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.
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.
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.
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.
We aren’t really doing it now, either.
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…
This post from another thread seems relevant here:
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.
He isn’t saying those fears are reasonable, only that they’re fears.
What’s your definition of patriot?
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.
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
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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!!!”.