Surrendering Handguns and Rifles Scenerio

[mipafox 438]

Hopefully I am never on either end of this. I definitely will not give up my guns and will not take them from individuals who lawfully own them

 

Why would any cop consider taking guns from somebody who lawfully owns them?

 

I read the thread to be about a change in the law requiring people to have their guns seized by you.

 

[PK90 3,570]

If the government decides to pass a law to disarm the populace, that would make the possession unlawful. So the popo will have to decide if he wants to keep his job to feed his family, or do the morale and right thing. Hmmm,.

[fumanchu182 23]

If the government decides to pass a law to disarm the populace, that would make the possession unlawful. So the popo will have to decide if he wants to keep his job to feed his family, or do the morale and right thing. Hmmm,.

 

I don't think the cases of "fight it out with the feds" will be isolated. We are at a tipping point in this country where everyone is fed up with everyone and all it takes is one flicker of flame to ignite a shit storm.

[Shawnmoore81 623]

 

 

I don't think the cases of "fight it out with the feds" will be isolated. We are at a tipping point in this country where everyone is fed up with everyone and all it takes is one flicker of flame to ignite a shit storm.

 

 

Ding ding ding. +1

[woodentoe 14]

My brother is a staunch Libertarian, and I've had extensive debates with him. He posits the possibility of the country eventually fracturing into regional nation-states.

 

My thinking is that won't be feasble since the majority of the capital that flows into other regions largely comes from the coasts and urban centers. Ultimately, the resulting states won't be able to sustain themselves economically.

 

That being said, if there were actually a US confiscation of arms, I'd probably leave the country for greener pastures. Maybe make my guns Canadian legal and immigrate. Even though the do have restrictions, it's not an outright ban like in the UK.

 

Maybe Uruguay. You can own guns there with a license...and pot is legal...

 

Better brush up on my French and Spanish.

 

 

The argument to Conservatives is often, Don't like it? Where are you going to go? Ban civilian ownership of firearms here, and there are more options.

[TK421 2]

I think Mike Church has a valid point that our form of representative government was never meant to exist at the size it has become. Let’s face it; each congressman now represents some 700,000 constituents, how "representative" of your views is your congressman?

 

Ultimately, when the world realizes that the US dollar is no longer worth the paper it is printed on and that the US population cannot repay the vast debt that it has accumulated our dollar will be rejected as a reserve currency. Once we can no longer print wealth to spend for things like oil and food things will go south fast. The more liberal states that rely upon the federal government to print money out of thin air to provide subsidies will be in trouble as they have greater obligations to meet and will need to raise revenue from the wealth that is left within their populations. The residual wealth left in these areas will most likely flee to areas of the country that have been more fiscally responsible and have less financial obligations. Ultimately there will need to be a fracturing of the federal government to stop the "have nots" from voting to take from the "haves".

 

I'm thinking the most fiscally responsible states like Texas, Utah, Virginia, etc. will be where most of the wealthy will flee to protect what assets they have left and ultimately those areas of the country will rise to become the economic powerhouses after the financial Armageddon.

 

Then again I may be delusional and we'll all be singing kumbaya 10 years from now, who knows.

[woodentoe 14]

It's interesting to suggest that the relationship is not completely symbiotic. The so-called liberal states are net providers of federal tax revenue while your so-called fiscally responsible states are net consumers. It may shake out the way you suggest. I certainly agree with Mike Church's point.

[fumanchu182 23]

I'm thinking the most fiscally responsible states like Texas, Utah, Virginia, etc. will be where most of the wealthy will flee to protect what assets they have left and ultimately those areas of the country will rise to become the economic powerhouses after the financial Armageddon.

 

Then again I may be delusional and we'll all be singing kumbaya 10 years from now, who knows.

 

Do you think we are not fiscally responsible because we run a large amount of social programs in this state?

[TK421 2]

It's interesting to suggest that the relationship is not completely symbiotic. The so-called liberal states are net providers of federal tax revenue while your so-called fiscally responsible states are net consumers. It may shake out the way you suggest. I certainly agree with Mike Church's point.

 

There are so many variables at play in addition to raw budgets that there are an infinite number of possibilities but the money shifting between taxation and spending is not dollar for dollar and should not be compared in direct ratios. The Feds are "spending" (more like printing) a trillion dollars more each year than we are paying in taxes. You also need to look at things like the numbers of seniors concentrated in a given population and what their wealth to income is compared to their social security benefits. Arizona and Florida have a high ratio of retirees to producers and the potential loss of the social security revenue into those states will have a huge impact on those local economies regardless of the mindset of those in charge. Look at the numbers of federal employees per capita (which will most likely drastically impact Virginia's economy). A collapse of the dollar is a scary thought and the short and long term effects will be devastating without question regardless of the details. I do however think it will be the only way to finally end the out of control federal government we find ourselves living with today, unfortunately, as there seems to be no serious desire from the masses to do something to prevent it from collapsing. Looking at the mindset of the people running states like NJ, NY, MA, CA compared to the people running TX, UT, VA, etc. where would you rather be without the federal government providing free money to restrain their actions?

