PDA

View Full Version : What happens if Guns are banned?


Red123H
October 18, 2008, 06:15 PM
Hi, I am asking a straightforward question. Lets pretend that our next president were to place a ban on handguns, or all guns.

What exactly happens? What does it mean?

Does the government just take guns we already own from us? Do we get money based upon the retail value for them? Will there be a date that we must turn them in, before looking at criminal charges?

Or does it mean we simply can't buy anymore? Do we get to keep what we have?

I am confused as to what a ban on guns really means.

I hope someone can try to explain this straightforward without straying from the main question.

fisherman66
October 18, 2008, 06:26 PM
I don't have any guns. Do you have any guns?

MrNiceGuy
October 18, 2008, 06:56 PM
"i swear officer, they were all stolen LAST NIGHT!"

Jager78
October 18, 2008, 07:05 PM
What happens if all guns are banned?
Increase in home invasions, increase in muggings, increase in carjackings, increase in more violent crimes period, increase in deer populations resulting in more highway accidents. You get the picture.

The criminals will have a hayday and law bidding Americans will suffer.

LightningJoe
October 18, 2008, 07:08 PM
A President might conceivably ban guns with an executive order, but not likely. Congress would be the organ of government that would create a ban on guns.


Would they compensate you for your gun? I wouldn't think so, no. That would take billions of dollars. We've got hundreds of millions of guns. Even if they just banned handguns, to pay for them all would be like bailing out Wall Street*.


If they don't want your vote, why would they pay you for your gun?



*Yes yes. It's called hyperbole.

teeroux
October 18, 2008, 07:10 PM
I'm sure there will be those who will give em up, those who will hide em, and those few (but not enough) who will fight.

heyduke
October 18, 2008, 07:21 PM
It will be time for open revolution.

JWT
October 18, 2008, 07:37 PM
It will be similar to Prohibition with the Feds spending lot of time and money trying to enforce a law that would be immensly unpopular and perhaps almost impossible to 'police'.

Tom2
October 18, 2008, 08:09 PM
You might bury them all and wait for a better day, but I don't see that coming along in any place that they have banned them. And if they are all hidden under the wood pile, what do you use to protect your home? A samurai sword replica or a Louisville Slugger? Or a thousand dollar alarm system with a panic button to alert the police to come clean up the mess?

K-Minus
October 18, 2008, 08:32 PM
If they somehow managed to take my guns(Not without a fight)I would
just become a ninja and booby trap my yard.

Waterengineer
October 18, 2008, 08:34 PM
One of the beautiful things about government ins the USA is that it grinds slowly.

NO president, even if it the what's his name for Chi-town, will not be able to get a ban.

BUT, what we all need to be aware of is incrementalism - slowly but surely tearing away the fabric of the laws enacted to protect second amendment rights. i.e., laws and regulations that begin to limit the use or ownership of said arms for future gemerations and MAY, one day create the silliness that the UK and Austrailia ended up with.

It was apathy and contentment that allowed the gun crontro;s to grab hold in those countries.

I know someone will flame me for this view - but my point is that we need to be ever watching for the corroding thread of creeping incrementalism. Then our rights are protected. Also, we here in the good ol' USA have a different relationship and culture with guns than in any other union in the world.

One more time. An outright ban is not in the cards. It is the chipping away at the corners of our rights that we need to protect.

MrNiceGuy
October 18, 2008, 08:37 PM
when the guns are gone, people will either go back to using knives and arrows, or they'll move up to explosives.

people think taking away guns will take away violence. well wait till they try to outlaw anything pointy or flammable and murders resort to blunt objects and fists

murderers kill people, not guns.
eliminating guns will not eliminate murders, violence, or crime

P99AS9
October 18, 2008, 08:40 PM
I don't have any guns. Do you have any guns?

+1 :p

If they somehow managed to take my guns(Not without a fight)I would
just become a ninja and booby trap my yard.

Hmmmm....quite an interesting decision :p

avmech
October 18, 2008, 08:40 PM
I lost mine in a boating accident......................

Kreyzhorse
October 18, 2008, 08:42 PM
Does the government just take guns we already own from us? Do we get money based upon the retail value for them? Will there be a date that we must turn them in, before looking at criminal charges?

Or does it mean we simply can't buy anymore? Do we get to keep what we have?

I'm not worried that an all out "ban" will happen. What I see currently is a slow ban on gun ownership. Ban assault weapons, ban semi-autos, ban military style sniper weapons (read that "deer rifles"), ban junk guns (pretty vague eh?), ban "cop killer" ammo, ban military ammo (30.06, .308, 45-75, .45acp, ect.) and whatever other ban targets I've missed. In addition to the bans, I see the access to ammo being made more difficult through serialization and tracking as well as the additional cost associated with it.

Kind of a two headed attack that would slowly eat away at gun rights instead of an over night ban.

Bud Helms
October 18, 2008, 08:43 PM
Red123H, welcome to TFL.

In answer to your question, no one knows. It's never happened here. It would depend on the specifics of the ban, wouldn't you think? More than one version of a ban is possible. But ... with all the millions of gun owners, it would be a mighty task to collect them all.

Even Australia has issued an amnesty for those who kept illegal weapons the first time around.

Redneck_Riot
October 18, 2008, 09:08 PM
To pass a Ban of Firearms, the Supreme court ruling that the 2nd Ammendment guarantees an individual right to bear arms would have to be overturned. the only way that this could happen is by a discovery based on new evidence. Then an Appeal could be filed to the Supreme Court and the ruling could then be revisited.

such and appeal IMHO is not likely, in order for the Supreme Court to accept it there must be something discovered that has not been included in the original precedings

the second Ammendment has been clarified as a individual right by a decision of 5-4 it passed by the narrowest of margins but nevertheless it is a victory in our corner and one of monumental importance.

The government will never outright confiscate firearms from its citizens, to do so the congress would have to overturn the 2nd ammendment with a 3/4 majority vote. I do not believe regardless of party that this is a possibilty in my lifetime.

But for a moment lets just say that door to door confiscation were approved, Whom would the government appoint to carry out this order?

I served in the ARMYfor 4 years as a RANGER none of my brothers would take up arms against their own citizens or families.

the police? most Law enforcement officers have prior military service backgrounds so I dismiss this as well.

Our government will never risk a civil war again there will always be guns in America, a outright ban on semi automatics that resemble or are the same weapons used by military and law enforcement will most likely be the next target and many Americans will not object to this especially urban Americans who are not educated and have not grown up around guns.

who uses an AR 15 style rifle for deer hunting? this is how our government will ban semi automatics.

Bud Helms
October 18, 2008, 09:10 PM
Thanks very much for the commentary, Ohio Rusty. You will notice your post has been deleted. That is because it contains partisan political content.

General Discussion is temporarily hosting political and legal topics until the new L&CR forum has been thoroughly tested. But no post using a candidate's or political party's name is permitted.

HKCHEF
October 18, 2008, 10:01 PM
This will never happen, don't waste your time being paranoid.

Follow the money trail, there is more money and jobs to be made off of allowing gun ownership.

rogertc1
October 18, 2008, 11:10 PM
But no post using a candidate's or political party's name is permitted.
:eek:

Silver Bullet
October 18, 2008, 11:10 PM
First things first. Make sure you vote.

rogertc1
October 18, 2008, 11:12 PM
The majority in the House and Senate will probably be in control of any bans as will the elected president if in majority. Thus it is pretty hopeless.

But no post using a candidate's or political party's name is permitted.

Swampghost
October 18, 2008, 11:26 PM
It would work as well as Prohibition and "The War on Drugs".

I might have to give up recent purchases which are few and the rest that were inherited and old swap-meet deals would simply cease to exsist.

tranks
October 18, 2008, 11:42 PM
I lost mine in a boating accident......................

thats too bad.... funny thing happened to mine. they sprung legs and ran away. i chased after them but i couldn't catch up. last time i saw them, they were going north on Broadway. you should go look over there...

stevelyn
October 18, 2008, 11:44 PM
I'll adopt Mike Vanderboegh's answer to that question.

fbrown333@suddenlink
October 18, 2008, 11:53 PM
It's kinda like putting a frog in a hot frying pan (gun ban) he will jump right out (us), but if you put him in a cold pan and turn the heat up slowly he will sit there and eventualy cook. I forget who said that but it's true. They will chip away at our rights a little at a time until we have none and before we realize it so stay alert!!!

sikasambared
October 19, 2008, 12:16 AM
This is a bit of a depressing thread for me. I guess you will have all heard the
unreasonable ligislation introduced in Australia in 1997.

Now someone asked, how they would enforce it? Well in Australia, they have a great solution to this. They don't.

Anyone who is honest has to jump through all the hoops for a bolt action rifle or single barrelled shotgun. Put up with quite impolite treatment at the police station (the implication being that you are a borderline criminal and they are just waiting to pin something on you). And these guys don't even know their own laws. It took me a lot of trouble at the police counter to get them to process my application in the way the central firearms cell in the state capital said they should -- and give me all my entitlements. This was not an easy thing to do -- standing up to the police in their own station.
It really is like that at the local police stations.

The average public hates gun owners with a passion. The prime minister said he hated guns, and him and the rest made it pretty clear they were not keen on the owners either.

In Australia, despite the size of the country, there is very little public land you can hunt on. In my state, exactly none. Most people over the years who have wanted to hunt have found they could not. They have dropped out. Now little of the population make a rural living, and have little access to land. They don't grow their own food animals and they don't hunt them. They are not vegetarians -- but they hate the idea that someone might get satisfaction from procuring meat for the table for them selves. They have no affinity with gun owners and hunters, because they have no opportunity to develop one. So the hunter and gun owner are very poorly thought of indeed, and are treated that way by police and the general public. Just over the Tasman in NZ, the culture is totally different (and they have lots of public land to hunt on).

Now, while gun owners are lambasted at every opportunity little is done to curb illegal gun ownership -- by the really dangerous types. 80 % of crime committed with firearms is committed with illegal firearms or by people not licensed to have them. There is a veritable flood of pistols into the country through the same channels as drugs. I can't have one, but you can almost guarantee in some areas of the country that the junkies breaking in will have.

The Institute of Criminology (not sure of the official name) indicated that no further pistol legislation was warranted when there was a crime in Melbourne involving pistols in a lecture theatre a few years ago, but the federal govt used the crime to allow them to bring in a heap of new anti handgun legilsation banning a range of pistols: handguns with less than a certain barrel length; auto's .45 and above -- all gone.

