Are Americans any different?

[Donkey]

The point I was trying to make when I said "I doubt the government would have too much trouble if they really wanted to take our guns away." was that if it DID come down to physical altercations, the people then WOULD give up their weapons. As illustrated PERFECTLY by wolfen in his above post.


Get it? Got it? Doubt it.

Just want to focus on this one statement you make...How you doubt the government would have much trouble....So what you are saying is the American people are less capable then say some third world country to give the US Military a run for its money????

I would be more inclined to say that it would be the toughest thing the government could ever do and they would most likely fail...

 

[Rob Henderson]

It certainly would show who actually knows how to use their weapons... But like I said, I think the government not the military alone, wouldn't have much trouble... The battle wouldn't be physical... It would be verbal. It would be a "give us the guns or we'll destroy you completely" kind of deal.

 

[senojekips]

Just want to focus on this one statement you make...How you doubt the government would have much trouble....So what you are saying is the American people are less capable then say some third world country to give the US Military a run for its money????

Not less capable,... just that they realise how the law is enforced in the US, and know that resistance would only end up with them in a body bag. I don't know of any instance where US law enforcement has not done it's job because of the possibility of the offender being violent.

Doubtless there would be a occasional idiot who would try to take on the law, but I have no doubt whatsoever that they would soon get the message after the SWAT teams had raided the first few, and the officials would be making sure that the message was sent home loud and clear to other possible "resisters".

The law enforcement agencies send SWAT teams to any crime involving the possibility of violence including domestic disputes, a professed gun nut would get the "full treatment".

 

[Chukpike]

Not less capable,... just that they realize how the law is enforced in the US, and know that resistance would only end up with them in a body bag. I don't know of any instance where US law enforcement has not done it's job because of the possibility of the offender being violent.

Doubtless there would be a occasional idiot who would try to take on the law, but I have no doubt whatsoever that they would soon get the message after the SWAT teams had raided the first few, and the officials would be making sure that the message was sent home loud and clear to other possible "resisters".

The law enforcement agencies send SWAT teams to any crime involving the possibility of violence including domestic disputes, a professed gun nut would get the "full treatment".

Do you have any idea how many cities actually have SWAT teams? Do you have any idea how many it would take, if you could get them to show up. The are not gun happy bit players in a movie.

This is post #58 on this thread if you wish to see the complete version.

Given from your hypothetical statement "the US government banned semi auto long guns or all pistols tomorrow.'
Who would enforce it?
Being a federal ban, the local police would not be automatically charged with enforcing it.
State and local governments have not been willing to enforce federal immigration laws. In California medicinal Marijuana shops operate legally under California law in defiance of federal law.

Homeland security is tasked with coordinating various law enforcement agencies and doesn't have unlimited field police powers.
Basically only the FBI and ATF could be used to enforce this ban. They do not have anything close to the number of officers it would take to enforce.

A federal ban might well be seen by state governments as intruding on states rights. The state governments might actually be forced to defend their citizens rights. (Not because they didn't want the ban, but because they would consider it a tactic to takeover state powers).

If you assume that this ban is somehow legal then it would have to be some what enforced legally. They could go door to door and ask for the guns. If people said come back with a warrant then that would have to be done. (No clear concise records of who owns what guns exists).
Using Federal troops to enforce would be illegal.


Without getting the states to ratify a Constitutional amendment changing the Second amendment or getting the Supreme Court to rule that it was legal, Americans would not see the ban as legal. So law abiding citizens would still consider themselves as law abiding in not turning in their guns. Similar to pot smoking for medicinal purposes as legal.

"It certainly would show who actually knows how to use their weapons... But like I said, I think the government not the military alone, wouldn't have much trouble... The battle wouldn't be physical... It would be verbal. It would be a "give us the guns or we'll destroy you completely" kind of deal." quote Rob Henderson.

Use of excessive force by police is a crime, brilliant idea Rob. Should add about a million ACLU lawyers having to defend gun owners! What a switch!
This is a very high probability that local law enforcement would not want to shoot their neighbors and might even support them.

I could just see one cop I know going up to a door and asking to see the resident's guns. When the resident brings them he would probably say," Nice guns try and keep them out of anyone's sight you don't know." And then he would walk away.

It would be a sad day for America, worse than the civil war, with brother against brother, friends against friends. And no front line, no north and south division.

