Poll: Lets pretend the government passes a law stating that you can't have a gun anymore...

sneakypenguin

Elite Member
Legacy
Jul 31, 2008
2,804
0
41
Country
usa
They would be "stolen" if asked about them and as none of mine are registered unless they come knocking with a warrant no one will be the wiser. Same for any kind of regulation, or registration, none of the governments business what I own so they'll never know i have it.
 

Old Father Eternity

New member
Aug 6, 2010
481
0
0
Creative melee combat and/or bows, now would that not be fun. Sure it would be more difficult and take a lot longer to properly master but the fights could be amazing.
 

Some_weirdGuy

New member
Nov 25, 2010
611
0
0
tehroc said:
I'd imagine you Australians would want to keep your guns considering how everything in Australia wants to kill you (at least according to Cracked).
Don't you know? Australian wildlife is impervious to bullets. You gotta wrestle everything into submission, like a real man.
 

Thyunda

New member
May 4, 2009
2,955
0
0
Binnsyboy said:
Rawne1980 said:
GunsmithKitten said:
Too many serial killers and slavers running around.
It's okay, the rest of us would keep you safe.

Now if you'll just hop into this protective cage while we take you to our auction ... sorry, that was a mistype, I meant safe house, yes, safe house. We will find someone who will "look after" you.

On Topic....

We did have that law passed. In the UK it is illegal to own firearms.
Well, I'm also in the UK, and there are currently two licensed double barrel shotguns in my house. Those have shotgun licenses, and then my uncle has a semi-automatic shotgun that chambers seven or eight shells that has a firearms license.

So, that seems pretty legalized, to me. Then again, we are in a rural area. Even so, I'd hardly say it's illegal to own firearms. Strict, maybe, but legal.
Rural folk actually have a practical use for guns, so that's easily justified. However, the stigma against guns isn't just because they're guns, it's because inner-city Americans do not need a handgun for any reason.

I'm also British, and the house opposite mine was ransacked by police, who found a cache of assault weaponry in there. Which amuses me for reasons it shouldn't.
 

Lovely Mixture

New member
Jul 12, 2011
1,474
0
0
If I owned guns (which I don't), I'd give them up as to not get in trouble with the law....Then proceed to stock up on everything else that could be used to defend myself, maybe a pepper ball gun and a large CO2 tank.
 

Fuzzed

New member
Dec 27, 2012
185
0
0
Baneat said:
Fuzzed said:
No guns to turn in over here. And I highly doubt anyone would start a friggin revolution if the government did take such measures. I mean, I love skateboarding. But if the government decided to ban those pieces of wood because they thought skateboards turned people into hooligans who beat up grandparents, I'm not all of a sudden going to turn Che on everybody's ass just to keep my skateboard. Heck, if it led to less grandparents getting the crap beat out of them then I'd feel like I did the right thing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came...

It's the principle of the thing not specifics to your circumstance.
Huh? That link is about how Nazi's murdered people because of their race, religion or something. I don't see how that has anything to do with what we're talking about. Unless you're trying to stretch it like this, first the government removes skateboards. The people who don't skateboard don't care so they don't speak up. Then , like a dude who gets a tattoo feels the urge to get another one, the government is like, "wow ... I like this banning idea, it feels good." So they ban guns. Then they ban redheads. Then they ban graduation parties and dogshows. Then...KAZAAAM! We're all Nazis.
 

Rawne1980

New member
Jul 29, 2011
4,144
0
0
Binnsyboy said:
Well, I'm also in the UK, and there are currently two licensed double barrel shotguns in my house. Those have shotgun licenses, and then my uncle has a semi-automatic shotgun that chambers seven or eight shells that has a firearms license.

So, that seems pretty legalized, to me. Then again, we are in a rural area. Even so, I'd hardly say it's illegal to own firearms. Strict, maybe, but legal.
To possess any kind of firearm in the UK, any person, including foreign nationals resident within the UK, must normally hold either a Shotgun Certificate (SGC) or a Firearm Certificate (FAC). Air rifles which produce less than 12 foot pounds of energy at the muzzle, and air pistols which produce less than 6 foot pounds of energy at the muzzle, are not classed as "firearms" for certification purposes, but they are still subject to various laws restricting their ownership and use.
And those licenses aren't easy to get.

It is illegal to own a firearm any other way.

Unlike in America where they are readily available.
 

Rariow

New member
Nov 1, 2011
342
0
0
This might not really count since I'm not American and we Spaniards have a completely different culture surrounding guns, but...

Give them (or rather, it) away. I only own it so I have a basic level of training on how to operate/maintain it in case some big war happens and I'm conscripted into the army. Don't really care about it beyond that.
 

Vhite

New member
Aug 17, 2009
1,980
0
0
I would buy a huge bag of popcorn and ticket to southern part of USA.
 

demoman_chaos

New member
May 25, 2009
2,254
0
0
I believe most firearms would be grandfathered in, meaning you can keep what you have. If not, I'd try to sell the few I have as quick as a good.

Katatori-kun said:
This is a hypothetical question, and such things tend to not really be based on what is happening more on what won't happen.
 

