Question about registration/confiscation

[SkinnyD]

For the sake of argument, suppose a national gun registry was created and then subsequently a law was passed that guns were going to be illegal. (I'm trying to keep from getting bogged down with specifics, and I don't have 120 specifically-named firearms in mind). Anyway, the guns are illegal and anyone who has one is breaking the law. Lots of folks would give up their arms peacefully and perhaps even happily. So for those who kept their guns in violation of the law, who would be in charge of enforcement? Would it not ultimately take the military acting in a military fashion to disarm the population, and would it do so? Therefore is the best way to ensure 2A rights remain intact to support a smaller military and smaller law enforcement presence at a local level too?

Apparently neither is needed for for a peaceful society.

 

[LeonardC]

The Gov. would pay/reward snitches. Your children would be told in school that only bad people own such guns and they should protect themselves by turning in their parents "for their own good". A small team of LE would kick down your door to take control of the bad guns. "If" they found any they would be able to take control of the entire house and all it's contents to be used for LE uses, ie. to be sold at auction so the LE team can buy new toys and go to conventions in warm places.

Can't happen here...wink, wink.

 

[Matt]

I will still use and keep the guns.

 

[.338WM]

Military personel and elected govt. are sworn to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, that includes the Second Amendment. I feel strongly that if the Second Amendment were to be legitimatley threatened another violent revolution will take place. Any order passed down to/ through the ranks of the military would be an illegal order and summarily regarded as such.

For the sake of entertaining your question; more people than not would retain their right and their firearms, and revolution would ensue. The way things are going today I think the economic woes this country is suffering, and will for years to come, stands a greater chance of precipitating a revolution before the current attack on the 2A. In fact, I think it bolsters even further the importance and intent of the 2A.

 

[Shadow7D]

For the sake of argument, suppose a national gun registry was created and then subsequently a law was passed that guns were going to be illegal. (I'm trying to keep from getting bogged down with specifics, and I don't have 120 specifically-named firearms in mind). Anyway, the guns are illegal and anyone who has one is breaking the law. Lots of folks would give up their arms peacefully and perhaps even happily. So for those who kept their guns in violation of the law, who would be in charge of enforcement? Would it not ultimately take the military acting in a military fashion to disarm the population, and would it do so? Therefore is the best way to ensure 2A rights remain intact to support a smaller military and smaller law enforcement presence at a local level too?

Apparently neither is needed for for a peaceful society.

Look at Australia, look at England
In England, they sent letters, then knocked on doors, it was the cops
as for it working here
well, think Ruby ridge (which was after all pretty much exactly what you are talking about)
look at Waco, and wonder how well the enforcement arm would do. And no, I'm not being anti gov, just pointing out that the ATF don't have a very good track record. As for the military, most of the kids don't know their head from a hole in the ground when it comes to the constitution, it's the NCO's and Officers who give the orders and set the example, so yeah, a hand picked cadre with a bunch of joes would kick doors, till it was their door being kicked... there is a HUGE historical precedent on how it works, the *nice way* is letters and follow up visits, then lots of red tape. Most of the taking is done by mandatory 'buy back' schemes.

 

[SkinnyD]

most of the kids don't know their head from a hole in the ground when it comes to the constitution, it's the NCO's and Officers who give the orders and set the example, so yeah, a hand picked cadre with a bunch of joes would kick doors, till it was their door being kicked

This is the crux of the question I asked. If it actually came to "them" confiscating guns, who would do the confiscating? Harry Reid and Diane Feinstein aren't going door to door, and obviously we wouldn't be on the same schedule as last Tuesday because there would be CONFISCATION happening, so I'm not sure this idea of a goon squad kicking a door in the night is the right way to look at it. Would large numbers of soldiers follow orders when told to disarm (read: kill) fellow citizens? They followed orders in the last civil war. That's why I'm asking. There are no terrorists in Fairbanks, so why do I need a zillion army? Heck, I'm registered for the draft and so is every other eligible male, so why do I need a standing army at all? Besides adding the phrase "10% off wtih ID" to my vocabulary, I'm not sure I'm getting anything from them except worry.

