If Gun owners are required to register their firearms and then they are banned what will happen?

Just curious...If lets say all guns are registered and then they are all banned what would happen??

Would the government go door to door and confiscate them?

Would Citizens just hand them in like Britan?

Would there be a Civil war?

Would gun owners resist?

At that point, the government would be disobeying its own laws. Very precarious situation. Kinda like the past eight years.

Hopefully one day gun owners will be free from attacks on our rights.

Until then...Molon Labe!!!

:rofl:

If I had a gun I'd do it.

Let's worry about something that might actually happen.

If such a bizarre scenario were to happen, most gun owners would turn in their guns if required. This is America and we're sheep.

Send her to my house. :)

N/T

To begin, the sport of hunting and gun collecting is a multi-billion dollar business, the legislation is never going to pass even with if there was no NRA , who would never let it pass. Next, every state in the union has a game commission who's vested interest is to have hunters with access to sporting guns. These organizations bring in billions of revenue that make conservation projects possible for their states, they're not about to give it up. Next, the only right you have been given is to hold private arms to maintain a militia, not own every para- military weapon that rolls down the pike. Turn off the right wing hate machine and use the brain that god gave you, nobody is going to take grandpa's 30-30 away, no one is even talking about it, except for the divide and conquer people who are using you for their own purpose.. And lastly, if you have an intelligent response to this , please comment, if all you can come up with is " they're going have to pry my gun out of my dead cold hands" save it, you've embarrassed your self enough. Now flame away....

If YOU were going to "hold private arms to maintain a militia", wouldn't a "para-military weapon" (and maybe a good handgun) be exactly the type of firearm you would hold? Of course it would be, just as it was intended, so we the people could be an effective militia (and for a bit of self-prservation via effective arms); which is why the right to such arms is secured. {Of course they would also be of similiar functionality & caliber to military arms in common use - 5.56, 7.62, 9mm, .45 etc.}

Why are those exactly the type of weapons that 1)are subject to licensing & registration in a new proposed bill, and 2)are subject to banning in other proposed bills, ad naseum, and 3)are the exact weapons Obama supports a permanent ban on? Wierd, huh?

So, no, there is really no justification for a fear that "all guns are going to be banned and confiscated". There is however reasonable cause to be concerned that some of the most popular privately owned guns, including those that as you point out we primarily have a secured right to, will be fodder for potential bans and registration - not always in that order. It has happened before.

Anyway, I do think (or hope) "just curious" in the OP shows it was asked for conversation-sake. It probably could have been asked more specifically for certain classes of weapons currently called out in bills and proposals, and then be more justified.

I only have my own opinions to work with but here are my thoughts. A Minutemen type of militia has been replaced by the National Guard. If we were to have the type of militia that every private citizen was to turn out with weapons in hand ,your right. I have a hard time with private citizens holding para-military weapons because of danger that they pose when in the wrong hands. I have no trouble with registering a weapon that's primary use is war. I'm not comfortable with everyone around me "packin'" and using these weapons as they diem necessary at such time. My job takes me into bad neighborhoods and I have never seen a situation that pepper spray wouldn't work better than a gun. All that being said, I own 30 or so long guns and 3 handguns and consider them to be works of art. Finely machined metal mounted in wonderfully crafted woods. The answers to all this very complicated, but the knee-jerk reaction of " they're gona' take away our guns" gets under my skin. I'm still a liberal and feel that we can have some middle ground were both are possible and the discussion needs to be had.:toast:

Ahh - I understand exactly - a few of mine I consider the same. Something about a nice over/under, dark oiled walnut, blued steel, etc.

I also like classic miliatry gems like the '03, M1 & Carbine, the M1A. The engineering, the history, etc. When a gun like those semis can be considered an "assault weapon" in drives me nuts!

An AR, though quite different looks-wise, still has it's attractions.

Thanks for the discussion!

For instance, a .223 caliber 'assault weapon' AR-15, in my home state, is illegal for deer hunting, because it is deemed to weak to kill a deer. (not half bad for bunnies though)

Any weapon capable of being used for 'large game' hunting, which would be deer and on up to grizzlies, is massively over-powered for hunting humans. These rifles are the technology of the last two world wars, as well as various conflicts since. (except Vietnam, where we opted for .223)

So, since civilian-duty rifles are of caliber, power, etc, far in excess of what is needed to kill a human.. So I wonder, how does one arbitrarily select some rifles for banning, and maintain some level of intellectual honesty?

(Keep in mind, the .30 caliber semi-auto AK-47 clones of various manufacture ARE legal, and perfectly suited for hunting deer)

The Guard was federalized in 1903 through the Dick Act. It is a reserve component of the active army, and as such cannot and never will be a militia. People can get confused since the various Guard units are all tied to their home states and often the lineage of each unit goes back to the 19th century, when they were originally founded as basically volunteer militia units. Yes, the Governor of their state gives them orders, but they take the exact same oath of enlistment and have the exact same obligations as any active Army soldier. The only difference is that the Guard and Reserves are called up more often for deployments so that CONUS and OCONUS bases can remain manned, and they are not all full time.


