LT Ducky Posted December 26, 2012 Posted December 26, 2012 The title of this topic is deliberately provocative – but – I think it is going to come to pass for a number of reasons. The first would be my personal experience with societal changes over my lifetime. Had you told me when I was 35 (1977) that a time would come that the smoking of cigarettes would be against the law in most public places, including restaurants, I would have told you were delusional. Likewise was the idea of mandatory seat belt laws, automobile child restraint seats and, as the most ridiculous thought of all, personal ‘body searches’ prior to boarding a commercial aircraft. All of these changes came about to ‘protect our personal safety’ – it was for ‘our collective good’. Second – the general view of all firearms has changed; from being an accepted part of life used by hunters and target shooters as well as home protection. A number of us in the US remember the days when high school students participated in the school rifle team or compared shotguns or rifles in the parking lot. Those days are gone. Firearm owners today find themselves vilified by the mass media as well as prominent politicians. We find it impossible to rationalize our ownership of an item that has been defined as an ‘ASSUALT WEAPON’ by our government, even though such definition is based entirely on looks. The term ‘semi-automatic’ now erroneously conjures up a fear of a sustained rate of fire possible only by ‘full-automatic’; the difference in function is never explained by those using it. The latest hype seems to have replaced the AK-47 as the ‘evil weapon du jour’ with the ‘Bushmaster’. Lastly is the political climate; look at the trend in Congress and especially the present occupant of the White House. To oppose what is a coming groundswell for, at the minimum, a re-enactment of the Assault Weapons ban would take dedicated and courageous representatives who are not to be found in large numbers. Once that ban is re-enacted, and I’m willing to bet it will, there will be another incident which will prompt another round of legislation due to the fact that the existing legislation at the time was not stringent enough. Confiscation of weapons will come, starting with (in my best guess) with those owning full-auto weapons with a FFL just because they are easy to find and, let’s face it, there is no reason own a machinegun, or so think the majority. Will there be compensation? That’s a question that I have no answer to. The next group may be other registered owners, again due to the ease of finding them. Who will do the confiscating? Again, I have no answer, but 15 years ago there was no Department of Homeland Security or TSA. Lastly, I pose a question of when will this confiscation will happen and to what extent, again, without having an answer. Perhaps not in my lifetime (qualifier – I am 70 years old) but probably in yours. Some will question the connection of a renewed Assault Weapons Ban to outright confiscation but we have all heard of ‘mission creep’.
rmgill Posted December 26, 2012 Posted December 26, 2012 I will be quite pissed if I am paid a pittance for things I spent a lot of money on for my Humber Restoration. The same goes for other firearms. I predict that a confiscation will result in a LOT of bloodshed in this country and that it will not be very well enforced in rural areas if at all.
m1a1mg Posted December 26, 2012 Posted December 26, 2012 We can't stop criminals from having guns in NY, DC, and Chicago. If they outlaw guns, there will just be a lot more outlaws.
BP Posted December 26, 2012 Posted December 26, 2012 We can't stop criminals from having guns in NY, DC, and Chicago. If they outlaw guns, there will just be a lot more outlaws. Hell, as I've said before, we can't even round up illegal aliens (being generally larger and more pronounced than a handgun), as that would be too hard a task- yet we can round up all the guns, many of which have been gifted or passed on, and have no kind of record keeping. And Lord forbid we talk about impacting the First Amendment (and maybe 4th, 6th, 9th, 10th. . . ) while on our way to trampling the Second.
Dawes Posted December 26, 2012 Posted December 26, 2012 I think that firearms confiscation will be too hot an issue even for the Democrats. More like a ban on the sale or transfer of certain semiautos, and possibly a high-capacity mag ban.
Archie Pellagio Posted December 26, 2012 Posted December 26, 2012 The sheer logistics of it in the US makes it prohibitive and that is the main reason i don't advocate gun control in the USA - it simply can't work with so many legal guns, never mind the illegal ones floating around. At best this round of control will be more window dressing, magazine capacity is likely a big one, probably tighter controls on sales and the issuing of licenses. An Australia style amnesty simply won't happen, neither will the UN-blue-helmets flying in on black helicopters to take everyone's guns...