While the gun owner has been hammered, just guess what one fine Queenslander received as a sentence after being found in possession of two or three stolen pistols, three rifles, and a couple of shotguns? He was only intending to sell them to a drug dealer, which seems wise since he could have scored a whole heap more drugs with $14 000 worth of firearms.

This guy got 150 hours of community service. A recent article in the Australian Shooter has a whole list of these cases. The average Australian is so set against legitamate firearms owners yet this is going on.

So your government may not adequately enforce these laws, but the honest people will abide by them. You might hide your guns, but watch what will happen when you happen to defend yourselves with them in your own home, even with good reason.

So I would rather be a Kiwi. I lived there for a couple of years, and I could love that country. In Australia I guess I feel a bit like the aborigines must have felt - dispossessed in my own country, when I've spent my life being an upstanding citizen.

So that is what you would be in for. The only hope you could have is if such a move got the same response as I have heard was recieved in Canada. Didn't everyone uniformly just ignore the calls for bans?

Oh and guess what, the statistics from an analysis of the gun grab/buyback in Australia in 1997 are in and published in a peer reviewed scientific journal. Hundreds of millions of dollars spent on the buyback has had not effect on violent crime in general in Australia. Before the buyback there was a statistically verifiable trend of decreased gun violence since the 1970's. That trend did not change at all with the buyback.


My input.

Kind regards,

Matt

Arabia
October 19, 2008, 12:25 AM
Unfortunately all my guns are registered with the state police, so no way I could lie to them.

xd9fan
October 19, 2008, 12:35 AM
I swear this question gets asked one a month...yawn...

HKFan9
October 19, 2008, 01:14 AM
I gave all my guns away to marauding looters Officer.....:eek:

imthegrumpyone
October 19, 2008, 02:39 AM
Just stop and think, how many of your rights we've all ready lost and did nothing about ! We sit on our thumbs and do nothing as a country of "sheep". Gun ban no not yet, it's still on the list though , but government still has a lot more little rights to take away before "we wake up", they just do it a little at a time and we don't even know it. :mad:

BillCA
October 19, 2008, 06:11 AM
I think the OP was asking what the results of a gun ban would be and perhaps how enforcement would be carried out.

Let's take it from the top. Congress passes a law outlawing individual citizens from possessing firearms. Additional laws burden any firearm seller with huge amounts of paperwork and approvals before transferring a gun to, say an armored car company.
Companies like S&W, Ruger, Glock (Georgia), et al, lay off anywhere from 70% to 95% of their employees.
About 96% of the small & medium businesses such as distributors and dealers close.
Ancillary companies like Burris, Leopold, HKS, Bianchi, Safariland and others shutter their doors and lay off workers.
Ammunition companies lay off 90% of their workforce as demand for ammunition drops dramatically.
After a brief spike in sales during legislative debates, Alliant, Hodgon, Winchester powder plants are shuttered or reduced to a small operation. RCBS, Lee, Dillon, et al close.
Contract prices for US Military small arms and ammuntion increase approximately 350%.


Secondary effects:
Loss of revenue to insurance companies who charge high premiums for gun-related business liability insurance. Other business insurance rates increase to offset the loss.
Some layoffs at packaging & printing shops since thousands of product boxes are not being produced.
Unknown economic losses as workers cash in stocks to survive and shareholders of now worthless Ruger, S&W (etc) stocks push court actions.
Decline in machine tool orders for steel working machines and tools.

Enforcement effects:
I doubt the gov't would implement a large-scale plan to confiscate firearms from the general public. Instead, this is what I think they'd most likely do...
Use BATF registrations of Class III firearms to notify owners of a "turn in date". Those who don't, get a visit from the BATF SWAT team and are used as "object lessons" to all other gun owners.
Use state and federal registration records to identify people who own "large collections" of firearms -- i.e. more than 100 guns. Notices are sent to them demanding they arrange a "collection date" with the local authorities. Those who refuse are arrested by the local SWAT teams and prosecuted.
Agency videos of these busts are given extensive air play on media outlets to show that police are enforcing the new gun laws and charging people with felonies with huge prison terms.
Known belligerent owners who are likely to engage in a firefight may be given that chance just so BATF can show justification for using light armored vehicles and destructive tactics "as a lesson" to others.
As the number of "large" collections diminish, they refocus on "sizeable" collections -- anyone with 25 or more guns. Lather, rinse, repeat.
US and local district attorneys provide high profile press conferences when "illegal gun traffickers" are finally sentenced.
If you use a firearm in otherwise legitimate self-defense, initially the tactic will be to fine the defending victim between $5k to $10k for possessing the gun and that's it. After 2-3 years however, the fine remains plus 5-15 years in prison.
When owners of less than 25 guns are to be taken down, instead of direct assaults, owners will be asked to appear before an IRS tax audit (with their spouse) or some similar arrangement (Jury duty, building permit review, etc.). While there, SWAT teams serve a search warrant (if such is still required) on an empty house or one containing only other family members. The main belligerents are out of the way while their property is seized and they are arrested away from home.
Joe Sixpack with his nightstand .38 is left alone. If he ever uses his gun, he goes to jail. On top of that, like the U.K., the thug who forced him to use his gun (or the thug's family) can sue the crap out of Joe Sixpack and win.


Crime Rises
As criminals see the citizenry become defenseless they will change their tactics.
Muggings on the street will become more common.
Carjacking to obtain desireable autos increases.
Home-invasion style robberies take a huge jump since citizens are less likely to have a gun. The thugs will have their guns with them, of course.
Rape increases, especially kidnap-rape crimes.
Gang activity increases and spreads to formerly "nice" neighborhoods. Gang members intimidate anyone they please and are still armed with guns.
New guns are produced in a clandestine "cottage industry".
Sales of "protection dogs" increases.
Sales of alarm systems skyrockets.
More affluent communities become "gated communities" in an effort to reduce crime.
The "Kitty Genovese Syndrome (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitty_Genovese)" is repeated hundreds of times as citizens hearing cries for help don't even call 911 for fear of "getting involved" and worries over retribution.
State and local governments pass more laws aimed at reducing crime. Prohibitions against carrying a knife with a blade longer than 2", prohibitions against OC spray, stun guns, Tasers, etc. leaving even more citizens defenseless.
The wealthy retreat to gated communities with gated properties guarded by high-tech and armed guards, possibly with K9 units.
Numerous wealthy persons obtain one or more good quality "black market guns" early on, one that isn't traceable to them. After an incident, they'll turn it over to police and say they got it from the thug (in a struggle or by striking it out of their hand). The thug won't be able to deny it either.
Crime sprials out of control in many areas of major cities. Thugs become bold enough to assault and rob patrons on mass transit without fear of interference or apprehension. Parking garages with any form of security charge astronomical rates.
Employee costs skyrocket in some cities due to the level of crime and employees not wanting to live nearby.
Health care costs jump (even more) as companies pay for crime victim injuries, sometimes into the six figure range.
The government increases taxes to cover rising costs of crime and increased payouts for law enforcement fatalities (due to gun battles with gangs).
The Police Chiefs petition congress to make new laws to make it "easier" for them to arrest and prosecute thugs. Congress kills entirely the "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine, the Miranda warning and lowers the bar for extended police searches.
U.S. Police state begins emerging in full.


There... did I miss anything?

Al Norris
October 19, 2008, 08:22 AM
There... did I miss anything?

Primary effects:
Contract prices for LEO small arms and ammunition increase approximately 350%.
Should a defensive war occur, Military will not be able to procure additional small arms and ammunition of any kind.

Secondary effects:
Because of the high cost of ammunition, Military training will drop to an absolute minimum.
Because of the high cost of ammunition, police can no longer train.
Less training means more citizen bystanders will be shot in the increased confrontations.
Qualified immunity laws will be strengthened and the citizen will no longer be able to sue the police for their incompetence in shootings.

Crime Rises
Home owners and individuals will be prosecuted for defending themselves.

Bud Helms
October 19, 2008, 08:50 AM
So far, a special thanks to the quality posts by Redneck Riot and BillCA. Thanks also to sikasambared for the insightful opinion and info from Oz.

Now the question posed is, "What happens if Guns are banned?", not, "Do you think Guns will be banned?" Review your post and see which question you answered.

Note: Using nick names and creating short cuts to work around the prohibition on naming candidates and parties here in General Discussion endangers your entire post. A thoughtful, on topic post with a "what's his name for Chi-town" stuck in there leads me to believe some here may take this prohibition lightly. If a gray area is created by this practice, it will fall in the prohibition also. Don't press this button.

JustAnotherPlinker
October 19, 2008, 09:32 AM
By Redneck_Riot
But for a moment lets just say that door to door confiscation were approved, Whom would the government appoint to carry out this order?

I served in the ARMYfor 4 years as a RANGER none of my brothers would take up arms against their own citizens or families.

the police? most Law enforcement officers have prior military service backgrounds so I dismiss this as well.

Our government will never risk a civil war again there will always be guns in America, a outright ban on semi automatics that resemble or are the same weapons used by military and law enforcement will most likely be the next target and many Americans will not object to this especially urban Americans who are not educated and have not grown up around guns.

I agree, the military/LEO Community would never participate en bloc with firearm confiscation, but a standing army loyal to specific PEOPLE, not the nation/constitution in whole, could.


By an Unnamed, High Profile Politician

We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.

Ernie L
October 19, 2008, 09:55 AM
That is still political suicide in some areas..at least until our open boarders have allowed the liberals to maintain a super majority . [edited]

The way it will be done is to attack the manufacturers, distributors and retailers of weapons and ammunition.

Recently there was an attempt to enact a law that would require a serial number for each and every round of ammo produced. This was proposed under the guise of crime prevention..it was really an attempt to increase the cost of ammunition to prohibitive levels so that Joe the plumber could not afford to shoot his weapon..then only the hypocritical liberal wealthy elite could afford to buy ammunition..

I read recently about some credit card companies not allowing gun purchases with their cards..


Some ways the Federal government can attack firearms possession indirectly.

The ATF can make life much more miserable for FFL holders than they do already. Increase the fees and onerous paper work requirement (see California.)

Harass the insurance companies who provide insurance for the gun industry.

How about back ground investigation for anyone involved in the supply chain. Drivers, dock workers , warehouse employees. salesmen..



bullets..they have LEAD,MERCURY AND EXPLOSIVE POWDER as part of their components don't they!!!.....I see increased hazardous materials fees and regulation of ammunition.

