Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 01-10-2019, 12:53 AM
Velocity Velocity is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 13,056
Confiscation of guns: What do gun owners fear exactly?

Suppose against all odds the 2nd Amendment is repealed and laws are passed and the government goes knocking door-to-door to confiscate all privately owned guns. What is the feared result exactly?

Is is that gun owners would lack self defense, or financial loss (guns are expensive and maybe Uncle Sam wouldn't compensate enough,) or that there would be no way to resist governmental tyranny?

No snarkiness intended at all - just want to understand. I don't own guns and probably never will, but want to understand what the main worry is exactly.
  #2  
Old 01-10-2019, 12:59 AM
thelurkinghorror thelurkinghorror is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Venial Sin City
Posts: 13,460
What do people fear about violations of also the 4th amendment?
  #3  
Old 01-10-2019, 01:11 AM
Asuka Asuka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 977
The feared result is the loss of guns.

People claim that it's for use against government tyranny but in reality most people who own guns do so because they enjoy them for hunting or recreation and have money invested in it. Looking at other country gun buybacks the UK paid $200 million for 162,000 guns. That's over $1,200 per gun but if you do the math and see claims that there are more guns than people in the United States you get the figure that even if they raised 10 billion dollars against 300 million guns that's only $33 a gun, and the average gun price is about $500 not including ammo or accessories. There doesn't seem an economical way to actually do a gun buyback in this country unless you were to do it slowly piece by piece (first do gun buy backs for all semi-auto rifles with military features) and then work your way down from there, which also wouldn't happen because people who own guns would see where this was going.
  #4  
Old 01-10-2019, 01:41 AM
Tim R. Mortiss's Avatar
Tim R. Mortiss Tim R. Mortiss is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Lincoln Park, Chicago
Posts: 6,915
Is it that tough to understand? Primarily two worries:

1. They worry that they won't be able to defend themselves against criminals, who will not respect a gun ban.

2. They worry that they won't be able to defend themselves against overly zealous government agents, who won't be hampered by a gun ban.

Basically, they want a level playing field.

Last edited by Tim R. Mortiss; 01-10-2019 at 01:42 AM.
  #5  
Old 01-10-2019, 10:43 AM
BobLibDem BobLibDem is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Home 07 NCAA HockeyChamps
Posts: 20,814
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tim R. Mortiss View Post
Is it that tough to understand? Primarily two worries:

1. They worry that they won't be able to defend themselves against criminals, who will not respect a gun ban.

2. They worry that they won't be able to defend themselves against overly zealous government agents, who won't be hampered by a gun ban.

Basically, they want a level playing field.
1- A silly argument. You could say why have any laws when criminals don't respect them. Gun bans work in most of the world.

2- You might have had a point 200 years ago, but today if you're up against the military, odds are there won't be enough of you left for the crows to bother with.
  #6  
Old 01-14-2019, 07:19 PM
DrDeth DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 38,672
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobLibDem View Post
1- A silly argument. You could say why have any laws when criminals don't respect them. Gun bans work in most of the world..
About half. They work quite well in nations with no history of a gun culture, where privately owned guns were never common. And even there, rarely are there a actual BAN- usually, you can buy handguns with a permit and a license.
  #7  
Old 01-13-2019, 03:26 PM
Fiddle Peghead's Avatar
Fiddle Peghead Fiddle Peghead is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Harlem, New York, NY
Posts: 3,621
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tim R. Mortiss View Post
Is it that tough to understand? Primarily two worries:

1. They worry that they won't be able to defend themselves against criminals, who will not respect a gun ban.

2. They worry that they won't be able to defend themselves against overly zealous government agents, who won't be hampered by a gun ban.

Basically, they want a level playing field.

1. But do they really feel like this? I'd guess at least a few do. I do know that I've known plenty of people who like and own guns, and never once have I known them to carry them around for defense.

2. Pretty much the same idea as 1.

Again, not claiming to know, I'd bet that they don't like the idea of being told by weeny-ass liberals what they can and can't have, but don't want to say that, so they come up with excuses like the above.

So, any gun owners in this thread who are terrified little man-babies, that are oh, so afraid to venture out into the big bad scary world without their precious firearms? Or am I right?