Dawes Posted December 26, 2012 Posted December 26, 2012 As Obama himself admitted, there's a gulf between the rural US and urban areas on this issue.
thekirk Posted December 26, 2012 Posted December 26, 2012 Confiscation is something I doubt will happen. The will doesn't exist, and it's not something that this administration has the balls to do openly. What will happen, I think, is a whole lot of back-door, penny-ante BS like the crackdown on FFLs. Tiny, little bureaucratic steps that nobody notices, until they choke the life out of things. My guess is that it's going to become a lot harder to go shooting on public lands, harder to keep ranges open, and a whole host of other things like that. That's how this administration works: Look at what they did with the coal industry. There hasn't been a single piece of legislation put forward to gut that industry, but that's precisely what the administration has done in the background. We're in the process of totally shutting that industry down, and with about zero national debate on the issue. Things like that should have been decided after open discussion in the legislative body, but they weren't. Dealing with the issue of guns will be done in exactly the same manner. I expect that lead bullets will be made illegal in the near future, along with lead-based primers. Ranges will be shut down, and public shooting venues will be drastically reduced. With the cost of ammo going up, and no shooting to be done, the popularity of the sport will necessarily go down, and at some point in the future, not enough participants will be there to maintain the industry. Or, so they'll plan...
rmgill Posted December 26, 2012 Posted December 26, 2012 Well, New York Couldn't afford a gun buy-back for EBRs. http://nalert.blogspot.com/2012/12/new-york-cant-afford-assault-rifle.html
rmgill Posted December 26, 2012 Posted December 26, 2012 Oh, here are some folks for everyone to call and wish happy holidays from gun owners. http://christopherfountain.wordpress.com/2012/12/24/sauce-for-the-goose/
DKTanker Posted December 26, 2012 Posted December 26, 2012 It is coming and it may well happen within the next ten to twenty years. Within the next two presidential election cycles all that need happen is for Obama, and his successor need to is nominate two or three gun control advocates to SCOTUS. As it stand the Senate will confirm. Next a 2nd amendment challenge is made in a lower court and is rammed up through the judicial system to SCOTUS. The SC, rules that the people can bear any arm they want as long as they are an active uniformed member of the well regulated malitia. Said Militia to keep all arms in locked storage except for approved training missions or when so directed by the governor. Then the people of the several states will be invited to voluntarily turn in their firearms. Those that don't would be subject to being charged with a capital crime. The sheeple of this great country would then see those that still retain firearms as vermin in need of being erradicated. Don't think so? We had people on this grate site state they would, if required, subject themselves to a body cavity search before boarding aircraft. All in the name of security...so they could feel safe. We have people describing themselves as very pro 2nd amendment who are calling for increased regulations and weapon prohibitions...going so far as to say they would willingly give up firearms should laws say they should. Scared people can be manipulated, scared manipulated people will eagerly give up liberty in the name of security.
BP Posted December 26, 2012 Posted December 26, 2012 Oh, here are some folks for everyone to call and wish happy holidays from gun owners. http://christopherfo...-for-the-goose/ LMFAO!!! I think the term for that is, "Target, cease fire!"
AETiglathPZ Posted December 26, 2012 Posted December 26, 2012 (edited) The most logical way to control firearms would be to to adhere to the 2nd Amendment to a martial extreme. Let's start making regulated militias. Mandate that ALL legal firearms owners have to get training, even drill, on a regular basis. I'm thinking Minutemen. Mandate it on the state and local level with annual, monthly, or even weekly training depending how stringent the law is. Anyone that fails to qualify has their arms and ammo stored at the state or local police department weapons locker until they are qualified or emergency. Think the majority of firearms owners would give up their right due to laziness and complacency. This will never happen but adheres to the principals of the 2nd Amendment. Edited December 26, 2012 by AETiglathPZ
thekirk Posted December 26, 2012 Posted December 26, 2012 The most logical way to control firearms would be to to adhere to the 2nd Amendment to a martial extreme. Let's start making regulated militias. Mandate that ALL legal firearms owners have to get training, even drill, on a regular basis. I'm thinking Minutemen. Mandate it on the state and local level with annual, monthly, or even weekly training depending how stringent the law is. Anyone that fails to qualify has their arms and ammo stored at the state or local police department weapons locker until they are qualified or emergency. Think the majority of firearms owners would give up their right due to laziness and complacency. This will never happen but adheres to the principals of the 2nd Amendment. Balance it with granting those militias full access to the range of weapons used by the military these days, and I think I could get behind this. You have no idea how much of an attraction that might be, for many. "Gee, I can buy and own my very own M240, and all I have to do is show up for training and participate in emergency contingencies? Sweet!!! Where do I sign up?"
rmgill Posted December 26, 2012 Posted December 26, 2012 The most logical way to control firearms would be to to adhere to the 2nd Amendment to a martial extreme. Let's start making regulated militias. Mandate that ALL legal firearms owners have to get training, even drill, on a regular basis. I'm thinking Minutemen. Mandate it on the state and local level with annual, monthly, or even weekly training depending how stringent the law is. Anyone that fails to qualify has their arms and ammo stored at the state or local police department weapons locker until they are qualified or emergency. Think the majority of firearms owners would give up their right due to laziness and complacency. This will never happen but adheres to the principals of the 2nd Amendment. Where do I report? I'll be happy to form the nucleus of a Militia Cavalry and Light Horse unit with my Armored Car and Deuce and a Half. When can I pick up the M240C to fit in my ferret? Sure, we'll mostly be doing traffic control, movement of gear with the trucks and assisting the Fire/EMS folks in time of storms, iced over roads and the like but that's fine.
toysoldier Posted December 26, 2012 Posted December 26, 2012 Fuck. I was planning to have my first scoped rifle by 2015 or so.
