Hypothetical 2nd Amendment Use

[mattx109]

Consider a hypothetical situation:

In five years, or a decade, or a quarter century, the States have adopted Australian-style gun control laws. First registration, then banning, then confiscation and destruction. You can come up with your own scenario as to how this might happen (eight years of Kerry to start, anyone?).

A few months after the confiscations begin, you flip on the news and see that a couple of federal agents/police officers/troopers were shot and killed while attempting to confiscate a "cache of illegal weapons" from a home in Anytown. The man who shot them fled with his weapons and has yet to be apprehended.

What would you think of such an event? Was it a terrible crime, or an appropriate use of the RKBA to fight back against a tyrannical government? Where is the line draw between the two (a subjective question, I suppose)?

 

[Werewolf]

A reasonably presented scenario in my estimation.

Personnaly I'd cheer for the guy so might many others (assuming we knew of the incident - which is doubtful). However, in the land you describe it is highly likely that the press would be controlled or so far left that either no mention of the incident would occur or it would be spun that the guy was either a raving loon or an anti-government neocon terrorist. Most people would buy into either argument.

No matter how it's called the guy would most likely die in vain because IMHO there will not be enough folks who respond in kind to make any difference.

FWIW I firmly believe that the scenario you describe regarding the complete banning of firearms within the US will occur in the next 50 to 100 years. The US and all it originally stood for is dead - it just doesn't know it yet.

 

[Rebeldon]

The antis will first ban person-to-person sales. And target dealers with so much paperwork as to make the gun dealing business too costly for small dealers. And sue dealers and manufacturers out of business, as well as set them up with stings. And levy a anual gun tax on gunowners for privately owned guns so that you can't afford to keep them.

 

[Preacherman]

And do their best to restrict the availability of ammunition, through taxation, regulation, demanding identification of purchasers, limiting quantities that can be stored, trying to restrict reloading supplies and activities, and so on...

 

[Molon Labe]

The man would be an esteemed hero in my book.

I don't care who they are. Whoever takes our guns "deserves what’s coming to them"...

 

[mattx109]

restrict the availability of ammunition

That's always seemed, to me, to be the "best shot" at eliminating firearms in general.

For example: Ban the .223, you'll have someone making the .224, and so on, but eventually it could just mutate into, "All calibers from .150 up are inherently evil and can kill a police officer in body armor at six hundred yards, and so can no longer be sold to the public." Et cetera.