Well, he wanted to know

So on Huffington Post some State Representative from Massachusetts named Paul Heroux asked the following questions in an article called "What if the Second Amendment were Repealed?"

Well:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-heroux/what-if-the-second-amendm_b_9121822.html

 This is a thought experiment; a hypothetical. There are no right or wrong answers.

•What would you do if all of the requirements of Article V of the Constitution were met and the Second Amendment was repealed?

I would ignore the conclusion.  I have no intention to relinquish my arms.  What those who seek such  an outcome fail to understand is that the Second Amendment does not grant any right, it merely asserts that the natural and pre-existing right shall not be infringed.  Note:  It does not say “The people have the right…”. IT assumes the right – “The right of the people…”  So repeal immediately changes nothing, until someone takes that as a cue to infringe upon this natural right that was accepted to exist prior to the US Constitution. The founders clearly accepted that this was not a right to grant, but a right to protect, a right as sacrosanct as any other right protected by our Constitution.

Should some choose to infringe on it - then there will be trouble.

•What would you do if the Second Amendment was effectively repealed by a US Supreme Court ruling that the right to bear arms does apply to an individual, but only individuals in a militia?

I would ignore it.  I have no intention to relinquish my arms and do not recognize SCOTUS authority to do so as what has become a political arm for partisan policy.  Again, this right predates the US and SCOTUS so no institution created by that Constitution has a right to infringe upon it.

•If the defense of the Second Amendment rests in reference to the Constitution as it stands now, what argument would you use if the Constitution was changed to no longer protect the individual right to bear arms?

None – until someone tried to infringe on it.  I have learned, lo these many years, not to argue with fools or small children and, in this case, both apply.  There is no argument to be made that can persuade those who would take our rights.  So then my argument would come from my disobedience and, if necessary, the barrel of a gun and my timely demise.  The Second Amendment was meant to protect just that right, because that is what was needed to preserve a free state.  

I have no intention of letting anyone take my guns.

•As a law abiding gun owner, would you give up your guns?

No – if guns are outlawed, then only outlaws will have guns.  So I will be an outlaw.

•What do you think would happen to violent crime rates, accidental shootings and suicides?

I suspect violent crime would increase to some extent, since those who commit it – even now – are armed unlawfully.  No change you have alluded to would change their status as outlaws, only the status of those who would fail to comply with the NEW dictate. And those who did comply would change from citizens to victims.

Accidental shootings have been decreasing because people can train themselves and others. The unintended consequences of this foolish notion would likely be to increase them because such law would limit the amount of gun safety training one could engage in without potential consequence.

I suspect no real difference in overall suicides – only a potential change in the means used.

•Would you follow the new law of the land that was legitimately established, just as laws allowing the possession of a firearm have been legitimately established?

No – because no law can truly deny my right to protect myself and my family.  The law did not establish that right – it merely protected it from infringement. If the law that protects it is repealed or replaced, the right still stands.

Not sure what you wanted to hear, but I am too old to start living on bended knee. I do not have enough left that I really need to do, to be cowed into a submissive state.