Spinoff: How fucking crazy will it be when assault weapons are eventually confiscated?

2733278823's picture
Rank: Gorilla | 669

I hold the unpopular opinion that OJ being found NOT Guilty rather than GUILTY would have been better for our society. Following the Ronnie King verdict, the LA riots happened where 63 people died and damages over $1 billion+ including truckers smashed in the head with bricks and Korean stores looted and burned down. I believe if OJ was found guilty people would've went completely bonkers and race relations would be way worse even by todays standards.

So what does this have to do with guns? I believe when the day comes and the government issues a nation wide confiscation of assault weapons. People are going to completely fucking lose it. I'm talking like it's going to be the fucking Purge. The craziest people in the United States are the gun nuts.

The Supreme Court with it's current makeup will later rule state wide assault weapon bans are unconstitutional which will lead to residents of large populated states like California Illinois and New York to obtain assault weapons. To make matters worse there's a good chance Trump has a chance to replace RBG and if he replaces her privately owned assault weapons will extend another generation.

So when the day comes and the President orders confiscation of assault weapons from say 5 million owners. What do you think will happen? How crazy will shit be? Just remember how bad Ferguson was when a cop killed a black guy.

Lastly, I'm not taking any side of the gun control debate but I'm just asking when an AWB does happen, how bad will people react? Because I think it will be ugly.

Comments (31)

Funniest
Aug 6, 2019

The government will never take our guns because how else are we supposed to protect our children playing in the yard when 30-50 FERAL HOGS SHOW UP. It would be a bloodbath.

    • 9
Aug 6, 2019

Extraordinarily low effort. I hope the 30-50 FERAL HOGS get you.

    • 2
    • 1
Aug 6, 2019

CRE always out here calling out all of the bait. Keep up the good work Capt.

Aug 6, 2019

DUDE THATS FUCKED I WOULDNT WISH THAT ON ANYONE.

I lost my Maw, my Paw, my Brothre, and my sweet Sistre to wild hogs.

    • 1
Aug 6, 2019

I hope this gives you PTSD

wild hog

    • 4
Aug 6, 2019

I always laugh at these sort of things, mainly because the term assault rifle doesn't actually mean anything. People are afraid of the way guns look not how they actually operate. For example when asked what people would prefer to "ban" you can put two of the exact same weapons on a table the only real difference is one has wood stocks and no rail attachments vs one that is all black and people will say the all black one is more dangerous. People are stupid.

Follow the shit your fellow monkeys say @shitWSOsays

Life is hard, it's even harder when you're stupid - John Wayne

    • 1
Aug 6, 2019

No.

There will not be a nation-wide confiscation. There would be a national buyback program, and anyone caught in possession of an assault weapon would be because of a search based probable cause (I.E. we know this guy has drugs, we search his car, he has an ar-15). Active confiscation would result in a lot of dead cops/national guard. Not feasible. If there's a buy, then I'll bury my ar-15 in a box out in my backyard (or hide it real good somewhere else)

    • 1
Aug 6, 2019

If 2nd Amendment is repealed in our hypothetical Blade Runner scenario, I believe this should be a question left up to the states to enforce. We do not need a national solution to this because cultures differ amongst states. Texas can have 100 million unregulated guns and see how that social experiment works. California should be able to fully ban guns or put all owners on a registry and see how that social experiment works. Other states can do as they please. This should be the case for drugs as well.

If that's the case, it won't be as difficult as you make it out to be. It's largely a cultural phenomenon where people in Australia and the UK said, "Look, as a broad entity we are not interested in the "freedom" or "security" to own guns versus the consequences we ascribe to them." Each state in the Union should be able to decide that for themselves and people are welcome and free to move if they don't like it.

    • 2
Aug 6, 2019

Yeah the problem with these scenarios are the assumptions that states rights would no longer exist. Multiple states are now gun sanctuaries.

https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2016/03/ariz...

Aug 6, 2019

wouldnt this just have the adverse effect of disproportionately placing guns in the hands of more criminals and therefore further empowering them?

people who own high powered assault rifles genuinely believe that they are a means of self protection...you think theyre gonna trust that the government can confiscate every assault rifle in existence?

No, they're gonna hold onto their guns against the law's orders since theyd be even more skeptical that theyd need it as an absolute defense against the bad guys.

Aug 6, 2019

There are ~400 million guns in the US. I don't know what % are assault-style weapons, but it'll never happen. I'm not sure how it'd even be possible to confiscate them, nevermind the cost of doing so.