And if a weapon is owned primarily for potential militia use to force our government to rapidly alter its course, then it is exactly the kind of weapon that should NOT be registered. I personally don't think that any movement like that in our nation would be particularly bloody, since Americans have a tendency towards good nature and the bulk of our armed forces would be unwilling to heavily suppress U.S. citizens, though our police might.

And really it was geared toward the popular Semi Auto rifles..Mini 14, AR-15,SKS etc...

Good reply BTW!!

as I said before, the knee-jerk reaction gets to me. A reasonable discussion needs to take place.

These are the rifles being targeted right now.

Hey Pops give up your prized Rifle, you old people don't need any guns....

The Bill of Rights doesn't "give" rights to anyone.

since it is, according to him, cop-killer ammunition. I don't have a .30-30, don't particularly want one, what about my choice of firearms/ Is something OK since it was invented in the late 19th century, but a dangerous paramilitary weapon if it was invented fifty years ago, like the AR rifles? My grandchildren will be inheriting weapons designed and built before I was born and during my lifetime, including ARs, S&W revolvers, pistols based on the CZ-75 design, pistols invented in the 80s and 90s, at least one .22 rifle based on the Mauser action scaled down. variety is the spice of life

Just curious, what sort of firearms should a militia use?

"Next, every state in the union has a game commission who's vested interest is to have hunters with access to sporting guns. These organizations bring in billions of revenue that make conservation projects possible for their states, they're not about to give it up."


The state of Texas recently started a somewhat "aggressive" radio campaign to prompt folks to go hunting on state land. At first it surprised me, but reading your post shows that it's good business sense on the part of the state.

I know it is one of the largest sources of income for conservation projects and outdoor recreational areas, but really? Billions per state?

It would work somewhat less well than the War on Drugs and the War on Terror: lots of spending, lots of peripheral reductions in civil rights and liberties, lots of dead cops, lots of dead criminals, lots of dead innocents, jails full to bursting... and no noticable long-term or short-term reduction in violent crime or homicide rates.

If Gun owners are required to register their firearms and then they are banned what will happen?

Just curious...If lets say all guns are registered and then they are all banned what would happen??

Would the government go door to door and confiscate them?

Would Citizens just hand them in like Britan?

Would there be a Civil war?

Would gun owners resist?

First of all, when you say "they are all banned" I assume you mean that ownership is banned. Because we have already had a case with the Clinton Assault Weapon Ban where future sales of certain weapons was banned, but not current ownership. This simply means that the supply on the open market becomes instantly finite and it drives prices skyward.

I believe this has already happened. Did not California first go through registration and then a ban on ownership of certain assault weapons? What about Britain? Were weapons first registered and later ownership banned? What about Australia? I'm not certain of the details of their bans but they would give you insight as to what to expect.

In any case, in order for your question to be valid first we have to have firearm registration. I can tell you point-blank I will never register my firearms. At a minimum, I might, to avoid suspicion, register some of my worthless firearms so that should the police come asking I can plausibly demonstrate my registered firearm collection. But the bulk of my weapons, certainly those suitable for militia use, will never be registered. Since there is no way to prove I have not sold them or given them away, this is easily done.

As for confiscation, all I can say is this will be the line in the sand which, when crossed, indicates to me the government has become a threat to the liberty of the governed. When I was younger, with no family depending on me, I was full of ideas of things I might do in such an event. Now, who can say? Will I have the courage to act, possibly leaving my family with no one to provide for them? I think of our founders and that these same thoughts went through their minds when contemplating rebellion.

How will society in general respond to confiscation? Who knows. I would like to think there would be an uprising, but the fact of the matter is apathy is a huge problem. Look at this way. In spite of nearly a decade of stunningly bad government, perhaps the worst in living memory, Obama only won 52.9% of the popular vote, with McCain winning 45.7%, leaving a margin of 7.2% On top of this, despite the highest turnout in 40 years, only about 63% of eligible voters voted in the presidential election, which means some 37% didn't bother.

It also greatly depends on what happens in the future. Already hunting and shooting are becoming the sport of people with plenty of disposable income. When I go to the range I usually shoot at least $150 worth of ammunition. I am lucky if I get to go 4 times a year, which means I'm literally burning up $600 worth of money every year for my hobby. I guess everyone blows money on their hobbies (see golf fees, boating fees, skiing fees) but I'm thinking I could do a lot better things for my family than indulge in an activity that literally burns cash with no produceable product to show for it. I'm probably going to switch to black powder shooting just for the cost savings. My father, who hunts waterfowl, uses special non-lead ammunition which can run $2 a shell. Now fortunately there are large swaths of the country that are rural where hunting can be done for little money, but for many it is becoming a rich man's game. This means it will be perceived by many as something that most people don't do and consequently most will see little negative impact if it were gone.

