What Would Happen if the Right to Bear Arms was Taken Away.

Post Reply New Topic

Concealed weapons are either completely banned or almost impossible to acquire in the places that appeal most to terrorists to attack. Gun-free zones are just criminal and terrorist-safe zones.

First and foremost, there will never be a ban of guns in the United States. If for no other reason, than because of the recent Heller and MacDonald decisons in the Supreme Court and the fact that pro-gun people (both Republican and Democrat) dominate in both the House and the Senate of congress. Even in 1994, when banning guns was popular, they could only get a ban on future sales of "assault weapons", they could not constitutionally pass a ban that required people who already legally owned them to turn them in. That simply wouldn't be constitutional to say "screw you, you paid for this property of yours, turn it in and you're just out of that money you spent".

Now before I entertain this thought, let me give a little background on me:

1) While I do own an arsenal of 30 firearms (almost all would be classified under the stupid term of "assault weapon"; I even own one of those "evil" .50BMG rifles), I don't believe that that makes me superhuman. All my guns would mean jack crap if I were surrounded by a swat team or the military sent a tank after me.

2) My guns are not for the purpose of starting a war with the police or the military. They are merely my personal amusment. I don't even take them out to the range that often. About twice a month I pick out 3 or 4 and go to the range and shoot them. Then I come home, clean them, and stick them back in their respective safes.

Now to entertain this thought:

My gun collection is worth $40,000. So do you think I'd just hand them over in the event of a total gun ban with the requirement of handing them in and screw me I'm out $40k? Hell no. I spent the money on them, they are my hobby, I'd defend them..."cold dead hands" type of thing. I didn't spend $40,000 on legal personal property to give it away to be melted down. For those of you that are against guns or don't understand my point-of-view, think of it this way: What would you do if some suited-jerk in Congress just up and decided to ban thousands of dollars worth of your property and demanded that you turn it in? How would you react?

So yes, under this scenerio (which will never happen anyway), anyone that came to my house to confiscate (to steal) my very expensive property (my gun collection), had better have life insurance and body bags, because somebody is going to die.

I guess I should add that under this scenerio that would never happen anyway, the anti-gunners would not conduct door-to-door searches. They simply would not do that for two reasons:

1) It would be too expensive and simply impossible as they wouldn't have the manpower to do so.

2) They know it would cause unneccessary death on both sides.

What the anti-gunners would do is simply ban guns alltogether and leave it at that. Time would weed out everything else. Gun owners would have two options: Turn in their guns or keep them hidden. They could never take their guns to the gun range, they could never use their guns in self-defense; their guns would be nothing more than hidden property collecting dust. This way of doing things avoids shootouts from door-to-door and avoids gun owners coming together in a Branch-davidian like revolt, as there would be no active assault on gun owners. It would simply be on an individual basis of people being caught here and there with their guns, having them confiscated, and going to jail over it or getting shot to death trying to keep them. So if a total gun ban were to happen, that's how it would be. No door-to-door, just simply "they are illegal and if you get caught, they are confiscated and you go to jail or die...your choice".

But again, won't happen. The anti-gunners and their anti-gun lobbies have lost in the United States. Completely and untterly lost.

Did something like that not happen with gold many years ago?

Government, knowing there is no danger of an armed resistance, would increasingly do whatever it damn well wants.

It already does.

ruveyn

That and a lot of people would go out and get guns just cause the right was being taken away, and then next you could expect a revolution.

The second amendment exists partially to protect the citizenry from Government hell-bent on becoming a dictatorship.

I think the ironic thing about the world some anti-gun extremists want to create, is that it would be far more violent than the one we have now. Think about it:

1) If all guns are illegal, then you have to either turn your guns in or keep them hidden forever. A lot of people would keep at least some of their guns because they value their life and the lives of their family in case of a break in, but that will now make them criminals in the eyes of the anti-gunners.

2) If all guns are illegal, you can't use your guns in self-defense. If a criminal breaks in your home, you can't hold them at gun point until the police arrive, because the police will put you in jail for life for having a gun in the first place. You also can't let the criminal go because they might tell someone about your guns and then you'd go to jail for the rest of your life. So that only leaves one option. Anyone who breaks into your home has to die and you have to dump the body Soprano's style, not-to-mention that you'd have to break another federal law by constructing illegal silencers for any guns you plan to use to defend your home from criminals, as you would want to lessen the chance of anyone hearing the shot when you defend your home. The only thing in your favor here is that you'd be harder to catch, as killing someone who randomly breaks into your house is like killing a complete stranger; which is much harder to solve than someone who kills a friend, neighbor, lover, or ex-lover.

