Honestly, would you hand in your firearms?

Would I turn in my weapons? Nope. Uh-Uh. Negative. Not a chance in Hell. No. Nyet. Nein. Did I say no? .

Will I hunker down in a bunker and dare them to come get 'em, no won't do that either. They'll just suddenly and mysteriously disapper. You didn't know guns could sprout legs and walk off? Welcome to Seagulls magical world of mystery...

Sorry, its bedtime...working nights. Bye.

I know a friend and I know for a fact that she'd kill multiple people before they'd take her guns away. She'd die fighting, I swear.

I'm very pro-gun although ironically I've never touched a real gun.

NO,i wouldnt. I can see something like this in densely populated areas like new york, though.If they tried a nationwide gun ban,you would have more violence. Violent crime has actually been on the decline,but it doesnt seem so because they get more media attention these days.

Ban guns,and you get a sudden explosion of arms dealers in the U.S.Everyone would be trying to sell weapons,and in turn you'd more violence.

HONESTLY if they trired to take my guns.. the SECOND i found out about this law i would take my assortment of Handguns Shotguns and rifles (well over 30 ... i live in the northwoods and hunt often... sometimes need to borow fireamrs to friends...) go to my Grandparents Store... take ALL the ammo i need... a tent and some camping food (an outdoor store or w/e u call it ) and get some friends together to go camping....... alng w/ a bow for hunting/silent killing....

P.S. if u never hear from me again... the feds prolly got me

Originally posted by greatlakes
Who me? I do live in the US.

As far as the violence of gun banning...Here we have some american citizens that VOTED to BAN firearms in a localized area, city od San Francisco, CA

No, I wouldn't give them up. In fact, I see the current laws we have in certain areas of the U.S. doing nothing except greating a 'target rich environment' for the criminals that already have illegal firearms. What if the Virginia Tech teachers were trained and allowed to carry firearms? History would be different and more people would be alive today.

And BTW, the (UK-style) San Francisco gun ban was recently overturned in court.

SF Gun Ban Struck Down

An initiative that San Francisco voters approved last November banning residents from owning handguns violated state law, a Superior Court judge ruled today.

Proposition H, which won a 58 percent majority, would have outlawed possession of handguns by all city residents except law enforcement officers and others who needed the guns for professional purposes. It also would have forbidden the manufacture, sale and distribution of all guns and ammunition in San Francisco.

[edit on 4/19/2007 by centurion1211]

the US has what over 100 million guns in cerculation?
in the UK a couple thousend when it was legal so it wasnt that hard to force gun owners to give up their toys.

i am curious how the US would disarm the most armed nation in the world?

Originally posted by bodrul
i am curious how the US would disarm the most armed nation in the world?

They cant. They would need a military in order to do so, and frankly, I dont know a single military man/woman who would be on that side if ordered to.

Originally posted by greatlakes

I can research the GUNBAN history of the UK, but can you tell us the history, a firsthand account of how the banning went into effect. What steps occurred, certain areas (like maybe London) initially then spread? thanks for any insight.

Heres a good start.

Wiki:Gun politics in the United Kingdom

It goes into the history of gun control here and the main events such as the Hungerford and Dunblane massacres that prompted specific bans.

CX.

I was very interested to read this part....

The rights of English subjects, and, after 1707, British subjects, to possess arms was recognised under English Common Law. Sir William Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England, were highly influential and were used as a reference and text book for English Common Law. In his Commentaries, Blackstone described the right to arms.[7]

The fifth and last auxiliary right of the subject, that I shall at present mention, is that of having arms for their defense, suitable to their condition and degree, and such as are allowed by law. Which is also declared by the same statute I W. & M. st.2. c.2. and is indeed a public allowance, under due restrictions, of the natural right of resistance and self-preservation, when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression.

Formerly, this same British common law applied to the UK and Australia, as well as until 1791 to the Colonies in North America that became the United States. The right to keep and bear arms had originated in England during the reign of Henry II with the 1181 Assize of Arms, and developed as part of Common Law. These rights no longer exist in the UK, since the UK's doctrine of Parliamentary supremacy allows the repeal of previous laws with no enshrined exceptions such as contained within a codified constitution.

Am i reading this right then, that the original "right to bear arms" law was a British thing that applied to Australia and eventually the US?

So we DID have a right to bear arms.......and we don't now.

Does the US goverment have anything in it's box of tricks like this doctrine of Parlimentary supremacy which would allow them to change the rules when they feel like it?

CX.

I don't think the U.S. Government will go for the ban when other options might work just as effectively. For example, they could make the sale and manufacture of ammunition illegal except for military and police use. If they wanted more fine grained control they might ban specific popular calibers (e.g. .223/5.56, 9mm, 45acp, etc) or make only revolver ammunition legal. This would make the cost of ammunition quite expensive and for some it would mean they would no longer care to own a firearm in the banned calibers. At the same time they institute this ban, they could also bring back the assault weapons ban (with possibly even more restrictions such as no grandfather clause) and make it illegal to own a weapon that holds more than 10 cartridges or that uses a removable magazine. These actions would have the tendency to slow down a would be mass killer like in the VA Tech case and others. At the same time, it would still enable a hunter or an ordinary citizen to use a firearm for hunting and home protection.

The pro-gun folks dislike these limitations because they perceive it as step by step approach to a total ban. And they are also concerned about the government itself. One of the reason we have the right to own firearms is to defend ourselves against tyranny.

