Theoretical question

[donttread]

A President could not do so unless the nation was in a state of civil war. Executive orders do not extend to disregarding the second amendment unless a state of war exists.

But then again they disregard other parts of the Constitution every day.

[jigglepete]

I suppose anything could happen theoretically, but this? Even theoretically? Nope.

[bulletbob]

A President could not do so unless the nation was in a state of civil war. Executive orders do not extend to disregarding the second amendment unless a state of war exists.

its A
Theoretical question

[Peter1469]

It won't happen because of math.

At the height of the Iraqi insurrection there were 40,000 or so insurgents which gave the American military a run for our money.

Let's say that 1% of American gun owners decided to become insurgents in the event of a confiscation. So that begs the question: How many Americans own guns?

Well the Guardian says just 3% of Americans own guns:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...-133m-firearms

I think that is a hilarious number but let's just go with it. 3% of the American population of roughly 329M:

https://www.worldometers.info/world-...us-population/

Again let's say 1% of gun owners take up arms. That's 1% of 3% of 329M.

Let's do the math.

3% of 329M is 9.87M.

1% of 9.87M is 98,700.

Now I think these numbers are extremely low but let's just say nearly 100,000 Americans decide to take up arms against the U.S. Government in the event of a confiscation on American soil.

It would make the Iraqi insurgency look like an episode of Romper Room and that is only if the American military decided to fight against American citizens on American soil.

Not going to happen. Logistically impossible.

Right. If the government ever gave that order it would be its death sentence.

[Tahuyaman]

A President could not do so unless the nation was in a state of civil war. Executive orders do not extend to disregarding the second amendment unless a state of war exists.

A president can’t do it under any conditions.

[bulletbob]

A president can’t do it under any conditions.

Im not talking actual laws etc bith theroy if it did happen what if

[Peter1469]

A president can’t do it under any conditions.

They probably could if he declared martial law. However, the military would probably arrest him and call for new elections.

[Chris]

Won't happen because they know they'd never get re-elected and re-election is what politics is about.

[Peter1469]

Won't happen because they know they'd never get re-elected and re-election is what politics is about.

There are no elections during martial law.

[midcan5]

The irony here is it was a republican who made an effort to manage the proliferation of guns. Some mass killers even noticed, hear one below.


"More Americans Killed by Guns Since 1968 Than in All U.S. Wars — Combined"*

"Eric manufactured three more pipe bombs: the Charlie batch. Then he halted production until December. What he needed was guns. And that was becoming a problem.

Eric had been looking into the Brady Bill. Congress had passed the law restricting the purchase of most popular semiautomatic machine guns in 1993. A federal system of instant background checks would soon go into effect. Eric was going to have a hard time getting around that.

"Fu-ck you Brady!" Eric wrote in his journal. All he wanted was a couple of guns - "and thanks to your $#@!ing bill I will probably not get any!" He wanted them only for personal protection, he joked: "Its not like I'm some psycho who would go on a shooting spree. $#@!ers."

Eric frequently made his research do double duty for both schoolwork and his master plan. He wrote up a short research assignment on the Brady Bill that week. It was a good idea in theory, he said, aside from the loopholes. The biggest problem was that checks applied only to licensed dealers, not private dealers. So two-thirds of the licensed dealers had just gone private. "The FBI just shot themselves in the foot," he concluded."

Eric was rational about his firepower. "As of this date I have enough explosives to kill about 100 people," he wrote. With axes, bayonets, and assorted blades, he could maybe take out ten more. That was as far as hand to-hand combat would get him. A hundred and ten people. "that just isn't enough!"

"Guns!" the entry concluded. "I need guns! Give me some $#@!ing firearms! " p.280 'Columbine' by Dave Cullen


"The shooter is almost always male. Of the past 129 mass shootings in the United States, all but three have been men. The shooter is socially alienated, and he can’t get laid. Every time you scratch the surface of the latest mass killing, in a movie theatre, a school, the streets of Paris or an abortion clinic, you find the weaponised loser. From Jihadi John of ISIS to Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris at Columbine, these men are invariably stuck in the emotional life of an adolescent. They always struggle with self-esteem – especially regarding women – and sometimes they give up entirely on the possibility of amorous fulfilment. There are different levels of tactical coordination, different ostensible grievances and different access to firearms, but the psyche beneath is invariably the same."

https://aeon.co/essays/humiliation-a...mass-shootings




* https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/la...mbined-n807156