It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 9
<< 6  7  8   >>

log in


posted on Nov, 9 2017 @ 05:21 PM
Only happen when the Mark of the Beast or buying and selling mark is enforced at some point.Or possibly WW3 and everything becomes totaly corrupt.

posted on Nov, 10 2017 @ 07:49 PM

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
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..

the US military how do you separate the military what part of US military are you referring to? the US military is sworn to protect the citizens its there Friends and family saying noooo to treason we have Marines in our family they are dogs of war, they view such a law as treason.
There are roughly 124 million households in the US, and about 60 million of them contain firearms.
Oh, and nobody knows which 60 million with any accuracy.
So you are looking at busting down the doors of 124 million homes....
what part of the US military do you not understand?men who have spent more hours hunting and shooting guns than most people spend watching television. have family members here in the USA to protect.
Tens of millions of law-abiding, freedom-loving citizens.

posted on Nov, 11 2017 @ 03:29 AM
The US is not going to come after our guns. The most logical measure, however is to ban weapons that can be used to kill many people in a short amount of time. Yeah, ala AK47.

This is not a violation of our rights. Our forefathers, when they wrote the Constitution/Bill of Rights, had no clue of the kinds of technology that would make it so easy for some nutcase to take out a theater.

This is not a self defence issue, as any conventional handgun will serve that purpose. Go for the 20% that causes 80% of the problems, if you want to make a difference.

Oh, and happy Veterans Day!
edit on 11-11-2017 by charlyv because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 15 2017 @ 03:34 PM
a reply to: charlyv

I disagree. The Founding Fathers were quite aware of more advanced weaponry during their time of writing and signing of the Constitution and BoR.

Their other writings and thoughts on various papers support their view that the people were supposed to be able to bear arms against enemy soldiers (foreign or domestic). You certainly can't mount an effective defense against soldiers armed with rifles when you have handguns.

Also there are documented quotes from some of our leaders who want exactly that - people disarmed.

Anyway. Handguns are good for personal self-defense, but riles are necessary for state or national defense.

If we want to reduce gun deaths we need to approach the problem from a different angle.
edit on 15-11-2017 by Thanatos0042 because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 15 2017 @ 04:16 PM
a reply to: Thanatos0042

Your correct, but your leaving out the part where that would apply to all weaponry..

RPG’s, Nukes, Apache helicopters..

I even like your analogy..

Youll be really hard pressed to beat a group with assault rifles if your group only has handguns..

It will be impossible to beat the US military with assault rifles..

When the founding fathers said “arms” they didn’t mean guns.. they meant all weaponry..

That just didn’t have any clue what that would mean what it does in the modern world..
edit on 15-11-2017 by JoshuaCox because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 15 2017 @ 04:21 PM
a reply to: madenusa

Every reason you can list just adds to the case that it isn’t going to happen, wasn’t going to happen and never was gonna happen..

Yet it has been the primary vehicle for the Republican Party to activate their propagandized base..

The right wing types will just believe anything , even when just 5 min of attempting to imagaine the logistics required should have debunked it..

posted on Nov, 15 2017 @ 04:43 PM
a reply to: JoshuaCox

Thank you (re the analogy)

Now I agree. They did mean all weaponry. But that was before WMD's (nukes, chemical and biological). Those should definitely be restricted to government armies and the like. The same probably goes for artillery.

Personally I believe they should repeal the laws making it so difficult to own fully automatic assault rifles. But thats another discussion.

But fully automatic weapons are not really a big advantage over semi-automatic weapons. Full auto fire is called spray and pray for a reason. 3 round bursts are used more commonly. Still it just takes one good shot. At least rifle to rifle it's the same battlefield.

Guerrilla campaigns have been successfully used for years against the US when we couldn't nuke or bomb the hell out of a place. Semi-automatic rifles alone wouldn't win a war, but if you took out enough soft or unexpecting targets you'd build on those arms. They would likely allow for a chance off the bat you wouldn't get with handguns.

Now if it were a weapons free-for-all...might be a whole different US these days. Good or bad? Hard to say for sure.

posted on Nov, 15 2017 @ 05:01 PM
a reply to: badw0lf

Nope. Not gonna care what your opinion is. Cause it means exactly nothing as regards my rights to own firearms. I own, because I can. Now what are you going to do? Other than snide little remarks of no value what so ever, I mean...


Now then, as regards the OP. There is no situation that will result in large scale confiscation. They may talk about it, but they know better. "They" being the govt. Every LEO that I know would have nothing to do with this sort of thing. They'd walk away, first. Because they want to be sure of going home to their families after their shift is over.

