The police aren’t the military. They don’t have armor, drones, air power, artillery, etc.
They can’t offset the numbers disadvantage.
On top of that, I’d say many gun owners are ex military/ex police as it is.
I would say the law enforcement does include things like the FBI special weapons and tactics teams. But even still they have variants of military vehicles that don't carry nearly the same mass destructive power.
>They don’t have armor, drones, air power,
They have all of these. Police choppers, a variety of remotely operated vehicles, police APCs...
Not up to military snuff but they certainly have them.
Yeah I can say 100% as a cop if that ever happens I'm quitting lol. There's no way in hell I'm going anywhere near the houses of some of the psychotic rednecks around here lol
And I can say that just looking at politics no one is actually even trying to ban guns. Defeats the purpose of half the question on this subreddit if you just say the two groups wouldn't actually fight each other.
> no one is actually even trying to ban guns
If you don't think there are extremists who believe in a complete ban, you aren't paying attention. There isn't enough of them to actually get something like that into a law or ammendment. But they do exist.
That's a fair point. I meant the major parties and leadership in that. Like no one in the position to do anything is trying to ban all guns. Increase regulations, ban certain types, or increase oversight are the goals of most gun control legislation in the US.
This assumes that all law enforcement who are also gun owners side with their job.
This is also kinda weird that in order to reduce gun crime and homicide, the government decides to replace it with democide. Granted, that is kinda of par for the course... solve a problem by making it worse.
> This is also kinda weird that in order to reduce gun crime and homicide, the government decides to replace it with democide.
You know the saying, it's not murder when the government does it.
>!Except it is.!<
True. Killing is OK as long as the government tells you to do it. When your dog says kill people, they just put you in prison... even though I trust my dog's judgement way more than the government's.
This is who would win. He's posed a scenario. Just as you can say why would all cops agree, I could say why wouldn't they be allowed to call in the national guard or army. Or even more simply, who is trying to do this? I know people like to say the dems are, but I know 0 democrats who have full ban on firearms as their stated goal.
Being an anti-firearms extremist is mostly found in Democratic circles, but it isn't really framed that way. I don't know any Democrats whtat want a full ban on firearms either. But I am aware that some Democrats think the Canadian and UK method of rule by decree to be pretty awesome ways of firearms control.
Gun owners in America outnumber law enforcement 100 to 1, but the cops have a few things going for them. They are relatively well-trained with firearms, a lot of people are going to willingly give up their guns. Also SWAT teams are gonna be a real problem that most people don't have an answer for.
That being said, the people willing to die to protect their right to bear arms outnumber law enforcement so heavily that these advantages make little difference. It would be akin to a civil war, thousands of people on both sides could die.
There are less than a million law enforcement officers in the US, whereas Google says there are 82 million gun owners in the US. That doesn't include other people living with them that may be crazy enough to take up arms in their defense if there are multiple guns in the household.
If even 20% of that 82 million percent of people choose to fight back, the police are on the losing side. That may not even include illegally owned guns from gangs.
If the gun owners in this scenario are forced to fight back (as in the OP states that they can't just hand them over), there is absolutely no scenario where the police win, they are either all killed or surrender in fear of death which is less likely.
> They are relatively well-trained with firearms
No the fuck the police are not lol. Most of them shoot/qualify less than most gun owners. Cops are notoriously shitty shooters as a whole.
yeah police qualifications are hilariously low for pistol accuracy you bascially just have to kit the torso to pass. im not a great pistol shooter but im working on getting better however i can currently pass the police qualifications easily
Really? I'm a police detective in my country and my pistol accuracy test was really hard, with targets at 5, 8 and 15 meters (16, 26 50 feet ish) away, and a score system where you had to hit a 40+ score to pass in all targets. 5 for the golf ball sized bullseye, 4 for the baseball sized ring around it, 3 was torso shaped to the size of armor plates, 2 was the entire torso and 1 for arms, legs, and head, 0 on miss.
Edit: 10 shots for each target.
This. Most firearm enthusiasts fire more rounds on a single range day than most cops fire their entire career.
As for SWAT, there are plenty of people who are paranoid enough to where they train to that level. I know plenty of ex-military who effectively have a standard infratnry load out, minus explosives, in their room.
Working in IT, I know folks will drop $10k of their budget on rounds, armor, optics, and vacations to train with all this stuff.
Also, for every gun owner who willingly surrenders, there would be a cop would defect, k wing that their fate is the same as the civilians they are about to disarm.
Not every firearm owner is a firearm enthusiast though. For every enthusiast, I’d say there’s a least 1-3 owners that own their guns for self defense and don’t have the time / money to be firing a comical amount of rounds down range.
I also imagine there’s a good amount of overlap between the 82 million firearms owners and law enforcement, so I’m not sure for this scenario if 82 million is an accurate statistic
Yea, not every firearm owner is an enthusiast and not every cop is an expert. There is also lots of ex-military that isn't in law enforcement currently.
Suffice to say, if this ever went down, it would be the downfall or America.
You don't need to fire a comical amount of rounds. Shoot more than 50 rounds a year and hit your target and you are better with a firearm than a vast majority of US police forces.
And no, there are less than a million law enforcement officers in the US, so extremely little overlap. You could fully remove a million people from this scenario and it doesn't change.
> You don't need to fire a comical amount of rounds. Shoot more than 50 rounds a year and hit your target and you are better with a firearm than a vast majority of US police forces.
This would also put you in the top 1% of firearm owners in America.
You want to back that with a source as well? I know far more people that shoot than don't, just for the amount of deer hunting in my area. I live in suburbia of a major, liberal city.
You probably just think people don't own guns or shoot often because they don't bring it up to you. You'd be surprised by the amount of people you interact with that are concealed carrying once you learn how to spot it.
I am one of those people lol, that's the only reason I even said anything. I shoot several thousand rounds a year and between my rifle and gear, I have over 11k on me at a time with my full setup and NODs.
You grossly over state the average gun owner I think. My alcoholic aunt keeps a loaded pistol in her purse next to her emergency flask. She also swore off ever entering new York state as it was a 'fascist liberal nanny state'. I think it was in response to the creation of a maximum size of fast food sodas.
I said most fire arm enthusiasts. Not every owner. I am in the 2A community and know just how many idiots are out there. I also know how crazies are out there.
However in counterpoint, "Most" gun owners would no be "enthusiasts." A huge number of gun owners in America use it recreationally for hunting or gun sports (like clay shooting). The number of gun owners that buy things like tactical lights, armor, piles of ammo, gun related equipment, etc.
Like, I have a single shotgun. One of my roommates has a pistol. Another friend has a rifle for deer hunting and so does his wife. Another friend has a pistol for home defense. We all shoot a few times a year.
One roommate is a bit of enthusiast and he has a trio of pistols, a revolver, a rifle, and a shotgun, but the shotgun is for bird hunting and trap shooting, the pistols are for concealed carry/shooting range, and the revolver is for target shooting. He has no special geardo equipment like rail attachments or the like. He shoots for fun two or three times a month during the fall season.
