Well, the Redcoats weren’t going house-to-house, they were planning to confiscate the militia’s armory-stores. If the USG tried to confiscate the National Guard’s weapons . . . it wouldn’t, because the NG can be federalized at any time anyway.
Do CEOs do this?
And so you’re saying I’m allowed to carry a gun if I hang out in high crime areas? Which areas are those? Chicago, DC, New York? (You’re taking basically the reverse tactic from the usual gun rights opponent, which is “you rednecks in the sticks don’t understand what us city folks have to deal with – keep your plinkers and squirrel guns, and let us ban handguns in the city”.)
Who gets to decide which areas are dangerous enough to arm yourself legally? You?
Are you really blaming the victims of crime like this? If you wear jewelry and visit “high crime” areas, you are asking to get shot? Do you really think any significant percentage of murder, rape and assault victims ended up that way because they wore a shirt that said “Shoot me”? No. They were just like you, pretending they were safe when really they were just lucky up until that day. I hope that like the majority of us, your luck holds and you die old and surrounded by family. But many people aren’t so lucky, and you’re just sticking your fingers in your ears saying “I never had to defend myself so clearly self defense is pointless”.
Do you feel this way about martial arts and pepper spray, too?
Sigh… I really hate getting involved in gun control threads, because nobody ever changes their minds and the arguments just keep getting more and more shrill and hostile, but…
Don’t penalize hoarded guns. If someone own guns but keeps them hidden and unused, that’s fine. Instead, penalize their use.
Penalize any use or display. Someone just broke into your house and you scared 'em off with your pistol? Good on you, but now you have to pay a fine or go to jail (whichever the law decides is the punishment), because you used a gun. You used a gun in commission of a crime? Your punishment is now worse than if you hadn’t. Your gun, by the way, is now confiscated.
It’s impossible to ban guns at this point, because people will just hoard the ones they’ve got. But those hoarded guns are harmless. You make it illegal to visibly show or use a gun, then you’d be accomplishing something. Eventually the gun owners would decide that owning a gun is just too dangerous, and gun ownership would go down.
Now, cue the “That won’t ever work and you keep your stinkin’ paws off my gun you dirty gun grabber, you!”…
And that’s exactly what the Redcoats thought too. “These are our subjects and we can nationalize their armories any time we want.”
Sometimes “can be” means something different on paper than when someone actually tries to do it. If the feds tried to tell some NG general that his mission is to kill his neighbors and the families and friends of his soldiers, do you think it’s going to be as easy as “well it says here in regulation XYZ that we can do this”?
Murder is illegal too. How are those laws working out? And we already have stiffer penalties for crimes committed with a gun, and guns used in crimes are already confiscated. So your plan is basically to outlaw self defense??
I think it can be argued that laws against murder to tend to reduce the number of murders. Should we legalize murder since criminals are going to do it anyway?
And I meant what I said- if your goal is to get rid of guns, you have to enforce the ban of display or use in any and every situation. Guns aren’t necessary for self-defense, so I’m not sure how you interpreted what I said as “outlaw self defense”.
Well yes, the British Army did go door to door during their retreat back to Boston. Houses were burned and suspected rebels were shot.
Are you trying to say that the USG (federal government?) would confiscate a state’s National Guard’s weapons by federalizing the state’s National Guard?
No, I’m saying it wouldn’t confiscate the NG’s weapons because it doesn’t need to, it can take control of those weapons, and the weekend warriors holding them, at any time; and that’s not about to change, either. But the Crown’s ability to command the colonial militias was not so well established in 1775.
This was for post #43.
Hey, I have changed my opinions on guns over the years. That said, most of the people who own guns (like me) are not criminals (again, like me) and don’t like being treated as such.
Back to my own OP, I see a lot of rhetoric from gun owners that is pretty apocalyptic. Some of them are just talking but there are a lot who would put up a fight.
Also, a lot of this fight is urban versus rural (with a bit of racism thrown in - Lord save me from my friends) and so I can see urban communities having the numbers to shove this stuff down the throats of rural communities.
As far as gun owners being cowardly, I know a fair number of gun owners who are combat veterans and LEOs. Some of them may be a little paranoid, especially when they hear people who want to ban guns talk, but they aren’t cowardly.
