Yet another in the series of odd questions

C

cold dead hands

Moderator
Suppose the ownership and manufacture of all guns was banned. The feds have decided that all firearms will now be made by the ''the state" and any company that makes guns now belongs to the state in order to keep LEO and military armed. That, and Hollywood still has to turn out their tripe, so they need guns. ''The state" controls Hollywood's guns too. They have an official armorer that the studios must bribe to use the guns that actually work or they get plastic molds and have to make do with CG to make them look and sound real. On to the real point...

What becomes of the people who know how to make guns and refuse to work for ''the state''? Are they threatened with immediate death if they even so much as draw a picture of a gun and ''the state'' finds out?

Are any people with metal working (CNC, milling, forging) or polymer injection knowledge forced to be registered as potential weapons (whole or in part) makers who will be monitored by ''the state''?

How about chemists? Can't have some one cooking up primers and powder?

Just how far will ''the state'' have to go to truly enforce the prohibition on firearms?
 
Think "prohibition". I imagine liquor producers had to find another line of work.

(also understand how TOTALLY ineffective such a ban was - as violent crime rates and alcohol consumption increased).

It doesn't matter how far the state is willing to go - unless they will shoot all illegal weapon possessors on sight - criminals will have them, and control them, and traffic in them, and we the people will be victims all the more.
 
In regards to friearms prohibition I think that the high numbers of victims means about squat to government. Take a look at D.C. and England. Lots of victims and zero government concern for them. This leads me to my point that alcohol prohibition taught the feds a lesson. It wasn't that they can't win, it was that they didn't didn't use enough fascist tactics. There are very few non-drinkers in our society. Even the "law abiding" made their own or supported people they probably found to be generally repugnant because they weren't willing to give up booze when the feds had no right to take it away.

Prohibition lasted 14 years and lots of crimes were commited because of it. It took 14 years for the feds to realize they screwed up. There is little doubt in mind that a firearms prohibition would last forever regardless of the cost because the feds don't care about the people, they are unwilling to lose another prohition, and they just don't have the sense to see that taking guns away is terminally stupid in so many ways. If the 2A were revoked and then reinstated (however many years later) they could never revoke it again. The same laws for booze apply to guns as far as prohibition goes.

I believe the 2A will never be officially revoked for this reason, but then again there is no telling just how far a ''well meaning'' President will go when extending an executive order and/or how Congress will vote when there is enough solidarity to advance the anti gun movement to it's fullest potential.
 
There are very few non-drinkers in our society
Click to expand...


There are lots and lots of non-drinkers in our society (1/3 of US adult population).


But banning guns would be easy to implement among the sort of people who don't cause problems. They've got too much to lose to risk being convicted of a felony. Anybody who has a degree, a decent job, and a mortgage is easy to control. These people have high voter participation, so trying to disarm them may throw you out of office, but they'll obey the laws.


Criminals, people on the margins, and people who have a hard time reasoning out the probable consequences of their actions only obey the laws accidentally or they may serendipitously avoid apprehension. Gun bans would only affect these people indirectly.


Nationalizing gun manufacturers sounds science-fictional.
 
How is nationalizing gun makers science fictional? It has happened before. Or was I mistaken about Mother Russia making all the rules and controlling all the arms before the Iron Curtain fell and the little satelite nations were free to control their own arms production again. Some of those gun makers have been around for more than 150 years. They became state controlled when Russia took over all those little counties.

And what makes you think that it can't happen here? Just how many countries, big and small, have gone from being republics to dictatorships? And what did those dictators do with the arms makers? That's right, they were placed under state control.

There is terrible system of self delusion held by many Americans. The belief that tyranny will never happen here is astounding to me. It may not happen in my lifetime, but that doesn't mean it won't happen.

As for the number of non-drinkers arguement... if only two thirds of the country drink that means (assuming the pop. is 300 million) that means 200 million drinkers. It is really hard to control that many people when it is not too likely that your neighbor will rat you out because they drink too. Not to mention that any schmoe with some fruit juice and yeast can make booze. Alcohol prohibition doesn't stand a chance and even the feds figured that out after fourteen years of failure.

Gun owners are estimated to be 80 million at highest count. That means 220 million who do not feel the way you do and you are likely to be turned in for any reason from personal fued to soccer mom paranoia. Gun prohibition would be enforced with the most dangerous (to you) methods available. Failure will not be a word in their vocabulary for this one. They will fight gun owners no matter the cost. Our government has destroyed lives before and they don't mind doing it again and again. You think the ATF is bad now? Wait 'til they are 20 times bigger so they go through all those 4473's and go round up every gun they know they can find. And if they happen to kill you in the process... well, they were just doing their jobs, huh?

There are beer advertisements showing guys having a BBQ and fun with alcohol. There are no ads with guys shooting skeet grinning ear to ear. The prohition has been started by the media and will finished by the government.