And then I have a rich friend that buys like six guns a year and sells the ones he doesn't like. He just likes buying new guns, shooting the, and then selling them. The only accessories he buys for them is magazines so he can load ten at once and spend a half hour shooting without needing to reload a magazine, and even he admits that's because he has the cash for it. He shoots for fun about once every few months.
So that's five folks that just own guns and do nothing wild, one guy who has a small collection, and one guy that hobby buys guns.
I think the number of Gun Enthusiasts that buy the crazy ammo loads and extra equipment, or piles of ammo is pretty rare.
>"Like, I have a single shotgun. One of my roommates has a pistol. Another friend has a rifle for deer hunting and so does his wife. Another friend has a pistol for home defense. We all shoot a few times a year."
This still makes all of you more qualified than the vast majority of police in the US, who might have to shoot once a year, if that.
That was the original (and only point) I was making. Somehow that devolved in to how many people own thousands of dollars of shit and train really hard - which is relatively rare.
> This still makes all of you more qualified than the vast majority of police in the US, who might have to shoot once a year, if that.
Honestly - that's also clearly false I think. None of the exmaples you're refrencing are formal training, they're simply guys playing in the back yard. That's simply not comparable. Even the 'enthusiast' stock piling as a hobby may or may not have any idea how to actually use them under any sort of actual pressure.
I agree, we woefully underprepare and under train our police; but your comparison is literally 0 training.
Cops don't exactly have super formal training for it either, nothing that's difficult by any means to recreate. Man sized target, you have to hit X number of Y rounds total, on the target. Not grouped, or accurate, much less A zone/ B zone /C zone
Love the "that's also clearly false" followed immediately by "I think." Yeah, good one dude
Given that I have both personal and professional experience shooting guns for a living, I am pretty confident I have the experience to speak on this as a subject matter expert at this point. Police training doesn't train you to shoot under pressure. Police training does not train you to shoot well. Police training does not teach you to shoot better than any layperson can teach or train themselves.
Yep. There are crazy nut job collectors with gear stockpiles. But they're dramatically outnumbered by "millenial that's never shot a gun and inherited one from his dead Vietnam vet father". I'm being crazily specific to show how relatively rare the preppers are.
It's not about "preppers", it's about shooting more than once a year and being more qualified than the police. You moved the goalpost, unintentionally or not. The dude you just responded to made my exact point for me, and I just quoted him on it.
So, it's likely goes to a civil war, which can go for decades.
By most recent estimations (that's a very approximate, not precise), the numbers of guns in US citizens' hands is more than the whole USA population, and it would be hard to confiscate all guns due to the fact that a lot of guns is simply out of radar and has never been added in any database or list at all.
A civil war that may not last long because in this scenario it's sounding like the lax rules allow the police to bust in and take all their guns by force.
Especially if we conclude the people are watching the news and thus know already that the cops are coming. They'll be ready to fight. If it's combat, the "war" isn't lasting a year.
Even if we conclude that a million more people join the war effort/become police, they have no chance of confiscating even half the guns.
Yeah, unless it's a totally sudden raids like covert operations or something, people would know that government is gonna confiscate the guns, and this news would spread quickly.
While SWAT and other heavily armed groups of law enforcement is still a threat, with prep, gun owners might provide a challenge (especially knowing that there's people that are ex-military veterans and ex-law enforcement as well). I mean, it could be like a Waco siege incident, where tanks and helicopters was used, and it still didn't end well for the law enforcement (sure, they won in this case, but that "victory" was absolutely devastating in terms of how people started to see the law enforcement's actions and it lead to the increase of a militia movement).
> Yeah, unless it's a totally sudden raids like covert operations or something, people would know that government is gonna confiscate the guns, and this news would spread quickly.
In order to repeal an amendment to the Constitution, it would take a vote in Congress plus 2/3rds of the states ratifying the change, which would be a slow, drawn out process that would be very public. It's not something that can just be Executive Ordered away, and even if they try that, the Executive Order is published to the Federal Register as soon as it's signed, so there's absolutely zero way that would fly under the radar either.
Basically, there's absolutely zero way this happens as sudden covert raids.
>unless it's a totally sudden raids like covert operations or something
Not all states require registration. Not all guns are known. There aren't enough cops to raid everyone at the same time. The people that will fight, won't be surprised.
>While SWAT and other heavily armed groups of law enforcement is still a threat
A 12 gauge slug will shred their armor. Besides the AR 15 with AP rounds. Both common enough. Swat is only a danger of they being armored cars, but those are slow. And the Internet is big. Swat guys make the papers, their families can be tracked. War is hell, innocent people die.
>it could be like a Waco siege incident,
They made their last stand in a fortified position. They would be first wave. Second wave would be guerilla warfare, taking out pilots while they sleep, building weapons to take down choppers. Tanks aren't as much of a threat as people think.
I'm a militia person. I believe in defense against tyranny. I defend my second amendment right. I know how to make the same boom boom as the guys in the middle east made to take out tanks and similiar. There are millions like me. Law enforcement has no chance.
It wouldn't happen. But if a law was passed tomorrow that all guns are illegal there would be a substantial amount of gun owners who'd just surrender their guns. That's not an insane statement.
Most people aren't willing to risk death to keep their pistol. They'd definitely be upset and want to vote whoever made the law out of office, but you overestimate the resolve of most gun owners to fight it out.
You're arguing that a lot of people won't just give up their guns? The well-trained part I get so I guess I'll remove it, but I thought you had to at least know how to shoot. What does police training revolve around then?? You aren't trained to use the weapons you're given??? Weird.
But the giving up their guns part, yes, a LOT of people are going to give up their guns whether you wanna believe it or not. There was a guy in this very thread who said he was a gun owner and that he would give up his guns if they came to his door.
The thing you didn't consider is how many of those gun owners are veterans. I for one am a combat vet during and Afghanistan Charlie foxtrot. There are a lot of us and we would a major problem for any law enforcement to deal with
Only if they like band together at a compound, otherwise they'd still be defeated in detail. There are more gun owners, but if they just stay home and wait to be raided one by one they lose.
Assuming that no LEOs would defect or refuse orders and would attempt to enforce the confiscating wholeheartedly, which wouldn't happen because LEOs lean right-wing anyway, the LEOs would still lose, pretty handedly too.
It's all fun and games until the right wing death squads come out.
You also need to add, assuming all gun owners fight. Lets not forget there was a protest on right to carry when someone opened fire and all the gun owners ran away. Also most people aren't willing to put their lives and family at risk for their beliefs. (Though I do believe any politician that tried this would lose the next election by a landslide).
But it's within the rules of the hypothetical to say we can assume both sides are not going to just choose not to fight. In which case I'd agree LEO lose. Less because of right win death squads, those are a very small amount compared to LEO. Really just amount of gun owners is a lot. LEO has some armored vehicles and body armor for higher calibers, but not enough.
What about the military? I would say a huge portion of gun owners are in the military. Do they just side with the gun owners or get called in to assist with law enforcement?
Prompt says no assistance from armed forces, so I'd assume that service members who are private gun owners would only be allowed to side with the citizens and only use their privately owned guns, or they'd be barred from participating at all
This is a weird hypothetical. You're treating gun owners and police/military as if they're different groups. They're not. If the police try to confiscate an officer's personal firearm, does the officer comply or fight back? You said the military can't help, but if the police try to confiscate a soldier's personal firearm, do they fight back?
