SERIOUS Compromise between Pro gun and gun control!

And what about when the people disagree with your proposal? In January Virginia threatened to ban ARs and AKs, 27,000 citizens marched on Richmond armed with ARs and AKs in protest.

You are a public servant, if you pass legislation stating that citizens cannot own ARs an AKs and they show up at your doorstep armed and in protest what would you do in that situation? Also remember many of those armed citizens in the crowd protesting in Richmond were Law Enforcement.

Remember, when you are talking about confiscating ARs and AKs from people you are talking about confronting people who have ARs and AKs and have to actually confiscate them. How exactly would you go about doing that? They are just as heavily armed as those you would task with the confiscation and many of those you would task with confiscation would refuse to comply as demonstrated in Virginia recently.

 

And how would you do that? As I stated before look at a very recent real world example of the outcome of what you are proposing. Virginia tried this, they were met with 27,000 armed protesters on the steps of the Capital Building in Richmond. Many of whom were local law enforcement officers among the crowd. Sheriffs throughout the State openly stated their refusal to enforce the AWB even if it were passed. The National Guard also refused to allow themselves to be used to enforce that. And as demonstrated pretty clearly, the people of Virginia openly refused to comply.

So how would you have handled the Virginia situation? How would you disperse 27,000 armed citizens in protest when your cops are standing beside them and your State National Guard is standing there with their arms folded.

 

What factual evidence do you have to support this assumption?

In New York the NY Safe Act was passed requiring the registration of all NY defined "assault weapons" and the banning of any future sale of them.

There are approximately 1 million NY law defined "assault weapons" in NY State.

Approximately 44,000 have been registered. That's a little over 4% compliance with the law in New York which rivals California as the most Progressive and Left leaning state in the Union.

So if New York of all places can't get it's very Left leaning citizens to comply with even registering their "assault weapons" then what data do you have to support a notion that 95% of citizens in Michigan will agree to hand theirs in voluntarily?

Based on real world data your 95% number does have some value. It's the percentage of citizens who REFUSED to comply with the law, not 95% who did comply.

 

Alright lets say this somehow works and that you somehow manage to fire every LEO who won't enforce this and then magically find enough people to do so. Once again lets take Virginia as a real world and very recent example from which to draw evidence. You have 27,000 armed citizens standing at your Capital Building. You say disperse and give up your firearms, they say no and won't leave. You have your magic police officers there to enforce the law.

What are you going to do? Shoot them? Michigan has a Police Officer to citizen ratio of about 2.4 per 1000. So you have 2 cops for every 1000 citizens. It's roughly the same in Virginia.

Richmond VA has 760 police officers total. You deploy them all to enforce the law in Richmond. There are 27,000 armed citizens standing in Richmond....

How are you going to get rid of them? Get into a shootout with them? Deploy tear gas or water cannons against a crowd of folks armed with AR-15s and AK-47s? Authorize your Officers to use deadly force? Against 27,000 armed people?

These are very real questions you, as a potential public servant, have to ask and be able to answer.

 

I believe much of this is just based on a misunderstanding and overestimation of compliance. We have these sorts of debates here every few months and it's almost always grounded in personal beliefs over real world applicable data. A lot of folks see the news, read the polls, speak to their friends and family, etc, and get a misconception about the overall public opinion regarding firearms. Even "assault rifles". It SOUNDS like such a proposal would have zero problem with being pushed on even a national level based on polls and news outlets who push particular agendas. The reality is that the real world data paints a very different picture and it's shocking to those who never heard these figures before.

As demonstrated in New York, and even in New Zealand. Oh we passed a law, that means the people wanted this and were willing to go along with it. Turns out the actual data from New York tells a VERY different tale. Yes the amount of overall folks who may want an AWB might outnumber those who oppose, however, folks always fail to take into account those who oppose. It's a widely held misconception that people will just "follow the law" whether they agree or not because they are "obedient citizens". New York of all places showed that is certainly not the case. 4% compliance rate out of over a million "assault rifles".

Virginia was a very positive thing for America as a whole. It demonstrated in one large thunderous notion that if you want to mess with the 2nd Amendment then you have to deal with the people. And they will not just lay down and roll over when it comes to the US Constitution. Majority rules doesn't apply to the Constitution.

And at the end of the day, you can pass whatever law your heart desires, laws mean nothing if they can't be enforced and they mean even less if folks themselves refuse to even comply with them. And when talking about laws regarding firearms "enforcing" those becomes tricky because the people have...you know...firearms.

 

a. They aren't leaving nor are they disarming
b. How are you going to arrest somebody with an AR-15 who is surrounded by thousands of other people with AR-15s?
c. How many armored police vehicles do you have in your arsenal? In Hong Kong the Chinese Government is to this day sending waves of armored vehicles against protesters in Hong Kong. These folks don't have AR-15s, they have molotov cocktails and bow and arrows. They are still protesting by the hundreds of thousands and it's been months. Doesn't seem to be that effective in deterring the protests.

So what if they do storm the Capital Building? You're going to shoot at them with live ammo? They have live ammo too. They are just as heavily armed as your cops remember. They have 62g 5.56 rounds that will pierce right through your police body armor. And there's 27,000 of them.

And lets just say you do all that. You stand your ground because you will NOT be intimidated by these radical citizens and you get into a shootout with them.

Headlines on CNN, MSNBC, Fox News tomorrow. "Bloodbath, Michigan Law Enforcement engage in shootout with armed civilian protesters. 95 dead, 200 wounded."

You're fired immediately and in reality you just sparked armed resistance all over the entire nation and you'll be lucky if you remain out of prison. Under no circumstance WHATSOEVER would you be able to justify killing and/or wounding hundreds or thousands of American citizens.

What country do you think we live in? This is the United States, it doesn't matter WHAT the citizens do, if you shot at them like that you're going to lose that fight whether literally or politically. I 100% guarantee it. Do you really think that the Police Officers of Virginia were going to open fire on those protesters if they didn't comply with them? Do you have any idea the royal hell that would ensue after that broke on the news that evening? You'd lose the support of the overwhelming majority of all citizens in the United States minus the very VERY radical Progressives.

If you don't understand this then no offense but good luck trying to enter into public service. Your ideas would not come to light in even the most radical of US cities. Even San Francisco would uprise against you for trying to pull that.

 

They did?