What Happens If They Pass A Law And No One Obeys?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Treo

member
Joined
Nov 30, 2007
Messages
3,109
Location
Co. Springs
Everybody is worried about an AWB. Well they passed a law mandating a 55 MPH speed limit the entire country ( W/ the exception of my grandmother) ignored it and it was for the most part unenforceable. That total ban on Marijuana isn't really working out for them. So what would be the method of enforcement if everybody refused to turn in their weapons?

Realisticly could such a ban actually be enforced?
 
They would make an 'example' out of a few gun owners to scare the rest of us. Happens all the time.

And don't think it'll be a sudden gun ban. Rather, we may see a gradual decline in ammo availability and spike in prices. One day Wolf may be suddenly unimportable due to strained relations with Russia, or 5.56 might be snapped up by the .gov for 'stockpiling'.
 
I hate to say it but your probably right. And of course the media would have a field day with it. They would make us all out to be inbread homicidal rednecks! WE WOULD BE THE BAD GUYS IN THE COURT OF PUBLIC OPINION!
 
I want to be real clear, I'm talking about civil disobedience, where every one says " No, this law violates the Constitution I refuse to obey."
 
If they passed a ban and ordered local law enforcement the chance to attack and kill citizens without due process in order to seize or search for firearms, the police would gladly kill you.

The one thing you need to remember about LEO's is that they want to be in charge and do not care who their master is as long as they get to enforce laws. For those of you that think this is impossible, remember the guards in concentration camps were jewish in many cases.

Under Clinton, socialists saw a chance to disarm Americans and trample the constitution and leap at it. They were more than willing to ban guns, seize them if possible, force socialized medicine on people, raise taxes and they expressed the desire to sieze assets for redistribution. They tried to force the military to become an openly gay experiment in political correctness.

If you have forgotten, the ATF burned a church group to death in Texas, the FBI murdered a family in Idaho at the ATF's request and countless people were added to watch lists for simply objecting to the governments actions.

Obama has expressed a desire to ban every type of gun, CCW's, self defense, ammunition and pretty much everything else firearm related. He has spoken of his dream of a "national police force more powerful than the DoD, income redistribution either through legislation or courts, taxpayer funded healthcare, taxpayer funded college for all, citizenship for illegals and felons and best of all he has voted over and over to deny the military the right to vote.

Do you honestly think they have not been saving NICS data? Nothing EVER disappears from a government computer no matter what they tell you.

When they pass a law that allows them to seize guns, your choice to obey will be made for you at some point. Your friends, neighbors and co-workers will rat you out for being a gun owner for 50 dollar gift cards and the cops will burn you out with a smile on their face.
 
Longgunman I agree with you on most of what you said. But the part "The one thing you need to remember about LEO's is that they want to be in charge and do not care who their master is as long as they get to enforce laws." Lets just say in my experience I've heard that several times before and never from some one who didnt have a long wrap sheet, low education and poor work history.
 
Honestly, (and this is the first time I've really considered this), I'm not worried about a total gun ban, with house-to-house searches and the like. The manpower simply doesn't exist to confiscate all the arms in this country. And anyway, they aren't anywhere stupid enough to hand us the moral high ground on a silver platter, which is what a total confiscation would do. I could wish they'd try it, because nothing would backfire so spectacularly.

Hooray for proliferation! There aren't enough police or feds or soldiers or national guardsmen to get the job done, even if they'd all obey orders... and as the last half-century has taught us, the political will of a populace to prosecute an action is at least half of the action's outcome.

I would agree with those who say it'll be an end-run; bureaucratic red tape delays, taxes, paperwork, and whatnot. If gun rights die in this country, it's more likely to be with a whimper than with a bang.

But look on the bright side; it's going to take some doing on their part. We are more organized and motivated than ever before. We're actually cobbling together a political identity! We're becoming a demographic, complete with grass roots activism and nation-wide chapters. The days when they could trample us as individuals is over. We're a faction now, and trampling one of us is trampling all of us.

So it's up to us to bring our A-game to the ballot box and the soap box. This, gentlemen, is the fight. Let's go win it.
 
Sgt grim, let's say that you need to go get you some more experience then. I have a college degree, I earn a very good living, and I don't even have a parking ticket and the statement about LEO not caring about whom they serve seems, as of late, to be the norm. Your generalization, sir, is skewed and inaccurate at best. Your opinion is just that, YOUR OPINION. Just like mine is mine! Have a great day
 
Treo said:
I want to be real clear, I'm talking about civil disobedience, where every one says " No, this law violates the Constitution I refuse to obey."

Yeah, that's worked out real well for the ganja-smokers. Sure they're never going to get rid of the stuff, but how many hundreds of thousands of people are in jail for a couple of sacks in their pants or plants in their backyards anyway? They know it's impossible to win; doesn't stop 'em from enforcing the law anyway.
 