Prohibition didn't work, people are looking at legalizing drugs even with federal bans.

If you think about it at all, one of the worse things you could do is threaten a home owner with ""give us the guns or we'll destroy you completely".

Got to hand it to you Rob, you sure keeps us entertained!

 

[major liability]

It certainly would show who actually knows how to use their weapons... But like I said, I think the government not the military alone, wouldn't have much trouble... The battle wouldn't be physical... It would be verbal. It would be a "give us the guns or we'll destroy you completely" kind of deal.

Good God man, do we live in the same United States? That does not sound like something a democracy that values freedom from tyranny above all would say.

But then again, they've had no problems shooting civilians over less in the past... and I know there are some drones who would actually follow orders to kill their friends.

 

[Rob Henderson]

Do you have any idea how many cities actually have SWAT teams? Do you have any idea how many it would take, if you could get them to show up. The are not gun happy bit players in a movie.

This is post #58 on this thread if you wish to see the complete version.



"It certainly would show who actually knows how to use their weapons... But like I said, I think the government not the military alone, wouldn't have much trouble... The battle wouldn't be physical... It would be verbal. It would be a "give us the guns or we'll destroy you completely" kind of deal." quote Rob Henderson.

Use of excessive force by police is a crime, brilliant idea Rob. Should add about a million ACLU lawyers having to defend gun owners! What a switch!
This is a very high probability that local law enforcement would not want to shoot their neighbors and might even support them.

I could just see one cop I know going up to a door and asking to see the resident's guns. When the resident brings them he would probably say," Nice guns try and keep them out of anyone's sight you don't know." And then he would walk away.

It would be a sad day for America, worse than the civil war, with brother against brother, friends against friends. And no front line, no north and south division.

Prohibition didn't work, people are looking at legalizing drugs even with federal bans.

If you think about it at all, one of the worse things you could do is threaten a home owner with ""give us the guns or we'll destroy you completely".

Got to hand it to you Rob, you sure keeps us entertained!

Destroy their lives completely. There are worse things than death Chukpike. I'm sure you know that, living in California.

 

[senojekips]

Do you have any idea how many cities actually have SWAT teams? Do you have any idea how many it would take, if you could get them to show up. The are not gun happy bit players in a movie.

Do you have any idea how many examples there would need to be made before 99.99% of the other "resisters" got the message. There would be no WWIII scenarios, the law would be introduced, several nutters would resist and be dealt with, suddenly the number of would be resisters would fall through the floor. What's this "If you could get them to show up", are you implying that they would refuse to do their jobs? Because in that event, it is most likely that martial law would be imposed.

There would be no need for hundreds or thousands of SWAT teams to all strike at once, just a general "business as usual" approach whereby certain police forces would be made aware of resisters, and then they would be confronted as time and resources permitted. Once the stories started making it onto the nightly news, the problem would become easily manageable.

 

[A Can of Man]

Yeah that's generally how things would roll down. If the government says gun ownage is over as a legal activity, it's going to be over as a legal activity.
I just can't see anyone really rising up against the government or anything regardless of what they say.

 

[Rob Henderson]

Exactly. There would not be a large-scale physical fight. It would be a power-struggle. And the US government DEFINITELY has more power than any one of its citizens.

 

[Chukpike]

Do you have any idea how many examples there would need to be made before 99.99% of the other "resisters" got the message. There would be no WWIII scenarios, the law would be introduced, several nutters would resist and be dealt with, suddenly the number of would be resisters would fall through the floor. What's this "If you could get them to show up", are you implying that they would refuse to do their jobs? Because in that event, it is most likely that martial law would be imposed.

Being Australian I understand that you do not know much about how laws are enforced in the US. But I find you reasoning in the above statement suspect.
First you say how many examples would need to be made? Works out to be about 8,000 given your .01% of possibly 80 million gun owners. That is still a lot of people for police forces to go around shooting just because they haven't turned in their guns.

Then you say, "it is most likely that martial law would be imposed." Imposing martial law, who would impose it just to enforce one new law? That would scare a lot more people than the gun owners. As I have shown, unpopular federal laws have quite often been ignored by the states and the general population. Prohibition, Marijuana and immigration. The US is not Australia, where you just throw illegal immigrants in jail.

"Mandatory detention in Australia concerns the Australian federal government's policy and system of mandatory detention active from 1992 to date,[1] pursuant to which all persons entering the country without a valid visa are compulsorily detained and might be subject to deportation." Wikipedia quote.

