Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob
Hypothetically: Say a state does pass a law outlawing some form of gun ownership. How many law enforcement personnel are going to willingly follow orders and go door to door in order to retrieve the guns that were not willingly turned in at the time that the new law was passed?
Would you volunteer to retrieve those weapons? Even if they had to send in entire SWAT teams to take those weapons, they would first have to protect the surrounding area by evacuating the immediate neighbors which would also draw attention to the situation.
It will never happen.
|
Did you see law enforcement busting people for violating diktats such as keeping their barber and beauty shops open, going to the beach, going to church, going out to eat at restaurants, and even taking children to the park for some exercise? Not every agency and jurisdiction did that, of course, but the point is, we already have an answer to your question. We're seeing right now, in real time, the ATF going around demanding people give up FRT's (forced reset triggers) that the government just magically knows they have.
And one last thing, you saw what happened to the Oath Keepers. A group of military and LEO's, active and retired, that pledged one simple thing, that they would never participate in disarming their fellow citizens, is now labeled as a domestic terror group that "tried to overthrow the government. You think local sheriffs don't understand they can be dragged through kangaroo courts and imprisoned just like the Oath Keepers' leadership has been?
So no, I don't share your optimism. Some sheriffs, some agencies may balk, but there will be plenty of agencies that WILL follow those orders. And when it comes down to it, I don't see those local sheriffs standing up when the federal government comes in to do it. Those police, sheriffs, constables, marshals....they have families, too.
And if you think our military is going to come in and save the day, I have some bad news for you.
This was back in the 1990's. Do you think things are better now, or worse?
https://jpfo.org/articles-assd/29palms-mcmanus.htm
Quote:
Firing on U.S. Citizens?
While all of the questions in this survey should have stimulated concern, the survey’s final question has generated an enormous amount of attention:
The U.S. government declares a ban on the possession, sale, transportation, and transfer of all non-sporting firearms. A thirty (30) day amnesty period is permitted for these firearms to be turned over to the local authorities. At the end of this period, a number of citizen groups refuse to turn over their firearms. Consider the following statement: I would fire upon U.S. citizens who refuse or resist confiscation of firearms banned by the U.S. government.
The survey results: 42.3 percent strongly disagreed with this statement; 19.3 percent disagreed; 18.6 percent agreed; 7.6 percent strongly agreed; and 12.0 percent had no opinion. In one of the footnotes appearing in his thesis, Cunningham quotes comments placed by some of the Marines next to their answers to this question: "What about the damn Second Amendment? … I feel this is a first in communism! … Read the book None Dare Call It Conspiracy by Gary Allen." "I would not even consider it. The reason we have guns is so that the people can overthrow the gov’t when or if the people think the gov’t is too powerful." "Freedom to bear arms is our Second Amendment. If you take our Amendments away then you can take this job and stick it where the sun don’t shine! … It is a right to own firearms for defense (2nd Amendment); I would fight for that right!"
Based on the disagreement expressed by 61 percent of the Marines, Cunningham concluded that "a complete unit breakdown would occur in a unit tasked to execute this mission."
|
How do you think those numbers would look now, especially when the military has purged soldiers for refusing to be injected with a worthless but dangerous
'vaccine,' and the military is recruiting the woke left.