Yep, I tend to do that when we talk hypotheticals.
Have I once suggested that anyone else give up their guns? Have I said that any guns should be banned? No, I have simply said that if there was going to be an AWB, we as gun owners could propose a different solution that isn't much different than what we are doing today and have more access to more guns.
I've been considering responding to some of your posts on this subject, but this one in particular has a part that jumps out at me: "we as gun owners could propose a different solution". While you may have meant to ask this with honest intentions, it is also clear from your other posts that you put it in the context of, "what are we going to give up in order to try to preserve our rights?"
The problem I have with this, and what causes me to be suspicious of you and your intents is that this is a question that I saw asked on the regressive site I call the Daily Krap (not its real name, but the one I am referring to should be obvious, and yes I use Tor and browse that site and others to keep aware of the sayings in the sewers).
The answer is not a "gosh darn" thing. The only person responsible is the shooter, and perhaps the leftist ideology and indoctrination that pushed him to this point. I will lay some blame at the societal and social structures that are causing the decline of the family, etc, which again are largely leftist but the R's and their corporate whoring policies have a good deal of economic culpability too.
Still, I and others refuse to give anything up. Similarly, I reject the premise that government has any legitimate standing to try to "ban" them. As I stated in another post, the crux of it comes down to a prohibition on a whole class of arms, one of the most in common use and widely sold arms, that is also used by the police for the purpose of protection and defense of others. Not only would outlawing them be a violation of the 2nd - but also a violation of clarifying doctrine issues by various courts, including SCOTUS post the previous attempt in the 90s. Then and even where it persists today it's based upon stupid cosmetic feature that try to work around the issue that it's really trying to get at semiautomatic mechanisms.
So that leaves us at the part about being or becoming a felon, etc. As I and others have pointed out in numerous threads, policing only works in this country because there is a 99.9999% compliant populace. The idea of "banning" these weapons assumes that the population would remain both passive and compliant, and those who resist would do so by going into hiding, which to the Regressive would be a victory 2nd only to a confiscation. It also assumes that those "caught" would be, or would even allow themselves to be arrested and would face an illegitimate "court" and I believe that for a growing portion of the population these would be incorrect assumptions.
We have seen how fragile the rule of law is in this country. In a few cities, all it has taken is the execution of a few innocent cops to cause the entire police force to say fugit and stop doing their job. We have also seen sheriffs say they don't enforce red flag laws and we know that part of that is the fact that they don't want to engage someone who has not only done nothing wrong, but is likely to fight back. The enforcers, even if all were to be complicit, are outnumbered 1000s to one. Unlike previous times in history, I believe we are at one of those periods where you would get a different, unexpected, result and people would get off their proverbial couch.
Now, what I am about to say is from a work of fiction, that is freely available in the public domain. I am not making any threats or manifestos, but I do think the author captured a potential scenario. The book is Unintended Consequences by John Ross. In that book, a gun grab was attempted and it went badly for the Feds as their intended victim got the upper hand and killed them. He then took revenge by targeting anti 2A politicians and through Internet doxxing posted the names and addresses of other politicians, judges, ATF agents, and other government employees. People, a small percentage is all it took, rose up and started executing them. It may have been one person doing one act and disappearing, but it was enough. The system couldn't function and government failed as people were too afraid to do their job for fear of assassination for them or their families.
That book should be a warning to any politician that thinks our rights are subject to a vote or their permission. They don't want to go there. They don't want to open that box.
