What happens if Guns are banned?

Status
Not open for further replies.
While it may feel good to review "doom & gloom" scenarios and discuss how you'd outwit the authorities, what I really think would happen would be....

Mostly nothing.

As indicated earlier, it's likely that government agents would move swiftly to categorize gun owners by the number of guns they own. Those folks would be the ones you'd see on the nightly news getting raided. It would be those large collections they could display in a high school gym floor that would be used to show everyone that we're making the streets safer!" :rolleyes:

Other than that, most of us would see nothing happen. They'd be patient enough to wait until you screw up to drop an anvil on you. Screw up as in use one in self defense... then they check your history, find that you owned several and very thoroughly search your home. If they find others, YOU become the bad guy, not a home defender.

Eventually you screw up -- show it to a friend, neighbor, etc. who turns you in or is Mr. Looselips. You give it to your son/daughter when they move out and they get caught with it, so the cops come knocking for you.

More Unintended Consequences:
Drug cartels have, in recent years, attempted to smuggle drugs into this country via submarines. Plural. They're not especially good subs, but they do work to stay off the radar. But drug cartels often lose boats, planes, cars, trucks and now subs. If they can afford to lose three $100k airplanes in six weeks they can afford to find clever ways to smuggle guns into the country too.

If they do smuggle in guns, long guns are more likely to be military (select fire) weapons because they are probably easier to get. They'll most likely be cheaper than buying a FA M16 or AK-47 than we have to pay today. Why risk long term imprisonment for a semi-auto gun when you can sell a full-auto for $300 more? Ammo would be from the same source, obviously.

Remember too that guns can be disassembled into many small parts, some of which aren't easily recognizeable.
 
which reminds me, I predict you won't see the truly radical infringements on freedom being rolled out in England and Australia, until Americans give up their guns.
Click to expand...

Considering the weakening of rights since 9/11, I don't think you have a valid argument there. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights take your pick and with the possible exception of the 3rd, most have suffered a serious set-back in the last seven years.
Americans have been happy to let government place restrictions on their rights.
Guns are different imho, because they are physical objects. The tangible evidence of a right trumps the intangible every time, because people can make money from objects. America and Americans have way too much money invested in guns to make a wholesale ban of guns anything more than a fever dream for a very few anti-gun activists.
 
Buzzcook, you make some good points, but maybe I wasn't clear on mine. The infringements you have seen in the past few years are the kind that can be argued away. "Those aren't really infringements, they're helping us catch the bad guys".

What I mean by "truly radical infringements" would include your neighbors going on extended vacation in the middle of the night without telling anyone.

I know. You think it "ain't never gonna happen". The gun grabbers and their fellow travelers have some pretty far out social re-engineering ideas. A disarmed populace is fair game for any sort of radical, crazy, or idiotic idea their leaders wish to try.

Fact is, a total gun ban opens the door wide for various types of craziness. To give you an example, there is a strong international following for the ideas put forth by the "Spaceship Earth" crowd. They used to talk about reducing the world's population to 2 billion. Some people are nuts, but that doesn't disqualify them from holding public office.

If they can afford to lose three $100k airplanes in six weeks they can afford to find clever ways to smuggle guns into the country too.

If they do smuggle in guns, long guns are more likely to be military (select fire) weapons because they are probably easier to get. They'll most likely be cheaper than buying a FA M16 or AK-47 than we have to pay today. Why risk long term imprisonment for a semi-auto gun when you can sell a full-auto for $300 more? Ammo would be from the same source, obviously.
Click to expand...

BillCA, right on the money. Look what happened in Jamaica. It's an island. You can't legally own guns or ammunition, not even one bullet. The street thugs can get full autos, no problem. It's practically a war zone.

Brazil limits the types and calibers of guns you can own. I once knew a guy who had lived there. He said the drug dealers had FAL's (illegal, natch), and the police were so dangerous that a lot of people asked drug dealers for protection. I have heard this idea echoed in news articles and elsewhere.

This from a 2004 article at terradaily.com, re: Hurrican Ivan:
In Jamaica, police said they shot dead at least one looter, and two officers were wounded in shootouts with other looters on the Caribbean island nation of 2.7 million.

Looting was a growing problem in Jamaica's cities. Police said bands of armed men roamed the streets of Kingston and Montego Bay, ransacking shops and businesses, exchanging gunfire with police
Click to expand...

Wait a second, how could they exchange gunfire with police when there is a 100% gun and ammo ban in Jamaica?? How were there armed men roaming the streets?? :confused:

A gun ban in the USA would pave the way for a human rights disaster on a terrible scale.
 
Last edited:
When you mention on the internet that you hide some and let the police find some - think you just set yourself up for your house and anything else you own be taken down to the molecular level.
Click to expand...

There is the problem. Doing that takes time. Thus it is going to take awhile to get to some people, giving them plenty of time. Second, who says you have to hide them on property that YOU own. I know plenty of places to hide stuff that nobody would look in for years at a time. Plenty of land out of town that nobody digs up.
 