I'm sure manufactures of firearms and ammunition know many more of these death by a thousand cuts than I have listed here.

There are many many ways a a anti-gun administration can increase the costs dramatically.

Glenn E. Meyer
October 19, 2008, 11:04 AM
What did BillCA miss?

1. We will be eaten by unopposed zombies - sorry couldn't resist.

2. If you look it up, there is strong evidence that many guns wouldn't be turned in. this has happened in Australia and California - known stocks haven't shown up.

3. Massive inefficiencies and scandals revolve around the databases and systems used to track the turn in - cost overruns become a scandal - as in Canada.

4. If some guns are allowed and compensation given for those taken, massive buying of the allowed guns. I think there was evidence of this in Australia -correct me if I'm wrong but I saw this posted. For example, no handguns for home defense - so buy an O/U shotgun.

Crosshair
October 19, 2008, 01:15 PM
There... did I miss anything?
I contact some people from back in high school and get into the rewarding world of smuggling. (As far as the government is concerned in such a senario, I'm already a criminal so I might as well play the role.) Much like happened with alcohol prohibition, people who were in the business of alcohol, who were otherwise law abiding people, got into the smuggling business to pay the bills. The police only catch the dumb smugglers. (Don't speed in a stolen car with a trunk full of Heroin down the interstate with no cover story and you will probably be fine.) Leaving the smart ones to go on with life.

The end result is that the "War on Guns" will be just as successful as the war on drugs. Instead of having to just worry about the people who misuse drugs/guns and hurt others, the police will have to go after: the new black market where the only way to settle disputes is with violence, people who own guns but aren't hurting anyone, police corruption as a result of the profits involved. End result, the problem becomes 4 times worse than it was, as can be seen with the War on drugs. (25% of violence a result of drug use, 75% of violence a result of the illegal drug trade.)

We already have 25% of the worlds prison population under the War on Drugs. We could likely see out prison population increase by another million or so. Meaning more prisons being build, since building school is for losers.:rolleyes:

All the while, drugs and guns will be readily available, though at their vastly inflated black market price. Last I checked, Glocks in the UK are readily available, but go for about $5K right now. People who can't afford that have to make do with sawed off shotguns.

Creature
October 19, 2008, 01:45 PM
What happens if Guns are banned?
The legislators who enacted the law get voted out of office by the people?

Buzzcook
October 19, 2008, 01:58 PM
If there is a "real" attempt to ban guns of any kind, then lawyers will get rich, artificial restrictions on firearms will in the short term benefit domestic manufacturers, then as foreign gun makers innovate it will turn around and bite American gun makers in the butt.
In the end guns will not be banned and their price will rise by a large percentage.

JustAnotherPlinker
October 19, 2008, 02:19 PM
All the while, drugs and guns will be readily available, though at their vastly inflated black market price. Last I checked, Glocks in the UK are readily available, but go for about $5K right now. People who can't afford that have to make do with sawed off shotguns.

Any idea what blackmarket ammo costs to feed those glocks and SGs? Just curious is all...

heyduke
October 19, 2008, 02:34 PM
Problem with comparing guns to drugs is you can do drugs in private where no one knows what's going on (and yes, alcohol is a drug).

I own a gun, dang it, I'm going to shoot it.

As mentioned before, if all the guns are outlawed, there will be a battlefield on America's soil. And don't be too sure that all the men who swore to protect our freedom and our flag will be fightinig for the goverment if it should come to that.

What, should I be wearing my tin hat?:D

ElectricHellfire
October 19, 2008, 02:52 PM
What happens? The prices go up and I dont buy from gun stores and gun shows anymore. Ever heard of bathtub gin?? :)

rogertc1
October 19, 2008, 04:39 PM
Delete

Patbwal
October 19, 2008, 05:18 PM
I dont think they will go after our guns. I think They will tax the ammo so much so it will dry up so the guns are worth nothing so buy all you can and all the reloading equiptment. Ive had a little trouble getting primers lately everything is getting high. So Brothers Please be careful. Guns with no ammo are useless. That is my 2 cents for what its worth. Thanks and god bless. your friend. Patrick

Redneck_Riot
October 19, 2008, 06:21 PM
What happens if guns are banned:?

I replied to this posting with what I believe to be real life answers.

this question cannot be answered in a direct format because IMHO our guns will never be banned. the question might as well be "WHAT WILL WE DO IF ONE DAY THE SKY FALLS DOWN?" my point is not to demean the original poster of this thread but to point out that this is not a reality there are more than 35 million handguns alone in the United States according to the National Statistics for crime prevention as surveyed in 2000

America is an armed nation, we always have been since the Declaration of Independence.

I agree that if the government ever did ban our guns they would most certainly lose their jobs the next election, look what happened to Clinton and his cronies after his AWB anti gun politicians all over the congress and white house lost their jobs!

IMHO our government will be focused on far more important things that are currently facing this nation, the crumbling economy, loss of jobs, guns are just not big enough to add to this list at this point in time and so will be taking a back seat in the legislature.

I watched all the debates this election year, can anyone remember the topic of gun control ever even brought up durring any of this besides the fella in michigan who asked a question to Joe Biden "are my babies going to be safe"?

the topic of gun control did not get much emphasis durring this election campaign year .

rogertc1
October 19, 2008, 11:47 PM
deleted.

TheNatureBoy
October 20, 2008, 04:32 AM
It will never happen!

Crosshair
October 20, 2008, 09:35 PM
Any idea what blackmarket ammo costs to feed those glocks and SGs? Just curious is all...
Don't know, the article I read it in, from a UK paper no less, just listed prices for various weapons. (Sawed off single shot shotguns were much cheaper, around $150-200 IIRC. Can't find the article.) Though I would guess it would probably follow the 10x markup from white market prices. Meaning that $20 box of WWB could go for $200 in the UK.:eek:

Still more money to be made smuggling Heroin, though the prices of that have been falling lately thanks to the glut from Afghanistan. (Yes, there is a strong drug market even in North Dakota, though I don't partake anymore.) On the other hand, drug dogs don't sniff for gunpowder.:rolleyes:

B.N.Real
October 20, 2008, 11:04 PM
There is a media compaign on right now to get just this done.

Guns are being demonized yet used as tools to sell advertising space by the same people.

Lawful gun owners are portrayed as reckless stooges,intoxicated with owning their handguns and endangering everyone around them.:rolleyes:

People saving their lives with handguns or stopping crime with them are rarely reported then usually only with one report that disappears quickly.

All over the world,governments look at the United States and wonder when it will happen.

We are that last bastion of freedom.

No matter who earns the job of President or what Congress tries to sneak by us,We,The People must turn off our televisions,get off out butts and call our elected officials.

Make them manifestly uncomfortable with even the idea of banning firearms.

But all the complaining in the world will not help if you do not get involved.

Either you can vote and start calling your elected officials or you should shut up and get in the line to turn in your handguns.

Tamara
October 21, 2008, 08:31 AM
The banning of firearms in general? It would make Prohibition look like a smashing success.

While it is tempting to look at Australia or the UK for exemplars, neither country had anywhere near the rate of private gun ownership the USA does. Non-compliance would be massive, and I'm not certain the government (federal, state, or local) has the infrastructure to handle even a 50% compliance rate. There are a lot of guns out there; as folks liked to point out during the Cold War, there are more deer rifles in Wisconsin than Kalashnikovs in the Russian army.

shortwave
October 21, 2008, 08:42 AM
The short of it would be the government would make criminals out of thousands of law abiding citizens.

stephen426
October 21, 2008, 09:22 AM
I think those who say it will/can never happen need to be careful. We have to ensure that it will not/can not happen by voting and supporting organizations such as the NRA. How many of you have 10 round capped mags fors guns that can hold more rounds? That was the Brady Bill and that was a strong first step. Whoever mentioned the ammo tagging also made a very valid point about driving up the cost to ammo so that it is prohibitively expensive to shoot. Taxation is another tactic they are sure to use. You want to buy a box of $10 ammo? No problem. Your bill comes out to $40. :eek: Don't believe me? Ask smokers how much the cost of cigarettes have increased.

A few other things I see happening is people who keep their guns and use them defend themselves will not be calling the police to take a report and cover up the situation.

I would certainly hide a few of my guns and let the police find the others. To deny that you have any woould lead to an intensive search. I guess it is time to buy some cheapo guns!

You guys forgot to mention that all shooting ranges would close. Not sure who would be dumb enough to go to one anyways since I'm sure they would be watched by the police.

I would probably stock pile ammo and have to resort to practicing with airsoft or pellet guns (assuming those are still legal) and save the real stuff for when the poop hits the fan. You have to remember that no one is going to be selling ammo if guns are illegal (legally anyways). Scary looking paper weights are useless in a gun fight! :eek::p

Glenn E. Meyer
October 21, 2008, 09:38 AM
When you mention on the internet that you hide some and let the police find some - think you just set yourself up for your house and anything else you own be taken down to the molecular level.

Geez - just another TEOTWAKI scenario.

I got a great idea - the ballot box - vote for progun candidates but of course that was polluted by the supposed progun party being the epitomy of incompetence this time around.

vytoland
October 21, 2008, 11:46 AM
Firearms? i don't believe in anything like that...........much too dangerous.:eek:

OBTW you may "enter at your own risk" :D

vytoland
October 21, 2008, 11:48 AM
government elections = send in the clowns

Tamara
October 21, 2008, 02:39 PM
Thanks very much for the commentary, superhornet. You will notice your post has been deleted. That is because it contains partisan political content.

General Discussion is temporarily hosting political and legal topics until the new L&CR forum has been thoroughly tested. But no post using a candidate's or political party's name is permitted.

stephen426
October 21, 2008, 05:36 PM
When you mention on the internet that you hide some and let the police find some - think you just set yourself up for your house and anything else you own be taken down to the molecular level.


Glenn,

I think you give the police too much credit. Maybe the FBI is capable of narrowing down who we really are, but do they have the resources to do all that checking while guns are still currently legal? Besides, I'm sure Rich is smart enough to have the servers "crash" if and when such a ban ever becomes law.

electricvoltpower
October 21, 2008, 05:54 PM
It truely would be ashame if it were to happen. But let me ask you this, I bet it would cost more than the bailout for them to pay us for the value of our property.

44capnball
October 21, 2008, 07:09 PM
While it is tempting to look at Australia or the UK for exemplars, neither country had anywhere near the rate of private gun ownership the USA does

which reminds me, I predict you won't see the truly radical infringements on freedom being rolled out in England and Australia, until Americans give up their guns.