Controversial
Aug 7, 2019

Guns have no place in the hands of ordinary citizens. I've lived in a dozen countries, and no place has ever been less safe than the US.

As a parent and a husband, I think what's happening in the US is insanity.

The 2nd Amendment protects the right to bear arms in the hands of organized militias - that is, the national guard of each state.
Not Joe Sixpack wanting a killing tool.

Foolish also are the ideas that these weapons are of use in home protection (where you are more likely to harm your family or self, or that these weapons act as any deterrent against state tyranny.

    • 4
    • 6
Aug 8, 2019
earthwalker7:

Guns have no place in the hands of ordinary citizens. I've lived in a dozen countries, and no place has ever been less safe than the US.

As a parent and a husband, I think what's happening in the US is insanity.

The 2nd Amendment protects the right to bear arms in the hands of organized militias - that is, the national guard of each state.
Not Joe Sixpack wanting a killing tool.

Foolish also are the ideas that these weapons are of use in home protection (where you are more likely to harm your family or self, or that these weapons act as any deterrent against state tyranny.

Some reading you should seek.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290...

Get your facts first, then you can distort them as you please.

    • 1
Aug 8, 2019

You think having a firearm in your house for protection is foolish? Interesting...

So if someone is breaking into your house at 2am and your family is home, what do you propose doing? Your security alarm goes off, but it will take the cops at least 5 minutes to get there.

I have a firearm in my closet, and happy that I do for such scenarios (however unlikely, they do happen).

Aug 8, 2019

I absolutely do think having a gun in one's house to be foolish.

To quote Giffords Center for Law:

"Research published in the New England Journal of Medicine found that living in a home where there are guns increased risk of homicide by 40 to 170% and the risk of suicide by 90 to 460%.4

The risk of dying from an unintentional gunshot injury is 3.7 times higher for adults living in homes with guns, with handguns in the home posing a particular threat.5"

If there was an intruder (unlikely that this might be), a gun would only be useful if:
1) I was at home
2) I was awake
3) I could get access to the gun in time
4) I actually was comfortable taking a human life for an intrusion
5) intruder wasn't lethally armed with a gun

The whole point of a de-armed society is that I'm safer not having a gun if and when others don't also.
Australia and UK were fairly successful in de-arming their societies.
In Australia, for the 10-years prior to the Port Arthur massacre, they had 10 mass shootings.
(Far fewer than the US where we've had 248 mass shootings in the past year. So they were already more responsible than Americans, but still, they decided it was still unacceptable)
However after the Port Arthur massacre, they banned guns, and called on the populace to de-arm.
Since Port Arthur - some 25 years ago - there have been NO MASS SHOOTINGS.
Zero.
Absolutely zero.

So, do I want a gun in the off chance that I might be able to make stars align to defend myself in the case of a home intrusion?
No way.

I also have a 4 year old.
You think I want to have a gun in the house with a curious toddler?
Or a pissed-off wife for that matter?

No way.
That's insanity.

    • 2
    • 1
Aug 9, 2019
m8:

You think having a firearm in your house for protection is foolish? Interesting...

So if someone is breaking into your house at 2am and your family is home, what do you propose doing? Your security alarm goes off, but it will take the cops at least 5 minutes to get there.

I have a firearm in my closet, and happy that I do for such scenarios (however unlikely, they do happen).

Exactly. By the time the cops get to your house they are there to file a report on what happened because it will be over.

Get your facts first, then you can distort them as you please.

    • 1
Aug 8, 2019

@m8

I absolutely do think having a gun in one's house to be foolish.

To quote Giffords Center for Law:

"Research published in the New England Journal of Medicine found that living in a home where there are guns increased risk of homicide by 40 to 170% and the risk of suicide by 90 to 460%.4

The risk of dying from an unintentional gunshot injury is 3.7 times higher for adults living in homes with guns, with handguns in the home posing a particular threat.5"

If there was an intruder (unlikely that this might be), a gun would only be useful if:
1) I was at home
2) I was awake
3) I could get access to the gun in time
4) I actually was comfortable taking a human life for an intrusion
5) intruder wasn't lethally armed with a gun

The whole point of a de-armed society is that I'm safer not having a gun if and when others don't also.
Australia and UK were fairly successful in de-arming their societies.
In Australia, for the 10-years prior to the Port Arthur massacre, they had 10 mass shootings.
(Far fewer than the US where we've had 248 mass shootings in the past year. So they were already more responsible than Americans, but still, they decided it was still unacceptable)
However after the Port Arthur massacre, they banned guns, and called on the populace to de-arm.
Since Port Arthur - some 25 years ago - there have been NO MASS SHOOTINGS.
Zero.
Absolutely zero.

