Could gun confiscation result in a civil war?

Those who fail to remember history are doomed to repeat it:
http://www.fff.org/freedom/0694e.asp
http://heartland.org/sites/all/modules/custom/heartland_migration/files/pdfs/13495.pdf

Early in the history of Rome, the Romans were under the domination of the Etruscans. Tarquin, the Estruscan king of Rome, issued an order - ostensibly for the public good, for safety and security - that the Romans be disarmed. But the Romans knew what this would actually mean so they rose in rebellion. Tarquin was driven from the city, and the early Roman Republic was established.

For several hundred years, Rome was defended by armed citizen-soldiers who left the farm from time to time to serve the republic. Once this system broke down, the Roman Republic gradually descended into a despotic autocracy.

Armed citizenry is essential to the long-term preservation of freedom and democracy. Once disarmed, populations either submit meekly to tyrants or fight in vain. Historically, death and destruction often follow disarmament.

Now you may look around and see several democracies with very strict gun control. But within the time span of history, these countries have either not been democracies long or have not long had gun control laws in place. It may be an inevitable matter of decades before these democracies descend into tyranny. Another thing to consider is that the United States is (at least until very recently) been the main military power in the world. As long as the United States remains free and has a military presence in the world, it would just not really be possible for any other Western democracy to fall to a dictatorship. The USA is free because of the right of its citizens to own guns. Take away that and eventually the USA will slip into tyranny and oligarchy in the course of its history, and then the rest of the world will follow.

Sweden is suppossedly one of the world's most advanced democracies, and yes there is strict gun control. But I there is also a tyrannical-like social-political force seeming to take hold. To Americans I can only best describe it as Mccarthyism, but in reverse, and worse in several ways. The government's power is not really as much in the laws themselves, but the application of the law. This has been controversially used to try to control social opinions and even to influence the outcome of elections. I shudder to think what would happen if the politicians knew there was no one outside who could intervene if something extreme happened in Sweden. Which brings up another point, one of the most stabilising things in both Europe and North America is the separation of power. There is no one single government that can make all the decissions or have all the power. If there was, that could be dangerous, as there would be much less preventing the government from transforming into something autocratic and oppressive.

The citizens should never hand over absolute power to their government.

 

Gun owners would gladly turn them in, just like Katrina.

 

Gun owners did not "gladly" turn them in.

Google Patricia Konie.

Why did the National Guard with "assault" (not my term, just what comes up ) rifles having to go forcibly from home to home to try to confiscate guns?

Doesn't sound too "gladly" to me? Does it to you?

And what was the aftermath of that mandate? Was the city found to be in violation of the people's 2nd amendment right?

 

Whether or not the government was in violation is irrelevant.

1. People gladly turned them in.
2. No stereotypically forum fantasy rebellion ensued.

Patricia Konie is hardly an example of an armed resistor. That is more of an example of how disgusting police officers are.

 

Lets look up the term "gladly" in the dictionary, shall we? I know I'm a northern Californian cretin so I may have the definition incorrectly.


http://www.thefreedictionary.com/gladly

Hmm, some of the synonyms don't quite seem to show what was really happening; appreciative, bright and cheerful...

I disagree with you sir. I think people where MOST definitely NOT "gladly" turning in their weapons. They were FORCED at gun point to turn them in. Even under the most liberal interpretation of the word, gladly does not describe that scenerio.

 

That was sarcasm.

That does not change the fact that:

1. People turned in their guns.
2. No stereotypically forum fantasy rebellion ensued.

 

Sadly, you are correct.

Because it was deemed "unconstitutional" afterwards is somewhat irrelevant and, really, is another topic all together.

The big bad government swoops in and takes your guns first and then they let the courts settle it out later. Great job constitution!

I wonder what would've happened had a gun fight in sued, with a citizen not dying, however arrested and then I wonder what the courts would've done with that.

 

In court cases after Katrina, the city was found to have violated peoples rights. But that took years to litigate, and even after the cases most firearms were not returned to the owners (some had been destroyed, many were simply stored in piles inside warehouses with no way to track ownership).

