(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3899913&forum_id=2#35456371)

https://i.imgur.com/pwVRwM5.jpg

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3899913&forum_id=2#35456447)

https://kingofthehillreviews.files.wordpress.com/2014/08/twig-boy.png

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3899913&forum_id=2#35461699)

Oh wait ...

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3899913&forum_id=2#35459779)

Gun ownership is a far more fundamental right utilized by many more people in red states. There was no constitutional amendment guaranteeing slavery. The second amendment, second only after speech and religion (also under attack by libs), exists as part of the most basic list known as the bill of rights.

In this case, the blood would be on the hands of the libs, not the people fighting for one of the most fundamental rights in our constitution.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3899913&forum_id=2#35458548)

Utilized how? The vast majority of gun use is recreational. People won't die for that.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3899913&forum_id=2#35459688)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3899913&forum_id=2#35459710)

b. It's the second amendment only by accident of the original first and second amendments failing to pass.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3899913&forum_id=2#35459880)

So what's your theory on it being "second after only speech and religion," then? Please remember it was so important the Supreme Court only incorporated it in 2010.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3899913&forum_id=2#35460113)

I know multiple gun owners whose views on ownership and/or gun control have majorly shifted in the last six months thanks to Vegas and Parkland.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3899913&forum_id=2#35460374)

GTFO you don’t know what you’re talking about - stop speculating about what most gun owners would do based on a couple of your neck beard friends ready to bend over without a moment’s hesitation.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3899913&forum_id=2#35460530)

Tangentially, I also have two acquaintances on the left who are now a lot less gung ho about gun control under Trump; one even bought a gun for the first time, after saying after Newtown that he would never own a gun.

I think a lot more people than you think hold fairly strongly to "a gun a day keeps tyranny away" or something like.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3899913&forum_id=2#35461566)

Just responded to the hypothetical of what would happen if one were implemented.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3899913&forum_id=2#35460669)

link to survey indicating this?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3899913&forum_id=2#35462559)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3899913&forum_id=2#35459890)

Also, prisons provide good jobs in ARE country.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3899913&forum_id=2#35460251)

By the way, fun historical fact. The UK had a massive pickpocketing problem so they came up with a brilliant idea: hang all people caught pickpocketing regardless of age. You get caught? Straight to the gallows. The problem was that no one was willing to convict anyone of pickpocketing anymore so the problem actually got worse.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3899913&forum_id=2#35461007)

who would be on the other side? are Obama and Chuck Schumer going to hire Prussian mercenaries?

because conservative white men have a monopoly on organized violence in this country. from the Marine corps to local sheriffs, the people you'd need to call are NRA.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3899913&forum_id=2#35460341)

27 states have >40% gun ownership, and ten have >50%. Assuming only half of those violently resist (and that's a huge low-ball), that's a massive insurgency. Add in the fact that those most inclined and capable of resistance are military/vets/cops, and the fact that many state and local (especially rural) authorities would resist, and it's not logistically feasible.

It'd take the military to go remove guns from places like Montana and Wyoming (god knows the local police will be resisting), and even then, they'd take casualties. If fucking al-Qaeda was giving us problems in Iraq with lower numbers and resources, this would be virtually unwinnable unless the government were willing to create a wasteland and bomb any suspected resistance into oblivion. Only way that happens is if there's enough public support (in which case there will likely have already been a civil war to create that great a schism between rural/urban) or if there's a madman in charge (in which case there is revolt everywhere and now instead of an insurgency comprising 15-25% of the population, there is now an open revolt comprising more than half the population).

It's very likely some states would consider secession, but that would really only happen with military support. If the military either deserted, joined state national guard instead, or refused to enforce the ban in large numbers, secession would likely happen in places like Montana and Wyoming. If not, then there'd just be a huge insurgency. Without secession, it's likely that the federal government would try to replace state authorities that resist. This would create a leadership network among those left alive, and the resistance would grow. Martial law would be declared. No good resolution. War with outside actors like Russia is likely, and the federal government may be able to use that to keep urban centers in line. Either way, it'd be the end of the U.S. as we know it for awhile.

In short, yeah, there'd be civil war.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3899913&forum_id=2#35461430)