[zaroth]

I think there’s a sizable part of the population which believes very strongly that what would come after gun confiscation is worth fighting a war to prevent.

And you can’t fight that war if you aren’t armed for it. So it’s a do or die / back up against the wall proposition at that point.

Men rise up in violence all the time to protect what is sacred to them. “Change one law” is I think not an accurate depiction of the premise I was responding to - which was repeal of the 2nd amendment and large scale gun confiscation.

[direfungasaur]

With respect to the 'change one law' phrasing - I don't think a repeal of the 2nd immediately leads to confiscation. It only removes the federal restrictions, but several state constitutions have the right explicitly enshrined. Pennsylvania is a good example, but I believe there are others. Confiscation would probably require not only an appeal of the 2nd, but also repeal of any state laws as well. I tend to believe that would result a slow, piecemeal process where individual states go through confiscation one by one.

That said, your point can certainly stand at a state level. I still think how the process is managed impacts the broader social response. An approach that attempted to leave bolt-action/small capacity shotguns and files in place may be received differently than a wholesale ban. An approach that only eliminated 'assault weapons' but left handguns would have a different impact than an approach that required both to be turned-in. There's lots of ways to drive a confiscation, with lesser or greater outcomes on how people resist, I would think.