I'm curious as to how a nationwide government-mandated handgun confiscation would work if it actually happened (I put the chances at less than .001%). Let's think about this:
Would police officers or military personnel go door-to-door and simply ask citizens to hand over their guns? Or would they search homes instead? Would they need a warrant for that? Would they use force to enter homes believed to house handguns if citizens resisted?
Would citizens be mandated to turn in their handguns themselves to local police departments? Would they be compensated at all for the price of the firearm? What would happen to the guns? Would they be melted down or would the police and/or military use them? What about ammunition?
Would there be a deadline? Would there be enough personnel to sweep the entire country for handguns in, say, less than five years? Less than one year?
As stated earlier, would police officers and/or military personnel, or whomever is sent to collect guns, actually follow through on those orders? Would citizens fight or shoot at them to keep their firearms? Would the government be willing to risk death and violence just to ultimately curtail death and violence by confiscating guns (devil's advocate question)?
Would the government be prepared for rioting and demonstrations that would almost assuredly occur? The vitriolic backlash would probably turn violent in a hurry.
So many questions bubble up when this idea is entertained. I can't envision any way that "they" take the guns that people currently own. New legislation restricting sales and access of firearms and ammunition? That could be a different story.
Well.......what did Homeland Security buy all that ammo for ?
This is where we are heading and how we will get there.
You're sound asleep when you hear a thump outside your bedroom door. Half-awake, and nearly paralyzed with fear, you hear muffled whispers.
At least two people have broken into your house and are moving your way.
With your heart pumping, you reach down beside your bed and pick up your shotgun. You rack a shell into the chamber, then inch toward the door and open it. In the darkness, you make out two shadows. One holds something that looks like a crowbar. When the intruder brandishes it as if to strike, you raise the shotgun and fire.
The blast knocks both thugs to the floor. One writhes and screams while the second
man crawls to the front door and lurches outside. As you pick up the telephone to call police, you know you're in trouble.
In your country, most guns were outlawed years before, and the few that are privately owned are so stringently regulated as to make them useless.
Yours was never registered. Police arrive and inform you that the second burglar has died They arrest you for First Degree Murder and Illegal Possession of a Firearm.
When you talk to your attorney, he tells you not to worry: authorities will probably plea the case down to manslaughter. "What kind of sentence will I get?" you ask.
"Only ten-to-twelve years,” he replies, as if that's nothing. "Behave yourself, and you'll be out in seven."
The next day, the shooting is the lead story in the local newspaper. Somehow, you're portrayed as an eccentric vigilante while the two men you shot are represented as choirboys. Their friends and relatives can't find an unkind word to say about them. Buried deep down in the article, authorities acknowledge that both "victims" have been arrested
But the next day's headline says it all: "Lovable Rogue Son Didn't Deserve to Die."
The thieves have been transformed from career criminals into Robin Hood-type pranksters. As the days wear on, the story takes wings.
The national media picks it up, then the international media. The surviving burglar has become a folk hero. Your attorney says the thief is preparing to sue you, and he'll probably win.
The media publishes reports that your home has been burglarized several times in the past and that you've been critical of local police for their lack of effort in apprehending the suspects. After the last break-in, you told your neighbor
that you would be prepared next time. The District Attorney uses this to allege
that you were lying in wait for the burglars. A few months later, you go to trial.
The charges haven't been reduced, as your lawyer had so confidently predicted.
When you take the stand, your anger at the injustice of it all works against you.
Prosecutors paint a picture of you as a mean, vengeful man. It doesn't take long for the jury to convict you of all charges.
The judge sentences you to life in prison.
This case really happened.
On August 22, 1999, Tony Martin of Emneth, Norfolk , England , killed one burglar and wounded a second. In April, 2000, he was convicted and is now serving a life term. How did it become a crime to defend one's own life in the once great British Empire ?
It started with the Pistols Act of 1903.
This seemingly reasonable law forbade selling pistols to minors or felons and established that handgun sales were to be made only to those who had a license. The Firearms Act of 1920 expanded licensing to include not only handguns but all firearms except shotguns. Later laws passed in 1953 and 1967 outlawed the carrying of any weapon by private citizens and mandated the registration of all shotguns.
Momentum for total handgun confiscation began in earnest after the Hungerford mass shooting in 1987. Michael Ryan, a mentally disturbed man with a Kalashnikov rifle, walked down the streets shooting everyone he saw.
When the smoke cleared, 17 people were dead. The British public, already de-sensitized by eighty years of "gun control", demanded even tougher restrictions. (The seizure of all privately owned handguns was the objective even though Ryan used a rifle) Nine years later, at Dunblane , Scotland , Thomas Hamilton used a semi-automatic weapon to murder 16 children and a teacher at a public school.
