Theoretical situation: Democrats sweep Congress enough to be veto proof. Another mass shooting has the public and MSM hysterical. They outlaw all firearms with removable magazines of any kind - can't even modify them to not be easily removed, all magazines outlawed, different calibers and types of ammo outlawed, and various firearms attachments and parts outlawed - no buy back. Would you give up your guns, magazines, ammo and other items declared illegal to have? It is a felony if you are caught. Going to prison. Felony record. Can never own any kind of firearm. Can't vote. In fact, I already faced that decision in a real sort of way. I had a Browning 1919 30.06 with every attachment for it. That's the big beltfed military machine gun converted to semi-auto, though I have a Gatlin gun crank for those (legal to have). I decided to sell that one (it was pristine condition) and $4000 was then below the going price as I had every military attachment for it plus tripod and some boxes of belted ammo with it too. However, a gun dealer - who wanted it - pointed out from the detailed pictures that the serial number was NOT on mainframe, but rather on a removable piece. Simply, this was a grey market ghost gun someone tried to make look like it wasn't in a stupid way. The claimed gun dealer had not seen the Browning other than in pictures on a gunbroker ad - and it was with all attachments, tripod with ammo box holder, flash suppressor, custom loading ramp, spare parts and 6 boxes of belted ammo. $4000 was a couple thousand below top market value. He is who spotted the problem. BUT he still wanted to buy it with "knock a thousand off the price and I'll get it the number stamped on the main frame." Hmmmm... time for me to think about this. A person claiming he is a gun dealer spotted something almost no one would spot - and he wants to buy a clearly illegally heavy firepower military Browning 1919 plus ammo. Or... is he the BATF and wants my address to make a great bust - and then maybe seize all my other firearms (BIG collection) and now I'm a felon and can never a firearm again? So I took the Browning all apart (they break down easily) and took that ghost frame about 10 miles out into the Gulf Of Mexico after first having wacked it with a sledge hammer a few times. Kept all the other parts, tripod and ammo. Dropping in the deep murky water "there goes $2500." I'd do the same with anything I own that would become illegal, including the other Browning 1919s - though would again keep all components still legal. Same for any magazine, firearm or anything else outlawed. I would not surrender it to the government because I don't give things to thieves, nor would even want a record of turning in such firearms - nearly all I bought as "private sales" so I and they are all "off the map." But I would permanently destroy them and dump them in deep blue water after doing so. What about you? What would you do? If outlawed, would you give up firearms, ammo and other gun stuff declared illegal to have - or keep it and maybe try to hide it/bury it somewhere? SORRY - no poll. But it is just a yes or no question.
It was surprising how many in Australia did just that. Although the money incentive was not bad. There were plenty of guns wrapped in polypipe and buried in backyards as well and guess what? Government did not really care. Those guns have mostly stayed out of circulation
LOL! Actually, if that's your concern you'd reply "for the record, I already did!" It would be tempting to bury hide at least one with some ammo somewhere, wouldn't it, "just in case all hell breaks loose."
I've often commented that I've shifted from modern firearms and even vintage WW2/Korean war guns to true antiques, ie pre-1899, so under federal and most state laws they aren't even considered firearms. Yet, whether it be the Colt civilian-arm double action 38 Colt long, any lever action Winchester, even classic 1 shots like Trapdoors and Martini-Henrys, those are still very lethal firearms. And, according to the government, having one of those - even carrying those - is no different than carrying a can of soda pop, more legal than even a knife. Of course, you got to have the ammo and that is a challenge - unless you already have a lot of it of course. Even a crossbow or compound bow (if you're good with it) is formidable. Quiet too. Got bolts or arrows? Personally, I don't see survival and self defense firearms as 1000 yard capable weapons. Do you? I do have a fashion of survivalist plan, but it doesn't involve mowing down dozens of starving people trying to steal our food. Rather, it is about stocking up what is needed - for food beyond a fair stockpile the #1 item? Fishing poles, spear gun and throw net. The Gulf in an endless supply. Otherwise, it is basically about hiding and with the supplies needed to do so for a very long time. Firearms scream "I'm here!" so would be last resort. Even then for hunting a .22 rifle with subsonic shells and something taped over the end to silence it would be far more usable than an AR15. Of all the firearms I own, none are an AR. BTW, pristine pre-1899 double action pistols are skyrocketing in value for that reason. A new-old-stock 1895 Colt civilian-army 38 long double action (what police carried for half a century), would probably sell for $3500. $5000 if still in the original box. Even the little flip up Colt-style 38 double action 5 shot shorts if in fine condition will run over $1000 - with the modern counter part that can hold much more powerful modern ammo costing less than $300 and used for as little as $100. Why? They were never recorded by the government, they are not considered firearms under federal and most (not all) state laws, and can be purchased mail order without going thru an FFL gun dealer background check. A pre 1899 Winchester lever action rifle - used and in just decent condition - will sell for 3 to 5 times as much as even a new-old stock in the box perfect and beautiful Winchester commemorative edition even in silver or gold. There is about an 8 to 10 year window period only where modern fire arms capabilities were manufactured prior to 1899. The identical firearm that is 1898 will sell for 2 to 4 times what the same gun for sell for if made in 1900, depending on the model. It is not just about collectible, but about federal and state laws.