Otherwise, Americans might see it and say "hey, we're next, and I don't like what I see".

Everybody needs to watch that video about England and Australia again.
Elmer Fudd gave away everybody else's gun rights, then acted surprised when he had to turn in his rabbit gun. Too bad about that, Elmer.

Like they said, donate to the NRA now. Otherwise you might someday be facing down some of the scenarios BillCA and others have suggested.

BillCA
October 22, 2008, 03:08 AM
While it may feel good to review "doom & gloom" scenarios and discuss how you'd outwit the authorities, what I really think would happen would be....

Mostly nothing.

As indicated earlier, it's likely that government agents would move swiftly to categorize gun owners by the number of guns they own. Those folks would be the ones you'd see on the nightly news getting raided. It would be those large collections they could display in a high school gym floor that would be used to show everyone that we're making the streets safer!" :rolleyes:

Other than that, most of us would see nothing happen. They'd be patient enough to wait until you screw up to drop an anvil on you. Screw up as in use one in self defense... then they check your history, find that you owned several and very thoroughly search your home. If they find others, YOU become the bad guy, not a home defender.

Eventually you screw up -- show it to a friend, neighbor, etc. who turns you in or is Mr. Looselips. You give it to your son/daughter when they move out and they get caught with it, so the cops come knocking for you.

More Unintended Consequences:
Drug cartels have, in recent years, attempted to smuggle drugs into this country via submarines. Plural. They're not especially good subs, but they do work to stay off the radar. But drug cartels often lose boats, planes, cars, trucks and now subs. If they can afford to lose three $100k airplanes in six weeks they can afford to find clever ways to smuggle guns into the country too.

If they do smuggle in guns, long guns are more likely to be military (select fire) weapons because they are probably easier to get. They'll most likely be cheaper than buying a FA M16 or AK-47 than we have to pay today. Why risk long term imprisonment for a semi-auto gun when you can sell a full-auto for $300 more? Ammo would be from the same source, obviously.

Remember too that guns can be disassembled into many small parts, some of which aren't easily recognizeable.

Buzzcook
October 22, 2008, 09:08 AM
which reminds me, I predict you won't see the truly radical infringements on freedom being rolled out in England and Australia, until Americans give up their guns.

Considering the weakening of rights since 9/11, I don't think you have a valid argument there. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights take your pick and with the possible exception of the 3rd, most have suffered a serious set-back in the last seven years.
Americans have been happy to let government place restrictions on their rights.
Guns are different imho, because they are physical objects. The tangible evidence of a right trumps the intangible every time, because people can make money from objects. America and Americans have way too much money invested in guns to make a wholesale ban of guns anything more than a fever dream for a very few anti-gun activists.

Mach II Sailor
October 22, 2008, 09:22 AM
But no post using a candidate's or political party's name is permitted.

WHY ??

44capnball
October 22, 2008, 10:46 AM
Buzzcook, you make some good points, but maybe I wasn't clear on mine. The infringements you have seen in the past few years are the kind that can be argued away. "Those aren't really infringements, they're helping us catch the bad guys".

What I mean by "truly radical infringements" would include your neighbors going on extended vacation in the middle of the night without telling anyone.

I know. You think it "ain't never gonna happen". The gun grabbers and their fellow travelers have some pretty far out social re-engineering ideas. A disarmed populace is fair game for any sort of radical, crazy, or idiotic idea their leaders wish to try.

Fact is, a total gun ban opens the door wide for various types of craziness. To give you an example, there is a strong international following for the ideas put forth by the "Spaceship Earth" crowd. They used to talk about reducing the world's population to 2 billion. Some people are nuts, but that doesn't disqualify them from holding public office.

If they can afford to lose three $100k airplanes in six weeks they can afford to find clever ways to smuggle guns into the country too.

If they do smuggle in guns, long guns are more likely to be military (select fire) weapons because they are probably easier to get. They'll most likely be cheaper than buying a FA M16 or AK-47 than we have to pay today. Why risk long term imprisonment for a semi-auto gun when you can sell a full-auto for $300 more? Ammo would be from the same source, obviously.

BillCA, right on the money. Look what happened in Jamaica. It's an island. You can't legally own guns or ammunition, not even one bullet. The street thugs can get full autos, no problem. It's practically a war zone.

Brazil limits the types and calibers of guns you can own. I once knew a guy who had lived there. He said the drug dealers had FAL's (illegal, natch), and the police were so dangerous that a lot of people asked drug dealers for protection. I have heard this idea echoed in news articles and elsewhere.

This from a 2004 article at terradaily.com, re: Hurrican Ivan:
In Jamaica, police said they shot dead at least one looter, and two officers were wounded in shootouts with other looters on the Caribbean island nation of 2.7 million.

Looting was a growing problem in Jamaica's cities. Police said bands of armed men roamed the streets of Kingston and Montego Bay, ransacking shops and businesses, exchanging gunfire with police

Wait a second, how could they exchange gunfire with police when there is a 100% gun and ammo ban in Jamaica?? How were there armed men roaming the streets?? :confused:

A gun ban in the USA would pave the way for a human rights disaster on a terrible scale.

Crosshair
October 22, 2008, 12:07 PM
When you mention on the internet that you hide some and let the police find some - think you just set yourself up for your house and anything else you own be taken down to the molecular level.

There is the problem. Doing that takes time. Thus it is going to take awhile to get to some people, giving them plenty of time. Second, who says you have to hide them on property that YOU own. I know plenty of places to hide stuff that nobody would look in for years at a time. Plenty of land out of town that nobody digs up.

Double J
October 22, 2008, 01:30 PM
I think the question was "what if" all guns were banned. There would be a short period of shock followed by silence. Mainly because when the guns go the next step would be the loss of our Right To Free Speech.
Guns would at first be surrendered. The remnant firearms would most likley be caught on the streets during routine traffic searches much as is practiced now and are called "safety" stops.
A Hot Line could be set up to pay informants to suspected gun owners. Then homes and property can be searched and confiscated. In the end, making owning guns so risky only the true "Terrorists" would dare break the law.
At present our government rules over it's subjects with the fear of fines or imprisionment if we don't bow to every whim. I have watched as the Constitution has been pushed aside and the "Rule of Law"applied.
The $700 billion bail out went ahead without our vote, so "in the best interest" of our country, I do expect something like a total ban to get passed. And I don't see us having any say in it when it does.
I hope it never happens but brace yourself anyway.

RainbowBob
October 22, 2008, 01:39 PM
What exactly happens? What does it mean?

It would mean that the Constitution has been torn up and the Supreme Court and Congress dissolved. It would require some kind of military coup and martial law. Aint gonna happen.

ZeSpectre
October 22, 2008, 02:12 PM
If there were an outright ban on firearms? I'd imagine the crime statisitcs would go through the roof.

Hell, right off the bat you'd be adding several MILLION "criminals"* to the roster with one swipe of the pen.


(*that'd be the current gun owners who became criminals overnight in case you hadn't figured it out)

computerguysd
October 22, 2008, 02:21 PM
I tend to agree with Tamara. There will be some, maybe many, that would simply voluntarily surrender their firearms but there will be some, probably many that won't.

I've worked for the gov't too long to consider it all-powerful and I honestly don't think MOST LE or US military would take kindly to inciting armed conflict with ordinary citizens that were law abiding until a law was passed that most would consider unconstitutional.

It might not be pretty but I believe that a gov't that moved to outlaw guns in such a fashion without substantially more public support than would presently favor a complete ban would be viewed as illigitimate by enough of the population that it's support and power would vanish pretty quickly.

Even if a future adminstration could name 3 or 4 Supreme Court Justices, I don't think a total ban would be ruled constitutional.

rogertc1
October 22, 2008, 02:36 PM
You can bring up political parties here:

http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=315610

21CFA
October 22, 2008, 03:01 PM
#42, #67, #69: Not too many years ago an informal survey of military trainees just graduated from 29 Palms was conducted. One question: "If so ordered, would you search for and confiscate weapons from American citizens in a specific neighborhood, even though you knew that the 2d Amendment of the Constitution allowed ownership of those weapons?" Answer: 95% said, yes, they would follow that order. (It's very easy to shoot someone you don't know. By this I mean that a military unit is cohesive, and everyone outside that unit may be considered an enemy. I also mean that a military uniform does not deter all citizens from using deadly force in every instance.) #53: do you think it wise to list ALL of your arsenal on a site like this? Maybe you brag, or maybe not, but you have already become a target. I spent over 8 years in NSA, and I know whom they target. Try doing a search for any obscure subject on this site and see if it does not state how many mili-seconds it took to find it. We are not invisible; "they" are. #46: Dig holes for MREs too. A hungry defender can be a bad shot. A word to the wise. Finally, can we refer to one candidate over another as "The Guy Who Would Ban All Guns"?

computerguysd
October 22, 2008, 03:39 PM
21CFA,

The Truth:
The survey does exist and was passed out to a few hundred Marines in 29 Palms, California, in 1995, but not by the Pentagon. According to an article in NEW AMERICAN magazine in October of 1995 by John F. McManus, the survey was part of an academic project on the part of a Marine Lieutenant Commander Ernest Guy Cunningham who was earning his Masters Degree from the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, California. The survey alarmed some of the Marines and copies soon started being circulated among gun rights supporters. Lt. Cunningham told McManus that he was a member of the National Rifle Association himself and didn't agree with the tone of the questions. He said the survey was intended to confirm and then pass on to higher authorities his fears about "the lack of knowledge among the soldiers about the U.S. Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, and their heritage as Americans."
http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/m/militarysurvey.htm

As a vet, I know we were sworn to uphold and defend the constitution of the United States. The Uniform Code of Military Justice not only commands that we only disobey but we must actively oppose the execution of any order that is contrary to that constitution.

Bud Helms
October 22, 2008, 05:16 PM
Mach II Sailor posted:

But no post using a candidate's or political party's name is permitted.
WHY ??

Because L&P is the correct forum for political discussion, but since it is closed, we have decided to temporarily entertain some politcal discussion here in General Discussion, where political discussions have never been permitted, with the proviso that no candidate's name nor any party's name be used.

That is the ground rule if you want to play politics in General Discussion forum.

Does that answer the question WHY ??

Yellowfin
October 22, 2008, 05:48 PM
Those who would intend to push such a measure need to be soundly defeated at every possible opportunity. More importantly, we as the firearms community need to start proactively dismantling the anti gun movement, as merely voting against it isn't working because they keep coming back. We need to poison the anthill rather than keep just stepping on the ants.

