What do you think would happen if the US government tried to ban gun ownership?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Heres my take on it,

If we had to fight the goverment out right wouldn't it be better to fight them with Insurgent, and gurellia tactics?

Not endorsing them or anything but, Just look how long a couple of nuts can hold out with a AK-47 some RPGs and whatever gear they steal from our people. Now think about what 80 million + armed patriots could do to any military force that tried to come in and disarm them.
 
I'm going to presume we're talking about an outright ban with confiscation and no grandfathering. Reaction would certainly be much more extreme with certain classes of firearms, and I'll further presume we're not talking about ALL guns. Not even in the UK have they tried that, yet.

Interesting question. As I think about it, I foresee a couple of different possibilities.

1) Much like in Canada, the UK, Australia, D.C. and New Orleans, the people would complain but comply. I have no doubt this and nothing more would happen in some regions.

2) An avalanche of lawsuits would reign down. This most assuredly would happen, and I have no doubt--whether against an outright ban on handguns, ugly guns, or all guns. The NRA and SAF sued to stop Prop H in San Francisco. Sheriffs Printz and Mack filed suit in response to the Brady Law. No one would sit still for this.

I don't believe our side would give in before the matter came before the SCOTUS. I mean we'd have nothing to lose.

Perhaps the antis would give up after losing at the Circuit Level. However, I suspect if they had the momentum to get 51 Senators (perhaps 60) and 218 CongressCritters to vote Aye on such a measure, then they would not allow that momentum to die before the matter came before the SCOTUS.

In either event, an outright ban on everything would be overturned by today's SCOTUS and would fail on a vote of between 7-2 and 9-0. A focused ban on one class of guns--be they handguns or ugly guns--would fail on a vote of between 5-4 and 7-2. One or two of the Justices might overturn an outright ban, not on Constitutional or legal grounds, but to prevent a Civil War. No one wants to be the guy remembered for triggering The Second Civil War.

3) I would like to believe the lawsuits would quickly come before the courts and be stayed before ANY action could occur. However, there's a chance some confiscation could begin--perhaps under the auspices of "early voluntary compliance". If confiscations did begin, Feds and locals alike would be involved. National Guard? Maybe. Regular Army? Doubtful. This leads into #4.

4) Resistance. Even against the Borg, it is NOT futile. Some would successfully organize peaceful non-cooperation. The NRA, SAF, CCRKBA and GOA would probably organize most of it. Sane people don't want civil war, but sane gunowners would choose it over disarmament. Sane leaders know that if a ban could be stayed long enough to get before the SCOTUS, it would die a death that would cripple the antigunners with Supreme Court precedent. With that precedent, bans in D.C., Chicago, et al. would be gone. The '68 and '34 bans and restrictions would also probably be gone. In the aftermath of the '94 ugly gun ban, it has been largely downhill for the antigunners over the past 12 years. The legislative reprecussions after an outright ban and confiscation attempt would be severe. It would be darned near pre-1934.

I believe that even in the face of an impending ban, gunowners would be very willing to try a peaceful solution. 10,000 gunowners descending on Washington, D.C. could effectively shut down most federal LEAs with a sea of bodies blockading the front doors. The same in each of the 10 or 20 largest cities could be economically devastating, and a lot of fencesitters as well as antigunners know it. The fencesitters would begin saying "This ain't worth it. Let 'em keep their danged guns. Crime rates are down anyway. Maybe some other time."

5) Civil War. I provided no interrim of violent resistance following peaceful resistance as I don't believe there would be one. I think once the shooting begins, that's it and we're in for a bloody, brutal, violent war that will make the Nineteenth Century Civil War seem like a minor skirmish. When it all ends, however it ends, there will be millions dead. Greybeard7 mentioned "Unintended Consequences", but I don't foresee it being that clean or organized. There will be violence between different racial groups that has absolutely nothing to do with the Second Amendment or the gun ban. It will be bad.
 
For those of you who might be wondering, do you think that about 150 years ago people sat around on plantations in the South saying, "Naah, no way Washington will ban owning slaves and force us to set them free. Not gonna happen in our lifetimes." Could you imagine the talks on their chat rooms if they had had Internet?

Not saying owning slaves is good, just, this would be the same sort of forced retrenching of a belief that a lot of people had to give up. In that era slave ownership was a large source of revenue for a lot of people and a way of life. Again, owning people = bad. But substitute GUN for SLAVE and you have... a precedent?
 
cheers P95carry,I have a friend thru the internet in the UK,he's ex military who also lost his firearms but still an enthusiast as much as he "can be"....

agreed with Ken Grubb on his analysis.

Hurricane Katrina has sadly showed though that there are LEO and military types that are willing to "just do what they gotta do"

dont think the UN would send blue helmets over,I think they'd be too scared.

it would be political suicide(or ugh,maybe just suicide) for a politician to try to impliment such an outright ban,though never say never.

yep,more likely a continued assault on our RIGHTS thru bans or restrictions on "types" of firearms
 
Quotes from "Unintended Consequences"

Retired Chief Justice of the Supreme Court Harrison Potter to the President:

"The Civil War might have been averted if Lincoln had realized two fundamental facts. First, the South had a different culture from the North, and placed a high value on preventing that culture from being destroyed by federal edict and government troops. Second, slavery as an institution was already being pulled into a deep grave by its own economic weight. All it needed was a little free-market push, and it would have been dead and buried."

President back to Potter:

"unlike slavery, the government can't take the moral high ground on this one (gun issue)"
 
Exactly what is occurring now; alot of defensive legislative moves and bleating. Our gov - no matter which empty suits representing the oligarchy in control of this country sit in the WH and Congress - is not about to employ an outright firearms "ban".

