What Liberals Don’t Understand: A Serious Attempt at Gun Confiscation Could Lead to Civil War

Liberals love to fantasize about confiscating every gun in America. It may be their most beautiful dream. Liberals get control of the Supreme Court and ignore the Second Amendment; Washington makes gun ownership illegal; almost all the guns come pouring in or are destroyed; a few hapless Jim Bobs who won’t get in line get shot up by the cops and then the government is free to do anything it wants and if people don’t like it, well, what are they going to do about it without guns?

Let me suggest a less happy, but probably more accurate version of how an attempt at gun confiscation would likely go. Liberals get control of the Supreme Court and ignore the Second Amendment followed by Washington making gun ownership illegal. So far, so good, right? Then the vast majority of police departments across the country refuse to do more than accept weapons that are turned in and, of course, very few citizens actually hand over their weapons. At this point, D.C. would have no choice other than to accept that gun confiscation is impossible, which would be the most likely outcome.

Or, alternately, D.C. could hire goon squads in local communities to go house to house to confiscate weapons. Yes, people would be killed in conflicts with the police and goon squads that come to take their guns. Liberals would cheer. They would not be cheering when police chiefs, officers, and goon squad members who carry out these orders are assassinated at their homes by armed people from their own communities.

Since many Americans would assume, probably correctly, that gun confiscation would be a prelude to government violence against civilians, the assassins would be openly cheered as patriots by tens of millions of Americans. Messages supporting them would show up on social media; talk show hosts would call them heroes and others would encourage them to go further. This would enrage liberals who would demand more use of force against not just the assassins, but the people supporting them. These comments would likely harden positions on both sides, and if the attempts at gun confiscation continued (and they probably wouldn’t), things would get even more violent. Police chiefs, politicians, and anti-gun activists would probably be assassinated and millions would cheer on their killers. The government response would become ever more violent. There would be calls to get the military involved except the people making those calls would soon find our troops just as split as the rest of the country. A majority would likely refuse to go into action against their fellow citizens and some might even openly join them. By that point, the potential for a genuine civil war would be quite real.

The response to this from liberals would probably be something like, “Well, that certainly didn’t happen in Australia.” Very true, but what most liberals believe Australia did and what it actually did are very different.

Australia made it extremely difficult to buy a new gun as it instituted a gun buyback. This means that in 1996, there were 17.5 guns per hundred people and in 2016, the number was only down to 13.7 per hundred people. So Australia’s big accomplishment was to decrease the number of guns in its nation by 22 percent.
http://rightwingnews.com/column-2/l...ious-attempt-gun-confiscation-lead-civil-war/ The article goes on to minimize the actual impact in Australia . It then describes what is likely to happen if gun grabbers pressed on. I see nothing good happening in the USA if there really was an attempt at national gun confiscation. “From our cold dead hands!”

 

Our country doesn’t need any civil war. Those who want to see us become a gun free nation have to accept that it will never happen.

 

Oh really? Who?

 

They understand that the only one talking about confiscation is conservatives. Liberals are talking about modest restrictions on guns only.

 

I heard they were recruiting illegal immigrants to confiscate them. The left needs votes and they trust them.

 

I think they plan to build the wall with the confiscated guns...but I was pretty drunk at the last world liberal meeting. They are pretty boring...

 

Hey, I was there too! And yes, I was also drunk. Man, liberals can stick it away, can't we?

Maybe it was a bad idea to hold the meeting in an irish pub this year.

Though I still can't quite figure out how we managed to squeeze that many people into that place...

 

Very very few liberals want a 'gun-free' nation. Most, do not even want to consider a repeal of the second amendment, which by all accounts an absolutely necessary step toward such a broad goal.

 

“I like taking the guns early, like in this crazy man’s case that just took place in Florida ... to go to court would have taken a long time,”

“Take the guns first, go through due process second,”

Yup. It was a liberal that said that. Am I correct?

 

Sure they do, assault weapons are only the first step.

They already tried to ban hand guns but the Court said no.

What do you mean they don't want a gun-free nation?

 

Nice, what's the catch?

 

Well....the right have dead people voted for them....so there's that.

http://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/local/crime/article146938034.html

 

they don't. its that simple. Some urban centers with a predominance of liberals, may have want to restrict or ban them under specific circumstances within their city limits, but that does not mean they want them banned from the nation, and that does not mean all liberals or most do. You need to stop re-interpreting what 'liberals want' to suit your own agenda or do decide for them what their 'first step' is.
Those that say they want a gun free nation, are those that want a gun free nation.

Your job is to find and count them and compare the total to the total number of other liberals who have not said so, not to extrapolate a city wide view, to apply to the entire nation or a much more narrow stance into the broadest all encompassing one. . A lot of liberals rather like some local say in these issues which likely precludes a national ban. Others want a ban a hand guns to mean just a ban on hand guns.

 

No no no it is Grey Aliens who ride in UFO's piloted by Bigfooot.

 

So tell me this, if pistols are used in mass school shootings will you just accept it or demand they be restricted also?

 

We haven't been discussing my views so far. I have no intention of discussing them with someone who wants to presume I speak for 'liberals' But once you deny your 'crystal ball' reading and promise not to use my views to represent more than my views, I won't mind.

 

Modest restrictions (wink-wink) fingers crossed behind their backs. Modest really means incrementally chipping away at our rights until they're gone. It's all about power, absolute power and the second amendment is our guarantee that the left will never have that.

 

Uh, huh, I figured you would dodge that question.

Now ask yourself this.

If a group of liberals want to ban guns from their entire city why wouldn't they want them banned from the entire state, and the nation?

The District of Columbia tried to ban all hand guns, are you saying that city is run by liberals?

 

Lol.... oh you guys ..

 

I figured you would not promise not to misuse or twist my answers to suit your agenda. I know that while I might want to ban some guns from the city of Portland or other large urban centers in the state, but I sure as hell don't want to ban the same ones from the southern and eastern Oregon rural areas. That to me, is just plain blatant cookie cutter stupidity especially if such a ban is clearly unpopular in those rural areas and their culture and needs are very different. This is no different than regulating the use of aerial pesticide use to rural areas or the ownership of livestock in the city limits. Regulating conduct land use and product use in a large city, is very different from regulating in acres of forest land or farmland.

 

Gee I didn't know there were cities that belong to just liberals. It doesn't matter what the political make up is in a given locality it's not a referendum and never will be. Even legislators are limited in what they can do and thank God for that, who knows what other foolishness they would come up with.

 

So you don't think that someone who may want to shoot up a school won't drive an hour out into the country to buy a gun and bring it into the city?

Do you really think these things through?

 

Many more on the left that do it. We have millions of illegals here. Take a look at states like Indiana, Illinois, and Pennsylvania for examples. That's pretty lame. If a person isn't wanted by citizens, isn't it their duty to step aside? They aren't representing the people. "We the People" are the citizens of this nation. It's simple you understand and they refuse to follow the law.

If they want them here, make a path. Get them checked. No, they don't want them here. They want businesses to benefit from their cheap wages. They fool them into believing they care about them. They don't, or they would not have waited so long to find them a solution. They only care about themselves.

 

Where did you think they came from? They pick up little girls and boys and enslave them in the sex industry. They bring us cocaine and tainted pot.

 

yes I do think them throug. My concerns are not limited to school shoot-ups and my theories have a lot more to do with local control, than any specific answer. Its my belief that the risk/benefits of gun access and use in are better balanced by the population and culture who understands the local impact. You and I are not in the best place to weigh what happens in the State of Missouri or its capital city or its rural areas. I want them to figure it out because they will live or die by the result.