Gun confiscation in America?

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

The whole "cold dead hands" thing sounds really macho which appropriately feeds egos. My guess is that while there are absolutely some gun owners that would go down in a blaze of glory, the vast majority would, in fact, wise up when they realized they're in a completely no-win situation if it ever came to the point of the government actually trying to take away an individual's weapons. All anyone needs to do is review Ruby Ridge or Waco. Good, bad or indifferent; right or wrong, the government WILL ultimately win against a small band of individuals.

On the other hand, if there was ever a decree that weapons nation-wide were to be confiscated, then, I think we'd see some serious shit go down with the "militia" types. I think most people in government know that which is why I think it's silly for anyone to ever fear that happening. Nobody is ever going to risk that kind of widespread civil unrest. Not that the government wouldn't ultimately win . . . they absolutely would . . . but it's bad for business and business is what runs the country.

Exactly. Look at how the cowards slam their own unions, play for the corporations, etc. The average Joe in America is spineless and will submit in a second when ordered. I think 10% of teh people would never give up their guns while 90% would gladly comply. Oh and Heller could go bye-bye in 15 seconds flat, so don't think anyojne has non-abridgeable rights.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

It will never happen at my house without me being killed first.

Interesting. This is something I have never heard from anyone who is pro gun restrictions. Indeed they do not like the laws, but they work through the system to change the laws using the legitimate tactics. It is typically gun owners writing things like "you will only get my guns after I'm shot dead", basically saying that they consider it fine to disobey the laws they don't like, and they are going to decide for themselves which laws to obey. So much for "law-abiding gun owners"

Not that you'd understand, but:

"A law repugnant to the Constitution is void." - Chief Justice John Marshall, Marbury vs. Madison

Case law is often trumped. Sure, we often follow staae decisis, but it can be reversed in a second.

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Quote

if there was ever a decree that weapons nation-wide were to be confiscated, then, I think we'd see some serious shit go down with the "militia" types. I think most people in government know that which is why I think it's silly for anyone to ever fear that happening. Nobody is ever going to risk that kind of widespread civil unrest.

And that, my friends, is the true meaning of the 2nd Amendment. It's not about hunting, as the gun-o-phobes would have us believe. It's about the people retaining the ultimate power to prevent the government from running amok. Not just with gun ownership, but with any other type of widespread disagreeable legislation also. It's the final step in the system of checks and balances that the founding fathers built into our system of government.

"One of the chief guarantees of freedom under any government, no matter how popular and respected, is the right of the citizens to keep and bear arms - just one guarantee against arbitrary government, one more safe-guard against the tyranny which now appears remote in America, but which historically has proven to be always possible."
- Senator Hubert Humphrey, 1960

That is the power of the 2nd Amendment.

OMG... John.... DUUUUUUUDE you are quoting liberals now....is everything ok with you down there?????

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Not that you'd understand, but:
"A law repugnant to the Constitution is void." - Chief Justice John Marshall, Marbury vs. Madison

This doesn't change what I said. By law only the Supreme Court has the authority to decide whether the law is repugnant to the Constitution or not. If you think it is, follow the procedure to have it struck down as everyone else is doing. Failure to follow this procedure and just ignoring the law because you think it's repugnant will make you a criminal.

You can ask those who refused to pay income tax because they thought the law was unconstitutional. I bet they have some valuable experience to share.

I don't think you understand the concept. Let me give an example.
Say the Federal Government passed a law that banned publication of any material unless it had been reviewed and approved for publication by a representative of the government. That law is obviously in direct violation to the Bill of Rights. Citizens have no duty to obey that law regardless of whether the SCOTUS has had a chance to look it over.

Good luck with that. You *MIGHT* win in several years, but for teh mean time you're fucked. Shall we look at Loving v Virgiania? The D's were tried and convicted, sentenced to 1 year with the option to voluntarily be deported from Virginia for 25 years, they did and went to DC and appealled. It took 9 years for teh SCOTUS to fix that. Your model is idealistic and unrealistic.

[quade 4]

Quote

This time, the tables would be reversed - there's a LOT more civilian gun owners than there are military/police.

For a small scale uprising, let's say some Texas militia decides to revolt, how many days do you think they'd last? Seriously. 30? They wouldn't have control of the air at all. If they were holed up at their "training facility" the government would simply surround them. Eventually, somebody inside their compound would start shooting and at that point it would be over and trust me, the US government would not lose.

