JTHunter
Member
This sounds more likely than mass confiscation.
The Democrats Will Never Confiscate Your Guns. Instead, You’ll Hand them Over.
- Thread starter JTHunter
- Start date
- Status
xxjumbojimboxx
Member
Even if this were the truth of what may come, there is all kinds of room for rebellion in many of the stages if it were to come to that. This is fear mongering at best.
I agree that confiscation is not a likely scenario.
They will NOT come to take your guns, and you will not get the chance to go out in a blaze of glory. You will go out silently, or with a whimper, or maybe even recognized with an article in the paper about how the police arrested a dangerous person who amassed a terrifying arsenal, but the odds of your getting a chance to actually stand up to a jack-booted thug who is trying to confiscate your guns are almost non-existent.
They don't have to expend that much energy.
All they have to do is make them illegal and wait. Time will chip away at the hold-outs who don't turn them in or register. They will be dealt with, a little at a time, one here, one there, so there's no obvious point at which those who are non-compliant feel like their collective backs are up against the wall and be spurred to organized resistance.
Someone turns in an enemy, an angry ex spills the beans during a divorce, someone's kid says the wrong thing at school or at the doctor's office or to a buddy. Somewhere there's a paper trail that turns up a gun that should have been surrendered. Someone has a house fire and they find illegal guns in the ashes. Someone gets careless and gets caught at the range with something she shouldn't own or that isn't registered.
They have all the time in the world. Why bother risking lives and resistance by doing a door-to-door? Waiting works just as well if you're not impatient.
They will eventually get them all (or enough that it doesn't make any difference) and with very minor effort.
In the meantime, those non-compliant folks who wouldn't give them up and don't get caught won't be able to rationalize any advantage in keeping their guns. What's the point of having a gun you can't use in self-defense or to hunt, or even to shoot? The only option would be to hide it away and never use it again on penalty of committing a felony and going to prison. They might as well have turned them in before the grace period expired and taken the pittance offered for all their non-compliance gained them.
There will be no hurry from the government's perspective. Making it virtually impossible for owners to use or transfer guns is an acceptable first step as far as they're concerned. From there it's just a matter of time and they're willing to wait. At least they have been willing to wait every where else it's happened.
I don't mean for people to think that they don't need to worry about anti-gun laws. They DO need to worry. The fact that there almost certainly won't be house-to-house searches and a strategy of immediate doorstep confiscation doesn't mean that rights will be retained. The guns and the rights will be lost just as certainly--just not as quickly.
The fear that "they are trying to take our guns" is certainly a valid fear. It's just that it's much more likely that "they" will take our guns via a gradual erosion of rights vs. going down the street searching each house for guns.
We can look at what has happened before to see what will happen here if bans are passed.
The laws will be passed and voluntary compliance will be expected. Most will comply, some will not. The ones who do not will not be actively pursued. It's pointless and dangerous to do so, and it is critical that no line-in-the-sand moments be created that might spur violent, or worse, organized violent resistance.
So they'll just wait for people to get turned in by ex-spouses, careless comments, mistakes, etc. They have all the time in the world and it doesn't even matter to them if some guns and gun-owners fall through the cracks.
We will win or lose this battle in the legislatures and at the ballot boxes. If you're willing to die to keep your guns, then you should be willing to write your legislators; join, and donate to, gun organizations; volunteer to support pro-gun politicians; etc.
The problem is that it's easy, it takes no effort at all, nor does it exact any penalty, to bloviate and chest-thump about what will happen "when they come for my guns" but it takes time, effort and money to do practical things that can actually protect gun rights. So we hear a lot about what's going to happen during gun confiscation but it's much less common to see people working against it right now--when what they do can really make a difference.
They will NOT come to take your guns, and you will not get the chance to go out in a blaze of glory. You will go out silently, or with a whimper, or maybe even recognized with an article in the paper about how the police arrested a dangerous person who amassed a terrifying arsenal, but the odds of your getting a chance to actually stand up to a jack-booted thug who is trying to confiscate your guns are almost non-existent.
They don't have to expend that much energy.
All they have to do is make them illegal and wait. Time will chip away at the hold-outs who don't turn them in or register. They will be dealt with, a little at a time, one here, one there, so there's no obvious point at which those who are non-compliant feel like their collective backs are up against the wall and be spurred to organized resistance.
Someone turns in an enemy, an angry ex spills the beans during a divorce, someone's kid says the wrong thing at school or at the doctor's office or to a buddy. Somewhere there's a paper trail that turns up a gun that should have been surrendered. Someone has a house fire and they find illegal guns in the ashes. Someone gets careless and gets caught at the range with something she shouldn't own or that isn't registered.
