Hypothetical question concerning a gun ban

[PrinceofWands]

In another thread there is some debate about people's willingness to participate in a revolution given certain extreme circumstances. Please vote in the poll based on the following scenerio:

The democrats win election in '08 and now control all branches of government. Even so, they know they could never manage a Constitutional amendment repealing the second amendment. Instead, they push through legislation banning the sale to, or possession of handguns by, private citizens. In order to avoid court interference the implement an immediate confiscation process, including door to door searches.

Many organizations immediately object and file lawsuits of course, and many politicians begin arguing against it. The fed claims that if the situation is allowed to continue there would be civil unrest which could cause serious damage to national stability and security, and they therefore declare a form of limited 'martial law' during which they assume absolute authority to carry out the confiscations and also claim exemption from any actions seeking to limit their authority in this case.

Appeals are made to all levels of government, demonstrations are arranged and broken up by the government, requests to foreign governments for intervention are ignored. Literally every possible avenue to peaceful resolution to this issue is attempted without success. Having no other alternative a group of politicians join with the various firearm organizations and angry citizens and launch an armed revolution whose stated goal is the removal of all members of government responsible for these unconstitutional actions. All reasonable precautions will be taken to limit civilian casualties as our government is taken back.

How do you view the revolution:

Participate with actions.
Support but not participate directly.
Oppose but not pariticiapte directly.
Oppose with action.


***I realize this is a ridiculous situation which is not going to happen. That was actually my original point in the other post but people still refuse to accept that there are actions the government could take which would result in revolution in a modern age. I say there are. I also say that there is simply no other way that the government could manage to enact such a ban, given the extraordinary support for private firearm ownership in the US.

 

[Fern]

I chose "oppose with action". But I'm not gonna shoot anybody. I'll just hide my guns and protest.

I don't see the police as all that anxious to get involved in this sort of thing. If only because I haven't noticed tham all that anxious toput themselves in danger.

Then what would they do with the people who refused to cooperate? Put them in jail? Where? They are already so over-crowded it ain't funny.

But if the (Dem) gov tried, I think the response would be different in the various parts of the country. Frankly, I don't see the law enforcement/judiciary/military in the SE or western states etc cooperating with an effort like this.

Fern

 

[fleshconsumed]

Originally posted by: PrinceofWandsThat was actually my original point in the other post but people still refuse to accept that there are actions the government could take which would result in revolution in a modern age.

I would say attempt to revolution. I don't think there may be a successful revolution. Power scales are just too different. Semi-automatics can't do much against full auto and tanks.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: Fern
I chose "oppose with action". But I'm not gonna shoot anybody. I'll just hide my guns and protest.

I don't see the police as all that anxious to get involved in this sort of thing. If only because I haven't noticed tham all that anxious toput themselves in danger.

Then what would they do with the people who refused to cooperate? Put them in jail? Where? They are already so over-crowded it ain't funny.

But if the (Dem) gov tried, I think the response would be different in the various parts of the country. Frankly, I don't see the law enforcement/judiciary/military in the SE or western states etc cooperating with an effort like this.

Fern

I agree completely, which is more reason why it could not happen. My point here was only that if it 'did' happen this way, people would in fact revolt in some way.

 

[StageLeft]

Fear monger much?

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: fleshconsumed

Originally posted by: PrinceofWandsThat was actually my original point in the other post but people still refuse to accept that there are actions the government could take which would result in revolution in a modern age.

I would say attempt to revolution. I don't think there may be a successful revolution. Power scales are just too different. Semi-automatics can't do much against full auto and tanks.

This has been discussed ad nauseum, but I'm taking a break from databases so I'll do it again.

First, our government is very unlikely to deploy armor on our own soil. Armor is less effective in tight urban settings than small units. There are limited amounts of tanks for the incredible area to be covered. Deploying heavy armor against its own people would lower public support for the government, galvanizing even more resistance against them. Even tanks can be brought down by people...formulas for super high explosives and thermite are widely available online and can be constructed from basic household goods. If all else fails just shoot the crew with a .308 from long range when they're getting in or out of the vehicles. It takes time to train a tank crew...marksman are a dime a dozen.