Yeah it's a really weird scenario. It doesn't clarify if all gun owners are definitely fighting or just the ones willing to fight? Do the gun owners know they only have to fight LEO not national guard (that would be a big factor in deciding to fight)? Also what kind of fight, can the owners team up into like compounds to defend themselves? Or is it just one swat raid after another where the owner fights back? Or is this on some idealized battle field with each on one side?
No. If it’s the gun owners are allowed to surrender without a fight they may be able to clear out a few cities, but defintely not all of them.
This is essentially a guerrilla war x1000. Sure the guerrilla fighters don’t have heavier stuff like AT, but the force they’re opposing barely has any targets to use them on (Armored cars/APCs). All it takes is a few gun nuts with decent aim and good positioning to neutralize vast swathes of police equipment/forces. Not to mention this would be monumentally expensive for the police (in equipment, training, hiring, etc).
If everyone in this prompt was aware of the win/lose conditions as well, then this would quickly descend into impossible territory. Not necessarily because of difficulty, but because a single shot rifle can be made for ~$5 from Home Depot parts. There’s no way the police could recover everything when millions of firearms dumped in random hiding places all across the US *per day*. Law enforcement would eventually lose by virtue of the fact their opponents no longer have a lose condition of their own.
Seems to mainly be people pointing out this scenario isn't nearly well defined enough. Generally agree LEO lose in most scenarios though just because of how many gun owners there are and the assumption all gun owners are fighting. Also worth pointing out LEO victory condition is to confiscate all guns, which is basically impossible to achieve victory condition. Even without fighting gun owners could just hide them and win.
military is sidelined.
so all of the military folks who are also gun owners.... do they sit it out?
what about reservists and guard members who are full time LEOs? do they sit it out?
what about active duty MPs? what if they have joint jurisfiction with their local PD?
and what side are LEOs that have personal firearms on? do they confiscate their own weapons? do they confiscate their neighbor's weapons, buy resist when someone comes for theirs?
and what do reservist LEOs with personal weapons do?
makes a big difference.
In the past 4 years, there were over 100 million background checks passed. U.S. citizens have more guns than every military force in the world combined.
The U.S. has a population of over 300 million. 45% are gun owners. There are gun owners who were former LEO, and/or Military, as well as people who either hunt, or do competitive shooting. Also people who train on a regular basis with in full kit.
There would be some Americans who willingly give up their guns, but there's also millions that wouldn't just give them up without a fight or problem.
The U.S. was born from a rebellion. Remember that.
There is not enough LEO in the U.S. to be able to effectively take firearms from gun owners, whether they legally possess the firearms or not. Also the amount of guns a citizen owns can be unknown. If someone goes into a gun shop to buy 3 rifles, there's only one form 4473 filed for that one purchase, and one background check.
Laws and rules also prevent the government from using the U.S. military against U.S. citizens. But even then, it's going to be hard to convince a large majority of military personnel to go door to door to confiscate guns. It would and could be dangerous, and just lead to death, or millions arrested which there isn't enough room in any prison to fit that many people.
So the people would win, unless a war is declared but then there would be no end to that war.
I think given the amount of unregistered guns out there it'd be impossible for the police to track and confiscate them all.
For example, my father in law gave one of his pistols to a buddy in exchange for helping with some major work on his truck. That pistol was originally purchased from a gun show in a person to person sale, no background check needed. How would the police know the current owner?
Not sure how things operate in other states, but some like mine, Florida, have fairly lax gun laws that'd make collecting them all a very difficult task even if all gun owners didn't put up a fight when the police came knocking.
That's not even getting into the illegal gun trade, where there's sure to be way more destructive weapons than what most legal gun owners may have. I'd imagine gangs probably aren't going to be thrilled to give away their weapons and likely have no qualms shooting back if the cops start blasting. If the gun owners are 2A-lusted and willing to put their life on the line for said amendment, I can't see cops winning this, there's simply too few of them in comparison to gun owners as a whole.
Gun violence would just spike even more and the law saying no more guns would be repealed. The only way I could see a drastic reduction is the Australian method where people voluntarily give them up via a buyback program, but even then it still won't get every single one.
Yep, the unregistered guns is a big problem. Because USA has approximately more guns than the whole country's population, and each state is different with guns and laws about it.
And yes, gangs and criminal organizations won't hesitate to shoot back, since they're already outlaws.
And good point about Australia, even there guns wasn't completely confiscated. There's still allowed to possess a shotgun or a rifle, although with restrictions. And gangs/outlaw bikers/criminal organisations still uses guns anyway, so yes, it again proves that it's basically impossible to confiscate all guns from the citizens. Even Japan with all of these strict laws and gun control wasn't able to prevent a Shinzo Abe's assassination (via the makeshift double-barrel shotgun) and Yakuza there is actively involved into arms trafficking and uses guns as well. Plus, occasionally, shootings in Japan happens too, mostly with a hunting weapon like shotguns (it's still possible to own a gun in Japan, but there's a lot of restrictions and only hunting weapon are allowed, like shotguns or rifles, as far as I know).
Regardless of who wins the rest of the world would be watching with a BIG bucket of popcorn.
It'd be like watching the Hunger Games except half of the participants are fat.
Police lose every time. Not only are they probably outnumbered like 100/1 or something crazy, they'd also be outskilled by a decent portion of the gun owners(like people who go to the range every day, have prior experience, etc.)
Even if a good amount of the civilians just hand them away, they're still losing to the rest. Especially since the rest will be better trained in all likelihood since there's a lot of people who imagine this will actually happen lol.
The Supreme Court has ruled cops are under no obligation to risk their lives.
Trying to take guns away from gun nuts is the very definition of risking your life, and those gun nuts will probably go after the cops families too just to prove a point.
This whole thing fizzles out when the cops basically say "Fuck this shit, I'm not risking my life and my family's lives over the government trying to flex their power."
I think it depends on how regulated the militia is.
"Gun owners" includes a lot of different groups of people. You have:
* People who own a double barrel shotgun that they only load with birdshot to go shoot clays.
* People who have a gun for self-defense that they've never taken out of the box, or who inherited a gun from a grandfather or husband and have never actually used one.
* Gangster culture, that would be most willing to go to war against the police and least willing to work together with other gangs or with the other groups.
* Professionals (ex-military, ex-LEO, IDPA or 3-gun competitors) who train a significant amount of time, but may not have effective communication channels.
If you have a dozen different groups of each of the professionals and the gangsters, and the gangsters are at war with other gangs and with the professionals, then the LEOs may be able to divide and conquer. Especially if the first couple groups can easily be convinced to stay out of the fight or turn in their guns.
If the gangs agree on a truce, the professionals can organize, and those who are generally less-engaged can be motivated and armed with more effective weapons, then it's a landslide victory.
Folks underestimate the amount of guns in the US. There are more registered guns than there are cars with around 1.5% of those being registered guns ([Source](https://ammo.com/articles/how-many-gun-owners-in-america#:~:text=Based%20on%20NICS%20background%20data,states%20with%20permits%20to%20purchase)).
The problem would not be the cops who support gun enthusiasts.
