How would you go about a (near) complete confiscation of firearms in the US?

As has already been said a Tec-9 isn’t automatic.

But even if it were, it wouldn’t be illegal to buy one given one lives in one of the states that does not prohibit ownership (such as Pennsylvania), goes through the necessary background check and pays the fee to get the Federal Tax Stamp ($200).

I could buy an H&K MP-5 select fire submachine gun tomorrow if I were willing and able to meet the price tag, and there’s a completely legal way to buy and own it.

Sorry, can’t help nitpicking stuff here.

[nit]

In conventional (and perhaps traditional) military terms, a tec 9 is automatic - in that it’s a self-loading arm. Traditional military definitions define automatic as semiautomatic or fully automatic. Of course, there may be a more accepted public definition, but if we’re nitpicking the exact wording, I’d be more specific, saying that tec-9s aren’t fully automatic weapons.

[/nit]

First off…FINE!!, a tech-9 is not automatic!! I do not know much about guns of that sort…Can I make the example of an Uzi? Is an Uzi automatic???

:slight_smile: Just kidding.

Actually, I used to live in Arizona where you can practically buy a bazooka if you wanted. I have been to many a gun show out there and I do know what is available. I thought that some assault rifles and automatic weapons were in fact illegal. I guess I’m wrong.

Menocchio said:

I must say I doubt that will ever, ever happen. The ability to hunt for some is a given right never to be taken away. I know people who love hunting, live for hunting. As I am sure most people do know someone who hunts. Why here in New England Bird Season is right now!!

Not only do some people just love to hunt, there are many people who depend on it as a source of food.

A 110 lb deer fed my family meat we would not have had for 3 months while my father was out of work years ago, because we could not afford to buy meat at the grocery store.

Dad could still afford $.79 for a bullet, $12.75 for a hunting license, and giving 5 lb of meat to the person who butchered the deer in trade for his services. Since he had owned the rifle he used for 20 years at that point, I’m not inculding the price of the gun.

I grew up hunting with the knowledge that it feeds families. It’s not something people just do for ‘fun’.

This is an easy one…

First I would ignore the obvious meaning of the 2nd Amendment and start claiming that the National Guard is the militia.

Second, I would add tons of tiny little laws meant to regulate small minority subsets of firearms. My goal would be to try and acheive a climate where NOBODY really knew what was legal or not.

Then I would try to add in tons of paperwork hurdles in between wanting a firearm and getting one. I would broaden the definition of “felonies” and then ban all felon’s from having a gun for life.

Next, I would pick the firearms that were used in the most crime and try to ban it. If that didn’t work, I would just pick the scariest looking gun and try to ban that one. Since most people don’t know that much about guns, I wouldn’t be afraid to make up terms or outright lie about a gun’s capablilities.

If I couldn’t ban a type of gun, I would raise all sorts of public safety concerns. I would try to force untested technology onto guns in an effort to raise the price of guns and reduce their desirability. I would file all sorts of frivilous lawsuits against gun manufacturers based on my “safety concerns.” Hopefully I could just flatout bankrupt the manufacturers and stop all new guns from being made, or maybe I could use the lawsuits to blackmail the gun manufacturers into implementing firearms restirctions I was unable to pass into law.

I would use the “public safety” issue to get all firearms registered. I might have to start with just one small segment of firearms, but I would just point out that it couldn’t be expected to be effective unless ALL guns were registered.

Over time the cumulative results of my efforts would be to reduce the numbers of gun owners. As their numbers decreased, it would be easier and easier to to impose more laws restricting firearms and raising draconian punishments for breaking them.

I would never have to go door to door. People would be lining up to turn in the old firearms they inherited because they were afraid of the penalties for keeping one, and they were not interested in going through the hassle of qualifying to legally own one.
So in summation…

I would do it incrementally. One little step at a time. I would never consent to a loosening of the laws, and the failure of any of the laws I had implemented would have to be attributed to the fact that owning a gun was still to easy.

Is it my imagination, or are there a lot of agendas seething beneath the surface of some of these posts?

