It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

What Law Enforcement Body Would be willing to Confiscate Guns?

page: 2
7
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 29 2017 @ 11:15 AM
link   
a reply to: openyourmind1262

But you would agree there is no situation where with a generation or so America try's a gun ban or confiscation??




posted on Jun, 29 2017 @ 11:15 AM
link   
a reply to: Bluntone22

Yea the us army and local law enforcement let that go down....

(Sarcasm..)



posted on Jun, 29 2017 @ 11:17 AM
link   
a reply to: Masterjaden

What law enforcement body would do it??


There is no way people just give them up...

Even going state by state would take the army..at least.



posted on Jun, 29 2017 @ 11:24 AM
link   
Molon Labe!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

But its like Edumakated said. It will happen so slowly that we will hardly notice before its to late.

If they do one day decide to take away all guns it will happen in 2 or 3 generations from now when everyone is to liberal and sissy to do anything about it. Right now we still have generation x and y that would put up fierce resistance. They will wait until we are long dead and go after generation z and beyond.



posted on Jun, 29 2017 @ 11:36 AM
link   
a reply to: PraetorianAZ

In 3 generations you think we will still be using firearms?!?!

By then we will all have nuclear powered phones...



posted on Jun, 29 2017 @ 11:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: PraetorianAZ
Molon Labe!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

But its like Edumakated said. It will happen so slowly that we will hardly notice before its to late.



Maybe you wouldn't notice but....


Anyone with any awareness at all would notice and take appropriate action.

cold dead hands, ring a bell?
edit on 29-6-2017 by olaru12 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 29 2017 @ 11:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: Edumakated

Your nuts dude..

I live in Mississippi and that is no question the average belief..

Hell I would say it is the primary reason people vote republican around here.

And all second amendment arguments seem to go back to that very same conspiracy..

"So we can overthrow a tyrannical government."

Which means you think the government will go tyrannical and you'll be killing us service members..

( not you, you.. figure of speech fyi.)

Well only if it is a liberal, tyrannical government. When the right is being tyrannical then you need to use those guns to fight those traitors who are terrorizing their government; you can't even let those evil liberals protest.



posted on Jun, 29 2017 @ 11:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: Bluntone22
The United nations?


And what army?



posted on Jun, 29 2017 @ 12:10 PM
link   
We won't have to worry about this unless the Democrats get a major control of the house and Senate. This is more of a liberal issue, but not all Liberals believe we should be forced to give up our guns either. Maybe in twenty years it might be an issue, hopefully I will be gone before that kind of dictatorship evolves.

Now, if you are a felon or are not mentally stable in a way that guns should not be owned, I believe you should not have guns. But the guns should be given to a close relative in the event of a nervous breakdown till the person gets back to normal. You cannot use a short nervous breakdown to judge someone all their life. The young usually straighten up as they get older, if not they wind up as criminals and shouldn't have guns.

Also, just because someone gets a drunk driving ticket does not mean they should lose their rights to own a gun. If you get a speeding ticket, that is not a good reason to take away someone's rifles used for hunting. Neither is a teenager using pot socially or medically.



posted on Jun, 29 2017 @ 12:24 PM
link   
a reply to: SlapMonkey

The fear of regulations and limitations on firearms is a real thing.

The fabricated boogeyman is the idea that people would have jack booted government thugs ripping their guns away or that a subtler "give us your guns or else" kind of strong arm tactic would be used - piles of guns in the backs of military vehicles to be later used against their former owners...

That's the fabrication.

And having SOME gun laws doesn't mean no guns. I know that's not what people hype from the right but it's like anything else - having seat belts doesn't mean the government is coming for your car...


edit on 29-6-2017 by AboveBoard because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 29 2017 @ 12:41 PM
link   
You must consider the numbers.. Just under one million for Law Enforcement and two million sixty six thousand military in the us. The current population of the United States of America is 326,407,656 as of Thursday, June 22, 2017.
Think for a moment now. If only half of the population are able to resist...... the numbers tell a tale of a great ratio difference. 100 to 1 ? in favor of citizens.....

And how many Law enforcements will go up against their relatives ? That goes for the military too ?



posted on Jun, 29 2017 @ 12:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Ok good sarcasm.. my heart skipped a beat a little lol..



posted on Jun, 29 2017 @ 12:44 PM
link   
a reply to: Plotus

Your not only counting fighting age males/females..

That usually is about 20%, maybe 40% when adding in females, of the total population..(I think , that's from memory) ... and I think it's smart to count the women because hitler made the mistake of only projecting men fighting in Russia...

