Gun Confiscation

[Bucksnort1]

A few days ago, I had an interesting conversation with my brother (pro gun dude) who said the general U.S. public would never stand a chance against the military and or police when they come knocking on your door. He thinks because they have fully auto firearms and larger stuff, we would not be able to fight.

I reminded him there are over 300 million guns in this country and if the police are tasked with the duty, there aren't enough people to complete the job.

As for the military, the Posse Comitatus Law (late 1800s) prevents the military from being used to enforce U.S. laws. I'm not sure how this applies to the Air and Army National Guard because they have a dual role of state and federal.

Then I reminded him many of the police and military own guns. I don't think the military and police have the wherewithal to fire upon their fellow Americans.

 

[cslinger]

Just like they nipped that hole gang/narcotics thing in the bud, one and done, amiright?

 

[rc]

When there is a mandated turn in the gov will make examples out of people they can trace and terrorize compliance which will be spotty at best. They will create more criminals for the over crowded jails and do nothing to prevent or reduce real crime. l never thought the US could follow England and Australia but I'm starting to wonder. The whole process makes us weaker as a country and simpler to defeat in WWIII staring the Axis powers of China, Russia, Iran and North Korea against NATO. We are being destroyed from within before our enemies dare to invade. Remember in WWII one of the reason's Japan did not invade the west coast was the estimate there would be a rifle behind every blade of grass. Our sell out politicians are mowing the lawn and bagging those with rifles.

 

[TXAZ]

That might -virtually- happen (have happened) in some cities where citizens have been cowed into giving up guns or they're so highly restricted there's effectively a ban. But on a national level, I don't see the US becoming such an effective gun controlled city like Chicago and NYC where the murder rates are near zero and all citizens, gangs and cartels follow the rules and all the murders happen in places where high percentages of citizens have guns, right?

Yes, the National Guard does have / can get very sophisticated weapons, but for a politician on a national scale to actually attempt to invoke gun confiscation would likely result in massive bloodshed in a manner that might kill many citizens but would also result in a massive reduction in the gun-toting feds who attempt to enforce it. And as we've seen with MS-13 and other cartel groups in other countries (and in the US), politicians and their families are fair game.

I don't see it happening on a nationwide basis, and certainly not in the southern and midwest US.

OH WAIT! Chicago and NYC have high (and accelerating) murder rates.

 

[44 AMP]

A few days ago, I had an interesting conversation with my brother (pro gun dude) who said the general U.S. public would never stand a chance against the military and or police when they come knocking on your door. He thinks because they have fully auto firearms and larger stuff, we would not be able to fight.

people who think it through just a little further realize that we can always fight, but they think we could not win.

And, if its an open field battle of combat arms, they're probably right.

People who think it through farther realize that its not going to be an open battle, guys with rifles vs tanks and artillery and air support.

There are a number of people in the military who would simply not do that against American civilians. And I think even more who would use the tactic of "malicious compliance". It doesn't take much "sand in the gears" to screw up military operations, you know...

I don't see this thread going anywhere good, and TFL is NOT the place to plan a civil war or discuss what to do if there is one. The thread is open, for now...

 

[Tom Servo]

People who think it through farther realize that its not going to be an open battle, guys with rifles vs tanks and artillery and air support

One of the arguments I hear from gun-control advocates is that the RKBA is an outdated and hokey concept. The idea is that civilians can't resist government oppression with small arms because the government has bunker busters, Apache helicopters, and nuclear weapons.

However, history is replete with examples of exactly that. From Adrianople to James Cook to Vietnam, determined people have resisted and defeated enemies who (on paper) should have easily beaten them down.

I hope such a thing never comes to pass here, and I'm certainly not going to fantasize about it the way some folks do, but it can certainly happen.

 

[TXAZ]

One of the arguments I hear from gun-control advocates is that the RKBA is an outdated and hokey concept. The idea is that civilians can't resist government oppression with small arms because the government has bunker busters, Apache helicopters, and nuclear weapons.

...but it can certainly happen.

If that is true, the same can be said of the First Amendment. Look at China, a functioning society that restricts speech and weapons.

And as 44Amp noted , organized military / enforcement campaigns require formalized logistics.

 

[roscoe]

You can look at recent history - resisting a sophisticated modern military with firearms is not the smart play. You typically give away your position, and then the game is up - the military will be better armed, trained, conditioned, and have greater and more sophisticated resources. The Black Panthers never succeeded in their shoot-outs with the police, even though they had surplus military firearms. Likewise with the AIM, SLA, etc. In other countries you see the same pattern: in Ireland, Algeria, and other places, firearms were used, but often resulted in pretty significant tactical losses. Sometimes a quick sniping was successful, depending on how you define success, but I think you will find that firearms played a secondary or tertiary role in resistance since WW2, unless you had fairly significant military support (as in Vietnam, Kurdistan, Sri Lanka, Contras, Sandinistas, ZANU, etc.).