For many years, the media had portrayed all gun owners as mentally unstable or worse, criminals. Now the press had a real kook with which to beat up law-abiding gun owners. Day after day, week after week, the media gave up all pretense of objectivity and demanded a total ban on all handguns. The Dunblane Inquiry, a few months later, sealed the fate of the few sidearms still owned by private citizens.
During the years in which the British government incrementally took away most gun rights, the notion that a citizen had the right to armed self-defense came to be seen as vigilantism. Authorities refused to grant gun licenses to people who were threatened, claiming that self-defense was no longer considered a reason to own a gun. Citizens who shot burglars or robbers or rapists were charged while the real criminals were released.
Indeed, after the Martin shooting, a police spokesman was quoted as saying, "We cannot have people take the law into their own hands.” All of Martin's neighbors had been robbed numerous times, and several elderly people were severely injured in beatings by young thugs who had no fear of the consequences. Martin himself, a collector of antiques, had seen most of his collection trashed or stolen by burglars.
When the Dunblane Inquiry ended, citizens who owned handguns were given three months to turn them over to local authorities. Being good British subjects, most people obeyed the law. The few who didn't were visited by police and threatened with ten-year prison sentences if they didn't comply.
Police later bragged that they'd taken nearly 200,000 handguns from private citizens. How did the authorities know who had handguns? The guns had been registered and licensed. Kind of like cars. Sound familiar?
WAKE UP AMERICA ; THIS IS WHY OUR FOUNDING FATHERS PUT THE SECOND AMENDMENT IN OUR CONSTITUTION
"...It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds...”
~ Samuel Adams ~
Since the Second Amendment recognized the need for the "people" to be part of the "militia," it can be argued that "We the people" should be armed with military-style weapons--quite the opposite of what most wish to prohibit.
I think that some politicians will try. They will push things like "assault weapons" bans. Every reason under the sun will be given and we will be told how it is just common sense and for everyone's own good, and how it will put a stop to violent crime, blah, blah blah. If such a thing were to occur, we must actively work to reject the notion and the WE must be sufficient numbers from all walks of life, from both sides of the political isle, consist of members of all races, etc. I've recent said it in a few other posts and I will say it again because it is so absolutely true: in order to protect everyone's rights, the pro gun community absolutely must grow beyond being affiliated with a minority segment of one political party. If the nation perceives gun ownership, especially with regards to uses other than hunting, as an issue of only "angry white men", it becomes easier to target and try to take it away. It is also extremely import for us to proactively remind our legislators of our stance and this goes double for any Democrat 2A supporters.
Fortunately, I also think that should they try to propose such legislative bans that they will be defeated. In the short run, bans may take the form of executive order, which would result in a legislative and / or judicial response countermanding it.
I also think that the coming days and weeks will show how the public as a whole feels about this. The media will portray their anti opinion, like they always do, and non anti opinions will be suppressed by the media. The state of MI has already responded by drafting legislation to correct schools as being GFZs. If people buy guns and ammo in surging numbers, an push their legislators to follow the MI example, it will go a long way towards preventing the anti politicians from pushing their agenda.
Btw, the short answer is - YES
Unfortunately, I see a second AWB through Executive Order coming relatively soon, especially since POTUS doesn't need to worry about re-election. That route also gives cover to the pro-gun Dems in Congress-they aren't put on the spot and can say they opposed it when up for re-election. New purchases only, no retro grab of existing arms or restriction of states' concealed carry or open carry laws.
Sucks, but that's my opinion.
Agree with Smitty901. Incremental steps. This is the gov's M/O. Will probably take steps to limit purchases of rounds, powder and bullets as well. With the assistance of the willing media, facts about these mentally disturbed, pharmaceutical enhanced individuals will be downplayed. The many times that firearms actually help to stop crime will never make it out to the sheep.
I don't think they will take the guns..I believe they may try to increase the prices of bullets and repacking materials to the point that only few can afford them. Or impose a limit to the amounts of ammunition a person could own at a given time. Like they red flag people who buy bags of fertilizer. And FEAR will be used to do it a little here a little there and we look up Nd its on the books.
They'll never confiscate our guns. They'll just make ammo & reloading equipment illegal. Then you'll have to buy rounds from your local drug dealer. All the laws & enhancements of those laws haven't stopped him from doing business. He's not using guns to kill people.
The answer is NO. But they will make certain weapons illegal and they will make it harder to qualify for legal purchase and they will have stricter enforcement of current laws and they will close certain loopholes currently in place.
I think that would start a whole new civil war sort of speak dont you think maybe... I think thats what you call it, lol ... there not taking mine.. My oppinion the good guys will be buying guns from the underground world if that was to happen. We must find ways of protecting ourselves and love ones . It will just show that our government dont care about us just themselves, we the people must stand and hold our grounds.... Eddie