I think the question was "what if" all guns were banned. There would be a short period of shock followed by silence. Mainly because when the guns go the next step would be the loss of our Right To Free Speech.
Guns would at first be surrendered. The remnant firearms would most likley be caught on the streets during routine traffic searches much as is practiced now and are called "safety" stops.
A Hot Line could be set up to pay informants to suspected gun owners. Then homes and property can be searched and confiscated. In the end, making owning guns so risky only the true "Terrorists" would dare break the law.
At present our government rules over it's subjects with the fear of fines or imprisionment if we don't bow to every whim. I have watched as the Constitution has been pushed aside and the "Rule of Law"applied.
The $700 billion bail out went ahead without our vote, so "in the best interest" of our country, I do expect something like a total ban to get passed. And I don't see us having any say in it when it does.
I hope it never happens but brace yourself anyway.
 
What exactly happens? What does it mean?
Click to expand...

It would mean that the Constitution has been torn up and the Supreme Court and Congress dissolved. It would require some kind of military coup and martial law. Aint gonna happen.
 
If there were an outright ban on firearms? I'd imagine the crime statisitcs would go through the roof.

Hell, right off the bat you'd be adding several MILLION "criminals"* to the roster with one swipe of the pen.


(*that'd be the current gun owners who became criminals overnight in case you hadn't figured it out)
 
I tend to agree with Tamara. There will be some, maybe many, that would simply voluntarily surrender their firearms but there will be some, probably many that won't.

I've worked for the gov't too long to consider it all-powerful and I honestly don't think MOST LE or US military would take kindly to inciting armed conflict with ordinary citizens that were law abiding until a law was passed that most would consider unconstitutional.

It might not be pretty but I believe that a gov't that moved to outlaw guns in such a fashion without substantially more public support than would presently favor a complete ban would be viewed as illigitimate by enough of the population that it's support and power would vanish pretty quickly.

Even if a future adminstration could name 3 or 4 Supreme Court Justices, I don't think a total ban would be ruled constitutional.
 
To #69 (& 42), #67, #53, #45.

#42, #67, #69: Not too many years ago an informal survey of military trainees just graduated from 29 Palms was conducted. One question: "If so ordered, would you search for and confiscate weapons from American citizens in a specific neighborhood, even though you knew that the 2d Amendment of the Constitution allowed ownership of those weapons?" Answer: 95% said, yes, they would follow that order. (It's very easy to shoot someone you don't know. By this I mean that a military unit is cohesive, and everyone outside that unit may be considered an enemy. I also mean that a military uniform does not deter all citizens from using deadly force in every instance.) #53: do you think it wise to list ALL of your arsenal on a site like this? Maybe you brag, or maybe not, but you have already become a target. I spent over 8 years in NSA, and I know whom they target. Try doing a search for any obscure subject on this site and see if it does not state how many mili-seconds it took to find it. We are not invisible; "they" are. #46: Dig holes for MREs too. A hungry defender can be a bad shot. A word to the wise. Finally, can we refer to one candidate over another as "The Guy Who Would Ban All Guns"?
 
Last edited:
21CFA,

The Truth:
The survey does exist and was passed out to a few hundred Marines in 29 Palms, California, in 1995, but not by the Pentagon. According to an article in NEW AMERICAN magazine in October of 1995 by John F. McManus, the survey was part of an academic project on the part of a Marine Lieutenant Commander Ernest Guy Cunningham who was earning his Masters Degree from the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, California. The survey alarmed some of the Marines and copies soon started being circulated among gun rights supporters. Lt. Cunningham told McManus that he was a member of the National Rifle Association himself and didn't agree with the tone of the questions. He said the survey was intended to confirm and then pass on to higher authorities his fears about "the lack of knowledge among the soldiers about the U.S. Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, and their heritage as Americans."
http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/m/militarysurvey.htm

As a vet, I know we were sworn to uphold and defend the constitution of the United States. The Uniform Code of Military Justice not only commands that we only disobey but we must actively oppose the execution of any order that is contrary to that constitution.
 
Mach II Sailor posted:

But no post using a candidate's or political party's name is permitted.
Click to expand...
WHY ??
Click to expand...

Because L&P is the correct forum for political discussion, but since it is closed, we have decided to temporarily entertain some politcal discussion here in General Discussion, where political discussions have never been permitted, with the proviso that no candidate's name nor any party's name be used.

That is the ground rule if you want to play politics in General Discussion forum.

Does that answer the question WHY ??
 
Those who would intend to push such a measure need to be soundly defeated at every possible opportunity. More importantly, we as the firearms community need to start proactively dismantling the anti gun movement, as merely voting against it isn't working because they keep coming back. We need to poison the anthill rather than keep just stepping on the ants.
 
G'day, I've been following this thread with some interest. A couple of things stand out as points of interest.

1, Some people believe "it will never happen". With an attitude like that those same people are just as likely to support gun bans when/if they do come. The mindset that "it will never happen" is one of the things the anti-gun lobby rely on. It is while you have this belief that you won't defend your ability to have a gun. Now if you were to say "this should/may not happen", then you will be more vigilant. You may even work to ensure that it does not happen.

