StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Let us say that during reconstruction after the civil war there are a few widespread insurrections in the south targeting blacks, Northerners, US army troops and people they see as collaborators, though without the organization, leadership, supplies or manpower to face down the US military. Despite being bloody and killing thousand of people, these rebellions are contained. Eventually this leads to a debate in congress which eventually culminates in a 16th amendment around 1871 which nullifies the 2nd Amendment, which allows the US government to disarm people in the south in "hotbeds of rebellion" and put restrictions on the sale and manufacture.

How would this effect US politics?

Zor

I think the answer to this question depends on how much the power of the US Government has been constrained by the threat of armed rebellion. In other words, did having an armed population over the last 150 years act as a check and balance against the government or not?

I have a sneaking suspicion that stopping local populations from just making their own firearms would be prohibitively difficult in the mid-19th century, honestly.

Your wording is weird and vague so I can't actually determine what this supposed amendment would be. Does it still allow you to "keep and bear arms" but with the word restrictions thrown in and "can be revoked in times of emergency" (nation-wide or only in the former Confederate States?) or is it a full repeal and there's no explicit right to bear arms in the Constitution or what?

RogueIce wrote:Your wording is weird and vague so I can't actually determine what this supposed amendment would be. Does it still allow you to "keep and bear arms" but with the word restrictions thrown in and "can be revoked in times of emergency" (nation-wide or only in the former Confederate States?) or is it a full repeal and there's no explicit right to bear arms in the Constitution or what?

It's a full repeal.

Zor

Simon_Jester wrote:I have a sneaking suspicion that stopping local populations from just making their own firearms would be prohibitively difficult in the mid-19th century, honestly.

Hell, even the present day Chinese government has trouble with that from what I understand.

I imagine much of the history is unchanged, except now with the 2nd Amendment also a popular "bring it back!" talking point. While it has protected the use of firearms it did not create the love of them, and much of America enjoys its rifles and shotguns for the recreational joys of hunting dumb animals in the woods as some kind of ritualized ego boost and occasional source of delicious steaks and sausages.

Because that's also the demographic that likes to buy and own other kinds of firearms, you'll still have people fighting over gun rights even if there's some small decrease in the number of idiotic and unnecessary weapons on the market. The Government may have more control over the things you see leaking into the population via gun shows, but you can still fuck up a school with a perfectly legal and reasonable shotgun. You're not banning firearms just by removing the 2nd Amendment, you're just saying that the federal government can make laws prohibiting the personal ownership of them... which they already can, just with more hangups and hoops.

Such a change wouldn't even matter until sometime past the modern era when we can effectively police our borders and stop (or have a good chance of stopping) the influx of things we do not want. Otherwise you'll just see guns coming across borders and ending up in criminal hands, which are really the only people who are dangerous with them anyway, so the whole debate loops back around. The "good guy with a gun" is over-hyped but the 2nd and even gun ownership in general is not the problem.