They have all the time in the world. Why bother risking lives and resistance by doing a door-to-door? Waiting works just as well if you're not impatient.
They will eventually get them all (or enough that it doesn't make any difference) and with very minor effort.
In the meantime, those non-compliant folks who wouldn't give them up and don't get caught won't be able to rationalize any advantage in keeping their guns. What's the point of having a gun you can't use in self-defense or to hunt, or even to shoot? The only option would be to hide it away and never use it again on penalty of committing a felony and going to prison. They might as well have turned them in before the grace period expired and taken the pittance offered for all their non-compliance gained them.
There will be no hurry from the government's perspective. Making it virtually impossible for owners to use or transfer guns is an acceptable first step as far as they're concerned. From there it's just a matter of time and they're willing to wait. At least they have been willing to wait every where else it's happened.
I don't mean for people to think that they don't need to worry about anti-gun laws. They DO need to worry. The fact that there almost certainly won't be house-to-house searches and a strategy of immediate doorstep confiscation doesn't mean that rights will be retained. The guns and the rights will be lost just as certainly--just not as quickly.
The fear that "they are trying to take our guns" is certainly a valid fear. It's just that it's much more likely that "they" will take our guns via a gradual erosion of rights vs. going down the street searching each house for guns.
We can look at what has happened before to see what will happen here if bans are passed.
The laws will be passed and voluntary compliance will be expected. Most will comply, some will not. The ones who do not will not be actively pursued. It's pointless and dangerous to do so, and it is critical that no line-in-the-sand moments be created that might spur violent, or worse, organized violent resistance.
So they'll just wait for people to get turned in by ex-spouses, careless comments, mistakes, etc. They have all the time in the world and it doesn't even matter to them if some guns and gun-owners fall through the cracks.
We will win or lose this battle in the legislatures and at the ballot boxes. If you're willing to die to keep your guns, then you should be willing to write your legislators; join, and donate to, gun organizations; volunteer to support pro-gun politicians; etc.
The problem is that it's easy, it takes no effort at all, nor does it exact any penalty, to bloviate and chest-thump about what will happen "when they come for my guns" but it takes time, effort and money to do practical things that can actually protect gun rights. So we hear a lot about what's going to happen during gun confiscation but it's much less common to see people working against it right now--when what they do can really make a difference.
I agree, there will be no forced confiscation, nor another 1994 style AWB. I've long said the next big push will come from a different direction. This scenario is possible, but I've always thought the goal would be to make guns too expensive to own. Taxes on ammo, registration fees, and requiring liability insurance on each firearm in your possession. Changing laws to make you responsible for any deaths or injuries caused by a gun stolen from you etc. would all contribute to most gun owners simply getting rid of them. Most gun owners would voluntarily turn them in to be released from the liability and costs of ownership.
Jackal
Member
They could easily buy most gun owners. Give gun owners 25-50% more than MSRP for their guns in a "buyout" program and most would sell. Heck, I'd probably sell quite a few. 
Orcon
Member
Over 200 years ago we went to war over a 3 penny tax on a damned breakfast beverage. Not because of the tax at face value but for the precedent it set. But just as a dog is the descendant of a wild and ferocious animal, we too have been domesticated and subjugated and wouldn't think of biting the hand that feeds. To quote Mark Levin,
"The federal government’s now the nation’s largest creditor, debtor, lender, employer, consumer, contractor, grantor, property owner, tenant, insurer, health care provider, and pension guarantor."
I would seriously consider your options on getting a convention of states movement going if your area doesn't have one already. Lest the leviathan swallow us all.
"The federal government’s now the nation’s largest creditor, debtor, lender, employer, consumer, contractor, grantor, property owner, tenant, insurer, health care provider, and pension guarantor."
I would seriously consider your options on getting a convention of states movement going if your area doesn't have one already. Lest the leviathan swallow us all.
Tommygunn
Member
LINKED ARTICLE said:
Maybe ... maybe not.
There will STILL be pointes where resistance is possible --- if preparations are made in advance.
There have been door-to-door confiscations, and YES, in the United States! In the 1960s, New York City passed a law requiring regsitration of certain types of semiauto long guns. The progun side protested this would lead to confiscation, to which the city promised that it would never happen, the registration list was only for law & order purposes.
