If guns were ever banned, what would you do?

Status
Not open for further replies.
"Herself" reminds me of my wife. When I once brought up this very subject my wife said, "If they try to take my guns away I'm taking them all up in the mountains and fight for them!". I found this a bit amusing since she doesn't own any guns and never shoots any of mine. (No negative comment towards "Herself", the part that reminds me is the statement to fight for gun rights not the lack of said guns).

My wifes attitude does outline what many of the anti-gun people don't realize. Many Americans treasure the rights outlined in our constitution even if they don't exercise them on a regular basis themselves. Many Americans will fight for these rights when push comes to shove and woe be unto those who try to turn this country into a police state.

Once upon a time I too took an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. Although I no longer directly serve in the armed forces I have never and will never forsake that oath.
 
Well, damn. I practice Pencak Silat and have lots of knives. I guess that would make me Super Bandit. :barf:
 
My wifes attitude does outline what many of the anti-gun people don't realize. Many Americans treasure the rights outlined in our constitution even if they don't exercise them on a regular basis themselves. Many Americans will fight for these rights when push comes to shove and woe be unto those who try to turn this country into a police state.
Click to expand...

The problem is that whole "well regulated militia" thing. In Switzerland, every male is required to serve and learn how to shoot.

Here, if push came to shove and We the People had to fight back, most people, never having practiced or even used a firearm, would be more of a danger to themselves and those with them than to the enemy.

And I don't think most people care if it's a police state if they're told they're "secure" :barf: ...and they can still watch their reality-TV and buy snack foods.
 
Let's hope and keep up the fight so that we may never learn what we will all do...
Click to expand...
Yes, but - part of keeping up that fight is letting the powers that be know what kind of a fight they would be getting into in the event that they torture the constitution and ignore the people to the point of banning guns.

I really believe that most politicians would ban all guns tomorrow if they thought that they could get away with it, despite the fact that polls show that at least 75% of the people are opposed to more gun control. I don't think you could get more than 5% to vote for a complete ban nationwide.
 
I'm a neopagan. I believe in honoring my ancestors.
I'll just stand and fight for my rights. No need to leave. This is the place of my ancestors and as such it's my duty to defend it. I'm already planning on being buried here (well, cremated...), so I'm in search of a noble death anyway. I'd much rather die fighting for the freedom of America than lying in a hospital bed dying of too many trips to Waffle House™.
Anyone who wants to help enforce the laws that rend the constitution in pieces needs to check their moral compass and stop worrying about having a paycheck to cash. They can bet that someone will check that compass for them, should they choose to follow blindly.
But, in every conflict there will be the sheep who carry out the will of the wealthy. So, I expect a rumble, should this happen. I'll die with my boots on and go to Valhalla or whereever it may be that I go when I die.
But, I won't run and hide.
 
Trying to remember history and knowing that way back in 1919 this nation actually ratified an amendment (18th) to the Constitution banning beer (and other "refreshing beverages") and knowing about the later repeal (21st)...
I guess I'd have to say, the wise move(s) would be to "pull a Joe Kennedy" and import legal firearms from Scotland (yeah right... or wherever) for those medicinal moments (Kennedy's Scotch and Gin was allowed in for "medicinal purposes") all the while working to legally repeal whatever laws, amendments, etc, were passed. (j/k about doing anything even remotely illegal)

Unless of course, it all worked out as Pete Shield and his ilk want... a world of innocence and light, where everyone is full of love, hope, faith and charity for their fellow citizens... :rolleyes: and our governments, with their firearmed staff, remain benevolent dictators, er, who can and will keep this a safe homeland, keeping us free from fear, want or... other feel-good-comfort-food-type words... like freedom or liberty.

I remember hearing my Dad and Uncles rail about this subject back in '68 when LBJ and the Dems in power passed GCA 68 (Isn't Chris Dodd (D-Conn) the son of THE Tom Dodd (D-Conn, author of the GCA 68)?) which was going to "stop the gun violence". Then watched the 86 revision (FOPA) which softened some of the more onerous aspects passed earlier... but, which did have another serious flaw added at the last minute. We were then treated to the 94 AWB which forced a MAJOR change in Congress, it had the 10 yr. sunset provision (thank the Repubs for something)... some Politicians learned something (some never do).