Lastly, to the point about wildlife management, I think it’s a concern, but one that could be address with professional hunters.
Rob
He’s also not counting existing guns in the country that are lost, destroyed deliberately or otherwise, exported, or are not longer operational.
ATF statistics show around 13 million new guns manufactured or imported in 2012 (that does include guns sold to law enforcement agencies or otherwise not on the open market, as well as those destined for export). That is a very substantial increase (e.g, it was about 5 million a decade earlier, in 2002). ATF’s figures on exports are fairly low, around 300,000 per year, although they count only new guns exported by the manufacturers; exports of used guns are not within ATF’s remit. I’m not aware of any agency tracking destructions, such as by gun buyback programs, and of course nobody knows how many guns get damaged/broken/rusted/whatever. (There’s usually a thread going on the various gun enthusiasts’ forums about what to do with guns that have been in a fire or flood–many times the answer is strip them for parts or take them to a metal recycler, because many mass-market weapons aren’t worth repairing.) There’s no way there’s a half-billion guns in civilian hands in the U.S.
Also, the number of NICS checks does not necessarily correlate with gun purchases. For example, the check may come back negative and no gun changes hands. Also, NICS checks may be run for other purposes: at one time (and I believe it is still true), Kentucky ran a background check on every one of their concealed-carry permit holders every month, quite separate from any purchase. That’s something like two million background checks every year that don’t result in a purchase.
Moreover, as I noted above, the percentage of Americans who own guns is on a long-term decline. There’s more and more guns, but there are fewer and fewer owning them. As recently as the 1980s, the General Social Survey recorded half of households had at least one gun; that figure is now just below one-third.
To make the hypothetical work there first has to be a very high level of support to repeal an amendment. Then there has to be a majority that supports more strict gun laws than even the UK has now. Given that society, I doubt there would be a civil war or an effective insurgency. The population will have given too much assent to the laws for their to be fertile ground for the insurgents to work in.
Federalizing the NG would be a federal confiscation of a State’s NG weapons.
You see those weapons in a State’s National Guard armory. They no longer belong to the State. Those weapons are now the property of the federal government.
A huge percentage of the property in the armory (varies based on state, I suppose) never belonged to the state in the first place. Property issued by the feds to the Guard or for the use of the Guard stays federal property.
One of the big reasons why I don’t like the amount of guns is that you can cause violence with it just as easily as you can use it to defend yourself. You cannot cause violence with an insurance plan. It represents no danger. That’s one reason why the analogy of insurance to guns is not apt. There’s more, but I think that explanation is good enough
I would like to disagree, but I honestly don’t know. People make such a huge deal about protection AND they almost 100% go into some paranoid anti-government rant if its even hinted at being taken away that I have a very bad view of gun owners to the point that I do think the majority of them have issues such as the ones I’ve mentioned. You know how gun owners don’t make an impression like that? By responding to a government confiscation with an argument like “Well if they confiscated it, I’ll be mad, but I’ll follow the law and let them take it.” Not “HITLER FASCIST REVOLUTION!!!” Seriously, I’d like to get through one fucking conversation about gun banning without having to prepare for the end of the world, and don’t you tell me that’s not possible. It is but gun owners don’t want to do that
They have other things that make them a target, and that’s what the argument boils down to: some people are targets. The vast majority of us are not, and assuming we are and arming accordingly just puts more guns into circulation.
Not just in a high crime area, that’s only one criteria. Even for people in those areas, I’d be more likely to advocate you going to the cops than carrying a gun.
This is a pointless non-sequitor. I’ve said that in some places one may be more justified in carrying arms, I don’t have to name one to validate the argument.
No, I don’t generally blame victims of crimes. I agree wholeheartedly that crime happens to people and they generally have no control over it. I was listing behaviors that might increase your visibility as a target, which is completely different. If people get hurt doing those things, my first 5 responses are not going to be “Well you shouldn’t have done that”. But if one dissects the crime, one will find that certain things make it more likely to happen than other things. And I don’t project my own situation onto anybody, you were the one who asked me where I lived in order to try and make a point about why I probably need guns. I don’t think the vast majority of people need them and I’m willing to ban it for everyone. I’d rather we all relied on police instead of some of us thinking we would rather bunker down in our fortress by ourselves
No, and the reason is the consequences of using those things badly, for crime, or accidentally is not as severe as guns, nor is it as easy to misuse those.
