Gun rights supporters hypothetical

In My Humble Opinion
1

First off I know I’m tempting fate by posting a gun topic in IMHO and I humbly request that you don’t respond with GD answers. If you want to debate this subject, open a thread in GD for it but leave this one in tact. Thanks.

Ok, here goes. Imagine a worst case scenario. In the next election a new president is elected with strongly anti gun views which reflect those of his party, congress, all the supreme court judges and everyone else who runs America. They pass motions to outlaw any and all firearms (including crossbows and other projectiles), motions which will take place after 90 days. Will you:

(a) Co-operate fully with the authorities and turn in your guns?

(b) Keep your gun(s) without telling the government or try to purchase one illegaly after yours has been confiscated?

© Join active campaigning with such groups as the NRA to try and get the motions overturned within the 90 days (although it almost certainly will have no effect)?

(d) Join a civilian militia to prevent the loss of any more of your civil rights?

(e) Emigrate?

Now, *** I KNOW *** that this will never, ever happen and what’s more I don’t want it to happen. Please don’t try to avoid the question by saying it’s unrealistic because I know it’s unrealistic. I just want to know what you’d do if the very worst ever actually happened. Thanks for your co-operation

2

Actually, I think it is quite a realistic possibility, and sadly, I believe that an attempt like this will occur within 10 years, and succeed within 20. When it does happen, being a law abiding citizen, I will turn any of my weapons, including the cases of ammunition, in to the government that are not stolen immediately prior to confiscation.

3

If such a horrible situation were to occur (and in my opinion, this would be a step that comes right before concentration camps and the like), I’d most likely resist, legally at first, and violently if necessary.

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. - Benjamin Franklin

4

I would (b), keep my gun, and in addition ©. If the government then lashed out at demonstrations, performed illegal searches and seizures, etc, I would then (d).

5

I wouldn’t hand over a thing, but leave ASAP for Canada. Any country that could sink that low into brain-death
doesn’t care what right they’ll rape out of you next.

6

Same here. C then D.

7

(A), then © then maybe (F). Specifically:

First (A) - Although I would give up my guns quite peacefully, I would videotape it when the goons came to take them. I would say out loud on the tape what exactly they took. (“One Kimber Gold Match, stainless finish, chambered for .45 ACP, serial number blahblah. One CZ-75 chambered for 9mm Parabellum, blue finish, serial number blahblah”, etc.) And make them acknowledge that this was in fact what they took. (This is so they can’t claim “We never confiscated those.” later.) I would also keep a written list of what they took, along with fair market prices at the time they were confiscated, so even if they don’t give them back, they will have to compensate me fairly.

Good guns are not cheap. My Kimber is an $1100 gun. It’s a very accurate and well-made target pistol, capable of some truly amazing groupings, and all that precision and good manufacturing quality costs. Really, this is not so much about gun rights as property rights. I’d feel the same way if the Feds suddenly decided they were coming and taking away my computer or my car. No the fuck you’re not, that’s MY stuff, I bought it with my hard-earned money, and you have no right to take it away just because you feel like it! And if you are going to take it away from me against my will in a legally very shaky fashion, then I’m going to be damn sure I record exactly what you did. And if you won’t return my stuff after the courts slap you down, then you owe me its value in money so I can buy a replacement.

The reason I wouldn’t hide/bury/attempt to conceal my guns is twofold. First of all, with the Brady background checks, almost all gun purchases are essentially being recorded. The rules, at least here in Colorado, are such that a background check must be done, and may only be done, when an actual purchase is being made. Part of the data for this background check is the serial number of the gun that is being sold. So they know your name and the serial number of your gun, and contrary to a congressional order, they (being the FBI) are keeping records around even after the checks clear. (They deny this of course. They’re calling them “backups of the databases.” Nevermind that a backup of that database more than two weeks old is totally useless.) So the Feds know for certain that I have guns. And I suspect that my “well, uh, they got stolen!” excuse wouldn’t fly. I imagine I’d end up in the slammer, even if I’d buried them completely untraceably.

The other thing is that not being able to use something is more or less de facto not being allowed to have it. If I can’t go target shooting, why do I even have guns? They’re not magical talismans. They’re only useful if I can use them. And if the cops are sending people to jail for 30 years for so much as mere posession, I’m sure not going to risk shooting one. The noise of one shot alone will bring a hundred cops. Hell, I can’t even use them docoratively (what a total waste of a good gun!) to hang on my wall or something. Under a total ban, there would be no point for me personally to own a gun. I’m not a criminal who’s willing to risk breaking the law, I’m not a bodyguard who absolutely needs a gun for my day to day business, etc. So I’d rather let the government confiscate them so I have material to use against them in court. Which brings us to…
After the confiscation, it’s time for © - taking this to the Supreme Court. I would join a class-action lawsuit against the government where peaceful gun owners pooled their money and paid the best lawyers in the country to take the case all the way to the Supreme Court and get a verdict, once and for all, about whether the individual has the right to bear arms or not.

