What happens if Guns are banned?
- Thread starter Red123H
- Start date
- Status
lee n. field
New member
Whatever they think they can get away with.
Why do you think there are rules here?
They would love to do a "turn them all in Mr. and Mrs. America" (to quote the gun banning gun owner with poor trigger discipline Diane Feinstein), with house to house sweeps and metal detectors on every neighborhood corner. They can't. They'll do what they think they can get away with.
What that would mean is that there will be a lot of guns that sit unused in closets.
My brother, who lived in Japan for 15 years, tells me that it was not unusual for wartime era rifles to turn up there when a house would be damaged by an earthquake, and the wreckage gone through. Somebody stashed it, back when, and it didn't do anybody any good since.
That's what would happen here.
Last edited:
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
If all guns are banned, it would be because there would have been major legislative, excutive and court concurrence in such.
That is not going to happen with strong support from the majority of the voting populace.
Today on NPR, in a discussion of issues which seemed to lose importance this time around, gun control was mentioned. Also, on politico.com, they discussed why it wasn't a big deal this time around.
Two reasons:
Economic crash is more important.
The Democrats learned from 1994 and 2000 to leave it alone.
Thus, if such a ban surface and was implemented it would be with strong support from most folks.
A subset of folks would 'rise' up! Then they would be hammered down. Tim McVeigh sure garnered a lot of support for his actions, now didn't he?
If you decided to become a rebel given overwhelming support for total gun bans that would be necessary for such to occur, you are toast for population support. You would have NO sea of the populace to hide in.
That is not going to happen with strong support from the majority of the voting populace.
Today on NPR, in a discussion of issues which seemed to lose importance this time around, gun control was mentioned. Also, on politico.com, they discussed why it wasn't a big deal this time around.
Two reasons:
Economic crash is more important.
The Democrats learned from 1994 and 2000 to leave it alone.
Thus, if such a ban surface and was implemented it would be with strong support from most folks.
A subset of folks would 'rise' up! Then they would be hammered down. Tim McVeigh sure garnered a lot of support for his actions, now didn't he?
If you decided to become a rebel given overwhelming support for total gun bans that would be necessary for such to occur, you are toast for population support. You would have NO sea of the populace to hide in.
In the spirit of the OP I'll try to keep it to "if" not "whether" guns are banned.
First, my personal take is that if it happens in the next ten years there will be no initial attempt to make it an uncompensated seizure. They couldn't cross that hurdle in Britain or Australia and we've got the fifth amendment that would have to be jumped in addition to the second. Besides, there's a lot more of us.
If our politicians take a cue from our Northern neighbors the cost will be presented massively understated.
It's pretty easy to estimate a cost: it's around 1,000.00 per firearm assuming no inflation, a 100% voluntary compliance rate and minimal infrastructure and bureaucracy. See:
http://www.nao.org.uk/pn/9899225.htm
Assuming 70 million handguns and 30 million semi-auto shotguns, rifles and what-all, the lowest possible monetary cost is 100 billion. Again, using the Canadian experience, we can estimate the actual cost to be a minimum of ten times that or a trillion dollars.
A bunch of folks approaching retirement will be all over it – cash up front for something we weren't sure we were going to sell and we've still got all our Fudd stuff. Of course there will be a tsunami of claims filed contesting the amount of compensation. The claims are a full three orders of magnitude more than the British experience prepared anyone for. The legal system grinds to a halt.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/147948.stm
That should have the compensation cost of 100 billion pretty much torched at that point – the electorate was aware of the 100 billion, this is where they learn it only primed the pump. First, they'll have to swallow the relatively bitter pill that they’re going to have to raid the Medicare levy. It's not like it hasn't happened before:
http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/bd/1997-98/98bd048.htm
But, as they say: "In for a dime, in for a dollar". Around 20% of banned firearms are in and the cost is sailing past the 100 billion mark like it was tied to a post. Now we start printing money. Unlike the Wall Street bailout where there's at least something for the money, the 100 billion has been spent on flame cutters and furnaces – they're literally burning wealth. The impossible has been achieved: they have worked out a way of assuring less return on taxpayer money than the bail out.
