Thought Exercise - Gun Control Crowd Gets Their Wish - What Outcome?

[leadcounsel]

The bans and laws would:

1. Have no positive impact on gun violence. The nature of violence would continue for gangs, likely expand to encompass disarmed civilians.

2. Non guns would be favored where guns are not available. Criminals are creative. Look at prisons. Other weapons are used quite effectively. Being shanked with a sharpened dirty screwdriver 10 times is fatal. And a screwdriver costs what, a dollar? 25 cents for a rusty one at a garage sale?

3. Further march us down the road to tyranny. Armed oppression with thought and behavior tanks and police and tyrannical control on every street corner.

We'd be trading in some fake sense of security for an overseer Big Brother to monitor and keep track of us... we are slowly moving that way as it is.

They'll never get past the first few thousand doors.

That is interesting. They'd likely not do it that way; they'd do it incrementally through laws, amnesty, more laws, more amnesty over a few generations.

Clearly 100,000,000 angry armed dispersed citizens would quickly win in a war against a few hundred thousand military members and a few million LEOs, most of whom would defect or sabotage the military/LEO internally.

That's the entire POINT of the 2A. Tens of millions of gun owners dispersed will lay waste to any oppressive government military.

 

[Tom Servo]

I've said this before, but the only way for gun control to work in this country is to kick in the doors of every home in the country at 4:00 AM, hold the inhabitants at gunpoint, and search the premises.

Nope. All they have to do is require registration. Failure to register would be a felony.

Then they wait. Law enforcement catches a few folks from time to time and makes an example of them. Those folks lose their freedom, their jobs, and their families. They're felons. For gun charges.

Each time, people see it happen and decide to take the "sensible" route. They register the guns they "found in the attic," or they quietly destroy them.

It becomes a quiet war of attrition. Will the government catch everybody? Of course not, but think of the chilling effect it places on gun ownership. I wouldn't dare ever shoot my guns, hunt with them, or (heaven forbid) use them in self-defense. At that point, why do I even have them?

 

[rickyrick]

That's right, once guns are illegal, most people will just turn them in.

No different than any other law that is passed.
No revolution
No civil war
Only compliance

 

[heyjoe]

they havent complied in new york yet going on two years now, and this place isnt exactly a hot bed of pro second amendment supporters in general.

 

[ATN082268]

Nope. All they have to do is require registration. Failure to register would be a felony.

Then they wait. Law enforcement catches a few folks from time to time and makes an example of them. Those folks lose their freedom, their jobs, and their families. They're felons. For gun charges.

Each time, people see it happen and decide to take the "sensible" route. They register the guns they "found in the attic," or they quietly destroy them.

It becomes a quiet war of attrition. Will the government catch everybody? Of course not, but think of the chilling effect it places on gun ownership. I wouldn't dare ever shoot my guns, hunt with them, or (heaven forbid) use them in self-defense. At that point, why do I even have them?

Gun registration doesn't serve any useful purpose other than in gun confiscation. And a person isn't left with the choice either to register all or none of their guns. For example, a person with 15-20 guns, could register 3-5 of them, probably ones that they don't mind losing to an eventual gun grab by the government.

There are a variety of scenarios but if someone is involved in a self defense shooting at home using an unregistered gun, for example, they could simply hand over a recently fired gun that is registered (kept in that condition for that very reason) and in the same caliber of an unregistered gun that was used.

Why would people want to keep their guns under these conditions? I suspect one or more of the following reasons:

1. People believe they have a right to self defense.

2. People believe in the U.S. Constitution and the 2nd Amendment, even if the Government and the Courts have cast it aside.

3. People believe they have a right to keep their own property, especially in heirloom type cases where something has sentimental value.

4. Private gun ownership is the last line of defense against a corrupt government. If this sounds radical, look at the history of how the U.S. was founded. You know the American Revolution?

 

[Hiker 1]

Like most of the other posters have pointed out, total confiscation/elimination is the ultimate goal.

In addition to the many repercussions listed already, I predict the level of interpersonal stranger-on-strange violence to skyrocket.

How many home invasions never take place because criminals don't know what's behind the door? The same people screaming for gun bans will become the first victims, except for the well-protected politicians and very wealthy who will somehow manage to have exception-licenses for their armed security.

The people who normally would have owned guns will make do - bows, air rifles, spears, improvised weapons, etc.

 

[Buzzcook]

4. Private gun ownership is the last line of defense against a corrupt government. If this sounds radical, look at the history of how the U.S. was founded. You know the American Revolution?

Well those guys that fought the revolution had this to say.

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

Article 1 section 8.

That well regulate militia was intended to serve the federal government.

The notion that the 2nd amendment protects a right to revolution is a pipe dream.

At best you could argue that it was meant as a right of the states to keep individual armies in order to protect against federal over reach; but even that doesn't fly in the face of the American Civil War. There was no claim as far as I'm aware that the Confederates claimed the 2nd as a legal justification. The revolutionaries in the Whiskey Revolution didn't either.
In fact a case could be made that the Constitutional convention happened as the result of Shay's revolt, because the powers that be wanted a strong federal government to protect them from revolutionaries.

