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

[iliketoshootguns]

Hypothetical question. What would happen if the US government tried to ban gun ownership? Would guns become the new booze of the 30's where we would have to go into a speak easy to get a gun? Do you think there would be a revolution in the streets? What do you think would happen?

 

[Pilgrim]

You sort of answered your own question. Booze, drugs, it's all the same.

 

[calzoom]

yup! All the same

 

[Sir Aardvark]

Criminals being criminals would still have their guns.

Law-abiding folk would be disarmed.

Then there would be those people who would certainly refuse to give up their firearms, causing who knows what sort of problems.

There are millions of firearms in America - good luck finding them all!

I could not see an immediate outright ban on firearm ownership happening; it would occur in stages - sort of a "Creeping Incrementalism" where the populace would first have to register all of their firearms, and then be restricted as to when and where they could shoot with further restrictions on who could own firearms, then the people would be required to store them in an approved State-run Armory with restrictions on access, and after that happens - then they would be confiscated.

I can't see a gun ban happening during my lifetime.

 

[shooting time]

I think Sir Aardvark is right on the money it would be not in my lifetime and would have to be done by more and more restrictions.

 

[Bog]

I think a lot of confiscating officers would suddenly find themselves in "Surrender" situations. A lot of them would also die.

Then things would get have the potential to become seriously ugly.

Then the government would vilify those defending their second amendment rights as terrorists.

Then it would be up the responsible, armed citizens to enforce the Constitution.

I'd rather that never happened.

 

[calzoom]

Gun Registration to confiscation in 10 years....or less.

See Canada, Australia, England and who knows how many more countries are doing it.

For those of you old enough to remember when the Clintons were in the White House, we all were nervous about being disarmed. Had Kerry gotten in... OMG! I shudder to think. IF Gore or Hillary gets in, Well...

''I can't see a gun ban happening during my lifetime''. AArdvark, suggest you bookmark, "The Australian" and CBC(Canada) and follow their webb sites for a year.

You may be amazed at their thought processes and how similar they are to our Anti's in this country.

Or follow the Shooter's forum, Australia, for a while.

Your theory may be shortened somewhat! I can only hope you are right though; and count on our younger gun enthusiast to take up the flag and march on with it.

 

[Greybeard7]

Read "Unintended Consequences". Probably not what would happen, but it IS a possibility.

And I think the doubt is what the Founding Fathers intended.

GB7

 

[MachIVshooter]

There are better than 80 million gun owners in the US, totaling ownership of some 300 million firearms (that doesn't count criminals with illegal firearms). I would bet that 20% or 25% would refuse to surrender their arms (dismal, I know, but John Doe who bought a revolver 20 years ago and has never fired it is not likely to give up his current existence for a cause, not even one as worthy as our constitution). but that still leaves on the order of 20 million people willing to fight for the constitution. I will. If our government bans guns and send people to try to confiscate firearms, they are guilty of treason-an offense punishable by death.

I would also bet that 75% or more of our military and at least 50% of our LEO's would not partake in the confiscation.

I don't think it's our own gov't banning private firearms so much as the possibilty that the next super lefty will give the authority to do so to the UN at a time when our legislative branch is aso full of anti crackpots who would ratify the UN's proposal. Then they will slap UN armbands on whichever leftover monkeys decide their LE or military paycheck is more important than the constitution.

When that doesn't work, I dunno. They'll either give up on the whole idea or try to police us with foreign soldiers wearing those same armbands and pretty little blue targets. Ooops, I mean helmets.

 

[Limeyfellow]

I have less faith on those holding out. Some might try hiding their firearms but we already seen what the government does to people who are armed and refuse to give them up at Ruby Ridge, Waco and a whole bunch of others siturations in the US. If the military sides with the government you are screwed and leaves you with two choices really. Hiding them and hoping them not to be found but limiting where you can use them and the second armed resistence with such similar things as you see in Iraq, with bombings, ambushes and open revolt in resistence cells. I doubt many would be willing to get that radical.

 

[bakert]

Don't what lies in the distant future but banning gun ownership within the next twenty to thirty years would be completely uniforceable. You're not gonna see UN troops on American soil for any such thing. either.

 

[rangerruck]

War is politics by other means, politics is war with a different outcome...
what would happen next could only get bad.

 

[iliketoshootguns]

I like that saying ranger "War is politics by other means, politics is war with a different outcome"

Can I borrow that one?

 

[Selfdfenz]

MachIV

I would also bet that 75% or more of our military and at least 50% of our LEO's would not partake in the confiscation.

While I hope you are right, actually, I hope your numbers are low, instinct and history indicate you are not.

S-

 

[BullfrogKen]

I thought back when Billy was in office that no one was going to come door to door. That's suicide, and the "collection agents" know it.


Rather, we'd be urged to turn in stuff they knew about, see our names published in the paper like in tax liens.

We'd wouldn't be able to renew driver's licenses.

Other non-confrontational, but extremely invasive, make life miserable until you comply type stuff. Any bureaucrat can do that task, the same ones that take houses in tax lein actions. Much less direct confrontation, a nameless, faceless system. Hell, those running the system don't even have to know what they're doing. These are people that don't pay their child support . . . . just process the paperwork.