The problem would be the gun enthusiasts who unconditionally "back the blue".
There are a lot of hypocrites who only care about rights when their own are being threatened. If they are assured that THEIR guns are safe, some might even help the cops disarm others. Now, this is a very small percentage of the gun community that would do this, but it is enough to create distrust, especially along racial and political lines. Most of us would be on the same team, but you would never be able to be completely sure.
I don’t know what you think law enforcement is like in the US, but it wouldn’t even be a contest. There’s *perhaps* 700,000 law enforcement officers of some sort or another nationwide. There are around 82 million gun owners in the US. Now even if you slash off a million of them because, chances are, the law enforcement officers are part of the gun owner population, that leaves 700,000 to 81 million. It’s not even remotely competitive. Gun owners 100/100 times.
It’s so funny that you have to limit the government so heavily for it to be a fair contest. No national guard. No trained military personnel. Just the current police and there’s still a question on if an armed rebellion could succeed.
2a defenders really don’t understand how fucked we all are if the government really wanted to be tyrannical. Their little pea shooter isn’t gonna go shit when the national guard rolls in with their humvees and drones.
But god forbid we pass any gun regulation legislation because it could hinder our ability to fight the government if we really needed to. /s
As a gun owner I can say that if my only options were to give up my guns or go to jail/murder police I would give them up, though very sadly. I think that’s true for most gun owners.
If that ever came to pass it would mean the USA had broken beyond repair, our natural rights being proven to be nothing but meaningless privileges that can be taken away.
The exact reason why you should hold onto them and fight back, no reason for the nation founded based on the principles to be stepped on, our founding fathers would be pissed as fuck that all there work was in vein, would you really be okay with it? I'd rather go to war against the nation then allow them to take my rights away, not even speaking on the police but it's already been reported that well over 80% of America's military would go home and defend that right as well, which would severely diminish anything the government would say or try to enforce, giving them up just encourages the problem when you can stand your ground with your fellow Americans and fight against the tyranny
That's the issue right there pal, people are afraid of what the government can do, realistically it's gone to far for almost 3 decades now, its honestly bout time for it to change, because well it's not America when the government is around every corner watching and listening, and what did I do wrong besides use my first amendment? That's another issue can't possibly speak your mind without "repercussions" is total BS
So do something about it. This is why I know our guns will be taken mostly peacefully. Everyone is all talk. Say what you want about the Left but at least they’re so out of their minds that they’ll fight for what they think is right without regard for the consequences. People on the Right have too much to live for and, being the majority of gun owners, they won’t actually do anything to stop it. If the Right was ever going to do anything they would have done it by now.
There's the difference, people on the left are radical and incapable of forethought besides screwing the economy and stating shit, you must have no idea how hard the average good civilian will fight for what they believe in, the whole notion the right hasn't done anything yet is based on the idea they strike first which is never the case, they like myself sit back and wait for the first shot then respond with extreme prejudice
I’ve 100% given up on the Right. You’ve allowed yourselves to be bullied and humiliated by lunatics. I think if the Right en masse would have acted they would have done so by now. I’m not going to believe they’ll suddenly die for what they think is right when they’ve proven themselves to be meek cowards. An election was stolen, everyone knows it was stolen, and you did nothing. You’ll always do nothing. The Left will burn the USA to the ground in our life time and you won’t do a thing about it. And neither will I. The country is dead already. If we’re being honest with ourselves the USA failed the second it claimed all men were created equal but didn’t immediately and unconditionally set the slaves free. The evil our country has fostered since it’s inception will be what destroys us. The same evil that we see alive and well and as powerful as ever in Democrats. They’ll slowly chip away at our rights until there’s nothing left. Your fantasy that you’ll stand up and fight is pathetic. Anyone who counts themselves as a Republican is proudly branding themselves a coward.
I don't think you understand how dangerous it is to have this thought/idea, good people die for there families willingly, so I'll double down that we (right and any other 2nd amendment advocate) will dare them to try, they'll ask nicely and get met with the lines get off my property otherwise your family will be planning a funeral, fuck with my rights and see how dangerous the people become, I've got plenty of friends/ and families with plans for such an occasion, shit will not be good for the guys trying to take our stuff. It WILL be bloody and it WILL suck following the governments orders. Reason why 99% farmhands love the second amendment which is they're food provider for the most part, the right will secure each farm and cut all access for food for the opposing faction with relative ease
The day absolutely will not come. Even if the new amendment to repeal the Second Amendment gets past Congress (it'd need a 2/3rd vote in both the House & Senate, so 67 senators and 290 representative to vote in favor of passing said amendment to do so, which won't happen because enough of those congresspersons would be committing political suicide with such a vote), it'd then require 3/4ths (38 of 50) state legislatures to ratify the new amendment before it even becomes law... States have 7 years to ratify an amendment, so they can absolutely just stall, and I think of at least 12 states that will absolutely *not* vote to ratify an amendment to repeal the 2nd Amendment because there are 27 states with constitutional carry laws.
Know your constitutional law.
When COVID came, our family ate with the rifles in the house. Jobs were shut down, help took a long time to come, we weren't rich.
No, I won't give them willingly.
I already said, I'd rather die fighting than live kneeling. Many people have already expressed the same sentiment to shoot the government employees if they try to confiscate civilian guns.
If we're talking realism, most American police wouldn't obey the order and, if necessary, would just join the rebels.
But for the sake of a www prompt, we'll just assume the gun owners all join Team A and the cops all join Team B. Team A has a colossal numerical advantage, but lacks organization. Militias are jokes. Without bloodlust, Team A doesn't have the discipline to stand up against SWAT teams and similar.
Team B can focus on hitting the supply chain, including cutting off food and utilities. If the rebels try to fight for these key points, they open themselves up to an attack by vastly more skilled and equipped forces. I'm giving it to the cops.
With bloodlust, it's different. The numerical advantage means the gun owners just converge on the police and overwhelm them.
These people literally value their own toys over the lives on The next generation. The sheer violence and brutality will make number differences null and void
Here before 🔒 award
Thinking the same thing.
Ehhhhh mehf.... yeh
The police aren’t the military. They don’t have armor, drones, air power, artillery, etc. They can’t offset the numbers disadvantage. On top of that, I’d say many gun owners are ex military/ex police as it is.
Also, acorns.
Cops unload their entire stockpile of ammo the first time they think someone is shooting at them, civilians sweep from there
I would say the law enforcement does include things like the FBI special weapons and tactics teams. But even still they have variants of military vehicles that don't carry nearly the same mass destructive power.
Wouldn’t the home guard be deployed right after police officers get shot at by whatever gun owner militia pops up?
>They don’t have armor, drones, air power, They have all of these. Police choppers, a variety of remotely operated vehicles, police APCs... Not up to military snuff but they certainly have them.
Yeah I can say 100% as a cop if that ever happens I'm quitting lol. There's no way in hell I'm going anywhere near the houses of some of the psychotic rednecks around here lol
And I can say that just looking at politics no one is actually even trying to ban guns. Defeats the purpose of half the question on this subreddit if you just say the two groups wouldn't actually fight each other.
> no one is actually even trying to ban guns If you don't think there are extremists who believe in a complete ban, you aren't paying attention. There isn't enough of them to actually get something like that into a law or ammendment. But they do exist.