3) So in the anti-gunner's world, they've taken people who would have otherwise gone the rest of their lives as law-abidding, and turned them into criminals over night for keeping property the anti-gunners find distasteful, turned them into law breakers for constructing illegal silencers, and turned them into premediated murderers who dump bodies in order to defend their lives and the lives of their families, all in the name of hating the 2nd Amendment and the right to self-defense with a firearm. Way to go anti-gunners, way to go.

Items that one can buy at the local hardware store make marvelous explosives. Take away the guns and you have left a nation of bombers. Which is worse? Bombs or guns? At least a gun can be aimed.

ruveyn

Guns are a huge part of our culture. There is no chance they will be taken away, unless there was a drastic change in our country, like anarchy, or another country establishing rule over us

Thank you for this comment, given the current status of our country, with out enough demand for such an action, it is obvious it won't happen. And, given the recent ammo buyout, when the administration changed, the response you gave, I think is one that might be more common among the general public.

The question assumes enough support for the action to take place and also questions what might precipitate such support and/or action. I'm thinking the only thing that would precipitate support is anarchy that a large number of Gun owners didn't support. If another country were to establish dominion over us; that would be the least of our problems.

My thought here is if there were internal anarchy in the country that was threatening the country as a whole, and the confiscation of arms was seen as a necessary measure to reduce the danger to all, would more people be willing to comply.

I'm thinking some people would, but some people would want to hold on to their guns for self defense, more vigorously than if we did not have anarchy. The question then becomes would a person be willing to give up their life to the authorities for taking their guns away by force, or be more concerned that they might lose their life to those responsible for the anarchy because they didn't have the guns to defend themselves?

So, when it comes down to a life or death situation, who would people support, the government or themselves? And finally, is the United States and the Government of the United States equivalent or are the opinions of the individual citizens that compromise the country more important than the decisions made by our method of Government?

I've often heard movie stars, talk show hosts, and the wealthy, talk about leaving the country if this or that political decision is made. So, I guess that is another option, that people can choose if they have the means to do so.

But, who is to blame, the elected officials, or the people that elected them? I personally think the people are the Government; there are no perfect governments, but ours doesn't work without the support of the citizens.

Last edited by aghogday on 25 Apr 2011, 1:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.

If another country would actually dare try, we're the most heavily armed nation in the world.

HK-50 Unit: Fully armed? One can never be armed Enough.



I think it goes deeper than that, people stocked because they didn't trust the Government. If the government tried to ban guns, I can guarentee you there would be a revolt, and I don't think the government would win if that happened.



Doubtful, because in this environment a lot of gun owners would believe that the entire thing was caused by people in the government trying to create a crisis so they could take away people's rights.



Doubtful, people on the right have listened to what Glenn Beck has said that the left wants the right to act violently so that they have an excuse to institute these kind of "crisis measures." Most gun owners would probably believe the internal anarchy is manufactured. If something like what you are suggesting were to happen I would suspect gun owners would be getting together, also grapping pitchforks and torches, and marching on DC. I seriously doubt that they would give up their firearms.



Again, I really think you don't get it. People don't trust the Government, they aren't going to give up their sole means of defense to someone they don't trust.



If it came down to the Government threatening the lives of citizens because they refuse to turn over their firearms, the Government officials are going to be lucky to just be out of a job. Especially right now with people's distrust of the government and anger at the government.



Rush Limbaugh already moved out of New York.



I would blame the media for not doing their jobs of vetting the candidates.

This scenario is assuming that it would be understood by the majority of the American public that the anarchy was bad and the confiscation of guns was a necessary measure to reduce danger as a whole.

If the majority of the American Public was for it and the Government had to enforce it, would you still think there was a conspiracy and the government was out to get you?

If no matter what, people are going to believe in these conspiracy theories, what is going to happen if we have a real problem?

Do conspiracy beliefs, in themselves, pose a potential danger to the country as a whole?

It is doubtful that people would hand over their firearms to the individuals they believe caused the mess in the first place.



The 2nd Amendment exists for a reason, and I know pro-gun individuals make up a large enough percentage of the population that the 2nd Amendment is not going to be amended legitimately.



You mean conspiracy theories like "Journ-O-list?" Hate to break it to you, but that was conspiracy fact.



Depends, but a conspiracy can actually exist.

