Could gun confiscation result in a civil war?

Gun confiscations haven't led to any mass rioting or civil unrest in the US in recent memory.

Low key gun restrictions and bans, like that of handguns in DC, Chicago and Washington DC haven't led to massive protests, since a vast majority of the population of these cities worship large government control. These big city liberals are like those who blindly swear allegience to a king---maybe they still do that in Sweeden.

Bans of certain evil-looking, high capacity rifles took place in California years ago, but didn't produce chaos. The goal of socialists and liberals is to slowly ban guns for individuals worldwide. Leftwing activists judges provide one avenue for this.

 

I suppose there is an issue about the definition of confiscation. There haven't been any gun confiscations other than Katrina to my understanding. Gun control (i.e. future sales) is a social issue that is subject to change based upon the whims of the irresponsible. Agree with Wolverine. A confiscation requires the act of answering the door, talking politely and then bending over. Wait for the door to be knocked down and then let loose if it gets knocked down. That is breaking and entering and deserves an armed response regardless of who it is. If the simple act of gun ownership has defined you as a criminal, and in the eyes of the law warrants the door to be broken down, it is time to start a new society.

 

Read "The Turner Diaries" for info on what some would like to happen if the govt decides to ban guns.

It involves people like me getting hung from lamp posts so i dont much care for the book.

 

[video=youtube;m9LWioXYaic]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m9LWioXYaic&feature=player_embedded#![/video]

 

[video=youtube;7P4BenmGo6Y]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7P4BenmGo6Y[/video]

Those that believe confiscating guns in America would not result in a civil war are dangerously naive of history, and concerningly out of touch with the reality.

(okay, yes, most of the people on the internet warning us about gun confiscation are crackpots, but that still does not mean there is not some truth to what they are saying)

 

You don't need a right-wing nut to tell you about the effects of gun confiscation. The USA will become Somalia (i.e. the closest analogue to chaos in modern society). Look at the crime rates in East St. Louis, Camden, Chester, New Orleans, Detroit, Chicago, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Washington, DC, Newark, Gary, Memphis, etc. The only consistency is the high proportion of blacks in each city. Try to take away guns from law-abiding citizens and you see a civil war BECAUSE you see what is happening in Mexico today. Mexico has stringent gun laws but SOMEHOW (i.e. Obama corruption) the murder rate in Juarez is far greater than El Paso, USA. How is that possible with STRINGENT GUN LAWS?

 

I will not comply.

Molon labe.

 

Pointing at failed gun control policies in individual cities is ridiculous when discussing a national implementation.

Let's imagine that Nevada decides to legalize and tax the sale of cocaine:
- drug dealers from all surrounding states would flood to Nevada to buy stock, which they would take back to their home states.
- Nevada could herald their success by pointing out the tax dollars they have raised (much of which came from out-of-state buyers).
- Nevada could also decry "cocaine control" policies of surrounding states as a failure by pointing out how much cocaine there is in those states (ignoring the fact that they've made this possible by supplying it).

Gun control is no different. You can't implement gun control (and expect it to succeed) in a small area that has no border/checkpoint/customs between the controlled and non-controlled areas.

Comparing the US to third-world countries with gun control is just as ridiculous as comaring the US to third-world countries with gun proliferation (ie: most middle eastern countries).

If you want to forecast what would happen to the US without guns, take a look at another first-world democracy... Australia, maybe.

 

Or Switzerland, perhaps?

Regardless, if your goal is a gun free America, you'll have to repeal the 2nd Amendment first. 2/3's of the House, 2/3's of the Senate, and 3/4's of the States. Good luck!

 

Unless the Supreme Court says that the second ammendment only applies to the federal government, not the states. But that's not too likely, being as the Supreme Court invoked other constitutional ammendments as the justification to overturn state abortion laws in Roe vs. Wade. It's hard to see how the Ninth Ammendment protects a woman's right to abort her baby, but not the right to own a gun.

 

Thing is there is no push to confiscate anyones guns, so the question is not relevent to our current situation. Not to mention who would be taking them away, I know of no agencies that would be willing to even try.

 

It would not necessarily even have to be outright confiscation. As a hypothetical example, if the government demanded to know how many guns people owned, and required registration of all guns matched to the owner, that could lead to problems. Especially if gun owners who did not comply were prosecuted in large numbers. If we remember in Nazi Germany, all the jews were required to wear identifying marks on them at all times in public, and put identifying marks in front of their businesses. Then when the Nazis eventually went to round them all up, it was an easy matter to pick out the jews. They knew exactly which houses to go to. Jews were also required to register all their property with the government. The government knew exactly who all the Jews were. Do not let history repeat itself.

