Disarming America: How it would go down

[seamusTX]

Assuming for the sake of discussion that the political will existed to "ban guns" in the United States (which it does not), the deed would not be done by storm troopers going door to door. This would cause a constitutional crisis; and after the first week, no one could be paid enough to go on a likely suicide mission.

It would only be necessary to make discharging a firearm a federal felony (except for police, military, and officially sanctioned hunting and Olympic practice).

If the Supreme Court or some such independent entity dug in their heels, the law could be tailored to ban shooting within a mile of a school, church, hospital, nursing home, airport, seaport, federal property, oil refinery, habitat of an endangered species, etc. You get the picture. Also to have a $1 a round tax on ammunition.

This would pretty much shut down all non-LEO shooting ranges and the entire civilian ammunition and firearms industry.

The late Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan from New York realized this 20 years ago. He introduced several bills in Congress that would have taxed or otherwise restricted ammunition.

After that, anyone who used a firearm in self defense or went on a shooting spree would be disarmed, arrested, and imprisoned one at a time. The public would tsk, shake their heads, and go back to watching TV.

A couple of decades later nearly every firearm owned by an honest person in the U.S. would be a rusty wall-hanger at best. The process would be slow, but the New World Order is patient.

- Jim

[Poldark]

Registration is the major step. Remember the UK and Australia/NZ. I believe that all of the communists states and Germany of the 20s/30's started with registration, then confiscation ?

[seamusTX]

Let me try to explain this in different terms.

People don't like it when the state takes away something that they possess. Americans are not too fond even of getting their cars registered or inspected, renewing their driver licenses, filing income tax returns, etc.

However, the government can more easily crimp off the supply of something that is difficult or expensive to manufacture or import. This does not always work. It did not work with alcohol, marijuana, heroin, etc.; but you can't find DDT or absinthe these days.

- Jim

[steve817]

Let me try to explain this in different terms.

People don't like it when the state takes away something that they possess. Americans are not too fond even of getting their cars registered or inspected, renewing their driver licenses, filing income tax returns, etc.

However, the government can more easily crimp off the supply of something that is difficult or expensive to manufacture or import. This does not always work. It did not work with alcohol, marijuana, heroin, etc.; but you can't find DDT or absinthe these days.

- Jim

Oh, absinthe can be had.

[Oldgringo]

Are there enough Federal pens to house the dissenters? Whart kind of fines are the Obamanoids planning to assess the homeless and disenfranchised former gun owners? In the Federal Pen, there are no worries about healthcare, food and housing, clothing, recreation, entertainment, etc., etc.

I dunno', what do you think...?

[seamusTX]

I guess absinthe is legally available in the U.S. again. I hadn't looked (and didn't care).

Maybe a better comparison is hand grenades. They have never been illegal for non-LEO civilians to own in the U.S., but with the $200 NFA tax they were rather expensive noisemakers. It's rare to hear of illegal possession of hand grenades in this country, and probably one has never been used in a crime. (People who blow things up seem to prefer homemade bombs.)

Handguns nearly went the same route as machine guns and hand grenades in 1934, as I pointed out a while back: viewtopic.php?f=4&t=17481" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


- Jim

[seamusTX]

Are there enough Federal pens to house the dissenters?

No. Prisons, gulags, re-education camps, and the like are expensive and outmoded.

Look at what they do with things like tax evasion and insider trading: Only a few people go to prison as "examples." Most offenders are found guilty, spend a token amount of time in prison, get probation, then have their earnings confiscated until their debt to the government is paid off. This maintains the cash flow and keeps their dependents from becoming wards of the state.

- Jim

[jimlongley]

I guess absinthe is legally available in the U.S. again. I hadn't looked (and didn't care).

Yes, it is, and I enjoy it as much as I did in France in the 60s. Of course a drink every month or so MUST be enjoyed.

Maybe a better comparison is hand grenades. They have never been illegal for non-LEO civilians to own in the U.S., but with the $200 NFA tax they were rather expensive noisemakers. It's rare to hear of illegal possession of hand grenades in this country, and probably one has never been used in a crime. (People who blow things up seem to prefer homemade bombs

Of course there is always Kenyon Ballew, who the judge ruled had been illegally in possession of grenades and had been using them in crimes.

[seamusTX]

What crime was Ballew found guilty of?

- Jim

[Dragonfighter]

What crime was Ballew found guilty of?

- Jim

IIRC armed robbery and terroristic threats..or charges to that effect.

I do not believe you hear about illegal grenade ownership for a couple of reasons. Inert examples are available for use as curios and the real deal is cumbersome, touchy and too random to make an effective offense or defense weapon in most scenarios. Now claymores on the other hand...

Added in Edit: Oops, remembering the wrong case...Ballew was killed in what has since become an all too common case of excessive force.

[apostate]

Looking at other countries provides a multitude of examples how it could be done.

[jimlongley]

What crime was Ballew found guilty of?

- Jim

IIRC armed robbery and terroristic threats..or charges to that effect.

I do not believe you hear about illegal grenade ownership for a couple of reasons. Inert examples are available for use as curios and the real deal is cumbersome, touchy and too random to make an effective offense or defense weapon in most scenarios. Now claymores on the other hand...

Added in Edit: Oops, remembering the wrong case...Ballew was killed in what has since become an all too common case of excessive force.

Ballew was not killed, nor was he ever convicted, he was shot in the head and rendered incapacitated for life, which is as good as a conviction in my book, particularly since the government, the individual shooter, and any other parties involved were absolved of responsibility for their actions by the judge's rulings.

[seamusTX]

Looking at other countries provides a multitude of examples how it could be done.

Most other countries never had a tradition of armed citizens. Going back centuries, the government held a monopoly on armed force, and peasants or serfs were prohibited from owning weapons (not just firearms, but swords, shields, etc.).

Those countries never had to deal with large numbers of effectively armed citizens or try to talk their way around a constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

What is necessary is to make weapons ownership more expensive and legally complicated, and to make sport shooting more expensive and difficult. The federal government and state governments of this country have tried to do that, mainly since the National Firearms Act of 1934, through the Assault Weapons Ban and local bans such as in Washington, D.C., and Chicago.

At some point firearms owners, who still number in the tens of millions, started to say No. We have been successful at stopping the trend and even reversing it to some extent.

Some clever lawyers developed the strategy of suing civilian firearms manufacturers and dealers out of existence. They also made progress in that direction until the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act and various state laws were passed a few years ago.

The real danger, given the circumstances of this country, is loss of interest in the shooting sports and understanding of the legal basis for civilian firearms ownership. When firearms ownership is limited to a few people who are wealthy enough to afford the expensive license and ammunition—and everyone else who possesses a weapon is viewed as a criminal—there will be no effective resistance to further disarmament and no need to go door to door.

- Jim

[sjfcontrol]

So, What's going to be in Obama's new Gun Control Plans?

http://www.nramedia.org/t/112623/6807142/5446/0/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[The Annoyed Man]

Let me try to explain this in different terms.

People don't like it when the state takes away something that they possess. Americans are not too fond even of getting their cars registered or inspected, renewing their driver licenses, filing income tax returns, etc.

However, the government can more easily crimp off the supply of something that is difficult or expensive to manufacture or import. This does not always work. It did not work with alcohol, marijuana, heroin, etc.; but you can't find DDT or absinthe these days.

- Jim

Actually, this is exactly why the Obama administration won't new permit drilling in any meaningful way. By choking off the supply of new oil and creating conditions where existing production is priced out of the market, they intend to force a condition in which the very wealthy will have to buy alternatively powered vehicles, and the rest of us will have to use public transportation.........owned by the state. All part of their socialist dream.