Previous Post
Next Post

Paul Theroux (courtesy

Today’s Question of the Day comes from an unlikely source: Democratic State Representative Paul Heroux writing for (no less). It’s a multi-parter. “What would you do if all of the requirements of Article V of the Constitution were met and the Second Amendment was repealed? What would you do if the Second Amendment was effectively repealed by a US Supreme Court ruling that the right to bear arms does apply to an individual, but only . . .

individuals in a militia? As a law abiding gun owner, would you give up your guns? What do you think would happen to violent crime rates, accidental shootings and suicides? Would you follow the new law of the land that was legitimately established, just as laws allowing the possession of a firearm have been legitimately established?”

The comments section underneath the HuffPo thought experiment has coalesced around a simple answer to the question: civil war. Your thoughts?

[h/t HW]

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. In some parts of the country, there would be a lot of dead people, in other parts, not much would change.

    *Side note: if that happened, expect whatever confiscation decree to be selectivity enforced. Potg would most likely wait for some sort of rallying event (like the swatting of gun owners), but I believe that the .gov would be patient, much the same way the Sullivan Law has turned the population of NYC into sheep over the last 100 years.

  2. Prohibition leaps to mind, would be about the same except for even more holes in people. There’s a rather large swath of people out there that if they were made criminals by a treasonous government, would simply decide to be criminals and blood will flow, society as we know it will devolve quickly into… Chicago and East St. Louis.

    • Well , since all the Geddons are already armed , there would be civil war between the government and the Geddons , plain and simple . If there were any Geddons that weren’t armed yet they would certainly arm themselves .
      There would go forth a great cry to Arm the Geddons .

      • If you’re an able-bodied male between the ages of 17 and 45, you’re already in the militia. According to 10 U.S. Code sub section 311 — Militia: composition and classes:

        (a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
        (b) The classes of the militia are—
        (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
        (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

        I think if they said “only individuals in a militia” then we’d have major civil rights protests by women of all ages, men over 45, and disabled persons. I’d say the Gov’s definition of “militia” is in direct violation of womens’ rights, age discrimination laws, and the dang ADA.

        • Absolutely. This point needs to be reinforced again and again. Are you in a militia?! Yes. Yes, I am. It’s codified in Federal Law 10 USC 311. And if your are between the ages of 17 and 45, you are too.

        • Who commands this militia we’re all in and what’s the penalty for not following orders? Is barry it’s CinC?

        • YOU command your own militia. If your communities chooses to organize as a group and you chose to participate then the group selects its commander. Familiar with and US history?

        • I remember reading that militias are compulsory when called upon, for able-bodied men between 17 – 45. But that it is voluntary, not exclusive, of men over 45 or women.

    • Read it he’s very pro gun.
      What’s wrong with considering the possibilities.
      Aren’t we being prepared?

  3. Ignore it. Buy more ammo. Lots more ammo. Prepare for whatever comes next.

    Never, ever comply because the fact I breathe is all the justification I need to be armed.

  4. The only way to find out is to conduct the experiment. Just like Prohibition, and the war on drugs.

    • I don’t think so. In Prohibition (which at least included an Amendment authorizing it!) and in the War in Drugs, both sides of the argument were armed. In a war on guns, only one side will be armed. Would be a short war, except for the required hunting down and executing of those who made it necessary.

  5. If in order to keep your guns you had to be a member of a militia, then there would suddenly be a whole lot of militias. Very likely anti-gov’t militias. By not leaving the law abiding gun owners alone, the lawmakers will find that they will have to deal with the monster they have created. The monster being the existing militias that did not exist prior to the repeal. To suddenly take control of over 300,000,000 guns will not be an easy task. The only thing that is for sure is that that many weapons in the hands of law abiding persons is better than in the hands of criminals. Criminals that did not exist prior to attempting to repeal the 2nd ammendment.

    • Very savvy prediction. The repeal would direct huge numbers of armed Americans to organize into (essentially) a coup-attempt against their rulers. The RKBA truly is self-evident, self-reinforcing, and is mostly useful as a red flag of tyranny when people try to deny it.

    • This was my first thought, “Duh, I’d join a militia.”

      It warrants thinking about it. Australian shooters never did, and when the order was given they rolled over. Be prepared not to roll over, I may want to retire in the land of the free so it’s important to me that it stays relatively free.

      • Australians are NOT “Americans”, remember they’re ALL descendants of “criminals” thus quite familiar with taking orders form “the man”.

      • I don’t think Australians had any reason to join a militia; that would not have made owning guns legal. Unless the 2nd is repealed, then even the most grabby of gun-grabber readings of it could not exclude militia members from owning guns. I’m not saying they would not try, but, without repealing the 2nd, any given 6 year old could tell them that, clearly, the supreme law of the land doesn’t allow the grabbing of guns from the militia.

  6. The question is misguided and based upon a fundamental false premise to begin with. The bill of rights does not bestow rights upon the citizenry, it protects those fundamental rights from government infringement. In many ways, these rights pre-existed and hence, transcend the constitution. They exist with or without the constitution, and are inherent in every human being, by virtue of their birth. The constitution simply protects these rights from the government trampling them. One could even say, that the fundamental concept of eliminating any one of these rights is an inherently “illegal” violation of our natural rights, and therefore would be technically illegal to repeal, without structurally damaging the foundation of the constitution itself. Should any one of these rights be eliminated (summarily, in court or via a constitutional convention) I’d argue that-that act in and of itself, would violate the social contract that is the constitution, and would therefore absolve the citizenry from its obligation to adhere to to law.

    I think the real question for Mr. Paul Heroux Is what would HE do, if all of the requirements of Article V of the constitution were met, and the first, third or fifth amendments were repealed? What would you do then, Mr. Heroux?