The only way a "revolt" could possibly work would be if it were nation-wide, but even then I think the US Government ultimately still has the upper hand.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Not that you'd understand, but:
"A law repugnant to the Constitution is void." - Chief Justice John Marshall, Marbury vs. Madison

This doesn't change what I said. By law only the Supreme Court has the authority to decide whether the law is repugnant to the Constitution or not. If you think it is, follow the procedure to have it struck down as everyone else is doing. Failure to follow this procedure and just ignoring the law because you think it's repugnant will make you a criminal.

You can ask those who refused to pay income tax because they thought the law was unconstitutional. I bet they have some valuable experience to share.

I don't think you understand the concept. Let me give an example.
Say the Federal Government passed a law that banned publication of any material unless it had been reviewed and approved for publication by a representative of the government. That law is obviously in direct violation to the Bill of Rights. Citizens have no duty to obey that law regardless of whether the SCOTUS has had a chance to look it over.

Good luck with that. You *MIGHT* win in several years, but for teh mean time you're fucked. Shall we look at Loving v Virgiania? The D's were tried and convicted, sentenced to 1 year with the option to voluntarily be deported from Virginia for 25 years, they did and went to DC and appealled. It took 9 years for teh SCOTUS to fix that. Your model is idealistic and unrealistic.

And your assertion that Heller could be instantly overturned isn't?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

This time, the tables would be reversed - there's a LOT more civilian gun owners than there are military/police.

For a small scale uprising, let's say some Texas militia decides to revolt, how many days do you think they'd last? Seriously. 30? They wouldn't have control of the air at all. If they were holed up at their "training facility" the government would simply surround them. Eventually, somebody inside their compound would start shooting and at that point it would be over and trust me, the US government would not lose.

Nice cherry-picking of circumstances to maximise your argument, Paul. Regardless, I don't see another Branch Davidian scenario working out *near* as well for the gov't if a second act were to ever come about.

Absent the 'caught in a compound' scenario, you're looking at guerilla warfare - remind us again how well that's working for us in Iraq/Afghanistan.

Quote

The only way a "revolt" could possibly work would be if it were nation-wide, but even then I think the US Government ultimately still has the upper hand.

I thought a wide-scale confiscation was exactly what was being discussed. The same 'guerilla war' scenario applies.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[billvon 3,120]

>Regardless, I don't see another Branch Davidian scenario working
>out *near* as well for the gov't if a second act were to ever come about.

Oh, I think it would work out even better for the government. As soon as they saw a threat it would become a "terrorist threat" and they'd be justified in whatever force they used - and they'd all be lauded as heroes.

Why do you think it wouldn't work out as well?

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Well, on one side, Ray Nagin of New Orleans had his cops go around and confiscate all the guns they could after Hurricane Katrina. I don't recall any organized, violent resistance to that.

Those people left town as part of the evacuation. Those remaining tended to be persons who were incapable of organizing their way out of town, let alone an immediate response to a days long confiscation effort.

Hardly a meaningful example.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

>Regardless, I don't see another Branch Davidian scenario working
>out *near* as well for the gov't if a second act were to ever come about.

Oh, I think it would work out even better for the government. As soon as they saw a threat it would become a "terrorist threat" and they'd be justified in whatever force they used - and they'd all be lauded as heroes.

Why do you think it wouldn't work out as well?

Because, up until the shooting started, the Davidians trusted the Feds - I don't see that situation repeating itself.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

>Regardless, I don't see another Branch Davidian scenario working
>out *near* as well for the gov't if a second act were to ever come about.

Oh, I think it would work out even better for the government. As soon as they saw a threat it would become a "terrorist threat" and they'd be justified in whatever force they used - and they'd all be lauded as heroes.

Why do you think it wouldn't work out as well?

Killing the kids wouldn't go over very well. The Gov gets flack for it happening in Afghanistan. If they're Americans (and white), the backlash will be substantial.

[quade 4]

Quote

I thought a wide-scale confiscation was exactly what was being discussed. The same 'guerilla war' scenario applies.

And I didn't read the words "wide-spread only" in the subject line. I gave my analysis of two scales of scenarios.

The small scale scenario is a no-win for whatever group the US government wants to take the guns away from. There is no question in my mind the US government wins.

As I mentioned twice already, I do not believe there is the political will to perform a wide-scale confiscation. Not for the reasons the "cold dead handers" think, but simply because it's bad for business. It's a money losing proposition. There is no reason to press the issue as long as the "cold dead handers" are happy keeping their guns and the money continues to flow it's actually a win-win for everyone except the victims of crimes perpetrated with stolen and straw purchased guns (roughly 60% and no I don't have a link, but that's a common number that floats around).

