Is fear of confiscation valid?

can you bleed to death from a small cut? depends on how many small cuts you have that have gone untreated...... yes, confiscation is real, there are states and laws mentioned already that prove this.
 
And while eventually we might find that today's small arms aren't useful against powered combat armor suits, etc., that doesn't mean our arms are useless. There are other threats to our health and safety than the yet to be realized ROBO Warriors of a tyrannical govt.
Click to expand...

All of the federal gun control legislation came about after assassinations or attempts on members of the political class. I think that the government cares very little if we kill ourselves but go after them and watch out. The only recent attempt was several years ago against Gabby Giffords.
Maybe my aluminum foil helmet is leaking?
 
Don't think I can add much that's not already mentioned,

But to all the nay Sayers that say, "it can't/wouldn't happen":

Remember- An ostrich can't watch its butt with its head stuck in the sand!


:mad:
 
Not in favor of universal background checks for the transfer of fireams.

Confiscation is real. But it would not likely happen that way in the US. It would be a slow accumulation of laws that many felt would lessen criminal access to firearms by otherwise trusting Americans over a period of time.

One day you wake up and Big Brother is asking you to turn them in or register them or register and pay a annual fee to own..... things would get real difficult at that point, but most Americans would line up like sheep and accept whatever was requested or demanded believing the government ultimately has the People's best interests at heart.
 
but most Americans would line up like sheep and accept whatever was requested or demanded believing the government ultimately has the People's best interests at heart.
Click to expand...

Like they do when it comes to recreational drugs?
(this is a serious question)

While there are huge differences in the two issues, there are some similarities.
One of those similarities is that our govt justifies certain drugs/plants/etc. as illegal because of the "harm" they do to users and through the users actions or inactions, to the public in general.

Essentially the same argument is being used to justify making gun ownership illegal. Because of the "harm" they cause.

Now, while, going by numbers alone, you probably would get "most" Americans to line up if they passed a "softly enforced" ban on guns. (softly enforced meaning no house to house searches, etc.)

But unlike the issue of illegal drugs (where the only justification for breaking those laws is "because you want to"), firearms have both a real world justification (saving your life in a worst case scenario), and we have the Constitutionally enumerated right to own them.

The fatal flaw that keeps gun control laws from working the way their proponents claim they will is the simple fact that only the "law abiding" obey them.

(which, of course, it also true with every law, but the difference is that for most things, most people believe that the consequences of breaking the law are worse than the consequences of obeying it.)

When it comes to guns, I think you will find a lot of people who will obey a confiscation law, partially. Many would turn in guns they know the govt knows they have, and hide those the govt does not know about, against future dire need. They would consider the risk of being caught and punished by the authorities to be less than their risk to life and safety in the event of a criminal attack.

I think it very likely that while there would be a rash of "boating accidents" or "sold em at the last gun show..." there would be a lot stashed, "just in case". So, just passing a law, and waiting won't get ALL the guns out of (otherwise law abiding) private hands. A confiscation law would get a LOT of guns, but not all, and would have a huge number of unintended consequences.

And, of course, this completely leaves out the actual criminal element, and the deranged, who already obey only the laws they find convenient, and who's actions with guns are being used as the justification for taking them away from the rest of us.
 
One day you wake up and Big Brother is asking you to turn them in or register them or register and pay a annual fee to own.
Click to expand...
Let's not forget Dianne Feinstein's attempt at updating the Assault Weapons Ban last year. Had it passed, "grandfathered" guns would have been subject to registration under the National Firearms Act. That would entail the owner having to submit detailed paperwork, get approval from local law enforcement, and pay a $200 tax for each gun they already owned.

Now, here's the fun part. Anyone who's dealt with NFA weapons knows the process can take 4-6 months under the best of circumstances. Add in millions of guns at once, and lead times would easily stretch to years.

Why is this a problem? Any version of the law that passed would require registration within a few months of enactment. Even if everybody wanted to comply, it would be impossible to get those weapons registered in the time allotted. The result? A ban, and confiscation, in all but name.
 
44 AMP and Tom Servo..... yep. The laws or the accumulation of laws (tiny cuts) are sold to the public relative to guns because guns are attributed to cause harm. That next law will do the trick...universal background checks or putting guns under NFA laws. Yep. It will solve the problem. But for the people who are likely to use a gun in a crime, many couldn't care about what the law says.