I wouldn't shoot at 'em, but they wouldn't find my guns, either. Because I can hide 'em better than they can find 'em, I have no need to shoot. That's a quick road to suicide, in any case...

posted on Nov, 15 2017 @ 06:12 PM
So let me get this straight... Gun owners should be okay with allowing ever further infringements of their rights because the end-game of confiscation is logistically difficult/impossible?

NFA of 1934
FFA of 1938
GCA of 1968
FOPA of 1986
Gun Free School Zones in 1990
Brady Handgun Act 1993
Federal "Assault Weapons" Ban 1994-2004

And yet anti-gunners have the gall to say "We only want reasonable control, what will it hurt?"

No new gun laws. Enforce the ones we have.

posted on Nov, 15 2017 @ 08:31 PM
a reply to: Thanatos0042

Why would those be restricted???

Obviously, because they make it “too” easy for a small group of people to a cause just a ridiculous amount more of damage ..


Well that is the exact same justification for banning assault rifles... and bazookas and everything else that is restricted..

(Except drugs...but that’s off topic and about a money grab and Nixon demonizing the hippis)

Make no mistake, guns should not be banned nor is there any threat of it happening.. nor has there ever been..

HOWEVER, that areguments logic is just super flawed..

If the second amendment is sacrosanct, and the founding fathers meant all weapons..

Then logically it should apply to all weapons.. except that would be an unmitigated disaster..

If you doubt that I have too words for you..


Ask any other culture in history where the armies were loyal to an individual, rather than the people, how that works out..

I also disagree completely about there being ANY chance of small arms taking out the government..

A) if a big enough percentage of the military rebelled to actually take on the loyalists, then there is no issue.. because the politicians pushing whatever unpopular policy doesn’t win the election..

B) we let the military get WAY to powerful for a successful rebellion by WW2..

That ship has sailed, had a brilliant career, retired and been scuttled to create some reef somewhere..

There is no realistic scenerio , except MAYBE in the aftermath of Yellowstone erupting, exc...

posted on Nov, 15 2017 @ 08:34 PM
a reply to: cynicalheathen

A) it’s impossible..

B) get upset all you want, but don’t propagandize the issue by instantly swapping the discussion to a complete ban and confiscation..

Maybe actually debate what is being preposed..

That is a slippery slope argument that would get you laughed out of a high school debate..

If schools still put as much stock in logic and rhetoric as the Greeks, this stuff wouldn’t fly..

posted on Nov, 15 2017 @ 08:37 PM
a reply to: seagull

Then how has “they are coming to get your guns” been the primary voting issue for I’m guessing 1/3rd of the GOP base???

Because the demogoge politicians have been propagandizing the American people to create a fake villian for their base to rally against....

Which I personally find disgusting...people have the right to make informed decisions. Not to be scare tacticed into voting against themselves..

posted on Nov, 15 2017 @ 09:52 PM

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: cynicalheathen

A) it’s impossible..

Agreed, on that point at least.

B) get upset all you want, but don’t propagandize the issue by instantly swapping the discussion to a complete ban and confiscation..

First, if a person doesn't get upset with rights being infringed on or taken from them, then they don't deserve those rights.

You only have the rights you are willing to fight and die for, period.

Quote where I have "propagandized the issue by instantly swapping the discussion to a complete ban and confiscation."

I tend to argue against any new gun legislation on the basis that it further infringes the 2nd Amendment, will only cause additional costs and hurdles for legal gun owners to exercise their rights, and the law will be ignored by criminals.

Maybe actually debate what is being preposed..

This thread was about gun confiscation. I already presented my argument.

That is a slippery slope argument that would get you laughed out of a high school debate..

What is? The fact that the 2nd has continually been infringed via the laws I listed, and more attempts continually occur?

If schools still put as much stock in logic and rhetoric as the Greeks, this stuff wouldn’t fly..

Schools are merely training grounds for good little obedient workers.

To address the "demigogue politicians propagandizing everything and people having a right to make informed decisions" issue:

People currently do have a right to make informed decisions. Many just choose not to because it takes time and effort. You get out of life what you put into it. Nothing is going to be handed to you. People truly do get the government they deserve, and that's why we now have Trump.

Why bother learning about rights and the government when one can just watch the Kardashians and play XBox?

P.S.: ALL politicians, both left and right propagandize issues, not just guns.

posted on Nov, 15 2017 @ 10:36 PM
a reply to: JoshuaCox

Because there are politicians out there who are moronic enough to believe that that is the answer to all issues regarding violence. Confiscate the guns. They've said it, more than once. Won't take much of a search to find them.

