Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 01-10-2019, 12:53 AM
Velocity Velocity is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 13,051
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Suppose against all odds the 2nd Amendment is repealed and laws are passed and the government goes knocking door-to-door to confiscate all privately owned guns.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: 13,458
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: 973
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, 02:35 AM
Smapti Smapti is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Olympia, WA
Posts: 15,509
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.
  #6  
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.
  #7  
Old 01-10-2019, 07:08 AM
Isamu Isamu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Osaka
Posts: 5,934
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.
  #8  
Old 01-10-2019, 07:25 AM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos Chronos is online now
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 80,831
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?
  #9  
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?
  #10  
Old 01-10-2019, 07:52 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 31,882
As far as I can tell, for some folks, their guns are like their security blanket, except to the Nth degree. Take them away, and they won't just cry, they won't be able to function at all. Not every gun owner is like this, quite obviously, but in my experience, some are. Their guns are their life. They work to have money to buy guns. They structure their lives around recreational shooting and around fantasies of shooting bad guys. To these folks, even the slightest possibility of "taking their guns away" is a threat to their entire world.
  #11  
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?
  #12  
Old 01-10-2019, 08:17 AM
Isamu Isamu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Osaka
Posts: 5,934
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.
  #13  
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?
  #14  
Old 01-10-2019, 08:27 AM
rbroome rbroome is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Louisiana
Posts: 3,211
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.
  #15  
Old 01-10-2019, 08:29 AM
rbroome rbroome is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Louisiana
Posts: 3,211
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.
  #16  
Old 01-10-2019, 08:46 AM
Isamu Isamu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Osaka
Posts: 5,934
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.
  #17  
Old 01-10-2019, 09:22 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 Smapti View Post
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.
Do you actually know anyone who thinks this way? Because apart from Girl Scout Cookies I can't think of any product I'd buy simply to shore up an industry. As a "Main Worry" as you call it, I'm rather surprised no gun-owners I know even give money to the NRA or its ilk, or plan to open fire on military/paramilitary forces. Mostly people just want to kill some food or do some zen at a range, maybe put some holes in an intruder.
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?
I generally agree with this sentiment. But in the spirit of Devil's Advocacy, even basic small arms in the hands of locals can harass the bejeezus out of even a mighty and well-armed invading force. Never gonna take out an Abrams or knock a jet out of the sky, but soft targets are still soft targets. Plus, the harassment itself becomes just one more problem for the invader to deal with.
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?

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.
My main worry would be that the government has gotten lazy and is focusing on outlawing certain types of property rather than identifying cultural motivators for violent crimes. There are a lot of strange things that go on in this world, but one thing that NEVER happens is a firearm waking up one day, loading itself, and shooting someone. There is ALWAYS a person, malevolent or careless, behind the gun and working the trigger. I see basically zero call for educating the general population about these items that permeate our society, but I do see a lot of fearful "just get 'em out of here, they scare me!" And I see a lot of people doing time because they felt like they needed to put holes in someone because they had no other ideas for how to handle their anger, desperation, or pride. Yeah, I know guns make it easier to express one's violent tendencies, but I think it's better to address those tendencies if only to improve the quality of life of people who are getting that desperate.
  #18  
Old 01-10-2019, 09:44 AM
Shodan Shodan is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 38,204
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?
As thelurkinghorror implies, the government going door to door to collect weapons tends to show that many of my other Constitutional rights have been compromised as well. Is a judge going to issue a search warrant for every household in America?
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Fourth Amendment
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
I don't think "see if there are any guns in Shodan's house" is a particular description of what is to be seized. Further, what is the probable cause to believe I am breaking the law, even a law against gun ownership?

Cocaine is already illegal, but a cop who went to a judge and said "we want to search every house in Detroit to see if they have any crack on the premises" wouldn't get very far.

Or what if they show up on my doorstep and ask me if I have any guns, and I reply "I am not answering any questions - get off my property". Will they arrest me and thereby violate my rights under the Fifth Amendment?