About 400 billion into it somebody finally floats the idea of no compensation. It can't be cut out altogether but it's reduced sufficiently that non-compliance spikes and stays spiked.
Some genius in congress finally notices that Britain's handgun surrender was performed with, at maximum, 1/3 of 1 percent of the population owning handguns (162,000 handguns with a general population of 50 million) and it just doesn't translate into 20% of the population owning banned items. His intern notices that Tamara said as much on page 3 of a thread dating from 2008.
162,000 != 100,000,000. Only a very special few could believe that it is.
But it's too late. The USA now aspires to be a third world nation having spent all its wealth on stuff it destroyed. Those that received payment find that it's not worth the paper it's printed on.
First, my personal take is that if it happens in the next ten years there will be no initial attempt to make it an uncompensated seizure. They couldn't cross that hurdle in Britain or Australia and we've got the fifth amendment that would have to be jumped in addition to the second. Besides, there's a lot more of us.
If our politicians take a cue from our Northern neighbors the cost will be presented massively understated.
It's pretty easy to estimate a cost: it's around 1,000.00 per firearm assuming no inflation, a 100% voluntary compliance rate and minimal infrastructure and bureaucracy. See:
http://www.nao.org.uk/pn/9899225.htm
Assuming 70 million handguns and 30 million semi-auto shotguns, rifles and what-all, the lowest possible monetary cost is 100 billion. Again, using the Canadian experience, we can estimate the actual cost to be a minimum of ten times that or a trillion dollars.
A bunch of folks approaching retirement will be all over it – cash up front for something we weren't sure we were going to sell and we've still got all our Fudd stuff. Of course there will be a tsunami of claims filed contesting the amount of compensation. The claims are a full three orders of magnitude more than the British experience prepared anyone for. The legal system grinds to a halt.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/147948.stm
That should have the compensation cost of 100 billion pretty much torched at that point – the electorate was aware of the 100 billion, this is where they learn it only primed the pump. First, they'll have to swallow the relatively bitter pill that they’re going to have to raid the Medicare levy. It's not like it hasn't happened before:
http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/bd/1997-98/98bd048.htm
But, as they say: "In for a dime, in for a dollar". Around 20% of banned firearms are in and the cost is sailing past the 100 billion mark like it was tied to a post. Now we start printing money. Unlike the Wall Street bailout where there's at least something for the money, the 100 billion has been spent on flame cutters and furnaces – they're literally burning wealth. The impossible has been achieved: they have worked out a way of assuring less return on taxpayer money than the bail out.
About 400 billion into it somebody finally floats the idea of no compensation. It can't be cut out altogether but it's reduced sufficiently that non-compliance spikes and stays spiked.
Some genius in congress finally notices that Britain's handgun surrender was performed with, at maximum, 1/3 of 1 percent of the population owning handguns (162,000 handguns with a general population of 50 million) and it just doesn't translate into 20% of the population owning banned items. His intern notices that Tamara said as much on page 3 of a thread dating from 2008.
162,000 != 100,000,000. Only a very special few could believe that it is.
But it's too late. The USA now aspires to be a third world nation having spent all its wealth on stuff it destroyed. Those that received payment find that it's not worth the paper it's printed on.
predecessor
New member
Since citizens can no longer protect themselves, billionaire Bruce Wayne learns some sweet ninja moves, dons some base-jumping gear, and cleans up the criminal element just described. See? nothin' to worry about
Oh, and along that same cinematic vein, there is a Secondary Effect that has not yet been discussed that drips with irony:
With the banning, confiscation, and destruction of firearms, Hollywood suffers incredible losses at the box office since firearms are unable to be used as props and action movies and television shows are therefore no longer produced. Starving actors, writers, and directors are then forced to reconsider their political loyalties in order to feed the children that they had with their first, second, and third spouses.