    • Beat me to it. The right will continue to exist, whether or not it is protected from governmental interference. A repeal of the 2A will only allow the government to try to regulate guns–and good luck with that. Moreover, the essence of the first clause of the 2A is that a militia only exists because of an individual right to keep and bear arms. If you don’t have arms, you can’t join.

    • Well stated. In the history of The Constitution of the United States of America none of the first ten amendments in the Bill of Rights has ever been repealed or revised. The entire point was that these enumerated rates were to be protected from the government, which is why they were enumerated.

      Regardless of Article V intervention, as unlikely as it may be and as technically Constitutional as it might be, to use this as a means of re-writing the Bill of Rights would be accurately viewed by many as an attempt to subvert the intent of the Constitution itself, much as attempts to pass anti-2A laws now are viewed as subversion of the Constitution. I suspect the result would not be as benign as the people who passed the new amendment conceive. To coin a phrase, “Blood will run in the streets!”

    • Absolutely correct, OneIfByLand. The bill of rights wasn’t legislated into existence. It defines inalienable rights. i.e. gov’t can’t f with it.

  7. I would hope that a crack legal team (headed by I dunno, Alan Gura) could be assembled to immediately work on over turning the repeal.

    What I would hope to see is something closer to an Occupy Wall Sreet than to fighting haphazardly in the streets.

    I’m certified as an instructor in active shooter for LEOs and I’ll tell you the average gun owner with a pure civvie background does not know the basics of shooting moving and communicating with a team. You CAN clear a house with a team of one, you just really don’t want to if you can avoid it.

    Before anyone says anything, I’m not saying Joe and Jane every-person aren’t capable, I’m just saying it is really hard to train for that kind of thing in a DIY manner and most civilian shooters I know don’t even have an interested friend to train in this sort of thing. If you’re stacking in the hallways of buildings whose layouts you don’t know with 6-8 friends every other weekend charging rooms with shoot and no shoot targets, good on ya. I’m just saying it is a difficult undertaking.

    Anyone in charge of collecting arms would seek to isolate individuals and overwhelm. House to house, block by block. “Come to the surrender compound or if we have to come to you we’re not knocking.”

    Gathering hundreds and hopefully thousands of armed and peaceful people together is the only path I can see working. Peaceful protests and and defensive resistance.

    Look up some OWS images of Zucotti park and imagine long gun barrels over every other shoulder.

    I am willing to stand for human rights with my own life, but if all of the tools of a civil society were not exhausted prior to an altercation, I would be sad.

    I have no desire to harm any other human being (no matter how misguided) if I can avoid it.

    I will however defend human rights with physical force if no other option is left to me.

    May this situation never come to pass.

    • “Anyone in charge of collecting arms would seek to isolate individuals and overwhelm. House to house, block by block. “Come to the surrender compound or if we have to come to you we’re not knocking.”

      There isn’t the manpower. I live in a quasi rural village and it would take a small army of police to even attempt something like this here. Sure, some people would turn firearms in, but after the first raid took place, people would probably just find a way to hide the firearm somewhere. Is the government going to rip apart every house down to the beams to find a hidden gun? It could take days to successfully scour one house. Government agents would need to be paid, and there would be a lot of overtime. Where does the funding come from? Where do the extra bodies to conduct these raids come from? Law enforcement can’t just stop doing their jobs to search every house, otherwise people would be driving drunk like the 1950’s and holding up banks.

      • Simple. Tag the houses you know to have guns.

        If a person on the list didn’t turn in a gun they’re presumed a felon.

        Highest risk first. The guy who owns 6 ARs and nine handguns gets priority over the guy with one deer rifle.

        Send out the felony list to employers. Anyone on the list gets terminated or the company must labor under massive daily fines from the government. Sure the mom and pop shops can keep a few people off the books, but the largest employers will fold under the pressure.

        Move down the house list as you have time. If you’ve hidden a gun and can’t produce it after your door is kicked in you simply get a 20 year felony.

        Gun owners who don’t surrender get their cell phones, social security numbers, drivers licenses and bank accounts tagged, frozen, terminated and generally messed with.

        Then you declare a moratorium on the mandatory felony and wait, a few hundred thousand will fold and turn them in. Resume the mandatory felony and general harassment, hold another moratorium in six months rinse and repeat.

        No you wouldn’t get all of them, but you’d get most, the strongest patriots will have the highest mortality rate in the first few months. After that it would be constant pressure on the lukewarm gun owners, most of whom will decide that their jobs, families and lives come before the 2A.

        That our, the gun side wins and as Alex Jones would say, “1776 all over again.”

        • @Detroit Medic – good points, but I’m a bit more optimistic, if only because there are hundreds of millions of guns in this country. It’s a numbers game, and one that does not bode well for the anti-2A types.

        • Forgot to mention – “Move down the house list as you have time. If you’ve hidden a gun and can’t produce it after your door is kicked in you simply get a 20 year felony.”

          Doesn’t work that way. You can’t be arrested for not possessing an illegal item. It’s akin to the government saying “we think you bought some drugs 10 years ago. We’re coming to get it, and if you don’t have it, you’re going to prison.” All a defense attorney would need to do would be to claim the gun was destroyed. Since the state wouldn’t be able to produce the firearm, it would be a pretty easy defense. Of course, then it goes back to the raw numbers. Imagine the court costs, the time involved in trying to set up cases for hundreds of thousands of new felony charges. The jury selection. The time needed by prosecutors. Who would do it, the U.S. Attorney’s office? Local prosecutors? Good luck, every single other crime would have to be pushed to the side to attempt this. Then after the first case got tossed out or an acquittal was handed down, the well would be poisoned and the rest of the cases would be losers for the prosecution.

