military it really doesn't matter how many guns the citizens have. To think otherwise is just prepper fantasy used to justify an expensive and fun hobby.

Er, Vietnam? Iraq? Afghanistan?

I'm somewhat skeptical of this idea too, but let's not downplay the success of motivated guerrilla forces, even when half-starved and poorly-armed.

[D1984]

. If the Republicans have any more spine than jellyfishes

They don't.  That is part of the problem.

I think you underestimate how much the entire Republican political establishment hates Obama and will be against anything he proposes based on sheer spite. A Mitt Romney or even a Bill Clinton could get away with things Barack Obama couldn't. Here's hoping your wrong (I don't say that to be mean but because I don't want to see guns banned either).

BTW, why would you want to move to NZ? Don't they have stricter gun laws than the US (military style semiautomatic "assault weapons" are difficult to own and require a special license) and a medical care system that is farm more socialized than our own?

[D1984]

I guess I don't really understand the whole "guns protect us from government" argument. Maybe they would have 300 years ago.

Even if they don't (which is up for debate; see PointedSTick's reply) to me it is a matter of "why penalize innocent gun owners for the actions of one maniac"? Afer all, I didn't shoot up a school, why should my rights be abriged? Punish the criminals; don't punish those of us who have harmed no one.

[Benko]

I think you underestimate how much the entire Republican political establishment hates Obama and will be against anything he proposes based on sheer spite.

You sound like a democrat.

There was a procedural trick that I believe could have been used to stop passage of obamacare, but they didn't use it.  Beoehner caves and caves.  If Republicans were willing to act with the "determination" (charitable word choice) of democrats, things would be different, but they are not.

I hope I am wrong as well.

[murphy_p_t]

"There is no reason why Amendments are set in stone. "

Part of the problem w/ this statement is that the underlying assumption is that the right to keep and bear arms is granted by the State. Same with freedom of speech, association, etc. This is incorrect. The right (and duty) to suitable self defense is comes from God, Natural Law, part of our human nature, etc. The duty to protect oneself is not granted by government...rather it is primordial.

The 2nd amendment simply recognizes this fact. To be denied our human freedom is to be placed under totalitarian oppression.

The entire purpose of the US Federal Constitution is to place limits on what the gov't can do, by strictly defining what their powers are. The 10th amendment clarifies this point. So does the 2nd amendment...by clarifying that there are things that the legitimate government cannot do.

Of course, totalitarian regimes (like the government of Red China) will disagree.

[doodle]

"There is no reason why Amendments are set in stone. "

Part of the problem w/ this statement is that the underlying assumption is that the right to keep and bear arms is granted by the State. Same with freedom of speech, association, etc. This is incorrect. The right (and duty) to suitable self defense is comes from God, Natural Law, part of our human nature, etc. The duty to protect oneself is not granted by government...rather it is primordial.

The 2nd amendment simply recognizes this fact. To be denied our human freedom is to be placed under totalitarian oppression.

What defines "suitable"? Can I plant landmines on my front lawn? Can I bury a missile silo in my backyard and stock it full of nuclear and chemical warheads. By many peoples logic here, no one has the right to decide this definition of suitable but the individual.

[RuralEngineer]

I guess I don't really understand the whole "guns protect us from government" argument. Maybe they would have 300 years ago.

War is an entirely different animal today. You can watch youtube videos of people trying to fight against the US using mere guns. It's not very effective. As long as a president has command over the military it really doesn't matter how many guns the citizens have. To think otherwise is just prepper fantasy used to justify an expensive and fun hobby.

Lots of historical evidence says otherwise. In fact the only examples I can think of where a well armed population failed to overthrow a government all involve tiny minorities that lack manpower (Sri Lanka is a good recent example).

[doodle]

I guess I don't really understand the whole "guns protect us from government" argument. Maybe they would have 300 years ago.

War is an entirely different animal today. You can watch youtube videos of people trying to fight against the US using mere guns. It's not very effective. As long as a president has command over the military it really doesn't matter how many guns the citizens have. To think otherwise is just prepper fantasy used to justify an expensive and fun hobby.

Lots of historical evidence says otherwise. In fact the only examples I can think of where a well armed population failed to overthrow a government all involve tiny minorities that lack manpower (Sri Lanka is a good recent example).

I think that propaganda, cultural mind control, and leadership personality are sources of power that you are discounting. There are a lot of people in a country that support their authoritarian leaders and a well armed population might just lead to a bloodier civil war.  In general, authoritarian states are only as stable as the hold on power of an individual leader or small ruling clique. It is the personalities—not the institutions—that matter in such a country.

If a group of Millitia men thought that our government had become tyrannical tomorrow and stormed the capital with machine guns I think that 99 percent of Americans would call them loony terrorists. Anytime you attempt to overthrow a government with less than the majority of people on your side, you are entering into dangerous waters. If the country is split 50/50 then weapons will simply lead to a bloodbath civil war. If the numbers in oppposition to the government are 80 / 20 there is a pretty good chance that government wont last long if the people decide to just go on strike and flood the streets.

[doodle]

I think what we are talking about is not a problem of government, but one of social group dynamics. Libertarians are presupposing some sort of enlightened human that will allow a large group system to function without a central decision maker. The fact that we need an arbiter and court system at the least to enforce rules and disputes means that some group must be entrusted with power to make decisions. Sometimes these decisions will be made to favor outcomes that are beneficial to a larger group of people rather than the individual. This is the reality of a democratic style of government.

[doodle]

According to Locke there are three natural rights:

Life: everyone is entitled to live once they are created.
Liberty: everyone is entitled to do anything they want to so long as it doesn't conflict with the first right.
Estate: everyone is entitled to own all they create or gain through gift or trade so long as it doesn't conflict with the first two rights.

I think the problem here that is arising with respect to guns is that liberty is conflicting with life. How is a balance to be found between the two? People's liberty to freely buy guns is conflicting with many people's entitlement to live. If these massacres continue then  we as a group will have to decide how to fix this problem in the real world as it exists where not everyone is an enlightened libertarian.

[TripleB]

If anyone thinks the republicans actually WANT to support private gun ownership, you're delusional. They support it in spirit to secure votes. Just like republicans pretend to support Latinos, to secure their vote.

The republicans would love nothing more than to disarm the country because then they could also do whatever they pleased.

This CT shooting is the perfect excuse for republicans to pass "sensible" gun control, whatever that means, with the ultimate goal of a disarmed populace and a large totalitarian government.