Then in the 1990s, under Mayor Dinkins, those guns were banned, and the lists were used to assure compliance. In one instance a family who'd moved into an apartment once rented by the gun owners, who'd moved to Montana, was raided by NYPD's ESU department (their SWAT) one morning as they ate breakfast---kicking down their door and rushing in with submachineguns & shotguns yelling "where are the guns??"
The author in the linked article suggests a very possible way the government would act. But it does not preclude resistance.
It DOES require a higher level of preparedness than most people probably employ now, though.
Bartholomew Roberts
Member
JohnKSa said:
More importantly, if you can't organize in enough numbers to win the political battle, there is no way you'd win a violent conflict. Something like 9% of eligible voters even bother to take part in the primaries. In some Texas counties with millions of population, important law enforcement jobs are decided on less than 1000 votes.
If everybody who owned a gun showed up and just voted their Second Amendment rights, you'd see gun control thrown down the memory hole so fast your head would spin. There are plenty of opportunities to stop gun control via the political process if gun owners just show up and vote for their Second Amendment rights.
Sadly, even here in Texas, I know a half dozen gun owners who will continue to vote for anti-gun politicians because they just don't honestly believe there is any threat
Snyper
Member
No shots were fired until the British attempted to confiscate the gunpowder in the arsenal at Concord
It really wasn't about the tea at all
http://www.davekopel.org/2A/LawRev/american-revolution-against-british-gun-control.html
DeepSouth
Random Guy
While I believe he is right that confiscation will never happen, he is wrong about almost everything else he said.
I personally believe that the NY "safe act" set the standard.... Not the law, but the estimated 90% noncompliance rate. President Obama told the country certain laws would simply be ignored/not enforced, immigration and marijuana come to mind. Well, like it or not he is leading by example so now we have sheriffs, governors, and other Leo agencies following suit. That's what I expect to see more of, and that's a very bad thing. John Adams famously said we are "a government of laws and not of men" that is changing.
I personally believe that the NY "safe act" set the standard.... Not the law, but the estimated 90% noncompliance rate. President Obama told the country certain laws would simply be ignored/not enforced, immigration and marijuana come to mind. Well, like it or not he is leading by example so now we have sheriffs, governors, and other Leo agencies following suit. That's what I expect to see more of, and that's a very bad thing. John Adams famously said we are "a government of laws and not of men" that is changing.
Kaeto
Member
A part was also the British forbidding the manufacture of metal shovels and plows here instead requiring that they be imported from England at great cost. All with the aim of keeping the colonists under the British boot heel.
HoosierQ
Member
I think a pretty strong distinction can be made between colonists 3,000 miles away from the colonial overlord (many of whom came from lands other than that overlord's) and a bunch of people starting a revolution in their own country, ruled by themselves (regardless of what we think of that government, it will be us voting one candidate or another into office). I think it unlikely that there will be revolution in the streets...not over a new "assault weapons" ban or similar.
vaupet
Member
One of the first things the Germans did in Belgium in 1914 and 1944 was hang posters wich obliged people to hand in their guns. Penalty: dead by firing squad. Yet people managed to have enough guns to organize resistance.
Many dictatures throughout the world have strict gun laws. Yet there are many guns around.
And yes, in those days internet did not exist and mines were for coal or iron ore, not for data.
Many dictatures throughout the world have strict gun laws. Yet there are many guns around.
And yes, in those days internet did not exist and mines were for coal or iron ore, not for data.
There are a number of points where confiscation of weapons fails simple examination.
First, the government simply doesn't know where they are or who has them all. Given the example in NYC - a SWAT team enters the household and yup, the former occupants are gone.
On a large scale effort there are a number of issues, first, that the local sheriff won't participate or allow it where it might happen in his county. There could be literal showdowns of officers. It also implies that officers will blindly follow their Chief's lead, which is assuming a great deal when the union can use it against him, much less the point that many officers would consider it unconstitutional at best and reason to arrest their Chief for it's illegality.
Even with 100% cooperation on all sides - well, take my metro. 90 officers searching ten homes a day, 25,000 "domiciles" in the city limits, it would take about three years. Plenty of time to hide or move guns around. And will the National Guard support that by patrolling the streets at night to enforce a curfew. No, on two grounds, not enough to go around, and the State Governor might simply refuse to cooperate.
In light of Missouri's aggressive CCW and firearms advances the notion there would be confiscation is ridiculous.
The POTUS issuing a EO? No, not enforceable much less recognizable law. Martial law? Under what circumstances could we currently contrive to justify that? Half of the adult population in America doesn't live in metros nor do they support an anti gun agenda. It would be, however, the excuse to take up said arms and enforce a mass citizen's arrest of those who would try to do it.
