You seem to think that “civil war” WRT the USA must exclusively mean some kind of replay of the ugliness in the 1860’s. We haven’t really had to deal with a homegrown insurgency (or terrorist, if you like that term better) organization in the US since the 1970’s. The Weathermen, the SLA, et. al. have faded into history. Maybe you’d be comfortable with “low intensity warfare” right here at home? Because that is what you are really talking about. Multiple Wacos. Multiple McVeighs. How many of those houses full of people are you, personally, okay with seeing burnt to the ground over possession of guns?
I very much hope the police can distinguish hostages from perpetrators. If hostages are not at risk, then the place burning to the ground would be a convenient way of destroying an arsenal.
But like I said, this isn’t going to happen, because the laws won’t change much if at all. My best hope is that they limit the size of magazines, which probably would have no effect for maybe 10 or 20 years. this has to be addresses in a very long term way.
The other thing they might reasonably do is tighten up background check laws and close loopholes like the one allowing gun sales without background checks at what amount to gun flea markets (damn well armed fleas, though).
That’s a point. One can only hope the Tim McVeighs would be barricading themselves inside their own arsenals.
“Perpetrators” in this case being people who would not surrender personally owned weapons. How many houses full of such people being burnt to the ground do you consider acceptable in the course of enforcing confiscation?
Did I mention a limit? Every damn one of them.
I hope you recognize the irony of saying there wouldn’t be a civil war and then endorsing Sherman-esque tactics.
So, no body count is too high in order for this goal to be carried out?
We will kill as many people as necessary in order to save lives?
Fuck me, I must have gone through the looking glass without realizing it.
What are we supposed to do with people who barricade themselves in houses and start shooting at cops who come near? Stop when the count gets to 50?
Are you forgetting that I’ve also said the law will not go so far as confiscating people’s weapons? This is a hypothetical – but in the hypothetical of the law changing to eliminate private weapons, I would favor enforcement of that law.
In other words, even unjust laws should be enforced to the utmost extreme?
Your willingness to see people killed who refuse to comply with your ideas of gun control is an example of why pro-gun people do not trust antis. It seems that if killing folks fits in with your political agenda, there is no upper limit on the amount of blood you’re willing to spill.
My apologies. I misspoke. I should have said, should such a law come into being and found to be Constitutional by our highest courts, I would favor enforcement.
Even it it had not been found constitutional at the time, I wouldn’t call it “unjust”, because I don’t really have any problem with the concept. But – I don’t think it should be enforced using lethal means until its legal foundation is relatively settled.
My best (IANAL) guess is that changing the law to allow confiscation would need a constitutional amendment, which is one reason I see such a law is extremely unlikely. At the same time, should an amendment to eliminate the 2nd Amendment or amend it in away to remove the right of private gun ownership , I would encourage my representatives to support it.
That doesn’t really change anything. You’re still saying you would support a situation where people are killed because they won’t turn in their guns. That would surely result in more deaths than “standard” gun violence.
Are you suggesting I support executing such people? I support the police using whatever means necessary to enforce the law, including the use of force if necessary when suspects or perpetrators refuse to comply with lawful orders. I suspect force would not be necessary in many cases, but in some it would. How is that different from any other official interaction between police and citizens?
Considering how very attached many, many people are to their guns, probably by a factor of 10, if not more…
Is it just gun confiscation, or is it okay for cops to use lethal force to make citizens comply with every “lawful order?”
It is already legal for police use force, if necessary, to arrest someone for refusing to comply with a lawful order. I don’t see gun confiscation as any different from any other law in that sense.
If the police can use no force or less than lethal force to enforce the law, more power to them. But I suspect that a lot of the folks who would be refusing to comply would also be brandishing weapons, which increases the risk for everyone involved.
Scumpup, if you stood outside your gun cabinet and verbally refused to comply and performed some kind of civil disobedience act of non-compliance, I hope the police wouldn’t harm a hair on your head arresting you. But if you pull a gun on cops and threaten to shoot if they come near your guns, I would not be particularly bothered if they had to seriously injure you or kill you, not that I would hope for such an outcome.
As far as “every” lawful order, pretty much “Yes, if necessary.” I wouldn’t expect a cop to shoot someone down if they didn’t get out of the street when the cop yelled at them too. But if they jaywalker pulls a gun…
I am one of the one in a thousand (at a guess) brits who (probably cause of all the time I’ve spent on American message boards) actaully thinks that gun rights for self defence are a legit thing (a concept which originated in the UK btw, well before your 2nd amendment was written) and even more importantly one should be allowed to own a mechanical object if you don’t do harm with it - but I have to say that the idea you will have a civil war without guns is hilarious. No doubt there will be some a tiny number of loonies that try the over-my-dead-body thing literally, but for every, I dunno, fifty of them that are shot (at a minimum) there’ll be one state casualty. The reality is that 99% of gun owners expressing such a claim are such pussies that they’ll totally give in to the government. After all, while reiterating that I entirely support the right to self defence*, you really do need to be a bit of a pussy to want a gun for self defence in the first place in almost all parts of the US.
Seriously, a total and utter wuss. Almost all of the US is very low violent crime by most standards (even with, or perhaps related to [not a debate I wanna get into] the way you lock up a ludicrous proportion of your young men, especially black) and for any person who isn’t a wuss taking the tiny risk should not worry them that much.
Once again I completely understand not wanting to give up your rights, but then again there are plenty of places in your country where you cannot buy alcohol - which rights are more important?
*I am convinced on two grounds - firstly that having a gun means a weak individual can fight off a stronger one; secondly that relying upon police and similar government alternatives is completely impractical in certain situations.
Don’t try to shift what we’re talking about, please, just to make yourself look better. We are talking specifically about the use of lethal force. Do you think it is acceptable for police to use lethal force to enforce any “lawful order?”
Taking handguns away in the UK was easy - they were only held in small numbers, by a fairly orderly minority, for use only in quite specific contexts - and nearly everyone else in the population earnestly wanted them (the guns) gone. Simples.
The USA just isn’t like that at all - it would be a long time before any campaign of gun removal (even if it had popular support) would actually make an effective dent in the number of weapons in circulation - so it wouldn’t deliver the desired outcome any time soon.
And it would probably deliver some quite unpleasant undesirable outcomes in the interim.