Not that firearms are not important as, at least a symbolic expression of individual citizen's rights, but I think you need to be realistic about their actual functional role in resistance. And since the most recent public display of heavily armed citizens was the Michigan Militia, strutting around the capitol building like puff chested-pigeons in their tactical gear, don't expect the public at large to be overly sympathetic.

As a relevant aside, the surge in firearms purchases this year is, at least partially, as a response against the sudden appearance of those militias in public. This is especially the case for minority gun purchases: purchases by black Americans accounted for the greatest increase of any demographic. So, these new minority gun owners saw themselves as arming themselves to resist oppression (just not official governmental oppression). In this case, I think, firearms are the right tool, since there will be greater logistical parity between groups.

By the way, no one is mentioning the way modern insurgencies resist powerful militaries: it is not with firearms as the primary tool. I will give you a hint - it involves things that go boom (see: Iraq and Afghanistan, etc.). Resistance is an ugly thing, and not to be taken lightly.

 

[PolarFBear]

Tom Servo: you hit on THE answer "a determined people"; and in my opinion, we no longer are, even in the South and SouthWest. Virginia, North Carolina and Georgia come to mind recently. Other states will fall/succumb.

 

[dahermit]

A few days ago, I had an interesting conversation with my brother (pro gun dude) who said the general U.S. public would never stand a chance against the military and or police when they come knocking on your door. He thinks because they have fully auto firearms and larger stuff, we would not be able to fight.

I reminded him there are over 300 million guns in this country and if the police are tasked with the duty, there aren't enough people to complete the job.

As for the military, the Posse Comitatus Law (late 1800s) prevents the military from being used to enforce U.S. laws. I'm not sure how this applies to the Air and Army National Guard because they have a dual role of state and federal.

Then I reminded him many of the police and military own guns. I don't think the military and police have the wherewithal to fire upon their fellow Americans.

The Posse Comitatus Law notwithstanding, FDR used Federal troops to put down a labor strike in 1941.
https://www.themilitant.com/2004/6822/682249.html

 

[JohnKSa]

This is not aimed at anyone in particular--I actually wrote it and originally posted it on another forum.

They will NOT come to take your guns, and you will not get the chance to go out in a blaze of glory. You will go out silently, or with a whimper, or maybe even recognized with an article in the paper about how the police arrested a dangerous person who amassed a terrifying arsenal, but the odds of your getting a chance to actually stand up to a jack-booted thug who is trying to confiscate your guns are almost non-existent.

They don't have to expend that much energy.

All they have to do is make them illegal and wait. Time will chip away at the hold-outs who don't turn them in or register. They will be dealt with, a little at a time, one here, one there, so there's no obvious point at which those who are non-compliant feel like their collective backs are up against the wall and be spurred to organized resistance.

Someone turns in an enemy, an angry ex spills the beans during a divorce, someone's kid says the wrong thing at school or at the doctor's office or to a friend. Somewhere there's a paper trail that turns up a gun that should have been surrendered. Someone has a house fire and they find illegal guns in the ashes. Someone gets careless and gets caught at the range with something she shouldn't own or that isn't registered.

They have all the time in the world. Why bother risking lives and resistance by doing a door-to-door? Waiting works just as well if you're not impatient.

They will eventually get them all (or enough that it doesn't make any difference) and with very minor effort.

In the meantime, those non-compliant folks who wouldn't give them up and don't get caught won't be able to rationalize any advantage in keeping their guns. What's the point of having a gun you can't use in self-defense or to hunt, or even to shoot? The only option would be to hide it away and never use it again on penalty of committing a felony and going to prison. They might as well have turned them in before the grace period expired and taken the pittance offered for all their non-compliance gained them.

There will be no hurry from the government's perspective. Making it virtually impossible for owners to use or transfer guns is an acceptable first step as far as they're concerned. From there it's just a matter of time and they're willing to wait. At least they have been willing to wait every where else it's happened.

I don't mean for people to think that they don't need to worry about anti-gun laws. They DO need to worry. The fact that there almost certainly won't be house-to-house searches and a strategy of immediate doorstep confiscation doesn't mean that rights will be retained. The guns and the rights will be lost just as certainly--just not as quickly.

The fear that "they are trying to take our guns" is certainly a valid fear. It's just that it's much more likely that "they" will take our guns via a gradual erosion of rights vs. going down the street searching each house for guns.

We can look at what has happened before to see what will happen here if bans are passed.

The laws will be passed and voluntary compliance will be expected. Most will comply, some will not. The ones who do not will not be actively pursued. It's pointless and dangerous to do so, and it is critical that no line-in-the-sand moments be created that might spur violent, or worse, organized violent resistance.

So they'll just wait for people to get turned in by ex-spouses, careless comments, mistakes, etc. They have all the time in the world and it doesn't even matter to them if some guns and gun-owners fall through the cracks.