Our police don't go around shooting citizens because they break a law. Even if they are murderers and child rapists. They don't go around threating citizens like in Rob's rather bizarre statement:

"give us the guns or we'll destroy you completely" kind of deal." quote Rob Henderson.

"What's this "If you could get them to show up", are you implying that they would refuse to do their jobs?"

Yes, if they felt doing that job would violate the oath they took. I am saying the are dedicated men and women who have taken an oath to uphold the Constitution and the laws of their States. And just as in the military they are obligated not to follow an order they could (on an individual basis) consider illegal.

There would be no need for hundreds or thousands of SWAT teams to all strike at once, just a general "business as usual" approach whereby certain police forces would be made aware of resisters, and then they would be confronted as time and resources permitted. Once the stories started making it onto the nightly news, the problem would become easily manageable.[/quote]

I love this part!
"certain police forces would be made aware of resisters,..."
What is going to be the action that makes the police aware? SWAT is called out when there is a serious problem. I guess you mean when officers were getting shot trying to enforce this "24 hour turn in your gun law." SWAT is a reactive force.


"Once the stories started making it onto the nightly news, the problem would become easily manageable."
Since this whole topic is kind of a fantasy, you might as well make the news services a calming force in it's reporting.

How much do you think it would cost the US to buy these weapons? Since we do have laws requiring the government to reimburse citizens for their property.

 

[Chukpike]

Yeah that's generally how things would roll down. If the government says gun ownage is over as a legal activity, it's going to be over as a legal activity.
I just can't see anyone really rising up against the government or anything regardless of what they say.

As you are not a US citizen, it is easy to see how you could feel that way.

 

[Chukpike]

Exactly. There would not be a large-scale physical fight. It would be a power-struggle. And the US government DEFINITELY has more power than any one of its citizens.

Ah, another brilliant statement that should be enshrined on a placard somewhere between the Washington Monument and the WWII monument. Better yet, let's add it to the Statue of Liberty!

Rob, while the federal government may have more power than "one of its citizens." Does it have more power than all of them? Does this power flow from the elected officials or from it's citizens?

Please help me, it has been so long since I went to school. When did the US Government become a power unto itself?

Are your parents aware they can adjust the parental control setting on a computer?

 

[5.56X45mm]

What a damn second here.....

Since when did the Federal Government... err actual any government with the borders and territories of the United States of America get it's power from itself?

Last time I checked it's the other way around. The Government is granted it's power of authority by the vested interest of it's citizenry.

We the "people" give the power to the Federal Government through a little process called elections. Our own Constitution states that we are the ultimate authority and not the government.

Rob..... you need to wake up and smell the roses there bud. You've been breathing in the brainwashing fumes a little to deeply. But hey.... don't worry. When I was fourteen I thought that the Government had the right and the authority to burn down a little church in Waco, Texas.

I understand that the crap they push in school is some nasty stuff.... take a minute or two. Read the Constitution and the works by our Founding Fathers and then look at society again and ask how you think it's right for someone else to tell you how to live your life and restrict your rights.

There is a reason why we threw off the yoke of oppression back in the year of 1776.

 

[Rob Henderson]

Rob, while the federal government may have more power than "one of its citizens." Does it have more power than all of them? Does this power flow from the elected officials or from it's citizens?

Please help me, it has been so long since I went to school. When did the US Government become a power unto itself?

Are your parents aware they can adjust the parental control setting on a computer?

If the government told you "give us the guns or we're going to make you lose your job and make it damned near impossible to get another one for the rest of your life, and you won't qualify for welfare" then you would give up the guns. Because that's a very possible occurrence. If the government said you were suddenly guilty of a federal offense, they could get you fired, AND make it impossible to get another one. If the government suddenly made owning guns illegal, then what could you do but fight in the political arena?

By the way, I bought my own laptop with my own money. They don't touch my computer.

What a damn second here.....

Since when did the Federal Government... err actual any government with the borders and territories of the United States of America get it's power from itself?

Last time I checked it's the other way around. The Government is granted it's power of authority by the vested interest of it's citizenry.

We the "people" give the power to the Federal Government through a little process called elections. Our own Constitution states that we are the ultimate authority and not the government.

But the trust we give to the government through our elections is more than enough to let them take some liberties.