Last edited by Fiddle Peghead; 01-13-2019 at 03:27 PM.
  #8  
Old 01-10-2019, 02:35 AM
Smapti Smapti is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Olympia, WA
Posts: 15,510
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
No snarkiness intended at all - just want to understand. I don't own guns and probably never will, but want to understand what the main worry is exactly.
The main worry is that the gun industry will become unprofitable, so they funnel money into the NRA to stoke paranoid conspiracy theories about how everyone needs to buy lots of guns to defend themselves in case the government wants to take their guns.
  #9  
Old 01-10-2019, 06:48 AM
Bear_Nenno's Avatar
Bear_Nenno Bear_Nenno is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Bavaria
Posts: 8,392
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
Suppose against all odds the 2nd Amendment is repealed and laws are passed and the government goes knocking door-to-door to confiscate all privately owned guns. What is the feared result exactly?
That is the feared result. Do you want to live in a country that can so easily repeal it's Bill of Rights and send its police forces into peoples' homes to take away their personal property. You don't see that as in and of itself something to fear?

Last edited by Bear_Nenno; 01-10-2019 at 06:49 AM.
  #10  
Old 01-10-2019, 10:05 AM
ElvisL1ves ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 48,504
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bear_Nenno View Post
Do you want to live in a country that can so easily repeal it's Bill of Rights
Amending the Constitution is not at all easy. Any such change would occur only after a great deal of deliberation, leading to a strong supermajority in favor making the change. Would you want to live in a country where the carefully and lengthily debated democratic will of the people could be easily thwarted? It seems you do.

Quote:
and send its police forces into peoples' homes to take away their personal property. You don't see that as in and of itself something to fear?
It's called enforcing a law that had been democratically passed for the benefit of We the People. Why would you fear it? Perhaps it's something else that you fear.
  #11  
Old 01-10-2019, 06:11 PM
Bear_Nenno's Avatar
Bear_Nenno Bear_Nenno is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Bavaria
Posts: 8,392
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves
It's called enforcing a law that had been democratically passed for the benefit of We the People. Why would you fear it? Perhaps it's something else that you fear.
You seriously wouldn't be concerned with a repeal of the 1st of the 4th amendment? You would just accept that it was "democratically passed for the benefit of We the People"? No fear or concern for what the government might be capable of if somehow they managed to ban free speech or ban due process?
  #12  
Old 01-10-2019, 06:29 PM
Bear_Nenno's Avatar
Bear_Nenno Bear_Nenno is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Bavaria
Posts: 8,392
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves
It's called enforcing a law that had been democratically passed for the benefit of We the People. Why would you fear it? Perhaps it's something else that you fear.
Suppose Trump's base voters came out in force over the next couple elections, empowering some of the most conservative zealots this country has to offer. Then, they decide that they're so fed up with "fake news" that they're going to go ahead and repeal freedom of the press. Would you be comfortable with that?
  #13  
Old 01-10-2019, 06:51 PM
Little Nemo Little Nemo is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 79,645
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bear_Nenno View Post
Yes, and after more than 200 hundred years, we haven't touched the Bill of Rights. While there remains a legal process for taking those rights away, they've endured over 200 years. You would not be concerned if those rights--any of them--were repealed?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bear_Nenno View Post
Suppose Trump's base voters came out in force over the next couple elections, empowering some of the most conservative zealots this country has to offer. Then, they decide that they're so fed up with "fake news" that they're going to go ahead and repeal freedom of the press. Would you be comfortable with that?
I think it's a circular argument to say that the rights in the Bill of Rights are important because they're in the Bill of Rights.

No, I wouldn't be happy if freedom of speech and freedom of the press were abolished. But that's because I think those particular rights are important in and of themselves not because they're in the Bill of Rights. I don't attach the same importance to my constitutional right to have a jury trial in lawsuits involving property worth more than twenty dollars.
  #14  
Old 01-10-2019, 09:21 PM
Bear_Nenno's Avatar
Bear_Nenno Bear_Nenno is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Bavaria
Posts: 8,392
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
I think it's a circular argument to say that the rights in the Bill of Rights are important because they're in the Bill of Rights.