Really? Over 150 Democrats in Congress presented a bill that outlawed ALL pistols that are not single shot - 100% with magazines - and every rifle and shotgun that has a removable magazine, plus all belt fed firearms - and many components. For nearly every modern firearm I have, the Democrats in Congress have presented legislation to outlaw them - and no buy-back. IF Democrats get a large veto proof majority Congress, the "theoretical" WILL become a reality. They are already trying. They openly want the Australian model - or worse. You posted before that you own 2 registered pistols. Those 150+ Democrats in Congress openly want to take them away from you.
No. There are a lot more democratic gun enthusiasts than you think. I'm not sure but I think it was Paul Begala who said that even he is a gun owner. If not him it was some Dem like him. There are far more people who just want some reasonable limits but support the 2nd Amendment, than anti-gun hardcores. This all or nothing crap the NRA doles out does not represent the views of most Americans.
Age limits Universal background checks Address mental health issues without violating rights [that's a tough one] Purchasing limits per purchase... There are plenty of practical improvements that could be made.
Australia Sees Spike in Gun Crime Despite Outright Ban Firearms black market in the island nation bigger than previously thought Experts said that the country's 1996 ban on most semi-automatic firearms has actually driven criminals to those guns. "The ban on semi-automatics created demand by criminals for other types of guns," professor Philip Alpers of the University of Sydney told The New Daily. "The criminal’s gun of choice today is the semi-automatic pistol." http://freebeacon.com/issues/australia-sees-spike-in-gun-crime-despite-outright-ban/ (CANBERRA) — More than 57,000 illegal firearms including a rocket launcher and machine guns were handed in during a recent Australian amnesty in which gun owners could surrender such weapons without penalty. The government and some gun policy analysts were surprised by the large number of weapons that were surrendered in the first nationwide amnesty since 1996, when a lone gunman killed 35 people in Tasmania state and galvanized popular support for tough national gun controls. A virtual ban on private ownership of semi-automatic rifles and a government-funded gun buyback cut the size of Australia’s civilian arsenal by almost a third. The government said Thursday the three-month amnesty that ended in September collected 57, 324 firearms, including almost 2,500 semi-automatic and fully-automatic guns — the rapid-fire categories particularly targeted after the 1996 Port Arthur massacre. http://time.com/5180523/australia-gun-amnesty/ Meaning? 2/3rd of Australians did NOT comply. Why would ANYONE "turn in" a gun under "amnesty?" Just destroy it and get rid of it. Why put yourself on that map to the police?
What guns? By the time that rolled around, I'd have sold all of mine but also bought a shitload of these: https://www.sportsmansguide.com/pro...8efbXm-cZfdDqz5utL6TTN0eyq49IOMUaAqwUEALw_wcB Of course, I live in the country and have some land to do this.
You really should have done this as a poll with no back story. Neither would I have said what you did as the government is taking note. My answer is HELL NO - NOT JUST NO, BUT HELL NO. I will not give up any personal property to the government This site is full of anti-gun liberals, pseudo conservatives, trolls, disinformation artists and even snitches for Uncle Scam. So, if the government does come for the weapons, I hope you have a network to help work with you. The government loves to attack those who are without the resources to help them if / when the excrement interacts with the electric oscillating device. If they outlaw guns and the government asks if you have one and you don't give it up, it will make you a criminal. It will also make you a liar if you have one and don't surrender it. If you bury your weapon, it cannot be used to defend you if a burglar, robber, crazed drug addict, or JBT is willing to beat your door down. Those gun owners with an IQ higher than their shoe size aren't going to weigh in and tell you what they would do. Uncle Scam might show up at their door tomorrow and take them up on their words. BTW, I had an 80 percent receiver for the kind of weapon you referred to. I was going to build a semi-auto... twenty years ago. When I sold it, the guy said he was going to put it up on a wall in his business. It sat in my garage for two decades and I never got around to that project. The best advice I can give you is that if you have a firearm, either get with people of like mind and get yourself prepared OR sell it. A vindictive neighbor, scorned wife, ex- wife, or sell out relative will ultimately rat you out. Right now, guns aren't worth much, but you can get money for what you have. Most Americans don't give two hoots in Hell about the Second Amendment; can't define unalienable Rights (and don't believe in them when it's explained.) The blood that flowed in the veins of the founders is a rare commodity in this country. I haven't met anyone on these boards that would have your back in a fox-hole WHEN the excrement interacts with the electric oscillating device. Like the Brits, they will stomp their feet and bitch, but most would stand in line in sub zero weather and give up their weapons, mags and ammo for nothing except the belief that they are now safe in Uncle Scam's hands.
