Seriously, what do you think is the probability that all privately owned guns can be confiscated?

[Seymour Flops]

They would have to do it in phases, geographically. If the mayor of Chicago or Baltimore directed their police tactical units to go door-to-door through middle and upper class neighborhoods confiscating legally owned guns people who live in say, Pittsburg or Harrisburg or rural Tennessee would not lift a finger to stop them or help out their fellow Americans whose guns were being taken. Such an operation would give the government overall great confidence in proceeding with gun confiscation in other cities and counties. Rural counties in red states would be especially vulnerable. Lets say the sheriff of some rural red county in Virginia sent the county SWAT team door-to-door demanding citizens' legally owned firearms. Further, let's say enough Virginians resisted that the sheriff needed to call in the ATF or FBI or other federal agencies for assistance. All those Virginians who used force against law enforcement to save their guns would be treated like Randy Weaver or the Branch Davidians. Very few if any fellow legal gun owners living in other states or counties would come to the rescue of those Virginians. Essentially, if our government confiscated guns by one city, county or region at a time they could absolutely get away with it and next to no one would try to stop them.

I guess I spoke to soon to say that we all seem to agree.

Your plan, like many liberal ideas, seem directed entirely at the white middle class and the white working class. That's one of my many beefs with so-called "sensible gun laws." Would the Mayor of Chicago or Baltimore sent police tactical units to confiscate the guns from drug gangs? Is even mayor Mayor Lightfoot that stupid?

I'm not sure that I can agree that no one would come to the rescue. Remember Cliven Bundy?

That wasn't even about taking guns. It was about who Bundy had to pay grazing fees to, the state or the feds.

But I appreciate your giving an answer. So, you would include guns carried by the private security of upper-class people? What is your plan for taking those, along with the gang guns?

 

[night_son]

I guess I spoke to soon to say that we all seem to agree.

Your plan, like many liberal ideas, seem directed entirely at the white middle class and the white working class. That's one of my many beefs with so-called "sensible gun laws." Would the Mayor of Chicago or Baltimore sent police tactical units to confiscate the guns from drug gangs? Is even mayor Mayor Lightfoot that stupid?

I'm not sure that I can agree that no one would come to the rescue. Remember Cliven Bundy?

View attachment 653487

That wasn't even about taking guns. It was about who Bundy had to pay grazing fees to, the state or the feds.

But I appreciate your giving an answer. So, you would include guns carried by the private security of upper-class people? What is your plan for taking those, along with the gang guns?

You mistake me for a democrat or radical liberal of some kind. I am as conservative and pro-2A as they come. My post above is simply my take on how the government could seize private firearms here in America; a mental exercise conducted to prepare for all possible scenarios. I came up with this scenario based on how law enforcement confiscated the guns of many Louisiana residents during and after Hurricane Katrina; they actually went door to door demanding citizens surrender their legally owned guns. No one came to their aid. We Americans tend to ignore or be much less concerned with bad things happening to other Americans in other states as long as those same bad things don't happen to us. The government could exploit this tendency to confiscate guns.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

2044's rallying cry - "you can have my spork when you pry it from my cold, dead hands"

 

[Canon Shooter]

It would be an impossibility here in Florida.

I own over 40 firearms. Every single one of them was legally obtained, and not a single one of them is registered. The state of Florida doesn't know I have them...

 

[Seymour Flops]

You mistake me for a democrat or radical liberal of some kind. I am as conservative and pro-2A as they come. My post above is simply my take on how the government could seize private firearms here in America; a mental exercise conducted to prepare for all possible scenarios. I came up with this scenario based on how law enforcement confiscated the guns of many Louisiana residents during and after Hurricane Katrina; they actually went door to door demanding citizens surrender their legally owned guns. No one came to their aid. We Americans tend to ignore or be much less concerned with bad things happening to other Americans in other states as long as those same bad things don't happen to us. The government could exploit this tendency to confiscate guns.

My apologies for mistaking you for a liberal. I should have guessed from your well-reasoned answer that you were not that.

Yes, that door to door gun confiscation was bizarre. I never heard any follow up to that story. But a hurricane is exactly the kind of crises that the left would not let go to waste. Remember the wailing about how the hurricane was all Bush's fault?

I'm surprised that they did not use the COVID crises to confiscate guns. Maybe since that was a manufactured crises, they wanted to wait for a real one for that move.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Because our choice is to take away all guns not used for law-enforcement and military, or to accept that we live in a nation of armed citizens and figure out how to deal with the extremely small fraction of lawful gun owners who commit crimes with them.

That is the gun control vs. criminal control/psycho control in a nutshell.

I'll give you a head start. Suppose that the Dems manage to gain big enough majorities and to keep their members under control enough that they pass a federal law requiring all privately owned weapons to be turned in, and that police weapons be secured at the station when the officers are off-duty.