Easy to misuse? Strength and skill at h-2-h are easy to misuse in an environment where there are no equalizers. Remove the weapons and all you do is make things easy for the physically strong and ruthless. Guess you were never in 7th grade.
I agree completely with John Mace’s post #31. YogSoSoth may be operating off a different definition of “coward” than the rest of us.
To answer the op’s question, if the government were to attempt a general confiscation of guns, I think that violent responses would be common enough to put a stop to it, but I don’t know if you’d call it “widespread”. In other words, if you were to assume that the oft-quoted “80 million gun owners” is correct, maybe only 1% (or 0.1% or 0.01%) of those would take up arms against a gun-confiscating government. I don’t think I’d call that “widespread”, but I think those 800,000 (or 80,000 or 8,000) people would be more than enough to stop the confiscation. Remember the paralysis Dorner brought to southern California? Or the huge number of man-hours spent to hunt Eric Frein? Or the Boston Marathon bombers? Or the “Beltway Snipers”? If one or two guys can destroy a federal building in Oklahoma, or bring basic law enforcement activities of major US cities (LA, Boston, DC) to a screeching halt, it wouldn’t take a lot of guys to stop gun confiscations. And it’s an issue that inspires enough passion that I have little doubt you’d find the tens or hundreds of thousands needed to stop it.
Yeah, I don’t like that there are a lot of guns either, but that is not argument for saying people are cowards for owning them. I think you’re falling into the trap of thinking guns = bad therefore anything you say about guns or gun owners that is “bad” is OK.
[QUOTE=YogSosoth]
I would like to disagree, but I honestly don’t know. People make such a huge deal about protection AND they almost 100% go into some paranoid anti-government rant if its even hinted at being taken away that I have a very bad view of gun owners to the point that I do think the majority of them have issues such as the ones I’ve mentioned. You know how gun owners don’t make an impression like that? By responding to a government confiscation with an argument like “Well if they confiscated it, I’ll be mad, but I’ll follow the law and let them take it.” Not “HITLER FASCIST REVOLUTION!!!” Seriously, I’d like to get through one fucking conversation about gun banning without having to prepare for the end of the world, and don’t you tell me that’s not possible. It is but gun owners don’t want to do that
[/QUOTE]
Happily it’s about the same percentage as those who fly off the handle and start tossing around words like ‘coward’, i.e. it’s the rabid foaming fringes who are like this. It’s amusing that you try and paint literally 10’s of millions of people with such a broad brush, and amusing that you toss out foam and then whine when foam flies back toward you, as if you really can’t see why insulting large groups of people should mean folks fire back at you. 
Well, see, the difference is I was intentionally trying to be ironic there, while you were completely serious.
Since it seems to have escaped you, I DON’T think taking guns away is ‘cowardly’…I was basically mocking you there and going for the tongue in cheek irony thingy. You built an entire strawman here based on failing to grok that, which is pretty funny really.
(my bold)
I notice how you’ve employed the conditional modifiers, almost like your painting a caricature of what you think people are like and then calling them names while trying to leave yourself an out. Those conditions are not met with frequency so your complaints about cowards is pretty empty.
I guess you weren’t a Korean shop owner during the riots. Guns had a pretty positive impact for them. The police ran away.
There were 118M households in the US in 2011. That same year there were 2.8M burglaries.
7.5M people were the victims of stalking in 2010.
Most people in this thread have kept responses both serious and in the realm of reality. I think your posts are the exception. And no gun owner is concerned with your view of them.
If gun owners are bombing federal buildings and shooting people at random, exactly how long do you think the American people are going to quietly support them?
If there really were a fairly large scale insurrection, consisting of thousands of terrorists and a few hundred thousand terrorist supporters, what exactly do you expect the law enforcement response to be? What do you expect the American people’s opinion of gun owners to become? You think we’re going to sit back and think, “Well if those old boys think gun ownership is so important they’re willing to blow up government offices and shoot at cops and execute random citizens going about their business, they must have their reasons, maybe we should listen to them!”?
I somehow suspect something more along the lines of, “Round them all up and if there’s any trouble, well, they had guns so it’s no surprise the cops shot them without giving them a chance to surrender.”