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: 7
12
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 7 2017 @ 09:01 PM
link   
a reply to: scraedtosleep




Do you have anyone in your family that is a cop or in the military?


Are you saying the law enforcement officers doing the rounds would not be happier with a lot less guns potentially pointed at them .




posted on Nov, 7 2017 @ 09:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Willtell

It's too late.

Everyone could turn in their guns now and the only people that would have them is criminals and the government.

Sorry, I was being redundant.



posted on Nov, 7 2017 @ 09:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
I literally can imagaine no scenerio where the government “comes for the guns..”

No elected democrat has ever said they wanted to do it..

No law enforcement body nor the military would be willing to enforce it...

So what is the most realistic scenerio where a nation wide ban and confiscation is passed in the 3 branches, and then implemented???

How would it be implemented??

Who would do it??

How would the neutralize the citizenry, law enforcement and military so they could do it??


Thoughts??


It wasn't on the docket for any country that did do it.

My guess is it would happen very different here in the US though...

Start with a voluntary buyback, move to mandatory then move to forced because there would be holdouts. First try at taking them would be widely publicized and skewed toward government fighting radicals and extremists to pit the anti versus pro even more. This would lead to similar tactics as in Nazi Germany where anti was encouraged to tell on those that they think have guns and are holding out.

Divide and conquer really. It is the way anything is forcefully done. If you think a law being passed is going to make people give up guns when they've done nothing wrong then passing a law stating they have to immediately puts them on the wrong side of the law, therefore making them criminal.

This is the scenario, but the scenario would never happen. There are way more private gun owners than military and if anyone got wind of a massive grab, constitutionally they could defend themselves and I guarantee plenty would.

It would be a huge fail for the government.

If you read and truly think about what I'm saying, you'll realize the reason people want them, and why it was in the constitution....

Cold dead hands here...no other way.



posted on Nov, 7 2017 @ 09:41 PM
link   
a reply to: JinMI

How very progressive of you.



posted on Nov, 7 2017 @ 09:46 PM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

You may be right. This society may be too far gone in crime and illegality to have this be affective.

That’s why this problem like many problems can be tackled using an integral approach where it is attacked from many angles not just guns.

Morality, social consciousness, education, criminal justice and gun laws.



posted on Nov, 7 2017 @ 09:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: comawhite12
a reply to: JinMI

How very progressive of you.


How very contextual of you!



posted on Nov, 7 2017 @ 10:30 PM
link   
a reply to: JoshuaCox
Guns are being confiscated from flood victims after geo engineered storms force them into government planned fema camps. That's one way the guns are being taken!



posted on Nov, 7 2017 @ 11:28 PM
link   
a reply to: cutecumberquet

BWAHAHAHA.. I still gotta finish looking that up, but your geo engineered comment just bruised your credibility, lol..

Then you went fema camps and I seriously giggled out loud.



posted on Nov, 8 2017 @ 04:04 AM
link   
a reply to: TrueBrit




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.


Way to deflect when you categorically stated they they never confiscate guns.



posted on Nov, 8 2017 @ 06:01 AM
link   
a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight
Of disarming one town in the middle of a massive disaster...


That is not doing it to 350 million people..

The logistics alone are mind boggling...

I bet NOTHING has been confiscated o that scale in history.



posted on Nov, 8 2017 @ 06:26 AM
link   
a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight

A typical failure to adopt a nuanced or wise position on your part, but I must commend you on your consistency, I suppose.

There is a massive difference between disarming a city which is falling apart and already overrun by anarchy, and disarming a nation of people who are getting on with their lives peacefully, and just want their government to leave them alone.



posted on Nov, 8 2017 @ 06:33 AM
link   
a reply to: JoshuaCox

the government might not be able to enforce a ban , but they could do a firearms amnesty to turn in illegal firearms
allowing legal gun owners to keep their guns, but those held illegally or those used in crimes to be turned in and destroyed

removing the illegal fire arms from the market , would help the police force in general

much like how the Irish done an arms amnesty once the peace treaty was signed



posted on Nov, 8 2017 @ 06:41 AM
link   
a reply to: sapien82

Are you turning yours in??

No one else would either..



posted on Nov, 8 2017 @ 06:58 AM
link   
a reply to: JoshuaCox

Me neither but since the dems sold out and no longer are dems, all one has to do is look at other older cultures and societies where the UN has gone in and disarmed the population except of course from the criminals.



posted on Nov, 8 2017 @ 07:15 AM
link   
a reply to: TheSemiSkeptic

That actually seems pretty reasonable. Flushing out the people from the already dangerous areas first, into quiet zones which had not been disarmed yet, would have caused a great deal more weapon theft in those areas, would it not?



posted on Nov, 8 2017 @ 08:35 AM
link   
a reply to: JoshuaCox

well thats why I referenced the arms amnesty in Ireland because if there are no legal repercussions to turning in illegal fire arms then some people actually would do it.

I dont own illegal fire arms so I would have no need to turn them in



posted on Nov, 8 2017 @ 08:54 AM
link   
>>>> It just won't happen. Every mass shooting generates a cry for gun control but that just makes gun sales go up and the determination to keep and bear guns by the citizens to grow stronger. I think some of these mass shootings were done specifically to generate the support of gun control and they had just the opposite effect. I joke that the deep staters must be scratching their red baboons asses in confusion over that but its true.



posted on Nov, 8 2017 @ 09:10 AM
link   
a reply to: Dutchowl

Yea, that makes sense...

Because there is a long list of failed false flags by the US government...


Oh wait?!?!

All the false flags that are admitted to were successful....



posted on Nov, 8 2017 @ 09:11 AM
link   
a reply to: sapien82

Some... as in what??

Max 10% of the population??

That wouldn’t make a dent.. especially since they are still selling them by the tens of thousands..



posted on Nov, 8 2017 @ 10:50 AM
link   
a reply to: JoshuaCox

its the idea that people can hand over illegal fire arms without being held accountable for them

there was a recent amnesty in the UK and ireland , we have significantly lower population but you get the idea

news.bbc.co.uk...

I think that its a step in the right direction at least .
edit on 8-11-2017 by sapien82 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join