[Golden Eagle]

Sounds like you’re better off without a gun.

[Psalm 73]

It’s not so much seeing them - it’s GETTING them.

[Jim Robinson]

The Battles of Lexington and Concord proved it.

[Pollster1]

The challenge is not finding and confiscating any one individual’s firearms. The challenge would be sustaining that effort beyond the first few innocent victims.

[bk1000]

I disagree. When the people being sent to confiscate these weapons genuinely worry they will not go home that night it will stop. Won’t take many to get the point across.

“How we burned in the camps... “

[D_Idaho]

You might be right, Charles. It all depends on how many dead cops you’re willing to accept.

[Lurkinanloomin]

The only way to prove how expensive it would be for them to confiscate is for them to actually attempt it and then they will find out.

[DPMD]

It would be a bloodbath. And if anyone thinks the liberals who want confiscation would have the courage to go for it, you have to ask yourself why they aren’t already displaying that courage in going after all the criminals who illegally own guns. Courage is not a democrat value.

[Big Red Badger]

Resist We Much!

[NorthMountain]

Even with current technology, when the goons are at your front door it's too late. You don't fight the goons at your front door. You fight the goons BEFORE they get to your front door. Capisce?

[Scrambler Bob]

technology that can see through walls as if they were open to air.
= = =

Yes, but can they see through WATER?? HA HA.

[Flag_This]

"If you believe that the government can't confiscate 200 million guns in a single year, you have never seen The Minority Report"

Wait 'til they try to take my phased plasma rifle, in the 40-watt range.

[wastoute]

I am reminded of the old alt.news groups where the gun grabbers used to say “you can’t win against an Apache helicopter...”

Then Iraqi rebels shot down an Apache helicopter. Notice you don’t hear them say that anymore. LOL.

[Ken H]

So what’s your point, just roll over?

[NorthMountain]

I just re-read your headline ... you demand that people prove a negative. That’s an impossibility.

[NorthMountain]

And your demand to prove a negative is stupid anyway. The question is not whether the goons can confiscate ... if they try hard enough they can. Nobody really disputes that.

The question is whether the citizens can make the price so high the goons aren’t willing to pay it.

[Terry L Smith]

The author gave up his right of possession, because SOMEHOW a loaded firearm, possibly a semi-automatic pistol, has a negligent discharge.

The author has proven his psychological image of “the wet puppy on its back”.

He is not of the type to own any firearm, even a nerf gun.

There are more of who are of the type, determination, and preparation.

[Billthedrill]

I'm not sure I'd be drawing any broad conclusions on the feasibility of gun confiscation out of Hollywood. Fiction is fictional, after all. And the question of whether the possession of firearms in a population might discourage a left-wing confiscation program ignores the real-world fact that it already is. Better established is what happens when such a program actually succeeds - post-revolutionary Russia comes to mind. It isn't pretty.

[dirtboy]

If you believe that the government can't confiscate 200 million guns in a single year, you have never seen The Minority Report,

Seriously? You are basing your vanity on a bizarre Sci-Fi movie?

[GraceG]

Underground safe and hidden stashes with the guns literally buried.

Have a few gravel piles on your property with empty boxes buried for a decoy under them.

Then get some water tight containers and some bricks and submerge your weapons in a small pond / lake...