The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old October 21, 2008, 08:31 AM   #51
Tamara
Moderator Emeritus
 
Join Date: March 11, 2000
Location: Indianapolis, IN
Posts: 15,930
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.
__________________
MOLON LABE!
2% Unobtainium, 98% Hypetanium.
The Arms Room: An Online Museum.
Tamara is offline  
Old October 21, 2008, 08:42 AM   #52
shortwave
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 17, 2007
Location: SOUTHEAST, OHIO
Posts: 5,930
The short of it would be the government would make criminals out of thousands of law abiding citizens.
shortwave is offline  
Old October 21, 2008, 09:22 AM   #53
stephen426
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 11, 2005
Posts: 2,868
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. 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!
__________________
The ATF should be a convenience store instead of a government agency!
stephen426 is offline  
Old October 21, 2008, 09:38 AM   #54
Glenn E. Meyer
Staff
 
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 15,526
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.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc.
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...05_Feature.htm
Being an Academic Shooter
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...11_Feature.htm
Being an Active Shooter
Glenn E. Meyer is online now  
Old October 21, 2008, 11:46 AM   #55
vytoland
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 23, 2008
Location: Illinois
Posts: 613
Firearms? i don't believe in anything like that...........much too dangerous.

OBTW you may "enter at your own risk"
vytoland is offline  
Old October 21, 2008, 11:48 AM   #56
vytoland
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 23, 2008
Location: Illinois
Posts: 613
the ballot box - vote

government elections = send in the clowns
vytoland is offline  
Old October 21, 2008, 02:39 PM   #57
Tamara
Moderator Emeritus
 
Join Date: March 11, 2000
Location: Indianapolis, IN
Posts: 15,930
To quote Bud Helms from page one of this thread...

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.
Tamara is offline  
Old October 21, 2008, 05:36 PM   #58
stephen426
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 11, 2005
Posts: 2,868
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glenn E. Meyer
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.
__________________
The ATF should be a convenience store instead of a government agency!
stephen426 is offline  
Old October 21, 2008, 05:54 PM   #59
electricvoltpower
Junior Member
 
Join Date: October 15, 2008
Posts: 4
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.
electricvoltpower is offline  
Old October 21, 2008, 07:09 PM   #60
44capnball
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 16, 2007
Posts: 257
Quote:
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.
44capnball is offline  
Old October 22, 2008, 03:08 AM   #61
BillCA
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 28, 2004
Location: Silicon Valley, Ca
Posts: 7,087
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!"

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.
__________________
BillCA in CA (Unfortunately)
BillCA is offline  
Old October 22, 2008, 09:08 AM   #62
Buzzcook
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 29, 2007
Location: Everett, WA
Posts: 5,604
Quote:
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_...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.
Buzzcook is offline  
Old October 22, 2008, 09:22 AM   #63
Mach II Sailor
Junior member
 
Join Date: March 22, 2007
Posts: 480
Quote:
But no post using a candidate's or political party's name is permitted.
WHY ??
Mach II Sailor is offline  
Old October 22, 2008, 10:46 AM   #64
44capnball
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 16, 2007
Posts: 257
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.

Quote:
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:
Quote:
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??

A gun ban in the USA would pave the way for a human rights disaster on a terrible scale.
__________________
"Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows."
-George Orwell

Last edited by 44capnball; October 22, 2008 at 11:51 AM.
44capnball is offline  
Old October 22, 2008, 12:07 PM   #65
Crosshair
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 16, 2004
Location: Grand Forks, ND
Posts: 5,320
Quote:
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.
__________________
I don't carry a gun to go looking for trouble, I carry a gun in case trouble finds me.
Crosshair is offline  
Old October 22, 2008, 01:30 PM   #66
Double J
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 12, 2007
Location: So. Illinois
Posts: 547
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.
Double J is offline  
Old October 22, 2008, 01:39 PM   #67
RainbowBob
Member
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 84
Quote:
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.
__________________
Best regards,
RainbowBob
RainbowBob is offline  
Old October 22, 2008, 02:12 PM   #68
ZeSpectre
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 4, 2007
Location: Shenandoah Valley
Posts: 3,276
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)
ZeSpectre is offline  
Old October 22, 2008, 02:21 PM   #69
computerguysd
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 13, 2007
Location: South Dakota
Posts: 200
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.
__________________
South Dakota Right-To-Carry Law, Type: Shall Issue. Local county sheriff or the local police are the issuing authorities.
South Dakota does honor all other state permits, so plan your vacation today!
computerguysd is offline  
Old October 22, 2008, 02:36 PM   #70
rogertc1
Junior member
 
Join Date: December 17, 2004
Location: Maquoketa
Posts: 1,335
You can bring up political parties here:

http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/...d.php?t=315610
rogertc1 is offline  
Old October 22, 2008, 03:01 PM   #71
21CFA
Junior member
 
Join Date: September 19, 2005
Posts: 146
To #69 (& 42), #67, #53, #45.

#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"?

Last edited by 21CFA; October 22, 2008 at 03:05 PM. Reason: spell
21CFA is offline  
Old October 22, 2008, 03:39 PM   #72
computerguysd
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 13, 2007
Location: South Dakota
Posts: 200
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...tarysurvey.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.
__________________
South Dakota Right-To-Carry Law, Type: Shall Issue. Local county sheriff or the local police are the issuing authorities.
South Dakota does honor all other state permits, so plan your vacation today!
computerguysd is offline  
Old October 22, 2008, 05:16 PM   #73
Bud Helms
Staff
 
Join Date: December 31, 1999
Location: Middle Georgia
Posts: 12,995
Mach II Sailor posted:

Quote:
Quote:
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 ??
__________________
"The irony of the Information Age is that it has given new respectability to uninformed opinion." - John Lawton, speaking to the American Association of Broadcast Journalists in 1995
Bud Helms is offline  
Old October 22, 2008, 05:48 PM   #74
Yellowfin
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 7, 2007
Location: West Upstate NY
Posts: 2,303
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.
__________________
Students for Concealed Carry on Campus http://www.concealedcampus.org
New York gun owners unite! Join now! http://www.nyshooters.net
May Issue is the new Separate but Equal.
Yellowfin is offline  
Old October 22, 2008, 07:44 PM   #75
SKULLANDCROSSBONES65
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 19, 2008
Location: Far Nth Wst QLD Australia
Posts: 970
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.
__________________
If you're not confused, you're not trying hard enough!
When you're confused, I'll try to use smaller words!!!
SKULLANDCROSSBONES65 is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:01 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.15224 seconds with 7 queries