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[CanuckInUSA 0]

Quote

And that, my friends, is the true meaning of the 2nd Amendment. It's not about hunting, as the gun-o-phobes would have us believe. It's about the people retaining the ultimate power to prevent the government from running amok. Not just with gun ownership, but with any other type of widespread disagreeable legislation also. It's the final step in the system of checks and balances that the founding fathers built into our system of government.

People can take this thread as serious as they wish or take it with a grain of salt. I started it only because last night I was surfing YouTube and came across some interesting videos where some folks were showing off their machine gun arsenals (LOL and I must say I am jealous, however I think I would need to mortgage my house in order to pay for the ammo some of these folks expend).

I doubt there will be any sort of government confiscation to occur anytime soon. But if there was, you have got to believe that not all military and not all law enforcement people would be on board with the government and one only needs to realize that some folks have some pretty powerful firepower at their finger tips. As long as they have the ammo, they can do some serious damage to those who want to disarm them.

The 2nd Amendment of the US Constitution is worth protecting.
The last thing you want is letting the Feds cash a blank check with your civil liberties.

Try not to worry about the things you have no control over

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

Quote

Quote

Quade is absolutely correct. Individuals or small groups will not prevail. Ever.

You mean like that small band of men who started the American Revolution against the British?
Or that small band of Texans who started the Texas Revolution against Mexico?

Neither the American revolt against the Brits nor the Texan revolt against the Mexicans was what I'd consider "small".

Both had a wide base to draw on (both politically and geographically) Even though the Alamo fell, there were others still fighting.
Small groups that can be isolated both physically and communicatively(if that's a real word) will lose.

And that's what the government would try to do.

Whether or not they'd succeed is a different question.
Would the small groups and individuals band together? Either physically or via communication?

Looking at Iran, I'd say they would. By whatever means available.

Would it be enough?
I don't know.

Edit to add response to Kelp diver

Quote

Those people left town as part of the evacuation. Those remaining tended to be persons who were incapable of organizing their way out of town, let alone an immediate response to a days long confiscation effort.

Hardly a meaningful example.

A good number of people chose to stay despite the evac order. Many of those thought they knew what they would be up against, and chose to stay so as not to leave their property to be looted.

Many of those were disarmed and left without any protection (cops weren't around much).

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[DrewEckhardt 0]

Quote

Quote

It will never happen at my house without me being killed first.

Interesting. This is something I have never heard from anyone who is pro gun restrictions. Indeed they do not like the laws, but they work through the system to change the laws using the legitimate tactics. It is typically gun owners writing things like "you will only get my guns after I'm shot dead", basically saying that they consider it fine to disobey the laws they don't like, and they are going to decide for themselves which laws to obey. So much for "law-abiding gun owners"

Survival is more important than obeying any law which does not deprive another person of their human rights, and any deaths resulting from self defense are the attacker's fault.

Over seventy million people have paid for their lives through purges by corrupt governments which followed the enactment of gun control laws. Twenty million in the Soviet Union, twenty million in Germany and Nazi occupied Europe, thirty to forty-five million in China.

[billvon 3,120]

>Because, up until the shooting started, the Davidians trusted the Feds - I
>don't see that situation repeating itself.

I see no reason that it would be any different today in that respect (outside of Speaker's Corner of course.) Most people just aren't that paranoid.

However, let's say they were, and they shoot at the first law-enforcement representative they see coming to serve that warrant. The first cop that was shot at, injured or killed by the neo-Davidians would bring the strongest response the town, then state, then federal government could muster. Even the most extremist of right wingers will not support cop killers.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

>Because, up until the shooting started, the Davidians trusted the Feds - I
>don't see that situation repeating itself.

I see no reason that it would be any different today in that respect (outside of Speaker's Corner of course.) Most people just aren't that paranoid.

However, let's say they were, and they shoot at the first law-enforcement representative they see coming to serve that warrant. The first cop that was shot at, injured or killed by the neo-Davidians would bring the strongest response the town, then state, then federal government could muster. Even the most extremist of right wingers will not support cop killers.

*rolls eyes*
Yes, Bill - because there's absolutely NO middle ground between letting a couple dozen Feds roll up with weapons in hand and sniping Barney Fife when he turns into the driveway.

oh, yeah... /sarc

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[billvon 3,120]

>Yes, Bill - because there's absolutely NO middle ground between letting
>a couple dozen Feds roll up with weapons in hand and sniping Barney Fife
>when he turns into the driveway.