Of course we all know that a gun does not have a brain or fingers and generally does not fire on its own even if its loaded. Like a "scary" knife or a military style rifle or any handgun (especially those plastic glock looking things), the little old lady down the street or the liberal/progressive Sierra Club member out tramping around on the trail may be a little alarmed by the presence of a firearm. But even they know the firearm can't hurt them by themselves; it's that "bearded guy in camo" that they are concerned about who has the gun because they don't know him and certainly don't trust him. Afterall, what does he need a gun for anyway? He might even be using recreational drugs. Oh my! (To me it matters which recreational drug is involved, but that is my belief.)

So gun control laws continue to be proposed, some passed. Universal background checks passed in the Washington. Bet that helps reduce crime a lot. The people who support the law feel good. They did something positive in their mine. The politicians or voters feel good as well, they did something positive in their mine. Of course there are at least two sides to every story if you are willing to listen.

On one side of the balance sheet many people support decriminalizing the use of drugs (especially pot) and on the other side, they don't trust people enough to be able to judge right from wrong when it comes to owning a gun. Seems to me the decriminalizing of drug use only adds to a problem and is not a solution.
 
but most Americans would line up like sheep and accept whatever was requested or demanded believing the government ultimately has the People's best interests at heart.
Click to expand...

In our form of Government, it is the people that ultimately decide what is best for them. That's why we vote. That is why the terms of our representatives are relatively short and their continued employment is up to us....the people. Folks go on and on about our government being only interested in itself and not the people, but it was our government that has given us our rights. That includes the 2nd Amendment. Long before our our present form of government comes for our firearms, the people will have already made the decision by electing the officials and voting on referendums as to such. That's just how it works. It's not our government that is our enemy here, but our neighbors and those of us that put those folks in power. It has nothing to do with sheep blindly walking to the slaughter, but voters blindly walking into the polling booth.
 
*Discussion about decriminalization / legalization of drugs is outside the scope of our forum.* (posts must be firearms related)


We tried prohibition of alcohol in this country, and that didn't work out well. After some years, it was repealed. We have been waging a "war on drugs" for several decades now. Victory has not been declared. There is even talk of an armistice in some places.

(Some) People in power, in and out of government have been waging a (mostly) undeclared war against lawful gun ownership and use. Through many mediums they have been working hard for many years to convince everyone that any interest in firearms means we are a ticking time bomb of a sociopathic killer just waiting to go off.

The terrorist attacks on 9/11 took a huge amount of wind out of the gun control (gun ban) movement. Those happened without a single gun involved. A lot of gun control support evaporated, under the logic of "why are we wasting our efforts on guns when this happens without them?"

Thanks to the efforts and sacrifices of many husbands, wives, sons and daughters, we have been "safe" here at home for over a decade now. With the foreign hydra apparently either dead or now lacking enough heads to bite us where we live (for now, at least), now the focus returns to the "horrible problem with guns in this country"...
 
The primary question to ask is just what would confiscation look a like and how would it be accomplished. What would be the point of ignition, so to speak? I know several have stated it would be a slow and steady erosion, but from what I see happening, it may simply erupt. It is pretty obvious that the rule of law (the Constitution) means very little, especially where gun laws are concerned. Interested in hearing some opinions here.
 
Obviously there would have to be a catalyst to get confiscation going and convince people that they must abide by the "law".

If it was voluntary, not much would happen unless there was a felony charge and prison providing the teeth behind the law. So, I have no idea if the catalyst would be some new mass murder, a huge natural disaster, marshall law being declared for whatever reason in the US. It is hard to imagine any of these things being serious enough to make people give up most of their guns. Even a possible felony charge would probably not force a lot of people as at that point they have dug in their heels and said "hell no". That's when the house to house thing would start. The question there is why would they do it? Most people are reasonable and law enforcement or the military are people too. They would struggle with a house to house directive here.

It would almost have to be foreign troops. Then the shooting would start. It would not be pleasant.

My thought is why give the government or any governing body the tools (records) to allow them the power in the first place? Taxation?
 
I do agree that it would have to be with some semblance of "lawfulness" and for the "protection" of the citizens, at least to trap the naive among us. But, the number who would not submit would be staggering, that is if Conn. and NY are used as examples, and they are two of the more "progressive" states that exist. It has to be something really big, and I would bet on an economic collapse, as that is the most likely scenario. It's for sure something is up. Things have been happening in my locality that have forced me to reevaluate. I even got to witness the DHS blue truck convoy a few weeks ago. (It does indeed exist and they are totally unmarked) As you mentioned, the possibility of foreign troops does exist and the UN small arms treaty allows for such a scenario. I agree with you on another point; it would get very messy very quickly.
 
