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: 8
12
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 8 2017 @ 11:44 AM
link   
What is the most realistic scenerio where the US begins a massive gun ban and confiscation ?

And attack on Trump.

Like the attack on Reagan that lead to the post '86 'machine gun' ban.




posted on Nov, 8 2017 @ 06:34 PM
link   
Hard to take any thread seriously when obvious lies are made like .."No elected Democrat has ever said they wanted to it sic "confiscate all guns" .....lmfao a serious case of denial here ....



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??



posted on Nov, 8 2017 @ 07:37 PM
link   
The op has asked what would be the most realistic scenario, where the end result would be a massive gun ban and confiscation of said firearms.

It is a valid question and one that deserves careful thought.

And here is one way that is not only realistic but also feasible.
The number would be 39 states. That is all it would take, to do. And here is how one does such.
This would be a 2 phase process, where it would not only survive the court battles, but make them irrelevant and any challenge would lose.
Step one would be to get the process going to create and bring an amendment to the forefront of the public, and get it passed, though the first of 2 amendments would have to be to repeal the 2nd amendment. As long as that amendment still stands on the books with no removal, then no matter the laws, they would not stand.

The second amendment required would have to be the amendment to ban them from the public holding them. And it would have to be very specific as to the types and kinds, along with the gauge of ammo that would be banned as well. This way it would still allow for hunting and those who are professional shooters and compete in such.

Now for this to happen, one would require 39 states to agree, with the majority of the populations in those states to agree to and ratify said amendments.

There are only 2 other ways that I can see, and in this order by possibility:

1) Due to a national emergency, the Federal government either needing firearms or ammo, enact laws to where people have to turn them in. This could be due to a war that was started and going badly and the US is in danger of being attacked/invaded, and many resources are in short supply.
The other option would be
2) The Executive branch, manages under the auspices of the legislative branch to turn around and become more of a fascist government and pass laws fast, along with removing any and all justices who would challenge them from power. Thus enabling for them to do such. But that is more of a long shot.



posted on Nov, 8 2017 @ 08:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: madenusa

That’s ridiculous...

The though that legal firearms will be able to even remotely stand up the the US military is so silly it’s boarderline dishonest.

That ship sailed back in... idk the 1920’s..

It’s the most laughable part of this whole debate..


Your acting like either the citizenry or the military are mindless automatons...
military veterans extremely skilled at sabotage, assassination, and ambush.
After a number of carefully-planned, highly-publicized, and successful raids by the government, one or more would invariably end "badly.”
Whether innocents were gunned down, a city block is burned to ash,
When illusion of the government’s invincibility and infallibility is broken, the hunters would become the hunted.

I can promise you that I would not obey any order that required me to register, insure, or turn in my guns.
I would join my neighbors and community in any uprising to defy this treason , as instructed by our own Declaration of Independence.

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,
that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
That to secure these rights,Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends
it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government,
lay-in its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
”The oath I took as a Soldier to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic..... just go ahead and try to confiscate the guns of tens of millions of law-abiding, freedom-loving citizens. I just hope they've seriously considered the consequences.



posted on Nov, 8 2017 @ 08:09 PM
link   



posted on Nov, 8 2017 @ 08:10 PM
link   
You Liberals might think this is alot of swagger and bravado, and that no way would citizens be able to rise up and violently over-throw atyrannical government that’s because you don’t understand or know men that grew up hunting inherited the rifles and handguns that were handed down from their grandfathers to their fathers and who are teaching their own sons how to hunt and shoot men who spent apart of their life in uniform, learning military tactics while promising to defend the Constitution from enemies both
foreign
and domestic.

.



posted on Nov, 8 2017 @ 08:18 PM
link   
When it becomes "real". After that? It is just "politics". You know? "Democratic" like? The most lead wins! God damn! I love being an American!



posted on Nov, 8 2017 @ 08:23 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..


What!?!?! Well that's a total lie.



posted on Nov, 8 2017 @ 08:31 PM
link   
a reply to: Elostone

I don't hold much faith in people that take "an oath". A lot of politicians take "the oath", and then try to change "the oath" they took! . Cops and military, will "follow orders". There's know doubt in my mind of that... Trust me, I have intimate knowledge of this. Very few,. I mean, very few!... Have ever read, "The Oath". If they did?
Most of them wouldn't have done it...



posted on Nov, 8 2017 @ 08:35 PM
link   
a reply to: jacquesdarippa

If I was you? I'd move to Japan. Sounds like a safe place for you. If you already live ther? I wouldn't move. America ain't for everybody.



posted on Nov, 8 2017 @ 08:58 PM
link   
a reply to: JoshuaCox "So what is the most realistic scenerio where a nation wide ban and confiscation is passed in the 3 branches, and then implemented???"