I strongly recommend Page Smith's multi volume "A People's History of the United States".
http://www.amazon.com/Peoples-History-United-States-Complete/dp/B000715OGW

Especially volume 3 which deals with the post revolutionary period.

 

[bc76254]

At best you could argue that it was meant as a right of the states to keep individual armies in order to protect against federal over reach


I appreciate the book recommendation and will take the opportunity to read it.

But, I disagree with your above statement, as did SCOTUS in McDonald v Chicago. SCOTUS made clear that the 2nd was specifically an individual right (not one of the state), and that that individu right held primacy over state laws to the contrary, through the 14th's Due Process clause.

 

[bc76254]

At best you could argue that it was meant as a right of the states to keep individual armies in order to protect against federal over reach


I appreciate the book recommendation and will take the opportunity to read it.

But, I disagree with your above statement, as did SCOTUS in McDonald v Chicago. SCOTUS made clear that the 2nd was specifically an individual right (not one of the state), and that that individu right held primacy over state laws to the contrary, through the 14th's Due Process clause.

Somehow that first para didn't end up in quotes...apologies for any confusuon related to my reply editing.

 

[Tom Servo]

Why would people want to keep their guns under these conditions? I suspect one or more of the following reasons:

1. People believe they have a right to self defense.

Sure, but how far does that go? Risking prison? Explain that to the wife and kids.

2. People believe in the U.S. Constitution and the 2nd Amendment, even if the Government and the Courts have cast it aside.

They might, but very few do anything about it. Case in point: voter turnout. It hovers around 25% in Presidential elections. In many local elections, it often falls into the single digits. We can't even get people to go vote on their lunch break. As a society, we've got a bunch of folks who talk big, but can't be troubled to make even the smallest efforts.

3. People believe they have a right to keep their own property, especially in heirloom type cases where something has sentimental value.

I can understand that, but when the government is promising rewards to people who turn their neighbors in for owning guns, sentimental value is going to take a backseat to not having my house raided in the middle of the night.

4. Private gun ownership is the last line of defense against a corrupt government. If this sounds radical, look at the history of how the U.S. was founded. You know the American Revolution?

OK, so who wants to be the one to fire the first shot? How are they going to be dealt with and remembered? Think Chris Dorner, not Patrick Henry.

 

[gc70]

Even countries with long histories of registration and strict laws have serious compliance hurdles.

The International Small Arms Survey provides an idea of how hard it is for governments to achieve compliance, even in countries with far weaker histories of firearm ownership than the US.

France: 2.8M registered guns - 18M-20M estimated total guns
Germany: 7.2M registered guns - 20M-30M estimated total guns
Mexico: 4.5M registered guns - 15.5M estimated total guns

 

[rickyrick]

I submit that most law abiding hard working Americans would comply.

Criminal elements and fringe people would not.

You can't really count non-compliant persons.

Most members of this forum would comply.

I'm not going to battle it out with police officers, no normal person would.

 

[carguychris]

I submit that most law abiding hard working Americans would comply.

Criminal elements and fringe people would not.

Two other groups have to be considered.

• People who earnestly intend to comply but simply don't understand the law. Even with the relatively simple existing gun laws in much of the USA, anyone who has hung around this forum and/or the counter at the LGS can attest that these people are already quite numerous.
• People who are so fearful of the potential consequences for surrendering an illegal gun that they squirrel it away. In some cases, this continues through subsequent generations. (I've surmised in past threads that these people may be relatively much more numerous in Europe than in North America, as relatively few Americans or Canadians had soldiers lose small arms on their property during WWII.)

 

[Tom Servo]

People who earnestly intend to comply but simply don't understand the law.

Those are the people who will be most harmed by registration. Maybe they think they just have to register "assault weapons." Maybe they figure they don't have to register that old Savage shotgun because it's a single shot, or because it's so old it doesn't have a serial number.

They get busted and threatened with prosecution for a felony. Whether or not they get a plea deal to avoid time, their lives are ruined.

The second group are the folks who do everything right, but they get in trouble because the county clerk entered the serial number wrong when the gun was registered. We've seen this many times with NFA items.

 

[Buzzcook]

But, I disagree with your above statement, as did SCOTUS in McDonald v Chicago. SCOTUS made clear that the 2nd was specifically an individual right (not one of the state), and that that individu right held primacy over state laws to the contrary, through the 14th's Due Process clause.

With all due respect McDonald and Heller before it don't mention a right to revolution. Their point was that the individual right was concerned with self protection.

Heller and McDonald separate the militia and individual parts of the 2nd. My argument that the 2nd might contain a right to revolution for the states has to do with the militia part.

Until they took power with the election of Jefferson the Democratic-Republicans viewed themselves as a revolutionary party. Madison and his fellow Virginians were probably as radical as anyone in regards to states rights, even before that term had currency.
That in part is what leads me to claim that if there is a revolutionary part to the 2nd it has to do with the states rather than the individual.

 

[tyme]

The notion that the 2nd amendment protects a right to revolution is a pipe dream.

That's true. The right (natural right) to revolution is inherent in any society. It isn't pretty or pleasant, nor always successful, but it's always there. It would be a bit of a paradox for a government or a constitution to protect the right of revolution.

