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

[Ashannon Blackthorn]

Well being an American I would probably do what every other American with a backbone would do and say pry it from my cold dead hand.

And I'm sure if push came to shove the police and army would be ready eager and willing ot do just that to all the people who think that's the best course of action. (not a slag on Souleks, he's just the one that provided the shortest quotable opening. Thanks Souleks )

The gun culture severely over estimates the amount of popularity they weild in the US.

Cause remember... if a bunch of gun nuts say "fuck the government, you won't take my guns, viva la revolution!" the government will go, "domestic terrorists, traitors" and stomp on them so fast and so hard it'll hurt. They might face massive backlash from the public and the courts after the fact but they'll still do it. Hell I say even the Republicans and tea party would support that cause they'd be against the gun control laws, but they sure as hell wouldn't want a civil war rocking the boat. Plus if a bunch of wackoes start going ape-shit they'll simply frighten all the moderatives and liberals into thinking that this was needed and should be supported.

God, as a Canadian I really have to thank the US for the massive amounts of entertainment you keep providing us. **grabs the popcorn and watches the US implode a bit more**

As for me? Gun control is idiotic and pointless. Banning guns doesn;t do squat. You simply have to deal with the wackoes and criminals. Help the people who are desperate and mentally disturbed and get rid of the really crazy weapons. (like I don't think anyone needs military grade weapontry your amendment be damned. It was written when people had muskets and flintlock pistols not uzis and double barreled sawed off shotguns )

And ot answer the OP. I have a gun they pass a law, I demand compensation for the gun and hand it over. Not worth getting into with with the government over. Then try and get it legally overturned and get the gun back and more compensation for the hassle and inconvience.

 

[spartan231490]

Hide them. Claim I sold them. Whichever.

However, I live in the great state of Kentucky, where I will never have to worry about that. (At least as far as my firearms go, I don't have anything that qualifies as an "Assault Weapon" under the old federal law.)

Might wanna double check, the new proposed law is far far stricter, and bans numerous weapons that weren't covered under the old law.

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?

do you wanna know who doesn't use a gun? Batman.

just sayin

Because it's our right. I could post numerous reasons, from the pages and pages of data that shows it's safer(from a crime standpoint) for the people when we have guns; to the fact that governments have murdered many times more of their own people over the last century than have died in all the murders and suicides, and wars from that time combined; to the fact that we have thousands of dollars invested in our firearms each and the government couldn't afford to pay gun owners even pennies on the dollar for our legally purchased firearms; but the biggest reason is because it is our right. It is our right to own firearms to protect ourselves from criminals, invaders, and even tyrants, and as Americans we believe in our rights enough to fight, to kill and even die for them. We've done it time and time again, and we won't stop.

 

[Techno Squidgy]

We did have that law passed. In the UK it is illegal to own firearms.

May I advise you look up Shotgun and Firearm Certificates? We just have strict gun control.
At some point in the future I will be the proud owner of a Lee-Enfield, used to massacre paper targets.

 

[Rawne1980]

We did have that law passed. In the UK it is illegal to own firearms.

May I advise you look up Shotgun and Firearm Certificates? We just have strict gun control.
At some point in the future I will be the proud owner of a Lee-Enfield, used to massacre paper targets.

And what happens if you purchase a firearm without those licenses?

You can't purchase a firearm for self defense, you can't carry a loaded firearm and any firearm you do manage to get a license for must be kept in a locked cabinet with the ammunition being kept in a separate locked cabinet.

It is illegal to own assault rifles or anything along those lines.

On top of that the licenses you need to own a fire arm are not easy to get hold of. It's not a case of "give me license now" and they give you one.

By "illegal" I meant joe public can't own firearms.

Those with licenses already know what they can and can't do and heaven help them if they fuck up. The law does not go easy on them.

 

[Calcium]

It saddens me that a nation that attempts to promote decromacy is so insecure about their own government that the idea of banning guns inevitably leads to people claiming they need guns to keep their government under control. I understand that part of the resistance is cultural, stemming from the weapon being glorified from the revolution and such, but the contrast between democracy and the fear of government suppression is bizarre.

 

[Arizona Kyle]

Were this to happen, I'm guessing it would cause another civil war, as pathetic as that sounds.

Ehh i don't think that war would last that long.... we have tanks and helicopters now as well as military bases everywhere anyone who would think of starting another civil war would most likely be dead within 3 hours

 

[razer17]

Looking at the results from the poll, I reckon there must be a subset of Escapists who are happy to break the law and hide firearms, possibly even kill to keep them, but who think piracy is the most abominable thing a person can do, and that they should face severe legal repercussions. Just seems amusing, is all.

Obviously, living in Britain, the closest thing I have to a firearm is my Nerf gun. If they came after that I would hand it in, and then be a little annoyed for about 2 seconds.

 

[barbzilla]

Well I have two registered guns, and 8 guns from my grandfather who recently passed that were around prior to the gun registration act. If they come to my door it depends on how they ask. If they ask me for the guns that I have registered I would give them to me, if they ask for all guns in the household it would depend on if they were compensating me, and if I thought I would be searched. My guns are all locked away in a gunsafe in my attic so I'm pretty sure they wouldn't find it, but if I feel I am likely to be caught (and I probably would as I don't like to break the law), I would give them up. I would also be very pissed about it, as the firearms are all I have left of my grandfather's stuff (the rest was in a storage facility that was broken in to).