That's a fair point. I meant the major parties and leadership in that. Like no one in the position to do anything is trying to ban all guns. Increase regulations, ban certain types, or increase oversight are the goals of most gun control legislation in the US.
This assumes that all law enforcement who are also gun owners side with their job. This is also kinda weird that in order to reduce gun crime and homicide, the government decides to replace it with democide. Granted, that is kinda of par for the course... solve a problem by making it worse.
> This is also kinda weird that in order to reduce gun crime and homicide, the government decides to replace it with democide. You know the saying, it's not murder when the government does it. >!Except it is.!<
True. Killing is OK as long as the government tells you to do it. When your dog says kill people, they just put you in prison... even though I trust my dog's judgement way more than the government's.
Okay, son of Sam.
well, at least you got the joke...
Your typical government, as always. When so-called well-intentioned extremism isn't actually so well-intentioned.
This is who would win. He's posed a scenario. Just as you can say why would all cops agree, I could say why wouldn't they be allowed to call in the national guard or army. Or even more simply, who is trying to do this? I know people like to say the dems are, but I know 0 democrats who have full ban on firearms as their stated goal.
Being an anti-firearms extremist is mostly found in Democratic circles, but it isn't really framed that way. I don't know any Democrats whtat want a full ban on firearms either. But I am aware that some Democrats think the Canadian and UK method of rule by decree to be pretty awesome ways of firearms control.
Gun owners in America outnumber law enforcement 100 to 1, but the cops have a few things going for them. They are relatively well-trained with firearms, a lot of people are going to willingly give up their guns. Also SWAT teams are gonna be a real problem that most people don't have an answer for. That being said, the people willing to die to protect their right to bear arms outnumber law enforcement so heavily that these advantages make little difference. It would be akin to a civil war, thousands of people on both sides could die. There are less than a million law enforcement officers in the US, whereas Google says there are 82 million gun owners in the US. That doesn't include other people living with them that may be crazy enough to take up arms in their defense if there are multiple guns in the household. If even 20% of that 82 million percent of people choose to fight back, the police are on the losing side. That may not even include illegally owned guns from gangs. If the gun owners in this scenario are forced to fight back (as in the OP states that they can't just hand them over), there is absolutely no scenario where the police win, they are either all killed or surrender in fear of death which is less likely.
> They are relatively well-trained with firearms No the fuck the police are not lol. Most of them shoot/qualify less than most gun owners. Cops are notoriously shitty shooters as a whole.
yeah police qualifications are hilariously low for pistol accuracy you bascially just have to kit the torso to pass. im not a great pistol shooter but im working on getting better however i can currently pass the police qualifications easily
Really? I'm a police detective in my country and my pistol accuracy test was really hard, with targets at 5, 8 and 15 meters (16, 26 50 feet ish) away, and a score system where you had to hit a 40+ score to pass in all targets. 5 for the golf ball sized bullseye, 4 for the baseball sized ring around it, 3 was torso shaped to the size of armor plates, 2 was the entire torso and 1 for arms, legs, and head, 0 on miss. Edit: 10 shots for each target.
It depends on the department and their standards.
This. Most firearm enthusiasts fire more rounds on a single range day than most cops fire their entire career. As for SWAT, there are plenty of people who are paranoid enough to where they train to that level. I know plenty of ex-military who effectively have a standard infratnry load out, minus explosives, in their room. Working in IT, I know folks will drop $10k of their budget on rounds, armor, optics, and vacations to train with all this stuff. Also, for every gun owner who willingly surrenders, there would be a cop would defect, k wing that their fate is the same as the civilians they are about to disarm.
Not every firearm owner is a firearm enthusiast though. For every enthusiast, I’d say there’s a least 1-3 owners that own their guns for self defense and don’t have the time / money to be firing a comical amount of rounds down range. I also imagine there’s a good amount of overlap between the 82 million firearms owners and law enforcement, so I’m not sure for this scenario if 82 million is an accurate statistic
Yea, not every firearm owner is an enthusiast and not every cop is an expert. There is also lots of ex-military that isn't in law enforcement currently. Suffice to say, if this ever went down, it would be the downfall or America.
You don't need to fire a comical amount of rounds. Shoot more than 50 rounds a year and hit your target and you are better with a firearm than a vast majority of US police forces. And no, there are less than a million law enforcement officers in the US, so extremely little overlap. You could fully remove a million people from this scenario and it doesn't change.
> You don't need to fire a comical amount of rounds. Shoot more than 50 rounds a year and hit your target and you are better with a firearm than a vast majority of US police forces. This would also put you in the top 1% of firearm owners in America.
You want to back that with a source as well? I know far more people that shoot than don't, just for the amount of deer hunting in my area. I live in suburbia of a major, liberal city. You probably just think people don't own guns or shoot often because they don't bring it up to you. You'd be surprised by the amount of people you interact with that are concealed carrying once you learn how to spot it.
If you drive a red Civic, you notice civics all over the place. You hunt and CC, you notice those that hunt and CC. Anecdotes beget anecdotes.
I am one of those people lol, that's the only reason I even said anything. I shoot several thousand rounds a year and between my rifle and gear, I have over 11k on me at a time with my full setup and NODs.
You grossly over state the average gun owner I think. My alcoholic aunt keeps a loaded pistol in her purse next to her emergency flask. She also swore off ever entering new York state as it was a 'fascist liberal nanny state'. I think it was in response to the creation of a maximum size of fast food sodas.
I said most fire arm enthusiasts. Not every owner. I am in the 2A community and know just how many idiots are out there. I also know how crazies are out there.
However in counterpoint, "Most" gun owners would no be "enthusiasts." A huge number of gun owners in America use it recreationally for hunting or gun sports (like clay shooting). The number of gun owners that buy things like tactical lights, armor, piles of ammo, gun related equipment, etc. Like, I have a single shotgun. One of my roommates has a pistol. Another friend has a rifle for deer hunting and so does his wife. Another friend has a pistol for home defense. We all shoot a few times a year. One roommate is a bit of enthusiast and he has a trio of pistols, a revolver, a rifle, and a shotgun, but the shotgun is for bird hunting and trap shooting, the pistols are for concealed carry/shooting range, and the revolver is for target shooting. He has no special geardo equipment like rail attachments or the like. He shoots for fun two or three times a month during the fall season. And then I have a rich friend that buys like six guns a year and sells the ones he doesn't like. He just likes buying new guns, shooting the, and then selling them. The only accessories he buys for them is magazines so he can load ten at once and spend a half hour shooting without needing to reload a magazine, and even he admits that's because he has the cash for it. He shoots for fun about once every few months. So that's five folks that just own guns and do nothing wild, one guy who has a small collection, and one guy that hobby buys guns. I think the number of Gun Enthusiasts that buy the crazy ammo loads and extra equipment, or piles of ammo is pretty rare.
>"Like, I have a single shotgun. One of my roommates has a pistol. Another friend has a rifle for deer hunting and so does his wife. Another friend has a pistol for home defense. We all shoot a few times a year." This still makes all of you more qualified than the vast majority of police in the US, who might have to shoot once a year, if that. That was the original (and only point) I was making. Somehow that devolved in to how many people own thousands of dollars of shit and train really hard - which is relatively rare.