 

You actually believe Americans would comply with it if it became law, ROTFLMAO! Yes, we would comply, just like we comply with many other laws we don't agree with. History will not repeat itself, so you can get out from under the bed now.

 

They'd be overriding themselves to do so, which they have the authority to do and have done in the bast, but I think it's highly unlikely. They've already specifically said the 2nd applies to the states, and it's not some 80 or 100 year old decision, it was in 2010.

 

The nature of gun control is very different from other laws we may or may not agree with. I would go so far as to say that the right to have guns is more important than even the right to free speech on political matters. If the government passes a law I do not like, at least I know that it can always be changed later if the majority of the people change their minds. But with gun control, that may not necessarily be the case. If guns are taken away, what exactly would be standing in the way of a government seizing power, and denying people the right to vote (in reasonably fair elections) ? I think we have to be very cautious with how any gun control is implemented.

 

Your logic fails. If drugs are illegal in the U.S., how do people get them?

Now replace drugs with guns and you'll have the same answer for both!

 

I disagree with this. If you completely take away the ability for a citizen to buy a gun legally, all it takes is 1 corrupt cop or member of the armed forces to sell a civilian a gun with a high capacity magazine, and then you have a crazed maniac running through a crowed city taking out 50 or so before the cops even arrive, and nobody to stop them any sooner

 

Wow... Think about that.
Let's say a small percentage of people among the police and armed forces are corrupt. Let's say that a small percentage of those corrupt people could sell a gun without it leading back to them. Let's say that a small percentage of the people buying from the corrupt government guy later become maniacs and go on a shooting spree... How many armed maniacs would that be in comparison to EVERYONE being able to buy guns?!
As for an armed maniac being taken out by some random vigilante hero - I'll admit it happens on very rare occasions, but the wannabe hero is just as likely to end up another victim or end up shooting at the wrong target...

 

Wow, you're thicker than I thought. I may need to draw a picture with crayons in order to explain this more clearly...

If certain guns are made illegal in LA, criminals could easily get those guns from San Diego and sell them in LA because there is nothing to stop them making that drive from one city to the next.
San Diego will then insist that LA's gun control is a fail.

If certain guns were made illegal throughout the US, criminals would have to get them across international borders in order to get their hands on them. Whereas this isn't impossible, it's a lot more difficult than just driving from one city to the next, so it would slow the supply of those controlled guns to a trickle - which would result in fewer incidents relating to those guns.

Do you get it now?

 

You really need to change your name. I've haven't seen you post one logical argument yet.

You just proved my point for me, again. Do you know how easy it is to get drugs into the U.S? Apparently not. Sure, border enforcement catches some, but not nearly close to all. Imagine the black market that will be created if guns are made illegal? This will create a HUGE incentive for drug smugglers to add guns to their list of products. Especially Mexican cartels, who already have many, many guns. Look at Cocaine. It can't be easily manufactured in the U.S. yet there is a big market for it it. The only way to eliminate gun violence is to eliminate guns from the world. Maybe you should start working on that, we can go back to fighting each other with sticks and stones.

 

I have a question and i might be understanding wronge (could be) but i have a question. If guns are outlawed nation wide (Lets say Mexico) The biggest they can own is a .22 cal. BUT.. with all the firefights and bombing happening out that way with larger caliber rifles and pistols and hand gernades. Does this mean that it was a fail or success?

Mind you I live in a Border city and know this is happening not assuming.

 

The premise of your argument falls apart when we connsider there is no correlation between certain types of guns and gun crime. Perhaps with the exception of automatic guns, which in are already (essentially) banned nation-wide in the USA. And still there are professional criminals in the USA and Mexico that manage to obtain illegal automatic weapons.

 

So taking 90% of the guns off our streets would have no effect on accidental shootings and murder rates? Seriously, do you think about what you're typing?
BTW, you apparently don't have any grasp of logic, so I'm not surprised you don't recognize it.

You want some facts in a format that even you will be able to understand? Here you go:

 

Since <1% of guns are responsible for 100% of gun crimes, why would you suggest removing 90% from their lawful owners? Owning a weapon is an inviolable right.

 

Just a note...you added an imaginary number to his argument...90%. The reality is that a draconian gun grab would result in an actual drop closer to zero as folk hide their guns or buy them on the black market to assure they have some defense.