No, I wouldn't be happy if freedom of speech and freedom of the press were abolished. But that's because I think those particular rights are important in and of themselves not because they're in the Bill of Rights. I don't attach the same importance to my constitutional right to have a jury trial in lawsuits involving property worth more than twenty dollars.
Fair enough. But understand that people need to realize other people do. And this thread is asking about those other people. The OP's question asking, "What scary thing might happen after all the government thugs kick in doors and take everyone's guns following a gun ban?" That's the scary thing people fear. It's not necessarily what happens next. That's the terminal event; the sum of all fears. Every piece of gun legislation, they fear, puts us one step closer to the day when guns are banned and the government comes to get them. It would be more productive to discuss why they fear that. The question should be, "Why are people so scared of the government stripping away their constitutional rights, entering their home without permission, and taking their legally purchased property?" And in my opinion, it's because it's a scary thought to live in a country that could so easily vote away a major right, and a major part of their identity, and then send in armed government thugs to enter their homes to take their property.
I dunno, the OP just struck me as strange to frame a question that basically says, "Suppose the country becomes a dystopian police state. What is the feared result of that?" The country becoming a dystopian police state is the feared result.
  #15  
Old 01-10-2019, 07:02 PM
Lumpy's Avatar
Lumpy Lumpy is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Minneapolis, Minnesota US
Posts: 16,213
First of all, to actually repeal the Second Amendment there would have to be an enormous shift in American society, with gun owners reduced to a negligible minority and the overwhelming supermajority of Americans being willing to actively support the measure. This isn't as implausible as relegalizing slavery but it sort of begs the question: if that many people wanted to ban guns and that few people were left who didn't, guns would be banned.

What gun owners fear is that a clique of strident social engineers will seek to impose their vision of what American society ought to be on the public: by spurring a moral panic against guns, by demonizing gun owners, by a steady trickle of precedents that eat away at legal protection for owning guns. A formal constitutional amendment would be honest and forthright by comparison. If what was clearly at the time intended to be a protection for a fundamental right can be interpreted out of existence, what about the rest of the Bill of Rights?

So why would gun owners hate to see guns banned? For starters self-defense is a legitimate concern. The muzzle of a gun is a sight that deters all but the most violent and/or insane from attacking the gun's holder. Even if you postulate "but what if the bad people have guns too" firearms still favor the outnumbered, who push come to shove can use them to put a higher price on their lives. Robbers, rapists and thugs want easy victims, not a fight for their lives or a murder conviction if they do use deadly force and are then caught.

As for the tyrannical government argument: history is not in the least encouraging about what happens when the common people are forbidden to possess weapons and their possession and use restricted to an elite class of government enforcers. The people with weapons have inevitably told those without "shut up and do what you're told". Has modern liberal society somehow transcended this? We'd like to think so, but a lot of the world isn't modern or liberal. If nothing else, the private possession of guns keeps the government (less un-)honest. Banning guns might not mean a tyranny but a tyranny would have to ban guns; and no government that would have to ban guns just to remain in power could be called a democracy. Think of guns as the canary in the coal mine. The canary keepers are leery of being told "Oh we don't need those any more; our modern ventilation systems will never allow a dangerous gas buildup".
  #16  
Old 01-11-2019, 10:10 AM
Jonathan Chance Jonathan Chance is offline
Domo Arigato Mister Moderato
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: On the run with Kilroy
Posts: 22,073
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lumpy View Post
What gun owners fear is that a clique of strident social engineers will seek to impose their vision of what American society ought to be on the public: by spurring a moral panic against guns, by demonizing gun owners, by a steady trickle of precedents that eat away at legal protection for owning guns.
Which, I might point out, is what other conservative - I won't speculate on the overlap between the gun guys and the anti-abortion guys - have been doing for a few decades about abortion. Small steps, chipping away at a right defined by the Supreme Court leading to a hoped-for ability to ban abortion completely.

What the gun guys fear, outlined above, is a reasonable thing given that their own allies are using the same approach. A man fears most what he knows HE would do in the same situation.
  #17  
Old 01-13-2019, 03:55 PM
Fiddle Peghead's Avatar
Fiddle Peghead Fiddle Peghead is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Harlem, New York, NY
Posts: 3,621
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lumpy View Post
First of all, to actually repeal the Second Amendment there would have to be an enormous shift in American society, with gun owners reduced to a negligible minority and the overwhelming supermajority of Americans being willing to actively support the measure.
There is an ever-growing support for gun control in this country. I contend that it is far from obvious that an enormous shift would have to happen among the American populace at large for the 2nd Amendment to be repealed, but an enormous shift in the number of politicians across the states that would be willing to vote for it. Now, I am not talking about anything like this happening in a few years, or even a decade. But I do not think twenty years or the like is necessarily out of the question, given current trends in gun control support and generally liberal ideas. Being that we are not in GD, I want to make clear that of course I have no hard evidence for that. But Lumpy's contention does not seem to me to be so evident.

ETA: Note that I am only talking about repeal, not complete banning of guns.