SKULLANDCROSSBONES65
October 22, 2008, 07:44 PM
G'day, I've been following this thread with some interest. A couple of things stand out as points of interest.

1, Some people believe "it will never happen". With an attitude like that those same people are just as likely to support gun bans when/if they do come. The mindset that "it will never happen" is one of the things the anti-gun lobby rely on. It is while you have this belief that you won't defend your ability to have a gun. Now if you were to say "this should/may not happen", then you will be more vigilant. You may even work to ensure that it does not happen.

In Australia when semi-auto firearms were banned, it was done by the political party in power with the support of the opposition party. It was never an election issue, there was no referendum, no vote by the people. Don't be so sure that "it will never happen" in your country.

2, I see many comments about "self" defence and "home" defence. One thing that seems to be missing, and it could be the most important one of all is the defence of your country. An unarmed nation could be considered an easy-er target for invasion. So you should also include "national" defence as another reason for gun ownership.

3, It seems to me that the anti gun lobby is trying to make guns socially unacceptable. One way they do this by using peoples fears of guns. People often fear what they don't understand. If you were to teach responsible gun etiquette in primary schools, this would reduce the ignorance and therefore a lot of the related fear. Respect and courtesy would probably also need to be taught.

It would be foolish to live in "tornado valley" and not be prepared for the aftermath of one striking. Better still to have built to withstand the impact, than to have to clean up the the mess left behind.

johnsonrlp
October 22, 2008, 07:49 PM
Suppressors would become a lot more popular. How else are you going to shoot your new full-auto without getting caught?;)

From a military perspective, I've sworn that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.. And that is exactly what I, my family, my friends, and many of my co-workers intend to do.

MacGille
October 22, 2008, 07:50 PM
Guns, what guns?

44 AMP
October 22, 2008, 09:16 PM
For all of the "it will never happen here", just about everthing that has happened in the rest of the world (with the exception of Nazi death camps) has happened here in the USA, at one time or another, the main difference is a question of scale, and overall efectivness.

Can't ban guns in the US? Then just what was the Heller case about? The city of Washington DC effectively banned guns for over 30 years, and even with the recent SCOTUS decision, they aren't readily available in DC yet.

NYC has had the Sullivan Laws since the early part of the 20th century, severly restricting legal gun ownership in the city, amounting to a virtual ban unles you were one of the approved few.

At times in the past we have had genocide campaigns, concentration camps, and US troops attacking US citizens in our nation's capitol. Do just a little historical research and you will find that we are not angels. Do not count on all our good protectors in uniform refusing to follow orders, even Constitutionally illegal ones. While there will be many who would refuse, there are also many who would comply without a second thought.

One thing I didn't see mentioned in previous posts, is the fact that there are quite a few small machine shops in the country, and more than a few people who know how to use them. Even if they could manage to round up all the currently legal guns in private hands, the capability to make replacements exists all over the country, and there will be people willing to do the work for the money that will be offered by "criminals". Mechanically, the simplest repeating firearm to make is a blowback submachinegun. One unintended consequence of banning all guns could be to increase the number of SMGs in illegal circulation. After all, if you are going to go to jail for having any gun, you might as well have the most effective gun you can get your hands on. And since with guns banned there will be no sport hunting with guns, there will be no practical use for long range rifles. Military assault rifles (homemade, smuggled in, or stolen from the military and police) will be available to those with a desire and the funds, just as any illegal substance is available on the black market today. And the same goes for sawed off shotuns, SMGs, and simple handguns. Short range, handy, concealable weapons for offense and defense in urban environments will be obtainable by anyone willing to be a "criminal" under the law. Ammo will always be available in small amounts, at high cost, home made, or stolen from the govt and police, people willing to pay will be able to get it.

Many people will go to jail, just as many drug users and dealers go to jail today, but as the war on drugs has proven, putting some people in jail doesn't solve the problem. AS long as there is a demand, legal or not, someone will fill that demand for a profit.

We might even see a return to blackpowder guns (possibly of more modern designs) as these kinds of firearms and ammunition can be made entirely from scratch by industrious individuals. maybe even swords and bows will become common personal defense items for the law abiding, as there were hundreds of years ago. I wouldn't put much money on it, but it might happen. Even if it did, a homeowner trying to defend himself with a sword, a baseball bat, or some other "non firearm" is going to be at a serious disadvantage against a street gang member armed with an autoshop made SMG or a stolen police gun, etc.

I guess if all the guns were banned, we would all turn ours in, and if something bad happened, we would just call 911 and hope for the best.

Right?

44capnball
October 22, 2008, 10:44 PM
It is death by a thousand cuts.

Yep, and that's what Elmer Fudd gets for being complacent.

Though I am mostly a muzzleloader and SA revolver guy, I commend the EBR crowd for at least understanding the importance of sticking together. From what I read on these forums, the EBR guys "get it".

To #75, your point #3 is right on the money.

The great power that has been entrusted to the media is being misused to sway elections, and even more so to turn public opinion against guns. They are so blatant about it, it's almost funny. TV show and movie characters routinely drop lines that sound like they came straight from the Brady Campaign.

The other big mistake gunnies have made was to buy into a debate where the allowed topics were narrowed so the truth would always be outside those confines.

If someone set out to steal your bicycle, and they set the debate limits so you can't talk about stealing or bicycles, chances are you're going to lose your bicycle.

And you won't see that coming.

JustAnotherPlinker
October 23, 2008, 07:51 AM
And since with guns banned there will be no sport hunting with guns, there will be no practical use for long range rifles.

I disagree; a high powered rifle with a autoshop made suppressor would make an excellent assasination tool. (I am not advocating this). Organized crime will flourish and will be smuggling guns and drugs like the US has never seen. Look at a Mexico!

ETA: dont wanna be on a flier.

NineInchNails
October 23, 2008, 10:28 AM
A full out 'firearms ban' is not likely to occur without SERIOUS revolt and they know this. Sure the sheeple will walk straight to a gas chamber if asked to, but I'm talking about 'we the people' that have a brain.

As stated before ... such a result happens slowly. It has been happening slowly, but surely.

The first thing that happened was the registration of what is now called "class 3 weapons" and that was not long ago. Keep in mind that this has NOTHING to do with our personal safety … it’s about tightening control.

Then the ‘waiting period’ came into play. This ONLY makes us desensitized to the upcoming gun laws.

Then the prohibition of specific characteristics of firearms. Calling them assault weapons for instance. They tell us what we CAN’T have with the weapon; vertical forend grip, type of stock, high capacity mags, etc… Anyone feel safer or just more ‘controlled’?

Pretty soon ALL STATES will eventually adopt some kind of law that says something like this “all firearms given, constructed, sold or transfers must be conducted through a Federal License holder”. No private sale, gift, or private assembly will be permitted. This will make absolute record (call it registration) of each and every firearm that exists eventually. It will be claimed to make us ‘safer’ but will ONLY tighten their control and create a mandatory registration so to speak without actually creating a ‘specific registration law’.

More laws will be passed which will force the Federal License holders to confiscate and report weapons that are not within the letter of the MANY laws/specifications. And you know they will confiscate/report it ... as does today, their livelyhood depends on it (not to mention prison time, fines, and loss of their Federal License).

See how this works over time? People have been just plain STUPID to allow our government to put their foot in the door with this BS. It ALWAYS starts out small like seat belts, then it progresses to being allowed to be pulled over for a seat belt check, then this allows everyone to be more likely to be ‘asked‘ to be searched. Such crap only promotes search & seizure when WE do not know our rights. Slowly progressing to loss of our rights for sake of security.

Some day you will hear a news broadcast stating “America is now under martial law, your constitutional rights have now been suspended, the comforts and security you have demanded are now mandatory”.

44capnball
October 23, 2008, 11:09 AM
#80, the first sentence of your second paragraph is the kind of thing antigun nutjobs like to lift out of context and use in their flyers.

I know you meant it in the context of organized crime and various thuggery, just sayin'.

JustAnotherPlinker
October 23, 2008, 12:19 PM
I honestly believe politicians fear scoped rifles and concealable pistols more than EBRs. I'm surprised there hasn't been more effort to ban concealable pistols.

SIGSHR
October 23, 2008, 02:52 PM
You would have some of the atmosphere that Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia had, with people quick to denounce each other either to show their
loyalty or save their hides. Though I recall one city-D.C.?-set up a hot line to report illegal guns, they were swamped with malicious and prank calls, a favorite technique was to denounce cops, politicians, ex boy friends, etc.
Again, I am more worried about creeping incrementalism. Or consider this-
a liberal moneybags buys up the gun companies and halts production.

NineInchNails
October 23, 2008, 03:00 PM
You would have some of the atmosphere that Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia had, with people quick to denounce each other either to show their
loyalty or save their hides. Though I recall one city-D.C.?-set up a hot line to report illegal guns, they were swamped with malicious and prank calls, a favorite technique was to denounce cops, politicians, ex boy friends, etc.
Again, I am more worried about creeping incrementalism. Or consider this-
a liberal moneybags buys up the gun companies and halts production.

Which post are you referring to :confused:

buzz_knox
October 23, 2008, 03:34 PM
Which post are you referring to

I think he's referring to what would occur during such a ban. Many people will turn others in to gain some kind of advantage (such as a monetary reward). That's historically what has happened in oppressive societies, and occurs here with regard to fraud against the gov't (turn someone in and you get a cut).

johnwilliamson062
October 23, 2008, 03:44 PM
Any idiot with a drill, a chunk of metal, and a few rubber bands can make a one shot zip gun over a weekend.

any half decent machinist can produce a sten in an afternoon with bike parts. Another afternoon for a suppressor.

not safe or accurate, but it will work.

Like someone stated about drug dealers, making it illegal and throwing a few in jail won't slow criminals down. Think how much a $50 AK bought in sub-saharan Africa would be worth once it was walked across the US-Mexico border? I believe a total ban would limit the number of semi-autos and repeaters, but significantly increase the number of full auto rifles in the US b/c it would create a demand for the network to be created. Once it is in place it will grow larger and larger.

spacemanspiff
October 23, 2008, 03:51 PM
Antipitas, I disagree with your opinion just a little bit.
Just because guns/ammunition would be outlawed, that would be solely for civilian possession. Military and police would probably pay what they have always paid for ammunition.

