When THEY come for YOUR guns...

[DontShootMe]

How do you think it will happen?

Will the military go door-to-door?

I doubt it.

I think it's going to happen in a scattered, randomly appearing way. You'll hear more and more about individuals or families who had their home 'raided' based on a 'tip' - then you'll hear about the 'arsenal' of machine guns and assault rifles which were confiscated for the good of the collective.

Actually, I think this has already begun.

I fear that most of us will not realize it's happening on a nationwide scale until it's too late.

What are your thoughts?

 

[TallPine]

What are your thoughts?

I expect to die of govt sponsored lead poisoning.

 

[Obiwan]

Guns...what guns...I got no guns?????

 

[Hkmp5sd]

I doubt there will ever be a complete confiscation. They will follow they current road they are travelling. The ban categories of firearms from manufacture. Those that own pre-bans may keep them. Then they pass laws as some states have already done, preventing your firearms from being passed to your heirs upon your death. They must be turned in. Then they prevent the repair of firearms, such as is already happening with some types of NFA registered machineguns, claiming the repair is actually manufacturing a "new" machinegun. Combined with guns stolen and those confiscated in crimes, they will eventually have all firearms in their possession.

In the mean time, they pass as many restrictions as they can to inhibit people from getting guns. They attack manufacturers and dealers to force them out of business. They brainwash the younger generation into believing guns are evil and individual ownership is not what the second amendment is about.

 

[Mark Tyson]

The last post hit the nail on the head. Guns will be regulated out of existence slowly. They won't kick your door down, they'll just make it so hard to acquire new guns, maintain the ones you have, and practice shooting that guns will become rarer and rarer. The shooting culture will be eroded, and guns will increasingly be only in the hands of criminals. This is death by a thousand cuts.

 

[saddenedcitizen]

Agreed hkmp5sd

A good friend, many years ago (25 +) when asked by me if 'they would ever outlaw guns' said something to the effect -
'It's not necessary, all that has to be done is make owning a firearm so difficult with conflicting/convoluted/confusing laws/fees/applications/justifications that MOST people law abiding persons will simply not bother' (paraphrased but you get the drift).

 

[JeepDriver]

I expect to die of govt sponsored lead poisoning.

I think tell be a large out break of lead poisoning.

I'm sure I'll end up catching a case of it as well

 

[DontShootMe]

Hkmp5sd

Wow, good post. I think you've hit the nail on the head.

 

[Edward429451]

Oh I've heard that they'll use the street gangs to implement it, and/or that they'll do it 5 states at a time while restricting traffic flow and media. Personally I think they've already begun sporadically like stated.

If I can run I will but if they pin me down at home I'm taking some with me.

 

[moa]

They way they are doing it in Maryland is passing laws such as "smart" guns that only the owner can fire, or ballistic fingerprinting and so on. Some of these laws are so vaguely written, that the agencies in charge of writing the regulations cannot figure them out, and wait until the last minute to spell it all out. With ballistic fingerprinting for handguns, very few manufacturers will bother to supply the needed sample.

And, they passed a law that any one convicted of crime of violence, including misdemeanors, disables that person, with one exception for old juvenile offenses, from owning a firearm. The State Attorney Genernal wanted to even include Disorderly Conduct as a crime of violence.

Another way is to make many technical violations of the law or regulations punishable by serious hard time with mandatory sentences.

However, not all is bleak. 43 States have in their State Constitutions RKBA. Something like 33 States now have "shall issue" CCW. It appears the Congress will bar frivilous law suits against firearms makers and distributors. And, politically speaking, the RKBA folks have become a serious force nationally. All this dispites something like 40 years of anti-gun/gun owner propaganda by the mainstream news media and other influential entities.

 

[Monkeyleg]

"The State Attorney Genernal wanted to even include Disorderly Conduct as a crime of violence."

So, if I got caught doing a nasty with a girlfriend in a parked car thirty years ago, I'm guilty of a "crime of violence?" Gee, yer Honor, I thought it was love, honest.

 

[bjengs]

I think what they'll do is present themselves as being "two parties" who are "completely polar" on the issue. The first party will be breathless with indignation and righteousness and say things like, "Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in." They will have lobbying groups, some run by former members of the second party.

The second party will establish themselves as the "polar opposite" view on the debate, allowing moderate restrictions, sometimes opposing new restrictions, but never even daring to suggest the removal of the current heinous ones. They will have a famous lobbying group which knows that its very existence depends on there being a massive body of gun laws. The supposed pro-gun lobbying group will sometimes even draft legislation in kind of a "scorched-earth" policy, thus shifting the middle ground of the debate somewhere between "plenty of infringement" and "complete confiscation."

The parties will continue to pretend, publicly, that they are not working for identical goals and will pat themselves on the back each "election cycle" when the sheeple go to the ballot box and blissfully overlook the fact that a vote for either is a vote for both.

 

[bjengs]

Otherwise, what Hkmp5sd said.

