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.
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.
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.
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.
No doubt their oath includes swearing to uphold the law, so that argument goes straight out the window.
Very true!!
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.
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?
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.
Once again, you talk as if these things are cast in stone.But the President cannot override a constitutional amendment by decree.
A very good answer IMHO. It would be a hard act to follow, but one well worth considering.No that's a fact. No President can override a Constitutional Amendment by decree. United States Code (laws) are a different animal, the overriding of certain statutes by Bush was done under the mantle real or not of national security and POTUS has a limited power to do so. An amendment to the constitution requires a different process to amend, add or repeal.
I'm not stating that the constitiution can't be amended/changed etc it can and has , but niether do I consider the Bill of Rights a living document as some do.
Would I? I don't know I'd have to think long and hard about it, especially taking into consideration the why.
A very good answer IMHO. It would be a hard act to follow, but one well worth considering.
I would never have believed that what happened in Australia could have ever happened either, but I was wrong, I was also wrong when I said that I would not comply. Which is not to say that I couldn't get my clammy little fingers on just about any firearm I wanted if the need arose, and I have been "out of it" for nearly 30 years. (Some leopards just never change their spots). So not a great deal has changed anyway regarding the availability of such weapons, it's just that it is now fraught with great danger to be in possession of them. I'll leave that to the "risk takers".
Yes, but only in some states and it was largely ignored. I only had two firearms registered.
Never the less, the risk of keeping them is totally unacceptable.
And Yes, we did have at least one bloke who fought the police,... he lasted two days before being dragged from his fortified home and treated for minor shrapnel wounds, then thrown in prison. He was determined not to give up, but he lost in the end. It sorta made others think about their mortality.
There are also other ways: taking my services elsewhere.
Or else I'd have to shoot up the country I'm in currently.
I think I understand your position a lot better now.Yes, but only in some states and it was largely ignored. I only had two firearms registered.
Never the less, the risk of keeping them is totally unacceptable.
And Yes, we did have at least one bloke who fought the police,... he lasted two days before being dragged from his fortified home and treated for minor shrapnel wounds, then thrown in prison. He was determined not to give up, but he lost in the end. It sorta made others think about their mortality.
Sick joke?? I'm not desperately looking for loopholes and threatening to take on the government like some spoilt child who thinks he might be in danger of losing his candy.I think I understand your position a lot better now.
I don't know if this has been posted before, but its scary stuff.
The whole article was too big to post
http://www.whatdoesitmean.com/index1216.htm
All Private Guns Will Be Confiscated By September 2009,....
But, new reports coming from the United States show that they are fast adopting the tactics used by the German Nazis to disarm their society prior to the installation of fascist rule and martial law by first rendering all private guns useless by eliminating and restricting the ammunition they use. And from new reports coming from the United States we can see that this ‘plan’ is already being instituted with ammunition shortages being reported in Idaho, Georgia, and Louisiana, and a new law just introduced in California which would:
1. Stop the private transfer between individuals of more than 50 rounds of ammunition.
2. License and tax anyone selling handgun ammunition commercially and force these stores to get background checks on anyone selling ammunition.
3. Get a thumbprint from anyone buying handgun ammunition.
4. Ban all ammunition sales that don't take place face-to- face, in other words, ban mail-order sales.
The whole article is garbage!
The part about new law introduced in California is also Garbage. The 4 items listed above have cropped up in some form in past proposed legislation but not all together. None are active bills right now.They have also appeared in other states Possible legislation.
California has enough problems with a budget deficit that will choke a horse that the legislature will be to be busy trying to overcome this to do much in the way of gun control.
The ones that might have some concern, is anything that would possible raise money for the state, which might include taxes on ammunition.
The availability of ammunition is low, more do to people stocking up from fear generated by garbage like this.
Not sure what you are talking about. I did not mean this as a joke. You made a decision that is all there is to it.Sick joke?? I'm not desperately looking for loopholes and threatening to take on the government like some spoilt child who thinks he might be in danger of losing his candy.
I agree with you. In fact the US is proof of this.The fact remains, No Law, or for that matter, your precious Constitution, is immutable. What man can put together, he can take apart. You can ignore it at your peril.
Don't know what this means, unless you didn't tell us you were a felon and they took your guns for that reason? How's that for poor guess work?:smile:All you know of me and my firearms is what I elect to tell you, the rest is poor guesswork.
Not sure what you are talking about. I did not mean this as a joke. You made a decision that is all there is to it.
I agree with you. In fact the US is proof of this.
A King decided he would change laws and oppress his subjects. In the case of th US he was unsuccessful. His subjects responded with deadly force. They made a decision to stand against him. I can only hope I would have the guts to do the same.
Australia has been granted their Independence from a government. Your system of government operates on a top down method. You did earn this right, but you also agreed to operate under existing governments.
The US operates from the other direction.
The 13 original colonies banded together as a Confederation. When they took their freedom from British rule they became independent States. They decided to form a Union and work together for mutual benefit. In so doing they wrote a contract (the Constitution) to administrate though a central government. They were telling the main powers of the world that attack one of us. you are attacking all.
So in the case of the US central government giving the citizens 24 hours to give up their guns. The central government would be telling the states the central government is in charge. It won't happen.
Gun banning could be accomplished by whittling away a little at a time state by state. That is why it is important not to give an inch at the State level. It is also why it is important that the States and Federal government be reminded of their agreement to the people.(The Bill of Rights) It won't happen over night as it did in your country.
As for your statement, "your precious Constitution"
Damn right.:rock:
It also gives us freedom of speech.
Don't know what this means, unless you didn't tell us you were a felon and they took your guns for that reason? How's that for poor guess work?:smile:
I'd like to try to get back to the base of the topic, as the deviations get us into some wild hypotheticals...
My bottom line is that it depends on how the change came about. If the US federal government decided tomorrow to ban all firearms from private ownership, and anyone found in non-compliance with the law were subject to jail time, then the US would up and revolt. Now, if the government decided to squeeze tighter and tighter on the gun nuts little by little, it would stand a MUCH better chance.
But the simple fact of the matter is that no one in their right mind wants to get rid of all guns. There are a few extreme nut cases that think total disarmament is a good idea, but by and large, no one advocates banning of all firearms. It would never happen, so anything we can say here is only hypothetical.
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.