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 is the most realistic scenerio where the US begins a massive gun ban and confiscation ?

page: 3
12
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 7 2017 @ 06:25 AM
link   
I don´t think that there is a reason for the government to disarm the people.

Simply because the wild west`s military is able to destroy whole other nations, to wipe out civilians en masse(accidents, collateral damage etc,for sure...), they have satellites, an air force, a navy, an army, special forces, secret services, drones, mercenary soldiers and whatever.

How will some "rednecks" with some firearms, let some of these arms be military ones, defend against that military power, if it comes to a civil war?

I had to think of an old video i once saw, showing a Taliban, standing on a car wreck and shooting at a Mil Mi-24 helicopter(more a flying fortress), with an AK 47.

Or it reminds to the Gaza strip, stones against tanks.

I don´t think that the wild west´s government will need to disarm the people, if push comes to shove, the rulers will have no problem to wipe out the rioting parts with their military power.

They showed it often enough in other countries!




posted on Nov, 7 2017 @ 06:41 AM
link   
a reply to: JoshuaCox


I literally can imagaine no scenerio where the government “comes for the guns..”

Take those PC blinders off, It happens whenever there's a 'declared' disaster. Downplayed by the Media and cover ups on social media. Post Katrina...



posted on Nov, 7 2017 @ 06:56 AM
link   
a reply to: JoshuaCox

There is no such scenario in which the American government would "come for the guns".


That was not even how it happened in Britain. What happens is, that over time, gradually, small changes are made to the law. Amnesties for armaments which fall outside the new guidelines are started, and people, convinced of the importance of following the law, and of the rightness of the law as it has been written (normally in response to the actions of a person who would be just as dangerous without guns, but happened to have some), go ahead and drop off their weapons at the police station.

In 1900, our government here trusted us with whatever we fancied to have, up to and including cannons, you know, the sort which fire cannon balls. The people were trusted by the government to possess and responsibly use their firearms. Pistols, rifles, blunderbusses, shotguns, whatever was in existence at the time, that someone had laid their hands on, was totally fair and fine to own. If you had the coin to purchase the thing, you were permitted to own and keep the thing. They made no law regarding the keeping of arms, or the maintenance of them, or any other aspect of the gunowners life at the time.

But, in 1903, things would begin to change. That year saw the passage of a law which would require pistols and all other handguns, to require a permit to possess and carry, as well as an age restriction on their ownership. This, as it turned out, was merely the first on a series of unfortunate feet of slide, upon a very slippery slope indeed.

In 1920, a law was passed requiring that those applying for permits (which started to apply to more and more weapons), must provide a good reason for ownership of the guns they had, and then they banned certain weapons from public ownership, because the government and the police could not think of a good reason for anyone to own them. These things were done officially as crime prevention measures, but actually the real cause of the drive for gun control in this country, was because the governments (that is, year on year, term on term) were getting more and more concerned about anarchists and communists rising up or gaining support through shows of strength. Actually England never had a serious gun crime problem, until well after ownership of firearms became rarer.

But at no time was there ever a massive, obnoxious, potentially violent rush of police officers into peoples homes, swat style, to take away their guns without the owners permission. Nothing so crass. There were amnesties, there were collections, and because of registration, yes, cops would show up at houses now and again, to collect certain items, but they would not boot down the door and shoot the dog on a no knock warrant to do so. It never happened that way. There may have been heated discussions between rural bobbies and villagers on their doorsteps, mostly with homeowners in the right, saying very true things, and bobbies agreeing with them but being duty bound to uphold the law as it had been written by parliament, but there was never a violent, or unreasonable policing or military operation to remove said weapons from those who held them.

However, it should be noted that since that time, since guns became all but completely illegal (such are the ludicrous hoops one must jump through, fees one must pay, and so on, to continue to own any kind of firearm in this country), the government has become far more draconian, when dealing with firearms and persons who have an interest in them.

I would urge people to check out this link:

www.ncc-1776.org...

Which goes to a website which was run by one P.A. Luty. Read up on the man, if you want an example of someone who HAS suffered as a result of the modern policing strategy surrounding guns, their possession, and their manufacture, and bear in mind, this man is a writer more than he is anything else. He is, unfortunately, dead now, through cancer. He had four years of his life stolen by HM Government though, as a result of his research.
edit on 7-11-2017 by TrueBrit because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 7 2017 @ 06:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheLotLizard
You forget that the military and the police are paid to listen to their uppers.

They can AND will implement a ban if they are told to. If you think they won’t thats pure ignorance. You think they would rather get thrown in jail for not following orders, then having to give up weapons themselves?

Laughable at most to think they won’t shoot you in the back when showing a gun.


No, what’s laughable is your comment.

The overwhelming majority of law enforcement is in favor of private gun ownership and has zero interest in going door to door in a mass confiscation effort. Sure, some of them will. Just like some out of any large group will do anything.

As for the military? Same story.

What the real threat is: private military contractors. And even then it’s a toss up.



posted on Nov, 7 2017 @ 06:58 AM
link   
a reply to: nonspecific




Make ammo more expensive, if you have a gun for protection you do'nt need much ammo


A car was used to mow down people in New York; lets ban people from owning more than 1 car. Let limit their gas to 5 gallons per week. Lets ban more than 1 knife at home. The other knives could be used by a terrorist. /sarcasm



posted on Nov, 7 2017 @ 07:00 AM
link   
When they have the military totally dependent on them, where they will follow orders no matter what.

before that, the fed would lose if they tried.



posted on Nov, 7 2017 @ 07:00 AM
link   
a reply to: TrueBrit

In case you missed the video above your post

www.nytimes.com...


