# What if they actually came for them?



## DoublePrepper (Sep 7, 2017)

Recently, Buncombe County sheriff’s candidate R. Daryl Fisher jokingly stated that he would take guns out of the “cold, dead hands” of a gun restrictions opponent. 

On top of that, the upcoming generation of David Hoggs and Emma Gonzalezes has me wondering "What if they actually come for my guns?"

What would y'all do if it came down to a government seizure of firearms in which the military/police (who didn't refuse) were going door-to-door and arresting gun owners and taking their weapons? Or a martial law situation in which guns were confiscated?

Stand and fight? Team up and fight? Bug out? Stash your guns somewhere else?

And don't say "That'll never happen". This is just a what-if exercise.


----------



## Malcom Renolds (Jul 14, 2017)

Wont Happen...










The simple answer to remove firearms from lawful citizens is to TAX THE F*** out of ammo.
The Supreme Court has ruled [obamacare] that the congress can TAX as much or in any fashion it wishes.

Whatcha gon do when 22LR is 100$ for a box of 50?
Look at the hoops ya have to go through for an SBR or Suppressor Tax Stamp. 
A mere $200 tax stamp and the attached penalties for NOT getting on or mis handling anything attached to one gets ya Federal Time minimum and a Hefty 10k fine...
$200 dollars alone puts these things out of reach for at LEAST 50% of the population... not to mention the paperwork hoops.

Ammo is the WEAK point in the "chain".

Look at how Australia was "disarmed" for you model to disarm a "free" population.
https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/28/asia/australia-gun-amnesty-intl/index.html

Oh and I say AGAIN... Wont happen.


----------



## White Shadow (Jun 26, 2017)

Malcom Renolds said:


> Wont Happen...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


What the heck is wrong with Nebraska!?


----------



## Chipper (Dec 22, 2012)

If you reload and stocked up ammo isn't an issue. 

They can come take the ones they can find. Cause once they confiscate one persons guns and the word gets out. They will disappear quick. I don't see it being an issue.


----------



## Malcom Renolds (Jul 14, 2017)

White Shadow said:


> What the heck is wrong with Nebraska!?


Ya ever been there??? If ya have then that question answers itself.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

http://www.prepperforums.net/forum/general-talk/101441-all-firearms-now-banned-thread-1-2-a.html

http://www.prepperforums.net/forum/general-talk/101449-all-firearms-now-banned-thread-2-2-a.html

My personal response: http://www.prepperforums.net/forum/...ned-thread-1-2-a-post1654481.html#post1654481


----------



## SDF880 (Mar 28, 2013)

I really don't think it will happen! If it does I'm not going anywhere and what I'll do I'll keep private for now!
If they do come knocking the entire country has a hell of a lot bigger problems ongoing!


----------



## Real Old Man (Aug 17, 2015)

What guns! Lost mine in a boating accident several years ago and the insurance company .......


----------



## A Watchman (Sep 14, 2015)

DoublePrepper said:


> Recently, Buncombe County sheriff's candidate R. Daryl Fisher jokingly stated that he would take guns out of the "cold, dead hands" of a gun restrictions opponent.
> 
> On top of that, the upcoming generation of David Hoggs and Emma Gonzalezes has me wondering "What if they actually come for my guns?"
> 
> ...


That's a whole lot of door to door knocking. The lack of the element of surprise would lead to gun owners preparing to hide or "make other arrangements". Of course its also a known that a lot of somebody's would get shot.


----------



## A Watchman (Sep 14, 2015)

Malcom Renolds said:


> Wont Happen...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Would not be an issue with the prepared. I have been collecting and storing ammo in bulk quantities for years. I could never possibly shoot up my stores, likely couldn't even with a whole lotta help.

Yoou should be buying now also.


----------



## SOCOM42 (Nov 9, 2012)

The feds don't have enough people to do it.

If they were to start, the news would spread like wildfire, and action taken by the people.

There would be an incalculable amount of dead feds, which by the way would deserve it, traitors.

It would soon turn from hitting one guy to them being ambushed by many resistors, and with righteous reason.

That resistance would evolve into a full blown revolution within a few weeks, if not then we would deserve what we would get.


