How the Next Gun Ban will Go Down

[G.A. Heath]

The article linked to in the OP eventually links to the typical GOA/NAGR "Whargarble! Government will take your guns, Whargarble! Government bad, Whargarble! NRA bad, Whargarble! Give us your money, Whargarble!" Until I see a real threat I will simply watch the issue and plan according to what I see.

So, what are you saying? The government is good? The government doesn't want to take your guns? If so, we don't need an NRA, do we.

That's not what I'm saying. What I am saying is that we have a blog post that references what is essentially a GOA press release, and I really don't put much stock in what they say. The author of the Blog post wrote the "Operation Serf Trilogy", which he references frequently and is conveniently (at least in part) available for sale on Amazon.com....

You lost me with all the faeries and rainbows flying out of your nose. What's some link to the GOA have to do with the scenario outlined for a gun ban? It doesn't really have anything to do with the "Super Congress" either ---though the article is prefaced by a reference to it. The scenario laid out is this:

Let’s consider the federal government enacts a similar ban within the next two years on semi-automatic firearms with detachable magazines. This could either be through an Executive Order or by some rushed piece of legislation on the Hill. Given our currently broken system of checks and balances, anything is possible. It wouldn’t even take a new emergency to initiate it.

The article is then a hypothetical exercise in how such a ban would be implemented. You seem to be really hung up on the fact that the guy has a book for sale on Amazon. I guess you dismiss everything all the political pundits say too because they make money giving their opinions and most of them have books for sale on Amazon: Hannity, Coulter, Limbaugh, Buchanan, O'Reilly, Palin.....do you ignore everyone who may be making some money off their writing and opinions?

First off the blog article links to the GOA garbage in order to support the statements made in the article, which is where the whole "Super congress wants to ban your guns" nonsense started. All the credibility, issues, and other baggage associated with the linked GOA garbage is then picked up by the article that uses it to support it. Secondly, An executive order isn't the same thing as a law. In order for an executive order to have any legal authority there must be some regulatory authority given to the executive branch by congress to do something. I'm not hung up on the fact he has a book for sale, I am hung up on the fact the whole articles purpose is to push the book while wearing the cloak of gun rights. As far as the political pundits go, if you listen to them and take what they say at face value then you need to learn how to do your own research. I suggest you start with asking "Who is the message from?" Followed by "Why are they saying it?" Followed by "Where did they get this from?"

[tacticool]

I was suggesting the GOA cries wolf. And often. (So does the NRA, IMHO, but not as extreme.)

Sorry for the confusion.

[alvins]

I hope whoever goes door to door looking for guns wears a lot of body armor.im just sayin.

[Dave2]

I hope whoever goes door to door looking for guns wears a lot of body armor.im just sayin.

The thing I don't get is what are they going to do when I tell them that my friend Bob was borrowing them, and that I haven't seen him in a long time. Are they going to conduct an extensive search of every building? Seems like that'd take long enough that you just keep shuffling guns around the neighborhood until they get bored and go home.

[Dragonfighter]

You know, the reality is that they would have to kill the internet and television for such a thing to ever hope to gain ground. In this world of instant news, by the time they were finished with the first neighborhoods, there would be standing armies assembled. What's more, you have too many 2A people on both sides of the aisle, why we even have a gun totin' liberal running around here

A move like that could not even be disseminated to the various department heads without it blowing up. Now if my internet and TV go all of a sudden, you bet I'm loading up.

[The Annoyed Man]

I was suggesting the GOA cries wolf. And often. (So does the NRA, IMHO, but not as extreme.)

Sorry for the confusion.

But, when the NRA cries wolf, there's usually something there, and they are repeatedly willing to commit the ILA's resources to chasing it down and making it go away. GOA can't match the NRA's record. NRA doesn't waste its time or its resources on panicky hyperventilating like this debt-reduction "super committee."

[VMI77]

As far as the political pundits go, if you listen to them and take what they say at face value then you need to learn how to do your own research. I suggest you start with asking "Who is the message from?" Followed by "Why are they saying it?" Followed by "Where did they get this from?"

Unless I know someone well enough to judge it safe to do so, or as a default when circumstances give me no other reasonable option, I don't take what anyone says at face value. I evaluate what the person says and determine through the limited means available to me whether or not it makes sense. It doesn't matter to me in this case what the lead-in is, where it came from, whether or not such a ban in imminent, what articles are linked to, or whether the guy who wrote it is making money off it --my only interest is: given some kind of gun ban, is the method described for implementing such a ban plausible? --all those other factors are irrelevant to me since I have no control over them, and they don't affect the logic of the described methodology.

Thinking through how such a ban might be implemented is a useful exercise for determining how we as individuals might prepare for such an event should it ever occur, and this particular scenario has some value for that purpose even if most of it is wrong. Given the level of surveillance we are now subjected to, and which is only going to increase in the future, any feasible preparations may have to occur well in advance of such a ban even being proposed, much less implemented. Those who believe they're just going to tell the authorities showing up at their door to confiscate guns that they sold whatever gun are kidding themselves: if this ever goes down with door-to-door searches they'll have x-ray vans and other devices to determine what weapons you possess. I also see no reason to believe anyone is going to resist confiscation as some are suggesting here --no one did during Katrina, in a southern state with presumably strong 2nd Amendment sentiment. And in fact, the scenario described is designed to minimize or eliminate any resistance by excluding door-to-door searches and confiscation.

[The Mad Moderate]

What's more, you have too many 2A people on both sides of the aisle, why we even have a gun totin' liberal running around here