How would a mass gun confiscation/2nd Amendment repeal work nationwide?

[Suburbia]

How would it work?

[dead0man]

Lots and lots of dead cops, feds and otherwise law abiding gun owners.  That would be a win/win/win for a specific group of horrible people.

[SteveRogers]

Criminals who were stopped or arrested for other crimes and found to have contraband weapons would have said weapons seized from their vehicle or home and not returned, the same way most illegal weapons are confiscated today. Thus, the supply of guns would shrink over time.

[America's Sweetheart ❤/𝕿𝖍𝖊 𝕭𝖔𝖔𝖙𝖞 𝖂𝖆𝖗𝖗𝖎𝖔𝖗]

Criminals who were stopped or arrested for other crimes and found to have contraband weapons would have said weapons seized from their vehicle or home and not returned, the same way most illegal weapons are confiscated today. Thus, the supply of guns would shrink over time.

But then law-abiding gun owners would still get to keep all their guns, correct?

[YE]

It wouln't work and would lead to a new War on Drugs.

[SteveRogers]

Criminals who were stopped or arrested for other crimes and found to have contraband weapons would have said weapons seized from their vehicle or home and not returned, the same way most illegal weapons are confiscated today. Thus, the supply of guns would shrink over time.

But then law-abiding gun owners would still get to keep all their guns, correct?

Well if they continued to possess an illegal firearm, then they would by definition not be “law-abiding.” My point is that the idea that banning some new category of weapon would result in the feds going door to door to everyone’s houses in Waco-style sieges is silly, as is the idea that gun control isn’t worth pursuing because it won’t result in the elimination of all guns overnight.

It wouln't work and would lead to a new War on Drugs.

An important difference being that you cannot brew a gun in your bathtub or grow bullets in your dorm room closet.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

A mass gun confiscation certainly can't happen while the 2nd Amendment is in place, let alone the current interpretation by SCOTUS of the 2nd. If one's goal is to eventually have that happen, I think the first step would have to be universal gun registration, which is why the gun nuts are so adamantly against that despite the fact that most people who are in favor of universal registration aren't seeking a gun ban.

[YE]

Criminals who were stopped or arrested for other crimes and found to have contraband weapons would have said weapons seized from their vehicle or home and not returned, the same way most illegal weapons are confiscated today. Thus, the supply of guns would shrink over time.

But then law-abiding gun owners would still get to keep all their guns, correct?

Well if they continued to possess an illegal firearm, then they would by definition not be “law-abiding.” My point is that the idea that banning some new category of weapon would result in the feds going door to door to everyone’s houses in Waco-style sieges is silly, as is the idea that gun control isn’t worth pursuing because it won’t result in the elimination of all guns overnight.

It wouln't work and would lead to a new War on Drugs.

An important difference being that you cannot brew a gun in your bathtub or grow bullets in your dorm room closet.

No, but with the right equipment or with guns you already have pre-repeal, you could sell them easily.

[dead0man]

An important difference being that you cannot brew a gun in your bathtub or grow bullets in your dorm room closet.

yeah ya can, and it gets easier/cheaper to do every day.

AND THERE IS NOTHING YOU CAN DO TO STOP IT!

[SteveRogers]

An important difference being that you cannot brew a gun in your bathtub or grow bullets in your dorm room closet.

yeah ya can, and it gets easier/cheaper to do every day.

AND THERE IS NOTHING YOU CAN DO TO STOP IT!

If the types of people that commit these mass shootings were only left with guns that had a 50/50 chance of exploding in their hands, I’d call that an improvement over the status quo.

[dead0man]

k

[Suburbia]

I wonder which states would vote for a 2nd Amendment repeal:

NY
NJ
CA
CT
DE
MA
RI
VT
?

[YE]

I wonder which states would vote for a 2nd Amendment repeal:

NY
NJ
CA
CT
DE
MA
RI
VT
?

How about none of them, and of the ones you named, definitely not Vermont. You're more obsessed with this than BRTD is at posting threads on other posters in forum community.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

It wouldn’t.

[Free Bird]

It wouldn’t.

This. It would turn into a second Civil War.

[fhtagn]

It wouldn’t.

[Beet]

It wouldn’t.

[America Needs a 13-6 Progressive SCOTUS]

Most people would peacefully turn their guns in instead of risking jail time for non compliance.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Most people would peacefully turn their guns in instead of risking jail time for non compliance.

You mean like how mist people would refrain from smoking pit rather than risking jail time?

[dead0man]

Most people would peacefully turn their guns in instead of risking jail time for non compliance.

maybe you're right and only 40% of them of refuse.  Then what?  Do you think those in the 60% rolling over like cowards will be the kind of gun owner that "stockpiles"? Or will it mainly be people that inherited a gun 15 years ago and never used it or even bought ammo for it, does it even work?  Nobody knows.  The guy with 400 guns isn't turning his guns in.  None of the criminals are turning their guns in, there will be no difference at all in the number of guns criminals have.

Sure, in a few decades as the bad guys slowly get caught, grow old and die and the guns slowly stop functioning due to time and poor maintenance, yeah, eventually the numbers of guns will begin to drop a little.  On the other hand, some bad guys don't get caught, some maintain their guns and sell them when they get out of the business.  And ya know, gun running is big business....perhaps Trump's wall will help there....wait, what?

So "most" gun owners turned their guns in and it only got 18% of the guns, most of those being old, broken or paintball guns.  Now what?  Does anybody think crime or even gun violence would go down then?  Maybe in 10 to 20 years, in a perfect world....

[America Needs R'hllor]

Lots and lots of dead cops, feds and otherwise law abiding gun owners. That would be a win/win/win for a specific group of horrible people.

Why don't you just post a caricature of an evil liberal with horns and big, sharp teeth instead of spewing this BS? Also, if these "law-abiding gun owners" are violent enough to shoot cops because they disagree with a law that does not trump anyone's basic human rights (no, guns aren't basic human rights just like marijuana isn't), they aren't law-abiding.

As for the question:

It wouldn’t.

[Mr. Reactionary]

Also, if these "law-abiding gun owners" are violent enough to shoot cops because they disagree with a law that does not trump anyone's basic human rights (no, guns aren't basic human rights just like marijuana isn't), they aren't law-abiding.

[dead0man]

Lots and lots of dead cops, feds and otherwise law abiding gun owners. That would be a win/win/win for a specific group of horrible people.

Why don't you just post a caricature of an evil liberal with horns and big, sharp teeth instead of spewing this BS?

If they don't exist, great.  If they do (and I suspect they do), they should feel bad because they are horrible people.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

hence the "otherwise" bit.

[Torie]

If three quarters of the states voted to ratify repeal, that means some deep red gun loving states, so the mood of the country in such places would have rather drastically changed, and thus the scenario of chaos if this were to happen when it comes to enforcement, I think is overdone. These hypos are all surreal anyway, and have zero chance of happening - at least during my lifetime.

[The Arizonan]

If the federal government actually tries to confiscate every single gun in America, then it would be time to destroy the federal government.