Agreed. We should do exactly the same for all the Amendments, especially the First. In fact, why should people automatically be citizens? How about issuing green cards to all newborns and let them earn their rights to be citizens at 18 by serving in military and passing stringent intelligence and education tests.
So why do the LW anti-gunners keep pushing in that direction? Are you denying several Democrats have voiced a desire to have an "Australian-style" of gun control? https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/23/opinion/australias-gun-laws-america.html
It's still possible for a law to get passed even though the majority of the citizenry are against it. Let's just a look at a hypothetical situation. Party A has 40% of the seats, Party B has 60% of the seats. 70% of the constituents in Party B support the law while only 10% in Party A do. So even though only 46 percent of the overall population is in support of the law, it still passes. The only way it wouldn't is if enough people in Party B felt strongly enough about the issue that they would be willing to switch sides.
It does not matter if you turn in your firearms or destroy them, the tyrants win either way - you are disarmed and helpless.
Huh? What I did was 100% legal. If you come to know you have something not lawful such as a firearm, the correct (and legal) action is to promptly destroy it (as I did) and dispose of it (which I did). Besides, there can be no conviction solely upon a person's own unsworn statement. Otherwise, I am being 100% serious that I would not keep any weapon or weapon component if it was declared illegal to have or own. It doesn't matter what a person says they will do, only what a person actually does. A person cannot turn in firearms they do not have. The government would have to prove you have them, not that you had them and can't prove you still don't. There is no risk in any responding. All a person has to say is 1.) I decline answering your questions or 2.) I changed my mind. The burden of proof is on the government, not visa versa. The ONLY legit reason to hide the firearms would be in the prospect that the law later changed (as it did with the Reagan ban expired) or truly worried about some true crisis situation on a mass scale. There also are complex ways to dispose of firearms legally - but that you could recover. For an extreme example, if you put them in a water tight container, sunk them in shallow but International water knowing the precise GPS location (I did not do that, I wanted that 1919 frame gone), it would be truthful that you did not have the firearms and ammo - because you wouldn't. These laws never have any provision of "and impossible to ever get one." "Possession" is a fairly complex legal term with quite a few loopholes and "possession" and "able to obtain in the future" are not the same thing. I agree with you about burying firearms. I see no purpose in doing so - only risks - and as I stated I truly do not believe even under the Australian system (or worse, GERMAN system) I would be disarmed and unable to defend. As for the member who said he has "a lot of property?" Don't bury it on your property. Secretly bury it just across your property line or on nearby public but remote land. No DNA. No fingerprints (the DNA part is tough to do now). Just my thought. Since it is NOT now illegal, I can give any advise I want to on this as it is just a "what if" about a law that doesn't exist. Besides, don't be so paranoid. The government would NOT send out 100,000 officers. Rather, it would be upon information or circumstantial, ie bad luck, if someone got caught. I don't know where you get "guns aren't worth a lot now." Guns - popular modern guns - are selling at top dollar. There is a huge range of hunting type weapons and other firearms other than AR15s and 9mm/41s/45s/38sps that are selling low because people are all stocking up on guns they think might be banned. That, however, is an indication of how many will NOT surrender them. As I cited, despite all the talk about Australia, even the Australian government admits that 2/3rds of Australians did NOT turn in their firearms - and that criminals are becoming more heavily armed.
We already know the answer. When Connecticut banned certain firearms and required registration, only about 20% of people who should have turned in or registered did so. It was even worse in NY when they enacted similar legislation. The answer is that the large majority of gun owners will not obey a gun ban or gun registration. And when some local media and pols in Conn demanded the state police go to the firearm owners homes (demanding the cops use the background check data to ID gun owners) and confiscate the firearms, the state police very quickly said "no way". Not out of some concern for peoples rights, but because they knew that maybe 3% of those owners would fight back, they estimated somewhere between 3,000 and 9,000 people would fight. They would have to do midnight no knock SWAT type raids, they would make mistakes and kill a lot of innocent people. And once the raids started, those 3% would be warned and would prepare - and that means a lot of dead cops. Conn state police made it very clear they wanted no part in that bloodbath.