        • Detroit Medic,

          Here is the problem with the approach that you described: when Fedzilla eliminates firearm owners’ assets, their ability to work, and their ability to function in society, that means Fedzilla has declared all-out war on firearms owners. At that point firearms owners go on the offensive in a brutal guerilla war against Fedzilla. Since firearm owners outnumber relevant Fedzilla agents about 1,000 to 1, those Fedzilla agents will lose in spectacular fashion.

          For that very reason, I don’t see it ever happening.

        • HP:

          “Doesn’t work that way. You can’t be arrested for not possessing an illegal item…..”?

          I guess you missed the Obamacare penalties for those who don’t purchase a worthless health insurance plan they neither want nor can they afford. Remember we’re dealing with “the government”, they can make up ANY rule/law they wish, stack a jury with stooges and guarantee a conviction BEFORE a trial ever takes place.

      • “after the first raid took place, people would probably just find a way to hide the firearm somewhere”

        Probably a bunch. I determined decades ago that my reaction would be to load them instead, and to shoot to kill any cops on my property without waiting to see why they were there. The scenario we keep seeing here is of operational operators showing up to collect our guns. I’ll let you in on a secret, there aren’t enough of them now, and with confiscation orders most would refuse or quit (they are mostly POTG themselves), leaving the fat farts of local police, with near zero training and poorly paid, struggling and sweating up to the front porch before being well and truly ventilated, leaving the next wave of fat farts to also have to climb over their bodies in order to be ventilated. That would last a matter of days before the fat farts refused to go out any more, whereupon it would be time to hunt them, until they ditched their uniforms and guns and disappeared. Then it’s time to pay the mayor/governor/senator/SC justice/president a visit. I’m saying weeks at the outside. Maybe I’m just an optimist, but in 20 years in the military, I can’t recall a single person, officer or enlisted, who planned to be part of firearm confiscation under any circumstances. Replying “yes, sir!” and then disappearing for a few days at a time, yes, but actually obeying the orders, absolutely not.

        • Gun confiscation would likely go like this:

          • Identify someone who isn’t very bright, but can be relied on to resist confiscation violently. Think Ruby Ridge but more urban.

          • Make sure the press knows that he is believed to have illegal guns.

          • Surround his home and evacuate the neighborhood.

          • When he resists, massacre everyone in the house in such as way as to make clear that he shot first.

          The country will quickly fall in line surrendering their guns. Unless, that is, there is an organized resistance, and I don’t mean some home brewed militia. Those never work, ask Bundy. It would have to be a state government sponsored resistance. Otherwise, forget it.

  8. When did this guys side ever respect the law when 2a was the law? I live in a dem state and don’t have the right to carry a gun.

    I will give the new non 2a as much respect and obediance as he and his cronies gave the 2a when it was the law of the land.

  9. Based on the example provided by all the countries with very strict gun control, I would expect there would be a crap load of guns everywhere. Just not out in the open. Everyone has a gun in Mexico, they just don’t talk about. Lots of Full auto available there too. Makes me kind of jealous, actually. We protect access to firearms here in America and relative to a lot of countries with strict gun control we have less exciting toys to play with.

    Hell, NYC is awash with firearms in private hands. They’re just relatively illegal and people keep their mouths shut about it.

    Sullivan Schmullivan.

  10. The liberals have their goal of repealing the second amendment, but they never get around to how they intend to enforce anything. Well, other than, “the guns will be confiscated.” Ok, by who? The military or police? Good luck diverting every single person in the military and police from their normal jobs to confiscate firearms. Also, how would you know where to start? What would be done, take every 4473 from every FFL and go door to door? Try to imagine the logistics of that. Isn’t going to happen. What’s next, demand that people turn their guns in? Ok, fine, we refuse. Now what? Implications of civil war and bloodshed aside, America is so far beyond the point where any type of confiscation could be conducted that the notion is laughable.

    • Well people on the NFA list would be an easy start since that is registration to begun with and those guns are the “most dangerous” since they are regulated so heavily. /sarc

    • Hey HP, we were chatting earlier but I can’t reply to replies to my own post for some reason.

      One of the things I thought worth mentioning was that there is no way to know how many gun owners will stand and how many will be smiling and helping load their guns into the back of a national guard truck.

      We simply don’t know these numbers.

      All I have to say is, based on my EMS experience, 95% of the world will do anything to avoid a physical confrontation, let alone a gun fight.

      We’d be lucky to get 3% of the population, and I’m iffy about that number showing up.

      If you have the resources to own numerous guns, say a collection capable of arming five likeminded but ill equipped citizens you automatically have a lot to lose.

      Job, family, decent life.

      The correlation between a good gun collection the good life does not bode well for our side.

      That, and in my experience gun owners do not have good social manners to those not in their immediate social circle.

      I had heated debates with people who could afford to buy 50 stripped lowers just prior to the Obama pricing madness leading up to his first election and then selling them at a 500% mark up later. I asked them if staggering profit was more important than helping unprepared people who may have recently seen the light.

      “Take a microeconomics class commie! Supply and demand!” was the general rallying cry.

      These are not the people who will be forming citizens watches and defending freedom with their lives.

      My $0.02, good chatting.

  11. I would diversify my investment portfolio into companies that make PVC pipe, cosmoline, and shovels.

  12. The Second Amendment is already dead in a lot of states. They do not have to go through the risk of riots by openly appealing it. Try and get a permit to carry in some states. They destroy it one step at a time. Seattle I believe recently banned guns and ammo from being sold just by putting a tax on every bullet sold which they knew no one would pay or could afford. Naturally the Nazi court upheld it. In I believe it was New York one judge made the decision it was ok to limit magazine capacity. The next law will reduce it further until they are only allowed to have single shot bb guns. Its classed as a firearm so you still have the right to self defense they will say. It just shitting on the Second Amendment while the Stalinists laugh when they pass the law and its rubber stamped and upheld in in the Nazi courts. In New York they openly had a discussion after the Sandy Hook tragedy where they in full public view discussed banning guns altogether.

