When they come for our guns...

Not open for further replies.


Aug 27, 2007
Dallas, Texas
I just keep wondering...

In all this talk about the end of the 2A and blanket gun confiscations--who is going to enforce this, and how are they going to do it?

How many gun owners are there in the US?

Okay, now how many cops? And just how many of those cops are going to support this? (Hint: Surveys show that most cops are in favor of CCW.)

FBI and BATFE cops will probably be willing--but just how many of them
ARE there? Randy Weaver and his family in a cabin on Ruby Ridge is one thing--or even David Koresh and a few dozen followers in a few buildings outside of Waco--but are there enough Feds to disarm, say, all of Waco's citizens at once? I think if they put every Federal agent in the country on the job at the same time, they'd have a hard time covering even one good-sized neighborhood.

The local cops aren't likely to be much help; some of them LIVE in that neighborhood.

Will they try to use the Army? How many of THEM will be willing? (Hint: 80+% of the US Military reliably votes Republican.)

Going to Iraq or Afghanistan is one thing, but I suspect that when the word comes down that their unit is being deployed to Iowa City or Wichita Falls to take people's guns away, a heluva lot of soldiers are going to have "family emergencies" (or just turn up AWOL) so they can go home and help Mom and Dad keep their guns. Or maybe, "Gee, Lieutenant (*cough*), everyone in the company has the flu... (*cough*)Seems to be an epidemic, all over the base..."

Our troops are used to fighting people who speak a different language, wear funny clothes, and are trying to kill them. I doubt they'd be real happy about going after ordinary Americans in towns like the ones where they grew up.

In any case, if the Feds can't even do Waco all at once, what about the rest of the country? It would be AB-SO-LUTE-LY impossible to forcibly disarm the entire US of A on the same day; therefore, there are two alternatives:

(1) Just issue an order that everyone has to bring in their guns and ammunition and turn them over to the Authorities. How many of you will be ready to do that? Hands?

Hmmm. Can't see any from here. okay, that leaves:

(2) Disarm the people one neighborhood--or, optimistically, one city or county--at a time in any given area (leaving aside just how many areas could be disarmed at once, even if they managed to come up with some units that would actually do it).

Time to rise up and fight them off? Well, maybe--but why would that be necessary? My brother lives in Greenville, about half an hour's drive from here; I have cousins in central Texas, in the Panhandle, and all over. When they come for my guns--"Oh, sorry, Officer, I sold all my guns when I saw this coming down. Go ahead, search the place if you like..." and when they come for my brother's guns, they'll be here. Nonviolent resistance on a massive scale. And how could they stop it? Shut down the whole country and prohibit travel while the confiscations go on--for months?

Oh, if they catch me later, they can put me in jail? Right. Have you seen all the T-shirts that say "You can't deport us all"? There are a lot more gun owners than illegal aliens. You think the War on Drugs takes up a lot of law enforcement's time and energy? The War on Guns will make that look like enforcing the shoplifting laws.

Far be it from me to say there's nothing to worry about. We need to be vigilant. But...

Well, remember how well Prohibition worked out?

There were probably more people that started drinking then than at any time in US history. Lots of people made a good living from moonshining, rumrunning and owning or managing speakeasies--and EVERYBODY knew where they could get a drink. We Americans just don't change our habits that easily--especially when we're told we HAVE to, by the government or anyone else.

If Confiscation ever happens, it won't be over in one day, any more than Prohibition was. That battle will just be beginning, and will go on for years--and the antis will be on the defensive, and losing, from Day One of it.

If they DO try to take away our guns, get ready to become a firearms instructor--and an illegal gun dealer. There's going to be a huge demand for both.
I wouldn't worry about it all that much. It'd be unenforcible. The fed govt. isn't an omnipotent, all-seeing entity. Just look at prohibition, the so-called "war on drugs", border / immigration enforcement, etc.....You see where I'm going with all this? It's laughable that it'll ever come to a vote. the chaps in D.C.(Dirty City) are too busy selling the U.S.A. & it's citizens out to the highest bidders around the world.
Besides, it's the ammunition that'll be tgt'ed, that's how the 2nd ad. will get hammered.
Just being a devils advocate, where there is a will there is a way.

Now that I have said that I got to point out that of all the times we have had to fight the government to keep our guns, each time it gets worse. However a big turning point for us was 911. Joe average ran out and bought a gun after 911.

Seems to keep our guns we need a reason to have them, maybe an open border isn't such a bad deal.