NEW ORLEANS, Sept. 8 - Local police officers began confiscating weapons from civilians in preparation for a forced evacuation of the last holdouts still living here, as President Bush steeled the nation for the grisly scenes of recovering the dead that will unfold in coming days.



posted on Nov, 7 2017 @ 07:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheConstruKctionofLight
a reply to: nonspecific




Make ammo more expensive, if you have a gun for protection you do'nt need much ammo


A car was used to mow down people in New York; lets ban people from owning more than 1 car. Let limit their gas to 5 gallons per week. Lets ban more than 1 knife at home. The other knives could be used by a terrorist. /sarcasm



The sad thing is that a lot of members who usually talk a lot of sense are actually using the car thing as an actual justification in these ongoing arguments.

I thought they were joking but it seems that they are actually quite serious.

If anything it shows the strength of conviction that can cause millions of people to not see the wood for the trees.



posted on Nov, 7 2017 @ 07:14 AM
link   
a reply to: cynicalheathen
Fair enough.. that’s the only logical thing I can think of..


Once the army is using androids it’s a different animal, but until then there is no risk to gun rights..


So what percentage of the country has voted for the gop to “protect the second amendment “ that was never at risk in the first place??

And I mean with that being their primary issue not just something they care about.

What, say 30% of people who vote gop , have this as their primary voting issue and its been propaganda the whole time??



posted on Nov, 7 2017 @ 07:14 AM
link   
a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight

Its worth pointing out, that the situation in Louisiana was not one of peace and tranquility previous to the decision to disarm the population being made. Near anarchy was the way one reporter put it at the time, way before the guard came in to take peoples guns.

Its also worth pointing out, that after that incident, New Orleans was forced to back track, give back the weapons, without any proof of ownership, and laws were passed preventing any such action on the part of any organisation receiving federal funding, or whose members operate under the colours of any government agency, department or other affiliate in the future.

Also, the kind of dystopian scenario you are concerned about most, where people are shot for not immediately complying with a law enforcement agent or military operative demanding ones weapons, did not occur during the New Orleans incident. And as for a countrywide, federal drive? Its not going to happen. States would refuse it, go to war with other states over it. Texas without guns is about as likely as Yorkshire without tea. It just is not going to happen in your lifetime, my lifetime, or anyone elses on this website, or their kids for that matter.



posted on Nov, 7 2017 @ 07:17 AM
link   
a reply to: TheLotLizard

How many of the military and police are firearms owners themselves or have them in their family?



posted on Nov, 7 2017 @ 07:23 AM
link   
a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight

If cars are more effective killing machines, why do 99% of people who orcastrate these things get out of a car, then use a gun???

Lol

By that logic, shouldn’t there be about an even distribution or attacks with all the various McGyver type ways to kill a lot of people???

That’s just crazy logic.. no one is banning guns, however pretending like guns are not a far easier, more accessible way to kill people is boarderline dishonest..

I guess maybe they have never actually thought about it, but most of the pro gun arguments are grade school logical fallacies..

1) Guns don’t kill people, people do??

Then why is anything illegal??? Nukes don’t kill people, people do.. so nukes for everyone, I gues?!?!

Lol..

2) they would just use something else.. except when given the option almost to a man they all choose guns.. because guns are specificlly designed to be accessible, portable and easy to use..


I gotta run, and there are absolutely reasons to keep guns.. those just Saint them..






edit on 7-11-2017 by JoshuaCox because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 7 2017 @ 07:24 AM
link   
a reply to: DerBeobachter

That is assuming the entire military sides against the people. That won't happen, and it's why our military is entirely volunteer. Many of the gun owners in this country are themselves former military with that training to fall back on even if their weapons aren't the same grade.



posted on Nov, 7 2017 @ 07:27 AM
link   
There isn't one. It will not and can not ever happen .



posted on Nov, 7 2017 @ 07:34 AM
link   
As this is an exercise in imagination.



Imagine a scenario where the Alt-Right becomes more organized, where the Neo-Nazi groups continue to band together and become more organized.

Imagine they start taking over towns 'for their own protection', and setting up armed guard checkpoints to 'protect the people'. Particularly if, say, Trump gets indicted for money laundering and refuses to leave office. He calls for his militias of white nationalists to protect him.

Police and National Guard move in, largescale gunfights erupt.


Under this circumstance, I can imagine the government making a move to confiscate and restrict the sale of assault weapons at least.



But on the whole, no, citizens of America will only give up their guns when they want to give them up. Like the UK did after Dunblane, and we all went no, okay, we'd rather live in a country with no mass shootings thanks.

Until that happens in America, and they decide they want to live in a country with no more mass shootings, it will never happen.



posted on Nov, 7 2017 @ 07:34 AM
link   
a reply to: JinMI

Shame is long extinct! When I was growing up there was huge stigma and shame for being on food stamps or any kind of assistance. There were aisles in the grocery store that were all black and white and known as generic (food for poor people). It was so embarrassing if our parents bought anything from that aisle for school. Now people try to one up each other on who can get the most "free" benefits. Guns are so in the heart of most Americans I can't even start to imagine what kind of shame would be needed. You would have to almost kill off all the old people and start with kids.



posted on Nov, 7 2017 @ 07:37 AM
link   
a reply to: Painterz

Because when the Alt-Right boogeymen hold a national event and only about 500 show up from all over, you really have a lot to worry about there ...



posted on Nov, 7 2017 @ 07:41 AM
link   
Just because it hasn't happened yet doesn't mean it can't happen.



posted on Nov, 7 2017 @ 07:44 AM
link   
a reply to: JoshuaCox

Can't see one. Ever.



posted on Nov, 7 2017 @ 07:59 AM
link   
a reply to: scraedtosleep

Then why has that been the primary voting issue for half the country??

The gop are propaganda whores maybe???



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join