Sonic Doctor

Time Lord / Whack-A-Newbie!
Jan 9, 2010
3,042
0
0
You can't just say that this thread doesn't belong in the Politics forum because the hypothetical is that the law has already been passed. Gun threads will always come down to politics, no matter what you say. As people have said, politically, it can't be done. If it happened there would be serious and rebellious repercussions.

I voted "other" in the poll because:

I'd sit back and watch as the vast majority of the police force said no, because, even if they supported it, it would be too much risk of life to try and enforce such a law.

You'd then say, well, such people wouldn't be able to handle the US military coming to take their guns.

Wrong.

Because they wouldn't have to worry about the US military, because the military would be right next to such people, protecting them from an unconstitutional law and any police and disloyal(downright stupid) military members that were crazy enough to try.

As I've said before in other gun threads, I know people in the military. I know there would be whole military bases, that if such a law was passed, they would say "hell no" to the government and not enforce the law and would protect gun owners.

Because, seriously, who do you think makes up a majority of the military force in the US? Yes, the kind of people that love guns and will protect the right for them and others to own them.

In order to gain back the military to do what it normally does with it, the US government would have to erase the law and promise that they would never think of passing such a law ever again.

I just don't see how people don't get how this is the only real scenario that would happen if such a law was passed.

PeterMerkin69 said:
Americans are too soft to go to war over a hobby, which is really all gun culture really amounts to these days. There'd be a handful of extremist holdouts in the deep south and maybe Michigan who'd take a few pot shots at the police, and maybe even successfully kill a two or three of them, but tough talk of rebellion would be quashed and within a few days life would return to normal.

Personally, I'd wait for the Supreme Court to overturn whatever decision allowed this to happen and reclaim my weapons or use the compensatory check to replenish my arsenal. Failing that, it's not like they're tracked accurately enough that I couldn't just hide one until the heat was off.
Referring to what I've said above, that just isn't the case. I've got to know way too many gun owners and people in the military to think that the majority people here in the US would just fold under such a law.

It would be the reverse of your second sentence. There would be a small amount of extremist anti-gun people holding out against the US military which the vast majority is made up of pro-gun types. If there ever was a scenario where the US military would turn and over throw the US government if it had to, such a gun ban law would be the case.
 

phreakdb

New member
May 1, 2009
69
0
0
Looking through the thread, I see lots of speech about Americans objecting violently.

America is the only country in the western world that hasn't had truly violent protests about entitlements and money since the global depression began.

OT: While you are free to give up your arms, it is an inherent right of every US citizen that they be able to own a gun. There are several reasons why we were afforded such a right, the main one being so that the common people don't get trod upon by a tyrannical government or the us as a whole doesn't get overtaken by a hostile foreign nation.
 

Patrick Buck

New member
Nov 14, 2011
749
0
0
Well I don't own a gun, so I guess I'd just say "You can have it, IF YOU CAN FIND IT."
Then watch them spend hours searching for it and laughing.
 

The Funslinger

Corporate Splooge
Sep 12, 2010
6,150
0
0
Thyunda said:
it's because inner-city Americans do not need a handgun for any reason.
If you'd said rifles, I'd understand where you're coming from, but I'd say people in the city have more reason for a handgun than someone in a rural area. Carry weapons and such, which do protect people.
 

TotalerKrieger

New member
Nov 12, 2011
376
0
0
I would be pretty pissed off to see my collection of WW2 firearms thrown into the smelter. If such a law were passed there is no way anyone would be getting any compensation, I would expect $3000 alone. I would probably get them all deactivated before I would let the mounties take them, history deserves to be preserved. However, collecting these old relics would be far less interesting if I couldn't take them to range once in a while.


My Collection (Dear god 7 guns! I must be a sociopath...)

Lee Enfield No.4 Mk.1
Lee Enfield No.1 Mk.3
Mosin Nagant M91/30 Hexagonal
Mosin Nagant M91/30 PU Sniper
Mosin Nagant M44 Carbine
SVT-40
M1 Carbine
 
Aug 1, 2010
2,768
0
0
If the law was passed, I would sell them before they got a chance to take them.

I would then get a small, .22 handgun from "other sources" and keep it hidden.

Make money, stay protected, watch the hilarious fireworks as the government tries to round up almost the number of guns as people in the country.

TopazFusion said:
Trezu said:
I have a question

Why do people wanna keep there guns? because its eaiser to ward intruders away? Makes you feel safer? People may perceive your genitals to be bigger?
It's just the novelty of it.

Think of it like a bunch of children complaining about their toys being taken away.
While, yes, this is somewhat true of some people, you really don't need to be like THAT.

The only reason I would acquire a gun is to keep hidden away in my house for emergencies.

But in terms of "complaining about their toys being taken away.", just no.

In the context of sport and enjoyment, taking away guns would be no different than banning video games and I don't see you calling everyone who would hide their games "Children".
 

Thyunda

New member
May 4, 2009
2,955
0
0
Binnsyboy said:
Thyunda said:
it's because inner-city Americans do not need a handgun for any reason.
If you'd said rifles, I'd understand where you're coming from, but I'd say people in the city have more reason for a handgun than someone in a rural area. Carry weapons and such, which do protect people.
Which is why every Londoner carries a handgun, right?