If the Federal Govt required you to turn in your firearms... (1 Viewer)

[Good Posting Judge]

Am I the only dude on this board who doesn't own a gun(s)?

 

[FUBAR]

This would simply never happen.

First, you have to get rid of the 2nd amendment. Not going to happen... but let's play the game and say that the anti-gun crowd manages to pull this off.

Then what? Mass civil disobediance. Millions would simply ignore it.

So....? You enforce it? How so? Raiding houses? I have yet to meet a cop who did not fully back the 2nd amendment. They are going to willingly go seize guns from otherwise law abidding citizens? Yea... sure. But let's continue with the game here.... you convince the majority of cops to go out and seize these weapons.

How do you think this will end? How many people would willingly open their doors and say "Ooops, here you go." and how many would say "Over my dead body!".

No, those who believe in the 2nd amendment would fight to the death to keep it and who is going to force them to give that right up? A bunch of people who don't own guns because guns are bad? Not so much.

Well that and the fact that many people own guns for the explicit purpose of preventing government from knocking on their door and doing just this hypothetical.

Yeah your 308 versus a hellfire missile from a drone you can't even see. Let me know how that works out for you.

Many of the soldiers would also revolt, taking their missiles with them. We'd have Civil War II

lmfao I can't believe people genuinely think this. Literally insane.

Right, our countrymen would never fight each other over individual rights. No soldiers would ever leave the US to fight for what they believe.Although it is much more likely that the SCOTUS rules the law unconstitutional before it got to this point.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

Study... Gun Owners Tend to Be Angry, Unstable, Impulsive

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bsl.2172/full

The study was conducted by researchers from universities including Duke and Harvard. The findings were published in the journal,

Behavioral Sciences and the Law and showed more importance and focus should be placed on individuals with a “history of violent behavior” and “less on diagnosed mental illness” when trying to reduce gun violence. The study also found that guns are “disproportionately owned” by those who are more likely to have trouble with anger management and impulse control.

http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-angry-impulsive-gun-access-20150408-story.html?lang=en&utm_campaign=SendToFriend&uid=0&utm_content=article&utm_source=email∂=sendtofriend&utm_medium=article&position=0&china_variant=False

 

[The Commish]

Am I the only dude on this board who doesn't own a gun(s)?

No

 

[[icon]]

Study... Gun Owners Tend to Be Angry, Unstable, Impulsive

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bsl.2172/full

The study was conducted by researchers from universities including Duke and Harvard. The findings were published in the journal,

Behavioral Sciences and the Law and showed more importance and focus should be placed on individuals with a “history of violent behavior” and “less on diagnosed mental illness” when trying to reduce gun violence. The study also found that guns are “disproportionately owned” by those who are more likely to have trouble with anger management and impulse control.

http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-angry-impulsive-gun-access-20150408-story.html?lang=en&utm_campaign=SendToFriend&uid=0&utm_content=article&utm_source=email∂=sendtofriend&utm_medium=article&position=0&china_variant=False

Good lord that article/study is slanted...

• "Unstable" was not used in the article or the article abstract.

• ~8% of these people have guns at home? That's about 75% BELOW the national average of homes with guns in them.

• ~1% of these people carry guns outside the home? That too is about 75% BELOW the rate of Americans with carry permits.

SOOOO.... "Angry/Impulsive" people are 75% LESS likely to have a firearm at home or carry one out of the home?

Two questions:

1) Now... let's get some data on the overall percentage of the population who self report as angry/impulsive... is it a higher or lower rate than gun-owners?

2) Of these angry/impulsive folks, how many were involved in a firearms-related incident? Is there any correlation or is this the implication of this article pure conjecture?

I'll hang up and listen

 

[Chadstroma]

I am not sure why there would be an expectation of the military remaining intact in the event that some 'gun ban' law happened. The scenario seems to me to play out somewhat to the following: A gun ban is put into place. Major civil strife results. Police organizations have various degrees of refusal to follow the law to enforcing it with various degrees of internal conflict regarding that. If it got bad enough for martial law to be declared and the military brought in, then internal conflict would emerge in the military as well to various degrees. My guess is that most military men/women and thus units, bases, etc would fall in line with 'defending the Consitution from enemy's both foreign and domestic' and be against the gun ban and oppose those units who would be supportive of it.

The military does tend to be filled with individuals who lean conservative from the top to bottom. I don't see the military marching to a cause of banning weapons and ignoring the Constitution. If the government attempted a gun ban, it really is the one thing that I think would send our military against our government and overthrow it in a coup.

 

[Christo]

This would simply never happen.

First, you have to get rid of the 2nd amendment. Not going to happen... but let's play the game and say that the anti-gun crowd manages to pull this off.

Then what? Mass civil disobediance. Millions would simply ignore it.

So....? You enforce it? How so? Raiding houses? I have yet to meet a cop who did not fully back the 2nd amendment. They are going to willingly go seize guns from otherwise law abidding citizens? Yea... sure. But let's continue with the game here.... you convince the majority of cops to go out and seize these weapons.

How do you think this will end? How many people would willingly open their doors and say "Ooops, here you go." and how many would say "Over my dead body!".

