From my Cold Dead Hands

[Republic of Canador]

In a hypothetical scenario the 28th Amendment of the United States Constitution is passed, repealing the rights protected under the 2nd Amendment. Henceforth, all civilian owned firearms are now illegal and gun owners are now required to turn in their firearms. Failure to do so will result in an arrest and prosecution. You are one of those gun owners, and you hear an armed law enforcement officer knock on your front door. He has a search warrant to search your house. What would you do?

For me, turning in the weapon would not be an option. If need be, I believe that the usage of force against the officer would be justified as a means to protect my right to firearm ownership, but would only do so if the situation becomes dire enough.

[Galloism]

I would probably let him search the house and seize whichever guns he could find.

The government can always bring more force than you.

[Pandeeria]

I would probably let him search the house and seize whichever guns he could find.

The government can always bring more force than you.

Pretty much this, and if I still really want guns, I'll wait for the inevitably massive black market to open up.

[Matta]

I don't like hypothetical situations like this, because it's making me the kind of person that would have a gun, which I am not, I would gladly give up the stupid thing.

[Spaceman Spliff]

Surrender it.
In my current state, a firearm in my possession is a

Suicide

waiting to happen.

[The East Marches]

Assuming that it was passed in a legal and proper manner as set out in our Constitution, would it not be our duty as good citizens to follow it?

[Republic of Canador]

Assuming that it was passed in a legal and proper manner as set out in our Constitution, would it not be our duty as good citizens to follow it?

Perhaps, but armed revolution is also considered a duty under the Declaration of Independence.

[Wacksytopia]

Assuming that it was passed in a legal and proper manner as set out in our Constitution, would it not be our duty as good citizens to follow it?

Perhaps, but armed revolution is also considered a duty under the Declaration of Independence.

What exactly would you be revolting against?

[The East Marches]

Assuming that it was passed in a legal and proper manner as set out in our Constitution, would it not be our duty as good citizens to follow it?

Perhaps, but armed revolution is also considered a duty under the Declaration of Independence.

Which is more important, the Constitution which is the "supreme law of the land" or the Declaration? I would argue the Constitution. If we as gun owners have been asking the otherside to respect the Constitution all these years, if they managed by some miracle to do it in the right and proper way, what basis do we have for opposing them? They followed the will of the founding fathers and amended it as they should.

[Galloism]

I would probably let him search the house and seize whichever guns he could find.

The government can always bring more force than you.

Pretty much this, and if I still really want guns, I'll wait for the inevitably massive black market to open up.

You'll notice my particular turn of phrase.

[Kubra]

Lol hand it in obviously

What goods a gun if the feds are after you for it

[Republic of Canador]

Perhaps, but armed revolution is also considered a duty under the Declaration of Independence.

Which is more important, the Constitution which is the "supreme law of the land" or the Declaration? I would argue the Constitution. If we as gun owners have been asking the otherside to respect the Constitution all these years, if they managed by some miracle to do it in the right and proper way, what basis do we have for opposing them? They followed the will of the founding fathers and amended it as they should.

The Declaration of Independence is what allowed the Constitution to come into existence. It may have no legal standing, but that's no reason to turn a blind eye on what is said in the document.

Gun owners have the basis of civil rights. Once the government becomes destructive of these basic rights, and begins rounding up those who utilize them, it's time to fight the government.

[The East Marches]

Which is more important, the Constitution which is the "supreme law of the land" or the Declaration? I would argue the Constitution. If we as gun owners have been asking the otherside to respect the Constitution all these years, if they managed by some miracle to do it in the right and proper way, what basis do we have for opposing them? They followed the will of the founding fathers and amended it as they should.

The Declaration of Independence is what allowed the Constitution to come into existence. It may have no legal standing, but that's no reason to turn a blind eye on what is said in the document.

Gun owners have the basis of civil rights. Once the government becomes destructive of these basic rights, and begins rounding up those who utilize them, it's time to fight the government.

What civil rights? If its been repealed by another act and it is not enumerated elsewhere in the law, what good are those so called "civil rights"? They are non-existent.

[Libertarian Democracy]

So you are saying that murdering your neighbor who's just trying to do his job as ordered by society is justified because he wants to seize your gun?

And they could always come back with one or more of these:

[The East Marches]

Pretty much this, and if I still really want guns, I'll wait for the inevitably massive black market to open up.

You'll notice my particular turn on phrase.

That was clever, I missed it at first.