    In some cases they do not even wait to disarm anyone. Bloomberg was so power mad and corrupt he even changed the law so he could serve a 3rd term and because he was a gun hater the Media never even blinked an eye or said much about it. In Africa recently when power mad leaders ran for a 3rd illegal term at least they rioted while in New York it barely caused a ripple. In the U.S. as long as everyone still has their beer and football the power mad leaders can do anything. When it comes time to vote most people say, it doesn’t matter who gets in because we all get screwed anyway so why vote. Sadly excluding the gun issue they are right.

    And do you remember when the Republicans asked supreme court nominee Sotomayer if she supported the Second Amendment and she brazenly refused to answer the question and shortly after the Republicans stabbed us gun owners right in the back by voting for her. Why did they even bother to ask the question anyway. Now the court is stacked in her favor and no gun rights case will ever be even accepted unless it is to ban more guns which the court will readily do.

  13. I would form a “militia” and state that all citizens (except a few elected officials) are invited to be in it. They would have to equip themselves with whichever firearms they prefer.

    Wait..some dead guys already did this.

    • Forget stating they are “invited”, why not proclaim that they are all *ALREADY* in it, which is what the founders did?

  14. Well… The last time an arrogant king tried to take American’s guns and powder, there was a revolution.

    • All you’ve stated is that the right exists, whether or not the government chooses to recognize it. True statement.

      What do you actually DO, though, if the government not only refuses to recognize it, but actively attempts to punish you for exercising it?

  15. The right to keep and bear arms is inherent, and presumptive in the constitution, the second amendment to which merely protects the inherent right.

    Thus, if the second amendment were repealed (understanding that the goal of such repeal would be attempted civil disarmament), the only inevitable outcome, soon or distant, would be civil war.

  16. Will be interesting if the Feds come to a free state, most sheriffs and the national guard on Governors orders will probably resist. I also would expect a significant portion of the military to refuse the unconstitutional order.

    Fort Sumter part 2 anyone?

    • Yeah, just thinking about TX, the first time there is a conflict between TX law and fed agents at a border, there will be tens of thousands headed that way to back up our cops. If the cops ever *ASKED* for help, there would be MILLIONS, armed to the teeth and travelling really, really fast. And most military in the state will be among them, if they have to go AWOL to do it. Which they won’t.

      • Indeed. I was going to post this point. individuals will need a nucleus to coalesce around and I am sure that several governors would tell the Fed to pound sand and tell the people to kit up and report for muster. Additionally, I would bet those governors would link up with each other and form another CSA.

        One other point that was brought up earlier was the house raids. After the first few, there will be folks who would set up and ambush police either on deliberate false leads (SWATing the SWAT) or just putting spies w/ burn phones outside of the police stations. When SWAT rolls out, “one if by land, two if by sea” so to speak, and they get intercepted in an urban combat hit and run scenario before they make it to their destination.

        Regardless of what might happen, I absolutely do not want to see it. The blood and venom that would flow would make the Civil War look like the “walk-off” in Zoolander.

        • Regardless of what might happen, I absolutely do not want to see it. The blood and venom that would flow would make the Civil War look like the “walk-off” in Zoolander.

          +1 to this.

          If you have never spent any time in a country that is actively fighting a civil war, or has just come through one, then… lucky you.

          If you ever have done then… you will understand that a civil war is pretty close to the worst thing that can happen to a country.

  17. If something like this leftist wet dream should come to pass, the G would need to increase the death benefit payable to the families of cops and soldiers.

  18. If this will happen don’t expect to see confiscation. People will not be able to use anymore their guns. You will be unable to go shooting anywhere. You will be unable to defend yourself using a gun. Those that will do will be arrested. Is as simple as that. Death by a thousands cuts.
    Some say that they will hide it. How useful is a hidden gun?
    Civil war? Really? In order to have that you need to have leaders, to be organized and defend as a group. How many here can say that they have 5 buddies that they can trust and be able to die for each other? How many here have families and are willing to die and leave them alone in a world that that don’t know how will turn out?
    When rights go to die they die with an whimper. Nobody cares unless they have nothing to lose anymore.
    Otherwise we will be up in arms for already plenty of our rights violation.
    Read plenty of stories about how communism came to be. People did nothing. There were few partisans in the mountains but they were quickly overwhelmed and betrayed.
    I hurts me to come to this realization, but I feel that this is the truth. And the left knows it.

    • You make some good points, but I don’t think Americans will lay down and take it like the people of Europe and Asia. It’s in our DNA to resist tyranny. Not so much for the rest of the world who scarcely knew anything different than oppressive government. It was the norm. Someday though, maybe in my lifetime, the leftists will feel they have advanced enough to start the disarmament of the U.S. If it ever comes to that, I hope we’re still able to make it as bloody and painful as possible.

      • You bring up a good point. The US and Israel really have no ancient history. For the rest of the world, was there ever anything except thousands of years of either anarchy (tribal culture included) or tyranny? Despots, dictators, monarchies, emperors, on and on? No wonder they are accustomed to it. In the middle ages, those who found that unacceptable finally had an opportunity to do something about it other than die, they could instead just *probably* die, in the attempt to make it to America and a chance for a free life. By the time the King came after those freedoms, too, there were a lot of people unwilling to give them up, and that is where our culture came from, unlike any other, ever.

  19. I have a question. Who would go door to door and collect our guns? Not the military. Not the local police municipalities. They’d have to organize special task forces, for which there would be few volunteers. Sounds like a dangerous job to me!