That would take several years, of course. I’d use that time to save up a bunch of money, because if the decision came back that there was no individual right to own guns, and the government can regulate whomever and whatever they want on no more than their aribtrary whim, then it would be time for (F) - find a new country.
-Ben

8

Being a Constitutionalist and a Veteran, if I were around when things got as far as the OP hypothisised, and assuming that the Powers That Be modified the Constitution to permit their actions, I’d first (a), then (e).

I’ve spent too many of my years defending the Constitution to rebel against properly conducted amendments of it, no matter how wrongheaded and stupid. I’d simply take my extremely expensive tax-payer funded education & skills, and use them to contribute to someone else’s economy.

OTOH, if it were an un-Constitutional gun grab, then (b), ©, and (d), for the same reasons as above. I swore an Oath, and I take it seriously, to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foriegn and domestic.

So, If it’s done by the numbers, see y’all, it was nice knowing you. Look me up when you visit my new country and we’ll have a beer. If it’s done dirty, then I’ll be sticking around to help fix the problem.

9

I’d C.

I don’t own a gun, I don’t plan to ever. I am, truthfully, not all that fond of them. I am even pretty supportive of well thought out gun control measures. (No Uzis for four year olds.) I’m big on education and licensing, personally.

However, I do believe that there are people who probably should be allowed to have guns, and a whole sale proibition never really stopped anyone from doing/having something they liked. Instead of a percentage of responsible gun owners being made to look bad by the few idiots with arms, you’d be left with just the well armed idiots. Its pandering to the lowest common denominator, and failing to accomplish anything even then.

Get it repealed.

(Though I don’t knwo about the NRA…couldn’t there be some “Hippies for Rights” group that I would fit better in?)

10

MOLON LABE!

11

I had some GD stuff, but I left it out in respect of the OP.

I just want to respond: “A wise saying proves nothing.” - Voltaire :smiley:

12

I dont own a gun. However if I did, or supported gun rights I would A and C.

Seems to me that if you resist violently, especially by with a gun, you have justified the banning of guns. I mean, if they’re peacefully taking your firearms and crossbows and YOU escalate the conflict to homicide, you’ve become the person that this ban was meant to keep guns out of the hands of.

13

Let me clarify why I responded why I did. First, the Franklin quote was intended to illustrate my feelings on the matter. There’s nothing wrong with using a wiser man’s words to more clearly make your point.

As far as violently resisting proving the point of taking the guns in the first place, it is the view of many gun owners/2nd amendment supporters as well as the theme of many, many court opinions that Congress and the President have no right to take all our guns. They can regulate, but they cannot eliminate. Since the situation outlined in the OP is unconstitutional on its face, violent opposition to confiscation is called for, IMHO.

14

On the other hand, if it was the Supreme Court that made the decision(which would be constitutional, y’know) that individual gun ownership could be restricted, would you then give them up peacefully, or would you decide that you would have to keep them, Constitution be damned?

15

that’s a contradiction in terms

When they come for my guns and I say “no”, are they then going to say, “oh, ok, then you can keep them”? No, they’ll try to arrest me. With force.

16

IMO, this still doesn’t make it constitutional. The USSC cannot completely contradict a clause of the Constitution or any amendment. It would take the the concurrence of 38 state legislatures to do this. I can easily think of 13 states that would vehemently oppose something like this. Even if HCI were able to buy enough state legislators to get it passed (the only way they’d ever manage that!), I still think that the hardcore gun owners in this country (which includes a sizable percentage of the law enforcement officers and military personnel in this country) would take up arms against the government if push came to shove and have a fighting chance at winning.

17

It would require an amendment to the Constitution. Even Uncle Cecil concurs, not surprisingly.

Remember, every other amendment that mentions “The People” is always construed to mean individual citizens, but of course they meant something entirely different than what they said with regard to the 2nd Amendment?

In the 18th century, “Well Regulated” did mean something a little different, however. A watch or clock, for example, was well regulated if it was maintained, lubricated, and kept accurate time. It doesn’t mean a laundry list of near impossible and conflicting legislation designed to prevent exercise of a fundamental right. It is odd that “Free Speech” covers a number of things that are at best quite a stretch from the spoken word, but something as clear cut as the 2nd Amendment refers to the National Guard, which wasn’t even formed till a hundred years later. Hm.

With that out of the way, I’m quite certain most citizens, even the “cold dead fingers” types would line right up to turn in their firearms- sheeple, I mean people, are inclined to follow the law.

18

Actually, you’re missing more than half of the militia when you discuss the National Guard:

Exemptions to the Militia:

The unorganized militia has been around from the begining, and except as noted above, if you’re male, between the ages of 17 and 45, or are female and a member of a reserve or Guard unit, you’re part of the Milita, and get to defend the country and Constitution alongside the rest of us. If you’re a Consientious Objector, you still have to contribute, even if you don’t have to fire a weapon (always lots of need for good clerks, cooks, and corpsmen).

19

Ok, so lets say a constitutional amendment is passed repealing the second amendment. Then what do you do? Is your response different than it was under the scenario in the OP?

20

As stated above, I turn over my weapons, demand my just remuneration, and renounce my citizenship. I’ve got plenty of skills that are in demand, and will go contribute to some other country’s economy.