During the 94 AWB, military and police did not pay any more for standard capacity magazines, did they? Of course not, they continued to pay the normal prices. Do military and law enforcement pay outrageous amounts for full auto weapons? Of course not.
Why would their costs for ammunition be any different? Granted, ammunition companies would likely have a tough time, some probably going bankrupt or would have to move to producing other products to compensate.

The government never comes up with ways to make them pay more for anything. They find ways to make us pay more.

To answer the OP's question, well I would have to say that those who express outloud what they will do may find it more difficult to follow through than those who never express their answer to such questions. Watch out for the quiet ones.

Johnny Guest
October 23, 2008, 04:07 PM
Posted in entry #70, this thread: You can bring up political parties here:

http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/...d.php?t=315610
That thread has been closed as off topic for the NFA forum. I allowed it to run for too long before I noticed it. Mea culpa.

Johnny Guest
TFL Staff
NFA Forum Moderator

ksstargazer
October 24, 2008, 12:55 PM
Read the Declaration of Independence. It tells you what to do if a government takes away your right to self defense (a human right). In the course of human events . . .
The guys at the bridge near Concord knew what to do in that instance.

NineInchNails
October 24, 2008, 01:06 PM
I know of a few organizations that have petitioned the Government for a redress of grievances and 100% of the time ... the government REFUSES to hear it.

Can you believe that? Our government is actually saying 'We The People do not matter and will not be heard'.

These petitions for a redress of grievances that were filed were for VERY serious matters such as the Federal Reserve and Federal Income Tax.

Rightfully and legally petitioning the government for a redress of grievances is our ONLY recourse with regard to the direction of our country.

Regardless who you vote for ... you're not voting for the true issues that matter because neither will admit that these true issues even exist.

Hobie
October 24, 2008, 01:41 PM
1st post. Troll?

buzz_knox
October 24, 2008, 01:56 PM
1st post. Troll?

Maybe. Or maybe a gunowner waking up to a real possibility.

ShootingNut
October 24, 2008, 03:33 PM
Highly unlikely in my opinion, but playing the "what if's".
Millions of us are ordered to give up our arms, and as a result the same millions stop paying their taxes. Would that get their attention? Are they going to fund prisons to stick all of us no taxpayers away in, while the Gov is Bankrupt without the tax income.
This is crazy, as I say it won't happen. Some lead would fly if it did.

4thHorseman
October 24, 2008, 03:38 PM
My humble and honest opinion? Seriously?
It will be the coming days of the Anti-Christ. The begining of the end.

ShootingNut
October 24, 2008, 03:46 PM
The way the world is headed, I (personal opinion) don't think its far away in the realm of time anyway. As Forest Gump said " that's all I've got to say about that", otherwise the Mods would kick me off TFL for good, EXILED!:eek:
SN

homefires
October 24, 2008, 05:40 PM
Firearms are banned to felons. They find all they want.:cool:

Caeser2001
October 24, 2008, 07:22 PM
I lost mine in a boating accident......................

I lost my boat with them :(

Caeser2001
October 24, 2008, 07:34 PM
3, It seems to me that the anti gun lobby is trying to make guns socially unacceptable. One way they do this by using peoples fears of guns. People often fear what they don't understand. If you were to teach responsible gun etiquette in primary schools, this would reduce the ignorance and therefore a lot of the related fear. Respect and courtesy would probably also need to be taught.

guns in primary schools have you gone mad:eek:

on a serious note, the only thing taught in primary schools is they are bad, don't touch and tell an adult (or something like that)

however I do see a silver lining on the cloud, with all these kids I see playing airsoft, I see future firearm owners.

The Canuck
October 25, 2008, 01:04 AM
Any idea what blackmarket ammo costs to feed those glocks and SGs? Just curious is all...

Well, I have heard that up here in Canada the criminals pay something like $10.00 a round.

My concern is less that "they" take away your guns, than what "they" will do when the ability to say "no" is removed.

Remember, the 2nd Amendment is there to ensure all the others stay put.

blhseawa
October 26, 2008, 10:26 PM
I've thought about this thread for awhile, I'm not sure what is a appropriate response to the question that started this thread, as the America I fought for and I loved is gone! The Patriot Act and Congress destroyed what remained of her. Liberty and responsibility are two sides of the same coin IMHO. My only answer is the suggestion that you review the first paragraph of the declaration of independence. I fear the time is drawing near. Congress has foregone its responsibility. Keep the powder dry!

God bless America and pass the ammo!

Lastly, What guns? That's my story and I'm sticking to it, till it is time!

YMMV

Dos
October 26, 2008, 10:35 PM
Don't worry about a "what if" ban on guns. There are more guns than people in the country already. Want something special...get it NOW ! ;)

skydiver3346
October 27, 2008, 10:27 PM
No way without changing the Constitution and right to bear arms. However, they could screw around with you by charging you a high yearly fee to own each weapon you have and possibly stop the large purchase of ammo down the road. Anything is possible.........

AllAmerican
October 28, 2008, 05:32 PM
......me too. My flat bottom boat turned over in the river and I lost all of them. sorry ;)

SKULLANDCROSSBONES65
October 28, 2008, 11:51 PM
guns in primary schools have you gone mad

on a serious note, the only thing taught in primary schools is they are bad, don't touch and tell an adult (or something like that)

G'day! Hopefully you were just kidding about giving guns to primary school classes!? This got me thinking, so I've started another thread on the subject.

Teaching responsible firearms etiquette is not the same as teaching firearm usage and technique. It's like teaching kids road safety, it can be done, without giving children the keys to the family car! Regardless of their age and maturity - some things need to be taught.

Superhornet
October 29, 2008, 08:49 AM
Very easy to outlaw guns......Majority or Super majority in both houses, where no filibuster can be allowed......bill to ban passed---signed by the President.......into law.......turn em in now........easy as pie....

44Magnum
October 29, 2008, 08:57 AM
Just one problem with that logic.......The Supreme Court will hear something quickly and find it unconstitutional, and you need to have 2/3 majority to change that pesky, antiquated constitution. :p

2/3 may become democrat, but that doesn't mean 2/3 have the cahones to take the constitution head on.

Guns are not going away any time soon. Anyway, I don't own any guns, do you? My gun came loose from the holster when I was going to the bathroom and was accidentally flushed.... Never saw it again. :D

Do 'ya really think a guy with the handle "44Magnum" owns a small enough gun to fit down a pipe? ;)

mpage
October 29, 2008, 10:20 AM
The RKBA will be decided by the Supreme Court. No President will magically declare gun ownership illegal. People said the same thing about Clinton.

Even if that did somehow happen, most gun enthusiasts (particularly con$ervatives/people to the Right) would never in a million years take part in some armed insurrection.

21CFA
October 29, 2008, 11:06 AM
There is a solution, and it is in the Declaration of Independence, sentence 2: "...it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it ((Government)) and to establish new..." et cetera. Which was the foretelling of the FIRST American Revolution. Here's to the Second!! God. Guns. Guts. Groceries. Glory. Enough of the first four will give us the final one. There's a big difference between insurrection and rebellion. Semper Paratus et Fidelis.

(If this comment is banned, there is real trouble at the top of TFL ))

rogertc1
October 29, 2008, 11:07 AM
If the next president gets firearms ban thru House and Senate we will all be good little sheaple and turn them in...I myself do not feel like going to prison and losing everything I have to Lawyers..

drail
October 29, 2008, 11:10 AM
Ask any criminal what they think of "banning" guns. Watch them laugh.

JWT
October 29, 2008, 11:45 AM
I question whether the anti gun crowd would really try to ban guns. Easier for them to go after severe restrictions on specific types of gun and also try to outlaw lead ammo, require micro imprinting, etc.

Bud Helms
October 29, 2008, 11:59 AM
21CFA: (If this comment is banned, there is real trouble at the top of TFL ))

21CFA, if you have a problem with the way TFL is managed, you have access to Private Messages in the User CP at the top of the page. Staff will be pleased to discuss it with you in a civil manner.

buzz_knox
October 29, 2008, 12:02 PM
I question whether the anti gun crowd would really try to ban guns. Easier for them to go after severe restrictions on specific types of gun and also try to outlaw lead ammo, require micro imprinting, etc.

You are contradicting yourself a bit. The efforts you describe are designed to reduce and ultimately eliminate gun ownership.

Yes, they really want to ban guns, as they've said over and over. They are just doing so bit by bit.

mpage
October 29, 2008, 03:33 PM
I myself do not feel like going to prison and losing everything I have to Lawyers..

Exactly.

cchardwick
October 29, 2008, 04:30 PM
If the wrong people get elected I can tell you for sure we'll be headed down a path that allows society to become more and more corrupt and less protected: legalize gambling, prostitution, drugs, etc. but ban every gun except a muzzleloader that shoots a copper bullet (this will be the bone they throw the dogs (us) to cover the second amendment).

:barf:

Dos
October 29, 2008, 04:43 PM
Remember Chuck Heston..."FROM MY COLD DEAD HANDS" !!

Now Live By It.

pnac
October 29, 2008, 05:50 PM
Somebody once said America "is begging for shorter chains and smaller cages".

The Founding Fathers created this country for their posterity, now we've come to this:

Quote:
I myself do not feel like going to prison and losing everything I have to Lawyers..
Exactly.

pnac

rogertc1
October 29, 2008, 07:38 PM
Only thing we can do now is Vote. I already did.


FL Voters Cling To Guns On Fear Of An XXXXX Presidency

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vg8B7fSlJeY&feature=related

wayneinFL
October 29, 2008, 10:06 PM
I'd like to remind everyone that the danger in a gun ban is not that all guns will be banned, but that a few guns will be banned.

If all guns are banned, the people will rise up and resist. Just a few and the people will tolerate, accept, or even embrace it. Then a few more, and more and more.

It's stealthy, like age. You never see yourself getting old. You just get old and realize it happened. Gun prohibition in the U.S. IS happening, WILL continue, and in much the same way.

BillCA
October 30, 2008, 12:06 AM
If the next president gets firearms ban thru House and Senate we will all be good little sheaple and turn them in...I myself do not feel like going to prison and losing everything I have to Lawyers..

Your wool may keep you warm, but not safe. Your decision to make, however.

I'll vote too... but here is the PRK, it is unlikely to be noticed amongst all the dancing liberals drinking the red kool-aid.

exprt9
October 30, 2008, 02:58 AM
"Officer, I work in a Foundry! I took the liberty of getting rid of all my guns, so I threw them all in the furnace last night!" :P

lee n. field
October 30, 2008, 09:21 AM
Hi, I am asking a straightforward question. Lets pretend that our next president were to place a ban on handguns, or all guns.