I realize that you're probably joking, but the reality is that many existing gun control laws make exceptions for theatrical performances. That's how you see full auto weapons produced after 1986 in movies. Alternatively, they can always go to another nation where firearms are available for such purposes (i.e. P90s might not be allowed in CA but they can in Canada where Stargate was filmed).
It will be known very soon what public officials support such a ban. Their homes would likely have the windows removed by a 22 rimfire at a distance or be a smoldering ruin.
Cells of individuals would form. This would be very different than gangs. Gangs rat each other out to the cops. Cells of individuals would have no such motivation.
The military will be deployed to try and protect these people and their homes. Some attacks will continue, many will poke and prod where they can. Unlike the insurgents in Iraq, people in the US would focus on materiel more than a body count. A 22 round through the sidewall of a $100 tire and a $300 window is going to drain resources for the government.
Infrastructure would be targeted. Getting back to the lowly 22. With a homemade 22 suppressor, a proper vehicle, and some planning you can take out whole sections of a city's power grid. A shovel and a map will take care of telecommunications cables.
The reaction of people who are not fighting the government will be mixed. Some will provide support for those who are fighting, not because of the gun issue, but because of other grievances they have with the government. Others because they see those fighting as the winning side.
Others will side with the government, but risk being targeted by those who are fighting the government. Those who do support the government will likely find that the government will provide little in terms of protection or resources in return for their loyalty.
Steeler Fan
New member
No me either.
No sir officer, I ain't got no stinkin guns. I was just gonna call you, they were all stolen last night when I took my dog for a walk.
King Ghidora
Moderator
They won't take my guns. They might take the guns I owned before I died in a hail of gunfire and flash grenades but I will never surrender my guns voluntarily. I don't think they would be able to find enough LEO's willing to participate in rounding up guns in my area. They might import some but the ones here would not go along with a ban.
The government was very scared of the militias after Waco and Ruby Ridge. It was said earlier that Tim McVeigh never got much support. He never deserved any. Killing innocent kids pretty much killed the militia movement. But an attempt to totally ban guns in this country will bring a lot of people out of the wood work who would fight tooth and nail against a ban in this country.
In short you would have a Civil War with many of the federal troops not only refusing to fight their fellow citizens but also joining those citizens outright.
From what I understand Australia never had the same kind of gun culture we have in the US. And GB has been anti-gun for decades. But one look at the IRA will tell you it doesn't take guns to kill people. Explosives can be easy to make if you know how. Unless they ban gasoline and matches they will never be able to ban bombs in the US.
I don't expect any bans including bans of military type weapons. There was too much trouble the last time the government tried it. Since then gun laws have been relaxed severely. We've had the whole CCW movement since then and the Castle Doctrine movement after that. And the liberals have gone along with these things too. For example in Ohio, the governor just signed a Castle Doctrine bill that included many gun laws being relaxed. And that governor is a liberal.
We have had a lot of momentum in the right direction since the AWB. I think liberals realize they will just energize their opponents if they try to impose more restrictions. The Supreme Ct. also just gave us the decision we've been waiting on for nearly a century. They said the 2nd applies to individuals and not to militias.
Mo is definitely on our side right now. I think any attempt at turning Mo around will just make us stronger. They know it's a battle they can't win at the ballot box, in the courts or on the streets should it come to that. They actually fear a revolt. That's why they wanted the guns to start with. They won't do anything to risk starting one. It just ain't gonna happen.
The government was very scared of the militias after Waco and Ruby Ridge. It was said earlier that Tim McVeigh never got much support. He never deserved any. Killing innocent kids pretty much killed the militia movement. But an attempt to totally ban guns in this country will bring a lot of people out of the wood work who would fight tooth and nail against a ban in this country.
In short you would have a Civil War with many of the federal troops not only refusing to fight their fellow citizens but also joining those citizens outright.
From what I understand Australia never had the same kind of gun culture we have in the US. And GB has been anti-gun for decades. But one look at the IRA will tell you it doesn't take guns to kill people. Explosives can be easy to make if you know how. Unless they ban gasoline and matches they will never be able to ban bombs in the US.