----------



## Back Pack Hack (Sep 15, 2016)

Guns? What guns, officer? I don't have any guns. You're welcome to look around if you like.............


----------



## phrogman (Apr 17, 2014)

I honestly don't know what I would do. I would definitely resist, how much I do not know. 

My 14 yr old son asked me this same question a couple weeks ago and I told him the same thing. I explained to him that the consequences can be great either way. He said that he would never turn them in if it was him. I was very proud that at such a young age he could see the wrong and was willing to take a stand against it.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk


----------



## preppermyA (Aug 19, 2017)

SOCOM42 said:


> The feds don't have enough people to do it.
> 
> If they were to start, the news would spread like wildfire, and action taken by the people.
> 
> ...


There is a post I saw, I think it was on here somewhere, that gave the numbers of feds, military, state, and local LEO compared to the number of "civilians" who own guns, and the odds weren't very good for them. And that, as I recall, was 'assuming' that all of them would cooperate with confiscation.


----------



## SOCOM42 (Nov 9, 2012)

preppermyA said:


> There is a post I saw, I think it was on here somewhere, that gave the numbers of feds, military, state, and local LEO compared to the number of "civilians" who own guns, and the odds weren't very good for them. And that, as I recall, was 'assuming' that all of them would cooperate with confiscation.


I know the officers that served under me on the PD will have nothing to do with such an order.

All of them are preppers to some degree and all are gun owners, several are near my level of prepping.

Most have families and plan to go AWOL from their respective departments if such an order comes down, and will become resisters.

The armories would be liberated of all guns and ammo before they bail.

No scumbag politician is going to decide his plan is best ignoring our constitution to enhance his personal power.


----------



## Chiefster23 (Feb 5, 2016)

The “OATHKEEPERS” have vowed that they will never enforce such an order.


----------



## 1skrewsloose (Jun 3, 2013)

I worked with a LEO for 14 years. We had this discussion, told him he would be face down in the mud if he tried.


----------



## MountainGirl (Oct 29, 2017)

Chiefster23 said:


> The "OATHKEEPERS" have vowed that they will never enforce such an order.


*10 Orders Oath Keepers Swear to Disobey*


We will not obey any order to disarm the American people.
We will not obey any order to conduct warrantless searches of the American people, their homes, vehicles, papers, or effects-such as warrantless house-to-house searches for weapons or persons.
We will not obey any order to detain American citizens as "unlawful enemy combatants" or to subject them to trial by military tribunals.
We will not obey orders to impose martial law or a "state of emergency" on a state, or to enter with force into a state, without the express consent and invitation of that state's legislature and governor.
We will not obey orders to invade and subjugate any state that asserts its sovereignty and declares the national government to be in violation of the compact by which that state entered the Union.
We will not obey any order to blockade American cities, thus turning them into giant concentration camps.
We will not obey any order to force American citizens into any form of detention camps under any pretext.
We will not obey orders to assist or support the use of any foreign troops on U.S. soil against the American people to "keep the peace" or to "maintain control" during any emergency, or under any other pretext. We will consider such use of foreign troops against our people to be an invasion and an act of war.
We will not obey any orders to confiscate the property of the American people, including food and other essential supplies, under any emergency pretext.
We will not obey any orders which infringe on the right of the people to free speech, to peaceably assemble, and to petition their government for a redress of grievances.

Who Are the Oath Keepers? - Article - POLICE Magazine



> It started with Katrina. The sight of U.S. military troops, law enforcement officers, and armed government contractors *seizing firearms from citizens in the aftermath of that terrible storm* shocked the conscience of Yale constitutional law scholar Stewart Rhodes. That these actions were later recognized as wrong by the U.S. Supreme Court did little to assuage Rhodes' concerns. The fact remained that an illegal precedent had taken place, and could well occur again; indeed, it appeared that that the seeds sown in Louisiana might not only take root, but germinate elsewhere, as well....


----------



## Gunn (Jan 1, 2016)

On that map, my state is 26%. I will tell you what I told our governor.


----------



## Smitty901 (Nov 16, 2012)

Well when they show up. I will ask what's up with you guys ? Your people were hear two days ago hauled off everything I had.