 

[RobfromtheGulag]

Assuming I had guns and this happened, I'd probably try to hide them. Being registered would make that harder, but you can always report them stolen can't you?

 

[barbzilla]

As for me? Gun control is idiotic and pointless. Banning guns doesn;t do squat. You simply have to deal with the wackoes and criminals. Help the people who are desperate and mentally disturbed and get rid of the really crazy weapons. (like I don't think anyone needs military grade weapontry your amendment be damned. It was written when people had muskets and flintlock pistols not uzis and double barreled sawed off shotguns )

We aren't allowed to own military grade weaponry. People from other countries often confuse what they mean when they say assault weapons. We aren't allowed to own automatic weapons, and we aren't allowed to own sawed off shotguns, both of those are already banned and perfectly illegal (though it hasn't stopped our criminals from owning them). They also want to ban many semi-automatic pistols (think one shot per trigger pull), and semi-automatic rifles. Meanwhile all of the sniper grade weapons we use for hunting would remain perfectly legal, as would the revolver shotguns (see Judge). I honestly don't think anything we have that is currently legal should be banned. More restrictions and safety checks, yes, but outright bans, no.

 

[wetfart]

You know, if we pass a law that outlaws firearms there won't be any more shootings.

Now if only someone would think to pass a law like that for things like heroin and cocaine.

Oh, wait....

 

[emeraldrafael]

Not care, but the government hear in the US wont. hunting is too big of a sport and states like PA, OH, WV, etc would never pass it because its too integral to their identity (not to mention any hunting fees and taxes I think go to the state).

EDIT:

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?

do you wanna know who doesn't use a gun? Batman.

just sayin

Actually, batman does and has used a gun in issues of his comic.
<spoiler=As seen here>http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/comment/batman-2.jpg
<spoiler=And here>http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/comment/assets_c/2012/07/batman-5-thumb-465x220-189009.jpg

 

[Magicman10893]

Assuming I had a gun, I would probably try to hide it. Considering the kind of outrage from those kinds of people mentioned in the OP (and the fact that they make up the majority of where I live), the widespread fighting and possibly looting that would happen if such a law were passed, I want something to protect myself and I don't think my machete will do the trick against a bunch of angry rednecks.

 

[AMMO Kid]

Sell a few for looks, hide the rest. In reality though I'd probably have to keep them all for the civil war that ensued. Banning guns would only cause more violence...

 

[101flyboy]

Give them up. The consequences for not giving up the gun(s) wouldn't be worth having one.

 

[bananafishtoday]

OT: I'm not a gun owner, but I'd buy one and hide if if this actually happened. The govt banning all guns would be a really big sign that Bad Things are on the horizon. But, as others have said, it's a pretty fantastical scenario.

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.

This isn't a good analogy. Many in the pro-gun crowd feel that an armed citizenry is a hedge against tyranny, especially since many of the Founding Fathers held the same belief. A blanket ban on all guns, in their minds, would enable the government to move toward dictatorship unopposed. And that kind of ban is so contrary to the Constitution that there's no reason to believe those in charge wouldn't be pursuing this end.

In practice, I dunno if I buy that the general population could win a fight against the military/police if the latter groups threw their lots in with the dictator-to-be. But in theory, it makes sense.

But yeah, not the same thing.

Yeah, right, a breach of this part of the constitution?
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the Right of the people to Keep and Bear Arms shall not be infringed"
Do Americans know what a militia is? I read this and thought of the Swiss system of gun laws built around every 20 - 30 year old (Male?) being part of a trained militia with the option to keep semi-automatic versions of their issued rifle afterwards because they had proper training and respect for the firearm BEFORE being allowed to own it.

You're thinking of "militia" as "a body of citizens enrolled for military service, and called out periodically for drill but serving full time only in emergencies." Most pro-gun folks would argue the Founders wrote the Second Amendment with "a body of citizen soldiers as distinguished from professional soldiers" in mind, who could be "a body of citizens organized in a paramilitary group and typically regarding themselves as defenders of individual rights against the presumed interference of the federal government" if shit went down. And they'd say "regulated" as in "adjusted so as to ensure accuracy of operation" rather than "controlled or directed by a rule, principle, method, etc." (defs from dictionary.com)

The US had no standing army at the time, and many of the Founders envisioned national defense being handled by the common man grabbing his gun and going off to fight the invaders. They also hoped that should the govt start acting so bad that it deserved overthrowing, those citizens would grab their guns and handle it. Maybe ridiculously idealistic, but it's silly to assume they wrote the Second Amendment saying, "Ok, we need to put it in the Bill of Rights that our military is allowed to have weapons."

I'll be honest, the Swiss system where everyone is trained would prolly work better. But it's not really in line with US America's idealization of the Individual, vs. Europe's idealization of the Citizen.

 

[Veylon]

Realistically, a lot of people would hide them somewhere, the government wouldn't bother looking for them, and, for the most part, we'd all just pretend they didn't exist. Nobody can go hunting without being obvious, so they'd just stay hidden and eventually forgotten.

Millions and millions of guns in attics, basements, garages, walls, and floors, hidden away against the day when their owners go to the nursing home and their children clear out their stuff and have to shame-facedly call the police to pick up the old firearm that gramps had hid in his closet all those years ago. It'd get to be a running joke where fixer-uppers move into an house, start to do some electrical work or plumbing or drywall, and find an abandoned gun in there.