Last edited by Fiddle Peghead; 01-13-2019 at 03:59 PM.
  #18  
Old 01-10-2019, 07:04 PM
nearwildheaven nearwildheaven is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 11,775
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bear_Nenno View Post
Suppose Trump's base voters came out in force over the next couple elections, empowering some of the most conservative zealots this country has to offer. Then, they decide that they're so fed up with "fake news" that they're going to go ahead and repeal freedom of the press. Would you be comfortable with that?
Like it or not, we're on that slippery slope right now.
  #19  
Old 01-10-2019, 12:05 PM
Little Nemo Little Nemo is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 79,645
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bear_Nenno View Post
That is the feared result. Do you want to live in a country that can so easily repeal it's Bill of Rights and send its police forces into peoples' homes to take away their personal property. You don't see that as in and of itself something to fear?
We live in that country now and have been since 1789. There has always been legal means to amend or repeal any portion of the Constitution.
  #20  
Old 01-10-2019, 06:15 PM
Bear_Nenno's Avatar
Bear_Nenno Bear_Nenno is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Bavaria
Posts: 8,392
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
We live in that country now and have been since 1789. There has always been legal means to amend or repeal any portion of the Constitution.
Yes, and after more than 200 hundred years, we haven't touched the Bill of Rights. While there remains a legal process for taking those rights away, they've endured over 200 years. You would not be concerned if those rights--any of them--were repealed?
  #21  
Old 01-14-2019, 07:09 PM
DrDeth DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 38,672
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bear_Nenno View Post
That is the feared result. Do you want to live in a country that can so easily repeal it's Bill of Rights and send its police forces into peoples' homes to take away their personal property. You don't see that as in and of itself something to fear?
And, without recompense. Read this thread* and the law Kamala Harris said was legal in SF. All guns seized with no recompense. Not even like in Australia.

Also think of the thousands of extra police and extra prisons, even if only 5% dont comply.


* https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb...866869&page=12
  #22  
Old 01-10-2019, 07:08 AM
Isamu Isamu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Osaka
Posts: 5,935
If the government want your guns they are going to get them. It doesn't matter that you also have guns. Just look at Waco.
  #23  
Old 01-10-2019, 07:52 AM
kayaker's Avatar
kayaker kayaker is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Western Pennsylvania
Posts: 30,467
Quote:
Originally Posted by Isamu View Post
If the government want your guns they are going to get them. It doesn't matter that you also have guns. Just look at Waco.
Mine were on the boat when it sank. Is the thought that agents of the government are going to rip up the floorboards, sort through attic storage, etc to prove there are no munitions hidden?
  #24  
Old 01-10-2019, 08:17 AM
Isamu Isamu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Osaka
Posts: 5,935
Quote:
Originally Posted by kayaker View Post
Mine were on the boat when it sank. Is the thought that agents of the government are going to rip up the floorboards, sort through attic storage, etc to prove there are no munitions hidden?
Say again? I like you dude, just can't parse what you are saying here.

Last edited by Isamu; 01-10-2019 at 08:18 AM.
  #25  
Old 01-10-2019, 08:23 AM
kayaker's Avatar
kayaker kayaker is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Western Pennsylvania
Posts: 30,467
Quote:
Originally Posted by Isamu View Post
Say again? I like you dude, just can't parse what you are saying here.
When people talk about the government sending people door-to-door to confiscate guns, I've always assumed that every gun owner would deny having any. Right? So, what then?
  #26  
Old 01-10-2019, 08:46 AM
Isamu Isamu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Osaka
Posts: 5,935
Quote:
Originally Posted by kayaker View Post
When people talk about the government sending people door-to-door to confiscate guns, I've always assumed that every gun owner would deny having any. Right? So, what then?
Oh OK, I see. But posters in this thread have said that they would use the guns against those government agents seeking to take them. That's a bust.

Just saying you don't have any. It becomes complicated after that depending on a lot of variables. Like in Waco, where the mailman 'accidentally' dropped a mail package and the fully auto parts dropped out of the bag. The government will engineer when it wants to.
  #27  
Old 01-14-2019, 07:12 PM
DrDeth DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 38,672
Quote:
Originally Posted by kayaker View Post
When people talk about the government sending people door-to-door to confiscate guns, I've always assumed that every gun owner would deny having any. Right? So, what then?
No Knock searches, doors smashed down. Houses tossed. Owners handcuffed on the floor until search is done. Dogs shot. Cats escaping. Anything else potentially illegal seized. Perhaps computers - they might have a gun inventory.

