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: 5
12
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 7 2017 @ 09:36 AM
link   
a reply to: dothedew

That wouldn’t even do it because you still need a labor force to actually enforce it..

So you would need a bunch of anti gun politicuans to take office, and we have no politicuans presently willing to do it. So that’s a whole new class of politicians who need to be elected..

But even then the military nor LE would do it.. so you need I guess a forien army to do it..

But that requires the military and police to ALLOW them to take over.. which would never happen either.

So.....




posted on Nov, 7 2017 @ 09:37 AM
link   
a reply to: snowspirit

If it’s a people problem, then why do the people almost always choose guns???


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



posted on Nov, 7 2017 @ 09:45 AM
link   
a reply to: JoshuaCox

Wouldn't it take a constitutional convention? Unless anarchists or oligarchs take over. And the military goes rogue. I don't know how democrats would have the guts for that. Being tards and gutless according to people around here.



posted on Nov, 7 2017 @ 09:47 AM
link   
a reply to: JoshuaCox

Because they're so easy. There's a gazillion of them. And they're openly promoted by the NRA. And the money from the NRA and the manufacturers going into politics, the military industrial complex......



posted on Nov, 7 2017 @ 09:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: bellagirl
I have come to the conclusion they never will give up their guns.

If nobody was willing to give up a gun after the Sandy Hook killing of all those kids, they never will.

I would have loved to visit the US for a holiday, but that wont be happening. Its just not safe there.


America is nowhere NEAR as unsafe as folks make it out to be... and far safer than the areas with high density Senior Citizen populations in Australia... that became hell holes for retirees because the property crime went up after you guys turned in all your guns... under threat of violence from your government.



posted on Nov, 7 2017 @ 10:06 AM
link   
a reply to: MOMof3

I’m pointing out the ridiculousness of the propaganda , since even they won’t be able to provide a realistic scenerio.



posted on Nov, 7 2017 @ 10:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: Irishhaf

Except they would never get even half the military or local police on board ...ever..


It is possible, just not right now.

Let the economy falter more, or inflation start to climb with wages shrinking or stagnant at best, if a soldier has to decide between feeding the family or doing the right thing... well how long could you go without feeding your kids before you broke.

Is it likely no, its not.. possible yes down the road.



posted on Nov, 7 2017 @ 10:12 AM
link   
a reply to: JoshuaCox

I am obviously Not in the US being A Brit BUT.

Here is my take on it, there is no way they could pass this motion and could only implement it under martial law, any attempt to take the gun's from the people would face stiff ARMED resistance from the many patriotic american militia's and not all of them are hick's as they say in the states because many of those militia men are actually war veterans and otherwise just proud american's who truly believe in the right to bare arms and the duty to use those arms at such time's to hold there own government to account and to overturn any tyranny which that action would indeed be seen as.

So only martial law would see it passed and any such passing of Martial law in the US would be seen as Tyranny by both civilian's and also many members of those very same armed forces, the result would be a new civil war - not to divide the nation but to retake it from the then seen as illegitimate government and it's forces, the blood shed would be horrific and many government forces would change sides to join the militia's with likely entire supposedly secure US military site's becoming militia site's, the Militia would then have there own armed forces as well as the militia men, there own air force, there own navy and there own army all fighting on there side against there former comrades.

That is why the tyrannical element's were researching mind control because they always knew that this would be the outcome if they got there way and took away citizen's right's.

The only workaround is a limited ban, a return to the ban on automatic AR type weapon's etc but an outright ban would be seen immediately as an attack both upon the citizen's and upon the constitution by unconstitutional and therefore tyrannical and illegitimate government.

Personally I think it is crazy for any nation to have so many gun's but I understand it, they did not want another King George though let's be fair the did eventually end up with the Bush and the Clinton's.



posted on Nov, 7 2017 @ 10:30 AM
link   
a reply to: JoshuaCox

Because the people choosing the guns have a problem. Joshua, it does not matter how you ask the question, the fact is that the answer will remain the same. The reason people choose guns to murder people with, is the same reason they choose to murder in the first place, because they are either sick, evil, or both. They would be just as sick if they elected to make bombs (which many people have done anyway, like the Unabomber, for example), or smash peoples heads in one by one, with bricks, bats, or kidney shank as many people as they could in a week long period.

It IS a people problem, not an item problem.

Hell, I could kill several people with a damned desert spoon, but the spoon would be no more dangerous for all that, it does not make the item the problem. In fact, one might argue, probably rightly too, that someone choosing to use something like a spoon as a weapon of death, has a bigger problem about them than someone who prefers a gun for that purpose... Lets face it... it takes a long time to kill someone with a spoon. A long, painful time. A long, gruesome, disgusting, brutal time, with lots of screaming, thrashing around, bleeding. I mean, no one is going to just sit there while you dig out their eyeballs and try to gouge out pieces of their retina. The wounds, even if the victim survives, will be horrific, the scarring everlasting, both internally and externally. I know I would rather get slotted with a rifle than have some lunatic pin me down and gouge out my eyes, before ramming the handle of the spoon into my frontal lobe.



posted on Nov, 7 2017 @ 10:30 AM
link   
a reply to: Irishhaf

Please..

That could happen in an individual case for sure, but individual cases don’t cut it..

You need millions of soldiers to all decide to gather .. that inherently puts saying no on the table because at that point it’s collective bargaining, basiclly.

Could you get a few hard up soldiers to do about anything?? Sure!


Could you get 750,000 so you can ban all he guns??