----------



## preppermyA (Aug 19, 2017)

Here is a recent post on this. Their numbers don't look good.

https://survivalblog.com/mathematics-countering-tyranny/


----------



## The Resister (Jul 24, 2013)

preppermyA said:


> Here is a recent post on this. Their numbers don't look good.
> 
> https://survivalblog.com/mathematics-countering-tyranny/


Here is a reality check:

With nobody able to keep up with how many weapons that are confiscated and destroyed versus the many _do it yourself project guns_, all we can do is fathom a guess as to how many weapons are in existence. And it's all irrelevant. What matters is that what you're doing today will determine what you do in the future. For example:

Jeff Sessions says he is going to ban bump stocks. Most of you are saying so what. It's just a novelty item. *HERE* though is how the government is going to take your weapons:

The 2008 Heller Court decision had the United States Supreme Court implying that *they grant Rights!* Who did anything about it? Now, let's talk about the bump stocks. Sessions says when he outlaws those stocks you will have to render them permanently inoperable, destroy them or surrender them. And I'm the only person on the Internet (that I know of) that is telling you the truth. It is an ex post facto law that can be applied to *ANYTHING* - especially firearms.

In the United States Constitution, it states:

"_No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed_." Article I Section 8

Are you with me? In 1994 Congress passed the "_Assault Weapon Ban_." The ban applied only to weapons manufactured *after *the date of the ban's enactment. Why? Congress cannot pass an ex post facto Law. Congress cannot tell you that your legal AR 15 can be confiscated tomorrow since you legally owned it before the new law passes. But, bet your butt, Jeff Sessions thinks he can implement ex post facto Laws. *WHEN* he does, if that act is not immediately challenged in court, it will be harder and harder to claim that the Executive branch of government cannot criminalize the ownership of unpopular items. So, it will be a ban on the bump stock. When the liberals get into power, it will be a flash hider, high capacity magazine, pistol grip, hollow point bullets, maybe a .50 caliber etc. *NOBODY* (except yours truly) is speaking out today. To remind you of a legal maxim: *Silence is consent.* If you're accepting gun control today, that is not likely to change. Are you really going to resist when you see your neighbor meekly surrendering their weapon?

If you are not sitting around the kitchen table a couple of times each month, with family and friends then you and I know exactly what you're going to do. So, today would be a good time to begin thinking legal and political strategies. Many states, counties and cities have passed statutes, rules, ordinances, etc. that ban everything from the firearms themselves to high cap magazines to stocks - you name it. *THERE IS NEVER GOING TO BE A DOOR TO DOOR SEARCH AND SEIZURE OF FIREARMS IN THE U.S. DURING THE LIFETIME OF ANY OF US ON THIS BOARD.* Anyone who prepares for such a scenario is an idiot that is wasting their time. Sorry, but that is the truth.

Weapons are being taken away incrementally. Take the unconstitutional Lautenberg Amendment. It allows the government to deny you the Right to keep and bear Arms for something as benign as a "_*domestic misdemeanor*._" Let's say you and your brother had to much to drink in 1980 and got in a tiff in the parking lot and someone called the cops. The cops ran you down to the station, let you sleep it off and you each paid the Justice of the Peace $25. Well, there just went your Right to keep and bear Arms... *FOREVER!!!* All those weapons in existence and fewer and fewer people able to legally own them; therefore, they are not trained in how to use them.

We aren't tallying up the numbers of people who are having their Rights stripped from them every year and few people understand the concept of *unalienable* Rights. We don't concern ourselves with the *millions* of people that are programmed, at the behest of government, to become life-long drug addicts and unable to "legally" own a firearm. Constitutionally, they still could after they paid their debt to society, but we dare not encourage people to better themselves by giving them an opportunity to redeem themselves.

At a time when we should have a million gun owners marching in Massachusetts, we're hiding on the Internet. I mean our history as a people was started in 1620 when the Pilgrims founded the Plymouth Colony. Today, that state is a socialist cesspool with gun haters neck deep.

In short, you need to be exhausting all of your nonviolent political and legal avenues of redress while preparing for the inevitability that your local, county, or state government will pass some outrageous and silly legislation to make you a criminal. Will the government then get your guns? Your spouse may turn on you and cost you your weapons; your kids may be enticed to rat you out to the authorities. Relatives and neighbors will do likewise - especially if they have a vendetta against you. In laws might *want* you to be in prison.