The biggest irony is that alcohol is involved in so many more thousands of deaths than guns.

But alcohol vs. guns is not the subject of this thread so we return to the original topic.
 
But banning guns would be easy to implement among the sort of people who don't cause problems. They've got too much to lose to risk being convicted of a felony. Anybody who has a degree, a decent job, and a mortgage is easy to control. These people have high voter participation, so trying to disarm them may throw you out of office, but they'll obey the laws.
Click to expand...

Interesting logic. How does your logic figure when you consider the # of law-abiding citizens of Calif and NJ who refused to register their "assault weapons" when the future sale and possesion of such weapons was owtlawed?

You must understand that it is virtually impossible to legislate behavior. Those who choose to comform to draconian legislation do so because THEY DONT CARE...IT IS NOT THEIR RIGHTS THAT ARE BEING ERADICATED. Some gun owners may not care that their govt, at some point, may require them to surrender their firearms. They may not care because the right to own a gun is just not important to them. However, to suggest that most law-abiding citzens are docile sheep who always follow the leader is just plain silly. They will just acquiesce until the govt infringes on something they DO CARE ABOUT.





Curiosity yields evolution...satiety yields extinction.
 
Incentive is more powerful than principle. Maybe it shouldn't be, but it is. People have an incentive to avoid a criminal record. Some believe in the principle underlying the second amendment. A lot of people will vote to preserve their second amendment rights, but few will risk a felony conviction if the voting doesn't go their way.


Americans will go a long way to preserve the spirit and letter of the second amendment, but as a general thing they won't defy the law when there's a significant chance of apprehension and punishment. Maybe they should, but they won't.
 
Americans will go a long way to preserve the spirit and letter of the second amendment
Click to expand...

I beg to disagree with you on that one. How many gun owners do you know that actively work to defend their right?

but as a general thing they won't defy the law when there's a significant chance of apprehension and punishment
Click to expand...

In the case of giving up your guns it means you're willing to bow to your cruel masters who have NO concern about your ability to defend life. It also means you are willing to subject yourself to any further tyranny and have guanteed you will alway be out gunned.

Maybe they should, but they won't.
Click to expand...

I will admit that the threat of a whole government agency kicking in the door scares people, but you would think that they would fear the complete control government would have over their lives after giving up their guns would scare them more.

I say from my cold dead hands and I mean it. Above all other things I prize liberty the most. Guns insure my ability to fight for my liberty when they have taken too much and it is time to reclaim it. Liberty is not just a concept, it is tangible. You may not think it is, but it is. Liberty is like air for your soul. It makes you strong, for when it is taken you will feel broken.

For the average person, liberty's self defense weapon is the firearm. I will defend liberty with my life if needs. This is the nature of a true egalitarian. If I surrender my guns I will have allowed them to kill liberty. Liberty is injured already. Abandon the 2A and shoot her in the head. After this liberty is dead. May she rest in peace.
 
Americans will go a long way to preserve the spirit and letter of the second amendment, but as a general thing they won't defy the law when there's a significant chance of apprehension and punishment. Maybe they should, but they won't.
Click to expand...
Maybe current gun owners are a more fearful and conformist group than were drinkers during the last century's prohibition efforts... or maybe not.
 
Maybe current gun owners are a more fearful and conformist group than were drinkers during the last century's prohibition efforts... or maybe not.
Click to expand...

I believe plenty of gun owners are fearful of the government and act accordingly. There is strength in numbers, but only with solidarity. Too many would rather try hoping they aren't noticed and targeted instead of taking a risk by declaring they will not submit and then coming together in large numbers to protect the ''herd''.

I think most of the fear comes from the fear of losing the expensive house, the expensive toys (big screen t.v., four wheelers, whatever), the high paying job, the nice car/truck/SUV, and worst of all their family.

I understand the fear for the family. Beyond that I do not comprehend the fear of losing STUFF. Many people have created identities out of what they own and how much money they instead of who they actually are. Threaten to take all of that away and you leave an empty shell. That is what will frighten them into giving up their guns.

The people who lived during Prohibition had a lot less to lose (compared to modern living) and therefore didn't give a rat's patooty about liquor, wine and beer being illegal. People also believed it was there God given right to drink and they weren't gonna stop regardless of the laws.

If gun owners could adopt an attitude similar to that then there would be lot less talk of if you would give them up and more talk of how many of the bastards is it gonna take to get them from you.
 
quote:"I beg to disagree with you on that one. How many gun owners do you know that actively work to defend their right?"

I think a lot of times we lose a little perspective on what actively working to do anything is (be it defending the 2A, spreading the Gospel, or charity work). People have different strengths and weaknesses and contribute as they can. The guys with the gift for gab turn into lobbyists and 2A representatives, the guys with earning power donate money, computer geeks build 2A websites....everyone uses their own skill sets to contribute to any movement. I like that because I don't think everyone has the skill set or charisma to be public spokesman for the 2A or the "gun culture" and might cause more harm that good.