With all our flaws, this really is a great nation with a varied history of trying to stay on the right track... (glass half full)

But just in case... What's that recipe for black powder again? ;)
 
Thylacine,

A couple pages back you stated the following:
the Government, to which I owe my allegiance
Click to expand...
I don't know what oath you took but the oath I took shortly after my 18th birthday stated that I would give my allegiance to my country and the constitution--didn't say anything whatsoever about the government. Might want to rethink that stance. I know it's semantics but still...

Greg
 
While I took that oath many years ago, and haven't been in uniform for many years too. I still feel bound by it.

We are governed by the Constitution not men.
 
phoglund said:
"Herself" reminds me of my wife. When I once brought up this very subject my wife said, "If they try to take my guns away I'm taking them all up in the mountains and fight for them!". I found this a bit amusing since she doesn't own any guns and never shoots any of mine.
Click to expand...
On a related note, for about a year, I was telling people, "I carry a gun for the same reason I have a fire extinguisher in my house..." Then I realized I didn't have a fire extinguisher! Bought one forthwith. Hope I never need it but if I do, it's there.

Perhaps you should buy your wife a gun?

Manedwolf said:
Here, if push came to shove and We the People had to fight back, most people, never having practiced or even used a firearm, would be more of a danger to themselves and those with them than to the enemy.
Click to expand...
No, I don't think so, especially with regard to long guns and especially the non uber-tacticooool ones.
The Four Rules are pretty easy to learn if you and/or your instructor is motivated enough, and operating, for example, an SKS is very straightforward. There is nothing esoteric about using the sights or loading up stripper clips and shoving another ten rounds in when the bolt locks back. I had never shot any long gun but .22s (and a 12-ga shotgun, twice, 20 or more years ago) when I picked up the SKS and I was putting rounds on the paper at 100' by the second clip.

Guns are simple machines. They have one "gotcha" end and only a few controls. If you can drive a car, you can learn to shoot. And a lot of people may have to. The ones that produce subsequent generations will. (There's a name for people who successfully defend themselves: "ancestors." The ones who don't, aren't).

Handguns are more skill-intensive past knife and sword distance, but let's remember that a handgun pretty much is the modern equivalent of a sword. In combat (rather than in self defense) it is used close-up, arm's-length or a bit more. It's a last-resort firearm for a soldier.
...or for a partisan. The Liberator, for example, had sights, but only barely; it was intended to be used so close that sights would not be an issue.

As gunnies, we pat ourselves on the back over our finely-honed skills but soldiering isn't quite the same skill set. Plenty of gun-unfriendly countries turn out quite adequate soldiers by the thousands and tens of thousands. If push ever comes to shove, the flighty soccer mom down the road and her bumbler husband with no visible skills past pushing paper and attending meetings may well surprise you. Humans are not a race of ninnies; we're not all that much more ambitious than the other primates when times are good, but our species has survived hard times in the past and if we have to do so again, we will.

--Herself
 
Last edited:
If all private ownership of firearms was banned, federally, what would you do or where would you go? Canada would be a bad place since they would have probaly banned guns too, by then. What country would be desireable to live in which has little gun control?
Click to expand...
Well, I wouldn't run away and hide anywhere. I'd keep my firearms, albeit in a low profile mode (no regular shooting). In other words, I'd stay where I am and I wouldn't voluntarily surrender any firearms.

Depening on my personal situation, I would move to a gun friendly country in mid europe (if possible to move my guns there) and then move back if the ban was repealed.
Click to expand...
No offense, but if you're just gonna run away and hide somwhere, why should you benefit later on? Stay and fight and endure, or get out and stay out.
 
The entire question is not relevant, because the Socialist Blissninnys would ban guns a little at a time, as they did in England and are doing in Canada.

All we need to do is be vigilant, and show their agendas the light of day, debunking all their made to order "statistics".

Vigilance is the word.

Oh, and "what guns?"
 