Well, what independant voter said is basically what the anti-gun groups are trying to do now. And have been doing, for that matter.

One important step that would have to be taken to ban all gun ownership: A national registry of gun owners. First of all they must all be identified. Of course, when compiling this list, the purpose would remain unknown. Just introduce it as a “common sense” measure to “protect” the population. But, once you know who all the gun owners are, you are in a position to disarm them.

Unless they’d prefer to fight rather than be disarmed.

How many of the 80 million lawful gun owners in the US would fight? Even if it were 50% of them, or 25%, that’s a lot of gun owners.

You left out a couple of incremental steps, IndependentVoter
[ul]
Press for ballistic fingerprinting of every firearm.

Impose a 5 cent or more tax on every round of ammunition sold.
[/ul]

I have a strong gut feeling that the number of people who would fight or rebel, etc., is vastly overestimated in this kind of thing. I suspect it’s much like that most famous quote Voltaire didn’t say, about not agreeing with what you say but defending to the death your right to say it–the sort of thing that gets bandied about easily when it’s just a matter of words, but is simply not likely to happen when it comes down dying.

If I were the overlord of Total Gun Confiscation Project, I’d seize this whole patriotic anti-terrorist anxiety and use it hard. Link anti-gun control types as being like those who would destroy us (skirt the edge of libel-actionability with the PSAs). Use the threat of domestic terrorist cells to really clamp a slew of new regulations onto those loophole-ridden gun shows, as well as the regular market. It’s a fantastic opportunity to get a centralized owner registry in place. By carefully hooking some bills into each other, asset forfeiture laws could be grown to easily get firearms away from anyone suspected of terrorist connections, and find it so difficult to get them back if no formal charges are ever made that most will simply not try.

The overwhelming majority of privately-owned guns in the U.S. are either ~.30 cal rifles (either bolt-action or semi-automaitc) pistols (either revolvers or automatic) and shotguns. There’s what, 200 million of 'em out there? Any legislation calling for confiscation of any of these would be an extremely radical “step” and there’s no glossing over it.

The question is, how many Americans support the above scenarios? Who is the “you” in these cases if not a majority in Congress, plus the President, plus the Supreme Court? Yeah, they’re all gonna “conspire”.

You’ll have to suspend more of the constitution than the second amendment to accomplish that legally.

Don’t ban the guns. Simply outlaw the manufacture, sale, trading, etc., of ammunition.

I’d start by wearing lots and lots of Kevlar.

Honestly, though, I don’t see it happening any way than by the slippery-slope argument. The good part is that it can be nipped in the bud if people and politicians make a big enough stink about it.

Suggestion: Posters to this thread who actually support the idea of gun confiscation should identify themselves as such so as to distinguish them from the strawmen.

I win either way, as I am an Active Duty Guardsman (sounds like a contradiction, but it’s really not, I assure you). So, try to take my guns. I can’t lose. :slight_smile:

Okay. Ardent supporter of the Second Amendment here, and I feel compelled to say up front that I question the wisdom in coming up with battle plans for the other side in an open forum. They don’t need us giving them ideas.

That said, on with the circus.

First thing to do is to increase the cost of gun ownership. I reckon the best place to begin with this is at the source. Start passing a series of technical laws that require gunmakers to change their gun designs, perform extensive safety tests, install new features, what have you. The manufacturers will pass on the cost to the consumer. Before long, only the very wealthy will be able to afford guns.

Next, target the sellers. Impose restrictions on storage, store size, zoning/location of business, hours of operation, and minimum levels of store security. Basically, make owning a gun store so expensive and troublesome that no one will want to do it. Of course, all these rules will be done in the name of “safety”.

Having practically eliminated commercial sales, the next step is to restrict private sales. It’s really hard to go after person-to-person sales, so instead, go after gun shows. First, bump up the space rental fees for any organization hosting a gun show. Better yet, require them to purchase a license. Increase the fees annually. Require that all purchasers at the show go through a criminal background check. If you can’t afford the equipment to do the check, even if you intend only the one gun you’ve ever owned, sorry, you can’t. Of course, there should be police to oversee all this, and I reckon the promoters should pay for that too, don’t you?

