The Firing Line Forums

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

Closed Thread
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old October 30, 2008, 05:32 PM   #126
Senior Member
Join Date: December 24, 2001
Location: Grand Prairie, TX
Posts: 1,647
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:

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.

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:

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.
Jart is offline  
Old October 31, 2008, 02:05 AM   #127
Senior Member
Join Date: August 22, 2006
Posts: 836
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

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.
The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist.
predecessor is offline  
Old October 31, 2008, 08:16 AM   #128
Senior Member
Join Date: December 2, 1999
Location: Knoxville, in the Free State of Tennesse
Posts: 4,190
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).
buzz_knox is offline  
Old October 31, 2008, 02:35 PM   #129
Senior Member
Join Date: December 16, 2004
Location: Grand Forks, ND
Posts: 5,332
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.
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 31, 2008, 03:36 PM   #130
Steeler Fan
Senior Member
Join Date: May 18, 2008
Location: Somewhere south of the Mason-Dixon line
Posts: 106
Unfortunately all my guns are registered with the state police, so no way I could lie to them.
No me either.

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.
You can teach the ignorant, you can't fix stupid.
Steeler Fan is offline  
Old October 31, 2008, 03:51 PM   #131
Junior member
Join Date: December 17, 2004
Location: Maquoketa
Posts: 1,335
The gun hoe here will rise up just like they have in California, Canada, England and Austrailia.
rogertc1 is offline  
Old November 1, 2008, 12:36 AM   #132
King Ghidora
Junior member
Join Date: April 7, 2008
Location: SE Ohio
Posts: 584
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.
King Ghidora is offline  
Old November 1, 2008, 12:38 AM   #133
Join Date: July 20, 2008
Location: Surprise, Arizona
Posts: 52
"cold dead hands" ring a bell
quick is offline  
Old November 1, 2008, 02:44 AM   #134
Senior Member
Join Date: October 11, 2008
Posts: 120
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..
mav88 is offline  
Old November 2, 2008, 06:48 AM   #135
Junior member
Join Date: December 17, 2004
Location: Maquoketa
Posts: 1,335
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.
rogertc1 is offline  
Old November 2, 2008, 10:50 AM   #136
Senior Member
Join Date: October 12, 2007
Location: N.J. and trying to decide what state to move to.
Posts: 966
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.
BEAR Bows,Remington shotguns,Marlin rifles
rem870hunter is offline  
Old November 2, 2008, 02:49 PM   #137
Senior Member
Join Date: June 20, 2004
Location: IL
Posts: 803
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.
vito is offline  
Old November 2, 2008, 07:16 PM   #138
King Ghidora
Junior member
Join Date: April 7, 2008
Location: SE Ohio
Posts: 584
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 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 ring a bell? Chuck Harder 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.
King Ghidora is offline  
Old November 2, 2008, 07:35 PM   #139
Junior member
Join Date: May 16, 2008
Posts: 9,996
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.
johnwilliamson062 is offline  
Old November 2, 2008, 08:47 PM   #140
King Ghidora
Junior member
Join Date: April 7, 2008
Location: SE Ohio
Posts: 584
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.
King Ghidora is offline  
Old November 3, 2008, 02:43 AM   #141
Senior Member
Join Date: October 29, 1999
Posts: 883
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.
skeeter is offline  
Old November 10, 2008, 08:37 AM   #142
Junior member
Join Date: September 19, 2005
Posts: 146
Don't stick your heads in the sand.

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?

Last edited by 21CFA; November 10, 2008 at 08:39 AM. Reason: Syntax
21CFA is offline  
Old November 10, 2008, 09:06 AM   #143
Senior Member
Join Date: December 6, 1999
Location: Richmond, Virginia USA
Posts: 6,004
What? A lot of court cases, from the local level on up and on every possible technical angle.

johnbt is offline  
Old November 10, 2008, 09:15 AM   #144
Junior member
Join Date: April 27, 2008
Posts: 396
Legislation Not Needed For Things to Get Bad

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 is offline  
Old November 10, 2008, 03:02 PM   #145
Junior member
Join Date: April 27, 2008
Posts: 396
It will never happen!

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.
tenusdad is offline  
Old November 10, 2008, 10:00 PM   #146
Junior member
Join Date: September 19, 2005
Posts: 146
The trigger-event

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?
21CFA is offline  
Old November 11, 2008, 12:12 AM   #147
Al Norris
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,655
I think this thread is about done. TEOTWAWKI was not the way to go.
Al Norris is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

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 08:16 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2018 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent:
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.12248 seconds with 8 queries