The real goal is to dissuade citizens from exercising their Second Amendment rights and to “educate” future adults that guns are bad…and of course government is good and it deserves most of your money, yada yada yada. This is NOT an overnight effort. This will go along the lines of nationalized healthcare and entitlement mentality.
However, they WILL cause gun owners serious problems and I will not rule out stupid policy makers ordering stupid cops to do stupid things to good citizens. There is always a small percentage of them in power, with authority, that will do something over the top, including people inside Obama’s crew. But to “confiscate guns” is a fool’s errand and they know it. What they will do is mount a number of high profile raids in order to frighten those on the fence. Think Waco and Ruby Ridge type efforts. I hope nobody does. My first principle while wearing a badge was “First do no harm” and frankly no gun control laws fall under that principle. They all do harm.
I know most of my fellow officers agreed, so I don’t think you’ll see you local police deparments do it, but the feds…
However, even they’ll get tired long before they get anywhere, as pointed out in this article sent to me by an active police officer and friend.
I have quietly watched and evaluated the in pouring of e-mails reference the liberals intent to seize guns and crush the second amendment. I want to add a few of my own thoughts on this issue as I have worked in and around all the people who could be tasked to seize your guns.
WHOS COMING TO GET THEM?
United Nations (UN)
We are the UN. Other countries mostly join the U.N. to secure money, funding and training and few have any offensive combat capability. Most serve as guards at static locations and have no will to fight. America is the enforcement arm of the U.N. We have the money, equipment, personnel and lift platforms to get the job done.
If the president ever let the U.N. in this country, it would be a foreign invasion and armed Americans would stand up and crush them in a day. Our government would break down and the president would be ousted for letting foreign militaries invade our country.
Federal Government Military
Having served over 20 years in our military, I know that most soldiers would refuse the order to take part in the confiscation of weapons. First, the president would have to give the order, which is an Illegal Order in violation of the constitution. I dont believe that service members would go back into the communities that raised them and conduct raids on good Americans in violation of the constitution.
Remember, these forces would have to come from a military base that is surrounded and supported by American communities. Civilians would simply cease to support the bases and they would fold in a short time. Cut of the fuel, food, electricity on bases and this would stop the silliness. Also, many, many service members live in the communities and they would have to travel from their houses to base unless they were locked down. In that case, their families would still be in the community and people would not be too friendly to those supporting these actions.
Federal Government DHS or TSA
The Federal government is not large enough or talented enough to seize guns. If they were to do 5-8 raids a day seizing guns, they would be physically and mentally exhausted and need a break. Physically conducting raids is exhausting. After the first few raids, the word would get out and Americans would start to fight back. It would take one good ambush from a house or along a travel route to decimate a tactical force or make it combat ineffective
Next, most Federal Agencies work out of a fixed location centrally located in a community. Also, their personnel live in those communities along with their families. Once the word got out that they were doing raids in violation to the constitution, they and their families would be at risk. If they were to start raiding houses, kicking in doors and breaking in windows looking for legally owned guns, their homes would be subject to the same treatment by Americans rising up to defend themselves. They would shortly find themselves without a place to live.
State Law Enforcement
The Governor would have to order State and Local Law Enforcement to either:
- Seize guns
- Ignore the Federal Orders
If they ignore the Federal Orders, things would be tense, but people would be civil. If they started to seize guns, they only have limited people and assets to do this. Much the same consequences would take place as with the Federal Government.
Local Law Enforcement
Local Police and Sheriff Departments are the backbone of who protects American Citizens. A Sheriff or Chief of Police would have to give the order for his people to begin to seize weapons. Their people would either comply or see it as an illegal order and refuse.
Remember, Chiefs and Sheriffs also have to live and work in the same communities they serve. As I described with the Federal Government, local Tactical Teams could probably only do 8-10 hits in a day and then need a break. So they hit ten houses and seize their guns, the word would get out and now they are subject to living in the same community as those they are attacking. It would not go well. Also, after one or two determined Americans or combat vets fought back, the team would lose many to death or injury and they would have made a decision whether to continue to push the fight. Remember also, they have to sleep sometime. Their homes and families would be at risk. It is an ugly scenario at best.
What the author points out I’ve said before. There aren’t enough of them to do Diane Feinstein’s bidding. It’s a numbers game. Maybe 100,000 of them, if they throw in the clerks and janitors, and a hundred million of us. Of course, as you can see by now retired General McChrystal’s comments, there will be a small percentage of soldiers who will blindly follow orders. Guys like this truly do scare me. But they’ll be at best localized. Bad for the citizens under assault, but wore out long before they can seize large swaths of America.
However, this is the threat our founding fathers feared, which is why they wanted citizens armed. The funniest argument the Left puts forth is that during the time of the Revolutionary War everybody was armed with muskets, not M4’s like today. What the Left doesn’t realize is back then the musket WAS the M4 of its day. The founding fathers WANTED their citizens armed with the same advanced weaponry as the British, and after the War, their own government. How else could they resist attacks from either? You want to have the same weapons your potential enemy might possess. It is common sense. (Ask the Indians and Custer about that issue.)
What the Left wants today with gun control and limiting the types of weapons Americans own is akin to having the founding fathers say, “We want the government to have muskets, you guys can have sticks and swords. Cool?”
So, if they can’t seize them, without causing real problems, then what are they shooting for? They want to strangle the 2nd Amendment over time. In reality, if they outlaw, and make it a felony to possess a type of weapon, the “Cardinals” of our government will get a large number of scared sheep complying with the law. Those people will fear going to jail or getting killed in a raid by police. So they will cave. That will take out a good percentage.
If they get a national registry it might be five or ten years, or another shooting like Newton, for the government to decide certain guns should be banned, and they will know where to got to get them. Then things will get interesting. I hate the idea of the police getting caught between the insane liberals on the Left and the officer’s own neighbors and friends who will resist. I hope cooler heads prevail. But if not, I guess if that is what Feinstein wants, then she’ll get it.
History repeats itself. Bad governments abusing the rights of its citizens repeats itself.
Seriously. if they tell you they aren’t coming, they are lying. It just may be less like a charge across the field, banners waving, and more like a thief in the night.