 

Do you think we are not fiscally responsible because we run a large amount of social programs in this state?

 

We are not fiscally responsible because we have engrained cronyism and corruption in this state that is rampant and accepted as the norm. The social programs exist as a means to empower those that keep far more of the take than they give. They are a sleight of hand intended to keep you from focusing on the real issues.

[mikelets456 78]

PVC pipe and parts and some dessicant dehumidifier packs would turn out to be my best friends should this scenario ever come about. Those things, and a nice shovel to dig down into a good hiding place.

 

It is pure folly to speculate that individual gun owners would forcefully resist confiscation, IMO. Would there be those isolated instances where the "cold dead hands" scenario applied? Sure, but few and far between. By and large, we are among the most law-abiding citizens in this country by dint of our gun/shooting hobby. While we may love and embrace our constitutional rights, it is hard for me to envision any kind of armed, organized resistance should the feds decide one day that it's game over for gun ownership in the U.S.

 

Personally, evasion, outright lies and stealth would be watchwords for me in confronting something like this. It would still make me a felon, but there's no way my home and family goes unprotected.

 

So a slow death is better than a quick one? Don't get me wrong, no one knows what one would do if you get a knock on your door asking for guns. I would think it would happen slowly enough for us to get out to a more "gun friendly" area. However, if guns are confiscated (do the math from history), almost 250,000,000 innocent men, women and children are brutally slaughtered after confiscation. I have a wife and 3 kids I am responsible for. I don't know what I would do, but if the government said "the 1A" is no longer valid, would you give up your freedom to speak? If private property was about to be taken from you, would you "simply give it up"?

 

I have been to many, many Tea parties, town halls and other events. These people mean business... they taste victory and are ready to make their final push. I, for one, will not hand them my rights, freedoms and family that has been preserved and given by God.

 

One last question, if a theif came to take your guns, would you let him? What if it was a group of thieves, would you let them? What if the thieves promised to leave you alone after they took the guns.... Would you trust them to leave you alone after they took them? These are not innocent government officials that would take your guns, they would be thieves, murderers and criminals. You want to hand over your last line of protection to a group of people that want to see you dead regardless?

[NJScott 15]

I reject, and confess to not really understanding, everything but your second sentence.

[Bt Doctur 188]

Sell to who???

 

Your local state militia force to hold for you untill necessary.

[Guest]

There are 90+ homes in my neighborhood development ....roughly 80% are gun homes.....I would think.it interesting to see all those no knock warrants being executed...not gunman happen...

 

If an outright ban happens you will see a second civil war...just my. 02

[Anselmo 87]

There are so many variables at play in addition to raw budgets that there are an infinite number of possibilities but the money shifting between taxation and spending is not dollar for dollar and should not be compared in direct ratios. The Feds are "spending" (more like printing) a trillion dollars more each year than we are paying in taxes. You also need to look at things like the numbers of seniors concentrated in a given population and what their wealth to income is compared to their social security benefits. Arizona and Florida have a high ratio of retirees to producers and the potential loss of the social security revenue into those states will have a huge impact on those local economies regardless of the mindset of those in charge. Look at the numbers of federal employees per capita (which will most likely drastically impact Virginia's economy). A collapse of the dollar is a scary thought and the short and long term effects will be devastating without question regardless of the details. I do however think it will be the only way to finally end the out of control federal government we find ourselves living with today, unfortunately, as there seems to be no serious desire from the masses to do something to prevent it from collapsing. Looking at the mindset of the people running states like NJ, NY, MA, CA compared to the people running TX, UT, VA, etc. where would you rather be without the federal government providing free money to restrain their actions?

 

 

 

We are not fiscally responsible because we have engrained cronyism and corruption in this state that is rampant and accepted as the norm. The social programs exist as a means to empower those that keep far more of the take than they give. They are a sleight of hand intended to keep you from focusing on the real issues.

 

Clearly, the liberal states pay the most federal taxes. It is analogous to compare the USA to the European Union. The wealthy European countries like France and Germany support the poor European countries like Ireland and Greece much the same way that NJ and NY support poor states like Mississippi and New Mexico.

[TK421 2]

Clearly, the liberal states pay the most federal taxes. It is analogous to compare the USA to the European Union. The wealthy European countries like France and Germany support the poor European countries like Ireland and Greece much the same way that NJ and NY support poor states like Mississippi and New Mexico.