Rob..... you need to wake up and smell the roses there bud. You've been breathing in the brainwashing fumes a little to deeply. But hey.... don't worry. When I was fourteen I thought that the Government had the right and the authority to burn down a little church in Waco, Texas.

I understand that the crap they push in school is some nasty stuff.... take a minute or two. Read the Constitution and the works by our Founding Fathers and then look at society again and ask how you think it's right for someone else to tell you how to live your life and restrict your rights.

There is a reason why we threw off the yoke of oppression back in the year of 1776.

The circumstances in 1776 and the circumstances today are terribly different. Over 200 years difference. It's the thinking like that, the thinking that because it worked 200 years ago, it will work perfectly now, that prohibits America from making the kind of progress we need to make to continue in our position as leader of the free world. Think about it, when it came right down to it... Could a few of the gun nuts of America REALLY stand up to the full might of the United States government? NO. Firstly, because there wouldn't be enough gun nuts to stand up to them. There would be those who would talk smack about fighting to the death, but most of them would quietly give up, or simply try to hide their guns. Secondly, the US government has a VAST pool of resources to pull from. Anyone stupid enough to enter a physical altercation with them deserves what would happen.

It's simply not probable that the gun nuts would win a real fight. They could battle politically, but not physically.

 

[03USMC]

It certainly would show who actually knows how to use their weapons... But like I said, I think the government not the military alone, wouldn't have much trouble... The battle wouldn't be physical... It would be verbal. It would be a "give us the guns or we'll destroy you completely" kind of deal.

Well according to the Posse Comitatus Act the Military could not be used to enforce a civil law federal or otherwise. So any use of the Military to enforce said laws would further violate the base laws of the Country.

The National Guard could be used as an entity/agency of the individual state provided that they remained under the command of the Governor of the individual state and not federalized, but that would require that individual state to have in statute a like law to enforce. Federal Law would not be enforceable outside federalization of the NG which would cause them to become a Federal Military Force thereby violating Posse Comitatus.

 

[Rob Henderson]

Hence why the battle wouldn't be physical further.

 

[03USMC]

Hence why the battle wouldn't be physical further.

Huh???? You do realize the logistic strain that would be put on Civil FLEA's to enforce this right?

 

[5.56X45mm]

And in the end Rob.... your way of thinking is what leads people to their demise.

If I thought the way you did then I would have been dead a long time ago. Oh.... but I didn't flee a communist crap trap and make it across a little thing called the Florida Straits to come to a this Country.....

Don't get me started..... if yo believe that the enemy will beat you then why fight? Why did the Poles and Yugoslavians form partisan groups to fight the Nazis in WWII? Why did the Communist Viet Cong fight the Americans? Why are terrorist fighting us right now? They can't beat the US.... it's just a couple of idiots with AK-47s and RPGs going against the entire US Military along with her NATO/Non-NATO allies. They can't win.....

You suffer from something called defeatism. I will fight for my rights until I stop drawing breath into my lungs. If you can't understand that then I don't know how to explain it to you.

For some of us, there are things worth dying for. For others like you.... just sit on the sidelines until you get picked up and hauled to a death camp.

Now why did I say that? Because that defeatist view was the same that sadly many Jews in Nazi Germany had.... "oh we can't win. Lets just do what they say."

:cen: that!

That's not the reason why my family and I came over to the USA.

 

[senojekips]

Being Australian I understand that you do not know much about how laws are enforced in the US. But I find you reasoning in the above statement suspect.
First you say how many examples would need to be made? Works out to be about 8,000 given your .01% of possibly 80 million gun owners. That is still a lot of people for police forces to go around shooting just because they haven't turned in their guns.

Only a very small proportion would elect to resist in the first place, maybe 1% or2% my quoted figure was of that number, so that reduced your number to 80-160. Who when made aware of the consequences would soon think twice about the wisdom of their choice and of that number only a small percentage would actually resist with firearms (be prepared to shoot) when confronted.

Then you say, "it is most likely that martial law would be imposed." Imposing martial law, who would impose it just to enforce one new law? That would scare a lot more people than the gun owners. As I have shown, unpopular federal laws have quite often been ignored by the states and the general population. Prohibition, Marijuana and immigration. The US is not Australia, where you just throw illegal immigrants in jail.

Ah,... but you do. (See below) Not to mention the great amount of ill feeling among your citizens that illegals are treated the way that they are.