A rifle behind every blade of grass. And blending into every tree.
Most realistic scenario I can see....



posted on Nov, 8 2017 @ 09:00 PM
link   
a reply to: TheLotLizard


You forget that there are less than a million cops and about a million active duty military in the U.S.

How many per door buster team? 15? 30? How many homes or locations can each team reasonably search each day?

Let's assume 15-person teams, working 7 days a week, completely clearing one location each per day and round a bit, giving us 130,000 teams working for 1365 days to clear 180,000,000 homes over a 3.797 MILLION square mile area.

I'm pretty sure you are going to see that coming from several years away.



posted on Nov, 8 2017 @ 09:09 PM
link   
Of course, under that scenario, we'd have to recruit, train and deploy a replacement military and civilian police force, which -- given the excellent track record of our government -- would take a decade or more (under the best possible circumstances).

In other words, this is a wank-fest for dudes allergic to reality and large numbers.



posted on Nov, 8 2017 @ 09:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: murphy22
a reply to: jacquesdarippa

If I was you? I'd move to Japan. Sounds like a safe place for you. If you already live ther? I wouldn't move. America ain't for everybody.


Why would I move. I feel perfectly safe walking around without a gun and don't live in fear of any boogeyman. I do not live my life in fear that I would feel the need to be always be armed.


edit on 8-11-2017 by jacquesdarippa because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 8 2017 @ 09:35 PM
link   
What exactly wrong with those common sense laws in Japan regarding guns? Seems to get the job done and how many mass shootings have they had?



posted on Nov, 8 2017 @ 10:29 PM
link   
Doesn’t matter what they do, as long as we have the horrible mental health care and stigmatize it there will be crazy mass murderers out there. Make guns illegal and then there will be ammonium nitrate bombs. Make that illegal and there will be people running over people with cars. To murder starts with an idea. That idea is exponentially more dangerous than a gun.a reply to: JoshuaCox




posted on Nov, 9 2017 @ 08:51 AM
link   
a reply to: JinMI

Define "military grade."



posted on Nov, 9 2017 @ 08:55 AM
link   
a reply to: madenusa
Your making the moral, principled a constitutionally legal argumebt.. and that is trumped every single time by the logistic and/or firepower argument..


If enough of the personel rebels to even remotely have a chance of beating the US military. Then you don’t have enough people to enforce a ban and confiscation anyway..



posted on Nov, 9 2017 @ 10:17 AM
link   
a reply to: Stepdadmark

Again...

Then why do they almost ALWAYS choose to use a gun..

Why do pro gun people single guns out from a very ambiguous “right to bear arms?”

If there are 1,000 other equal options.. then why doesn’t everyone use them??


By that logic we should have a roughly even distribution of tools used to commit mass murders, but we don’t..

Why because guns are specificlly designed to be accessible, portable, easy to use and very, very effective..

NO ONE IS BANNING GUNS, but just for bs. If there were no guns, then terrorists are required to come up with some brilliant McGyver esc plan that usually only works once.

Guns are basically too versatile to adequately protect against.


Guns aren’t going anywhere and any attempt to remove them would be a disaster, however the normal talking points are just laughable..

We don’t apply that same logic to anything else..

“It’s not C4 that kills people, it’s people.. “

“It’s not heavy machinery, it’s people”

Nukes don’t nuke people, people nuke people..”

I find them just super silly.

edit on 9-11-2017 by JoshuaCox because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 9 2017 @ 11:18 AM
link   
a reply to: jacquesdarippa

Sorry. These don't seem like common sense laws to me. These seem like undue and overcomplicated burdens to artificially and subtly dissuade people from buying a shotgun or air rifle. "Sure, you can buy what barely passes for a weapon, but your life is now an open book and hand in your privacy at the door. K Thx Bye!"

It makes it very clear that in Japan it is a restricted privilege to own a weapon. They have outlawed most guns and firearm ownership. Not unlike some other countries.

But in America it is a right, not a privilege. A country founded in revolution. You can't treat a right like a privilege because they are intrinsically different.

Also, you have other differences. Huge population size differences. Disparity of culture vs other country identities. Individual vs group identity. Huge political divide. Continent with poor border control vs island or country with tight border control. Etc.

What works for some counties is NOT going to work for others and people are not going to give up their rights to let the government figure it out, since that always results in rights surrended for good.

Contributing to the thread:

With 3D printers becoming cheaper and weapon patterns the internet I wonder how much longer it will be before gun bans mean less in the future.

Based on that, it is even going to be possible to really ban guns in the future. With the right time and tools people will figure out a way or craft something deadlier.

Without a constitutional convention I don't see any way of firearms really being successfully made illegal. Even then, i think that will end up making things worse here, successful or not.
edit on 9-11-2017 by Thanatos0042 because: Add

edit on 9-11-2017 by Thanatos0042 because: Add and spelling



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join