They're going to keep taking your guns by criminalizing everybody. As Ayn Rand wrote:

_"There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted and you create a nation of law-breakers."

Between criminalizing us one by one; by cracking down on when and where you can carry a firearm; by outlawing novelty and add ons (flash suppressor, high cap magazines; by outlawing firearms one class at a time (you can't even buy an eight shot .45 Norinco any longer as they're banned - foreign imports) this argument will soon be moot. When it's down to your AR and a Glock, Sig or S&W M&P and that is the last weapons being sold, Somebody can and will close their doors. Out of ammo and out of parts, they can disarm America in one election cycle.

OR you could get involved *IN* the fight. Okay rant off. Sorry, but it had to be said.

Don't understand why I can't get this post to give up the italics after I quoted Ayn Rand. I keep cutting that feature off, but it keeps italicizing my last paragraph or so.

_


----------



## Joe (Nov 1, 2016)

Gunn said:


> On that map, my state is 26%. I will tell you what I told our governor.
> View attachment 76809


 @Gunn I like your hat man.


----------



## patrioteer (May 21, 2018)

I got a good chuckle at that map. Instead of gun ownership it should have been called "percentage of people willing to tell someone on the phone that they own guns" or "the percentage of people who own guns that are willing to take polls". I would bet a years salary that the Nebraska, South Dakota, Iowa, Minnesota, and Wisconsin numbers are very low compared to reality. I remember my dad getting one of those calls a few years back when I was visiting. He said "nope, no guns" and the man has two guns safes full. When they call me I just hang up. The people I know that have more guns than Winchester all live in the dakotas. And none of them are going to tell someone they don't know anything about their guns. 

But back to the topic originally posted. My chief and the county sheriff have already said there will be no confiscating of guns here. Not by us, not by the feds. We might only be 100 or so strong with the reserve officers, but that's a good start. Plus I am sure the sheriff will start deputizing in large groups if it came to that. Plus the counties around us are just a touch more conservative than we are. So I am not too worried.


----------



## 6811 (Jan 2, 2013)

phrogman said:


> I honestly don't know what I would do. I would definitely resist, how much I do not know.
> 
> My 14 yr old son asked me this same question a couple weeks ago and I told him the same thing. I explained to him that the consequences can be great either way. He said that he would never turn them in if it was him. I was very proud that at such a young age he could see the wrong and was willing to take a stand against it.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk


Good kid...


----------



## RedLion (Sep 23, 2015)

You do know that if "they came for them" they would initially do it when you and others were out of the house and at work. Knock down the door, take you guns and be gone in 30 minutes. Of course, word would get out after round one and owners would then have to choose to hide/move guns or choose to take a direct stand.


----------



## patrioteer (May 21, 2018)

RedLion said:


> You do know that if "they came for them" they would initially do it when you and others were out of the house and at work. Knock down the door, take you guns and be gone in 30 minutes. Of course, word would get out after round one and owners would then have to choose to hide/move guns or choose to take a direct stand.


If confiscation ever happens however, I don't think it will start with an actual confiscation. It will start with a gun buy back, then a voluntary turn in before the ban begins, then an amnesty turn in period after the ban starts, then a few high profile arrests of people to send a message, then confiscation from people the media will present as unsavory, then another amnesty period, then they will come for the average joe. I would expect by the first amnesty period those who are going to bury their guns will have done so and those who are going to organize and rebel will already be making plans.


----------



## 0rocky (Jan 7, 2018)

In the real world, as I see it, there are already a tremendous number of illegal guns in New York City, Chicago, Baltimore, etc. They have a l-o-n-g way to go to remove these firearms. So no, I don't see gun confiscation working aside from those willing to march in and hand theirs over.


----------



## MountainGirl (Oct 29, 2017)

patrioteer said:


> I got a good chuckle at that map. Instead of gun ownership it should have been called *"percentage of people willing to tell someone on the phone that they own guns" or "the percentage of people who own guns that are willing to take polls". I would bet a years salary that the Nebraska, South Dakota, Iowa, Minnesota, and Wisconsin numbers are very low compared to reality.* I remember my dad getting one of those calls a few years back when I was visiting. He said "nope, no guns" and the man has two guns safes full. When they call me I just hang up. The people I know that have more guns than Winchester all live in the dakotas. And none of them are going to tell someone they don't know anything about their guns.