And you know, those gun ranges are a nuisance. There’s noise, there’s the problem of lead in the air and ground…they should pay some heavy usage fees, property taxes, and EPA cleanup penalties, don’t ya think?

So now we’re at a stage where guns are very expensive, very hard to get, and very hard to shoot. Passing a tax on ammunition should be easy by this point; you could almost call it a “sin tax”, like taxing cigarettes or alcohol. And since no one but the very rich can afford guns, most people won’t care. Keep jacking that tax up, every year.

Now that no one has guns anyway, and no one can afford to shoot, we might as well repeal the CCW license law; there weren’t many renewals anyway, after the fees started doubling every couple years.

By now, the only guns that are out there are getting pretty old, probably starting to break. Time to crack down on the parts-makers and gunsmiths. It’s a precision job, and boy, you know how dangerous guns are, so for safety’s sake we’d better impose some minimum education requirements and a licensing system for anyone who repairs or makes parts for guns. That should take care of 'em.

Wow, almost no one has guns now. And those that do are the cultural elite, the people with loads of cash to throw around. They’re the only ones with guns?! Well, that’s just a nightmare! The aristocracy has an armed advantage! We’d better keep track of them! Registration! And the gunless majority will support it.

Now, when the ban is passed in another decade, you know which doors to knock on to pick up the last guns.

This is how I see it happening. The first step is to make owning a gun so expensive and such a hassle that people will throw up their hands and give up. From there, the rest is easy.

I wouldn’t.

Put me down as one of the gun owners who would revolt if the government tried such an illegal, unconsitutional policy.

It wouldn’t be unconstitutional if the following also appeared: **Amendment XXVIII: **The second article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.

Pie-in-the-sky? Yeah, probably, but for public opinion to reach the point of overt confiscations like we’re discussing I don’t think we can rule out this happening along the way. When I ponder gun ban/confiscation methods, I usually treat the repeal of the Second Amendment as a necessary prerequisite (although the end-around scenarios posed here just might work).

I am strongly pro-2nd Amendment, BTW.

Zero, that’s how many. How many gun owners showed up at Waco, or at Ruby Ridge, when radical gun-owners were loudly proclaiming that those were incidents of government tyranny?

For the record, I’m middle of the road. I see no need to confiscate all firearms if there are effective laws and social mores governing their use. I would legislate and confiscate away the illegal gun market, but legal gun ownership isn’t essentially problematic to me.

So, how would I do it? I would tax the living shit out of guns, ammunition, and recreational activities centering around guns. As several have observed, increasing the cost of gun ownership is a clean way to marginalize the radicals and get the moderates away from their guns. I would run ads comparing guns to tobacco and alcohol, and suggest that taxes are necessary to directly address the problems guns cause in society; then I would incrementally jack them up until, like cigarettes, the majority of the cost of guns and their assorted paraphenelia was going to the government. To help this along, I would actually decriminalize certain weapons, like fully automatic assault weapons, and make them items you need a mortgage to purchase.

Along with this, a strong law enforcement effort to clean up illegal firearms (heavy prison sentences for gun felonies, trafficking, etc., buy back programs and amnesties, etc.); polarize the gun community into pro and anti-legal gun ownership camps (meaning those who invest in firearms, and those who take a radical, individualistic second amendment line). Reward gun owners who voluntarily register their firearms and ballistically fingerprint them; offer tax incentives to those who demonstrate safe gun ownership (gun safes, trigger locks, etc.). Turn proper gun ownership into a hobby of the rich, while cracking down on those who don’t toe the line.

I’d support lawsuits against gun manufacturers similar to the one in New York several years ago, where several manufacturers were found liable for damages resulting from gun violence because it was proved in court that those manufacturers were flooding the market in weak gun control states because they knew that they were selling to an illegal secondary market.

What’s currently missing on the gun-control side is any carrot to accompany the stick. They alienate legal gun owners and unnecessarily increase their own opposition.