What exactly happens? What does it mean?

Does the government just take guns we already own from us? Do we get money based upon the retail value for them? Will there be a date that we must turn them in, before looking at criminal charges?

Or does it mean we simply can't buy anymore? Do we get to keep what we have?

Whatever they think they can get away with.

Why do you think there are rules here?

They would love to do a "turn them all in Mr. and Mrs. America" (to quote the gun banning gun owner with poor trigger discipline Diane Feinstein), with house to house sweeps and metal detectors on every neighborhood corner. They can't. They'll do what they think they can get away with.

What that would mean is that there will be a lot of guns that sit unused in closets.

My brother, who lived in Japan for 15 years, tells me that it was not unusual for wartime era rifles to turn up there when a house would be damaged by an earthquake, and the wreckage gone through. Somebody stashed it, back when, and it didn't do anybody any good since.

That's what would happen here.

mpage
October 30, 2008, 10:52 AM
If all guns are banned, the people will rise up and resist.

I disagree. I can understand resisting it to a degree, but how would they "rise up"?

Glenn E. Meyer
October 30, 2008, 02:23 PM
If all guns are banned, it would be because there would have been major legislative, excutive and court concurrence in such.

That is not going to happen with strong support from the majority of the voting populace.

Today on NPR, in a discussion of issues which seemed to lose importance this time around, gun control was mentioned. Also, on politico.com, they discussed why it wasn't a big deal this time around.

Two reasons:

Economic crash is more important.
The Democrats learned from 1994 and 2000 to leave it alone.

Thus, if such a ban surface and was implemented it would be with strong support from most folks.

A subset of folks would 'rise' up! Then they would be hammered down. Tim McVeigh sure garnered a lot of support for his actions, now didn't he?

If you decided to become a rebel given overwhelming support for total gun bans that would be necessary for such to occur, you are toast for population support. You would have NO sea of the populace to hide in.

Jart
October 30, 2008, 05:32 PM
In the spirit of the OP I'll try to keep it to "if" not "whether" guns are banned.

First, my personal take is that if it happens in the next ten years there will be no initial attempt to make it an uncompensated seizure. They couldn't cross that hurdle in Britain or Australia and we've got the fifth amendment that would have to be jumped in addition to the second. Besides, there's a lot more of us.

If our politicians take a cue from our Northern neighbors the cost will be presented massively understated.

It's pretty easy to estimate a cost: it's around 1,000.00 per firearm assuming no inflation, a 100% voluntary compliance rate and minimal infrastructure and bureaucracy. See:
http://www.nao.org.uk/pn/9899225.htm

Assuming 70 million handguns and 30 million semi-auto shotguns, rifles and what-all, the lowest possible monetary cost is 100 billion. Again, using the Canadian experience, we can estimate the actual cost to be a minimum of ten times that or a trillion dollars.

A bunch of folks approaching retirement will be all over it – cash up front for something we weren't sure we were going to sell and we've still got all our Fudd stuff. Of course there will be a tsunami of claims filed contesting the amount of compensation. The claims are a full three orders of magnitude more than the British experience prepared anyone for. The legal system grinds to a halt.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/147948.stm

That should have the compensation cost of 100 billion pretty much torched at that point – the electorate was aware of the 100 billion, this is where they learn it only primed the pump. First, they'll have to swallow the relatively bitter pill that they’re going to have to raid the Medicare levy. It's not like it hasn't happened before:
http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/bd/1997-98/98bd048.htm

But, as they say: "In for a dime, in for a dollar". Around 20% of banned firearms are in and the cost is sailing past the 100 billion mark like it was tied to a post. Now we start printing money. Unlike the Wall Street bailout where there's at least something for the money, the 100 billion has been spent on flame cutters and furnaces – they're literally burning wealth. The impossible has been achieved: they have worked out a way of assuring less return on taxpayer money than the bail out.

About 400 billion into it somebody finally floats the idea of no compensation. It can't be cut out altogether but it's reduced sufficiently that non-compliance spikes and stays spiked.

Some genius in congress finally notices that Britain's handgun surrender was performed with, at maximum, 1/3 of 1 percent of the population owning handguns (162,000 handguns with a general population of 50 million) and it just doesn't translate into 20% of the population owning banned items. His intern notices that Tamara said as much on page 3 of a thread dating from 2008.

162,000 != 100,000,000. Only a very special few could believe that it is.

But it's too late. The USA now aspires to be a third world nation having spent all its wealth on stuff it destroyed. Those that received payment find that it's not worth the paper it's printed on.

predecessor
October 31, 2008, 02:05 AM
Originally posted by BillCA

Crime Rises
As criminals see the citizenry become defenseless they will change their tactics.
* Muggings on the street will become more common.
* Carjacking to obtain desirable autos increases.
* Home-invasion style robberies take a huge jump since citizens are less likely to have a gun. The thugs will have their guns with them, of course.
* Rape increases, especially kidnap-rape crimes.
* Gang activity increases and spreads to formerly "nice" neighborhoods. Gang members intimidate anyone they please and are still armed with guns.
* Crime sprials out of control in many areas of major cities. Thugs become bold enough to assault and rob patrons on mass transit without fear of interference or apprehension. Parking garages with any form of security charge astronomical rates...

There... did I miss anything?

Since citizens can no longer protect themselves, billionaire Bruce Wayne learns some sweet ninja moves, dons some base-jumping gear, and cleans up the criminal element just described. See? nothin' to worry about :D

Oh, and along that same cinematic vein, there is a Secondary Effect that has not yet been discussed that drips with irony:

With the banning, confiscation, and destruction of firearms, Hollywood suffers incredible losses at the box office since firearms are unable to be used as props and action movies and television shows are therefore no longer produced. Starving actors, writers, and directors are then forced to reconsider their political loyalties in order to feed the children that they had with their first, second, and third spouses. :p

buzz_knox
October 31, 2008, 08:16 AM
With the banning, confiscation, and destruction of firearms, Hollywood suffers incredible losses at the box office since firearms are unable to be used as props and action movies and television shows are therefore no longer produced.

I realize that you're probably joking, but the reality is that many existing gun control laws make exceptions for theatrical performances. That's how you see full auto weapons produced after 1986 in movies. Alternatively, they can always go to another nation where firearms are available for such purposes (i.e. P90s might not be allowed in CA but they can in Canada where Stargate was filmed).

Crosshair
October 31, 2008, 02:35 PM
I disagree. I can understand resisting it to a degree, but how would they "rise up"?
It will be known very soon what public officials support such a ban. Their homes would likely have the windows removed by a 22 rimfire at a distance or be a smoldering ruin.

Cells of individuals would form. This would be very different than gangs. Gangs rat each other out to the cops. Cells of individuals would have no such motivation.

The military will be deployed to try and protect these people and their homes. Some attacks will continue, many will poke and prod where they can. Unlike the insurgents in Iraq, people in the US would focus on materiel more than a body count. A 22 round through the sidewall of a $100 tire and a $300 window is going to drain resources for the government.

Infrastructure would be targeted. Getting back to the lowly 22. With a homemade 22 suppressor, a proper vehicle, and some planning you can take out whole sections of a city's power grid. A shovel and a map will take care of telecommunications cables.

The reaction of people who are not fighting the government will be mixed. Some will provide support for those who are fighting, not because of the gun issue, but because of other grievances they have with the government. Others because they see those fighting as the winning side.

Others will side with the government, but risk being targeted by those who are fighting the government. Those who do support the government will likely find that the government will provide little in terms of protection or resources in return for their loyalty.

Steeler Fan
October 31, 2008, 03:36 PM
Unfortunately all my guns are registered with the state police, so no way I could lie to them.

No me either. :D

No sir officer, I ain't got no stinkin guns. I was just gonna call you, they were all stolen last night when I took my dog for a walk. :p

rogertc1
October 31, 2008, 03:51 PM
The gun hoe here will rise up just like they have in California, Canada, England and Austrailia.
RIGHT

King Ghidora
November 1, 2008, 12:36 AM
They won't take my guns. They might take the guns I owned before I died in a hail of gunfire and flash grenades but I will never surrender my guns voluntarily. I don't think they would be able to find enough LEO's willing to participate in rounding up guns in my area. They might import some but the ones here would not go along with a ban.

The government was very scared of the militias after Waco and Ruby Ridge. It was said earlier that Tim McVeigh never got much support. He never deserved any. Killing innocent kids pretty much killed the militia movement. But an attempt to totally ban guns in this country will bring a lot of people out of the wood work who would fight tooth and nail against a ban in this country.

In short you would have a Civil War with many of the federal troops not only refusing to fight their fellow citizens but also joining those citizens outright.

From what I understand Australia never had the same kind of gun culture we have in the US. And GB has been anti-gun for decades. But one look at the IRA will tell you it doesn't take guns to kill people. Explosives can be easy to make if you know how. Unless they ban gasoline and matches they will never be able to ban bombs in the US.

I don't expect any bans including bans of military type weapons. There was too much trouble the last time the government tried it. Since then gun laws have been relaxed severely. We've had the whole CCW movement since then and the Castle Doctrine movement after that. And the liberals have gone along with these things too. For example in Ohio, the governor just signed a Castle Doctrine bill that included many gun laws being relaxed. And that governor is a liberal.

We have had a lot of momentum in the right direction since the AWB. I think liberals realize they will just energize their opponents if they try to impose more restrictions. The Supreme Ct. also just gave us the decision we've been waiting on for nearly a century. They said the 2nd applies to individuals and not to militias.

Mo is definitely on our side right now. I think any attempt at turning Mo around will just make us stronger. They know it's a battle they can't win at the ballot box, in the courts or on the streets should it come to that. They actually fear a revolt. That's why they wanted the guns to start with. They won't do anything to risk starting one. It just ain't gonna happen.

quick
November 1, 2008, 12:38 AM
"cold dead hands" ring a bell

mav88
November 1, 2008, 02:44 AM
i think i heard a good quote about the subject of guns being banned...

"if guns are Outlawed, than only Outlaws will have them"

yea..pretty much what the quote said....exception for those who already have guns ofcourse..

rogertc1
November 2, 2008, 06:48 AM
With the passage of the "Microstamping" bill by the California state senate, gun ownership in California moves a microstep closer to death by a thousand cuts. The situation in the Granola State is a fascinating illustration on how civilian disarmament in this country could finally be effected.