  20. Many States have thier own versions of the Second Amendment. Those would have to be repealed as well and I don’t see that happening in many if not most of those States. Personally I’d be screwed. The Feds obviously have records of all my legal NFA toys so no way for me to say guns, what guns…

    • Excellent point, even states like Connecticut have a version that ensures the individual ownership of firearms. It’s actually much more explicit than the second amendment

    • “NFA toys so no way for me to say guns, what guns”

      Once the confiscation order is issued, that would be a good time to finally report that boating accident, back when, can’t remember exactly where it was …

    • Which is why I refuse to buy any item on the NFA list. With the way government is I would not register myself to them. Plus I have my NFA substitutes for the most part.

      SBR’s? Bullpups
      SBS’s? Don’t like shotguns.
      MG’s? Would like one but not the end of the world not having one. Course there are always bumpfire stocks.
      AOW’s? Pistols work just fine.
      DD’s? Like MG’s would also be nice but my life is not over just because I don’t have them. Plus since some semi-auto shotguns are on the list then I could always get a Saiga or VEPR with a 20-round drum.
      Silencers? Earpro

  21. Ones things for sure, I won’t surrender my firearms. Side bonus, if all my guns become illegal, I will have no qualms installing a giggle switch on some of them.

    • I figure, in that event, there will be lots of guns with giggle switches available, just pick ’em up off the street.

  22. In answer to “What would happen to violent crime, accidental shootings, and suicides,?” …..IF there weren’t any guns owned by citizens, accidental shootings would go down, somewhat. The military and police allowed to have guns will still have accidental shootings. Less guns, less accidental shootings….maybe.

    Violent crime and suicide? Not much. People pillaged, plundered, and raped before guns were invented. If a person truly wants to commit suicide, not having a gun to use isn’t going to stop them.

  23. I never describe myself as “law abiding”. I don’t harm others. I don’t lie, steal or cheat. But I do not blindly follow the edicts of a bunch of men of such suspect character and low morals that they took government employment.

    • Sounds like you a responsible person with a backbone, whereas a “law abiding” person who obeys unjust laws has no spine.

  24. They won’t ban guns. That just won’t happen. There will be selective enforcement and the views of the chief law enforcement officer of any particular area is going to have a direct impact.
    Even if the Supreme Court of the United States ruled against the 2A, you would have a hell of a lot of people that would simply say they got it wrong and ignore it. If that happened though, I’ll say this, it won’t be pretty.

  25. For once I agree with Huffington post readers. Civil War would be the result if any attempt was made to take previously lawfully own firearms by force.

    • Not to ever say a kind word about the HuffingPuffing Post, but the readers’ comments were relatively sober, mostly discussing the concept of individual rights & the role of the Constitution.

      Almost no chest-thumping on either side. Strange.

  26. People choose to read the 2A as they wish.
    But a simple reading says and/both not “to” keep a well regulated militia.

  27. I am a citizen, not a subject and the 2nd Amendment grants NOTHING, so, repeal it, vilify and misinterpret it like most good socialists, that is if you can get off your knees long enough. The RKBA is a pre-existing natural right, PERIOD. By appearing in the Bill of Rights it becomes a specific enumerated right, but not and never government granted.

  28. This is just a left wing wet dream. Something like having sex with a super model for them. Something to dream about, but not going to happen any time soon.

    Amending the Constitution is not easy. We haven’t had a successful Amendment started in quite awhile, and those that have languished have been much less contentious than removing the right to keep and bear arms. Imagine this – 2/3 of both the House and the Senate, plus 3/4 of the states have to ratify. Reality is probably the opposite right now – 2/3 of both houses probably support, and 3/4 of the states. Sure, CA and NY are questionable, but they are only 2 of the 38 states required. Think of how they are going to get to that 38 states required for ratification. Ain’t gonna happen anytime soon. 38 states is probably fewer than I have concealed carry reciprocity with.

    Then, you get to enforcing any global bans on firearms. Who are you going to get to do it? Most local PD are going to sit this one out, which leaves state and big city police. National guard is possible in the states that have left wing governors, but they aren’t going to be enthusiastic. And, federal troops are essentially banned through Posse Comitatus. And, they have armed federal employees, which along with state and big city police in a couple states, and you would be lucky to get to a hundred or so thousand disarmers, to disarm 100 million plus gun owners. I wouldn’t like those odds (up to 1,000 to one) if I were the one going door to door. Making things worse – a lot of police and military are sympathetic to gun owning, and often own firearms of their own. Are they really going to try to disarm the people they see on the gun range on a routine basis? Also note that the one demographic that is most likely, on a per capita basis, to be a police officer or military serving on the tip of the spear are the Jacksonians, who have been taught on their parent’s laps for better than two centuries that the right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental right, and was one of the major causes of the Revolutionary War. More than almost any demographic in the country, they tend to be well armed, and strongly against gun control, and they constitute a large portion of the govt. employees who would be asked to seize guns from the populace. Just ain’t gonna happen.

  29. There is zero chance that 37 states would radify any such repeal and therefore you would have a clearly unconstitutional federal government in power. As pro gun states elected pro secession governments a civil war would evolve. Nullification in most states would be the norm and as violent attacks against federal forces became common place any confidence in the US government would evaporate. A world wide depression would ensue.

    Hmm, this is exactly what we see starting to happen at the margins now. Any more overtly unconstitutional actions by the federal government and the justification for violent resistance could be great enough that you could see an Oklahoma City type event (with better target selection) as acceptable and a monthly (or weekly) occurrence.

    • “There is zero chance that 37 states would radify any such repeal and therefore you would have a clearly unconstitutional federal government in power.”

      What if Congress engineers a 51 or 60% rule. Reid and crew lowered threshold for procedure in the Senate. Democrats in CA passed legislation that lowered majority for taxes.

      Keep in mind, your rights will be sold by an elected reprentative to get a bridge.