You need to watch video from from New Orleans the soldiers were there to take guns from the citizens just as they were ordered to do. Go under some of Xavier bolgs and look at the videos plenty of soliders were there to KILL AMERICANS if they had to and they werent just in the slummy neighborhoods they were in the areas were doctors and lawyers lived. Watch the cops that beat the crap out of a 70 year old lady and watch how they went to every door step with the muzzle of there rifles already pointing at the door before the home owner even answered and they new if they even had a gun the people of NO had NO rights at all in those times, not just the gang bangers but all the people of NO, they will use cops and soldiers and I would expect they would all do there job as told.
So, how did they get all the evil and bad guns from the good citizens (sorry, "SUBJECTS") of Great Britain and Australia?? Registration first and then confiscation of those on record?
Where is all the talk?

Unfortunately, it keeps popping up on this board and all the others. I guess it gives people who would otherwise enjoy their day something to fret about. :rolleyes:

Mass confiscation is just another bogeyman that people use to spread a bit of FUD around. Unfortunately, despite there being no evidence of any plans or even a realistic possibility of widespread confiscation, it is impossible to refute since the folks who insist it is invariable fall back to, "Just wait, it's coming. Maybe not today. Maybe not tomorrow, but soon and for the rest of your life."

People will point at Katrina as proof it can happen across the country. As these people are unable to make the distinction between that happened there and a planned nationwide gun grab, it's pretty hard to get any meaningful discourse on the subject. Mumbling "But Katrina... " in the face of any evidence to the contrary has become the tinfoil hat crowd's version of the current administrations mumbling "But terrorists..." in the face of any questions about civil rights violations.
ANY soldier who's Oath still echoes and it should, will not follow an unlawful order but will stand and defend the constitiution of the United States Against Domestic enemies in this case. While there would be some sheep involved that would somehow believe they were serving their country, they would be quickly dispatched by the owners of said weapons and their bodies placed as the "Blood above the door" to warn others. MOLON LAVE!
While there would be some sheep involved that would somehow believe they were serving their country, they would be quickly dispatched by the owners of said weapons and their bodies placed as the "Blood above the door" to warn others. MOLON LAVE!


Yeah, right. You're going to shoot soldiers and put their head on a pike as an example. :rolleyes:
I served for 13 yrs and my Oath still echoes in my head. Lets all pray that we don't live to see that day! My Pike supply is low currently! Hmmmm better sharpen some up and bury them with the ammo!:eek:
From a post a few years back (http://www.thehighroad.org/showpost.php?p=1037941&postcount=27 )

From Dave Grossman's book On Killing.

Dr. Stanley Milgram's famous studies at Yale University on obedience and aggression found that in a controlled laboratory environment more than 65 percent of his subjects could be readily manipulated into inflicting a (seemingly) lethal electrical charge on a total stranger. The subjects sincerely believed that they were causing great physical pain, but despite their victim's pitiful pleas for them to stop, 65 percent continued to obey orders, increase the voltage, and inflict the shocks until long after the screams stopped and there could be little doubt that their victim was dead. ....

Freud warned us to "never underestimate the power of the need to obey," and this research by Milgram (which has since been replicated many times in half a dozen different countries) validates Freud's intuitive understanding of human nature. Even when the trappings of authority are no more than a white lab coat and a clipboard, this is the kind of response that Milgram was able to elicit:

"I observed a mature and initially poised businessman enter the laboratory smiling and confident. Within 20 minutes he was reduced to a twitching, stuttering wreck, who was rapidly approaching a point of nervous collapse.... At one point he pushed his fist into his forehead and muttered: 'Oh God, let's stop it.' And yet he continued to respond to every word of the experimenter and obeyed to the end."

If this kind of obedience could be obtained with a lab coat and a clipboard by an authority figure who has been known for only a few minutes, how much more would the trappings of military authority and months of bonding accomplish?

Grossman went on to discuss the ways in which a commanding officer's presence and authority can impel his troops to make kills which they would not otherwise make, but I veered off onto a (hardly original) tangent of my own and got thinking about the many ways in which Milgram's research explains the evil that was Hitler's Germany, that was Stalin's Russia, that was Pol Pot's Cambodia. I've always marvelled at the sheer compliance of the masses in such cases, and wondered even more at the ordinary grunts who actually committed most the atrocities. How could they?

Grossman's thesis is that most ordinary human beings have an inborn and very powerful resistance to killing other humans, and that it takes certain extraordinary circumstances before this resistance is broken down enough to enable one ordinary person to kill another at close quarters. You would think that with such a thesis, the book would be encouraging for the future -- but it's actually very bleak indeed, especially in light of Milgram's research.

If the government chooses to misuse and abuse its powers, what does Milgram's research say the ordinary grunt will do in response? Will he obey unlawful orders? Will ordinary citizens comply and cooperate? I see no reason to believe they will not.