It's not just that the Second Amendment enables us to resist government tyranny. It's also that the Second acts somewhat like the canary in the coal mine - a government that is willing to ignore that part of the Bill of Rights has to either remove, or ignore, other rights in the Bill of Rights. Or else they don't get very far.

Regards,
Shodan
  #19  
Old 01-10-2019, 09:50 AM
EscAlaMike EscAlaMike is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Location: Alabama
Posts: 1,446
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.
  #20  
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.
  #21  
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.
  #22  
Old 01-10-2019, 10:05 AM
ElvisL1ves ElvisL1ves is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 48,494
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.
  #23  
Old 01-10-2019, 10:07 AM
JRDelirious JRDelirious is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Displaced
Posts: 15,580
Confiscation of guns: What do gun owners fear exactly?

I do have to agree with Inigo on one thing, namely that the temptation would be there to say, we got the guns off the street, now we don’t need to address in depth the mental health/family disfunction/socioeconomic hardship/hate issues that lead to the weapons being misused. Given the choice on where to spend the resources I’d go for those first... but you and I know the problem is there is not the will to do that either.

Last edited by JRDelirious; 01-10-2019 at 10:09 AM.
  #24  
Old 01-10-2019, 10:09 AM
ElvisL1ves ElvisL1ves is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 48,494
Quote:
Originally Posted by JRDelirious View Post
the temptation would be there to say, we got the guns off the street, now we donít need to address in depth the mental health/family disfunction/socioeconomic hardship/hate issues that lead to the weapons being misused.
We aren't really doing it now, either.
  #25  
Old 01-10-2019, 10:15 AM
Crafter_Man's Avatar
Crafter_Man Crafter_Man is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Ohio
Posts: 11,138
The people who will be most fearful are the law enforcement officers who will be going door-to-door to confiscate weapons. It will be the riskiest job on the planet.

Sorry about the stereotyping, but would you go door-to-door in the hills of West Virginia to confiscate their weapons for $25 an hour? Not me. Talk about a bloodbath...
  #26  
Old 01-10-2019, 10:40 AM
HurricaneDitka HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 12,022
This post from another thread seems relevant here:

Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
This is why education camps will be necessary.

We will need emergency legislation declaring the republican party a treasonous, terroristic political wing that is the enemy of the American people. This will only be possibly when the Republican policies bankrupt the average American, which is why we need a great depression. But even then, you're average Jerry Springer-watching, Joe Rogan-listening Ameritard still might not get it. The military (centrist) can take over and demand behavior.
  #27  
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.
  #28  
Old 01-10-2019, 11:04 AM
ElvisL1ves ElvisL1ves is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 48,494
He isn't saying those fears are reasonable, only that they're fears.
  #29  
Old 01-10-2019, 11:13 AM
ElvisL1ves ElvisL1ves is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 48,494
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?
  #30  
Old 01-10-2019, 11:14 AM
kopek kopek is offline
born to be shunned
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Southwestern PA
Posts: 13,897
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post

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?
Drop the last one and you basically described me.

I grew up in an area where you don't have any actual police protection; just the State-ies and the average response is still something like 45 minutes. I also travel in some equally remote areas. Its been adjudicated different times and ways but since the police and government have any actual responsibility to protect me as an individual I figure I'm partly on my own. I carry and I have needed to so loss of that ability scares me.

A lot of what I own and shoot is very valuable; we're talking in the neighborhood of a grand or more each. Its my hobby and an accumulation 50 years in the making. If it comes to seizure (and there are already certain conditions in some cases where you can be subject to a seizure) what will the compensation be? Fair market value say a year before the law was enacted? $25 per gun like the average "buy back" program? Just take them? And as I have seen from fellow Dopers -- it could include anything since some of the folks looking to go this far want my antique flintlocks and EVERYTHING!!!!!!!! Even stuff that isn't currently even considered a firearm.

So yeah; I'm afraid. Not terribly ---- just call it nervous about the subject when it comes up.
  #31  
Old 01-10-2019, 11:15 AM
Shodan Shodan is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 38,204
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
This post from another thread seems relevant here:
No kidding.