Jobs lost, lives ruined. Bankruptcy.
  #28  
Old 01-10-2019, 08:27 AM
rbroome rbroome is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Louisiana
Posts: 3,212
Quote:
Originally Posted by Isamu View Post
Say again? I like you dude, just can't parse what you are saying here.
He is demonstrating that the government effort will be ineffective.
  #29  
Old 01-10-2019, 08:29 AM
rbroome rbroome is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Louisiana
Posts: 3,212
The OP requires magical thinking to accomplish the premise. Given magic, I will assume that the citizens of the US will appreciate the Government's efforts and everything will go smoothly.
  #30  
Old 01-10-2019, 12:46 PM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm Czarcasm is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 58,930
Quote:
Originally Posted by Isamu View Post
Say again? I like you dude, just can't parse what you are saying here.
He is saying that he would hide his guns and lie about it.
Which of course would make him an outlaw, as in "If they outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns!!!".
  #31  
Old 01-10-2019, 06:03 PM
nearwildheaven nearwildheaven is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 11,775
Quote:
Originally Posted by kayaker View Post
Mine were on the boat when it sank. Is the thought that agents of the government are going to rip up the floorboards, sort through attic storage, etc to prove there are no munitions hidden?
For the people who believe this, the answer is yes. They also seem to have no qualms about bragging online that they have them, not seeming to realize that these posts can be easily traced, and if you do that on social media, when the time comes, I guess they'll just have to get on their knees to pray and kiss their asses goodbye.

IMNSHO, those people are precisely the ones who shouldn't have guns, but what can we do if they get them on the black market, which some of them readily admit they do? (I post on another board that has a very small but extremely vocal minority who do and believe this, and they also do things like homeschool their kids so authorities don't know about it.)

Last edited by nearwildheaven; 01-10-2019 at 06:04 PM.
  #32  
Old 01-10-2019, 09:50 AM
EscAlaMike EscAlaMike is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Location: Alabama
Posts: 1,451
Quote:
Originally Posted by Isamu View Post
If the government want your guns they are going to get Just look at Waco.
Yes, but Waco was quite the PR disaster for the Feds. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe anything like it has happened since.
  #33  
Old 01-10-2019, 09:58 AM
Inigo Montoya's Avatar
Inigo Montoya Inigo Montoya is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: On the level, if inclined
Posts: 15,114
Quote:
Originally Posted by EscAlaMike View Post
Yes, but Waco was quite the PR disaster for the Feds. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe anything like it has happened since.
Naw, Gummint got wise after that. Now they just surround the stronghold and eat Big Macs while the rugged individualists realize they only brought chips & donuts to last a day or two.
  #34  
Old 01-10-2019, 11:42 AM
Ashtura Ashtura is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,735
Quote:
Originally Posted by Isamu View Post
If the government want your guns they are going to get them. It doesn't matter that you also have guns. Just look at Waco.
Waco wasn't on a national scale. If it was, you'd see shit that made Oklahoma City seem quaint. The problem with confiscation of 100M people with guns is not that it'd be impossible to pull off, more like 1000 Wacos and subsequential retribution terror attacks (what they'd be classified at least) just isn't worth it. Nobody wants to see that kind of blood bath.

Last edited by Ashtura; 01-10-2019 at 11:44 AM.
  #35  
Old 01-11-2019, 11:33 AM
k9bfriender k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 9,752
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ashtura View Post
Waco wasn't on a national scale. If it was, you'd see shit that made Oklahoma City seem quaint. The problem with confiscation of 100M people with guns is not that it'd be impossible to pull off, more like 1000 Wacos and subsequential retribution terror attacks (what they'd be classified at least) just isn't worth it. Nobody wants to see that kind of blood bath.
Are you saying that gun owners are potential terrorists? that if they do not get the results that they want through democratic means, they will resort to violence and "bloodbath" in order to enforce their will?

In the OP's scenario, at least 3/4ths of the states have gone along with this, and it is very popular. Defending an unpopular viewpoint with threats of violence is nothing but terrorism.

If gun owners would be that violent because they disagree with the results of the democratic process, then they probably shouldn't be trusted with guns in the first place. Is that really how you view your fellow gun owner? I had much more faith in the law abiding part of a law abiding gun owner, but here you are, insisting that they only will abide the laws they agree with, and violently resist the ones that they don't. Is that really a good PR move for convincing us that guns are in the right hands?




Personally, I do not think that the OP's scenario would come to pass, if 2a were revoked, it would not be immediate gun ban and confiscation. We may be looking at some more restrictions on where and how you can carry, and some on what kinds of guns you can buy, but a total gun ban only exists in the most fervent dreams of the extreme, extreme anti-gun advocate, and in the irrational nightmares of a surprising number of pro-gun advocates.
  #36  
Old 01-11-2019, 02:35 PM
Ashtura Ashtura is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,735
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
Are you saying that gun owners are potential terrorists? that if they do not get the results that they want through democratic means, they will resort to violence and "bloodbath" in order to enforce their will?