Yes, well given a choice between "Socialist Blissninnys" and "Murderous Money-Crazed Imperialists" those of us who want to live our lives outside of concentration camps (being built right now by KBR) don't have much of a choice. At least the Canadians would provide health insurance and not ship me forcibly to Israel to be killed so that Jesus will be allowed to return. No, that's not an exaggeration. That is precisely what people who are actually listened to by our government have as their stated goal. Start your search with "Dispensationalist", "Christian Reconstructionist", "Oppenheimer" and "Rushdoony".

"Socialist Blissninnys". Stupid term used to make people stupid and dismiss anything that isn't in lockstep with their prejudices.
 
I wouldn't "run away" so much as I'd head back home, where I know the terrain like the back of my hand, where I know who's a friend and who's an enemy, and where my dad's farm makes a much more defensible position than my suburban house. If it ever came to confiscating firearms, any authority figure had better go into that part of the country a lot better prepared than our military forces were when they went into Iraq because they'd be walking into the mother of all insurgencies.

I can't speak for anyone else, but I would rather die like a man than live like a worm, and I can assure you that there are very few people living back where I come from who don't share that view.
 
Okay, I'll play. What else are they?

The socialists have banned guns in England, Canada, Australia, and the proponents in the US invariably have "D" behind their name.
 
If you are talking about a abrupt ban that is voted on one day in congress, I would turn them in, like 99.999% of Americans would do. Talk is cheap, but when push comes to shove all you keyboard freedom fighters would turn them at the nearest collection area. Is it worth having your families, friends, and life destroyed for the sake of a few firearms? I think not. In reality I believe it will a slow death to the second AD, that will then lead to a complete ban once enought guns are removed from civilian hands. 'A death of a thousand cuts', is a good way to put it. When and if a ban ever does happens, at that time in the future firearm ownership among American will be a tiny % because of years of severe restrictions, licensing restrictions and hunting being banned. I doubt that many people if any would care about the plight of a few people left who still are able to own firearms, who now have to turn them all in.
 
cbsbyte,

I would turn them in, like 99.999% of Americans would do.
Click to expand...

B.S.!... 99.99% turn-in? Even kinder, gentler Canada didn't have a mentionable compliance rate for their registration scheme. Quite embarrassing, in fact.

Talk is cheap, but when push comes to shove all you keyboard freedom fighters would turn them at the nearest collection area. Is it worth having your families, friends, and life destroyed for the sake of a few firearms? I think not.
Click to expand...

You would be surprised at how many of the people who moonlight as "keyboard freedom fighters" are current or ex-military, police officers, hunters, authors, lawyers, etc., all who are unwavering in their beliefs on the 2nd Amendment. Precisely because of this unwavering belief, they understand that relinquishing their firearms, under a government mandated collection scheme, would directly lead to the destruction of their families, friends, and lives, all for the sake of the lack "of a few firearms". Read a history book, cbsbyte. History repeats itself.

I also suspect more that a few "keyboard freedom fighters" can hit a man at 500 yards with an iron sighted battle rifle. I sure wouldn't want to come and collect any firearms from them...

at that time in the future firearm ownership among American will be a tiny % because of years of severe restrictions, licensing restrictions and hunting being banned
Click to expand...

Maybe... if we continue to allow laws to be passed that clearly violate the Constitution. If we continue to allow outrageous violations of our rights under the auspices of catching terrorists. Just maybe then...

...but not if I can still draw breath, release it, and see 'em over my front sight.;)
 
I would turn them in, like 99.999% of Americans would do.
Click to expand...

So do you also believe that 99.99% of Americans would never exceed the speed limit, use illegal drugs, or cheat on their income taxes?

Tell me, are those tags still on your mattresses that say "do not remove"?
 
I also suspect more that a few "keyboard freedom fighters" can hit a man at 500 yards with an iron sighted battle rifle. I sure wouldn't want to come and collect any firearms from them...
Click to expand...

I don't think I could hit a man much past 400 yards with my .30-06. I can barely hit a deer at that range. Barely, but I can hit it. Still, I wouldn't want to come and collect a firearm from me.
 
when I had refuted every argument (primarily that someone willing to break the ultimate taboo and take a human life would not be deterred by a regulation involving how the gun used was acquired), she said, "If there were no guns, there would be no gun crime.)
Click to expand...