They will stick to the incremental approach which has worked so well in europa and elsewhere. Devouring stubborn and troublesome dissenting groups and individuals piecemeal. By the time it is finished, we will look much like the presently modelled U.K.

---------------------------------------------------

http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org
 
MachIV et al,
POINT A
Because the vast majority of Americans obey the law, they are perfect subjects for incrementalism that comes their way in the form of taxes and new laws. Historically when governments have tried to be highly restrictive or ban private ownership of firearms they have succeeded. For every UK, Australia, Germany and South Africa where private ownership was first restricted as a lead-in to a turn-in, show me a county where the people actually said hell no, resisted and won. Why will it be different here? We here on THR may get hot and bothered but 95 % of American gun owners will comply, 1st with registration and then, when required to by law, they will comply with a turn-in.
POINT B
Military configurations, and I count LE in that group for the purposes of this discussion, execute orders. History has shown time and again these organizations will do the bidding of their leadership even when it gets oppressive. I ask again, why will it be different here? Take a LEO out of the time machine you put him in 1950 and show him a news clip of a SWAT team pulling a house down in Dallas to get at a drug peddler and I bet he would tell you he was watching a news item about a communist country or Nazi Germany not the US. I'm not saying the LEOs putting the cables on that drug house are bad guys but my point is they are human and they too are subject to incrementalism. Come to think about it, why wouldn’t they cable up your house or mine when given a search warrant for some weapon they think we might have sometime after the ban or the $1000 tax goes into effect and why wouldn’t your neighbor think twice about turning the 22 he has stashed in the garage after he sees them do it? Everyone is human, me ,you, the COPS and the neighbor.

Put these scenarios together and you end up with English style disarmament here. Perhaps it starts as a tax, then registartion to make sure the tax is being paid, then when they have the numbers special storage rules on certain types of equipment at governemnt provided lock-ups etc etc. Where it ends when the water finally boils is the crusher. Some from the UK have posted in this very thread that they turned in their property when required to do so. Why would the vast majority of Americans be different? Why would the tiny group that wants to resist take an overt position when they realize they are just that, a tiny group?

When the Nazis started enforcing this or that law they projected force against one group at a time. The average German did not take to the streets. We know how that ended up. I don't think that the mindset of the average American today is much different than that of the average German back then when it comes to how they react to new laws, government regulation, taxes and the threat of force etc.

I'm not approaching this from an emotional POV, I'm just looking at what has happened in the past many times and applying to our situation. Some of the history buffs here probably could make a good case for incrementalism leading up to the Civil War where slavery was concerned.

Not trying to be confrontational but I think the American people are not different than other groups of citizens around the world or throughout history when it comes to how they will react to a creepingly oppressive government. Much that has happened since 911 tells me I am 100% right.

The key IMO is not a hole in the back yard with an SKS in it. The key is getting the average American to look very closely at the government we have on all levels and how we can use the vote to peacefully direct it away from these misadventures like the one we are discussing.

Are we too far along to do that....I don't know...I sure hope not.

S-
 
80 Million Gun Owners of about 300 Million Firearms with only about 6 Million NRA Members. Incrementalism has already begun and only 6 Million people are doing anything about it. Of those 6 Million NRA Member how many complain about the NRA asking for even more money, how many are really active members? I am not taking in account members of any other progun organization, but I seriously doubt the membership numbers will go much higher. How many people vote in each election? 30% to 50% on average? The gun owning population is going belly up as soon as the first door is kicked in. Heck, they are already belly up. If you don't take the time to vote, you are wrong. If you aren't a contributing member of a progun organization, you are wrong. If the NRA had 80 Million members we would roll back every onerous gun law in existence. But, no, we are already belly up. Quit delaying and go join the NRA or other progun group, do it today.
 
Not trying to be confrontational but I think the American people are not different than other groups of citizens around the world or throughout history when it comes to how they will react to a creepingly oppressive government. Much that has happened since 911 tells me I am 100% right.
Actually the American people are very different from other groups of citizens around the world.

The United States population is unique because unlike the populations of other countries that have been geneticly and culturally homogenous for thousands of years Americans are descended from the folks in all those other groups who said screw it - I'm not gonna take this :cuss: anymore and upped and left where ever they were to come here. The American gene pool is made up in large part of the genes of outcasts, pioneers, adventurers, eccentrics, entrepeneurs and all the other brave souls willing to give up everything to come here.

The sheep stayed behind and the wolves and sheep dogs came here.

Comparing how a European population reacted to disarmament and how a US population would react under the same set of circumstances is IMO comparing apples and oranges.

The brave spirit of those who founded America and continued to come here looking for a better life still exists in our people. It may be buried deep but it's still there. [Mr T voice] I pity the fool who wakes that spirit up - pity the fool [/Mr T voice].
 
Put these scenarios together and you end up with English style disarmament here. Perhaps it starts as a tax, then registartion to make sure the tax is being paid, then when they have the numbers special storage rules on certain types of equipment at governemnt provided lock-ups etc etc. Where it ends when the water finally boils is the crusher. Some from the UK have posted in this very thread that they turned in their property when required to do so. Why would the vast majority of Americans be different? Why would the tiny group that wants to resist take an overt position when they realize they are just that, a tiny group?

Incrementalism and social peer pressure will be used. It will take 30 years but in the end they will all be gone. First a few common sense taxes, then restrictions on certain types of weapons only crimminals need, with the appropriate mass media blitz. AMMO taxes and bans, relaoding component restrictions and taxes. Extra fees and taxes assessed for repairs. Retsrictions on hunting and sport shooting all for the common good you see. 20 years passes and it so difficult and expensive to own a firearm that the next generation will just turn in their crazy gun nut father/ grandfather/ mother's guns due to the expense and hassle involved in owning storing and going to the range to shoot.

Thats how it will happen in our system.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top