In the OP's scenario, at least 3/4ths of the states have gone along with this, and it is very popular. Defending an unpopular viewpoint with threats of violence is nothing but terrorism.

If gun owners would be that violent because they disagree with the results of the democratic process, then they probably shouldn't be trusted with guns in the first place. Is that really how you view your fellow gun owner? I had much more faith in the law abiding part of a law abiding gun owner, but here you are, insisting that they only will abide the laws they agree with, and violently resist the ones that they don't. Is that really a good PR move for convincing us that guns are in the right hands?


Personally, I do not think that the OP's scenario would come to pass, if 2a were revoked, it would not be immediate gun ban and confiscation. We may be looking at some more restrictions on where and how you can carry, and some on what kinds of guns you can buy, but a total gun ban only exists in the most fervent dreams of the extreme, extreme anti-gun advocate, and in the irrational nightmares of a surprising number of pro-gun advocates.
Yes, I am saying some gun owners are potential terrorists. I think people of all stripes are potential terrorists. Fact is when the government gets heavy handed it brings out the crazies.

And they are not "fellow gun owners" - I don't own one (although I came very close to buying about 6 months ago because my state brought up yet another gun bill that gets shot down every time), but I am sympathetic to 2a supporters.

I do know that there is a segment of the population that don't view rights as something granted by the government and are inherently possessed. Now, I say, that a repeal of the 2nd amendment will never happen, and that this whole discussion is moot, and that even if it did I could move to some state that had gun rights if I really wanted a gun.

But yeah, in the extremely unlikely scenario that the 2a is repealed any time soon, and states give up their gun laws, and it gets to the point where they're coming door to door to grab the guns (aka fantasy land), I do think there will be people that will "forget" they had guns, or "lost" them, or whatever. I think there will be a smaller subset that will meet them with armed resistance and inevitably get blown away. And I think that will trigger an even smaller amount of homegrown terrorists to do some serious shit like Timothy McVeigh. At which point a person will need to ask themselves, was this worth it?

You might ask, why hasn't there been more Timothy McVeigh's, and also you might ask, why haven't there been more Waco's and Ruby Ridges?

It's not about PR, or if "guns are in the right hands", it's just going off what's already happened, the culture, and knowing the kind of people that exist out there. Anyone think a smooth confiscation like Australia would ever happen in the U.S., is naive to to the edge of being delusional.

Last edited by Ashtura; 01-11-2019 at 02:38 PM.
  #37  
Old 01-10-2019, 07:25 AM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos Chronos is offline
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 80,841
The beauty of gun bans is that they don't depend on criminals "respecting" them. You don't need their respect; you just need them to not be able to get guns. Which works in every other nation on the planet.

And the government already out-arms you by a ludicrous degree. Just what use do you think your AR-15 is going to be, when an Abrams drives into your living room?
  #38  
Old 01-10-2019, 07:54 AM
Balthisar Balthisar is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Southeast Michigan, USA
Posts: 10,843
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
The beauty of gun bans is that they don't depend on criminals "respecting" them. You don't need their respect; you just need them to not be able to get guns. Which works in every other nation on the planet.
Every other nation on the planet prevents criminals from acquiring guns?
  #39  
Old 01-10-2019, 09:59 AM
GaryM's Avatar
GaryM GaryM is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: St. Louis, MO 50mi. West
Posts: 4,964
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
And the government already out-arms you by a ludicrous degree. Just what use do you think your AR-15 is going to be, when an Abrams drives into your living room?
Do you think the guy driving the tank, or his commander, is going to be really interested in doing his assigned task when other patriots near his home base are targeting his family?

Just a thought.
  #40  
Old 01-10-2019, 11:13 AM
ElvisL1ves ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 48,504
Quote:
Originally Posted by GaryM View Post
Do you think the guy driving the tank, or his commander, is going to be really interested in doing his assigned task when other patriots near his home base are targeting his family?
What's your definition of patriot?
  #41  
Old 01-10-2019, 11:37 AM
Lamoral Lamoral is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Fenario
Posts: 2,251
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
And the government already out-arms you by a ludicrous degree. Just what use do you think your AR-15 is going to be, when an Abrams drives into your living room?
If the government decides it wants to become a dystopian police state and take away everyone's guns and do all the other shit that the people who worry about this (very unlikely, IMO) scenario think is going to happen, it's still going to have to rely on human "door knockers" to do most of the leg work and these people would absolutely be vulnerable to small arms fire, just as the door-kickers in Afghanistan and Iraq are. An Abrams tank can't go door to door asking residents if there are guns in the house. Even if it could, the tank could still get stuck in a ditch or something and human beings would have to come out of it to try to fix it and...they're vulnerable to small arms fire.