 

[HBK]

I'm glad someone posted this. I read a while back that you should always be honest with LEOs, but if they outright ban handguns, that would seem a bad policy. I was told by someone I deeply trust to "never give up your guns." I plan ot adhere to my friend's advice, no matter what the cost.

Monkeyleg, it might have just been lust.

 

[Powderman]

So, if I got caught doing a nasty with a girlfriend in a parked car thirty years ago, I'm guilty of a "crime of violence?" Gee, yer Honor, I thought it was love, honest.

Of course, it's a crime of violence!!

Haven't you ever heard of "Assault with a Friendly Weapon"?

 

[Ryder]

I don't know if that would ever happen but if it does I've no plans to sit at home and wait my turn. I'd hang a "Gone Huntin" sign on the front door.

 

[KC]

"Guns will be regulated out of existence slowly."

They leaned this when they tried to outlaw the consumption and manufacture of alcohol. Wasn't that a stunning sucess. They started getting it right whith the "War on Drugs", which brought new restrictions on movement of your assets and easier police siezure of them.

Next, it will be restriction of information. After all, why would anyone need to know how to make (x)? The past is already being destroyed; ever look at the s*** that kids are given in Social(ist) Studies?

What was the line, in Koestler's "Darkness at Noon"? "He who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past", or something to that effect.

 

[Standing Wolf]

Some day, the leftist extremists will have taken enough small bites out of our nation's Second Amendment civil rights that they'll simply be able to revoke the Second Amendment. By then, our First and Fourth Amendment civil rights will have been chewed down nearly to naught, and there'll be no way to complain, nowhere to hide.

 

[clem]

It's happing now, they just ain't got to your door yet.

 

[Hkmp5sd]

Slight difference in the future removal of firearms and the prohibition era. With alcohol, they had an across the board instantaneous ban which didn't work. The public had grown up with alcohol and did not consider it to be the immoral beverage that those pushing prohibition claimed it to be. They simply took the product underground and continued with life.

With firearms, the long, slow process, which includes allowing us gun fanatics to fade into history while training our youth of the evils of firearms and never giving them the opportunity to learn, own and use them, the ban will succeed. Just as with drugs, the law abiding citizens will avoid them while criminals will continue to smuggle/manufacture and use them. The majority of American citizens have absolutely no desire to use heroin or to support its legalization. By indoctrinating children from the cradle that firearms are a similiar danger to the public, future generations will have no desire to own or use firearms.

 

[seeker_two]

I think Hkmp5sd's scenario is probably realistic...

But I'll bet they'll still be enough "business" to keep a south-of-the-border gunrunner in business...

Let's not let it get to that point, OK?...

 

[hammer4nc]

Aside from the drip, drip, drip of administrative law, I don't think anyone has mentioned the threat posed by executive orders/state of emergency. Following sept11, I recall Bush declaring a state of emergency. Someone correct me, but most state CCW permits include a provision revoking the privelege in a declared state of emergency. It apparently wasn't interpreted to outlaw weapons carry this time around, but I saw no reason why it could not have been. Various legislation (i.e., Patriot Act, etc.) passed since sept11 have strengthened .gov's ability to "drop the hammer", with respect to gun rights, I would imagine. All that's needed is the right circumstance. Things could change dramatically overnight.

Another example is the official response to the beltway sniper. Nice men calling to inspect and perform various tests on Bushmaster rifles. (Perhaps hoping to get lucky and panic unknown suspect). Did all who turned in their guns have them returned? The astute gun-grabber would use public opinion to encourage compliance in light of some threat. "It's the right thing to do", as Wilfred Brimley would say.

Since we're playing "what if"...I'll advance this scenario. Local sheriffs take a stand against federal gun grabbers, perhaps deputizing large numbers of citizens, with authority to arrest federal agents for violating the constitution. Some rural state like South Dakota takes a stand. Perhaps some of the more talented writers among THR, could spin this into a plausible option. Now there's a pro-leo thread that would garner lots of input!

 

[HBK]

I think that has actually happened. I can't remember when or where, but I seem to remember a local sherriff running the FBI out of his territory over something gun related. I wish I could remember where, I know it was a southern state, maybe AZ?

 

[Tamara]

You'll hear more and more about individuals or families who had their home 'raided' based on a 'tip' - then you'll hear about the 'arsenal' of machine guns and assault rifles which were confiscated for the good of the collective.

They're going to subtly and slowly raid every single house in my neighborhood?

Kinda dramatic, don't you think?

 

[Hal]

I think that has actually happened. I can't remember when or where, but I seem to remember a local sherriff running the FBI out of his territory over something gun related.

HBK,
I think you may be referring to the Montana(?) sheriff that made the news ~ 5 years ago. IIRC, it was the INS that beat an illegal alien suspect they had in custody inside his county, while his deputy's just stood there and did nothing. The suspect sued INS and the county and collected on it. The sheriff later came out and said if he was going to be held acountable for the feds actions, then the feds were going to have to clear everything through him first, or he'd lock em up.