We will win or lose this battle in the legislatures and at the ballot boxes. If you're willing to die to keep your guns, then you should be willing to write your legislators; join, and donate to, gun organizations; volunteer to support pro-gun politicians; etc.

 

[DMK]

In the meantime, those non-compliant folks who wouldn't give them up and don't get caught won't be able to rationalize any advantage in keeping their guns. What's the point of having a gun you can't use in self-defense or to hunt, or even to shoot? The only option would be to hide it away and never use it again on penalty of committing a felony and going to prison. They might as well have turned them in before the grace period expired and taken the pittance offered for all their non-compliance gained them.

JohnKSa is exactly right.

What if you found grandpa's unregistered machine gun in the attic. Are you going to take it to the range and have fun? Are you going to use it for home defense? Sure you could just keep it hidden away and nobody would be the wiser, but it's a time bomb of a felony. Now imagine that's all of our guns.

What good is that Glock 43 or S&W J-frame if ever using it is a felony?

What good are you to your family in prison or shot dead by LE (and don't think there are some LEO out there who won't see you as a terrorist, dangerous to the community).

The time to fight your hardest is before gun control reaches the point of law.

Civil war never ends well.

 

[Bucksnort1]

DMK, you are one hundred percent correct in your statement below and that's what this election is about. You wrote, "the time to fight your hardest is before gun control reaches the point of law."

rc says, "We are being destroyed from within before our enemies dare to invade". Sorry to inform you, the enemy is already here. They have been here for a long time. They are the far left radicals, the Chinese and the Russians. Communists love to go in at the grass roots level to create unrest and divisiveness.

 

[roscoe]

DMK, you are one hundred percent correct in your statement below and that's what this election is about. You wrote, "the time to fight your hardest is before gun control reaches the point of law."

rc says, "We are being destroyed from within before our enemies dare to invade". Sorry to inform you, the enemy is already here. They have been here for a long time. They are the far left radicals, the Chinese and the Russians. Communists love to go in at the grass roots level to create unrest and divisiveness.

And also the right-wing militias, who would rather be Russian than Democrat. Or so they said. Seems pretty divisive (and possibly treasonous) to me, but hey . . .

 

[tlm225]

JohnKSa Your piece was rather insightful and realistic. Oh if or when it comes to pass that AR-15 and similar firearms become prohibited items there will be some raids, most of them generated by former friends/wives/girlfriends turning in the owners. Those who think that they are ready to resist an entry by a well trained and equipped 6-8 man SWAT entry team are delusional.

The time to resist these efforts is NOW by voting, donating, being active in gun rights groups and getting like minded people to do so as well.

 

[Carl the Floor Walker]

They can do what ever they want if we let them. Sorry I do not agree that we are going to just lay down for them. 7 million new gun owners alone. Gun owners need to stick together if that time comes then Millions just say NO!
If it gets to the point that we just lay down to them, then it is over anyway. If we do that, then what is the next step?
Ironic that they can riot, burn down business's, loot, kill Cops, defund Cops, destroy monuments, use censorship, wide spread Propaganda and on and on without any consequences.
Maybe we are weak.And maybe we will just "Comply" out of fear of them. If so, then they deserve to take away our guns and all our freedoms.
The Country is divided now more than any time in history. This defeatist attitude is contagious. I hate to even hear post of "we will just lay down and let them do what ever they want".
One thing for Certain, the party that wants to take away gun rights LOVE TO HEAR THESE DEFEATIST POST ON GUN FORUMS.

 

[rc]

One of the problems is the courts are not actually upholding the constitution. The gun bans will work given enough time and games those in power want to play with civil rights. I also agree with John. Chip, chip, chip. Chip, chip, chip. A lot of these laws are traps set to snare folks who are otherwise peaceful and once the trap is set, the government will charge you with a felony and rationalize why they can take the rest of your guns and end your gun rights completely.

 

[shurshot]

John is spot on... that's exactly how it will play out. Slowly, it's all part of their Agenda.

 

[rc]

In California we know the approved list is unconstitutional. Police can buy any handgun but civilians only "safe approved handguns". So police can use "unsafe handguns". The law has been in place almost 20 years now. I can't believe it's help up this long. It is having the intended effect of reducing the availability of guns on the market and restricting choice to fewer and fewer older models grandfathered in. Off roster guns are in short supply. Officers have been charged with crimes for buying and reselling. The whole process is upheld by government taxpayer funded lawyers and politicians. Challenges are funded by people or groups without unlimited funds from the public purse. Chip, chip, chip. I pray this garbage doesn't go national. I want out some day.

 

[BJung]

I'm from CA too. I wish the rest of the States would see what is happening in CA and NY to know what will happen to yours if you do not prepare. Education and keeping out gun-control politicians is key.