WE are the source of the police powers in this nation, not our hirelings. If we need to forcibly remove people from office - so be it. That is why writings like "you can be coerced to give up your guns by financial and family pressure no matter what" are simply ludicrous.
The subject has already been discussed on other forums and consensus arrived at a conclusion: If someone has had their bank account closed, and their children taken away - they are then free to act in manner that can do violence on those specific people who acted to take away what was rightfully their's. It's no different than a foreign invader or criminal organization - if they illegally subvert the system to impede your inalieanable rights, then you are within your rights to wrest control from them and restore your property and children back to you.
This puts the battle - literally - on the doorstep of those who are attempting to subvert our government. Given the tens of thousands of people who could be motivated by loss of family and fortune taken from them, it only behooves us to remind them that whatever it done to us will be delivered seven fold unto them.
They simply can't hire that many mercenaries.
It's fundamental - not some involved legalistic or academic discussion of law. They steal from you, you take it back. They know it and that's why they are using a slow methodical approach to change the mindset of the generations to accept it.
At present, no, It's Not Going To Happen. As for the article - it actually provokes people to think, exchange thought, and promote and understanding of fundamental issues and Constitutional thought. It's definitely trolling on a national scale, yes, but it does serve a purpose - to understand how it's NOT going to happen and why.
Because - WE HAVE THE GUNS.
First, the government simply doesn't know where they are or who has them all. Given the example in NYC - a SWAT team enters the household and yup, the former occupants are gone.
On a large scale effort there are a number of issues, first, that the local sheriff won't participate or allow it where it might happen in his county. There could be literal showdowns of officers. It also implies that officers will blindly follow their Chief's lead, which is assuming a great deal when the union can use it against him, much less the point that many officers would consider it unconstitutional at best and reason to arrest their Chief for it's illegality.
Even with 100% cooperation on all sides - well, take my metro. 90 officers searching ten homes a day, 25,000 "domiciles" in the city limits, it would take about three years. Plenty of time to hide or move guns around. And will the National Guard support that by patrolling the streets at night to enforce a curfew. No, on two grounds, not enough to go around, and the State Governor might simply refuse to cooperate.
In light of Missouri's aggressive CCW and firearms advances the notion there would be confiscation is ridiculous.
The POTUS issuing a EO? No, not enforceable much less recognizable law. Martial law? Under what circumstances could we currently contrive to justify that? Half of the adult population in America doesn't live in metros nor do they support an anti gun agenda. It would be, however, the excuse to take up said arms and enforce a mass citizen's arrest of those who would try to do it.
WE are the source of the police powers in this nation, not our hirelings. If we need to forcibly remove people from office - so be it. That is why writings like "you can be coerced to give up your guns by financial and family pressure no matter what" are simply ludicrous.
The subject has already been discussed on other forums and consensus arrived at a conclusion: If someone has had their bank account closed, and their children taken away - they are then free to act in manner that can do violence on those specific people who acted to take away what was rightfully their's. It's no different than a foreign invader or criminal organization - if they illegally subvert the system to impede your inalieanable rights, then you are within your rights to wrest control from them and restore your property and children back to you.
This puts the battle - literally - on the doorstep of those who are attempting to subvert our government. Given the tens of thousands of people who could be motivated by loss of family and fortune taken from them, it only behooves us to remind them that whatever it done to us will be delivered seven fold unto them.
They simply can't hire that many mercenaries.
It's fundamental - not some involved legalistic or academic discussion of law. They steal from you, you take it back. They know it and that's why they are using a slow methodical approach to change the mindset of the generations to accept it.
At present, no, It's Not Going To Happen. As for the article - it actually provokes people to think, exchange thought, and promote and understanding of fundamental issues and Constitutional thought. It's definitely trolling on a national scale, yes, but it does serve a purpose - to understand how it's NOT going to happen and why.
Because - WE HAVE THE GUNS.
Hanzo581
Member
What a ridiculous concept. Outside of states with registration it would be a nightmare enforcing a "volunteer" surrender.
Elkins45
Member
This is the link that caused me to unsubscribe from the All Outdoors newsletter over the weekend. I suffer enough rabble rousing and tinfoil hat nuttery as it is: the last thing I need is more of it in my inbox.
The NSA knows about the guns Uncle Bob gave you in 1974--please!
The NSA knows about the guns Uncle Bob gave you in 1974--please!
huntsman
Member
Look around what are you willing to lose, what are you willing to give up? It's personal and for some the answer is simple others not so much. But it's the same decision those at Lexington and Concord faced.