Moreover, it is not much of a stretch to think that some tragedy will transpire to cause a national uprising against firearms and firearm ownership, as happened in England. Every time I hear a news event about a shooting I cringe at the prospect of hearing that some lunatic has gone into a daycare and gunned down 50-100 toddlers. Such an event would be catastrophic in its own right, of course, but also for firearm ownership. It may be the sort of thing that irreversibly turns public sentiment against firearm ownership.

:evilgrin:

It would be terrible tragedy, but I would dutifully report that my boat had capsized in the middle of Galveston Bay and that all of my firearms, except for an FEG PA-63 were lost. The FEG I would dutifully turn over to them...after receiving just compensation, as Constitutionally required, of course. :evilgrin:

Short answers to your questions:

Just curious...If lets say all guns are registered and then they are all banned what would happen??
First you have to register all firearms. That in itself is nearly impossible. Many states, like Florida, have no registration requirements. An attempt on the part of the Federal government to require registration might well cause the political party that suggested it to be thrown out of office.

Would the government go door to door and confiscate them?
Yes, eventually the government would have to take such measures in order to eliminate all firearms from civilian ownership.

Would Citizens just hand them in like Britan?
No, we are not sheep as our nation was born in an armed rebellion. Many citizens would comply. Some would not.

Would there be a Civil war?
Possibly, and if there was to be a Civil war it would disrupt our life far more than this recession we face today.

Would gun owners resist?
Yes, some would resist. Of those who do resist a few would be extremely dangerous and quite capable considering the training they received courtesy of our excellent military.

Longer reply:

The local police where I live are firearm enthusiasts (gun nuts) and firm believers in the Second Amendment. I personally know these officers and have actually gone shooting with a couple of them. One officer roomed with us for a while in this big old house which was once a hotel. The local police would probably not consider gun confiscation something that they would want to do to a citizen with no criminal record. An outside agency would probably have to be tasked with the job. Without the cooperation of the local authorities, this might prove challenging.

But in some areas of the country where guns are not as common or accepted as Florida, it is possible that guns could be confiscated. In such areas, the police are not as firearm friendly. Not having much experience with legally armed citizens, especially citizens with concealed carry permits, many officers view an individual with a firearm as a threat. They might well say, "Only cops and the military should have weapons."

Of course, most honest law abiding citizens would probably comply with firearm confiscation, but a percentage of these good citizens would hold out. Criminals wouldn't comply with the law as criminals by definition do not obey laws. (Criminals would find confiscation of firearms the greatest law to ever pass.)

True firearm enthusiasts (gun nuts) would probably hide their weapons and ammunition in underground caches. (I've already encountered several shooters who have such caches and they surprisingly are not militia members or nut cases. Almost all have current or prior service in the military or the police.)

More militant members of our society would actually consider resistance. Most of these "patriots" are fairly harmless and merely love to play war games in the woods while wearing their camouflage uniforms. Gun confiscation would transform their hobby into something far more sinister. These individuals have predicted gun confiscation for years and have discussed plans on how to resist.

We already have to worry about foreign terrorism and there is little reason to stir up a hornets’ nest of domestic terrorists. Remember Timothy McVeigh and the bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City? He was pissed off at what he considered a tyrannical federal government so he decided to blow up a building on the second anniversary of the Waco Siege which started with the ATF attempting firearm confiscation. It wouldn't be entirely unreasonable to predict that 50 to 100 or more "patriots" would attempt to disrupt life in our nation if the government decided to confiscate firearms.

Initially a firearm confiscation program would have some success. The problems would start to occur after the first phase. An agency (Gestapo) would have to make raids on homes and arrest citizens that were felt to have firearms. Undoubtedly violence and death would occur. Incidents similar to the Branch Dravidian siege in Waco Texas would occur. The political backlash would be enormous. Whatever party pushed the confiscation law would be thrown out of office.

The United States is not England, Canada or Australia. Our culture is entirely different and our country was founded on armed rebellion against a controlling government. We are by nature a violent country and our citizens have a history of distrusting an overbearing government. As a nation many of our citizens believe in individual freedoms that include the right to own firearms for self defense or as a last resort to resist a government that desires to turn us into unarmed helpless slaves.

A Civil war is a possibility. The probability of organized groups of citizens actually being able to overthrow the United States government is questionable at the best. However, our government has spent enormous sums of money to train individuals the skills needed to be effective soldiers. We have sent our youth to foreign nations with this training to fight numerous bloody wars. We have managed to produce a cadre of very experienced fighters who could use their skills to attempt an overthrow of our own government. Many of these individuals believe in individual rights and freedoms as guaranteed by our Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Our government has asked them to go in harm's way before to "promote democracy and our way of life". Some of these well trained individuals will be willing to use the skills they learned to fight a government they feel no longer represents the country the founding fathers established.

