Shall not be infringed?

What if our founding fathers were pro gun control, and the second amendment read something like…

" The people shall have the right to a safe, gun free country, without the immediate threat and danger of a gun toting society, and furthermore, this right shall not be infringed"

…would you accept the “shall not be infringed” part, or would you fight for your right to bear arms, therefore challenging the second amendment.

Please do not let your initial response be an attack, as I am 100% pro 2A

This post is to raise consciousness and/or awareness to the full spectrum of the debate, and in the hopes of bringing people together when debating this topic, in that we can begin to understand one anothers’ views and/or concerns.

The simpler the answer, the better

This post is referring to civilian population, NOT MILITARY OF COURSE.


Our rights are more of a limitation of what the government can do. Making the country “safe, and gun free” is trying to make the government force behavior on everyone. Not the same.

Just like freedom of speech does not mean all speech must be ‘nice’.


It is a social and/or cultural right

1 Like

Let’s just say it was deemed a “fundamental human right”

Right to an adequate standard of living

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to navigationJump to search

Freedom from Want of painter Norman Rockwell of 1943

The right to an adequate standard of living is a fundamental human right. It is part of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights that was accepted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on December 10, 1948.[1]

Furthermore, it has been written down in article 11 of the United Nations’ International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.

The predecessor of this right, the Freedom from Want , is one of the Four Freedoms that American President Franklin D. Roosevelt spoke out at his State of the Union of January 6, 1941. According to Roosevelt it is a right every human being everywhere in the world should have. In his speech Roosevelt described his third right as follows:[2][3]

1 Like

…So to get back to the question, would you challenge the Second Amendment?

1 Like

The way I am reading your post there would be nothing to challenge as only criminals would have guns. We would look a lot more like England the very country we fought to gain our freedoms.


Yes, criminals would have guns, as they do now, but the option to challenge the Second Amendment would remain…would you?


I cant answer that question as our whole way of life would be different. We would not be brought up with firearms and therefor would not have a desire to own one as it would be against the law. In your scenario no one but criminals would have a desire to have one.

edited to add

Or those who would wish to overthrow the government much like the original war of independence.


A “right to a standard of living” is not the same as a right. Not sure how else to answer you. Having the right to have a gun does not mean you are perfectly safe.

How is “safe, gun free country, without the immediate threat and danger of a gun toting society” even defined? Would this also make cars illegal as well, as they are a cause of safety issues.

I think I see where you are coming from with this, but rights don’t determine outcomes. How would your hypothetical 2A be enforced, without guns? :grinning:


We would always have the desire to protect ourselves though, and if firearms are prevalent…

1 Like

But they would not be prevalent as you already stated in your 2A they would be illegal. We would not have a gun trade, we would not have guns for hunting, we would not have gun manufactures we would not have gun stores, Other than the military (or secret police) there would be a very small illegal gun market.


^ v

I would fight for my right to bear arms.


This right here in your original post says there will be no guns.

1 Like

So there was no alcohol during the alcohol prohibition? of course there was, in abundance…which coincidentally lead to the end of the alcohol prohibition. Same thing with cocaine, marijuana, etc…it’s illegal and it’s everywhere. Firearms would be too.


Your comparing apples to oranges. Prohibition was taking away something that was already there. In your post you wrote the bill of rights from day 1 as not having any rights to bear arms so you can not fight for a right you did not have.

Now you could try to get an amendment (like prohibition) passed to give you that right, but you could not “fight” for a right you do not have. You would be fighting to be granted that right.

Would I fight for that? I would like to say yes but if I had been brought up in that world where I never had the right to begin with it is hard to say as our society as a whole would be different.


Fair enough


Thank you for a very thought provoking post. It made me sit down and think about it.


@Ben_Blanc looking at what the framers had just finished, shows the state of what they found to be rights. It shows the spirit of free men and women. We see your scenario actually played out in nations that don’t have such freedoms, now and throughout history. Spartans, William Wallace, etc. The human spirit, and belief in rights “Endowed by our creator” always rise to the surface. Sic Semper Evello Mortem Tyrannis.


Your post is thought provoking, but as the replies indicate…completely incomprehensible to all of us Americans. ‘Without natural rights’ is and will never be an option with or without war. American citizens with any and all firearms is the only thing at this point in history keeping us from the next Civil war or a Revolution. The government knows they are outnumbered and outgunned.


Worded this way it says that the right to a gun free country shall not be infringed.

Also I disagree that a gun toting society is an immediate threat or danger.