They will keep chipping away. Perhaps utilize an actual or staged event of such atrocity that public opinion will change. The people themselves will call for gun control and be willing to turn them in. Then laws will be passed. First they'll have a grace period to turn them in, perhaps even offer small compensation. After that they will declare it a felony to own firearms with severe consequences. Many will turn them over at that point rather than risk getting caught or reported. They'll chip away slowly until those that are left are too few to change the course of events. They will do it slowly like they do everything else.
Many gun owners although they love the 2nd Amendment, realize that they don't love it more than prison. The day after they turn over their firearms McDonalds will still be there, the TV will still be broadcasting their favorite shows, they can still get in their car and go to work, church, or mall, and life will be unchanged. They won't realize that although tomorrow will be the same, they will have effectively become slaves who no longer have recourse.
Many gun owners although they love the 2nd Amendment, realize that they don't love it more than prison. The day after they turn over their firearms McDonalds will still be there, the TV will still be broadcasting their favorite shows, they can still get in their car and go to work, church, or mall, and life will be unchanged. They won't realize that although tomorrow will be the same, they will have effectively become slaves who no longer have recourse.
That was a comic little article. While it grazes on a few good points, it's a pretty out of touch viewpoint at least regarding myself and friends/family around me.
I laughed at the bit about 'if you search for something online then they know you have it'. I guess I own a lot of serious hardware that I didn't know I had. And if I search for an optic for an AR15 how do they know if I have 1 or 50? And I'm SURE nobody has been setting up to manufacturing to finish 80% AR receivers..
The fact is if it played out like the author suggests, they'd have to ban them in the first place to kick it off and I think that's the point things would start to get real. After Sandy Hook when people thought they would be banned it was a frenzy, and I heard many strategies that gives me hope that we won't so easily lose our Rights. Kind of like the shot heard around the world, it only takes one spark to ignite the powder keg. (God willing we can peacefully steer our country in the right direction without that happening).
I laughed at the bit about 'if you search for something online then they know you have it'. I guess I own a lot of serious hardware that I didn't know I had. And if I search for an optic for an AR15 how do they know if I have 1 or 50? And I'm SURE nobody has been setting up to manufacturing to finish 80% AR receivers..
The fact is if it played out like the author suggests, they'd have to ban them in the first place to kick it off and I think that's the point things would start to get real. After Sandy Hook when people thought they would be banned it was a frenzy, and I heard many strategies that gives me hope that we won't so easily lose our Rights. Kind of like the shot heard around the world, it only takes one spark to ignite the powder keg. (God willing we can peacefully steer our country in the right direction without that happening).
Deanimator
Member
Rent the movies "Michael Collins" and "Defiance".
There are a lot of historical lessons to be learned from both.
There are a lot of historical lessons to be learned from both.
george burns
Member
I actually answered the article with a dozen reasons why it could never happen the way the author described, "I won't boor you with them".
But make no mistake, this is a one issue election for President, and weather you like Trump or not, you need to vote for him, as no 1 man makes the decisions to do anything in this Country.
I have no doubt that Hillary will re-instate the AWB, "which would be a huge enough victory for her", and try to get a Magazine reduction to 8 rounds or less, if she passes an executive order, "she won't have the votes otherwise".
Half the country has guns, "at least", so it would be highly unlikely and unpopular to try and confiscate them at this point.
And Bad guys don't use Facebook or gun forums, so what would it accomplish, just to quell any possibility of instability? It would be highly unpopular, especially with woman, who all seem to be hopping on the gun wagon lately, with shooting sports and personel defense, they are her strongest support group.
Why take chances, just vote Republican, and we should be ok for 4-8 years.
But make no mistake, this is a one issue election for President, and weather you like Trump or not, you need to vote for him, as no 1 man makes the decisions to do anything in this Country.
I have no doubt that Hillary will re-instate the AWB, "which would be a huge enough victory for her", and try to get a Magazine reduction to 8 rounds or less, if she passes an executive order, "she won't have the votes otherwise".
Half the country has guns, "at least", so it would be highly unlikely and unpopular to try and confiscate them at this point.
And Bad guys don't use Facebook or gun forums, so what would it accomplish, just to quell any possibility of instability? It would be highly unpopular, especially with woman, who all seem to be hopping on the gun wagon lately, with shooting sports and personel defense, they are her strongest support group.
Why take chances, just vote Republican, and we should be ok for 4-8 years.
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