  30. Sorry. Pet peeve here – the title should be “Question of the Day: What Would Happen if 2A Was Were Repealed?” The cited material got this right, and then you botched it. What you want here is the subjunctive case, for a hypothetical, and that is indicated by switching “were” for “was”.

  31. Check your local State laws. You might be in the “State Militia” and not even know it. In NC, with the exception of the Feds, active duty military, and retired military, all non-felon persons 17 years and older are in the “unorganized militia” and are subject to call up by the Governor. Like jury duty…with guns. And BTW, our State Constitution has a 2A also.

    DemoRats in NC never bothered to read or to understand The Bill the Governor (D) signed into Law.

    • We have the RKBA in most states’ constitutions. It’s only crapholes like NY, NJ, CA, MD, MA, CT, HI, and IL where they don’t, and they have Draconian laws and massive levels of (gang-related) gun violence because of it.

      • I don’t know why you say IL doesn’t contain a right to arms in its state constitution.. it clearly does (not that it makes much difference):

        Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

  32. Most of the military and police wouldn’t do it. I think they’d be on our side. The antis don’t have as much to lose as we do. I think they’d give up.

  33. Instead of waiting around for them to show up on the door step you have a bakers dozen in a couple of cars with a stakeout at the local precinct. When the troops hop in their cars to go out and confiscate you follow, surround and open fire if they refuse to surrender. They would do no less to us under the circumstances. After a few failed attempts and a dwindling supply of warm bodies as well as their own weapons being then used against them, most likely they would either quit or hole up someplace safe until things died down. Since they would recognize the tactics and be on the lookout you change up on them to keep them off balance. Pretty sure they can be out thought on many fronts, especially when they know deep down they’re in the wrong.

    • Its called asymmetrical warfare. And its very effective.

      Like the old Bill Cosby shtick goes. British, you wear red and march in straight lines. Americans, you wear green and brown, hide behind rocks and trees and then run away.

      Or something like that.

  34. I see it going down like this:

    A ‘Progressive’ is elected President and successfully confirms 2 or 3 Progressive-leaning associates to the SCOTUS.

    SCOTUS guts Heller et al by declaring the RTKBA applies only to the US military or law enforcement.

    Laws are passed and ‘buy-backs’ are announced.

    On their own, and likely helped by internet resources, patriot citizens, perhaps citizen patriots that learn they have a fatal medical prognosis, begin ‘lone wolf’ assassinations on Progressive elected officials, their families, their extended families, and their children.. If LEO intervenes, LEOs become targeted by long-range shooter patriots.

    Since they won’t have any personal connection to their targets, finding them will be very, very difficult, especially if those doing the wet work are miles or states removed from their location.

    The ‘light bulb’ over Progressive elected officials heads will begin to illuminate. Resignations will begin and pick up speed.

    They will start to learn that voting Progressive will cost them and their family’s very lives.

    Freedom will return.

    (Hypothetically speaking only, of course…)


    A revolution could be waged against the current American government far easier than you might imagine without careful examination. Consider:

    * The sheer numbers of firearms of all kinds in the hands of the American public would have made the American commanders in Viet Nam quake in their boots. We’re not talking junk equipment here, either. The average deer hunter with a .270 or .308 could give a platoon of regular troops more grief than they want. There was a special on the tube recently about military armaments on sale in the black market (including Stingers).

    * The population base from which revolutionaries could be recruited is *massive* – 250 million.

    * There are literally millions of well-trained men who served as officers and NCOs who learned face-to-face how guerrilla warfare works. They haven’t forgotten it, either.

    * There are millions of young men out there with military training and experience with weapons of every conceivable kind, who would make top-quality guerrilla troops.

    * Every one of the 100 counties in the state of North Carolina could field at least one full company that would be formidable in capability. If one assumes that North Carolina is no more capable than other states, that could amount to 180 divisions. These potential rebel troops would be fast-moving light infantry, with the capability of melting into the general population when necessary.

    American military leaders would be in the position of having an inventory of high-tech weapons that they would be dependent upon your son or nephew to use against you. There would be no enemy states in which you could say that any weapon could be used against the rebels. They would be from each and every state and major city.

    By the same token, there would be no sanctuary for the federal troops anywhere in the land. No matter where stationed, they would be subject to attack and harassment. The infrastructure on which the federal government depends would be rather easily disrupted by those who live there. Airfields and major lines of communications could be shut down and kept down for days at a time. Disruption of supplies to major bases and to centers of government would be simple. You don’t have to cut them off, just keep them hungry.

    The federal government would be denied the use of all their major weaponry because they would still “own” the cities and villages. How do you justify bombing your own city just because there is a rebel company in it? One bombing would be the biggest recruiting drive ever for the rebel forces.

    • “There are millions of young men out there with military training and experience”

      A lota old dogs on the wing as well.

    • I also remember reading that all federal, state, and local governments combined own somewhere around 5 million firearms. Lets call it 10 Million. Either way, it doesn’t add up.

      If the SHTF, it would become practically impossible to communicate and coordinate.


  36. I remember what Sadr City was like in 2004. Don’t tell me a small group of people cant take on a well armed government.

    • There are somewhere around 60 million men between the ages of 18 and 50. It wouldn’t be a small group.

      1% of 60 million is 600,000.

      3% is 1,800,000

      plus the women.

  37. Democrats need ” medical marijuana” wink wink so they can get high as shit to dream this crap up!
    Smoke another one.

  38. Full blown civil war that will forever change the nation and leave 40 million or more dead in its wake. If they win? America dies as the republic would no longer exist. To achieve victory the end result would look more like an empire or dictatorship. They’d essentially have to scrap the whole constitution and system of government, like what happened to Rome. But this is still unlikely, as most of the country, and a sizable portion of police, military, and veterans will be on the rebel side. It would indeed be a long violent and brutal conflict that would likley result in a rebel victory which would then create a new constitution. Really, the only way I see the federales winning that one is if they pull the nuclear card and lay waste to most of the nation… But then, what have they won?