I'm sure your point still remains.. just saying.

edit on 29-6-2017 by JoshuaCox because: (no reason given)

edit on 29-6-2017 by JoshuaCox because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 29 2017 @ 12:50 PM
link   
a reply to: rickymouse

Reguardless of who is in office, you still need warm bodies to carry it out...

So who are those warm bodies??

And I disagree 20 years would do it at all... maybe...maybe... in 3 are 4 generations (60-80) years assuming the worst case scenerio happens repeatly..

So there is no one presently with the ability to "take all the guns" and it's pretty hard to imagaine a situation within the next 50 years where it happens..

So why has it been the primary republican talking point of 50 years already???

Why is that most people's primary voting concern, when IF there is a threat is super questionable and there is nothing resembling an immediate threat.. and never has been???



posted on Jun, 29 2017 @ 12:58 PM
link   
First of all I'll say you're right in that fearing a whole sale gun ban is unreasonable at best, however I don't think for a second there aren't politicians who wouldn't want to if they could. Moreover I think the watchful eye and fearing should look out for the tiny nibbles at the 2nd amendment, that's the only way I ever see the goal being reached. Ban a little at a time until the group able to own what's left to legally own is so small you can swoop in and get the rest at once. Something like that would take a long time and wouldn't be nearly as attention grabbing or noticable. They'll come with "good reasons" each nibble too.

Do I think this is something that could be pulled off...Not really. Do I think there are plenty of politicians and people who want this...For sure.

Those who are tasked to do it would probably be a mix of agencies as finding people to go along with each little infringement would be hard to find and you'd have to vet them or risk being exposed and turned on.
edit on 29-6-2017 by RickyD because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 29 2017 @ 01:16 PM
link   
a reply to: RickyD

The Posse Comitatus Act prohibits the use of the military for this purpose. They will have to legislate guns out of existance slowly. It will take either a lot of time or an overthrow of our current government.



posted on Jun, 29 2017 @ 01:22 PM
link   
a reply to: calwoodbutcher

Yes, that was basically my point. PC, however could be circumvented by national emergency though. Doing that wouldn't be very helpful as I would bet the majority of the military would turn on the government overnight. As US citizens we just need to hold strong against the nibbling they do. It won't be in our life time but our children's children's children's lives. I don't know about any of you but I would like to continue to hand down the right to bear arms forever, as I see it as a self evident right all of mankind should have.



posted on Jun, 29 2017 @ 01:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: rickymouse
Now, if you are a felon or are not mentally stable in a way that guns should not be owned, I believe you should not have guns. But the guns should be given to a close relative in the event of a nervous breakdown till the person gets back to normal. You cannot use a short nervous breakdown to judge someone all their life. The young usually straighten up as they get older, if not they wind up as criminals and shouldn't have guns.

Mental illness isn't a mater of popping a pill until you are healthy... It is a life long battle that never ends.



posted on Jun, 29 2017 @ 01:46 PM
link   
a reply to: JoshuaCox

It isn't always about the practical realities of the situation on the ground.

Look at Obamacare. Can you tell me that was in any way practical or passed based on practical reality?

Look at the chaos such a move would create though. You are right that there is no practical way to enforce it, but you would be creating an enormous criminal population with the stroke of a pen. You could enforce broad sanctions against those on that list putting them in situations where they would have to choose between their guns or their lives/livelihoods.

You would be plunging the country into open war in all likelihood, but look at all the Constitutional niceties that could be suspended in the meantime while it happened that would increase your means of control.

Oh, it would be a huge gamble and you had better be sure you had the power in place to win if you did it, but long term you would come out on top absolutely unchallenged.



posted on Jun, 29 2017 @ 01:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: rickymouse

Reguardless of who is in office, you still need warm bodies to carry it out...

So who are those warm bodies??

And I disagree 20 years would do it at all... maybe...maybe... in 3 are 4 generations (60-80) years assuming the worst case scenerio happens repeatly..

So there is no one presently with the ability to "take all the guns" and it's pretty hard to imagaine a situation within the next 50 years where it happens..

So why has it been the primary republican talking point of 50 years already???

Why is that most people's primary voting concern, when IF there is a threat is super questionable and there is nothing resembling an immediate threat.. and never has been???


Look how many have been convinced that we do not need guns in the last twenty years. Remember, you only need about fifty five percent of the population to believe that we do not need to own guns. In another twenty years they will have the support they need if they push social conditioning against guns.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join