Would the government be able to convince the military to raid homes and kill citizens to confiscate weapons from honest citizens? The military itself might decide to overthrow any government that purposed such an idea.

The best approach to controlling firearms in our country is to tweak our current laws to be more effective. Reasonable gun legislation is doable, but the definition of reasonable is in the eye of the beholder. To me, ideas such as outlawing or restricting semi-auto weapons or the registration of all weapons is unreasonable. Finding a way to eliminate people with severe mental problems from owning or purchasing firearms sounds reasonable. Requiring some training for individuals who own or want to purchase firearms sounds reasonable.

To solve the problem of firearm related violence in our society, we also need to concentrate on the criminal element especially criminal gangs and make illegally carrying weapons unprofitable. Draconian punishments, laws and police attention focused on the group that causes the majority of gun violence will have more effect than laws directed toward restricting honest citizens from owning firearms or types of firearms.

edited for title change

You hit all the points with excellent answers.

Point is We as a Nation need no further gun control.

If our Party pushes for any more gun control, we will pay the price.

I also agree that any push to enact draconian gun laws will cause the Democratic Party to lose much of the ground gained during this election.

That we definitely don't need.

The sky would already have fallen, wouldn't it?




Or has it already ... 3 more days, is it?

And sales of ABS pipe.

:rofl:

... THEN THEY CONFISCATE THEM!!!!!!!!!!!

Door to door. Just like in that bible thing.

Yes--we're all painfully aware of the influence of lobbying groups who would like to ban the private ownership of children.

Sadly, I can imagine a few nutters will go off the deep end and shootup the place and kill when their guns are taken away.

No, there would be no confiscation. Law abiding people would turn them in and be compensated. Criminals would not. However guns don't last forever with no new supply, criminals would eventually be disarmed as well.

No. There would be no civil war. Republicans like to talk big, but thats all that it is.

Overall however, the net will be fewer gun deaths.

Given the current climate and control of Washington, I think this is something that we could accomplish within the next 12 years.

A good place to start will be assault weapons and I think the stage is set within the next 6 months to start that happening.

The 1911 pistol that my grandfather used in Korea works just as well as it did in 1951, as does the Model 1897 shotgun that his father bought in 1921-2.

My father has a black powder rifle that as far as gun experts can tell still functions- even though it's over 150 years old.

A well maintained weapon of sufficient quality can easily last 50+ years.

Why again do you think that 'assault weapons' is a good place to start?

and the political environment is just about perfect.

.. we should do that, yes?

Why not just put every government action on a ballot and have mob rule?

If 50.001% of americans think we should do away with Roe, you'd be cool with that?

Oh, never mind.

It's not like the answers aren't obvious.

and got a glib answer that showed a distinct lack of thought (or at least not verbalizing the thought behind it.)

Your question is where to start. Naturally it makes sense to start where success is most likely.

Assault weapons are the low hanging fruit of our weapon proliferation problem.

.. was why start there. Your response was 'because it's easy' (more or less).

I think we have a fundamental disconnect- I don't see the proliferation of weapons as a problem in and of itself- just the criminal misuse of them. There's no way to get from your "A" to my "B" with that in the middle.

Same answer as post 44, I expect.

And reason for the pointless ... or is that disingenuous? ... repetition?

It is estimated that some 15,000,000 Americans (more than the number who hunt) now own a weapon in the crude category of "assault weapons" (semi-auto carbines); this weapon is now the largest-selling center-fire (all except .22 and .17 rim fire) rifle in the U.S.; they are selling at a fast rate at this very hour.

Your "perfect environment" would be a "perfect storm." Check back in after 6 mos. and let's compare notes.

The 1994 AWB was good start, but that definition needs more refinement and manufacturer loop holes closed.

misconceptions regarding what an assault rifle actually is. I didn't know myself, (I actually hadn't much considered the issue) until I ran across DU forums.

From Wikipedia:

An assault rifle is a selective fire (automatic and semi-automatic) rifle . Assault rifles are the standard small arms in most modern armies, having largely replaced or supplemented larger, more powerful battle rifles, such as the World War II-era M1 Garand and SVT-40. Examples of assault rifles include the AK-47, the M16 rifle, and the Steyr AUG.

Semi-automatic rifles such as the AR-15 and civilian versions of the AK-47 are not assault rifles, as they are not selective fire. Nor do belt-fed weapons or rifles with fixed magazines meet the definition of an assault rifle.

There is a difference between your terminology and mine. An assault weapon is anything used to perpetrate an assault. What we are really talking about here are rifles, more specifically assault rifles, which are rifles designed and used by the military. Some of the design features used in those weapons can be applied to civilian use. Among those are weight reduction, ergonomic features like a pistol grip and attachment points for lights etc. Other design features are less applicable for use by civilians, like selective fire (which presupposes a well funded supply chain), and a medium power cartridge that is less than effective for taking large game.