We're a faction now, and trampling one of us is trampling all of us

From what I've experienced, very few people actually stand with someone getting persecuted by the .gov when guns are involved. They'd rather stand back from the heat instead of getting burned themselves.
 
They will never completely ban all firearms. And the Clinton AWB had a grandfather clause; you could own "pre-ban" weapons and you could even buy them durring the ban. It just prevented manufacturers from making new weapons and accessories which were considered "Assault Weapons". If they ever completely banned all firearms, or enacted search and seizure tactics there would be a second civil war revolution. That you can be sure of.

P.S. I think lonegunman watches too many internet conspiracy "documentaries", because the real world is nothing like that.
 
I must be a Buddhist.... I figure whatever happens happens... but at the same time I have all the guns I think I need... but I honestly feel you only really need three guns.... a good rifle, a good shotgun, and a good handgun...

I don't figure anyone will be coming door to door to collect guns in my lifetime. Very doubtful to be in my sons lifetime... and if that time should ever come, my heirs can decide to keep my guns or hide them..... my bet is that most of my ancestry would be in agreement with it given the current direction (call it brainwashed if you will... but if that is what my descendants want... well, who am I to say?)...

I am so glad that Minnesota has a Constitutional Amendment protecting hunting, trapping, and fishing.... it almost inherently allows the ownership of firearms...

The whole issue of assault weapons is nearly moot to me.... sure, they're neat looking, fun to shoot and I see no reason to ban them, given statistics.... but a LOT of good hunting weapons make great defensive weapons...

Does any of that make any sense?
 
I am leaning towards agreeing with RoostRider's comments right now, kind of feeling Zen, but partially because I don't want to get all worked up about any of this. The other side of how I'm thinking...well I don't want to self incriminate. Let's just say I will consider anyone intruding at 3am a violent criminal, and who am I to know that a bunch of guys in black SWAT gear with kevlar helmets aren't just criminal thugs breaking in? Sure I'll probably not survive it, but so be it.
 
For those of you that think this is impossible, remember the guards in concentration camps were jewish in many cases.
Uh, not so much.

The "KAPOS" were PRISONERS, often Jewish. They were just prisoners given extra privileges in order to get them to force other prisoners to do what the camp administration needed them to do, from working themselves to death to pulling corpses out of gas chambers. They never had anything more lethal than a rubber truncheon. And in the end, they usually ended up in the gas chambers themselves, whereupon the process would start again.

Guards were either physically fit Germans who were rotated into and out of the Waffen SS (Das Reich and others), or foreign ethnic volunteers considered hostile to Jews (Ukrainians, etc.) or Soviet POWs given the choice of starvation in POW camps or induction into the camp guard system.

There were the "Judenrat" or "Jewish Police" in the ghettos who rounded up those selected to go to camps, but again, they didn't have anything more lethal than a billy club, and THEY ended up dead eventually as well.

Feel free to compare AHSA to the Judenrat. The comparison is particularly apt.
 
The "I can't drive 55" analogy isn't going to work since you just get a speeding ticket. Even the pot analogy won't since simple possession will usually get a misdemeanor charge.

A felony weapons charge is a whole other level of pain.
 
Longgunman I agree with you on most of what you said. But the part "The one thing you need to remember about LEO's is that they want to be in charge and do not care who their master is as long as they get to enforce laws." Lets just say in my experience I've heard that several times before and never from some one who didnt have a long wrap sheet, low education and poor work history.



The only type of person who would call someone a criminal for questioning the virtue of an LEO is no doubt an LEO. For the record, I don't have a criminal record, my BAE is with honors and have served 26 years in the military. I know to a cop or a cop apologist that is meaningless and much like a criminal record, but to me it stands for something.

During the post Katrina mess in New Orleans, every member of every law enforcement group who wandered into the scene engaged in exactly what I spoke about. There is wonderful footage of cops beating an elderly woman and seizing her firearm for no particular reason except they had permission to disarm anyone they found. They made no distinction between an eighty y/o lady and a street thug.

As we speak there are thousands of illegally seized firearms in custody of the New Orleans police. They have been improperly tagged, improperly inventoried and no effort was made to store them correctly so they are all rusted and damaged. Quite a few were stomped or otherwise destroyed in front of their owners. To date they have made ZERO effort to return them to their owners. Why?

We can talk about LA riots and the lack of participation by the LAPD in protecting civilians safety and property if you like. It was similar to NOLA. Or we can talk about the Seattle WTO riots where cops pepper sprayed witnesses and reporters who saw them doing questionable things.

If you want to stick with Obamas infamous Chicage PD, well they do such a wonderful job that EVERY death penalty case in the state had to be communted because so many were tainted with questionable conduct by the PD. They had an officer beat a 110pound female bartender senseless for refusing to serve his drunk behind just last year. They have a program sponsored by the mayor that seizes parked cars and sells them off for profit, it is infamous for going after cars that are paid for and desirable as often as cars actually illegally parked. They even changed the law to allow them to retitle them without contacting the legal owner.

