I have to ask!

[shooterdave]

As a LEO, I will say that this whole situation and potential situation has been discussed in my local circle, and to a person, all agree that our duty is to the citizens of whatever jurisdiction we serve. We also all agree that said duty is not best served by removing citizens ability to defend themselves... From whatever threats may come forth...

 

[TheLlama]

I dont think there is anybody in America paid enough to take away others rightfully and dutifully bought weapons to defend themselves and their loved ones. Honestly, what would the average lifespan of taker away man man be??? I know alot of LEO and i damn sure know they dont make enough to risk their lives to do anything of the such.

 

[david wilson]

i took an oath to defend the constitution whatever action is called for. I pray it never comes to that but i fear that it may someday take me down a road that so many others have already traveled.

 

[AKguy1985]

Molon Labe

 

[tRidiot]

Ok... here's another question... since the answers (at least the people willing to admit/post their stance) seems to be pretty unanimous.

What if it were incremental? Seriously...

What if they passed down an order tomorrow that said we need to ask (repeat ASK) for gun owners with a known, documented and credible history of mental instability to turn in their weapons peacefully? I'm not talking people who are taking Paxil or Zoloft for some mild depressive symptoms... I'm talking people who may have made suicidal threats or gestures in the past, but have committed no overt criminal acts or been convicted of a felony which would make them already ineligible for gun ownership. I'm saying people who could and have been easily labeled by both law enforcement and the medical community as people who run a significant risk of becoming someone who "could" turn into another mass shooter? Obviously, those who have a criminal history of violent behavior should be looked at very closely... but I'm saying the next step down the ladder... in terms of potential, but not yet any overt action.

Would you support asking them to turn in their weapons peacefully, and if they refuse potentially getting a court order, and then eventually forcibly taking steps to criminalize them and remove their guns?

It's a very, very slippery slope, and incremental measures have been shown to be highly effective in the past for achieving the same goals without the sudden public outcry.

Think about it...

 

[sklfco]

You will not find more than a handful in this small circle who would not "tow the line" if the time came. (I am one who hopes it never does since it would do such horrible damage to this country) Out of that handful I believe most of them would be quite supportive in some way or another doing what they could for those that are, as most of us understand what the value of a set of eyes in the right place has or someone to bandage up a wound or......well you get the idea. No, instead the true moment will come not with a knock or kick to your door but to your neighbors, what will you do when their rights are stripped away? Will you grab the brush and paint those 7 red stripes for their freedoms or quietly sit there at the dinner table wondering how your better half will survive once your dead body is deemed to be a domestic terrorist who attacked _____ without provocation and killed poor Agent **** and wounded 13 others including one sleeping infant in her crib. "They" would no doubt seize all of your assets and possibly lock up any of your remaining family as accomplices (there is that domestic terrorist thing again) . Are you willing to give it ALL up for someone else is the real question. If you need to ponder that I suggest you take a quiet stroll alone through any cemetery and look for those markers with dates in the 194X range especially those that have military rank on them.

 

[WessonOil]

Many people realize that it isn't wise to discuss your plans publicly.

Smart man.

 

[uncle money bags]

Ok... here's another question... since the answers (at least the people willing to admit/post their stance) seems to be pretty unanimous.

What if it were incremental? Seriously...

What if they passed down an order tomorrow that said we need to ask (repeat ASK) for gun owners with a known, documented and credible history of mental instability to turn in their weapons peacefully? I'm not talking people who are taking Paxil or Zoloft for some mild depressive symptoms... I'm talking people who may have made suicidal threats or gestures in the past, but have committed no overt criminal acts or been convicted of a felony which would make them already ineligible for gun ownership. I'm saying people who could and have been easily labeled by both law enforcement and the medical community as people who run a significant risk of becoming someone who "could" turn into another mass shooter? Obviously, those who have a criminal history of violent behavior should be looked at very closely... but I'm saying the next step down the ladder... in terms of potential, but not yet any overt action.

Would you support asking them to turn in their weapons peacefully, and if they refuse potentially getting a court order, and then eventually forcibly taking steps to criminalize them and remove their guns?

It's a very, very slippery slope, and incremental measures have been shown to be highly effective in the past for achieving the same goals without the sudden public outcry.

Think about it...

What part of "all in" and recognizing that it is unwise to discuss plans in the open did you miss? Start a new thread with your question and stop assuming that people who have made this commitment have not put in the time to examine such possibilities.

 

[tRidiot]

What part of "all in" and recognizing that it is unwise to discuss plans in the open did you miss? Start a new thread with your question and stop assuming that people who have made this commitment have not put in the time to examine such possibilities.

Wow... way to be a jackass in regards to a perfectly reasonable and possible scenario.

Kudos to you for being the Chuck Norris of gun rights.

 

[uncle money bags]

Wow... way to be a jackass in regards to a perfectly reasonable and possible scenario.

Kudos to you for being the Chuck Norris of gun rights.

If my response has met your threshold of jackassery, or any body elses for that matter, may i suggest you have set the bar a little low. It seems you are no less taken aback by my answer than i was to your hypothetical. The op asked a pretty specific, no b.s. question and any one who would dared to answer should have considered your possible scenario. It did not occur to me that given the range of experience that we have on this forum some body would publicly stand and be counted without doing so. It would seem i was mistaken.
I guess my question to you would be: Is your person in the hypothetical somebody who should have a firearm in the first place? Is this an individual who would be barred from firearm ownership on the basis of their mental state or capacity? What would their honest answer to question 11f on the 4473 be? If they are legal, then they are legal and deserve to same protections as you ( presumably ) and I.