Having said that, I am sure there are those on this forum that will be able to significantly refine and/or correct my definition, but that's a start as a courtesy to you. I would suggest you read back a few threads where the subject has been thoroughly discussed in excruciating detail.

Will the legislated definition differ from the wikipedia and Internet forum definition? I'm sure it will.

will agree with you there, but for very different reasons. Unless we know exactly what we are regulating, the legislation written for that regulation will be uselessly vague and impossible to interpret. I don't think anybody wants to enact bad legislation. Unless, of course one has an ideological objective, then poorly written legislation can come in very handy.

Any product involves a capital investment. If that capital investment is regulated by poorly written legislation, there is a powerful disincentive to invest in it. It's a handy way to regulate something out of existence without actually admitting that is what you are doing. The absurd cocktail of cosmetic features in the AWB was just such an attempt.

A rifle, or for that matter a pistol, a cannon, a slingshot, a crossbow, or your arm (hence the term firearm) are all just ordinance delivery systems. As far as the rifles of interest here go, they are all the same in that the bullets go in the bottom and out the front. If you want to regulate them, the best way to do so is to regulate how the ordinance delivery system delivers the ordinance. That means regulate the rate of fire, the range, the power, or the ammunition capacity of the system. All of those options have been extensively discussed in this forum. All of them, as far as I know, will be either unenforceable, ineffective, or unfair to lawful firearms owners who use those weapons in pursuits that do not involve illegal activity.

I appreciate your legitimate concerns here, and I share them, but I would suggest you research the issue before you support unworkable legislation. Such support only gets the wrong people elected for the wrong reasons to the detriment of all.

That's putting the cart before the horse, no?

I'm just not interested in playing feature trivia when my personal definition differs someone else's personal definition.

Ultimately, when there is an assault weapon ban. The lawmakers will a draw a line in the sand that says "THIS is ok" and "THIS is not ok". It the same logic that says you can drink at 21 years of age, but not at 20 years and 364 days. It's somewhat arbitrary, but based on facts.

What general characteristics would you use to place the bar? In the above example, you used age. What's the general criteria you'd use? Power? Rate of fire?

I don't want to be snarky, but the problem of definition is exactly what other posters are trying to point out to you as the problem with an "assault weapons" ban.

The THIS that would be ok, as opposed to the THAT that would be illegal is not a minor detail--it's the very purpose of the law. If you can't (or won't) state what THIS and THAT would be, I'm not sure what the point of even discussing an "assault weapons" ban is.

Yes I could certainly spell out a definition, and then the gang would then nitpick it. What's the point?

Various legislatures around the country have defined it already. Congress defined them in 1994.


When AW's are banned again, they'll probably take the 1994 AWB and enhance the portions that fell short.

And it isn't trivia when you fuckers decide you want to look at a list of technical terms you couldn't give a smaller shit about and don't intend to learn the meaning of, then pick and choose which ones are going to result in a firearm being restricted. Enhance the portions that fell short of what? Is there going to be a picture book litmus test this time around? will there be a slideshow and the AG or whoever is put in charge will look through and say "that looks slightly menacing, banned, that gun is too black, banned, that gun has a shoulder thing that goes up, banned"?



The reason we "nitpick" the ideas you fools have is because they are retarded.

with guns, intelligence isn't always a factor.

or would just follow some line of thought such as "developed for military use" or "military style", well guess what, nearly every arm and many other extremely useful implements began their existance out of military neccessity. We would not have radar if we did not need to develop a better way to track incoming enemy planes, and aviation would not be anywhere near what it is today if it were not for World War I. Emergency trauma/medical techniques and implements would also not be where they are today without military need, and neither would reconstructive surgery.


Military and civilian technology is inherently intertwined, one has always driven the other and always will.

kindly produce one.

Sounds like he got it right, without going into a lot of "external mag & x or more features" bullshit, anyway. And of course he did, since...
You asked...
What do you consider an assault weapon?

then said...
Nope. Sorry. There are a lot of common misconceptions regarding what an assault rifle actually is.



:shrug:

replying to me or yodoobo, so I'll pester you anyway.

That's a large part of the problem with the entire issue regarding assault rifles. This business of referring to them as "assault weapons" is designed to make people afraid of something that can be redefined on an ad hoc basis depending on political need. That kind of governance got us the Patriot Act and the occupation of Iraq in a response to the "war on terror", and who wants to go back there?

Off topic, but BTW I think I owe you a response to an earlier post regarding the banning of firearms. I wasn't aware that you were engaging in a thought exercise when I replied and it was fun to work with it. Thanks again. It seems to me that the gun owners around here are the more courteous and open minded of the group, while those on the other side of the issue appear to be, on balance, more shrill, sarcastic, and less well informed. It would be refreshing to see if those who would favor the outright banning of all firearms to engage in the same sort of experiment to see if there were some way to require the ownership of firearms by everybody.