I don't expect any bans including bans of military type weapons. There was too much trouble the last time the government tried it. Since then gun laws have been relaxed severely. We've had the whole CCW movement since then and the Castle Doctrine movement after that. And the liberals have gone along with these things too. For example in Ohio, the governor just signed a Castle Doctrine bill that included many gun laws being relaxed. And that governor is a liberal.
We have had a lot of momentum in the right direction since the AWB. I think liberals realize they will just energize their opponents if they try to impose more restrictions. The Supreme Ct. also just gave us the decision we've been waiting on for nearly a century. They said the 2nd applies to individuals and not to militias.
Mo is definitely on our side right now. I think any attempt at turning Mo around will just make us stronger. They know it's a battle they can't win at the ballot box, in the courts or on the streets should it come to that. They actually fear a revolt. That's why they wanted the guns to start with. They won't do anything to risk starting one. It just ain't gonna happen.
With the passage of the "Microstamping" bill by the California state senate, gun ownership in California moves a microstep closer to death by a thousand cuts. The situation in the Granola State is a fascinating illustration on how civilian disarmament in this country could finally be effected.
If one reads the gun boards, one constantly hears the chest-thumping affirmations of keyboard heroes who are never going to give up their guns. Offering up their visions of how they will resist the UN gun confiscation teams which are apparently going to land in their black helicopters to go door to door looking for guns, they blithely ignore the attack that is already underway. The strategy is threefold:
Make gun ownership a hassle. Require permits to buy, to sell, to carry, to shoot. Make these permits cost money. Make people stand in line. Make them buy heavy safes or clunky locks. Dictate how they may store the weapon, transport the weapon, dispose of the weapon. Charge for all of this. Make it expensive and annoying.
Make gun ownership non-hereditary. Teach kids that guns are bad. Encourage kids to tell authority figures, such as school teachers or policemen, whenever they see anything involving a gun that seems bad or wrong. Make sure that the very presence of the gun itself is bad or wrong.
Make the gun business unprofitable. Require onerous fees, outrageous zoning requirements, inane engineering changes in the name of "safety". Keep the legal pressure on to drain profits, while at the same time restricting advertising to stifle income.
The fruits of this are already apparent in California, where citizens can't own lots of guns that would otherwise be legal, simply because gun manufacturers are unwilling or unable to submit examples of every possible combination of caliber, color, and barrel length to the California DOJ for destructive testing just to get on the approved list. If the latest "microstamping" nonsense passes, expect more manufacturers to just drop California as a market. Californian gun nuts try to reassure each other that gunmakers would never abandon them entirely; that they represent too large a market, that they subsidize gun owners in the rest of the country. To that, all I can say is that Bushmaster, DPMS, and Olyarms gave up on CA a while back, and they seem to be doing okay.
California, seen as a progressive state by the victim disarmament crowd, is their test lab; the thin end of the wedge of laws they'd like to try elsewhere. Thus far it's not working, not spreading to other states the way they'd like it to, but that doesn't mean that gun owners elsewhere in America can stop watching that train wreck on the left coast; it contains lessons needed to stop our rights here from being derailed.
If one reads the gun boards, one constantly hears the chest-thumping affirmations of keyboard heroes who are never going to give up their guns. Offering up their visions of how they will resist the UN gun confiscation teams which are apparently going to land in their black helicopters to go door to door looking for guns, they blithely ignore the attack that is already underway. The strategy is threefold:
Make gun ownership a hassle. Require permits to buy, to sell, to carry, to shoot. Make these permits cost money. Make people stand in line. Make them buy heavy safes or clunky locks. Dictate how they may store the weapon, transport the weapon, dispose of the weapon. Charge for all of this. Make it expensive and annoying.
Make gun ownership non-hereditary. Teach kids that guns are bad. Encourage kids to tell authority figures, such as school teachers or policemen, whenever they see anything involving a gun that seems bad or wrong. Make sure that the very presence of the gun itself is bad or wrong.
Make the gun business unprofitable. Require onerous fees, outrageous zoning requirements, inane engineering changes in the name of "safety". Keep the legal pressure on to drain profits, while at the same time restricting advertising to stifle income.
