See, your founding fathers were smarter than you. Because they knew that what is right for the people today will not necessarily be right for the people tomorrow, they allowed for the constitution to be amended. If one day the majority wants a ban on guns, you will have to obey - or leave for Africa.
This will be a true test of democracy. I can't imagine it being pretty, but if we reach a point where there really are so few people and so few politicians willing to argue for gun rights, imagine how few will actually actively resist if it does happen... I say the casualties will be minimal and the number of violent deaths will only decline from a temporary high in the wake of such an amendment.
Something about the Bill of Rights though, people seem to like it.
Yes they were smart. (smarter than me... I'll let history decide that one)
If they thought the Second Amendment wouldn't be important in 50 years, they could have instituted the provision in a more easily repealed fashion.
It's much easier to repeal a law than it is to rewrite an amendment.
Why make it the second amendment then if its so unimportant.
The only more important in the eyes of the founders than the right to defend oneself, was the right to express one's opinions (especially if they happen to oppose the sitting government).
Why wouldn't we change an amendment? We have done so in the past. To think it can't happen again is just silly. We decide what is important, not some founding fathers that haven't been alive for 200 years. It makes the nation seem less like a cult and more like something we're a real part of.
Our military consists more than 1 million people, but less than 2.
We have over 80 million gun owning families. Most of whom live in densely populated areas.
The political blowback from bombing one suberb would be more than our gov't could endure.
They would have to, using soldiers on the ground, go house to house to remove firearms.
The logistical implications of having that kind of military presence on US soil are insurmountable.
LOL. I wasn't suggesting that the government would go house-to-house to remove firearms. Of course that would be impractical.
I was suggesting that if you tried to stage a serious rebellion against government authority, and a whole city decided to rebel or something, they could easily crush it with sheer force. Did the government or the rebels win the Civil War? The government won back then, just due to being more industrialized and efficient, despite the rebels having half the US and some brilliant military commanders on their side. Do you think they would have more trouble now than they did back then? They could just use an EMP and make it REALLY easy to win, because then they would have all the technology and information on their side. Passion does not make up for a strategic disadvantage like that. And I'm just talking about the weapons that we KNOW of.
Before you use the British as an example, let me remind you that they had the disadvantage of having to cross the Atlantic Ocean in order to do anything.
There's no need to go house-to-house to remove firearms, because if they were rebelling, they would be out in the streets with their guns prepared to shoot at any soldiers that appeared. If the citizens aren't rebelling, there's no practical reason to try and take firearms away from them in the first place. In fact, leaving the guns in place benefits them at present, because it pacifies the NRA crowd that clings to them.
Now you're talking about a subset, minority of gun-owners going against the will of the people in this hypothetical future. We could call them anarchists, but anarchy is so early 20th century. We probably wouldn't call them terrorists, because that too will be out of style. We should come up with a new word for these usurpers that strike down their own countrymen from the shadows. I bet they wouldn't be looked upon fondly at all by the population.