The guys who try to grease as many people in Washington as they can are just as valuable as the guy who gives $35 a year to the NRA and uses the NRA round-up at Midway...their contributions are dramatically different but it takes everyone.

I'm not calling troll here but your doomsday type posts (firearms prohibition type, the 2A is going to DIE and what'll happen) have been increasing in frequency and intensity lately. Is the presidential race weighing that heavily on your mind? I'm not poking fun or anything, just curious as to what has brought on this onslaught of posting about these types of situations. Enlighten us CDH.
 
All the more reasons for ALL gun clubs to have "legislator and Media Day" ot the ranges. Also go public with 'come out and shoot a round of trap/skeet' for only the cost of the ammo-we supply the guns.

It is EDUCATION but I cant seem to get the clubs I belong to to agree but just keep head in the sand.
 
Gun owners are estimated to be 80 million at highest count. That means 220 million who do not feel the way you do and you are likely to be turned in for any reason from personal feud to soccer mom paranoia.
Click to expand...
Thats only three shots or less from each gun owner. They would run out of cold dead hands before we do. IF and only IF we all had the stones to draw the line in the sand.
 
I'm not calling troll here but your doomsday type posts (firearms prohibition type, the 2A is going to DIE and what'll happen) have been increasing in frequency and intensity lately. Is the presidential race weighing that heavily on your mind? I'm not poking fun or anything, just curious as to what has brought on this onslaught of posting about these types of situations. Enlighten us CDH.
Click to expand...

Wow. That is the third time I have heard the word troll. I am most certainly not here to troll. I have seen 'trolling' post and they aggrivate me too. I only pose the questions that go through my mind and look for some feed back. In some cases I have been made aware of facts and opinions that I had missed and this enabled me to get a better idea of how the gun owning, internet using person was thinking and possibly adjust my point of view.

I think the Presidential race has me little on edge. There are far too many bad choices who will actively work against the 2A (despite their soundbites) and there is no logical reason for them to do it except for giving the government more power. This thought disturbs me greatly. Any leader who would use fear (of guns, of terror, whatever) while promising to save us to gain power is only going to create fear. We have enough to fear as it is, we don't need more.

The idea of two families running the country for up to 36 years (if you count daddy Bush's VP days and Hillary getting two terms) starts to sound like an aristocracy. I don't like it.

Curiousity is a big reason for asking questions. Where I live the general population isn't concerned with things that don't effect them directly and immediately (like so many other places I suppose), whereas I tend to think about the ramifications of laws that apply to the national level. You'll notice I never talk about preparing for disasters and things like that. Many people have some sort of plans to deal with that sort of situation. We gun owners as a whole have no 2A disaster plan, at least none that I am aware of.

So, I am here to try to learn facts and opinions of others at the national level. If my posts sound a little alarming or grouchy at times it is life in general hasn't been very kind to me (I am not looking for sympathy, empathy or a place to whine) and some days I cannot even remember why I want to get out of bed in the first place. There's three things that make me happiest. My kids and my guns and my liberty (what I have left of it anyway).

I need my guns to protect life and liberty. Happiness comes from that. Take away my guns and I have lost my most effective tools to protect my (and my children's) god given right to life, liberty and the persuit of happiness. After that is gone all I will be is a good father and a lot more empty and broken on the inside.

Hope this helps explain my questions, opinions and my manner of posts. I have attempted to inject humor from time to time and even tried to get a funny thread or two going but no one wanted to play.

I have been accused of being a grouchy old man and I am only 32. I like to think of myself as an untrusting curmudgeon who wishes we lived in a truly egalitarian society.
 
Cold Dead:


Either we preserve (and ideally expand) our gun rights by means of institutionalized conflict (the courts, legislation) or it won't happen. Nobody's going to fight the government with guns--other than the occasional Branch Davidian or income tax protestor. And these few people will be shot, burned out, etc. Maybe it shouldn't be like that but it is.


If you don't like the gungrabber character of modern governments, I think you can to some extent blame the Communists. They're the reason some previously gun-neutral countries (e.g. England) went so anti-gun. Had to disempower the rabble, you know, to keep them from grabbing the stuff. (England especially had had some experience with what armed rabbles can do).


But the English wealth-holders in the 20th century didn't have as much to fear from mere gun ownership as they thought. While Communism was a major societal/governmental shift in the 20th in some parts of the world, the Anglophone West wasn't primed for that. Similarly, though, America in the 21st century isn't primed to take up arms in defense of the acknowleged right to keep and bear arms. Our heads are in a very different place.


The good new is, we don't have to fight. We can vote. A day for fighting in America will probably come and our guns will likely come in handy (so hang on to them), but it won't be over the 2A specifically and it won't be us; it'll be our grandkids or our greatgrandkids.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top