 Agree totally, and Go Huskers! (grew up there, lol)



> But back to the topic originally posted. My chief and the county sheriff have already said there will be no confiscating of guns here. Not by us, not by the feds. We might only be 100 or so strong with the reserve officers, but that's a good start. Plus I am sure the sheriff will start deputizing in large groups if it came to that. Plus the counties around us are just a touch more conservative than we are. So I am not too worried.


 Good to hear, but if I might ask... what if the Feds show up to confiscate, and asks your Dept for help. Any guesses?

.

How about after the public has been 'conditioned' to giving them up, ala your second post:



patrioteer said:


> If confiscation ever happens however, I don't think it will start with an actual confiscation. It will start with a gun buy back, then a voluntary turn in before the ban begins, then an amnesty turn in period after the ban starts, then a few high profile arrests of people to send a message, then confiscation from people the media will present as unsavory, then another amnesty period, then they will come for the average joe. I would expect by the first amnesty period those who are going to bury their guns will have done so and those who are going to organize and rebel will already be making plans.


Would that change your chief's and the SO's current stance any?


----------



## patrioteer (May 21, 2018)

MountainGirl said:


> Would that change your chief's and the SO's current stance any?


I don't think so. I sat at the same table with them both at the friends of NRA banquet and they both were pretty stern when discussing gun control in any form. I am sure they would be okay with anyone who chose to give up their guns doing so, in the sense of it being their right to do so. But when it comes to making arrests for an unconstitutional law or ruling up to seizing guns, I think they would strenuously object.


----------



## MountainGirl (Oct 29, 2017)

patrioteer said:


> I don't think so. I sat at the same table with them both at the friends of NRA banquet and they both were pretty stern when discussing gun control in any form. I am sure they would be okay with anyone who chose to give up their guns doing so, in the sense of it being their right to do so. But when it comes to making arrests for an unconstitutional law or ruling up to seizing guns, I think they would strenuously object.


Have you seen this yet?

https://thefreethoughtproject.com/r...teaming-up-for-federal-gun-confiscation-bill/

What if a law is enacted that guns could be seized without due process? Not tryin to put you on the spot; really appreciate you sharing your perspective. Thanks!


----------



## patrioteer (May 21, 2018)

MountainGirl said:


> Have you seen this yet?
> 
> https://thefreethoughtproject.com/r...teaming-up-for-federal-gun-confiscation-bill/
> 
> What if a law is enacted that guns could be seized without due process? Not tryin to put you on the spot; really appreciate you sharing your perspective. Thanks!


I hate when they say republicans and democrats are teaming up. They should say rinos and democrats are teaming up.

Anyway I don't think that would change anything for us. Even if they pass it doesn't mean we will enforce it.


----------



## preppermyA (Aug 19, 2017)

MountainGirl said:


> Have you seen this yet?
> 
> https://thefreethoughtproject.com/r...teaming-up-for-federal-gun-confiscation-bill/
> 
> What if a law is enacted that guns could be seized without due process? Not tryin to put you on the spot; really appreciate you sharing your perspective. Thanks!


That already exists some places. Red Flag laws. Take them now and then check the "facts" later.


----------



## Back Pack Hack (Sep 15, 2016)

preppermyA said:


> That already exists some places. Red Flag laws. Take them now and then check the "facts" later.


And even if the 'facts' turn out to be false, good luck getting your boomsticks back.


----------



## dantesshoes (Sep 19, 2017)

If they came for them? Easy. They wouldn't find a single thing. They'd need to go out to the adjoining huge property I own and sweep with a very large metal detector (which would probably take weeks) to find the different tubes of weapons I've stored in the ground. I've got the ammunition in there too. 

I'm glad I got a head start, it looks like some people are thinking this is a viable strategy should the day ever come.


----------



## luminaughty (Dec 16, 2014)

What if they came for your firearms? The second American Revolution would start. After the news of violent confrontations and resistance spreads the resistance and violence will spread across America.


----------