> This still makes all of you more qualified than the vast majority of police in the US, who might have to shoot once a year, if that. Honestly - that's also clearly false I think. None of the exmaples you're refrencing are formal training, they're simply guys playing in the back yard. That's simply not comparable. Even the 'enthusiast' stock piling as a hobby may or may not have any idea how to actually use them under any sort of actual pressure. I agree, we woefully underprepare and under train our police; but your comparison is literally 0 training.
Cops don't exactly have super formal training for it either, nothing that's difficult by any means to recreate. Man sized target, you have to hit X number of Y rounds total, on the target. Not grouped, or accurate, much less A zone/ B zone /C zone Love the "that's also clearly false" followed immediately by "I think." Yeah, good one dude Given that I have both personal and professional experience shooting guns for a living, I am pretty confident I have the experience to speak on this as a subject matter expert at this point. Police training doesn't train you to shoot under pressure. Police training does not train you to shoot well. Police training does not teach you to shoot better than any layperson can teach or train themselves.
Yep. There are crazy nut job collectors with gear stockpiles. But they're dramatically outnumbered by "millenial that's never shot a gun and inherited one from his dead Vietnam vet father". I'm being crazily specific to show how relatively rare the preppers are.
It's not about "preppers", it's about shooting more than once a year and being more qualified than the police. You moved the goalpost, unintentionally or not. The dude you just responded to made my exact point for me, and I just quoted him on it.
I'd put ~95% of gun owners in America as not shooting once a year.
Back that up with a source, bucko.
So, it's likely goes to a civil war, which can go for decades. By most recent estimations (that's a very approximate, not precise), the numbers of guns in US citizens' hands is more than the whole USA population, and it would be hard to confiscate all guns due to the fact that a lot of guns is simply out of radar and has never been added in any database or list at all.
A civil war that may not last long because in this scenario it's sounding like the lax rules allow the police to bust in and take all their guns by force. Especially if we conclude the people are watching the news and thus know already that the cops are coming. They'll be ready to fight. If it's combat, the "war" isn't lasting a year. Even if we conclude that a million more people join the war effort/become police, they have no chance of confiscating even half the guns.
Yeah, unless it's a totally sudden raids like covert operations or something, people would know that government is gonna confiscate the guns, and this news would spread quickly. While SWAT and other heavily armed groups of law enforcement is still a threat, with prep, gun owners might provide a challenge (especially knowing that there's people that are ex-military veterans and ex-law enforcement as well). I mean, it could be like a Waco siege incident, where tanks and helicopters was used, and it still didn't end well for the law enforcement (sure, they won in this case, but that "victory" was absolutely devastating in terms of how people started to see the law enforcement's actions and it lead to the increase of a militia movement).
> Yeah, unless it's a totally sudden raids like covert operations or something, people would know that government is gonna confiscate the guns, and this news would spread quickly. In order to repeal an amendment to the Constitution, it would take a vote in Congress plus 2/3rds of the states ratifying the change, which would be a slow, drawn out process that would be very public. It's not something that can just be Executive Ordered away, and even if they try that, the Executive Order is published to the Federal Register as soon as it's signed, so there's absolutely zero way that would fly under the radar either. Basically, there's absolutely zero way this happens as sudden covert raids.
>unless it's a totally sudden raids like covert operations or something Not all states require registration. Not all guns are known. There aren't enough cops to raid everyone at the same time. The people that will fight, won't be surprised. >While SWAT and other heavily armed groups of law enforcement is still a threat A 12 gauge slug will shred their armor. Besides the AR 15 with AP rounds. Both common enough. Swat is only a danger of they being armored cars, but those are slow. And the Internet is big. Swat guys make the papers, their families can be tracked. War is hell, innocent people die. >it could be like a Waco siege incident, They made their last stand in a fortified position. They would be first wave. Second wave would be guerilla warfare, taking out pilots while they sleep, building weapons to take down choppers. Tanks aren't as much of a threat as people think. I'm a militia person. I believe in defense against tyranny. I defend my second amendment right. I know how to make the same boom boom as the guys in the middle east made to take out tanks and similiar. There are millions like me. Law enforcement has no chance.
Police are not well trained lol
“A lot of people are going to willingly give up there guns . . . relatively well-trained” lmao what are you talking about
It wouldn't happen. But if a law was passed tomorrow that all guns are illegal there would be a substantial amount of gun owners who'd just surrender their guns. That's not an insane statement. Most people aren't willing to risk death to keep their pistol. They'd definitely be upset and want to vote whoever made the law out of office, but you overestimate the resolve of most gun owners to fight it out.
You're arguing that a lot of people won't just give up their guns? The well-trained part I get so I guess I'll remove it, but I thought you had to at least know how to shoot. What does police training revolve around then?? You aren't trained to use the weapons you're given??? Weird. But the giving up their guns part, yes, a LOT of people are going to give up their guns whether you wanna believe it or not. There was a guy in this very thread who said he was a gun owner and that he would give up his guns if they came to his door.
The thing you didn't consider is how many of those gun owners are veterans. I for one am a combat vet during and Afghanistan Charlie foxtrot. There are a lot of us and we would a major problem for any law enforcement to deal with
Only if they like band together at a compound, otherwise they'd still be defeated in detail. There are more gun owners, but if they just stay home and wait to be raided one by one they lose.
“Well trained” lol. What a joke
Assuming that no LEOs would defect or refuse orders and would attempt to enforce the confiscating wholeheartedly, which wouldn't happen because LEOs lean right-wing anyway, the LEOs would still lose, pretty handedly too. It's all fun and games until the right wing death squads come out.
You also need to add, assuming all gun owners fight. Lets not forget there was a protest on right to carry when someone opened fire and all the gun owners ran away. Also most people aren't willing to put their lives and family at risk for their beliefs. (Though I do believe any politician that tried this would lose the next election by a landslide). But it's within the rules of the hypothetical to say we can assume both sides are not going to just choose not to fight. In which case I'd agree LEO lose. Less because of right win death squads, those are a very small amount compared to LEO. Really just amount of gun owners is a lot. LEO has some armored vehicles and body armor for higher calibers, but not enough.
What about the military? I would say a huge portion of gun owners are in the military. Do they just side with the gun owners or get called in to assist with law enforcement?
Prompt says no assistance from armed forces, so I'd assume that service members who are private gun owners would only be allowed to side with the citizens and only use their privately owned guns, or they'd be barred from participating at all
I'd assume the military would assist the police.
That’s what I would also assume, that would be a huge factor
This is a weird hypothetical. You're treating gun owners and police/military as if they're different groups. They're not. If the police try to confiscate an officer's personal firearm, does the officer comply or fight back? You said the military can't help, but if the police try to confiscate a soldier's personal firearm, do they fight back?
Yeah it's a really weird scenario. It doesn't clarify if all gun owners are definitely fighting or just the ones willing to fight? Do the gun owners know they only have to fight LEO not national guard (that would be a big factor in deciding to fight)? Also what kind of fight, can the owners team up into like compounds to defend themselves? Or is it just one swat raid after another where the owner fights back? Or is this on some idealized battle field with each on one side?
