How would supporters of gun bans like to see submission enforced?

By forcing them to be either turned in peacefully? Or, by making ownership a burden financially. Notice the gun ban scare has already drove up prices? Wait till government tacks on the fees and registration costs on ALL pre owned and new guns. PLUS the ammunition. Plus the idea that you may not pass down your firearms to your children.

Let alone the new idea of having each citizen pass a new and enhanced background check. For every armed owned now and new. They are virtually SILENT on what will happen to the firearms of those prior owners who now fail the new background check. Having passed the original one back in --say--1989 with no crime since. But, was once questioned by his teachers about getting "angry" in class.

Plus the idea of outright ban of 120 specific makes/models and 900 receiving new restrictions upon them. But, true antiques and non functional will "still" be allowed.

Disarm the natives. They might injure themselves. Poor savage dears.

They would like that very much. The elite want as much war and chaos as possible so they can have the excuse of bringing in more oppression, suppression and control. And they'll get it. You know why? Because they own this place. The people in general will roll over and accept whatever path is layed out for them because they understand that they have owners and that the public is made up of units of exchange to be used and exploited in the name of profit and totalitarianism.

From what I've heard they all support a grandfather clause. There is no push to ban ALL guns.

Stop manufacturing assault weapons for commercial consumption and only produce them for combat zones as was the purpose and intent in their design.

You know so that the supply is reduced and the price on the black market increases to a point where the common criminal can no longer purchase one without great expense.

Do you remember the movie, "A Few Good Men?" They did no wrong but were guilty of misconduct, Yes, it is a movie, but to take those who have honor and submit them to regulations or rules that is against our own Constitution, it means war in our own Country! We note it was a doctor that was the guilty one in that particular movie. These were good and honorable Marines that followed orders. They were innocent, except by Liberal standards,, take out the troop as Liberals have no honor!

It will mean war in the US and I think Obama would love that as well as his friends, Putin, Castro, and Chavez! He will not like it unless he hates America, which I truly think he does! Earl

Sure they could take away my guns. but they can't take away my ability and skill to build more.

All you need is a Bridgeport mill, a lathe, cutting tools, and you can manufacture your own gun.

If I absolutely had to, I could build a compressed air cannon like the ones used in the punkin chunkin contest. A pumpkin can pass through a mobile home just like any bullet can.

Proof of pumpkin:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SdaetY_dZ0s

What would happen if, instead of a pumpkin, a cannonball or a rock was used?

Just making a certain gun illegal to own is all you have to do.
Should that person ever be caught, firing it, transporting it, just owning it, they would be hit with such penalties! People would rather just give them up.

Let me ask you; If the penalty for owning your favorite gun was 80 years in jail, no lower. How hard would you want to still keep that gun?

I have an easier way to get them to "get it": REGULATE THEIR INTERNET AND VIDEO GAMES since we need "meaningful discussions" and this was mentioned as causes for violence. But then this would only cause turmoil if a REPUBLICAN DID IT because we all know ITS OK SO LONG AS A DEMOCRAT DOES IT! Look at how easy it was to renew the Patriot Act, build cell phone listening stations in Utah, invoked "executive privilege" to quell inquiries into F&F, and Benghazi (imagine Rice "getting a concussion")!

1. No gun ban would pass congress. The idea of a confiscatory bill being passed is just ridiculous.
2. The courts would never allow either type of law to exist, if by some bizarre miracle it passed.
So why are we so frightened by something so unlikely?
The anti gun people are pushing for magazine capacity restrictions, limits on purchases, an assualt rifle ban, trigger lock requirments and gun safes. But we happily ignore all the real restrictions they are proposing, to pat ourselves on the back for resisting the most absurd possibilty?
I don't get it.

The boilerplate liberal answer is that no one is talking about house-to-house searches, but it brings us back to you main point; how will new gun laws be enforced?

Simply stopping the sale of new "assault weapons" seems a bit like closing the barn door after the cow has run off. Millions are are already in the hands of citizens.

The uncomfortable answer is "reduction" and no one wants to talk about how that would be achieved.

Regrettably, it will likely take the form of ratting out neighbors, family and friends (well, soon-to-be ex-friends).


Read Mr. Facts Teller's answer carefully. This is where it is headed. Murders have walked away with fewer years that what he is proposing for simple possession of a firearm. That is exactly where he wants us to be.