Theory on Gun Confiscation

page: 1
2

log in

join

posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 08:31 AM
link   
I am just curious if anyone really believes that a "gun confiscation" type event is actually feasible? I have numerous friends/neighbors that are law enforcement officers, etc. I know where I, as well as my friends stand on this subject but I am looking for your thoughts.

How would this possibly be carried out, aside from a UN-type invasion? How many people really think our military/LEO officers would actually go door to door asking for citizens arms? We don't have the resources nor do I believe the amount of willing personnel to carry out such a task. I am an active duty service member, however I am also a citizen of the United States, protected by the Constituion which I swear to uphold every 4 years first and foremost, over "the orders of those appointed over me".

Are people really that paranoid that something like this is possible? Perhaps I am being naive, but I just don't see anything that drastic happening.
edit on 1/10/2013 by clayb2004 because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 08:36 AM
link   
It wont happen. They would have to go door to door and raid every home in the united states, because i know many people who wouldnt just say "oh, you want my guns? Heres every one of them. Have a nice day." Toatally not going to happen, IMO.



posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 08:39 AM
link   
We were just discussing this last night. Except the the UN troops scenario, nobody thinks it will ever happen.
One reason is that one fellow in the discussion, asked his son, who is in the military, what he would do if asked to confiscate the public's guns. I'm not going to type out his reply, but it certainly wasn't favorable for the person that would ask him to do this. He did say that this has been brought up a lot in his group, and not one person would obey that command.

I've asked a friend in law enforcement the same thing, and they don't believe it will ever happen either.



posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 08:39 AM
link   
Smartest thing the government could do is ask for guns willingly, and then take the rest back a handful of arrests at a time.

Perhaps someone's grandfather passes, a few more guns get handed in. An arrest here, a confiscation there. Let it happen slowly, and stop the sale of any more. Do that way, its a bit more frog in a pot rather than war in the streets.



posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 08:41 AM
link   
Given that nearly everyone seems to lose their guns overboard in a lake
all they need to do is dredge every lake in the USA and job done


But theres no way any foreign nation would give the UN some of their troops as it would be virtually suicidal and with it being an internal problem they'd prefer for the law/military in the USA to handle it internally



posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 08:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by clayb2004
I am just curious if anyone really believes that a "gun confiscation" type event is actually feasible? I have numerous friends/neighbors that are law enforcement officers, etc. I know where I, as well as my friends stand on this subject but I am looking for your thoughts.

How would this possibly be carried out, aside from a UN-type invasion? How many people really think our military/LEO officers would actually go door to door asking for citizens arms? We don't have the resources nor do I believe the amount of willing personnel to carry out such a task. I am an active duty service member, however I am also a citizen of the United States, protected by the Constituion which I swear to uphold every 4 years first and foremost, over "the orders of those appointed over me".

Are people really that paranoid that something like this is possible? Perhaps I am being naive, but I just don't see anything that drastic happening.
edit on 1/10/2013 by clayb2004 because: (no reason given)


See above posts for your answer. Incrementally.Slowly, a nibble at a time.
"How many people really think our military/LEO officers would actually go door to door asking for citizens arms?"
Google: Katrina,Kent State.



posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 09:01 AM
link   
reply to post by clayb2004
 


I do not have any concrete evidence to back this up, but my feeling is that there would be a systematic vilification of the various militia groups. The MSM calling them all terrorist groups in order to get the people behind the forceful confiscation of their weapons first.



posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 09:03 AM
link   
reply to post by ohioriver
 


Slowly and incrementally would have to be the only way, but we are talking 310 million firearms which would probably take a decade to dwindle down. People giving up property that they have worked hard to pay for willingly and in some cases keep as investments doesn't come to fruition at least in my mind. In my state, nothing is required to sell a firearm, no record, no proof. What is to stop someone from simply lying. What to do with those who refuse? Our prison system is already an overcrowded mess, are we to just execute on site? I cannot see any successful, peaceful way for this to occur. I'm sure there are many like myself if someone showed up to my door asking for my flat-screen TV or any other piece of my property, "Go kick rocks" will be the nicest reply they would receive.



posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 09:13 AM
link   
Gun confiscation at this point is relegated to the realms of science fiction. Not gonna happen. If the government really wanted to disarm the public, they could have done so with ease, many times over. Guns are useless without ammunition. I won't go into it here, but there are any number of ways to skin this cat.