Worse than that, one of the recurring themes in literature (at least in the literature I read) is the beauty and power of taking responsibility for one's own actions and one's own choices. From Voltaire to Gandhi, from MLK to Andrew Jackson to e.e. cummings, from Emerson to Thoreau to Swift to Solzhenitzen, from Kepler to Abraham Lincoln to Spurgeon to Mark Twain to Bertrand Russell and Orson Scott Card, it seems to me that nearly every author who ever set pen to paper and nearly ever orator who ever mounted the podium has lauded the value and virtue of nonconformity.

And yet, it suddenly occurred to me that the very prevalence of these glowing words is pretty darn depressing. You don't, after all, often encounter people lauding the commonplace. Nor is a soldier decorated for doing merely what is expected of him. Such laurels are for those who do the extraordinary ... which leads me to the depressing (but again, hardly original) conclusion that if-and-when, it'll be the majority against a minority; and of that minority, a predictably large number will lose their zeal when faced with nothing more than the simple disapprobation of the rest of the crowd.

For all those reasons, if the order to round up guns is ever given, foot soldiers (whether cops or military) who refuse to obey it are going to be few and far between.

And let's talk about common gun owners. What would ordinary gun owners do? Looking at what gun owners are by and large doing right now, I see no real reason for optimism.

A lot of gun owners don't even vote, for apathy. Or because they think it "won't make any difference."

Sometimes they even vote against freedom, because they want to demonstrate that they aren't "one issue voters," or because the legislation suggested is just a "common sense safety measure" and the voter thinks it "won't affect me."

Some gun owners tell other gun owners not to vote for the best, most RKBA candidate -- because the best candidate has "no chance of winning." Well, duh. If all the people who really agree with the best candidate, waste their votes on someone else instead, the best ones never will have a chance.

Gun owners won't even show up at political protests to carry signs, or write to their local papers, for fear of "getting on a list somewhere."

They won't put RKBA bumper stickers on their cars, unless the sticker is so subtle that no one but a fellow gunnie would get it anyway -- for fear of "getting a window smashed or something."

Whenever one of our fellow gun owners has a run in with the law, gun owners are quick to denounce the gun owner, and support the unjust law. They do this to show that gun owners are "really law abiding" ... even when the law itself is unjust and wrong.

But it's okay. In the soi-distant future, when the goon squads are coming door-to-door to gather up guns, suddenly all the gun owners in America will grow a set of balls twice as big as the ones they had before.

Unfortunately, two times zero is still zero.

You make a Very Valid point PAX... If I believe that anything good comes from Hollywood, it would be that some will try and fight with a fury seen only in movies for what they believe is right. If it comes to that point in my lifetime then another option will be to "leave Jerusalem and watch it burn" from a distance.
Why doesn`t the government realize that the fact of the amount of guns in ordinary citizen`s hands is a major deterent in any country envading us. I think that the fact of Americans having so many guns is an excellent deterent. Not only will the envading force have the U.S. military to contend with but also us.

I would imagine that they would probably start their envasion in California and stay completely away from the south. Whatcha think?
:neener: Thanks, I think. I know some nice guy's from Cal. But they just don't the smarts to get out while there is still time.:banghead::banghead:
If you let them take California, do you honestly think that you won't be next? :rolleyes:
In all this talk about the end of the 2A and blanket gun confiscations--who is going to enforce this, and how are they going to do it?

The point is that they won't do it all at once. It's a 30-50 year plan and it's well on the way.

By 2030 you won't be able to buy handguns and interest in shooting will be classed a mental disorder.

They are nothing if not patient.
In fairness I don't really think an armed populace would be much deterrent for a modern, well-armed military, they would just adopt a scorched earth policy and destroy any buildings that offered resistance, they'd have all the advantages unfortunately and anyone who put up direct resistance wouldn't last long.
TXRifleman got it right. It will not be something from one day to the next.
Look at CA. There you can see the trend already >>> you make guns more and more exspensive as well as the owner ship.
Then they will have harder punishment for the smalest violations.
Like in MASS, where you have to have a trigger lock on the gun when you transport in in your vehicles trunk.
If you forget to install one, they treat you like a criminal robbing a bank!
Also, don't forget the agenda in the schools! So in 20 years most people don't like guns anymore!
glennser In fairness I don't really think an armed populace would be much deterrent for a modern, well-armed military, they would just adopt a scorched earth policy and destroy any buildings that offered resistance, they'd have all the advantages unfortunately and anyone who put up direct resistance wouldn't last long.

The bigger picture is would it be economical to kill people and burn things to gather up the guns? Sure Waco told us that the government is willing to kill us for having guns and not giving them up but that was to make an example. Do you think the banks would stand behind a politicion who is destroying properties they own?

Resistance wouldn't have to fire a shot or fight at all, all they would have to do to stop the grab is start burning America to the ground. There is no way the Banks would allow our government to cut into profits. In the face of tyrany free men can do what has to be done. I am not advocating violence to harm anyone but there are non violent ways to send a message to government.

Not open for further replies.