If Gun Confiscation Was Legally Passed and Upheld by the Court...

I can't say I agree with "confiscation". I don't think it's necessary. Simply ban the sale, and any type of transfer, of these weapons, weapon parts and ammunition. Ban also carrying, transporting or displaying these weapons unless permanently disabled. And, of course, offer a voluntary buy-back program.

It will be slower, but more palatable. And easier to pass in Congress.

 

if you illegally own a machine gun and the government finds out, what happens today?

 

As long as we are going with hypotheticals, the only way that would happen would be if the left had control of the SCOTUS, they don't and won't for a very long time. Again hypothetical, if the aforementioned scenario ever happened, because of the left's penchant for unscrupulous politics, my answer is hell no. All of the things that keep the left up at night would come to pass in the most expeditious way.

 

so the government can't confiscate machine guns if they find out someone has them illegally, think this is already settled law

 

Apples & oranges here, the original question was about all guns and my answer is still the same.

 

Ignoring the first question that you skipped — you would be surprised with what “orders” people will follow.
There are several studies to back this up but I know you won’t bother reading them so I won’t waste my time.

 

You obviously have never been in the military. The troops won't be marching on their fellow citizens. I bet I could find studies to dispute your studies, if they actually exist.
If any civilians got shot during your confiscation the blow back would be like an atom bomb.

 

I do not support confiscation...
Maybe you are replying to the wrong poster.

I support background checks on non-FFL sales and insurance requirements.

The most famous experiment is called the Milgram experiment.
Feel free to disprove it. I can cite numerous more current ones if you would like.

 

Tyrannical means tyrannical. A government who takes away rights of individuals because they don't want them to have those rights because it interferes with their sense of power and control is tyranny. It's not rocket science. You seem to believe that if it is something you approve of it is not tyrannical. That's not how it works.

The majority who favor a ban on assault weapons do not understand what an assault weapon is. It requires magnitudes more than Sen. Feinstein looking through catalogs and saying 'that looks like a bad assault weapon to me', which is how the first assault weapon ban got implemented.

 

SCOTUS can't swing to far to the left or right or it becomes irrelevant and presidents begin talking about court-packing schemes. I will give you a scenario that can easily come to pass: Democrats regain the Presidency and the Senate (by one vote), and hold the House. After several mass shootings and GOP filibusters, they vote to abolish the filibuster, and pass a mandatory assault weapon buy-back program. SCOTUS then rules that assault weapons belong in the category of weapons too dangerous for civilians to own and the law is upheld.

It's interesting that conservatives (and I'm assuming you are one) openly admit they will pick and choose which SCOTUS decisions they'll follow. Again, I would do the same (if SCOTUS somehow brought back slavery, I would never accept it as lawful). But then, I don't pretend to worship the Constitution. Or the cops. Or law and order.

 

Of course it's not apples and oranges. Many weapons are illegal for civilians to own, and the government WILL come and confiscate them if they suspect someone has illegal weapons. Adding assault weapons to that category won't change anything, except to the gun fetishists and nut jobs, and we don't let those people dictate how the rest of us live.

 

You're assuming that simply because the Court says so that it is true. That's a mistake.

 

Not if the individuals elected the candidates precisely for the purpose of removing those guns.

I happen to believe that if the people in government do the things for which they are elected, that is not tyrannical. Guns are, at a minimum, one of the top three issues for which people will be voting in the next elections.

Doesn't matter. They have a very good idea of what type of weapons they want banned.

If in doubt... ban! Then have gun nuts present justification as to why some particular weapon should be exempted. Leave them the burden. Err on the side of caution. Favor saving lives over minutia.

 

How could it be upheld when it is unconstitutional?

 

Not according to the Supreme Court.

 

Do it and find out.

 

I am not sure what planet you live on, but the Supreme Court has upheld the 2nd Amendment several times...

• United States v. Cruikshank (1875)
• Presser v. Illinois (1886)
• United States v. Miller (1939)
• United States v. Lopez (1992)
• District of Columbia v. Heller (200
• McDonald v. Chicago (2010)

 

No

We would likely create "sanctuary city" laws.

These laws would nullify the wishes of the Federal Government. There is already precedent in the courts for this, so there really isn't anything Progressives/Communists could do.

Buuuut, this is a pipe dream, you are never going to get this passed and in fact, this comment from Beto is likely going to turn a lot of voters away from the Progressives/Communists

 

Citing Supreme Court cases and reading them are completely different things.

"Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose."
DoC v Heller​

 

Which means I can’t use mustard gas to poison my neighbors dog. Home defense and keeping the government in check with an assault rifle is perfectly legitimate.

 

Every one of them upheld the 2nd Amendment. Now what?

 

None of this is possible unless you amend the constitution. You do not have anywhere near enough support to do that.

 

The constitution prevents this from happening. Any restriction of a constitutional right must pass strict scrutiny. Forcing someone to justify why they should be able to exercise a right is unconstitutional on its face, and violates over a century of case precedent.

 

You should have kept reading.........

What you propose directly violates the constitution and settled case law. You can’t implement what you want without amending the constitution.

 

No, you just have to recapture control of government, do away with the filibuster, and change the number of Court justices. And you only need majority support to do all that.