I think the idea of this "gun owners rising up in revolution against a tyrannical government" scenario is exceptionally remote, but the handwaving away of it by bringing up the government's superior force is not being realistic, considering the perennial success of small insurgent forces against larger ones.
  #42  
Old 01-10-2019, 12:17 PM
bump bump is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 16,470
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
And the government already out-arms you by a ludicrous degree. Just what use do you think your AR-15 is going to be, when an Abrams drives into your living room?
You could say the same thing for the Afghans or Iraqis, or Viet Cong as well. How'd that work out for us?

Plus, Little Nemo has the meat of the argument; even if some kind of gun ban managed to collect 99.999% of the guns that the American population owns, that still leaves something like 35.7 million guns out there. And that's assuming that the confiscation is somehow universal.

In reality, it would likely be a lot of law abiding types turning in all their guns, some chunk turning some in, but not all and some turning none in at all.

And in that last group, I'd imagine that criminals would be disproportionately represented. Why WOULD a criminal turn their guns in? They're now armed better than most citizens, and have less to fear and more to intimidate with.
  #43  
Old 01-10-2019, 12:36 PM
Chimera Chimera is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: In the Dreaming
Posts: 24,122
Sports and recreational shooting
Hunting
Protection (vs. Wildlife and Humans)
Professional


All of these are legitimate uses for firearms and legitimate reasons to own.

A lot of people enjoy going to the range and shooting. I do. And for the ammo ban or limit people, I regularly go through 200-300 rounds per range visit. Others more. Owning 800-1,000 rounds of ammo is NOT an 'arsenal' or an unrealistic amount of ammo. It just means that I have enough on hand of various calibers to go to the range more than once without having to buy more ammo at whatever the price is today. Saying that I have no legitimate reason to own several hundred rounds of ammo is like saying you have no legitimate reason to own more than 10 gallons of gasoline or more than 5 kitchen knives.

Hunting. Yes, people still do it. No, it isn't cruel. If you think it is, do you honestly think animals die of old age surrounded by their families? No, animals die of injuries, disease, starvation, predation, automobiles, freezing to death and other horrible things. Dying from being shot by a hunter is less horrible than starving or freezing to death.

If you live in the middle of bumfuck nowhere, it's going to be a good hour before the police show up in an emergency, especially if that emergency involves multiple armed people or intruders. Because Deputy Dave isn't going to roll up on his own so he needs to meet up with other officers who might be busy a half hour or more away. Then there's animals. Snakes, bears, cougars, etc. No, you don't simply retreat into your house and wait for them to go away or call the police to come out and chase them off.

How do you hire armed guards if they can't own firearms? Do you wait for some company to hire them and then train them from ground zero to handle firearms? Are you then foolish enough to trust that they're comfortable handling that firearms properly and safely and being a decent shot with them? Or can only former military be guards?
__________________
Tentatively and lightly dipping my toes back in the water.

Last edited by Chimera; 01-10-2019 at 12:38 PM.
  #44  
Old 01-10-2019, 04:57 PM
Little Nemo Little Nemo is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 79,645
Quote:
Originally Posted by bump View Post
In reality, it would likely be a lot of law abiding types turning in all their guns, some chunk turning some in, but not all and some turning none in at all.
No. By definition all law-abiding people would turn in their guns if there was a law prohibiting guns. Anybody who kept a gun after that would no longer be law abiding.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bump View Post
And in that last group, I'd imagine that criminals would be disproportionately represented. Why WOULD a criminal turn their guns in? They're now armed better than most citizens, and have less to fear and more to intimidate with.
The same process that stops other crimes. After you enact the law, you enforce it. The illegal owning of guns would be stopped by the same means that we stop the illegal robbing of banks, the illegal sale of drugs, and the illegal committing of murder.

Sure, there are criminals who break all of these law. But that doesn't mean the laws are pointless.
  #45  
Old 01-10-2019, 05:49 PM
bump bump is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 16,470
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
No. By definition all law-abiding people would turn in their guns if there was a law prohibiting guns. Anybody who kept a gun after that would no longer be law abiding.
Currently law-abiding then. Substitute in "rule following" if you prefer. My point was that there's a lot of people who would turn them in because they were told to by the authorities, a lot that would "interpret" that law creatively, and a fair number who would flat out ignore it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
The same process that stops other crimes. After you enact the law, you enforce it. The illegal owning of guns would be stopped by the same means that we stop the illegal robbing of banks, the illegal sale of drugs, and the illegal committing of murder.