"Mandatory detention in Australia

concerns the

Australian federal government's policy and system of mandatory detention active from 1992 to date,[1] pursuant to which all persons entering the country without a valid visa are compulsorily detained and might be subject to deportation." Wikipedia quote.

We throw all lawbreakers who are a flight risk, in jail, just as the US Border Patrol detain your illegal immigrants who are caught illegally entering the US. We don't have the benefit of merely being able to bus them back over a convenient border as you do. You picked a really bad time to make this stupid statement, as here where I live, we are currently watching a series of TV documentaries called "US Border Patrol". Last weeks show concentrated on the San Diego to "Smuggler's gulch" section of the border. 100+detained in one night, all locked up (detained) until they were returned.

Our police don't go around shooting citizens because they break a law. Even if they are murderers and child rapists. They don't go around threating citizens like in Rob's rather bizarre statement:

"give us the guns or we'll destroy you completely" kind of deal." quote Rob Henderson.

Take that up with Rob. However you are oversimplifying the case. No!!,.. police don't just go around shooting law breakers....... but,... they do shoot people who use firearms in an effort to evade the law, as in the scenario we are presently discussing.

"What's this "If you could get them to show up", are you implying that they would refuse to do their jobs?"

Yes, if they felt doing that job would violate the oath they took. I am saying the are dedicated men and women who have taken an oath to uphold the Constitution and the laws of their States. And just as in the military they are obligated not to follow an order they could (on an individual basis) consider illegal.

No doubt their oath includes swearing to uphold the law, so that argument goes straight out the window.

There would be no need for hundreds or thousands of SWAT teams to all strike at once, just a general "business as usual" approach whereby certain police forces would be made aware of resisters, and then they would be confronted as time and resources permitted. Once the stories started making it onto the nightly news, the problem would become easily manageable.

Very true!!

I love this part!
"certain police forces would be made aware of resisters,..."
What is going to be the action that makes the police aware? SWAT is called out when there is a serious problem. I guess you mean when officers were getting shot trying to enforce this "24 hour turn in your gun law." SWAT is a reactive force.

The police would become aware of this crime just as they become aware of any other crime, there are many ways, just as it happens here in Australia.
(1) The person concerned might make a statement of intent, (Not to abide by the law) which would result in a search of his premises
(2) Reported as having been seen with firearms.
(3) A person known to own particular firearms has not turned them in.

There are more ways than I care to try and think of. You seem to forget I live in a country where this has happened and I have first hand experience of just how easily and quickly it happens. I have no doubt whatsoever that your police are every bit as efficient as ours here in Australia.

Since this whole topic is kind of a fantasy, you might as well make the news services a calming force in it's reporting.

let's start to just get a little bit realistic here. If there is a police stand off in any place in the US ,it makes the nightly news, why would this case be any different?

How much do you think it would cost the US to buy these weapons? Since we do have laws requiring the government to reimburse citizens for their property.

I never said anything about buying weapons or in fact how the law would possibly be enacted. As has been pointed out previously, if the need arises all laws can and will be changed. You speak as if they are cast in stone. Not so, I'm afraid. Just have a look at some of the laws that were changed or just over ridden by Presidential decree as a result of 9/11 and the Homeland Security acts. I know tht GWB personally over rode the wiretapping laws by presidential decree.

I believe that you live in a dream regarding the so called "sanctity" of your own laws. and only believe what you like to hear without any regard to what is actually happening or has happened in the recent past.

 

[A Can of Man]

As you are not a US citizen, it is easy to see how you could feel that way.

From what I've seen, it's pretty universal.
People like to talk smack but generally people are compliant no matter where they're from.
Yeah, the government may get their power from the people, but this can change.
Actually, the only thing I lack is a US passport. If you just met me you probably wouldn't know I was a foreigner. It's always been that way. Americans like to believe that they are very special but overall I think Americans are in many ways just like others. And everyone else who were just like you guys turned in their guns. I'm pretty sure in America things won't be too different.
Again the issue at hand is that I'm ticking people off by disagreeing with them.

The one thing that *could* possibly happen is a few states seriously working to seceed from the union. But even that is a long shot.

Let me put it this way. Australians in general aren't the most compliant people in the world. From what I've seen, they're very assertive about what they deserve etc., perhaps more so than the average American. But they turned in the guns pretty easy.