What widespread danger does banning "assault weapons" based on nothing more than cosmetic features reduce? It's like banning big spoilers, fart cans, body kits, and stickers from Honda Civics cuz they make the car look like they have 500 hp.

Pistol grips do not make it easier to empty clips from hips. First off, your stance and your shoulder weld (putting the buttstock of the gun against your shoulder) are the biggest factors to reducing recoil, which is why new shooters are always told to lean forward into the gun. Secondly, militaries even train their soldiers to use semi-auto while clearing rooms. Thirdly, no one is gonna hit s**t spraying from the hip so it's smarter to either use the sights or spray from the shoulder. They also say pistol grips allow you to shoot one handed. What kinda dumbass uses one hand to shoot a rifle with?

Also they wanna ban flash suppressors cuz apparently they make muzzle flashes more concealable at night. A muzzle flash is a muzzle flash, a Y shaped one isn't any harder to see than a regular one.

Pistols are used in 90-95% of shootings (I don't remember the exact statistic but it's somwhere around there) which make sense since crooks need a gun they not only have quick access to, but one they can easily dispose of.

Based on these facts, it's reasonable to believe that either the people making the laws dunno s**t about guns (Carolyn McCarthy ROFL) or they have an agenda.

Ridiculous gun control laws are revenue generating streams at best and tyranny at worst. In Canada you have to pay $60 each year to renew your gun licence and they have ridiculous tax stamps in the states.

I agree that a conspiracy actually can exist, but if people distrust the whole government because there was an isolated conspiracy here or there, it's just not logical. Our country is not perfect, but when people get upset with one party, the other party gets a chance to make things right.

That is what has happened so far, and it was evident in the last election like it was evident in the previous election. So, it is evident that the voters still run the country. No one party get's complete control even if they have complete control; that was evident in the result of what we got with healthcare.

It's hard to say what might cause anarchy among the people in the country. But there is a tipping point to all things and it is hard to say what factors might come together to make things much different than they are now in the future.

Other countries don't allow private ownership of guns; they have their reasons, and it is generally supported among there people. We as a country support private ownership of guns and the constitution guarantees it. That is today, though. The conditions of today are not guaranteed for tommorrow.

My point assumes that conditions change that motivate majority support for this change. Are you saying conditions can't possibly get bad enough for such a change to be supported by the majority of the general public?

The majority of the public supports gun ownership at this time, but it is not a majority of the American public that believes in Conspiracy theories that the government as a whole is out to get them.

Suppose the country gets in bad enough fiscal shape that social programs are completely discontinued and anarchy starts in the country; then the majority of the country gets behind the idea of confiscating guns in the country. Will people support the will of the majority of the country and government authority to confiscate guns if the government were to gain the legal right to do this?

The Bill Of Rights and Civil Rgihts are not at the "whim of the majority". As a matter-of-fact, the Bill Of Rights and our Civil Rights, such as Free Speech, is there to protect all rights, even those hated by the majority. It's the reason that people can burn American flags, even though most people in America are against it. It doesn't matter for two craps if the majority of America were ok with disarming people, that little matter doesn't get around that there is a 2nd Amendment. That's what the Bill Of Rights is in this country; it's set in stone. We don't get to change it everytime the American people get a new flavor of the month feeling regarding this or that right, and the process to amend the constitution is all but impossible (especially in this politically biased climate). You'd never get 3/4ths of the States to vote "yes" to amend the Constitution on guns or anything else for that matter; to political in today's world.

The bottom line is, the gun lobby owns Congress, both sides (either in GOP or in Blue Dogs) and owns the Supreme Court. We can pretty much do whatever we want and the anti-gunners can't do a damn thing about it. They'll never reverse Heller or MacDonald, because the SCOTUS doesn't just up and reverse it's decisions everytime a new majority takes place; that's not how it works. And we have at least a few more years or so to squeeze out even more 5-4 2nd Amendment decisions in our favor before a majority switch happens. And when a switch on the SCOTUS does happen, the worst that will happen is the gun side will stop bringing cases before the court. Because unlike the anti-gun side, we are smart enough to know not to bring gun cases to a SCOTUS that is sure to rule against us. Whereas the anti-gun side are so stupid, so stubborn, and so aroggant, they keep fighting all these gun cases to a SCOTUS that they damn well KNOW is going to rule AGAINST them in a 5-4 decision. The anti-gun side has nobody but themselves to blame for the recent victories; all because of their constant foot dragging and fighting tooth and nail to keep their draconian gun laws.