    • “America dies”? THAT’S exactly what “the Left” wants, they are diametrically opposite of “us”, they hate “us”, our “culture” and everything “we” stand for, they despise us and our “republic”, they seek to extinguish the thought of a “sovereign” nation anywhere on the globe, remember it’s they who advocate and plead for “one world government”.

  39. Officially? Officially, nothing would happen. There would be nothing in the newspapers, nothing on the radio, nothing on the television, nothing on the web.

    There would be absolutely no reports of any shootings, resistance, protests or anything else. That’s only natural, because in the liberals’ mind abolishing guns means no more bad things will ever happen involving guns.

    Having said that, I wouldn’t particularly want to be a small-framed man or woman following that repeal. They’re not going to do very well against large, aggressive criminals, who will have a field day. Gangs will run amok because then, if you resist them with a gun, suddenly, you’re the villain.

  40. Put that genie back in the bottle? Yeh, good luck with that… How is it that these numskull pols can fantasize about this kind of crap, but don’t see any way whatsoever of building a southern wall and stemming the tide of illegal immigration? Stop waving your sword at windmills, Don Quixote.

  41. Look at the comments, practically everyone is saying they would rebel. That’s why the repeal of the 2A will never happen. Incremental infringements have historically been very effective in disarmament. Who will rebel over a ban on 30rd magazines or pistol grips? No one , but the same result is achieved over time .

  42. We know what happened the last time. April 19, 1775.
    Of course America was populated with people who valued freedom.
    Heavy sigh….

    • Yeah, but not sure what we would do with all those refugees, you know, the ones that come unarmed wanting protection?

  43. “What would you do if the Second Amendment was effectively repealed by a US Supreme Court ruling that the right to bear arms does apply to an individual, but only individuals in a militia?”

    Uh, I’d start a damn militia.

    • Having been in the military (62-65, at the time it was a three year enlistment) pretty sure I am still on file, along with everybody else that ever served. That alone would make a “standing militia” to back regular troops if needed. The government would be hard pressed, if able at all, to arm us all after disarming us. Even us old guys have equalizers for deployment, they are called “pick up trucks”. Might be a one way trip, but how long do you think we might live anyway? That would apply to resistance against all enemies, foreign or a rogue federal government.

  44. The entire Constitution is under attack. It’s replacement? Personal agendas. People don’t even know who, or what, they are voting for. We take it for granted that an elected government will abide by The Constitution, despite all evidence to the contrary.

  45. Civil war-anarchy . Extreme violence. SOME cops/military would be on the wrong side. Old guys like me would not give a damn and die with cold dead hands. And IF the Rapture happens real soon-all bets are off…this ain’t Australia.

  46. They would have no problem repealing the 2A. The American people would bend over – take it – and like it.

    In 1890 talk of restricting people’s possessions would get your life ruined. Skip ahead 100 years, where the manufacture of lawn darts are banned, and people are ready to give up plenty to cater to the delicate sensibilities of social liberal extremists in order to get along. Machine guns are banned, silencers are extremely regulated because too many congressmen watched James Bond movies. An 18″ shotgun barrel is acceptable but a 17″ is deserving of 10 years in prison, and a host of other ridiculous rules that criminals don’t follow or care about. The end goal is to reduce the interest in gun ownership and eliminate the voter base. If they could meet all the requirements for art. V, then the voter base would be so small that few gun owners would exist to stand against it. Police would round them up incrementally over time and the remainder of the population would worship them for it.

  47. We have to sign a draft card when you graduate from High School, if I remember correctly, so I’d consider that being part of a militia.

  48. I’d follow the new law about as carefully as I follow the current drug laws. Which is to say I’d treat gun prohibition as a minor annoyance and carry on behaving exactly as I please, but with a bit more discretion. I would take every opportunity to agitate in favor of the 2A, and subvert the law at every step. Death by 1000 cuts works both ways. In my state (NH) there would be a strong secessionist movement, and I would join it. When the voices get too loud and the fed attacks the rights to free speech and peaceable assembly, all hell will break loose. At that time, I’ll do my part.

  49. Americans traditionally have a history of ignoring laws that they disagree with. Look at the history of home brew whiskey production. Look at the so called noble experiment of prohibition. Look at the failed war on drugs, particularly in regards to the campaign against relatively “soft” marijuana. Look at the laws against software piracy and copying movies. We can’t even get people to obey speed limits.

    In the midst of all of the disobedience for the law, does anybody really think that a prohibition on firearms will work? Who would enforce such a law? Back in the day I was taught to “Never give an order that you know won’t be obeyed.” Sure there are whores in uniform who will obey orders and do anything for a pay check, but so many members of our volunteer military come from solid patriotic backgrounds that there would be a real possibility of wholesale mutiny if orders were given to confiscate firearms. No commander wants to risk mutiny. Mutineers usually shoot their officers so self preservation comes into play. Would local law officers enforce a ban? Maybe in the blue states, but even many of those officers come from the ex military patriot background. In the red states sheriffs and rank and file officers will cheerfully ignore any firearms ban. Remember that when you get away from the big cities most law enforcement in this country is done by county sheriffs and very small police departments and those folks tend to understand the second amendment.

    Massive civil disobedience works. Look at the fall of communism. The Wall fell because people finally understood that “they can’t shoot us all.” There isn’t enough ammunition and you can’t find enough soldiers who are willing to shoot their countrymen.

    Going back to the original question, this old man thinks that a ban on firearms would lead to massive disregard of the law. The Republic as we know it would probably fall and we might see two countries emerge – one a European style socialist state and the other might be a conservative or libertarian government.

    Just some thoughts….