Sure, there are criminals who break all of these law. But that doesn't mean the laws are pointless.
You're just adding one more law that people will ignore; it would probably be a lot like Prohibition- some people would quit drinking, some would cut back, and some would brew their own beer, distill their own bathtub gin, and smuggle liquor from all parts of the globe, despite there having been laws against all those things.

And like I said earlier (math corrected), collecting 99% of guns would still leave 3.5 million hanging around, all in the hands of non-law abiding sorts, and that number would include pretty much EVERY gun possessed by criminals right now.

So I'm not sure what that would accomplish exactly; it probably wouldn't mitigate gun crime all that much. It didn't enact that much change in the UK

http://theconversation.com/dunblane-...aces-now-55896
  #46  
Old 01-10-2019, 06:40 PM
Little Nemo Little Nemo is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 79,645
Quote:
Originally Posted by bump View Post
So I'm not sure what that would accomplish exactly; it probably wouldn't mitigate gun crime all that much.
I'm not saying the heavy gun control laws would end all gun-related crimes. But let's face it, the Second Amendment hasn't ended all gun-related crimes either, has it? If gun ownership was a perfect solution, then everyone would own a gun and no crimes would ever occur because everyone would have the means to defend themselves. That's obviously not the reality.

So private gun ownership is one attempt to prevent crimes which doesn't provide a perfect solution to the problem. And gun control laws are a different attempt to prevent crimes which wouldn't provide a perfect solution to the problem. Now that we've acknowledged that neither approach is perfect, can we compare them and see which one produces better results?
  #47  
Old 01-10-2019, 06:22 PM
nearwildheaven nearwildheaven is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 11,775
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
The same process that stops other crimes. After you enact the law, you enforce it. The illegal owning of guns would be stopped by the same means that we stop the illegal robbing of banks, the illegal sale of drugs, and the illegal committing of murder.

Sure, there are criminals who break all of these law. But that doesn't mean the laws are pointless.
Lots of people are saying this about gun-free zones, but the reason they exist is this: If you DO have one, and get caught one way or another, the penalties are higher. That's it.
  #48  
Old 01-14-2019, 07:28 PM
DrDeth DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 38,672
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
No. By definition all law-abiding people would turn in their guns if there was a law prohibiting guns. Anybody who kept a gun after that would no longer be law abiding.



The same process that stops other crimes. After you enact the law, you enforce it. The illegal owning of guns would be stopped by the same means that we stop the illegal robbing of banks, the illegal sale of drugs, and the illegal committing of murder.
...
Like being gay wasnt "law abiding" a few decades ago, amiright?
  #49  
Old 01-14-2019, 08:48 PM
Little Nemo Little Nemo is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 79,645
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
Like being gay wasnt "law abiding" a few decades ago, amiright?
Sure, some laws are bad laws. And we should repeal the bad laws. I've been saying that throughout this thread.
  #50  
Old 01-10-2019, 01:57 PM
Sigene Sigene is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 2,320
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post

And the government already out-arms you by a ludicrous degree. Just what use do you think your AR-15 is going to be, when an Abrams drives into your living room?
One fallacy of this argument has been brought up before; using Vietnam, Iraq, Afganistan, and colonial US as examples. I well armed govt will not be able to stop a determined and more lightly armed populace, for a variety of reasons. One of which is that the army personnel will have some soul searching to do in taking up arms against their own people. Additionally, the ludicrous outgunning equipment works well in a conventional war with well defined targets, and standing armies, but its difficult to use your tanks on someone's living room without running over the neighbors as well. Your surgical strike airforce are going to be killing a lot of innocent children, so its not as easy as bringing the army in and quelling an untrained outgunned organized force.


Without the threat of ultimate power being in the hands of the people....what else can you do.....I personally will have to resort to outraged facebook posts.....That'll show the govt they can't do anything they want.



By the way: I personally think Trump is the closest thing to a fascist dictator we've come to......As a person with liberal leanings, I'm not inclined to let his powergrab get too out of hand and will willingly oppose his tyranny should it come to that......I don't really understand fully why other liberals who think he could lead us to tyranny think that angry facebook posts will suffice

Last edited by Sigene; 01-10-2019 at 02:02 PM.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:16 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017