 

I should hope they are paying the most taxes; they have substantially higher income rates. My point is that if the dollar were to collapse, the more liberal states with higher rates of debt, government dependent people and government employees will have no other choice but to try to pinch the funds from the residual wealth. The more fiscally responsible states will become more attractive to those folks trying to retain whatever wealth they have left. Again this is pure speculation on my part; there are a great many variables we're dealing with. Who knows, a 700 ton meteor made out of gold and platinum could fall from the sky and land in Nevada tomorrow and all our financial problems would be over. But I'm not going to bet on that happening any time soon.

[woodentoe 14]

I should hope they are paying the most taxes; they have substantially higher income rates. My point is that if the dollar were to collapse, the more liberal states with higher rates of debt, government dependent people and government employees will have no other choice but to try to pinch the funds from the residual wealth. The more fiscally responsible states will become more attractive to those folks trying to retain whatever wealth they have left. Again this is pure speculation on my part; there are a great many variables we're dealing with. Who knows, a 700 ton meteor made out of gold and platinum could fall from the sky and land in Nevada tomorrow and all our financial problems would be over. But I'm not going to bet on that happening any time soon.

 

Perhaps. Perhaps not. Without the federal tax revenue from the so-called liberal states (read: States where people make the money) floating the expenses of the so-called fiscally responsible states, you will see extreme difficulty providing even basic services. This could prevent the "affluent flight" you predict.

 

Regardless, in the event of a dollar collapse, we're all screwed so hopefully you're stocked up on ammo for when "force majeure" kicks in.

[Anselmo 87]

I should hope they are paying the most taxes; they have substantially higher income rates. My point is that if the dollar were to collapse, the more liberal states with higher rates of debt, government dependent people and government employees will have no other choice but to try to pinch the funds from the residual wealth. The more fiscally responsible states will become more attractive to those folks trying to retain whatever wealth they have left. Again this is pure speculation on my part; there are a great many variables we're dealing with. Who knows, a 700 ton meteor made out of gold and platinum could fall from the sky and land in Nevada tomorrow and all our financial problems would be over. But I'm not going to bet on that happening any time soon.

 

I don't understand how you conclude that states that take in more federal dollars than they pay out are fiscally responsible.

[woodentoe 14]

I don't understand how you conclude that states that take in more federal dollars than they pay out are fiscally responsible.

 

Because they are conservative....ish. Whatever that means anymore.

 

*Barry Goldwater and Milton Friedman causing tectonic displacement from rolling in their graves*

[TK421 2]

I don't understand how you conclude that states that take in more federal dollars than they pay out are fiscally responsible.

 

Like I said there are a lot of variables here, not just federal tax dollars. Are you implying that federal tax dollars are the only revenue source for the states? Are you implying that all of the states have the same ratio of income to spending? Are you implying that none of the states are already massively in debt or that none have revenue surpluses? Are you implying that they all have the same high ratios of overpaid government bureaucrats to citizens?

Just because a state takes in more federal tax dollar than it sends out doesn’t mean it is not managing money better than another state. If you compare the overall tax burden in NJ between property taxes, sales taxes, income taxes, business taxes, mandates like insurances, permits, etc., tolls, fine based revenues from excessive regulations, hidden costs associated with navigating excessive regulations and so on can you honestly say that states that generate these massive revenue streams and are still always in debt are just as fiscally responsible as states that have moderate revenues yet manage to balance their budgets?

A number of people like to make the spending per capita argument but that only works if the ratio of producers to consumers is consistent. Take NJ and Virginia for instance, both states spend between $5,000 and $5,500 per person annually, Virginia has about 8.3 million people, NJ has about 9 million people, that sounds nice but we already know NJ tax payers have higher income levels than Virginia tax payers so if for arguments sake 75% of the people are producers in Virginia and only 55% of the people are producers in NJ do those number mean anything anymore? NJ spends about $1.08 for every $1 it takes in whereas VA spends about $.93 for every $1 it takes in. NJ has a -0.1% rate of growth compared to VA's +0.3% rate of growth. NJ has 28% more people than VA but NJ has 35% more people collecting welfare than VA. Because there are higher ratios of consumers to producers in NJ there is also a greater burden on those producers to actually produce. And when things go south and their debt burden rises so will the producers.

Now if you would like to argue that VA has a growing economy simply because of its proximity to Washington DC and its growth is exponentially correlated to the recent growth in the size of the federal government, I can’t argue it will probably take a beating if the federal reserve system fails and the fed can no longer fund its payroll.

 

Some quick Google searches used to find these numbers:

*Year 2012 revenue debt gross product population

NJ $89.9B $97.3B $496.1B -0.1% 9.0M

VA $64.B$60.1B $439.2B 0.3% 8.2M

 

*Welfare recipients, 2007

NJ 97,358

VA 62,715

[JrzyGuy30 0]

 

 

I don't think the cases of "fight it out with the feds" will be isolated. We are at a tipping point in this country where everyone is fed up with everyone and all it takes is one flicker of flame to ignite a shit storm.