It won't work because noisy individuals like many in this thread, including myself, won't allow it to. We pay money to special interest groups like the NRA and other second amendment support groups. We yell at our Congress critters about the issue.

It ain't because they don't want to, it's because they know they won't win. That's why it's a political third rail, right beside Social Security, in the US.

To make informed decisions is easy. If you haven't figured out how, then you've issues far more important than guns. I make informed decisions every time I punch a ballot. Would you like to know how? I listen. More importantly, I think about what I've heard, weigh the pros and cons as I see them, and then vote. If that's not how other people do it, then they're doin' it wrong, and deserve every thing they're going to get.
edit on 11/15/2017 by seagull because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 15 2017 @ 11:30 PM
a reply to: cynicalheathen

A) Didn’t mean “you” as in you personally Lol.. Meant it figure of speech style..

B) see A) . was speaking in general referring to the conservative talking heads..

C) I didn’t mean US constitutional knowledge..

I meant logical fallacies.. things that sound good, and mean nothing..

Slippery slope arguments, false equivalence, an argument for ignorance .. the 5 or 6 Latin words that I can’t remeber well enough to recite .... but I know their meanings..

I was not referring to whoever’s interpretation of “what the founding fathers really meant..”

I was referring to deductive reasoning , where you understand that those logical fallacies do not count..

They are fake arguments..

D) you do not get out of life what you put into it?!?!

Trump was born to a millionaire who gave him a multi million dollar company + millions.. how exactly did he “put that into life??”


Not saying there is a fix for that, but the good guy doesn’t always win, and there is almost never a moral to the story in real life..

That is what we tell ourselves to keep from burning it all down.

E) I guess a ban on assault rifles that includes a grandfather clause that still leaves the millions of them presently in circulation, perfectly legal..

I guess that’s in fringememt... if you sqint real hard and are drunk..

Because that is the only thing ANY elected official has ever proposed..

and you know what??? I don’t think I have seen that actual real life policy debated even once..

posted on Nov, 16 2017 @ 08:48 AM
a reply to: JoshuaCox

No, not because it makes it too easy to kill groups of people, but because those can kill everyone and turn the world into something out of Mad Max and that doesn't seem to be what intention or spirit of the amendment laid out.

When it comes to things lile RPGs and mines and bombs you are dealing with weapons and equipment oitside the scope of the milita and that generally require a level of training not available to those outside of a militarized army. So still what seems to be outside the intention amd spirit as it was laid out. That being said, I could see some argument for some of it to not be restricted/prohibited.

Private armies basically exist today. They are disguised as corporations like Academi. With multiples they might be able to take on a country. But i do get what you arw saying about it.

The government and military are way too powerful today. But not every service member will obey orders and blindly turn on,American citizens if they were ordered.

Between regular gun owners, retired military, "patriot" groups, survivalists, etc. I don't think it's a foregone conclusion that we'd have no chance if our government went entirely Darth Vader.

Wuthout removing the amendment a gun confiscation won't directly happen, but that won't stop some from trying through other methods or alternative ways. Especially since the Supreme Court said a right is not absolute.

And i don't doubt that the goal of some of our leaders is finding a way to eliminate some of our rights and weakening others to uselessness. I've seen it happen in just my lifetime.

At some point a line will be crossed. Hopefully it won't be too late by then. Though with this last generation, I have my concerns.

posted on Nov, 16 2017 @ 03:57 PM
a reply to: Thanatos0042

Rpg’s , C4 , Apache helicopters cannot exterminate the human race..,

Only even the highest grade nuclear/bio weapons could..

Hell even nukes only cause global damage in a Russia vs US scenerio..

Also, I doubt seriously it takes much more time to be proficient with an RPG than a gun...

That stuff is made to be user friendly..

-again if a whatever is unpopular enough to make half the military desert, then how does it get enough elected official behind it for ratification ????

See you can’t have both..

If such a huge amount hate it, they would rebel.. then how does it get instituted I. The first place???

posted on Nov, 16 2017 @ 04:05 PM

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

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


I think the most realistic scenario would be when there are only 2 Americans remaining, the rest have all been killed by fellow Americans, and they both have half the stock of all guns each, one kills the other, 1 man left alive in America, he still keeps his guns, just waiting......polishing his guns.....waiting...shooting at the stars...then he dies of old age.....Then America is rediscovered and the new tennants decide guns are bad.

top topics

<< 6  7  8   >>

log in