[Stellonia]

Turn it in, but sue for compensation for the guns' value. Unlike what happened with the Thirteenth Amendment, the government does not receive any moral high ground for "emancipating" my firearms.

[Republic of Canador]

The Declaration of Independence is what allowed the Constitution to come into existence. It may have no legal standing, but that's no reason to turn a blind eye on what is said in the document.

Gun owners have the basis of civil rights. Once the government becomes destructive of these basic rights, and begins rounding up those who utilize them, it's time to fight the government.

What civil rights? If its been repealed by another act and it is not enumerated elsewhere in the law, what good are those so called "civil rights"? They are non-existent.

Civil rights don't come from the government. They come from birth. If the government has decided to no longer protect these rights, it's up to the individual to protect them through whatever means necessary

[Neanderthaland]

Can't imagine what good it would do to get myself arrested in this hypothetical. They'd just search my residence anyway.

Unless OP is insinuating that I might try to fight them. But that would be mad.

[Genivaria]

Assuming that it was passed in a legal and proper manner as set out in our Constitution, would it not be our duty as good citizens to follow it?

Perhaps, but armed revolution is also considered a duty under the Declaration of Independence.

Why on earth would we do that?
There is a very small list of reasons that I would consider rebelling against the government justified, seizing guns isn't on the list.

[Lady Scylla]

In a hypothetical scenario the 28th Amendment of the United States Constitution is passed, repealing the rights protected under the 2nd Amendment. Henceforth, all civilian owned firearms are now illegal and gun owners are now required to turn in their firearms. Failure to do so will result in an arrest and prosecution. You are one of those gun owners, and you hear an armed law enforcement officer knock on your front door. He has a search warrant to search your house. What would you do?

For me, turning in the weapon would not be an option. If need be, I believe that the usage of force against the officer would be justified as a means to protect my right to firearm ownership, but would only do so if the situation becomes dire enough.

I'd give them up.

[Galloism]

Perhaps, but armed revolution is also considered a duty under the Declaration of Independence.

Why on earth would we do that?
There is a very small list of reasons that I would consider rebelling against the government justified, seizing guns isn't on the list.

Hell, it ain't even on my list, and I'm considered a gun nut round these parts.

[The East Marches]

What civil rights? If its been repealed by another act and it is not enumerated elsewhere in the law, what good are those so called "civil rights"? They are non-existent.

Civil rights don't come from the government. They come from birth. If the government has decided to no longer protect these rights, it's up to the individual to protect them through whatever means necessary

What are rights but not those guaranteed by force of arms alone? "Human rights", "civil rights" these both mean nothing in the end. Empty phrases which can't be justified without a belief in some high power arbitrarily giving those to you. If it is in the law, that is another matter entirely.

[Republic of Canador]

Perhaps, but armed revolution is also considered a duty under the Declaration of Independence.

Why on earth would we do that?
There is a very small list of reasons that I would consider rebelling against the government justified, seizing guns isn't on the list.

Seizing firearms leaves a population defenseless.

[Nilla Wayfarers]

In a hypothetical scenario the 28th Amendment of the United States Constitution is passed, repealing the rights protected under the 2nd Amendment. Henceforth, all civilian owned firearms are now illegal and gun owners are now required to turn in their firearms. Failure to do so will result in an arrest and prosecution. You are one of those gun owners, and you hear an armed law enforcement officer knock on your front door. He has a search warrant to search your house. What would you do?

For me, turning in the weapon would not be an option. If need be, I believe that the usage of force against the officer would be justified as a means to protect my right to firearm ownership, but would only do so if the situation becomes dire enough.

Based on this hypothetical, you no longer possess the right to own a firearm, so you would not be justified in using force against him.
The officer arrests you and you are charged with obstruction of arrest, armed assault of a police officer, and illegal possession of a firearm.
Continue? (30)

[The East Marches]

In a hypothetical scenario the 28th Amendment of the United States Constitution is passed, repealing the rights protected under the 2nd Amendment. Henceforth, all civilian owned firearms are now illegal and gun owners are now required to turn in their firearms. Failure to do so will result in an arrest and prosecution. You are one of those gun owners, and you hear an armed law enforcement officer knock on your front door. He has a search warrant to search your house. What would you do?

For me, turning in the weapon would not be an option. If need be, I believe that the usage of force against the officer would be justified as a means to protect my right to firearm ownership, but would only do so if the situation becomes dire enough.

I'd give them up.

I'd pegged you for a black market seller