 

[stid2677]

This is the crux of the question I asked. If it actually came to "them" confiscating guns, who would do the confiscating? Harry Reid and Diane Feinstein aren't going door to door, and obviously we wouldn't be on the same schedule as last Tuesday because there would be CONFISCATION happening, so I'm not sure this idea of a goon squad kicking a door in the night is the right way to look at it. Would large numbers of soldiers follow orders when told to disarm (read: kill) fellow citizens? They followed orders in the last civil war. That's why I'm asking. There are no terrorists in Fairbanks, so why do I need a zillion army? Heck, I'm registered for the draft and so is every other eligible male, so why do I need a standing army at all? Besides adding the phrase "10% off wtih ID" to my vocabulary, I'm not sure I'm getting anything from them except worry.

The active military presence in Alaska acts as a deterrent to prevent an invasion from Russia. The military often preforms search and rescue operations and has assisted in many natural disasters.

Much of the infrastructure you enjoy in Fairbanks is there because of the military.

I'm a retired member and my wife is still active duty, we are no happier than you about the current state of affairs.

You might want to read up on the Posse Comitatus Act, which prevents by law the Federal Military from policing its citizens. The National Guard would be brought in to reenforce the police, NOT the active military.

You Sir insult me and the fine Americans that I have saw killed and wounded to preserve the freedom you enjoy to bad mouth us.

Your Welcome!!!!!

 

[brav01]

Sorry guys this would most likely fall under the "Homeland Security Act" they now control the IRS/ATF and many of the other alphabet agencies. So while your local law enforcement and military might not co-operate with these new rulings they won't be required to. People who own firearms that are considered illegal/unregistered will be classed as "domestic terrorists" and be assailed be clandestine (swat type) teams. Since the DHS has wide reaching power includeing those which allow no warrant raids and phone taps, indeffinate detention of suspects without heabius corpus and property forfeiture of suspects. Would you risk loosing your home for the possession of an illegal weapon ?

 

[.338WM]

Sorry guys this would most likely fall under the "Homeland Security Act" they now control the IRS/ATF and many of the other alphabet agencies. So while your local law enforcement and military might not co-operate with these new rulings they won't be required to. People who own firearms that are considered illegal/unregistered will be classed as "domestic terrorists" and be assailed be clandestine (swat type) teams. Since the DHS has wide reaching power includeing those which allow no warrant raids and phone taps, indeffinate detention of suspects without heabius corpus and property forfeiture of suspects. Would you risk loosing your home for the possession of an illegal weapon ?

I submit that MANY will risk their lives.

 

[kodiakrain]

Or how about this classic, "We'll Lien on your Dividend Fund Payout,"

ha ha, just throwing in a little lighthearted idea,...
but I bet that's first, our money somehow
the IR of S will get involved, way before anyone comes to your house,...they'll hit your wallet

Then just for the sake of discussion, I imagine it would be like those who now tell us,"where to walk in airports,..."
and we do it, with no hesitation cause we don't want to be delayed,
taken into the back room by those very questionable level people,....right,
I mean, "Take Your Shoes Off,.. Yes, Ma'am,....!!!"
Sorry, if you work for TSA, that is probably a good job,....side benefits and all,

it's the concept of Serving Fear, as a Nation like that, that I just can't stand

Why do we comply,...cause it either costs us Time, or Money

 

[brav01]

I submit that MANY will risk their lives.

On that we agree, but far more will cave in and crawl before their new masters freely accepting their yokes.

 

[Frostbitten]

This is the crux of the question I asked. If it actually came to "them" confiscating guns, who would do the confiscating? Harry Reid and Diane Feinstein aren't going door to door, and obviously we wouldn't be on the same schedule as last Tuesday because there would be CONFISCATION happening, so I'm not sure this idea of a goon squad kicking a door in the night is the right way to look at it. Would large numbers of soldiers follow orders when told to disarm (read: kill) fellow citizens? They followed orders in the last civil war. That's why I'm asking. There are no terrorists in Fairbanks, so why do I need a zillion army? Heck, I'm registered for the draft and so is every other eligible male, so why do I need a standing army at all? Besides adding the phrase "10% off wtih ID" to my vocabulary, I'm not sure I'm getting anything from them except worry.

Oh, well as long as you are registered or the Draft, certainly the nation has no need for a standing Army. Certainly there are no Army personnel deployed to points around the globe preserving your freedoms, to include your freedom to make assinine comments. Its refreshing to know that everyone currently serving military service is safe and sound on their assigned post and base and everything is hunky dory...thank you for enlightening us on that. Gosh, it just sucks that "you aren't getting anything from them except worry". I'm sure everyone that read your post feels very sorry for you...seriously, I'm sure they do.

 

[brav01]

Oh, well as long as you are registered or the Draft, certainly the nation has no need for a standing Army. Certainly there are no Army personnel deployed to points around the globe preserving your freedoms, to include your freedom to make assinine comments. Its refreshing to know that everyone currently serving military service is safe and sound on their assigned post and base and everything is hunky dory...thank you for enlightening us on that. Gosh, it just sucks that "you aren't getting anything from them except worry". I'm sure everyone that read your post feels very sorry for you...seriously, I'm sure they do.

Maybe SkinnyD feels that the citizens of this country would reap more of a benifit from the United States military if it were stationed in the US deffending this country from invaders, rather than nation building for other countries around the world. Most citizens is the US do worry about the military and its personnel we just don't all agree with many of their current deployements; myself included.

 

[Frostbitten]

Maybe SkinnyD feels that the citizens of this country would reap more of a benifit from the United States military if it were stationed in the US deffending this country from invaders, rather than nation building for other countries around the world. Most citizens is the US do worry about the military and its personnel we just don't all agree with many of their current deployements; myself included.

I can appreciate that (to a point), however I would say there's more to defending the nation than standing at the border/coastline ready to turn back anyone intending to do us harm. I can promise you that many of the current deployments aren't on the top of many (most?) military members wish lists either, but if that's what the current political picture dictates, then that's where the forces go. That's just how it is and always has been.

 

[SkinnyD]

Ok, maybe the last part was a bit out of line. Pardon me. I'm just asking who would do the confiscating. If you suggest that the military would defy en masse an order to disarm a bunch of domestic terrorists then that's a respectable position to take. It's just a question. I agree that the last part was a bit more personal and I apologize. However, would you not expect this and other states to pass amendments to their own constitutions that might guarantee gun ownership or whatnot, which would leave enforcement to others. Like I said, it's just a question.

Also, the question in question has nothing to do with my thoughts on the politics of deployments. I'm sure people do their best to make a living. I just have a hard time believing that a crowd of alphabet soup agents would be able to carry out said mission, if it came to that. People would band together in such a way (think army, militia, etc.) that it would take big force. That's why I asked.

 

[SkinnyD]

So generally speaking, members of the military own guns in private life. Also, they tend to vote for the party that is not bringing up gun regulations. It just so happens that they are the biggest of the big gov (and the enforcement arm, to boot). It's just an interesting question, I think.

 

[iofthetaiga]

So generally speaking, members of the military own guns in private life. Also, they tend to vote for the party that is not bringing up gun regulations.

I don't know for certain what the actual statistics would show, but by my experience this is another misperception about the military demographic. I think their political leanings are just about as diverse as the civilian population.

 

[brav01]

So generally speaking, members of the military own guns in private life. Also, they tend to vote for the party that is not bringing up gun regulations. It just so happens that they are the biggest of the big gov (and the enforcement arm, to boot). It's just an interesting question, I think.

Legally UNLESS the administration or state "call out" the State or National Guard and declares "Martial Law" the military has no authority to impose civil laws on cililians ! The DHS however has no specified boundries within the United States and at will can decide how it wishes to procede with it's clandestine operations; it's only requirement is that it suspects that a person or group of persons are "terrorists". The term "terrorists" isn't highly deffined either, and allows the DHS greater lattitudes which most police agencies don't have.

 

[ADfields]

I don't know for certain what the actual statistics would show, but by my experience this is another misperception about the military demographic. I think their political leanings are just about as diverse as the civilian population.

Yes lot of Ds, Rs, and Is in the military but they are gun owners at a much higher rate than the general populace and tend not to be far left. My doctor is Navy Reserves (been deployed twice on me) and Democrat big time but pro-gun, anti tax-n-spend, hates Obamacare . . . Not the average Democrat ar all.

 

[Amigo Will]

If guns are illegal then our now government is gone and everything will be new government trying to get a foothold on power over folks living in America. Military will be gone all old government will be gone so its all mute. I can see China and Russia trying to bump out the new forming government which will be easy as they have standing military getting paid and ready to go to work.