 

[Lupinus]

If they ban guns I see the insurgency in Iraq looking like a cake walk

80 million gun owners

If one in eight decide to keep their guns that is a million man insurgency. 1%? You still have them in the hundreds of thousands, in your back yard, with the sense to attack not random civilian targets but targets of actual meaning. And the war in Iraq proves the same thing our founding fathers knew, you can have all the fancy stuff and modern tactics you want fighters on their turf waging a guerrilla war on you balances the scales. Sure we are winning in Iraq, but it sure aint easy and the enemy isn't even putting it's attacks where it strategically matters. The terrorists in Iraq are by no means freedom fighters, but the style of war is very similar to what you would see if they banned firearms in the US if they outright banned firearms minus attacks against innocent civilians and instead directed where it would have actual value beyond headlines. Then you have the numbers of government agents who are going to say "screw this sh*t" when they start getting killed and have to wage war on other Americans, that cuts down the numbers quite a bit.

Is it likely to happen? No, least not anytime soon. But don't think that the gun owners who will fight for their rights wont make one hell of a mess and get things done.

 

[Crosshair]

Expect the crime rate to skyrocket.

 

[G36-UK]

I think that if such a time comes, then the anti-gun people won't be lying about the "blood in the streets" any more, with the only options being to fight, die, or surrender.

However, when it's over, the antis will most likely have the options of a cigarette or a blindfold

Like I said before, if it happens, and it goes like guys like Lupinus* suggest, I'll be happy to help, if us allies across the pond can be helped at a later date.

(*not singling you out here mate, just you're the closest in the topic reviews)

 

[MachIVshooter]

While I hope you are right, actually, I hope your numbers are low, instinct and history indicate you are not.

There isn't very much history to this one in the US, and you really can't look at NOLA/Katrina as an example. While what they did was wrong, it was dire circumstances. The NG complied willingly because they were being shot at by the people they were trying to rescue. The civilians complied because they really didn't have a leg (or dry ground, anyway) to stand on and fight.

Ruby ridge and Waco were a few people up against hundreds of agents, most of whom were under the mistaken impression that they were doing the right thing. The gov't would NOT be able to disguise a massive, nation-wide forceful gun grab as anything else; The scale and the timeframe would reveal all truths, and I think most servicemen and women and LEO's would have a problem with the prospect of unconstitutionally disarming their family, friends and neighbors. They are sworn to uphold the constitution and defend their country from all enemies, foreign or domestic.

Martial law in catastrophic situation is completely different than trying to disarm millions of people who know you are coming and have prepared to do something about it, whether simply phsycing themselves up or actually aquiring rations, etc.

As a side note, I also believe that most intelligent people understand that the sovereignity of this country is due in no small part to it's well-armed population. A Japanese general during WWII was quoted as saying "you cannot invade the American mainland. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass". While this certainly is an embellishment, it is founded on a truth.

 

[Lupinus]

No worries so long as you don't try and make us eat haggas, I'm not to fond of oatmeal to begin with

On the serious note though if it happens I see a civil war with a territory claimed, washington told to go pound salt, and aggression met in kind.

 

[larry_minn]

I think there would be complaints/some minor protests/lawsuits and then if it didn't get overturned I would have to take my guns (all two) of them and turn them in. I wouldn't be happy but am no criminal.

The key is to prevent it from happening in first place.

 

[Taurus 66]

Well nothing would happen. The question was:

Hypothetical question. What would happen if the US government tried to ban gun ownership?

The government either "does" or "doesn't". There's no "trying". Too many Americans now already have guns. An all out ban would only result in greater social, economical, constitutional (national) instabilities, not to mention leave tens of millions of law abiding citizens to their government vulnerable to criminal forces. A "Do" by the government to round up arms could never succeed. The "Do Gooders" would simply cave in, but the rest (the remaining sane minority of gun owners) would wedge challenging opposers to the 2nd Amendment, and if need be, take it a step further. Where that goes is not up for discussion.

 

[Silver Bullet]

We'll find out when Hillary gets elected.

 

[P95Carry]

Strength is in numbers - and threats are greatest thru incrementalism - chip, chip, chip.

I am a proud American Citizen but an ex Brit - in 1997 I lost a 24 handgun collection - there was no useful way to counter this without leaving a family fatherless and being labelled a crazy gun nut. Prior to that even I lost my Stirling carbine and Mini-14 when semi's where banned. All were of course a ''privelage'' only.

The UK gun lobby was pathetically small and had no real teeth - and was up against the bleeting sheep who felt and I guess still feel, guns being all but banned makes for a safer society. Some may now be thinking different but probably not that many - having some nieve notion the Gov is there to protect them

In America strength is in numbers, both thru pro 2A movements and shere numbers re ownership. But still - beware the incrementalism - as we see in CA (LA) and Chicago - plus the all but criminal dismissal of the 2nd amendment by states such as NJ, IL, partly in NY - and also MD when it comes to carry. The thin end of the wedge can spread.

With incrementalism comes also fragmentation and apathy - the hunters who ''see no need for semi's'' - the gun owners who glibly accept more controls. Be aware - the anti's will never give up and seem to manage to accrue large sums of money to spread their rhetoric and entrap the non-thinking public.

There is no room for complacency at all.

 

[MidnightRambler]

I'm a pessimist. I think most will respond with apathy and give up their guns. I think the kind of person who will rise up to do something like the brave few who began our movement to independence in 1776 is very few nowadays and fading away fast.