If one reads the gun boards, one constantly hears the chest-thumping affirmations of keyboard heroes who are never going to give up their guns. Offering up their visions of how they will resist the UN gun confiscation teams which are apparently going to land in their black helicopters to go door to door looking for guns, they blithely ignore the attack that is already underway. The strategy is threefold:

Make gun ownership a hassle. Require permits to buy, to sell, to carry, to shoot. Make these permits cost money. Make people stand in line. Make them buy heavy safes or clunky locks. Dictate how they may store the weapon, transport the weapon, dispose of the weapon. Charge for all of this. Make it expensive and annoying.
Make gun ownership non-hereditary. Teach kids that guns are bad. Encourage kids to tell authority figures, such as school teachers or policemen, whenever they see anything involving a gun that seems bad or wrong. Make sure that the very presence of the gun itself is bad or wrong.
Make the gun business unprofitable. Require onerous fees, outrageous zoning requirements, inane engineering changes in the name of "safety". Keep the legal pressure on to drain profits, while at the same time restricting advertising to stifle income.
The fruits of this are already apparent in California, where citizens can't own lots of guns that would otherwise be legal, simply because gun manufacturers are unwilling or unable to submit examples of every possible combination of caliber, color, and barrel length to the California DOJ for destructive testing just to get on the approved list. If the latest "microstamping" nonsense passes, expect more manufacturers to just drop California as a market. Californian gun nuts try to reassure each other that gunmakers would never abandon them entirely; that they represent too large a market, that they subsidize gun owners in the rest of the country. To that, all I can say is that Bushmaster, DPMS, and Olyarms gave up on CA a while back, and they seem to be doing okay.

California, seen as a progressive state by the victim disarmament crowd, is their test lab; the thin end of the wedge of laws they'd like to try elsewhere. Thus far it's not working, not spreading to other states the way they'd like it to, but that doesn't mean that gun owners elsewhere in America can stop watching that train wreck on the left coast; it contains lessons needed to stop our rights here from being derailed.

rem870hunter
November 2, 2008, 10:50 AM
if they ban them,they must buy them, for the full value they are worth, and the ammo too at full value. no corner cutting allowed. i would like to see the money truck come here. but i might have broken most of them before they get here.

vito
November 2, 2008, 02:49 PM
I think you are fooling yourself about being paid. I would not put it past the anti-gunners to just have guns declared a public health danger and demand they be confiscated. Or, once the ban is the law, the market value of guns will drop to about zero, so that is what you might get paid in return for your guns. Remember after hurricane Katrina, the Mayor of N.O. ordered the police to take guns from honest citizens. Some eventually got their guns back, but many did not, many found that their guns were rusted and ruined, and I have not heard of a single person being paid for their loss by the city of New Orleans or anyone else.

King Ghidora
November 2, 2008, 07:16 PM
If one reads the gun boards, one constantly hears the chest-thumping affirmations of keyboard heroes who are never going to give up their guns. Offering up their visions of how they will resist the UN gun confiscation teams which are apparently going to land in their black helicopters to go door to door looking for guns, they blithely ignore the attack that is already underway.

The confiscation of guns is certainly not underway in Ohio. In fact on Sept. 9th we got a whole new set of liberties i.e. our guns. Read the story on this web page (http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/node/5753) if you want the low down.

I belong to the NRA. I stand up for every gun cause I can find (well all the good ones anyway - I'm certainly not standing up for more restrictions). I write letters to govt. officials who make the decisions. And I'm willing to lay down my life for what I believe in. What else am I supposed to do? Start a revolution? Why? We're winning here in Ohio. We just hit the jackpot in fact. Read the article. Our side just gained a huge victory and the law was signed by Ted Strickland, a Democrat who just happens to be from my county. We're all gun lovers around here practically. Even the Dems are on our side where I come from. Strickland just proved that with a capital P.

BTW you lost credibility when you threw in your "black helicopters" comment. Obviously you haven't paid attention to the genuine efforts of gun lovers. I don't know anyone that's worried about black helicopters. I don't know anyone who has ever claimed to see a black helicopter. And that whole load of BS was from 15 years ago anyway and the only people I heard say it was true were net nuts and talk show showboaters looking for an audience. Does the name Art Bell (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art_Bell) ring a bell? Chuck Harder (http://www.chuckhardershow.com/) maybe? If you want to lump us in with that crowd I know some liberals who would love to get your attention (and your money of course). I certainly don't subscribe to the paranoid paranormal crap that Bell bellowed and Harder must have shortened his name removing the word "Head" from the end because he was the most hard headed idiot who ever Up Chucked on the airwaves.

johnwilliamson062
November 2, 2008, 07:35 PM
For example in Ohio, the governor just signed a Castle Doctrine bill that included many gun laws being relaxed. And that governor is a liberal.

The governor is a liberal who is riding a tide of support and popularity this election, a lot of it from 2a sensitive republicans. He has my vote, and I will say he is the ONLY politician I have suggested anyone vote for or support(although he isn't up for re-election until 2010). The fact that he is far less corrupt than our last few governors doesn't hurt much.

If the government comes knocking on my door looking for guns I will hand them all over. With odds of 20 or 30 to one that, will not be where I choose to fight. If the Jews in the Warsaw ghetto could come up with guns walled in and with no outside contact allowed, I am sure I will be able to also.

I think most reasonable people who are concerned will simply leave the country.

King Ghidora
November 2, 2008, 08:47 PM
I know this isn't supposed to turn political but I will never vote for the guy. I know too much about him. I won't say what and I won't ask anyone to follow my lead. I'm glad he signed the new bill but IMO he only did it because the gun lobby has become very strong in Ohio.

skeeter
November 3, 2008, 02:43 AM
This could happen on a national scale.
I lived in NYC when it was legal to own and register an HK91 and the Mini-14 with factory folding stock. About a year after buying them I got a letter from the Firearms board saying that they were now illegal to own and I must either turn them in to my local precint or show proof they were transported out of state (the latter would not be an option if this was on a national scale).
I do know of someone who never responded to this notice and he was visited with a search warrant and his guns were confiscated. It cost him a lot in legal fees but he did not get any jail time as his lawyer stated his case in that he never received the letter as it was not sent certified.
I moved out of NY as soon as I could. Now with Obuma likely to be the next coke using president this really can happen.

21CFA
November 10, 2008, 08:37 AM
Earlier presidential Executive Orders, vs. 2009 possible Executive Orders.
(Ah, yes, those were the days!)

1996 press release on Google, "Executive Orders." At a White House ceremony today, President Clinton issued an executive order that permanently bans the import of over 50 types of foreign-made assault weapons. Elizabeth Farnsworth and guests discuss the ban. Today's executive order permanently bans the importation of more than 50 types of assault weapons, primarily modifications of the AK-47 and the Israeli Uzi but also including other models. The ban comes after a review by the Treasury Department, which oversees the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms. (2009, anyone?)
November 14, 1997 Amid indications that President Clinton intends to clamp down via Executive Orders on imports of assault weapons, gun dealers have obtained permits to bring in thousands of these firearms before a deadline bars them from doing so. In one week in late October, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms granted 150,000 permits for importing modified assault weapons, a huge proportion of the 600,000 permits issued over the entire year. Each permit allows the import of one weapon, and the unusually high number, first reported today in The Los Angeles Times, followed Clinton's Executive Order declaring a policy review prompted by gun-control supporters in Congress. ((Note the words "in Congress.")) (2009, anyone?)
(1997) The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel Article date: March 6 " Capitalizing on the popular law-and-order issue, President Clinton invoked last month's shooting spree atop the Empire State Building in pushing Wednesday for a ban on foreign visitors' buying or carrying firearms. With uniformed state troopers and Democrat lawmakers assembled in the Oval Office, Clinton also signed an executive order requiring that firearms carried by federal law enforcement officers be equipped with child-safety locks. "Easy access means deadly consequences," Clinton said, noting that children and teenagers were involved in more than 10,000 unintentional shootings each year. In a Boston speech last month, Clinton recommended safety locks on all guns sold in the U.S." (2009, antone?)
(What sort of Oath does an FBI sniper swear to? Who swore in the individual troopers before Waco? Does the iRS /ATF even have an oath? Seriously want to know, and see it. Hmmmmm?)
(1944) FDR used an executive order to put Japanese-Americans in concerntration camps. If an Executive Order could do that, who knows what can be done. (2009, anyone?)
(Opinion: IF we have an anti-2A president who might lie alot, AND a rubber-stamp Congress, AND a Supreme Court that just barely decided that the 2A does mean what it says, then what do you think the next 4 ~ 8 years might bring us?

johnbt
November 10, 2008, 09:06 AM
What? A lot of court cases, from the local level on up and on every possible technical angle.

John

tenusdad
November 10, 2008, 09:15 AM
I am very concerned about the direction the federal agencies will be pointed. An administration can cause a lot of grief just through harsher/new interpetations of laws, policy, executive orders, anti-gun staffing, and selection of cases to litigate. All without passing a single piece of legislation. I see nothing positive on the immediate horizon for those that cherish the Bill of Rights.

Recently I took a man who has never owned a gun to a local shop and helped him pick out a good Ruger 357 mag before the election. He was concered about that right being compromised.

tenusdad
November 10, 2008, 03:02 PM
Anybody that says it won't happen here is not living in the real world. Yes I know we surrvied the Clinton years; but each time some of these ridiculous measures are proposed people won't laugh so hard. I remember how funny I thought it was when the eight round magazine limit was proposed in the 1980's. Not so far out now. huh? Virginia outlawed the Spas 12 and Street Sweeper shotguns overnight a few years ago! One day your legal - the next your not. And thank you Governor Wilder for the one gun per month rule.

It's not a matter of if - but a matter of when. First they will make it more cumbersome and expensive - taxes, registration, etc. Then they will document who has what as much as they can; weed out the military semi-autos, high-capacity mags, then the sniper rifles, handguns, get those, and then go from there with a smaller group. Soon one will have to get a permit for a gravel flipper. As Ben Franklin said; "Either we all hang together, or we all hang seprately.

21CFA
November 10, 2008, 10:00 PM
We've already heard that a "major event" has been predicted early in the next administration. Could it possibly be sort of like Krystallnacht in Germany before Hitler moved higher in politics? What might be a cause for declaring Martial Law in America? Also, does anybody know the oath sworn to by BATFE, FBI, DEA, etc? Or is there one? Hmmmm?

Al Norris
November 11, 2008, 12:12 AM
I think this thread is about done. TEOTWAWKI was not the way to go.