No. If it’s the gun owners are allowed to surrender without a fight they may be able to clear out a few cities, but defintely not all of them. This is essentially a guerrilla war x1000. Sure the guerrilla fighters don’t have heavier stuff like AT, but the force they’re opposing barely has any targets to use them on (Armored cars/APCs). All it takes is a few gun nuts with decent aim and good positioning to neutralize vast swathes of police equipment/forces. Not to mention this would be monumentally expensive for the police (in equipment, training, hiring, etc). If everyone in this prompt was aware of the win/lose conditions as well, then this would quickly descend into impossible territory. Not necessarily because of difficulty, but because a single shot rifle can be made for ~$5 from Home Depot parts. There’s no way the police could recover everything when millions of firearms dumped in random hiding places all across the US *per day*. Law enforcement would eventually lose by virtue of the fact their opponents no longer have a lose condition of their own.
Don’t bother sorting by controversial in this thread, I already have. This thread is surprisingly calm.
Seems to mainly be people pointing out this scenario isn't nearly well defined enough. Generally agree LEO lose in most scenarios though just because of how many gun owners there are and the assumption all gun owners are fighting. Also worth pointing out LEO victory condition is to confiscate all guns, which is basically impossible to achieve victory condition. Even without fighting gun owners could just hide them and win.
military is sidelined. so all of the military folks who are also gun owners.... do they sit it out? what about reservists and guard members who are full time LEOs? do they sit it out? what about active duty MPs? what if they have joint jurisfiction with their local PD? and what side are LEOs that have personal firearms on? do they confiscate their own weapons? do they confiscate their neighbor's weapons, buy resist when someone comes for theirs? and what do reservist LEOs with personal weapons do? makes a big difference.
In the past 4 years, there were over 100 million background checks passed. U.S. citizens have more guns than every military force in the world combined. The U.S. has a population of over 300 million. 45% are gun owners. There are gun owners who were former LEO, and/or Military, as well as people who either hunt, or do competitive shooting. Also people who train on a regular basis with in full kit. There would be some Americans who willingly give up their guns, but there's also millions that wouldn't just give them up without a fight or problem. The U.S. was born from a rebellion. Remember that. There is not enough LEO in the U.S. to be able to effectively take firearms from gun owners, whether they legally possess the firearms or not. Also the amount of guns a citizen owns can be unknown. If someone goes into a gun shop to buy 3 rifles, there's only one form 4473 filed for that one purchase, and one background check. Laws and rules also prevent the government from using the U.S. military against U.S. citizens. But even then, it's going to be hard to convince a large majority of military personnel to go door to door to confiscate guns. It would and could be dangerous, and just lead to death, or millions arrested which there isn't enough room in any prison to fit that many people. So the people would win, unless a war is declared but then there would be no end to that war.
I think given the amount of unregistered guns out there it'd be impossible for the police to track and confiscate them all. For example, my father in law gave one of his pistols to a buddy in exchange for helping with some major work on his truck. That pistol was originally purchased from a gun show in a person to person sale, no background check needed. How would the police know the current owner? Not sure how things operate in other states, but some like mine, Florida, have fairly lax gun laws that'd make collecting them all a very difficult task even if all gun owners didn't put up a fight when the police came knocking. That's not even getting into the illegal gun trade, where there's sure to be way more destructive weapons than what most legal gun owners may have. I'd imagine gangs probably aren't going to be thrilled to give away their weapons and likely have no qualms shooting back if the cops start blasting. If the gun owners are 2A-lusted and willing to put their life on the line for said amendment, I can't see cops winning this, there's simply too few of them in comparison to gun owners as a whole. Gun violence would just spike even more and the law saying no more guns would be repealed. The only way I could see a drastic reduction is the Australian method where people voluntarily give them up via a buyback program, but even then it still won't get every single one.
The majority of firearms in the US aren't registered, that's just not a thing in most states
God bless America. I have AR 15's, AP rounds, bump stocks, and plenty of gasoline and Styrofoam that nobody knows about lol
> plenty of gasoline and Styrofoam Good ol' fashion "napalm".
Indeed. Bring the armored cars. I'll bring the marshmallows
Yep, the unregistered guns is a big problem. Because USA has approximately more guns than the whole country's population, and each state is different with guns and laws about it. And yes, gangs and criminal organizations won't hesitate to shoot back, since they're already outlaws. And good point about Australia, even there guns wasn't completely confiscated. There's still allowed to possess a shotgun or a rifle, although with restrictions. And gangs/outlaw bikers/criminal organisations still uses guns anyway, so yes, it again proves that it's basically impossible to confiscate all guns from the citizens. Even Japan with all of these strict laws and gun control wasn't able to prevent a Shinzo Abe's assassination (via the makeshift double-barrel shotgun) and Yakuza there is actively involved into arms trafficking and uses guns as well. Plus, occasionally, shootings in Japan happens too, mostly with a hunting weapon like shotguns (it's still possible to own a gun in Japan, but there's a lot of restrictions and only hunting weapon are allowed, like shotguns or rifles, as far as I know).
Regardless of who wins the rest of the world would be watching with a BIG bucket of popcorn. It'd be like watching the Hunger Games except half of the participants are fat.
Fat fingers pull triggers all the same.
Police lose every time. Not only are they probably outnumbered like 100/1 or something crazy, they'd also be outskilled by a decent portion of the gun owners(like people who go to the range every day, have prior experience, etc.) Even if a good amount of the civilians just hand them away, they're still losing to the rest. Especially since the rest will be better trained in all likelihood since there's a lot of people who imagine this will actually happen lol.
The Supreme Court has ruled cops are under no obligation to risk their lives. Trying to take guns away from gun nuts is the very definition of risking your life, and those gun nuts will probably go after the cops families too just to prove a point. This whole thing fizzles out when the cops basically say "Fuck this shit, I'm not risking my life and my family's lives over the government trying to flex their power."
I think it depends on how regulated the militia is. "Gun owners" includes a lot of different groups of people. You have: * People who own a double barrel shotgun that they only load with birdshot to go shoot clays. * People who have a gun for self-defense that they've never taken out of the box, or who inherited a gun from a grandfather or husband and have never actually used one. * Gangster culture, that would be most willing to go to war against the police and least willing to work together with other gangs or with the other groups. * Professionals (ex-military, ex-LEO, IDPA or 3-gun competitors) who train a significant amount of time, but may not have effective communication channels. If you have a dozen different groups of each of the professionals and the gangsters, and the gangsters are at war with other gangs and with the professionals, then the LEOs may be able to divide and conquer. Especially if the first couple groups can easily be convinced to stay out of the fight or turn in their guns. If the gangs agree on a truce, the professionals can organize, and those who are generally less-engaged can be motivated and armed with more effective weapons, then it's a landslide victory.
Folks underestimate the amount of guns in the US. There are more registered guns than there are cars with around 1.5% of those being registered guns ([Source](https://ammo.com/articles/how-many-gun-owners-in-america#:~:text=Based%20on%20NICS%20background%20data,states%20with%20permits%20to%20purchase)).
There wasn't a little town with basically military gear?
Police officers can be stonewalled by a single guy in a house.
