I believe the government was only able to force a partial enforcement of a confiscation during Katrina out of the shock of the hurricane, the size of the area, the concentration of the national guard on hand, and the surprise the measure itself brought. From what I've read, that seemed to be an experiment of opportunity.
Enforcing a similar measure in the entirety of the US is a much different matter, however. Lack of manpower being chief.
With enough manpower, a brute force search may be a possibility in a very small area under close to ideal circumstances, but yes, there is no practical method to enforcing a firearms ban, nor enough public support to even pass one in the first place.It would be a logistical impossibility. The fact that there is no registration outside of the NFA means that they do not know who has what, so it would have to be house to house, and there is simply no way that will happen. They couldn't even manage it in a small sized city, much less the entire country.
Somebody, in 2008 said the following.It would be a logistical impossibility. The fact that there is no registration outside of the NFA means that they do not know who has what, so it would have to be house to house, and there is simply no way that will happen. They couldn't even manage it in a small sized city, much less the entire country.
What if you had 51% of the nation living off the government dole who could be swayed to believe that private gun ownership was a threat to their benefits?With enough manpower, a brute force search may be a possibility in a very small area under close to ideal circumstances, but yes, there is no practical method to enforcing a firearms ban, nor enough public support to even pass one in the first place.
You really picked the perfect moniker there blank slate.Too bad the poster of the poll forgot the obvious option.
d. Doesn't matter because only fanatical weirdos think someone is coming for their guns...
With enough manpower, a brute force search may be a possibility in a very small area under close to ideal circumstances, but yes, there is no practical method to enforcing a firearms ban, nor enough public support to even pass one in the first place.
Somebody, in 2008 said the following.
"We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded."
He hasn't been able to accomplish it yet and may never be able to. But I am certain that if there is a way it can be done, there will be plenty of faithful followers and folks that when presented with a loss of their livelihood, would jump at the chance to be a part of it. They will be happy to "serve" by going door to door. Couple that with bounties or privileges being granted for turning in neighbors and it's not at all far-fetched
If you see something, say something.With enough manpower, a brute force search may be a possibility in a very small area under close to ideal circumstances, but yes, there is no practical method to enforcing a firearms ban, nor enough public support to even pass one in the first place.
With the gov in its current form this is true, the military have the same philosophies as the people and if they are doing it, the people are behind them anyway.There is also the fact that if such an action were to be attempted, there is no way that the whole of the military, or civilian LEO would go along with it and support the government in a mass door to door confiscation.
Somebody, in 2008 said the following.
"We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded."
He hasn't been able to accomplish it yet and may never be able to. But I am certain that if there is a way it can be done, there will be plenty of faithful followers and folks that when presented with a loss of their livelihood, would jump at the chance to be a part of it. They will be happy to "serve" by going door to door. Couple that with bounties or privileges being granted for turning in neighbors and it's not at all far-fetched.
This post will raise the ire of the faithful. It's important to remember that these things have been done before and in countries where people never, ever thought it could happen. This is why vigilance is so important regardless of how much derision is doled out by the faithful. It can happen here. We have people in our government that would like it right now. Thinking it can't happen is the kind of complacency that can change the course of a nation.
You really picked the perfect moniker there blank slate.
but it's absolutely not a logistical impossibility.
Somebody, in 2008 said the following.
"We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded."
He hasn't been able to accomplish it yet and may never be able to. But I am certain that if there is a way it can be done, there will be plenty of faithful followers and folks that when presented with a loss of their livelihood, would jump at the chance to be a part of it. They will be happy to "serve" by going door to door. Couple that with bounties or privileges being granted for turning in neighbors and it's not at all far-fetched.
This post will raise the ire of the faithful. It's important to remember that these things have been done before and in countries where people never, ever thought it could happen. This is why vigilance is so important regardless of how much derision is doled out by the faithful. It can happen here. We have people in our government that would like it right now. Thinking it can't happen is the kind of complacency that can change the course of a nation.
Well, I see your ire has been raised and frankly, I'm shocked.Of course, he was talking about the Peace Corps and the foreign service, but don't let that interfere with your silly paranoia. http://www.factcheck.org/2008/11/obamas-national-security-force/
Well, I see your ire has been raised and frankly, I'm shocked.
I don't think you know what "ire" means, and frankly, I'm not shocked.
NOT GONNA HAPPEN
So stop worrying about it.
It absolutely is. As I already said there is no registry beyond the NFA, and there are over 300 million firearms in the US, and no one knows where they all are, or who has them. The only way they could do a confiscation is door to door, which on no plane of reality does the US government have, or could acquire for such a purpose.
It wouldn't be easy or 100% inclusive but realize that every FFL made sale going back 20 years is already recorded. If legislated ATF could get all these records and put them in a single repository. They then have a pretty good idea of who has a gun and what. Now make it a felony to own a gun along with a healthy buy-back program and half the households easily would relinquish willingly, especially with their wife harking on them
I want to be clear: I don't see this happening, but I can absolutely envision a way it could happen if the gig wanted it to. There is tons of information out there already and new laws can direct behavior.
They can't they have no constitutional authority to do so...Actually, I am almost positive that President Obama and Biden will be revoking the 2nd amendment.
The difficulty aside, it does appear some people actually would like to try. I am fairly sure this guy isn't trolling, because I read another blog in which he'd like to make it a felony to have one's firearm stolen, and the ex-owner complicit in any crime that occurs with his ex-owned weapon. BTW I only came upon this piece today. Interesting that him and I agree on at least one method to do this, the ATF-mandated 20 year records that paint a general picture of who is a gun owner. He even talks about people dropping guns off their boat by "mistake"!It would be less accurate than Canada's registry was. Imagine the millions of 4473's going back 20 years, and how many of those firearms have long since passed through two sets of hands or more. The only thing they are good for is if a gun is recovered in a crime, they can use it to contact the original owner, which they don't ever really bother to do anyway because it is not reliable.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/12/21/1172661/-How-to-Ban-Guns-A-step-by-step-long-term-process#How to Ban Guns: A step by step, long term process
In this thread's case it isn't disturbing to me. The question to ask is why would they be confiscated; that is disturbing more than millions of responsible people balking at giving up what they legally bought and responsibly use.Is it not disturbing to anyone that previously law-abiding citizens would suddenly break the law over firearms?