In Australia when semi-auto firearms were banned, it was done by the political party in power with the support of the opposition party. It was never an election issue, there was no referendum, no vote by the people. Don't be so sure that "it will never happen" in your country.

2, I see many comments about "self" defence and "home" defence. One thing that seems to be missing, and it could be the most important one of all is the defence of your country. An unarmed nation could be considered an easy-er target for invasion. So you should also include "national" defence as another reason for gun ownership.

3, It seems to me that the anti gun lobby is trying to make guns socially unacceptable. One way they do this by using peoples fears of guns. People often fear what they don't understand. If you were to teach responsible gun etiquette in primary schools, this would reduce the ignorance and therefore a lot of the related fear. Respect and courtesy would probably also need to be taught.

It would be foolish to live in "tornado valley" and not be prepared for the aftermath of one striking. Better still to have built to withstand the impact, than to have to clean up the the mess left behind.
 
Suppressors would become a lot more popular. How else are you going to shoot your new full-auto without getting caught?;)

From a military perspective, I've sworn that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.. And that is exactly what I, my family, my friends, and many of my co-workers intend to do.
 
Don't be complacent

For all of the "it will never happen here", just about everthing that has happened in the rest of the world (with the exception of Nazi death camps) has happened here in the USA, at one time or another, the main difference is a question of scale, and overall efectivness.

Can't ban guns in the US? Then just what was the Heller case about? The city of Washington DC effectively banned guns for over 30 years, and even with the recent SCOTUS decision, they aren't readily available in DC yet.

NYC has had the Sullivan Laws since the early part of the 20th century, severly restricting legal gun ownership in the city, amounting to a virtual ban unles you were one of the approved few.

At times in the past we have had genocide campaigns, concentration camps, and US troops attacking US citizens in our nation's capitol. Do just a little historical research and you will find that we are not angels. Do not count on all our good protectors in uniform refusing to follow orders, even Constitutionally illegal ones. While there will be many who would refuse, there are also many who would comply without a second thought.

One thing I didn't see mentioned in previous posts, is the fact that there are quite a few small machine shops in the country, and more than a few people who know how to use them. Even if they could manage to round up all the currently legal guns in private hands, the capability to make replacements exists all over the country, and there will be people willing to do the work for the money that will be offered by "criminals". Mechanically, the simplest repeating firearm to make is a blowback submachinegun. One unintended consequence of banning all guns could be to increase the number of SMGs in illegal circulation. After all, if you are going to go to jail for having any gun, you might as well have the most effective gun you can get your hands on. And since with guns banned there will be no sport hunting with guns, there will be no practical use for long range rifles. Military assault rifles (homemade, smuggled in, or stolen from the military and police) will be available to those with a desire and the funds, just as any illegal substance is available on the black market today. And the same goes for sawed off shotuns, SMGs, and simple handguns. Short range, handy, concealable weapons for offense and defense in urban environments will be obtainable by anyone willing to be a "criminal" under the law. Ammo will always be available in small amounts, at high cost, home made, or stolen from the govt and police, people willing to pay will be able to get it.

Many people will go to jail, just as many drug users and dealers go to jail today, but as the war on drugs has proven, putting some people in jail doesn't solve the problem. AS long as there is a demand, legal or not, someone will fill that demand for a profit.

We might even see a return to blackpowder guns (possibly of more modern designs) as these kinds of firearms and ammunition can be made entirely from scratch by industrious individuals. maybe even swords and bows will become common personal defense items for the law abiding, as there were hundreds of years ago. I wouldn't put much money on it, but it might happen. Even if it did, a homeowner trying to defend himself with a sword, a baseball bat, or some other "non firearm" is going to be at a serious disadvantage against a street gang member armed with an autoshop made SMG or a stolen police gun, etc.

I guess if all the guns were banned, we would all turn ours in, and if something bad happened, we would just call 911 and hope for the best.

Right?
 
It is death by a thousand cuts.
Click to expand...

Yep, and that's what Elmer Fudd gets for being complacent.

Though I am mostly a muzzleloader and SA revolver guy, I commend the EBR crowd for at least understanding the importance of sticking together. From what I read on these forums, the EBR guys "get it".

To #75, your point #3 is right on the money.

The great power that has been entrusted to the media is being misused to sway elections, and even more so to turn public opinion against guns. They are so blatant about it, it's almost funny. TV show and movie characters routinely drop lines that sound like they came straight from the Brady Campaign.

The other big mistake gunnies have made was to buy into a debate where the allowed topics were narrowed so the truth would always be outside those confines.

If someone set out to steal your bicycle, and they set the debate limits so you can't talk about stealing or bicycles, chances are you're going to lose your bicycle.

And you won't see that coming.
 
And since with guns banned there will be no sport hunting with guns, there will be no practical use for long range rifles.
Click to expand...

I disagree; a high powered rifle with a autoshop made suppressor would make an excellent assasination tool. (I am not advocating this). Organized crime will flourish and will be smuggling guns and drugs like the US has never seen. Look at a Mexico!

ETA: dont wanna be on a flier.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top