The 2A however does protect a right that might be viewed as—in addition to all the normal lawful uses of arms, hunting, sport, and self defense—keeping people better prepared for revolution if it becomes necessary.

 

[44 AMP]

I think it might be wise to consider that, at the time the Constitution was written, several foreign powers had a military presence in North America.

ALSO present were the native peoples, who had a "military presence" of their own, and while not well suited to meeting European armies in open field battle, it was still a credible threat to a small town or settlement.

SO the right of the people to be armed, individually, was important. The individual armed citizen was the basic pool of manpower. An armed citizen militia was, essentially defense on the cheap.

One can find, in the parlance of the era "well regulated militia" meant that when summoned, each showed up armed, with some amount of ammunition, their basic field gear, and knowing at least the rudiments of military maneuvers.

This was "on the cheap" because the arms and equipment were not provided by the government. Government maintained he militia but did not pay to equip it, initially.

Things certainly changed over the years, but the idea of the militia, was a key factor, and in order to be able to have a militia, individuals had to have arms.

that's the first (prefacing) clause in the second amendment, explaining that since a militia is necessary...the right ...shall not be infringed.

Popular thought has (especially lately) focused on the "protect us from govt tyranny" aspect, but that was always just one among many. We have a right to arms to protect us from ANYONE's tyranny, including, if necessary our own government.

The fact that we HAVE that ability, in direst need, was and is generally deemed sufficient to prevent the dire need from ever occurring.

We talk a lot about how, today, with all the modern arms etc. we, the people could never actually defeat the government. And perhaps, we would not be able to. But that does NOT matter.

Any government that forces that fight has already lost. Not on the field of battle, but in the field of legitimate, lawful governance.

 

[rickyrick]

I feel that we are only buying time.

I think the 2nd will go away, though it may stay on the books.

The right has always been under attack. If not from new laws and restrictions, from over zealous law enforcement and judges.

We've gained some ground in some states, but lost in others.
The gains are only buying time.

The right to bear arms will be eroded away until it's gone; that's what the public wants, that's what politicians want...

 

[cryogenic419]

I think you will see an influx of guns and ammo make its way into the US just like drugs and illegal immigrants. Where there is a desire to have these items people will find a way, they always have just look at prohibition. Government can ban whatever they wish, law abiding folks will follow it, good luck with the criminal types.

Lets say for the sake of argument that UBC's and then confiscation do start to take effect/occur. You know there is going to be a small percentage of folks out there who will bury their items in a field somewhere secure hoping for better days. I could also see some rather than turning them in selling them to whoever to make a buck rather than just handing them over and getting no compensation at all.

I can see some parts of the country not putting up a fight should laws we are hypothetically discussing get enacted. I can see other parts saying hell no and putting up a fight. Not saying I or anyone would ever want to see it come to that, absolutely not. It is a very real possibility that exists.

I think the path they may choose to get us to that point is gradual and has already started. Look at California, Massachusetts and New York. Sure they are fighting the California's laws in court, but how is that turning out really? Sure you can have a gun, but it has to be on the approved list, and at any time that list can change and shrink, new guns may NEVER make it on the list so all that is left are older guns some of which replacement parts are non existent. NY's SAFE act?? Hows the court fight going on that? So far seems like most of this crap is being upheld as Constitutional.

All it takes is the wrong folks to get into a position of power and bam, laws get passed, enacted and held as completely Constitutional by the courts. Since they got X and Y passed as laws, give it some time and they will be able to get Z passed as well. Look at California, they are writing the playbook on how to do it.

The only thing that gives me hope is that despite all the negative press about guns, I have seem more new gun owners spanning all ethnic groups and sex in the last few years than ever. People are really discovering how much fun shooting can be which is a good thing. Just about every state having some sort of CCW system, even more promising is the amount of women getting their CCW.

The more people we get on our side the better, but we also need them to be a politically active group in that they get out and vote. Vote for the people that will uphold gun rights and not allow them to slowly be legislated away. You hear politicians and the media talk about how the NRA has too much power which kind of makes me laugh. Citizens vote, not the NRA. As far as I know the NRA hasn't cast a single vote in a single election. Yet they bring it up as a reason why no new gun laws have been passed on a Federal level which says to me a few things. We obviously have some clout and the numbers to make or break someones election bid if they are calling out gun owners like that, perhaps we need to live up to our reputation. Maybe we need to get anti gun politicians out of office by a landslide and make it very well known that we the people like our guns and don't want those that don't truly represent us gone. We need to be the squeaky wheel. We need to let them hear when they do something that goes against our rights....vote the anti's out and anyone that goes against our rights pays dearly politically.
At the same time when there is a pro gun rights politician that does something good, they need to hear it. They need to know that people are paying attention and standing behind them. Even if its a Governor or a member of Congress from another state.

Thats part of how we stop the anti crowd from getting their way. Sorry for the long winded post, its Saturday morning and I've had alot of coffee

 

[JERRYS.]

two things continue to come up in such discussions as this one.

1). people have rights, not the state/government.

2). people are too lazy, busy, self absorbed.... to vote.