No, those who believe in the 2nd amendment would fight to the death to keep it and who is going to force them to give that right up? A bunch of people who don't own guns because guns are bad? Not so much.

Well that and the fact that many people own guns for the explicit purpose of preventing government from knocking on their door and doing just this hypothetical.

Yeah your 308 versus a hellfire missile from a drone you can't even see. Let me know how that works out for you.

Many of the soldiers would also revolt, taking their missiles with them.We'd have Civil War II

How does one take a drone with them? How about an Abrams tank? Or an F16? To be honest not sure how many deserters you'd get and how many people would stay for the "action". But the deserters will be just as under armed as you are.

It wouldn't be that difficult in a mass revolt. And yes, I'd predict such an event if the government changed that much overnight.

You do know those are in secure areas right? There are guys standing there with guns and that is all they get to do. Shoot people who don't belong there. Heck if you are out on the flightline without the proper ID I could beat you down with a wrench and get a medal. People have some odd ideas about how easy it is to get a hold of a complex weapons system.

And given the stand off capabilities, the low heat sig and low radar profile of drones you have to get real lucky with a shoulder launch missile. So even the stuff you might sneak out with would look real impressive but perhaps be less than useful when needed.

Maybe I am overestimating our soldiers, but what makes you so sure that the people guarding weapons and systems are going to pull the trigger on their own countrymen?

I, and I am sure many others, have family members who are serving and they came from families that possess a healthy skepticism of government, belief in individual liberty, etc. Pretty sure the one in my family isn't turning a gun on me.

But hell...I could be wrong.

History. Soldiers and cops have been used since the beginning of time to put down their own countrymen.

 

[Chadstroma]

This would simply never happen.

First, you have to get rid of the 2nd amendment. Not going to happen... but let's play the game and say that the anti-gun crowd manages to pull this off.

Then what? Mass civil disobediance. Millions would simply ignore it.

So....? You enforce it? How so? Raiding houses? I have yet to meet a cop who did not fully back the 2nd amendment. They are going to willingly go seize guns from otherwise law abidding citizens? Yea... sure. But let's continue with the game here.... you convince the majority of cops to go out and seize these weapons.

How do you think this will end? How many people would willingly open their doors and say "Ooops, here you go." and how many would say "Over my dead body!".

No, those who believe in the 2nd amendment would fight to the death to keep it and who is going to force them to give that right up? A bunch of people who don't own guns because guns are bad? Not so much.

Well that and the fact that many people own guns for the explicit purpose of preventing government from knocking on their door and doing just this hypothetical.

Yeah your 308 versus a hellfire missile from a drone you can't even see. Let me know how that works out for you.

Many of the soldiers would also revolt, taking their missiles with them.We'd have Civil War II

How does one take a drone with them? How about an Abrams tank? Or an F16? To be honest not sure how many deserters you'd get and how many people would stay for the "action". But the deserters will be just as under armed as you are.

It wouldn't be that difficult in a mass revolt. And yes, I'd predict such an event if the government changed that much overnight.

You do know those are in secure areas right? There are guys standing there with guns and that is all they get to do. Shoot people who don't belong there. Heck if you are out on the flightline without the proper ID I could beat you down with a wrench and get a medal. People have some odd ideas about how easy it is to get a hold of a complex weapons system.

And given the stand off capabilities, the low heat sig and low radar profile of drones you have to get real lucky with a shoulder launch missile. So even the stuff you might sneak out with would look real impressive but perhaps be less than useful when needed.

Maybe I am overestimating our soldiers, but what makes you so sure that the people guarding weapons and systems are going to pull the trigger on their own countrymen?

I, and I am sure many others, have family members who are serving and they came from families that possess a healthy skepticism of government, belief in individual liberty, etc. Pretty sure the one in my family isn't turning a gun on me.

But hell...I could be wrong.

History. Soldiers and cops have been used since the beginning of time to put down their own countrymen.

Sure, if they are seen as the enemy. The question is- how does a military and police who tend to lean conservative and favor individual gun rights be turned against themselves in favor of the government program to ban guns? I think overall for most of them, the enemy countrymen end up being those supportive of the overthrow of the Constitution. Then, yes, the military and police would unleash against those domestic enemy's.

 

[Jayrod]

I am not sure why there would be an expectation of the military remaining intact in the event that some 'gun ban' law happened. The scenario seems to me to play out somewhat to the following: A gun ban is put into place. Major civil strife results. Police organizations have various degrees of refusal to follow the law to enforcing it with various degrees of internal conflict regarding that. If it got bad enough for martial law to be declared and the military brought in, then internal conflict would emerge in the military as well to various degrees. My guess is that most military men/women and thus units, bases, etc would fall in line with 'defending the Consitution from enemy's both foreign and domestic' and be against the gun ban and oppose those units who would be supportive of it.

The military does tend to be filled with individuals who lean conservative from the top to bottom. I don't see the military marching to a cause of banning weapons and ignoring the Constitution. If the government attempted a gun ban, it really is the one thing that I think would send our military against our government and overthrow it in a coup.

I just don't see the military, filled with gun enthusiasts, enforcing a gun ban on their own countrymen.