As for myself, I don't own anything that would likely be outlawed by a renewal of the assault weapons ban. Whether I would give up what I own is doubtful. Probably just hide my small collection and wait for the political winds to change.

I would have responded sooner, but I was eating cakes , drinking my Starbucks and oh yeh cleaning my um, no I was cleaning my house. All jokes aside guys this is one very important topic. And I agree that we will not be shooting the Fed's that come to the door, but if we have an invasion or worse , if all SHTF then it would be best to have some form of protection for my family and to secure my property. I hope if something like this happens I will be able to keep them because we are farmers and live out in the country. It for us is almost like a paint brush for an artist. One more concern I have is that alot of people have guns that have been passed down for generations and they are sentimental as all get out . Grandfathers to sons, sons to grandsons and on down the family line. You know there are other forms of weapons though, like blow guns, bows. And if your guns were taken and there was an invasion, you would have to take out the first ones and take their guns. I hope that this does not come down, but as I shake my head it would come as no surprise. The main people to watch out for will be the welfare parasites (without their med's)from the inner cities and the gang types. They will be hungry and run in packs. This could happen if the bottom drops out of the dollar too.People would not be like they were back in the great depression.

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth
You obviously do not understand American mindset. Believe me when I tell you, if they ever do decide to confiscate our guns, there will be violence. Let it it happen and watch and see.

At least in the hardcore southern areas this would definitely be the case. There are a lot of types like the guy welled up in New Hampshire or wherever for not paying his taxes, playing the waiting game with the feds. In a lot of the country, there's still the mind set, "take it from my cold dead hands". Isn't something along those lines the motto of the NRA? I don't know what it's like in Britain but over here you would definitely have major backlash if you tried to outlaw guns, if not in cities then definitely in rural areas.

Hi bodrul! Don't worry they will never pass a law to disarm the US. There are far to many of the "only way you'll get my gun is from my cold dead hand" types here. It would be political suicide for a politician. I even heard Charlie Wrangle (boo, hiss!) say that yesterday. But the good news is that Americans love their guns and know how to use them when needed!

[edit on 19-4-2007 by plumranch]

This is a moot point. First off, the gov't would be pissing off arguably one of their largest sectors ( the weapons manufactuers ) costing them billions of dollars. The NRA would have a field day with such a proposal. Crime would skyrocket seeing as no one would be able to defend themselves from attackers with unregistered firearms. Gun smuggling would become a crime rivaling the drug trade. It is just not feasible in the US for people not to have the right to bear arms. It is one of the fundamental principals that this country was founded upon and wouldn't make it very far in legislature.
As for a direct answer to your question, no I wouldn't simply for the fact that I have a felony conviction on my record so any firearm that I concievably could have would be illegal and unregistered anyway. No need for anyone to come to my house.

to the authorities i would turn in the registered firearms,
but that would be like the Don Diego side of Zorro
or the Clark Kent side of Superman
a necessary cave-in, meek character, to confound the Federals.

in the shadow world, i'd already have black market arsenal & ammo,
then i'd organize a machine shop to fabricate a stripped down
basic/no frills, 'volkswagen' of handguns
for the populace to arm themselves with...
not to storm the citadels of power ...but to empower the
vigilante justice of the poor & huddled masses
who were left in a vacuum as the judiciary of the elites fled

well this may be my paranoid/cynical side, but in my opinion when you remove the 2nd amendment the rest of them are worthless. theres nothing left to protect ANY of our rights if the 2nd goes away so yeah,

cold dead fingers it is.

Here in Canada, we cant own a gun unless its registered, and even then, its still very difficult to get one because nobody sells them. You have to go underground.

Here in Canada, I think, its worse than anywhere else in the West. Yes even America, because at least you can still have guns and the evil of your government is so great, everyone can see it. Here in Canada, the evil is worse, and its more hidden.

I mean here in Montreal where I live, they have something called the Language Police running around, telling people they have to speak only French, and arresting immigrant depanneur (what we call a convenient store) owners who speak subpar french. Its ridiculous, they use any excuse to trash good decent people, and try to enforce wills on people.

All governments do is pit people against each other, and arm them, then manipulate them to fight each other. They use religion, politics, race, every kind of division technique to do this.

But its come to a point now where they want to bring "order" to the chaos they are causing, and one of the ways to do that is to confiscate guns, so we will be defenseless. Then the New World Order is gonna come at us with full force.

Order out of Chaos. This is the MO of how the Elite control the world. Divide and Rule the people to cause chaos, and then bring in their "order" from the chaos they create....the New World Order.

I don't own a real fire arm I use an air gun to avoid the headaches of all the red tape
but the air gun keeps my marksman skills up so I would have to say that if they were knocking on my neighbors doors I would find firearms beg borrow steal to help defend their rights.

I have to agree to all who have already said COLD DEAD HANDS


Just my two cents

GEO

I would buy more to protect myself against weird, sick psychos like this korean Krazy killer chung, or whoever

As someone who owns a firearm, be DARNED if I let any government stooge take it away from me. I follow the law, have never done anything wrong. It is my right to own that gun, 2nd amendment. Seconly I also point to the fact I do not trust the US government AT ALL! I am even called a militant by a few. Take our guns away, you have stripped our ability to fight tyranny should they push forth martial law or whatever total control they want. I do admit I hate to see guns in the hands of the like of neo-nazis and KKK, yet at the same time I would never allow the 2nd amendment to be revoked.