Generally speaking, politicians seem to think extremely short term. From what I’ve seen they usually think of the moment or to the next reelection. I’d say the odds are pretty good most politicians wouldn’t be in the mood to wait for a period far past their lifetime to try and reap some political benefit.
Click to expand...

You, Sir, do not understand the Progressive movement.

They believe that if you put power in the hands of experts, they can, over time, make people, and therefore the country, "better" .....

Are we, as individuals (which the Pregressives dismiss as unimportant) or as a Nation, better off now than we were a generation ago? Two generations? Three?

From my own experience and perspective, the answers are resounding "NO!"'s, both for me and for the Country ..... I have more stuff, yes .... my life is more comfortable, yes .... but I have less freedom, both physically, politically, and financially, than all of my preceding generations. The country is is in far worse shape ...... especially in the finance dept. .....

Can the .gov do door to door confiscations? They can try. The country will cease to exist ..... but that is maybe inevitable, anyhow ....
 
Tom Servo said:
Let's not forget Dianne Feinstein's attempt at updating the Assault Weapons Ban last year. Had it passed, "grandfathered" guns would have been subject to registration under the National Firearms Act. That would entail the owner having to submit detailed paperwork, get approval from local law enforcement, and pay a $200 tax for each gun they already owned.
Click to expand...
Absent the NFA "tax," this is what Connecticut did post-Sandy Hook. Connecticut has had an assault weapons ban since 1994, and it mirrored the now-expired federal AWB. But the Connecticut ban didn't expire in 2004. I know a couple of FFLs from Connecticut, and I know that there were a lot of post-ban configuration AR-15s in Connecticut. As of the new legislation in 2013, those all became "assault weapons" and had to be registered with the state police. Like New York, it is now illegal to bring any new AR-pattern rifle into Connecticut.

To what purpose? As we all know, the Bushmaster AR that was used at Sandy Hook was purchased legally. Having it registered would not have affected what happened one iota. And the politicians in Connecticut know this.

IMHO, it's all gearing up for confiscation. If I'm lucky, it won't come in my lifetime, but I believe it's coming.
 
Folks go on and on about our government being only interested in itself and not the people, but it was our government that has given us our rights. That includes the 2nd Amendment. Long before our our present form of government comes for our firearms, the people will have already made the decision by electing the officials and voting on referendums as to such. That's just how it works. It's not our government that is our enemy here, but our neighbors and those of us that put those folks in power. It has nothing to do with sheep blindly walking to the slaughter, but voters blindly walking into the polling booth.
Click to expand...


Have you ever read the Constitution, or any of the supporting documentation that led to the Constitution? Government does NOT grant rights. Your creator grants rights due to you being HUMAN. The Constitution only guarantees these NATURAL RIGHTS are not infringed by government.

By giving the power to government to grant you rights, you also give them the power to take them away. Nothing could be further from the truth. The right to protect yourself, and family is a natural right, not a government granted privilege.
 
The rights were believed to be God given rights. But if you don't believe in a higher authority other than government, than the government granted those rights.
 
Actually, Canada is a good example of how registries fail on every level. Their long-gun registry ended up costing more than 1,000 times its original projected budget, compliance was lax at best, and it showed no effectiveness in reducing crime.
Click to expand...
Agreed and my emphasis in the quote, lets just look at how OUR U.S. government love to waste tax dollars without giving it a second thought
 
For those mentioning the "obsolescence" of projectile weapons I respectfully bring to your attention the restrictions on "Obsolete" items like swords & crossbows.
:(
 
The nobility doesn't like the peasantry to be armed. It makes them uppity, and on occasion, dangerous.

It's really that simple.
 
The nobility doesn't like the peasantry to be armed. It makes them uppity, and on occasion, dangerous.
Click to expand...

Whether or not we like it, it really boils down to that. They want the peasants to fight for God and Country but what they are really fighting for is to maintain the place of the nobility in the scheme of things. The US form of government has removed a lot of that, but they are simply not called nobility anymore here. It has always been so.

When a new bunch comes into power (even after a revolution) a new nobility is established and nothing really has changed. Pretty negative thoughts for me and I don't like to think this way as I am one of the peasants that is used, abused, and thrown away with the dirty laundry. I just try to do what is right and live my life honestly and ethically.

But the US form of government does give the peasants a chance to become "more" as opposed to the systems of old.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top