What is the probability that most gun-owners will turn over all of their guns, and that police will be able to find and confiscate the rest?

The mentality in the US means guns won't be taken away.

The mentality in the US means school shootings will continue to happen.

The mentality in the US means 5 times more people will be murdered every year than other first world countries.

The mentality in the US means people will die, and people will come up with bad excuses for why it should continue to happen.

 

[Seymour Flops]

The mentality in the US means guns won't be taken away.

Correct.

The mentality in the US means school shootings will continue to happen.

Incorrect.

School shootings can be prevented by common sense security such as they have a police stations, the White House, and banks. If only everyone would accept, as you do, that taking away all the guns is not going to happen, like it or not.

Once that gets through the heads of our leaders, they can stop trying the impossible, and at least provide our children the same level of security as they provide the far less valuable gold in Fort Knox.

The mentality in the US means 5 times more people will be murdered every year than other first world countries.

Most often with pistols, which I know of no liberal who is trying to ban.

The mentality in the US means people will die, and people will come up with bad excuses for why it should continue to happen.

The same can be said of illegals crossing the border with approval from the left.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Correct.

Incorrect.

School shootings can be prevented by common sense security such as they have a police stations, the White House, and banks. If only everyone would accept, as you do, that taking away all the guns is not going to happen, like it or not.

Once that gets through the heads of our leaders, they can stop trying the impossible, and at least provide our children the same level of security as they provide the far less valuable gold in Fort Knox.

Most often with pistols, which I know of no liberal who is trying to ban.

The same can be said of illegals crossing the border with approval from the left.

Well, the problem with your argument is that the US mentality is to do things on the cheap.

Ever been to South Africa? Everyone has security who can afford it because it's a dangerous place. It costs a lot of money, it drains the GDP etc......

 

[Coyote]

Because our choice is to take away all guns not used for law-enforcement and military, or to accept that we live in a nation of armed citizens and figure out how to deal with the extremely small fraction of lawful gun owners who commit crimes with them.

That is the gun control vs. criminal control/psycho control in a nutshell.

I'll give you a head start. Suppose that the Dems manage to gain big enough majorities and to keep their members under control enough that they pass a federal law requiring all privately owned weapons to be turned in, and that police weapons be secured at the station when the officers are off-duty.

What is the probability that most gun-owners will turn over all of their guns, and that police will be able to find and confiscate the rest?

Zero.

 

[Natural Citizen]

What is the probability that most gun-owners will turn over all of their guns, and that police will be able to find and confiscate the rest?

They're outnumbered 10,000 to 1.

Pack a lunch. Or a fanny sack or whatever.

I, for one, intend to fight!

 

[The Duke]

Because our choice is to take away all guns not used for law-enforcement and military, or to accept that we live in a nation of armed citizens and figure out how to deal with the extremely small fraction of lawful gun owners who commit crimes with them.

That is the gun control vs. criminal control/psycho control in a nutshell.

I'll give you a head start. Suppose that the Dems manage to gain big enough majorities and to keep their members under control enough that they pass a federal law requiring all privately owned weapons to be turned in, and that police weapons be secured at the station when the officers are off-duty.

What is the probability that most gun-owners will turn over all of their guns, and that police will be able to find and confiscate the rest?

Zero. It will be Civil War.

 

[The Duke]

You mistake me for a democrat or radical liberal of some kind. I am as conservative and pro-2A as they come. My post above is simply my take on how the government could seize private firearms here in America; a mental exercise conducted to prepare for all possible scenarios. I came up with this scenario based on how law enforcement confiscated the guns of many Louisiana residents during and after Hurricane Katrina; they actually went door to door demanding citizens surrender their legally owned guns. No one came to their aid. We Americans tend to ignore or be much less concerned with bad things happening to other Americans in other states as long as those same bad things don't happen to us. The government could exploit this tendency to confiscate guns.

Did Obama do that?
You know, much Louisiana scum came to Florida after Katrina and tried to run their games here and are still in Florida State Prison.
They got room for everybody! I highly recommend against messing with the law in Florida. They know how to handle that.

 

[AZrailwhale]

Because our choice is to take away all guns not used for law-enforcement and military, or to accept that we live in a nation of armed citizens and figure out how to deal with the extremely small fraction of lawful gun owners who commit crimes with them.

That is the gun control vs. criminal control/psycho control in a nutshell.

I'll give you a head start. Suppose that the Dems manage to gain big enough majorities and to keep their members under control enough that they pass a federal law requiring all privately owned weapons to be turned in, and that police weapons be secured at the station when the officers are off-duty.

What is the probability that most gun-owners will turn over all of their guns, and that police will be able to find and confiscate the rest?

Zero.