The fruits of this are already apparent in California, where citizens can't own lots of guns that would otherwise be legal, simply because gun manufacturers are unwilling or unable to submit examples of every possible combination of caliber, color, and barrel length to the California DOJ for destructive testing just to get on the approved list. If the latest "microstamping" nonsense passes, expect more manufacturers to just drop California as a market. Californian gun nuts try to reassure each other that gunmakers would never abandon them entirely; that they represent too large a market, that they subsidize gun owners in the rest of the country. To that, all I can say is that Bushmaster, DPMS, and Olyarms gave up on CA a while back, and they seem to be doing okay.
California, seen as a progressive state by the victim disarmament crowd, is their test lab; the thin end of the wedge of laws they'd like to try elsewhere. Thus far it's not working, not spreading to other states the way they'd like it to, but that doesn't mean that gun owners elsewhere in America can stop watching that train wreck on the left coast; it contains lessons needed to stop our rights here from being derailed.
rem870hunter
New member
if they ban them,they must buy them, for the full value they are worth, and the ammo too at full value. no corner cutting allowed. i would like to see the money truck come here. but i might have broken most of them before they get here.
I think you are fooling yourself about being paid. I would not put it past the anti-gunners to just have guns declared a public health danger and demand they be confiscated. Or, once the ban is the law, the market value of guns will drop to about zero, so that is what you might get paid in return for your guns. Remember after hurricane Katrina, the Mayor of N.O. ordered the police to take guns from honest citizens. Some eventually got their guns back, but many did not, many found that their guns were rusted and ruined, and I have not heard of a single person being paid for their loss by the city of New Orleans or anyone else.
King Ghidora
Moderator
The confiscation of guns is certainly not underway in Ohio. In fact on Sept. 9th we got a whole new set of liberties i.e. our guns. Read the story on this web page if you want the low down.
I belong to the NRA. I stand up for every gun cause I can find (well all the good ones anyway - I'm certainly not standing up for more restrictions). I write letters to govt. officials who make the decisions. And I'm willing to lay down my life for what I believe in. What else am I supposed to do? Start a revolution? Why? We're winning here in Ohio. We just hit the jackpot in fact. Read the article. Our side just gained a huge victory and the law was signed by Ted Strickland, a Democrat who just happens to be from my county. We're all gun lovers around here practically. Even the Dems are on our side where I come from. Strickland just proved that with a capital P.
BTW you lost credibility when you threw in your "black helicopters" comment. Obviously you haven't paid attention to the genuine efforts of gun lovers. I don't know anyone that's worried about black helicopters. I don't know anyone who has ever claimed to see a black helicopter. And that whole load of BS was from 15 years ago anyway and the only people I heard say it was true were net nuts and talk show showboaters looking for an audience. Does the name Art Bell ring a bell? Chuck Harder maybe? If you want to lump us in with that crowd I know some liberals who would love to get your attention (and your money of course). I certainly don't subscribe to the paranoid paranormal crap that Bell bellowed and Harder must have shortened his name removing the word "Head" from the end because he was the most hard headed idiot who ever Up Chucked on the airwaves.
johnwilliamson062
Moderator
The governor is a liberal who is riding a tide of support and popularity this election, a lot of it from 2a sensitive republicans. He has my vote, and I will say he is the ONLY politician I have suggested anyone vote for or support(although he isn't up for re-election until 2010). The fact that he is far less corrupt than our last few governors doesn't hurt much.
If the government comes knocking on my door looking for guns I will hand them all over. With odds of 20 or 30 to one that, will not be where I choose to fight. If the Jews in the Warsaw ghetto could come up with guns walled in and with no outside contact allowed, I am sure I will be able to also.
I think most reasonable people who are concerned will simply leave the country.
King Ghidora
Moderator
I know this isn't supposed to turn political but I will never vote for the guy. I know too much about him. I won't say what and I won't ask anyone to follow my lead. I'm glad he signed the new bill but IMO he only did it because the gun lobby has become very strong in Ohio.
- Status