Not this century..

Hell they might need more manpower than the present military had today..


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



posted on Nov, 7 2017 @ 10:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
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??


I could just as easily point out propaganda and boogeymen used by "the left" to sucker in voters, but that's for another thread.

Both sides play on people's emotions

Both sides depend on people not looking farther than face value on an issue

Both sides want to amass power and take away more property and rights

Both sides are just separate claws of the same bird of prey

Quit thinking in terms of "left and right", start thinking in terms of freedom and control.
edit on 11-7-2017 by cynicalheathen because: Spelling



posted on Nov, 7 2017 @ 10:42 AM
link   
a reply to: JoshuaCox

You say no Democrat has called for gun confiscation. You say no Police or Military force will enforce such a command

Someone doesn't know their recent history. Here is a very brief overview of the EXACT scenario you say can not/will not happen here.

After Hurricane Katrina Mayor Ray Negin and Governer Kathleen Blanco ordered that EVERYONE in New Orleans surrender their guns. The New Orleans Police department and the Louisiana National Guard then went door to door seizing everyone's guns.
So to say that no government official is going to give the order and that no Police or Military would enforce that order is completely and utterly ridiculous. It has already happened.
edit on 7-11-2017 by TheSemiSkeptic because: Removing stupid emoji that showed up



posted on Nov, 7 2017 @ 10:52 AM
link   
a reply to: TheSemiSkeptic

That is an issue of marshal law, not an issue of an attempt to repeal the second amendment..

And no them asking for people to turn in their guns in a marshal law situation , does not equal an attempt to repeal the second amendment..

Neither one of those politicians said that should be expanded to the entire country..

That’s just another tired..

“I know they didn’t say that, but I’m psychic so I know what they really mean..”

I’m also gonna research that and I bet that isn’t even really exactly whit happened.. could be wrong, let’s see..

I actually lokkinto things instead of taking Sean hannity’s word for it lol..



posted on Nov, 7 2017 @ 10:55 AM
link   
a reply to: TheSemiSkeptic

What do you know...

Yet another conservative lie that took about 4 seconds to debunk..


www.google.com...

“The U.S. District Court of the Eastern District in Louisiana yesterday sided with gun rights groups and issued a restraining order to stop authorities from confiscating guns from law-abiding citizens in New Orleans in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.“

If you guys put a tenth of the energy you put into getting mad about the propaganda they spread into actually researching it.. y’all would be dangerous..



posted on Nov, 7 2017 @ 10:55 AM
link   
a reply to: JoshuaCox

The national guard were deployed to remove people from their homes, and weapons from the people. That is a fact.

It happened after total anarchy had already taken over, during a period of civil unrest, where many people were just shooting anything that moved and that they did not recognise, over fears of looting.



posted on Nov, 7 2017 @ 11:08 AM
link   
a reply to: LABTECH767

Your ignoring the existing military and law enforcement.. which honestly are the real stop..

Americans are individuals, we all make our on decisions overall.

A) I bet not even 15% of Americans would agree with either a ban nor confiscation.. and I bet that number falls below 5% concerning those 2 groups.

B) any labor force these fictional gun grabbers could come up against must face the military and law enforcement.. and good luck taking on the most powerful military on the planet..

Until they unveil terminators... it is a total non issue..

So why has it been the primary republican taking point for 50 years...



posted on Nov, 7 2017 @ 11:10 AM
link   
a reply to: TrueBrit

I’ll go back and keep reading, but the first legit site I encountered led with the court shooting it down.

Reguardless, one town in the middle of a massive disaster does not equal something that could take place nationally..

Logistically there are probably not enough US Troops to do it IN THE FICTIONAL WORLS WHERE YOU BRAINWASHED THEM ALL.



posted on Nov, 7 2017 @ 11:14 AM
link   
a reply to: JoshuaCox

well what do you know
yet another Liberal Progressive trying to say it never happened and points out a court order that was applied AFTER New Orleans citizens were denied their Second Amendment rights and had their property seized by Government Officials.


www.washingtontimes.com...


If you were to read just a few more sentences into the article you cited you will find the following ;

"The federal court’s ruling came just one day after the NRA and the Second Amendment Foundation jointly filed a motion to halt the seizures of firearms from private citizens who are not breaking the law.
The groups described the action by the New Orleans Police Department as “arbitrary,” “without warrant or probable cause,” and thus unconstitutional.
Mr. LaPierre said the NRA has evidence that as many as 100 guns were seized from New Orleans residents by armed police, who went door-to-door in different neighborhoods. An exact count is not available, he said, as New Orleans typically confiscated the guns without providing any paperwork."

so property HAD been stolen and the Police and the National Guard did the stealing at the behest of the Government and it had to be stopped by the courts.

so to say it did not happen because the Courts said no is Liberal Progressive lie that took about four seconds to debunk.
Care to try again??



edit on 7-11-2017 by TheSemiSkeptic because: typo

edit on 7-11-2017 by TheSemiSkeptic because: typo



posted on Nov, 7 2017 @ 11:16 AM
link   
a reply to: TrueBrit

Actually the confiscation started in the unflooded and quiet neighborhoods first.



posted on Nov, 7 2017 @ 11:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: LABTECH767

Your ignoring the existing military and law enforcement.. which honestly are the real stop..
.


That is what I am trying to show you by cited the history of the Hurricane Katrina aftermath. You can NOT count on the Police or the Military to NOT enforce the order to take peoples weapons.



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join