  50. Ryan M
    What these idiots fail to realize is “we the people” are the dam militia!! According to the founders wording the basic concept is “we” are expected to be armed at all times so that we may form a militia if the need arises. a militia is NOT a military force, per se, to be run by government, it is well armed citizens at the ready.

  51. As to the militia part, as others have said you already are in. A cursory examination of what some of the founding fathers had to say on the subject reveals that fact.
    As for door to door confiscation, that is unlikely. In order to do it across the entire country massive manpower would be necessary, and a good percentage of LEO’s and military would not be on board with that order.
    I know that I wouldn’t have considered it a lawful order.

  52. War. Plain and simple. And I imagine, at least early on, a handful of assassination attempts on political figures. What a shame that would be…

  53. was effectively repealed by a US Supreme Court ruling that the right to bear arms does apply to an individual, but only . . .individuals in a militia?
    Oh heck, most Libtards have that it applies only collective people in a government military organization such as the Army or the National Guard already.
    Courts ignore the 2A pretty much anyway.

  54. I don’t see them trying to repeal the 2A, confiscate guns, and start a civil war that guarantees their downfall. I figure it’s more likely they’ll try to turn off the supply of ammunition by taxing it into oblivion. But, as with the “war on drugs”, how well has that worked out for them?
    If something like that ever did happen, it’d still probably spark a revolution, but not a nationwide one. We’d end up with America being split into at least three seperate regions; the east & west coasts run by a leftist regime(s), with the midwest & south continuing as a constitutional republic.

  55. As a law abiding gun owner, would you give up your guns?

    No, the 2nd ammendment does not give me the right to “keep and bear arms”. It just prohibits the government from infringing on my natural God given right.

    What do you think would happen to violent crime rates, accidental shootings and suicides?

    Nothing. Neither violent crime rates, nor suicides would be affected if there were no guns. Accidental shootings would be affected, since if there are no guns, there could not be an accidental shooting. Same as if there were no cars there would be no car accidents. Or if there were no poisons, there would be no accidental poisons. Maybe we should repeal the Law of Gravity, that would eliminate accidental falls.

    Would you follow the new law of the land that was legitimately established, just as laws allowing the possession of a firearm have been legitimately established?”

    No. It would be against my natural God given right. The government does not give me that right nor it can take it away.

  56. They better immediately replace the 2nd amendment with an amendment guaranteeing individual ownership of small arms regardless of enrollment in a militia. It can remove rights to nuclear arms and anti-aircraft weapons. I don’t care. Otherwise: civil war.

  57. People will just become more discreet with the use guns. if the enforcement of any kind of federal ban starts putting enough people in jail, expect moves by the states to nullify the laws or eventually secede. Expect more people to move to pro gun states. the degree of resistance is directly related to how fast and to what degree a ban is enforced. If the anti gun crowd moves too quickly civil war is possible, or at least things like the Oregon standoff on a much larger scale and in many more places. I’d put Wyoming, Texas, Idaho, Utah, Oklahoma, and maybe a few other states as the places to be if things start going downhill fast.

  58. Well, if not civil war, there would be a prohibition style supply of firearms and shooting ranges for one thing, but the black market for firearms already exists, so nothing new there. Knives of all types would become more popular, so would batons, mace, and tasers. Maybe martial arts classes would see an uptick in participants.

    I think the real question is how would they choose to enforce it? If it’s confiscation through force, then yeah, civil war. If it’s through a national gun buy back, then expect many guns to just “disappear,” or become “lost,” or just massive non-compliance.

    The other question is, would any state choose to leave the union over this? Texas, maybe? If one state leaves, will others follow?

  59. The strategy seems clear, indoctrinate children into believing that guns belong to the state, and after several generations you have adults that will see the 2A as outdated and obsolete.

  60. The government cannot take away that which is not its to give. RKBA is natural and God-given. Regardless of a popular vote; the population could overwhelmingly pass a law criminalizing logic and it’s use (which many people already do voluntarily), however logic wasn’t given to us by the gov’t or other people. Just like the RKBA

    • Sounds good on paper, but there is a percentage of people here who think the government has the right to dictate your health care decisions, so far as to mandate medical procedures. That being said, my opinion is that the concept of individual freedom is fading, and that the majority of gun owners will comply with whatever action the government takes, whether technically legal or not.

      • So what is the better route having Greed Monger Insurance Companies dictate your health care decisions as they do today by restricting what doctors you can see and then insult of insults having a cap on your drug coverage. I’d rather have National Health Care because 300 million Americans would not go bankrupt when they needed health care they cannot afford and do not get because we still do not have full National Health Care Coverage. Go Bernie, crush the Republican prostitutes of the Drug Industry, Socialism all the way like the rest of the civilized world has had for over 100 years. Its time to stop shitting in the Out House and move into a 21st Century National Health Care System.

        • Different issue. A persons right to make their own decisions on medical risk taking is a basic human right, no insurance company or government can usurp this right.

  61. I think maybe finally we as a nation could get over this myth that the courts are the ultimate interpreters of the law. Because that is honestly pretty stupid.

  62. Well, when the government stops recognizing that right people who do will stop recognizing the government.

  63. I live in FL and unfortunately, last year I lost all of my guns in a boating accident. Some friends and family were going to take the “arsenal” out and enjoy some 2A, but stormy seas arose and it only took one rogue wave and bam! Look up “rogue waves”, happens all the time down here.

  64. Hmmm…. repeal of the 2nd Amendment. An interesting point of discussion. Truly, a grabber’s wet dream, but I digress.

    Would I comply? No. Would some? Definitely.

    …wait. What was it… Some guy…the kind of guy you’d easily forget…. trying to remember his name…. said something a few years back….might have some meaning…..

    Now I remember!

    As the late Charlton Heston so eloquently stated back in 2000 …”From my cold, dead hands.”

Comments are closed.