Jeff Posted December 26, 2012 Posted December 26, 2012 Confiscation is something I doubt will happen. The will doesn't exist, and it's not something that this administration has the balls to do openly. [Yet] What will happen, I think, is a whole lot of back-door, penny-ante BS like the crackdown on FFLs. Tiny, little bureaucratic steps that nobody notices, until they choke the life out of things. My guess is that it's going to become a lot harder to go shooting on public lands, harder to keep ranges open, and a whole host of other things like that. That's how this administration works: Look at what they did with the coal industry. There hasn't been a single piece of legislation put forward to gut that industry, but that's precisely what the administration has done in the background. We're in the process of totally shutting that industry down, and with about zero national debate on the issue. Things like that should have been decided after open discussion in the legislative body, but they weren't. Dealing with the issue of guns will be done in exactly the same manner. I expect that lead bullets will be made illegal in the near future, along with lead-based primers. Ranges will be shut down, and public shooting venues will be drastically reduced. With the cost of ammo going up, and no shooting to be done, the popularity of the sport will necessarily go down, and at some point in the future, not enough participants will be there to maintain the industry. Or, so they'll plan... Exactly
Garth Posted December 27, 2012 Posted December 27, 2012 I predict that a confiscation will result in a LOT of bloodshed in this country and that it will not be very well enforced in rural areas if at all. Yup, it'll get really ugly - think of lots of instances like that guy in upstate NY the other day. There won't be the massive numbers that some would like to think, but there will be enough people willing to fully back up the "pry it out of my cold, dead, hands" philosophy. Add to that the probability that this is going to turn neighbors against neighbors as the local Gladys Kravitz types rush to their phones to tell the cops who they've "seen" with guns. Of course, it won't be the people who are actually pushing gun control that will go out and do the confiscation. They'll leave that to the "little people" (law enforcement, National Guard/military) while they keep their hands clean and their a**es safe. The result will be lots of voluntary confiscations in the suburbs, but not a lot in either rural and urban areas.
DougRichards Posted December 27, 2012 Posted December 27, 2012 The sheer logistics of it in the US makes it prohibitive and that is the main reason i don't advocate gun control in the USA - it simply can't work with so many legal guns, never mind the illegal ones floating around. At best this round of control will be more window dressing, magazine capacity is likely a big one, probably tighter controls on sales and the issuing of licenses. An Australia style amnesty simply won't happen, neither will the UN-blue-helmets flying in on black helicopters to take everyone's guns... I would have to agree with you on this. Perhaps the legal trade in firearms can be lessened, and the 'gun show' garage sale mentality.m I can remember at the age of 13 (1970) seeing .22 rimfire rifles on sale in racks at pawn shops. Anyone over 18 could just walk in and buy, but we never had the gun culture that exists in the USA. There was a rifle club at my school, that was actually inactive when I was there, but was started again later. The concrete butts at the school showed that .22 target shooting occurred on the school ground. When the Port Arthur massacre inspired gun by-back and strengthened laws came into place (and they did not ban all guns in the slightest) there was for a while a chronic shortage of large bore plastic conduit - the stuff about 15cm across - in Australia, as gun owners buried in the bush the weapons that were no longer legal. Actually in one way I know that this is unlawful, but in another way, if a gun is buried someone in the bush it at least means that it isn't available for someone else to steal, or for its owner to grab out of a cupboard and use in anger.
shep854 Posted December 27, 2012 Posted December 27, 2012 (edited) Peaceful civil disobedience will have a much better chance than active resistance. While 'cold, dead hands' rhetoric is much more satisfying to egos, many if not most such big talkers will cave (to their own self-loathing) when crunch time comes. If owners organize to conduct massive 'J. Doe' surrenders to Federal offices, tying them up with trying to ID the J. Does, as well as providing requisite accomodation and processing, the Fed effort can be forced to collapse and bankruptcy. Simultaneous picketing and other protests with strong alternative media coverage will hopefully work to strengthen a public perception that gun owners are serious-minded, peaceful people.One challenge will be the MSM's attempts to play up any violence, even if it's citizens defending themselves against overzealous confiscators.Active resistance may become necessary, but it should be the last resort. Once that line is crossed, there's no going back. First thing to the Americans opposed to all this--join the NRA and/or other 2A organizations. You might not agree with everything they have done, but the NRA is the big dog on our side. Edited December 27, 2012 by shep854
TonyE Posted December 27, 2012 Posted December 27, 2012 The most logical way to control firearms would be to to adhere to the 2nd Amendment to a martial extreme. Militia!!!!
Recommended Posts