I stand by my original theory that those sworn to uphold the law will gladly uphold any law regardless of weither it is constitutional or morally justified. While a small percentage of officers may refuse, the majority won't.

My dear departed father (a WWII vet of the 101st, lifetime NRA member and not a criminal either) was not liberal nor was he the kind of guy to embrace all races. But he was right when he said justice was different when you are rich and white as opposed to poor and/or black in this country. He noted in many cases cops are more willing to exploit their power over citizens rather than insure it is used sparingly. The history of law enforcement in this country has more questionable chapters than you can imagine.

Socialists governments have always relied on a powerful police presence to enforce their will on the people. National police in Germany in the 1930's were controlled by Hitler's party. China, Russia, Albania, Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Franco's Spain, Canada and most of South America rely on nationalized police to enforce the will of the government over the people.

When Obama calls for establishing a national police force, it is not lost on me what that means. Until he does, questioning law enforcement ethics is still allowed in this country.

Here is the quote of the day: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_fO-usAlqak
 
Last edited:
I will agree with many of the comments of lonegunman. All the new administration and congress will need is another VA Tech type incident. This will eventually happen. When Obama mentioned that civilian security/police force, first thing that came to my mind was neighbors informing on neighbors and then off to the re-education camps (I know that is extreme). If Obama starts to replace many senior military and police leadership, I'll be very concerned.
 
I used to think id just give my guns up, but then I remember that my family has fought for this country since the civil war. I might give them my old shotgun say I sold my other guns at a gun show and that would be that.

The reason why id never give up my guns. Look at Hitler, the USSR, need I go any further. An unarmed citizen is a subject.
 
I guess if and when Obama whats to dismantle the 2nd he will first have to trample the 1st Amendment.

==================

I don't know the number of men serving in the Military now but lets say there is an attack on the 2nd by this new administration: I suppose a 3-5 million man orderly MARCH on Washington might change some attitudes...I would go and miss work and maybe even get fired but there is a bigger issue here than my job!

Would you go?

Part two.....How nice would it be if those manufacturing guns for our military told government: if you trample on the 2nd we will shut down our production to the US Military and I'm not just talking rifles: tanks, airplanes, battle ships, Ammo producers...those is management simply can't do it on their own: they need our back and arms....etc. if trouble is going to come to our shores let it come...at 62, I have a good life.... my family needs to be secure in a righteous society not a sub·ju·gat·ed society!
 
Last edited:
I once read a poll that was taken of military and le. This happened to be sometime during the Clinton Adm. It conclusively stated that the military nor the le would be a part of a "battle" against citizens to enforce a law that THEY (military or le personally) thought was unconstitutional.

Have times changed? Absolutely! LE officers have gone from wearing uniforms and looking professional, to wearing Swat equipment (generally) and looking like "Jack-Booted Thugs". I say generally because in Georgia, most (urban-suburban) police departments dress this way. In the rural areas, the sheriff's deputies dress more traditional. And all Georgia State Patrol dress more traditional. Heck GSP still sports the "campaign hats".

As much as they could try to convince me, there is no reason (even Atl.PD) needs to wear black fatigues and combat boots to make a traffic stop. I believe that you could generally go down the line of dress code, and figure out which agencies would support and actively try to enforce (by all means necessary) a gun ban.

The military would be another matter. I believe that the upper brass (generals and some colonels), would follow what their "boss" says. But the further down the chain of command you went, the views would side more with the general population; specifically with the demographic they were raised around (generally conservative ideals).

So from my pov, it would be generally unenforcable. They would have support from the large urban/suburban pds, and probably most of the federal agencies (even if some agents didn't actively participate). So each officer that agreed to actively enforce the unconstitutional law would basically have to enforce it upon ~thousands of individuals, if not ~tens of thousands of individuals.

Again this is all my opinion. Take it for what you paid for it.

Wyman

And just for the comment about education background and beliefs. I come from a very traditional/conservative family. I graduated HS, attended college and decided that that liberal environment was not for me. I am a strong believer that commonsense trumps education everytime. I have an IQ in the neighborhood of 138-140. And I am a free thinker, meaning that I don't care what anybody says, I'll make my own conclusion. And anybody that wants to generalize that because someone didn't graduate college is uneducated, well there are many people out there, that never went to college, that will put someone with those thoughts in there place.


As far as "Obama's Civilian Gaurd", this might give a clue as to what it MIGHT look like. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DoB85KjHyJY
 
Last edited:
They pass laws every day and no one obeys.

That's one reason we have a growing disrespect for the law in this country. Damn near every person alive knows that he/she could probably be convicted of something if someone downtown picked him/her as a target. The law seems not to correlate with morality; rather, it's a way of keeping us all in line.

Malum in se vs. malum prohibitum -- an important concept to grasp if you want to remain a moral, yet free individual in such a society.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top