I think this kind of thing is predicated, perhaps unconsciously, on the assumption that Democrats or liberals will always and forever be in charge. "We will give the government enormous powers and sweep away rights, but it's OK because it will only affect gun owners." My response is usually "OK, suppose we do grant the government all that power. Then we elect somebody like Trump.

Still sound like a good idea?"

Yet they still always seem to be sure they can stuff the genie back into the bottle.

Regards,
Shodan
  #32  
Old 01-10-2019, 11:37 AM
Lamoral Lamoral is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Fenario
Posts: 2,249
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.
  #33  
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.
  #34  
Old 01-10-2019, 11:42 AM
ElvisL1ves ElvisL1ves is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 48,494
LEO's go to work every day knowing some asshole with a gun could prevent them from coming home. Not to dismiss that risk in any way, but it wouldn't be anything new. The idea that some local yahoos could form criminal gangs (never mind that they'd call themselves "patriotic militias resisting tyranny"; we've seen some of that nonsense around already) that would be any more fearsome than existing criminal gangs is hard to take seriously.

Do you suggest that the fact that armed criminals exist, today, consists of an argument not to ask anyone to enforce our laws?
  #35  
Old 01-10-2019, 12:01 PM
Little Nemo Little Nemo is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 79,634
I think the main concern is that criminals will not respect gun control laws and will continue to own guns while law-abiding citizens would be disarmed. This would result in situations where a law-abiding citizen would have no gun to defend themselves from an armed criminal.
  #36  
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: 79,634
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.
  #37  
Old 01-10-2019, 12:15 PM
enipla enipla is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Colorado Rockies.
Posts: 13,506
It's a weird thing. I'm moderate, leaning left. I own twelve guns. All handed down or inherited. I have never purchased a gun.

As a child I target shot a lot. A real lot. Skeet too. I don't hunt.

As I do live in a remote area, I know that 911 response could take a while. Could be 10 minutes, or 30. If the responding vehicle isn't a 4x4, they (and I) are gonna be out of luck for 6 months of the year.

Haven't seen bears in about year, moose we get pretty much year round. Not that I would shoot one, but I have fired rounds into a tree near a bear that was stalking our house. Found a bear in the back of my pick-up truck about 20 years ago. That was interesting. Grabbed a 12ga, fired it in the air and he left. This is not something you want to do with firecrackers or banging pots and pans together. Ya just never know.

Moose are cool, but stay away from them. They like to munch on our 'grass'. I will never forget the first time I saw one. Dogs went to 'doggie alert' I woke up, looked out the window in the dark and told my wife "Honey, there is a horse in the driveway". What can I say, it was dark and I did not have my glasses on. The moose was using my car as a giant salt lick. The car was covered in road salt. Made quite the mess out of it. But, it was cute and I let him have his way. I'm in HIS territory, not the other way around. Now, moose are a regular visitors.

All in all I support legislation on firearms. Doubt it will do much good.

I keep a .357 at ready, and a .356 Marlin carbine close as well. Yah just don't know what may happen by.
__________________
I don't live in the middle of nowhere, but I can see it from here.
  #38  
Old 01-10-2019, 12:17 PM
bump bump is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 16,466
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.
  #39  
Old 01-10-2019, 12:36 PM
Chimera Chimera is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: In the Dreaming
Posts: 24,121
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.
  #40  
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!!!".
  #41  
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.
  #42  
Old 01-10-2019, 02:13 PM
ElvisL1ves ElvisL1ves is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 48,494
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sigene View Post
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.
The government isn't "they". It's "we". And we do have the ultimate power, via the government we have established.

The seemingly-prevalent Red Dawn fantasy, requiring We The People to be seen as some foreign occupying power instead of us, is one of the strongest barriers we face in forming a more perfect union, establishing justice, etc. It also requires ignoring the part of the Constitution itself that defines the purpose of militias as including suppressing insurrections. Not enabling them, suppressing them.