Of course there is, and I didn't suggest anyone would be "sniping Barney Fife."

But you were talking about the situation with the Branch Davidians repeating itself. Let's say you had the same setup (ATF planning a raid to serve a search warrant for weapons) but this time the Davidians didn't trust the Feds. How would that make the outcome _better_?

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

>Yes, Bill - because there's absolutely NO middle ground between letting
>a couple dozen Feds roll up with weapons in hand and sniping Barney Fife
>when he turns into the driveway.

Of course there is, and I didn't suggest anyone would be "sniping Barney Fife."

So, what does "they shoot at the first law-enforcement representative they see coming to serve that warrant" mean in YOUR world - invite them in for tea and cookies?

Quote

But you were talking about the situation with the Branch Davidians repeating itself. Let's say you had the same setup (ATF planning a raid to serve a search warrant for weapons) but this time the Davidians didn't trust the Feds. How would that make the outcome _better_?

They wouldn't have a stock trailer full of Feds sitting 15 feet from the front door, for one.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[billvon 3,120]

>invite them in for tea and cookies?

I have once again made the mistake of trying to have a serious conversation with someone in SC. I should know better; sorry.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

[it's actually a win-win for everyone except the victims of crimes perpetrated with stolen and straw purchased guns (roughly 60% and no I don't have a link, but that's a common number that floats around).

well, it's not commonly repeated here, which makes it suspect off the bat. Kallend likes the 300k/year number, but I don't recall any claim about 60%.

possibilities:
1) you pulled it out of thin air
2) your memory is partial
3) or this stat does exist, but it doesn't mean what you suggest it does. It could mean, for crimes where a weapon is retrieved, it was stolen or "straw purchased" 60% of the time. But even in that case, straw purchase likely is defined as any case where a gun is resold. Depending on the number of incidents per year out of the ~10k killings, this could be marginally useful data, or it could be another Kellerman 43:1 rant.

In any case, find a cite or stop claiming it.

[quade 4]

Quote

In any case, find a cite or stop claiming it.

Last time I check the 1st Amendment was still in effect and I can cite anything I choose. Your "demand" is simply non-sense.

That said, it is used in this http://www.thisamericanlife.org/Radio_Episode.aspx?sched=1337. Specifically the last story "Straw Man" as I recall.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

And that, my friends, is the true meaning of the 2nd Amendment. It's not about hunting, as the gun-o-phobes would have us believe. It's about the people retaining the ultimate power to prevent the government from running amok. Not just with gun ownership, but with any other type of widespread disagreeable legislation also. It's the final step in the system of checks and balances that the founding fathers built into our system of government.

"One of the chief guarantees of freedom under any government, no matter how popular and respected, is the right of the citizens to keep and bear arms - just one guarantee against arbitrary government, one more safe-guard against the tyranny which now appears remote in America, but which historically has proven to be always possible."
- Senator Hubert Humphrey, 1960
That is the power of the 2nd Amendment.

Back when the 2nd Amendmend was drafted, this was feasable. However, it is clear that an armed populace would not be able to stop an organized and powerful military. (An example that doesn't go back over 100 years is Iraq, with a population that had a more armed population than the US)

So, if the 2nd Amendmend is no longer able to allow for the stated purpose, shouldn't it be removed?

[JohnDeere 0]

Quote

Last time I check the 1st Amendment was still in effect and I can cite anything I choose.

Unless we loose all the guns..... then you wont have that right. But it would make you libs feel all warm and fuzzy!

Nothing opens like a Deere!

You ignorant fool! Checks are for workers!

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Back when the 2nd Amendmend was drafted, this was feasable. However, it is clear that an armed populace would not be able to stop an organized and powerful military. (An example that doesn't go back over 100 years is Iraq, with a population that had a more armed population than the US)

Uh, aren't we still in Iraq, and basically losing in our effort to force democracy and peace on them? And how much damage have we had to inflict on the infrastructure of that country just to obtain what has been gained? Is that practical to do to ourselves? If this is your argument, it's pretty weak.

Vietnam is the other obvious example. The VC and NVA were more poorly equipped and fought a military force that was willing to destroy entire villages to save them.

Moreover, you fail to acknowledge that soldiers are less willing to shoot their own countrymen than foreign (and of different race) people.