So, do I want a gun in the off chance that I might be able to make stars align to defend myself in the case of a home intrusion?
No way.

I also have a 4 year old.
You think I want to have a gun in the house with a curious toddler?
Or a pissed-off wife for that matter?

No way.
That's insanity.

    • 4
    • 3
Aug 9, 2019
earthwalker7:

@m8

I absolutely do think having a gun in one's house to be foolish.

To quote Giffords Center for Law:

"Research published in the New England Journal of Medicine found that living in a home where there are guns increased risk of homicide by 40 to 170% and the risk of suicide by 90 to 460%.4

The risk of dying from an unintentional gunshot injury is 3.7 times higher for adults living in homes with guns, with handguns in the home posing a particular threat.5"

If there was an intruder (unlikely that this might be), a gun would only be useful if:
1) I was at home
2) I was awake
3) I could get access to the gun in time
4) I actually was comfortable taking a human life for an intrusion
5) intruder wasn't lethally armed with a gun

The whole point of a de-armed society is that I'm safer not having a gun if and when others don't also.
Australia and UK were fairly successful in de-arming their societies.
In Australia, for the 10-years prior to the Port Arthur massacre, they had 10 mass shootings.
(Far fewer than the US where we've had 248 mass shootings in the past year. So they were already more responsible than Americans, but still, they decided it was still unacceptable)
However after the Port Arthur massacre, they banned guns, and called on the populace to de-arm.
Since Port Arthur - some 25 years ago - there have been NO MASS SHOOTINGS.
Zero.
Absolutely zero.

So, do I want a gun in the off chance that I might be able to make stars align to defend myself in the case of a home intrusion?
No way.

I also have a 4 year old.
You think I want to have a gun in the house with a curious toddler?
Or a pissed-off wife for that matter?

No way.
That's insanity.

Perhaps you should relocate you and your family to a country more comfortable to you. We have freedoms here that apparently you don't care much for.

Get your facts first, then you can distort them as you please.

    • 1
Most Helpful
Aug 9, 2019

Bullshit.

I care very much about America and the freedoms.

It is precisely because of that caring that I speak out against bad policies - such as the wanton dissemination of guns which has killed so many Americans and continues to threaten the lives of so many youngsters.

Voicing ideas about how American policies can be improved and speaking out against gross injustices is the most American thing one can do.

    • 4
Aug 9, 2019

US has about 15 times higher population, and population is less diverse than the US though. So looking at the absolute number of shootings may not be the best metric

    • 1
Aug 7, 2019

In Switzerland, military service is required if you fit the requirements. Switzerland has no military so every citizen is required to maintain a weapon after training. If war breaks out, if you fit the conditions, you have to be drafted. Why would anyone rob their neighbor if you legitimately know or you a thought they might own a weapon. It's a people problem, not a gun problem. These people who these terrible acts are completely psycho but background checks allows them to own guns in the U.S.A. The worst part is that these insane people are just going to get them illegally. It's just a black market, in society. You can purchase anything in the black market with the laws of supply and demand.

"It's okay, I'll see you on the other side"

    • 1
Aug 8, 2019

Yes indeed Switzerland is an interesting case - but it is one that is often misunderstood.

Yes, guns are in the hands of every male.

BULLETS however are not.
They are tightly controlled.
Bullets are kept in local armories, so that if there is a war, the local armory can quickly arm their population.

One cannot get mass shootings if one cannot get bullets.

For Switzeland, it was a balancing act of protecting their sovereignty, while still keeping the population safe from violence.
Following 2 world wars instigated by their immediate neighbor, I think their solution is understandable.

They have arms control (via restricting bullet access) but still a deterrent measure.

    • 2
    • 2
Aug 9, 2019

What's the point of owning a gun that would not have live-ammo? Lol, yeah I think you definitely needs a knife and self control. if the police don't show up ASAP.

"It's okay, I'll see you on the other side"

Aug 8, 2019

There will never be a confiscation of firearms in this country, ever. Now the odds of another AWB? Probably just over 50% now but will wane and not go much higher than that.

Get your facts first, then you can distort them as you please.

    • 1
Aug 8, 2019
Comment