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:
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)