My response to this line of thinking is simply to ask if they remember Prohibition- I either get a quizical look from the one's that can't put two and two togeather to come up with four, or they take another approach-

Now, given that Hillary isn't gonna come to your door herself, but she is going to send Army, NG or police to do the job instead. Still ready to face those "enemies"? These are your range buddies, neighbors and guys you may have served with. They are following her orders, while you are not.

Where do you stand?
Click to expand...

I stand by my duty to "preserve, protect, and defend The Constitution of The United States"- It would be a tough situation to be in to be sure, but as long as The Constitution says what it now says, in this hypothetical scenario, I would be right and "domestic enemies", friends or not would be wrong- Put simply, it's either this or let everyone run roughshod over you and direct your life according to their ideas and not your own- Exactly what The Constitution is supposed to protect you from-
 
If all private ownership of firearms was banned, federally, what would you do or where would you go?
Click to expand...
I won't come right out and say what I'd do...it may come back to bite me in the @ss some day.

HOWEVER, I will make a few observations and pose some questions:

1) There are some 250-300 million guns in this country, owned by some 85 million gun owners (though this works out to only 3-3 1/2 guns per owner, a rather low figure based on people I know :D ). Anyhow, if you have 99% compliance, you'd still have 850,000 gun owners out there - and they'd be the most hard core, pissed-off, best armed and best trained of the group. Given what 2 incompetent Beltway "snipers" (murderers, more like) did in the DC area a few years back (they paralyzed an entire area and weren't caught for weeks, even with thousands of cops looking for them), I wouldn't want to be a government planner trying to figure out what a thousand ex-Green Berets and Seals, plus a hundred thousand ex-armed forces and 750,000 well-trained civilians could do. How many truckers would be transporting fuel and food to the big coastal cities when faced with the threat of being killed for doing so? How long before there are riots in those cities, riots which will divert many of those who would otherwise be looking for guns in the red states? How many people will take out one person (a pol, a police chief, a newspaper reporter, etc.) whom they know to be a rabid anti, and will never be caught because they'll blend into the population and never do the act again?

Oh, and 99% compliance is an absurdly high figure. It'd be no more than 80% nationwide, and far closer to 0% in many rural areas.

2) How many anti-gun politicians would leave widows and orphans after such a law was passed? I am specificially NOT advising anything illegal - I'm just wondering about the question posed.

3) How many in the police and armed forces would not only refuse to carry out orders to confiscate, but would actively aid the cause of Freedom? This is an unknown to all, but uncertainty makes the grab less likely (and a good thing, too).

4) How many guns are not registered with a 4473 or otherwise? Virtually all pre-'68 guns, many inherited guns, and many others picked up from non-dealers interested in selling are not, and this figure is probably in the millions. This excludes war trophies that were never registered, many of which are full autos.

5) How many guns will the corrupt collectors sell back to the population? How many new guns from China, Brazil, the Phillipines, etc. will find their way into the country, imported by the various mafias and gangs?

6) How much "normal" crime would there be, with the combination of a mostly disarmed populace and the knowledge that most cops are on confiscation duty? What'll happen overseas if federal troops have to be diverted from guarding our shores and skies to make war on the civilian population?

The short answer is that there would be so much social unrest, and so many casualties, caused by such an action that I cannot envision it as realistic. Still, the thought of President Hildabeast naming Upchuck Schumer as the Attorney General makes this insanity more possible.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

D
  • Locked
First Step Toward Repeal Of Wilmette Gun Ban
Replies
9
Views
695
usmarine0352_2005
U
K
  • Locked
  • Poll
So you can't own a gun legally!
Replies
13
Views
658
jrhead75
J
S
  • Locked
Does anyone know what countries banned bolt-action,lever-action rifles?
Replies
2
Views
516
sterling180
S
R
  • Locked
After court ruling, towns rush to repeal gun bans
Replies
0
Views
485
Rusher
R
F
  • Locked
What's Up with Repeal of DC Gun Ban?
Replies
1
Views
442
geekWithA.45
G
Back
Top