So how do we dispel that fantasy?
  #43  
Old 01-10-2019, 02:16 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 Sigene View Post
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.
Arguments like this make a majorly false assumption that all your neighbors with guns that consider themselves to be "patriots" agree with each other as to what should be fought, what should be fought for, and who should be defended. "The People" will not rise to "Defend Freedom" because there is no agreed upon definition of what exactly that means. If the police roll in to violently oppress a gay rights rally will "Patriots" show up with their guns to fight back? When African-Americans marched for freedom and were attacked by police did "patriots" show up with guns to defend their rights? I have seen a shitload of articles decrying what happened at Waco...but where where the "patriots"with their guns when the shit hit the fan?
  #44  
Old 01-10-2019, 02:40 PM
kopek kopek is offline
born to be shunned
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Southwestern PA
Posts: 13,897
Quote:
Originally Posted by enipla View Post



All in all I support legislation on firearms. Doubt it will do much good.
Same here. But where this moves from a simple statement to great debate is what kind of legislation. I want national databases for things like mental illness/substance abuse/criminal and more that would make the background checks already in place worth the effort but 95% of both my Right and Left friends would have kittens first. The friends on the far Left want a total ban and seizure while the far Right want almost no controls at all. It makes any stand in the middle uncomfortable at times.
  #45  
Old 01-10-2019, 02:51 PM
kayT kayT is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Austin
Posts: 4,978
Have the gun control laws we currently have been successful at preventing gun crimes? If not, what indication do we have that new gun control laws will succeed in doing so? What indication do we have that outlawing guns and confiscating all of them (how?) will be successful? Why do so many people think that passing more laws will solve problems?
  #46  
Old 01-10-2019, 02:56 PM
Lamoral Lamoral is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Fenario
Posts: 2,249
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
"The People" will not rise to "Defend Freedom" because there is no agreed upon definition of what exactly that means. If the police roll in to violently oppress a gay rights rally will "Patriots" show up with their guns to fight back? When African-Americans marched for freedom and were attacked by police did "patriots" show up with guns to defend their rights?
You are correct, and the answers to your posited situations are "no."

But this hypothetical is simply discussing the idea of the armed forces of the government going up against the people in this country who have the guns. Remove ideological considerations from the equation for the sake of the argument, except for the ideology of having the right to own guns. The government, for whatever reason, is using armed force to try to confiscate the guns from whoever has them. It doesn't matter how many tanks, planes, and bombs the military has, they're still going to need to use human beings to do the leg work here and those human beings would be shot at and killed in huge numbers.
  #47  
Old 01-10-2019, 03:00 PM
Velocity Velocity is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 13,051
Serious question: If the government does go door-to-door confiscating guns, would gun owners really open fire on federal agents?

Is it worth it to lose one's life for the sake of the guns that one has in one's closet or basement, etc.? Especially a gun battle that one has no chance of winning? (I'm assuming that federal agents wouldn't be going alone by themselves, but rather, in a fairly large unit at a time, heavily outnumbering the gun owners at any particular residence.)
  #48  
Old 01-10-2019, 03:01 PM
Sigene Sigene is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 2,320
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
It also requires ignoring the part of the Constitution itself that defines the purpose of militias as including suppressing insurrections. Not enabling them, suppressing them.
I think your points are acceptable as a good argument. I have a question for my own education on this quote though. Where is it in the constitution where the main purpose of militias were to suppress insurrections? My previous education indicates that the purpose was for the people to be able to preserve their liberties.

Last edited by Sigene; 01-10-2019 at 03:01 PM.
  #49  
Old 01-10-2019, 03:02 PM
Velocity Velocity is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 13,051
Again, I'm surely projecting, as as non-gun-owner, but if I had Glocks and Berettas in my basement and federal ATF agents come knocking and say, "We are acting under lawful orders, surely you've heard of recent Law XXX that calls for the confiscation of firearms, now here we are to offer you fair court-ordained compensatory value of $ _____ for your guns, now please produce them" - I don't see it worth losing my risk to pull out the guns, shoot the ATF agents, and either get gunned down immediately on the spot, or have to spend the rest of my life as a hiding fugitive. What is there to be gained out of doing so?
  #50  
Old 01-10-2019, 03:09 PM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm Czarcasm is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 58,930
"The people in this country that have guns"?
If a law is passed restricting gun access to those of the Muslim religion will patriots rise up with their weapons to defend them?
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 01:45 PM.

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