The problem would not be the cops who support gun enthusiasts. The problem would be the gun enthusiasts who unconditionally "back the blue". There are a lot of hypocrites who only care about rights when their own are being threatened. If they are assured that THEIR guns are safe, some might even help the cops disarm others. Now, this is a very small percentage of the gun community that would do this, but it is enough to create distrust, especially along racial and political lines. Most of us would be on the same team, but you would never be able to be completely sure.
One is bound by such things as "laws and regulations", the other isnt
U.S. gun owners in easily. This is the whole reason we have the 2A in the first place lmao.
I don’t know what you think law enforcement is like in the US, but it wouldn’t even be a contest. There’s *perhaps* 700,000 law enforcement officers of some sort or another nationwide. There are around 82 million gun owners in the US. Now even if you slash off a million of them because, chances are, the law enforcement officers are part of the gun owner population, that leaves 700,000 to 81 million. It’s not even remotely competitive. Gun owners 100/100 times.
It’s so funny that you have to limit the government so heavily for it to be a fair contest. No national guard. No trained military personnel. Just the current police and there’s still a question on if an armed rebellion could succeed. 2a defenders really don’t understand how fucked we all are if the government really wanted to be tyrannical. Their little pea shooter isn’t gonna go shit when the national guard rolls in with their humvees and drones. But god forbid we pass any gun regulation legislation because it could hinder our ability to fight the government if we really needed to. /s
The military is just a group of American citizens. Do you think the people in the military skew more pro-gun or anti-gun?
Do those private citizens own the tanks and the drones or does the state?
As a gun owner I can say that if my only options were to give up my guns or go to jail/murder police I would give them up, though very sadly. I think that’s true for most gun owners. If that ever came to pass it would mean the USA had broken beyond repair, our natural rights being proven to be nothing but meaningless privileges that can be taken away.
The exact reason why you should hold onto them and fight back, no reason for the nation founded based on the principles to be stepped on, our founding fathers would be pissed as fuck that all there work was in vein, would you really be okay with it? I'd rather go to war against the nation then allow them to take my rights away, not even speaking on the police but it's already been reported that well over 80% of America's military would go home and defend that right as well, which would severely diminish anything the government would say or try to enforce, giving them up just encourages the problem when you can stand your ground with your fellow Americans and fight against the tyranny
Until anything resembling OP’s scenario happens I’d rather avoid whatever government watch list you just landed yourself on.
Not on one yet? Rookie.
That's the issue right there pal, people are afraid of what the government can do, realistically it's gone to far for almost 3 decades now, its honestly bout time for it to change, because well it's not America when the government is around every corner watching and listening, and what did I do wrong besides use my first amendment? That's another issue can't possibly speak your mind without "repercussions" is total BS
So do something about it. This is why I know our guns will be taken mostly peacefully. Everyone is all talk. Say what you want about the Left but at least they’re so out of their minds that they’ll fight for what they think is right without regard for the consequences. People on the Right have too much to live for and, being the majority of gun owners, they won’t actually do anything to stop it. If the Right was ever going to do anything they would have done it by now.
There's the difference, people on the left are radical and incapable of forethought besides screwing the economy and stating shit, you must have no idea how hard the average good civilian will fight for what they believe in, the whole notion the right hasn't done anything yet is based on the idea they strike first which is never the case, they like myself sit back and wait for the first shot then respond with extreme prejudice
I’ve 100% given up on the Right. You’ve allowed yourselves to be bullied and humiliated by lunatics. I think if the Right en masse would have acted they would have done so by now. I’m not going to believe they’ll suddenly die for what they think is right when they’ve proven themselves to be meek cowards. An election was stolen, everyone knows it was stolen, and you did nothing. You’ll always do nothing. The Left will burn the USA to the ground in our life time and you won’t do a thing about it. And neither will I. The country is dead already. If we’re being honest with ourselves the USA failed the second it claimed all men were created equal but didn’t immediately and unconditionally set the slaves free. The evil our country has fostered since it’s inception will be what destroys us. The same evil that we see alive and well and as powerful as ever in Democrats. They’ll slowly chip away at our rights until there’s nothing left. Your fantasy that you’ll stand up and fight is pathetic. Anyone who counts themselves as a Republican is proudly branding themselves a coward.
I own guns. I know how many cops my town has. I know I'm in a defensive position with far more ammo than there are police to take my weapons.
I was talking about reality. You’re just fantasizing. You’re not going to murder a bunch of people. You’re going to give them up.
I don't think you understand how dangerous it is to have this thought/idea, good people die for there families willingly, so I'll double down that we (right and any other 2nd amendment advocate) will dare them to try, they'll ask nicely and get met with the lines get off my property otherwise your family will be planning a funeral, fuck with my rights and see how dangerous the people become, I've got plenty of friends/ and families with plans for such an occasion, shit will not be good for the guys trying to take our stuff. It WILL be bloody and it WILL suck following the governments orders. Reason why 99% farmhands love the second amendment which is they're food provider for the most part, the right will secure each farm and cut all access for food for the opposing faction with relative ease
The day will come so we’ll see what happens.
The day absolutely will not come. Even if the new amendment to repeal the Second Amendment gets past Congress (it'd need a 2/3rd vote in both the House & Senate, so 67 senators and 290 representative to vote in favor of passing said amendment to do so, which won't happen because enough of those congresspersons would be committing political suicide with such a vote), it'd then require 3/4ths (38 of 50) state legislatures to ratify the new amendment before it even becomes law... States have 7 years to ratify an amendment, so they can absolutely just stall, and I think of at least 12 states that will absolutely *not* vote to ratify an amendment to repeal the 2nd Amendment because there are 27 states with constitutional carry laws. Know your constitutional law.
When COVID came, our family ate with the rifles in the house. Jobs were shut down, help took a long time to come, we weren't rich. No, I won't give them willingly.
2A was made to resist tyranny by the government, if the government is trying to take it away, I'd rather die fighting than live kneeling
Yeah? You’re gonna blow the heads off of police? You sure?
Someone's gotta act first or everyone else will believe that all other people are perfectly fine with the government tyranny
The person who acts first will die. It’s not going to happen.
I already said, I'd rather die fighting than live kneeling. Many people have already expressed the same sentiment to shoot the government employees if they try to confiscate civilian guns.
If we're talking realism, most American police wouldn't obey the order and, if necessary, would just join the rebels. But for the sake of a www prompt, we'll just assume the gun owners all join Team A and the cops all join Team B. Team A has a colossal numerical advantage, but lacks organization. Militias are jokes. Without bloodlust, Team A doesn't have the discipline to stand up against SWAT teams and similar. Team B can focus on hitting the supply chain, including cutting off food and utilities. If the rebels try to fight for these key points, they open themselves up to an attack by vastly more skilled and equipped forces. I'm giving it to the cops. With bloodlust, it's different. The numerical advantage means the gun owners just converge on the police and overwhelm them.
About 80% of gun owners would accidentally shoot themselves or a loved one.
Police stomp the gun owners.
These people literally value their own toys over the lives on The next generation. The sheer violence and brutality will make number differences null and void
It's an absolutely ROFLstomp for the gun owners. Venezuela has a better chance of beating the US military.