Proper maintenance to keep a quality firearm in working order isn't very difficult. Would the government start investigating anyone buying oils or grease?

If a complete firearm ban were ever passed, it would take a generation before they become truly rare.

IMO it would look something like this

1) Immediately, 70% of them would be turned in for compensation.

2) Every year, about 1% to 3% would be removed through attrition. I.e. folks turning them in, cops finding them in other police matters, being used and recovered in a crime etc.

3) As the owners passed away, most of them would not be passed onto heirs, as few heirs would accept a bequest that would make them an instant felon. Some would of course, but most wouldn't.

End result is that in the space of generation, guns would become truly rare

I think you'd be lucky to see 30% turned in at best (for your camp). And 1-3% attrition rate through crimes and whatnot is also an awfully high number, and doesn't account for all the new ones being made after hours in machine shops and well-equipped garages, nor does it account for smuggling.


And I think you would be shocked at how many people would accept a family heirloom regardless of legal requirements to not possess any.

Excellent point.

We see this happen in Mexico all the time.

Xela

70% of guns would be turned in? I know many law-abiding people that own many guns, and I can say without hesitation that only a small fraction of them would even consider turning in their guns.

And a 1-3% attrition rate? I'm not sure if you're honestly acknowledging the fact that guns (and the parts for guns) consist of relatively easily manufactured metal and wooden components that a halfway decent machinesmith could turn out with fairly mimimal training.

There are many durable items in our society that are completely legal and non-controversial.

A cast iron skillet can easily last 200 years. Yet how many of us own our great great great grandmothers cookware?

Even 100% legal and non-controversial items get lost and destroyed through time.

In regards to machine shops building weapons. You are right of course. But how many machine shops have popped up since the 1930's to produce machine guns? How many people do you know that defy laws against machine gun ownership?

Machine guns were not even completely banned, just heavily regulated, yet within a generation, they are very rare.


The actual figures are impossible to know until it happens, but if a class, subclass or all firearms were to be banned and the penalty were 20 years in prison. I do believe that ownership would be quite rare within a generation.

a constitutional right. Actually, I'm more interested in you justifying how you would get around the Second Amendment than arguing whether 70% or 7% of gun owners would obey a ban.

A cast iron skillet can easily last 200 years. Yet how many of us own our great great great grandmothers cookware?

That's right. People are much more likely to have an emotional or traditional connection to a firearm, and are much more likely to pass it along to future generations. How does this help your argument?

Machine guns were not even completely banned, just heavily regulated, yet within a generation, they are very rare.

There has never been a tradition of machine gun ownership in the U.S. Making something illegal that was already very rare is unlikely to make it more commonplace.

Nobody is proposing taking away all the firearms.

And subclasses of weapons have been banned before with constitutional muster.

If hunting rifles and handguns were still permitted, it's unlikely the Supreme court would even hear a challenge to an assault weapon ban.

What are you proposing to ban? How do you plan to define this class? Appearance? If you do that, then you run into the same problem as the 94 ban. Power? "Assault Weapons" are smack dab in the middle of the 'power' range, so you'd be hard pressed to say it was based on power when so many hunting rifles are more powerful. Rate of fire? Same problem with semi-automatic hunting rifles.

See the problem? It's hard to define something concrete with teeth without looking silly compared to the hunting rifles that are in use.

This also completely bypasses the constitutionality of banning a (badly?) defined class of weapons in the precedent of heller and the commentary.

Yet how many of us own our great great great grandmothers cookware?

How many of us face even the remote prospect of having to defend our lives with our great great grandmother's cookware?

Machine guns were not even completely banned, just heavily regulated, yet within a generation, they are very rare.

Have you ever bought ammunition for a weapon that shoots 400 rounds a minute? (Trust a cheap bastard like me to make a point like that :) ) It's easy to heavily regulate any expensive esoteric device with little proven utility in everyday practice. Nobody really needs to have a machine gun. Personal protection with a reasonable weapon is another issue.

...if a class, subclass or all firearms were to be banned and the penalty were 20 years in prison. I do believe that ownership would be quite rare within a generation.

In fact, it appears that there has already been about as much "sub class regulation" as there can be regarding firearms. The careful parsing of terminology and confusion regarding exactly what we are talking about in discussions like this are the result ongoing attempts to regulate deadly weapons in general. Beginning at the outer edges of utility excessively powerful or expensive weapons have been successfully and rightfully regulated. Machine guns, explosive devices, shoulder fired surface to air missiles, and all of that other stuff that goes boom are pretty rare in society. What remains are weapons that are within the financial means and train-ability within the intellectual learning curve of the balance of law abiding citizens. There has also, of course, been successful regulation of the citizens themselves regarding mental competence, criminal record, or current adjudication relating to firearms ownership. All of these attempts have begun at the outer edges of the issue and have converged on the center about as far as legislation can go.

Now, if you want to ban all firearms, well, that's 'nother sack 'o taters. Firearms ownership, for good or ill, is part and parcel of American culture. If you want to ban them, you are talking about a major redirection of our cultural trajectory. That redirection presumes tremendous political will. If you want to do that, and it's not necessarily a bad idea, why waste it to ban a single piece of technology? If you can figure out a way to talk Americans out of their guns, you can talk them into anything. Let's talk them into being better citizens. Let's talk them into using fewer natural resources. Let's talk them into not stealing those natural resources from third world countries. In short, let's talk Americans into being better, more responsible people. When we do that, the presence of guns will become a moot point.

A cast iron skillet can easily last 200 years. Yet how many of us own our great great great grandmothers cookware?

I have and am still using my great aunt's mother' cast iron cookware because I have a cousin who proclaimed, "That old shit don't go in my kitchen! I'm throwing it out." forty years ago. I suspect most cast iron cookware didn't go to the landfill worn out but rather, a couple of generations ago, some woman insisted that it was "...too old-fashioned... too black... too heavy... or too ugly to be in her kitchen!"

But then I have a basement workshop full of 19th century wood and metal working tools because they fascinate me and I enjoy using them to build or repair things around the house.

As to the rarity of machineguns and heirlooms, there are still guns being found as WW2 vets die and their families discover the MP-40 Uncle Charlie brought back from Europe on the troopship in 1945. Remember, this was a time when soldiers traveled on the train to their next duty station with their rifle. No one, not Customs, not the War Department, not the MP's looked to see what was in the duffle and seabags of WW2 vets. Prior to GCA '68, bringing back War Trophy firearms was a minor paperwork drill and thousands of GI's didn't even bother with that.

With bring-backs I mean. Find a nice SVD in Iraq or Afhganistan, why shouldn't a troop be allowed to bring it back with him or her? I also feel that closing the MG registry was an awful thing to do, and that if it hadn't been closed (except to those with the right friends of course) I would support allowing troops to follow NFA procedures for any normal MG/Class 3 transfer to bring back NFA-covered items as well. Everythig but explosive weapons, they are all basically the same, just a piece of metal and wood or plastic designed for the purpose of hurling a small piece of copper and lead at relatively high speeds. The NFA procedure would handily take care of any concerns about messed up troops bringin back MGs and gunning people down, there is a reason the only crime committed with a Class 3 weapon in the last thirty or forty years was by a police officer, not a private individual with a personally owned MG.

for ordinary soldiers (enlisted and officer), nothing qualifies to be brought back unless it is pre- 1898 and thus not considered a firearm under Federal law. Congress did, however, exempt Flag Officers specifically from NFA provisions in the GCA'68. Another reason to get promoted to General or Admiral besides your very own personal G.O. model Colt pistol.

Military veterans traditionally bring home weapons from wars, but over the years, the rules have been tightened.

This form dates from early during the Viet Nam war.

http://madbaronet.com/form_pdfs/DD603-1_non-gun_trophy.pdf

An Army regulation limiting the taking of "war trophies" was issued in 1969 because of the passage of the Gun Control Act of 1968 and the inability to register NFA firearms.

Then in 1992, after the Persian Gulf War, Congress passed a law setting procedures for taking "war booty." Notice that even edged weapons, such as swords or bayonets no longer are permitted.

http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/infomgt/forms/eforms/dd0603-1.pdf

That is why I wish things were different.

http://lawreview.law.wfu.edu/documents/issue.43.837.pdf

^ A Wake Forest Law Review article that discusses the 'remainder problem'. If I recall, they assert that it would be more like 200 years before the last guns were gone.

Very few problems are ELIMINATED by public policy.

Many, however, are REDUCED.

I think though the question is not so much a matter of "when the last gun is gone" anymore than we are concerned about when the exact last gallon of DDT will be destroyed.

The question is when would the "critical mass" of weapons be gone where they cease to be big factor in crime.

is a single gun left anywhere it will be a factor in crime, either to commit the crime or to defend against it.

On edit:
If all guns were banned as you proposed, ownership of the weapon itself would be a crime.

so I'm not sure what "critical mass" of crime guns you think legislation against them would impact. Please read that article, you really are showing over and over that you have strong feelings about firearms legislation, yet you have a stated refusal to actually learn anything about either the issues themselves or what the actual objects you want regulated and eliminated are.

I have one of these that was likely brought to the Colonies sometime in the 1760's. I am sure it has long since been struck from Her Majesty's property books and completely forgotten about 250 years before a 4473 existed. It was built, largely by hand, at a time when a water wheel was the most advanced method of powering machinery; steam engines being a couple of generations in the future. Its lock throws a better spark and it has more positive ignition than any currently manufactured reproduction flintlock I have fired.



Here in Kentucky there are several well-known and dozens of only locally known saltpeter caves. Living history types have produced gunpowder from cave dirt using methods recorded 250 years ago. As for ignition, how many "Flint Hills" were named that by our really ancient ancestors making spear points a couple thousand years ago?

My hand-napped flints don't last as long as the 18th century British Army surplus ones do, but using them, homemade powder and hand cast round balls, this musket will still throw a 3/4 inch chunk of lead with sufficient accuracy to hit a man at 100 yards, and with practice, at the Redcoat recruit's pace of 4 shots a minute.

How do you effectively ban that ancient a technology?

:rofl:



"Sadly, I can imagine a few nutters will go off the deep end and shootup the place and kill when their guns are taken away."

Blood in the streets eh?


"No, there would be no confiscation. Law abiding people would turn them in and be compensated. Criminals would not. However guns don't last forever with no new supply, criminals would eventually be disarmed as well."

And until that glorious day, the law-abiding citizens will protect themselves HOW?


"No. There would be no civil war. Republicans like to talk big, but thats all that it is."

You assume this based on what?


"Overall however, the net will be fewer gun deaths."

Haven't experienced many prohibitions, have you?


"Given the current climate and control of Washington, I think this is something that we could accomplish within the next 12 years."

The NFA was supposed to help cure that pesky crime syndicate problem, your ass-sult weapon ban will do what?


"A good place to start will be assault weapons and I think the stage is set within the next 6 months to start that happening."

Say goodbye to your favorite representative, you'll have until the 2010 elections to help get her/his affairs in order.


here's your sign:
To heck with economic issues or dealing with actual criminals through use of existing laws, let's piss off law-abiding citizens!

There are large numbers of people stupid enough to do horrible things on both sides. How many mass shooting incidents and bombings before the police state Bush created swings into effect.

There may be internal problems because the police and military have significant numbers of people who own guns. Many may not be willing to do door to door confiscation against violent American resistance.

Look down south for a possible scenario.

Tough gun laws exist in Mexico...and they are hardly followed.

They seem to have a black market going on just fine.

That's not a model we want to follow, however.

Xela

Because firearms would drop like lawn darts from the sky into that black market.

Once international trafficking was addressed, like by severe sanctions against violators, they would undoubtedly arrive in Chicago via flying saucer from Mars.

Because cocaine and opium drop like lawn darts from the sky.

Strange how tons of cocaine and heroin from other countries still manages to get here despite severe sanctions against violators. They must be being dropped off by flying saucers from mars.

My giggle for the day.

:rofl:

If we wanted to address the opium from Afghanistan situation, for instance, we would insist that the crop be legalized and taxed, etc., and used to produce opiate pain-relief drugs for the developing world, e.g. This would of course also cut the Taliban off at the knees.

For some reason, "we" don't seem to want to do this ...

just as easily as drugs which are in abundance in America.


So you believe we should stop heroin by legalizing opium in Afghanistan?

So you believe we should stop heroin by legalizing opium in Afghanistan?

Mu.

The question does not make sense, and is loaded with a false premise.

I said nothing about "stopping heroin".

I said that legalizing the opium crop in Afghanistan, thus providing a reliable source of income for a lot of Afghanis who now have no reliable legal source of income, would
(a) go a long way to eliminating a source of heroin for illegal trafficking; and
(b) go a long way to eliminating the funding for Taliban activities and the support among the population for the Taliban, which provides opium farmers with income.

The sources of cocaine and heroin for the illegal market are not going to be cut off by defoliating land and repressing populations. And at the moment, that's all the "war on drugs", including in Afghanistan, is an excuse to do: destroy the livelihoods and lives of impoverished, repressed populations.

all the imported illegal drugs. Illegal drugs can be imported in large quantity, illegal guns could be imported in large quantity.


Do you really believe that legal opium in Afghanistan would reduce heroin availability in America?
Destroying their livelihoods? They are drug dealers.

The UN blackmailed.....er, talked South Africa into stopping exports of munitions. Too bad SA's military hierchy didn't get the memo. Yup, make more and more and more laws and throw in sanctions for good measure until the bad guys take you seriously!

:rofl:

like those that keep knock offs of Prado bags and Rolex watches from street vendors in Toronto?

and the you might want to look into the manufacturing of guns in the Khyber pass and Pashtoon regions of Afghanistan and Pakistan. They are making everything from correctly aged Martini-Henry rifles to sell to GI's as souvenirs to the Soviet KPV 14.5mm machinguns and everything in between in cottage industry.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=751_1177818439

Given the tendency of the "urbane sophisticate" to look down upon mere tradesmen and others who work with their hands one can only imagine their discomfiture discovering that the 300 ton drop forge and CNC machine antecedents, the blacksmith's hammer and handfiles producing finely crafted precision metalwork using methods gunmakers pioneered centuries ago.