Your rights mean nothing if the govt (or law enforcement) doesn't respect them and restrain themselves, or you are not willing to enforce your rights. In LA after Katrina, people complained but that didnt stop the govt from taking their firearms.

When it gets right down to it, its up to you to stand up for your rights at the moment they are challenged.

 

Why is this being discussed?

Since neither Obama or Willard would do anything to gun owners rights, I dont understand the conversation at this point in time with so many actual problems to deal with?

 

NO, we won't let you vote so stop asking.

 

If something like that happened on a national scale, I wonder how many rebellions we'd see?

I'd say alot.

 

A gun grab would be the one thing that would guarantee violence and perhaps dead politicians. Unlike eminent domain abuse which never affects a lot of folk and when fought, is always fought by the poor schmuck on the ground, the bulldozer driver or laborer on the scene, a gun grab would (*)(*)(*)(*) off a massive number of folk and some of those folk would react against the politicians who ordered the scheme as well as the agents assigned to carry it out. Civil war, who knows. Dead cops, citizens and pandering politicians...most assuredly. It would be a very stupid idea.

 

The lesson of Katrina was to have a throw away gun to give the jack booted thugs when they show up

 

Interesting conceit...how many people and under what circumstances. The thugs hit folk isolated and generally helpless, they did not raid suburban gun owners able to get help when looted by the government. They preyed on the helpless, not the prepared.

 

Don't worry - Republican Bush isn't around to take your guns away anymore like he did in NOLA during Katrina.

 

That is the rule of law. There have been very few instances in the US that test this but Katrina was one of them and resultant laws were passed to stop what happened. 13 states have barred officials from seizing firearms in emergencies but then the gun control crowd was active too calling for an amendment banning weapons in emergency shelters.

 

If gun confiscation resulted in a civil war we know who would have all the guns.

 

yea--the military

 

That was just one little area around a city. Would it have been different if those residents knew guns were being similarly confiscated throughout their entire country?

If a gun ban is just in your city, at least you know that there are common citizens in other cities outside with guns. And if worse comes to worse, you could always decide to move if you suddenly felt owning a gun was very important.

But when a huge country (especially a country of so much military power like the United States) attempts to confiscate all guns, that should be very alarming.
I am not going to actually suggest anything, but if such a situation ever happened, perhaps you should ask yourself what Gandhi would have done...


http://webpub.allegheny.edu/employe...s/RCDWeb/presentations/gandhi.web/gandhi.html

 

Possibly a few.

More people results in a greater probability of any instance occurring.

Why confiscate guns? Just regulate them out of existence. There are 28,000 firearms laws in the US, no one has rebelled over those, why imagine a Red Dawn scenario for the next one?

 

There is no difference between someone confiscating your firearms when you need them most, whether it be that town or the next town over.

It is all irrelevant, simply moving the goal posts and parameters for rebellion to excuse the blatant inaction by citizens in the face of government tyranny.

 

Citation needed.

 

It is undoubted what Ghandi would do. He would starve himself in peaceful protest.

It is conceivable that Wolverine would do something similar.

I would likely try some sort of appeasement as well.

We can look at the historical record and see that appeasement has done very poorly for those that did the appeasing. That is something to think about.

Many diehard gun advocates aren't Ghandi. And this is not India.

I'd think we would live in a very different America if gun confiscation happened. I'd hope that we'd end up with less lawyers when we finished that transition.

 

Perhaps you did not click on that link.

When the British tried to tax salt, Gandhi did not just protest. He led a march of people to gather salt from the ocean, in spite of British law.
(Yes, the British actually passed a law demanding exhorbitant taxes from anyone who evaporated a bucket of ocean water to make salt)

The strategy currently being used by the gun-control freaks is not to try to ban guns, but rather to try to regulate and tax them out of existence.

 

That is true. They will not ban them and go door to door in some Red Dawn fantasy.

They will regulate them out of existence.