Full autos aren't really all that dangerous...they are neutralized most easily by snipers...which are otherwise known as hunters - and there are a great deal of those in America. The range and ammunition consumption of full auto weapons is troublesome against trained sharpshooters.

Insurrections are very powerful because those in power can't distinguish between neutrals and enemies. Think Vietnam. They wouldn't know who was against them until we put the barrels of our pistols against their heads and pulled the triggers as we walked by them on the street. The only way to avoid that is total occupation, much like in Iraq. We're having trouble holding Iraq with everything we've got. Imagine a revolution in which many of the military go switch sides, or at least refuse to act against civilians. Now increase the size by many many times. Now include the fact that a war on our own soil would disrupt economic and supply lines for the military operations, while insurgents could operate with almost no problems.

I could go on, but the bottom line is that revolution in America with any support at all could easily neutralize the military and government, if not defeat them outright.

 

[PrinceofWands]

And with 10 votes in I'm dead on my 40% prediction. Even on such a skewed board as this one.

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
Fear monger much?

PoW has been chanting revolution for about 5 years now. "IF BUSH DOESN'T STOP THIS SOON I'M GONNA BLOW!". Notice that his commando activities have remained at the keyboard.

 

[Train]

Originally posted by: fleshconsumed
I would say attempt to revolution. I don't think there may be a successful revolution. Power scales are just too different. Semi-automatics can't do much against full auto and tanks.

Do you really think the troops in the tanks are going to shoot americans figting for thier constitutional rights? If they dont join the revolution, they will probably site and watch from the sidelines. It would be pretty hard to get americans to kill americans.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: Skoorb
Fear monger much?

PoW has been chanting revolution for about 5 years now. "IF BUSH DOESN'T STOP THIS SOON I'M GONNA BLOW!". Notice that his commando activities have remained at the keyboard.

Believe me, I'm surprised myself. He was so close a few times too, but never managed to push me completely over the edge.

 

[Nebor]

Your poll isn't clear as to what you're supporting or opposing. The Federal government or the rebellion? I clicked support with action.

While the majority of LE and .mil would not participate, some would I would imagine that here in Texas, and many other states, the legislatures would pass laws plainly stating they will not obey the federal laws (similar to the law about to pass in Georgia.)

Personally, I would watch for the LE departments that announced they'd have no part in confiscation, so I'd know to leave them alone. Those that attempted to actively carry out confiscation... it would be open season. My IT and firearm\survival background make it extremely easy to construct remote IEDs. Anytime a police car stopped, (at a traffic light, or the site of a call) they would be an easy target for anyone with a deer rifle and even moderate marksmanship.

Basically the end result would be no LE departments (in Texas) would participate in confiscations (even if they wanted to) in order to preserve their own lives, as well and law and order. The result would be a sort of California marijuana situation. No enforcement by local LE, and Federal LE would pretty much be stymied.

 

[NoStateofMind]

Your poll isn't clear as to what you're supporting or opposing. The Federal government or the rebellion? I clicked support with action.

Confused me too.

 

[piasabird]

So you plan on electing Hitler or what?

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: fleshconsumed

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
That was actually my original point in the other post but people still refuse to accept that there are actions the government could take which would result in revolution in a modern age.

I would say attempt to revolution. I don't think there may be a successful revolution. Power scales are just too different. Semi-automatics can't do much against full auto and tanks.

Did Iraq teach you nothing? Full auto and tanks require people to use them, require transport, and require maintenance. The modern military machine is fragile, and if used on its own people, on its own supply lines, will break swifter than your imagination.

There?s a phrase. ?Don?t **** where you sleep?, or ?Don?t bite the hand that feeds you?. I think that would apply to such a situation.

If a few Arabs living in the dark ages can defeat us, I'm rather confident we can defeat ourselves.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: fleshconsumed

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
That was actually my original point in the other post but people still refuse to accept that there are actions the government could take which would result in revolution in a modern age.