IMHO, they are playing a game of division, and reverse psychology. Guns are a hot button in this country that causes a knee jerk reaction from the public. Threaten them, and gun sales go through the roof. Threaten to raise fuel prices, or a fuel shortage, and sales jump dramatically.

It seems to me, they are actually doing the opposite. Obama has been the best president for gun ownership to ever sit in the white house. That man has been a one man sales team for the whole industry. The question we should be asking is...Why?

Why has he been so good for gun and ammunition sales. Why is he (intentionally, imo) accomplishing the opposite of the supposed desired effect? I could be wrong, but from my perspective, Obama is the most pro gun president I've ever seen. But you'd be hard pressed to convince anyone of that from what appears to be his stance. Here again, I must ask why?

Somewhere there is a benefit to our "glorious leaders", or gun sales wouldn't have been so damned good the past several years. And it isn't all about the money on this one.
edit on 1/10/2013 by Klassified because: spell-ing



posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 09:18 AM
link   
reply to post by Klassified
 


Interesting.
So what DO you think he is going to do, if Biden is correct and he signs some type of EO?

I just read a thread about this by screwed.



posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 09:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by clayb2004
reply to post by ohioriver
 


Slowly and incrementally would have to be the only way, but we are talking 310 million firearms which would probably take a decade to dwindle down. People giving up property that they have worked hard to pay for willingly and in some cases keep as investments doesn't come to fruition at least in my mind. In my state, nothing is required to sell a firearm, no record, no proof. What is to stop someone from simply lying. What to do with those who refuse? Our prison system is already an overcrowded mess, are we to just execute on site? I cannot see any successful, peaceful way for this to occur. I'm sure there are many like myself if someone showed up to my door asking for my flat-screen TV or any other piece of my property, "Go kick rocks" will be the nicest reply they would receive.

Indeed, we will see the Ruger 10-22, classified as an 'ASSAULT WEAPON' under the proposed bill, totally disappear in one generation.
Let's say a year passes after the new ban goes into effect, then there is another school shooting using a pump shotgun, then they ban repeating arms.
At that point, we will be reduced to legally owning single shot weapons.
How much longer would it take to tell the sheep that they can hunt with a bow, guns aren't really needed.

ETA: At the final round they will start their statements out like this... 'We are not talking about banning hunting .......
edit on 10-1-2013 by butcherguy because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 09:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by chiefsmom
reply to post by Klassified
 


Interesting.
So what DO you think he is going to do, if Biden is correct and he signs some type of EO?

I just read a thread about this by screwed.


He can sign all the executive orders he wants. They mean very little, in all honesty. It's congress that we need to watch. They WILL pass some kind of crazy legislation. They have to at this point. And they will have to make some big token arrests before and after it goes into effect for show. But in the long run, it will also mean little. Most Americans that already have whatever is regulated or banned, will keep what they have.

As a whole, it's all smoke and mirrors. There IS an end game here, but I don't believe it's what most Americans think it is.



posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 09:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by clayb2004
I am just curious if anyone really believes that a "gun confiscation" type event is actually feasible?


I admit, I stopped reading at that line. "anyone really believes".


Its like a new meme is started everyday to try to find a crack in the 2nd amendment. I'll just refer you to my posts from the past week. I don't need to believe, I can observe history.



posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 09:36 AM
link   
reply to post by chiefsmom
 


An Executive Order that violates any part of the Constitution would be viewed by many as overstepping the Executive power granted to the President. Not that I would put it past this guy, judging by the amount that he has signed already.

I, as I am sure many others would just ignore it thus making us "criminals". I could see trying to inconvenience the firearms industry, but that probably wouldn't bode well as we are talking a $12 billion industry. Ammunition could be on the table, but many folks reload, and it isn't all that difficult a task.

I like the bow comment, as I am an avid bow hunter. Todays compound bows, are VERY deadly at ranges up to 50 yds (stretch that a little for those better shots than myself) sending a carbon arrow downrange at 3-340 FPS. How long before it is deemed that these are too dangerous for the regular citizen to own?





new topics
top topics
 
2

log in

join


Haters, Bigots, Partisan Trolls, Propaganda Hacks, Racists, and LOL-tards: Time To Move On.
read more: Community Announcement re: Decorum