+100 - very true. I have friends who are honorary discharged military men who are fed up with the federal government an the liberal leader who apologizes to enemy countries after my military (army/usmc) friends had to watch their peers killed by those enemies. I have friends who are tired of all the BS the government is into an yearn for a real change, not Obama change of takin away from the hard working and giving to the lazy. They are all armed and love the constitution. They are at the end of their ropes... Think about what would happen... Hmmm

[acuevo 0]

forgive me if this has been mentioned.. i read most of the posts here but grew weary toward the end.

 

this wouldn't apply of course if they made all guns illegal (would hate to see what kind of shit hits the fan if they tried that) but i think it would in a martial law situation disaster recovery personal protection act

[TK421 2]

Interesting read on the topic, I searched for the link but could not find it posted here.

 

http://lewrockwell.com/orig13/karger1.1.1.html

[Soju 153]

If the government decides to pass a law to disarm the populace, that would make the possession unlawful. So the popo will have to decide if he wants to keep his job to feed his family, or do the morale and right thing. Hmmm,.

 

I think you mean illegal. The law itself would be unlawful. Unless that law was a Constitutional amendment that repeals the 2nd. That would make the possession unlawful.

 

So if the 2nd Amendment was repealed, I would probably give up my guns. Then I'd move out of the country. If any other law was passed that banned guns, I'd imagine what would happen in the country would not be pretty. I know what I would do.

[NicePants 58]

Interesting read on the topic, I searched for the link but could not find it posted here.

 

http://lewrockwell.c...arger1.1.1.html

 

The thing is, no matter how the media chooses to spin it, a lot of people will see the military and police firing on rebels and killing them as martyring them. The only question is, will it convince enough people to sustain a revolution, or will people run at the first sign of gunfire?

[greatgunstatenj 32]

I think you mean illegal. The law itself would be unlawful. Unless that law was a Constitutional amendment that repeals the 2nd. That would make the possession unlawful.

 

So if the 2nd Amendment was repealed, I would probably give up my guns. Then I'd move out of the country. If any other law was passed that banned guns, I'd imagine what would happen in the country would not be pretty. I know what I would do.

 

Huh? What's the difference if they take away your ability to protect yourself by butchering the Constitution or by passing a ban that flies in the face of the Constitution? The end result is the same and goes against everything this country was founded on. I'd think one's response would be relatively the same in both scenarios.

[Soju 153]

Huh? What's the difference if they take away your ability to protect yourself by butchering the Constitution or by passing a ban that flies in the face of the Constitution? The end result is the same and goes against everything this country was founded on. I'd think one's response would be relatively the same in both scenarios.

 

Well one has at least some attempt at following some form of legitimate course of action, even if it is something I adamantly disagree with. The other as you said 'flies in the face of' not just the Constitution, but any form of legitimate government or rule. The Constitution allows for things to be changed if people disagree with it. It doesn't allow for rules that violate it to be used in it's place. So if the first is done, though the effect is the same, I don't have much of an option substantiated in their game. The second is a game that I am not even a part of. I can fight against that.

 

With that said, my position is subject to change, and you are right. There in reality wouldn't be much difference in either scenario. I suppose my position only holds merit in theory and belief.

[Holeshot 3]

If any other law was passed that banned guns, I'd imagine what would happen in the country would not be pretty. I know what I would do.

 

"If you have a problem, if no one else can help, and if you can find them, maybe you can hire: THE A-TEAM."

 

 

[DevsAdvocate 112]

Guys, this is a simple numbers game. Take every uniformed officer out there, every national guardsman, divide that by 90 million.

 

First question: How can such an operation occur without it leaking out? How many cops, relatives of cops, national guard do we have here on this forum alone?

 

Second question, how many raids can they accomplish in one day?

 

If the govt tries to pull this off, we will have ample warning to dig in...

 

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 2

[Soju 153]

Well as a start, since this actually DID happen, in the US, and recently, we could look at that and see how it turned out.

 

https://www.google.c...iw=1114&bih=687

[mipafox 438]

Guys, this is a simple numbers game. Take every uniformed officer out there, every national guardsman, divide that by 90 million.

 

First question: How can such an operation occur without it leaking out? How many cops, relatives of cops, national guard do we have here on this forum alone?

 

Second question, how many raids can they accomplish in one day?

 

If the govt tries to pull this off, we will have ample warning to dig in...

 

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 2

 

No balloon is going up. They've already banned guns, they've already banned gun owners, they are still banning guns, they are still banning gun owners. Your warning to dig in came before you were born.

 

Confiscation is done by systematic Fourth Amendment rights violation under law and policy, and a surveillance police state. Not by door to door canvassing over a 7-day period.

 

Your remaining stuff will be illegal over a period of time. And they will get it.