I would say attempt to revolution. I don't think there may be a successful revolution. Power scales are just too different. Semi-automatics can't do much against full auto and tanks.

Did Iraq teach you nothing? Full auto and tanks require people to use them, require transport, and require maintenance. The modern military machine is fragile, and if used on its own people, on its own supply lines, will break swifter than your imagination.

There?s a phrase. ?Don?t **** where you sleep?, or ?Don?t bite the hand that feeds you?. I think that would apply to such a situation.

If a few Arabs living in the dark ages can defeat us, I'm rather confident we can defeat ourselves.

If a few terrorists oppose us in Iraq, we don't firebomb the town, as the threat they pose isn't that great. Open rebellion within our own country cannot be tolerated. If a city/state declared itself in rebellion to the US, I'd recommend a few aerial strikes on kindergartens to get everyone back in line.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: Jaskalas
If a few Arabs living in the dark ages can defeat us, I'm rather confident we can defeat ourselves.

If a few terrorists oppose us in Iraq, we don't firebomb the town, as the threat they pose isn't that great. Open rebellion within our own country cannot be tolerated. If a city/state declared itself in rebellion to the US, I'd recommend a few aerial strikes on kindergartens to get everyone back in line.

Like Iraq, who is to say you'll know who to bomb? Why not your neighbor and thus your own home/family to burn along side them? You're assuming civil war opposition, I'm thinking along the lines of modern warfare where your opponent strikes without revealing themselves.

You cannot defeat what you cannot see. Unless you then support filtering the population for its own survival. Then you?d have to determine how to filter it, who to let live, who to kill. You?d have to decide how to play god.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: Nebor
Your poll isn't clear as to what you're supporting or opposing. The Federal government or the rebellion? I clicked support with action.

While the majority of LE and .mil would not participate, some would I would imagine that here in Texas, and many other states, the legislatures would pass laws plainly stating they will not obey the federal laws (similar to the law about to pass in Georgia.)

Personally, I would watch for the LE departments that announced they'd have no part in confiscation, so I'd know to leave them alone. Those that attempted to actively carry out confiscation... it would be open season. My IT and firearm\survival background make it extremely easy to construct remote IEDs. Anytime a police car stopped, (at a traffic light, or the site of a call) they would be an easy target for anyone with a deer rifle and even moderate marksmanship.

Basically the end result would be no LE departments (in Texas) would participate in confiscations (even if they wanted to) in order to preserve their own lives, as well and law and order. The result would be a sort of California marijuana situation. No enforcement by local LE, and Federal LE would pretty much be stymied.

I put it in the bottom of the post...should have included it in the poll title as well. My bad. Fixed now.

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: Skoorb
Fear monger much?

PoW has been chanting revolution for about 5 years now. "IF BUSH DOESN'T STOP THIS SOON I'M GONNA BLOW!". Notice that his commando activities have remained at the keyboard.

Believe me, I'm surprised myself. He was so close a few times too, but never managed to push me completely over the edge.

Or perhaps you're a gasbag?

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: Jaskalas
If a few Arabs living in the dark ages can defeat us, I'm rather confident we can defeat ourselves.

If a few terrorists oppose us in Iraq, we don't firebomb the town, as the threat they pose isn't that great. Open rebellion within our own country cannot be tolerated. If a city/state declared itself in rebellion to the US, I'd recommend a few aerial strikes on kindergartens to get everyone back in line.

Like Iraq, who is to say you'll know who to bomb? Why not your neighbor and thus your own home/family to burn along side them? You're assuming civil war opposition, I'm thinking along the lines of modern warfare where your opponent strikes without revealing themselves.

You cannot defeat what you cannot see. Unless you then support filtering the population for its own survival. Then you?d have to determine how to filter it, who to let live, who to kill. You?d have to decide how to play god.

Then what? Run around in the woods living off the land? Where the rebels going? What's the plan? Take over Washington? Without an army? Good luck with that. The rebels can run around playing soldier, the rest of us will go about our lives.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: sirjonk
Then what? Run around in the woods living off the land? Where the rebels going? What's the plan? Take over Washington? Without an army? Good luck with that. The rebels can run around playing soldier, the rest of us will go about our lives.

Good point, but prolly not what you meant.

Staying in Washington surrounded by an army?

What's the plan? Hunker down in DC and be ignored?

The rest of us will run around doing what we want; manufacturing, farming, selling goods etc. while the pols isolate themselves and become ignored.

🙂

Fern

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: sirjonk
Then what? Run around in the woods living off the land? Where the rebels going? What's the plan? Take over Washington? Without an army? Good luck with that. The rebels can run around playing soldier, the rest of us will go about our lives.

Good point, but prolly not what you meant.

Staying in Washington surrounded by an army?

What's the plan? Hunker down in DC and be ignored?

The rest of us will run around doing what we want; manufacturing, farming, selling goods etc. while the pols isolate themselves and become ignored.

🙂

Fern

Can't help it, I just keep picturing Red Dawn hehe

 

[XMan]

Originally posted by: fleshconsumed

Originally posted by: PrinceofWandsThat was actually my original point in the other post but people still refuse to accept that there are actions the government could take which would result in revolution in a modern age.

I would say attempt to revolution. I don't think there may be a successful revolution. Power scales are just too different. Semi-automatics can't do much against full auto and tanks.

Most all of the domestic heavy armor is in the hands of the National Guard. Those are "local" boys . . . I don't think it likely that you'd get a Guardsman from say, Michigan, to run a fellow Michigander over with a tank.

The stuff assigned to the Army is generally prepositioned overseas.

I don't see how the door-to-door search would be legal. It's a fourth amendment violation.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: XMan

Originally posted by: fleshconsumed

Originally posted by: PrinceofWandsThat was actually my original point in the other post but people still refuse to accept that there are actions the government could take which would result in revolution in a modern age.

I would say attempt to revolution. I don't think there may be a successful revolution. Power scales are just too different. Semi-automatics can't do much against full auto and tanks.

Most all of the domestic heavy armor is in the hands of the National Guard. Those are "local" boys . . . I don't think it likely that you'd get a Guardsman from say, Michigan, to run a fellow Michigander over with a tank.

The stuff assigned to the Army is generally prepositioned overseas.

I don't see how the door-to-door search would be legal. It's a fourth amendment violation.

If you take the situation in the OP as it is, ridiculous as even he admits it is, you're gonna be way past 4th amendment rights when parts of the country are in open rebellion.

 

[punchkin]

I am genuinely surprised that even on a forum infested with gun-rights radicals, posting from multiple accounts, in this rated "terrible" thread with few votes, an effective vote of 37% would "fight in a rebellion" (i.e. would type from their keyboards in this lame thread). The survey is worthless.

A rebellion would never work. There aren't enough nutjobs available to murder the military, by whom they are greatly outnumbered. You are fooling yourself if you think a soldier wouldn't obey an order to shoot an addle-pated gun nut.

 

[Darwin333]

Originally posted by: punchkin
I am genuinely surprised that even on a forum infested with gun-rights radicals, posting from multiple accounts, in this rated "terrible" thread with few votes, an effective vote of 37% would "fight in a rebellion" (i.e. would type from their keyboards in this lame thread). The survey is worthless.

A rebellion would never work. There aren't enough nutjobs available to murder the military, by whom they are greatly outnumbered. You are fooling yourself if you think a soldier wouldn't obey an order to shoot an addle-pated gun nut.

Oh, I see.

People trying to overthrow a government that has become oppressive and disregards its constitutional rights are "gun nuts"?

Even though it appears you could care less about your 2nd amendment rights I would assume you at least cared about your 4th.

And something I rarely see brought up in debates like this. In the scenario given, what in the world makes you think the majority of our armed forces would side the the government? Remember, we are talking about the complete disregard of at least two rather specific rights granted to the people. The very first part of a US soldiers oath reads:

I DO SOLEMNLY SWEAR (OR AFFIRM) THAT I WILL SUPPORT AND DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES AGAINST ALL ENEMIES, FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC;