A Christian Response to Gun Confiscation

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.

Dude653

Senior Member
Mar 19, 2011
12,660
1,094
113
#62
Yes, there's over a hundred examples from history. They know how to do it. Many states in the USA are the exception, for now. Australia was a recent example of how things change overnight.
Australia doesn't have a second amendment
 

hornetguy

Senior Member
Jan 18, 2016
7,075
1,702
113
#64
They can’t confiscate guns, not legally anyway. They might be able to make it more difficult to legally own a gun or access a gun though. The other side of the coin is that it would be easier to make a law requiring citizens to own a gun.
see.... "Kennesaw Georgia"
 
Nov 23, 2021
502
105
43
#65
The purpose of the post was to make available some articles I found useful in deciding how I would go out if forced to surrender my guns. I think WWJD will suffice. Has anyone read the articles.? It gave me food for thought . It may not happen this year , next year or the year after. It will happen . And that is not prophecy. My prediction. The President has emergency powers to suspend the Constitution, the country is circling the drain , and can't say I hold out much hope for the millenials to rein- in the swing to the left. Revelation says, there will be a world government . Raising the understanding of unbelieving , deceived , blinded and rebellious mankind is in my view ineffectual. There are dozens of rabbit trails to the global conspiracy while the real enemy is in plain view hiding in plain sight so embedded in our government that all the hooyahs Navy Seals running for congress can muster won't change a damn thing. Personally , I am a Vietnam Viet although not a combat Viet but close enough to see Spooky spraying the area. As a patriot , and a Bible believer . I have been awake to this infiltration and manipulation of our government and the social engineering of the lying propagadists of our media for some time . The church , I call the remnant . Because truthfully not everyone who Says , Lord , Lord is going to make it . Folks have so much invested in this world whether family and loved ones ,or pursuits and distractions. Not to mention the go-easy mentality of the present day modern church. Our citizenship is in heaven , and it has been given to us not only to believe on Him but also to suffer for His names sake. I would rather be martyred passively than go out guns blazing , yet common sense makes me prefer hollow points to full metal jacket. The people I love in this world , who the Bible describes as in the world but not of the world , are mostly of the world . Just a fact. Seeking the Lord, intercession , understanding the power of prayer and the exceeding great and precious promises, knowing who you are in Christ and how to execute authority over a defeated enemy praying the captives of the prison house. Is where the action is . Know the ministry of the Holy Spirit , John 16 . Ask and you shall receive, "How much more shall your father give the Holy Spirit to them that Ask Him. It works Trust Him , that is what is always tells me. "Trust Me". ............take care
"praying the captives out of the prison house"
 
Mar 4, 2020
8,614
3,691
113
#66
I don't see how they can enforce that one either unless they plan to go door to door and inspect everyone's houses to make sure they have a gun. That would be a logistical nightmare
I am not saying it wouldn't be difficult to enforce, but it would be easier to justify requiring everyone to own a gun since there is already a constitutional framework in place that makes it a right. To make gun confiscation possible the Bill of Rights would need to be amended. My perspective is gun confiscation is an uphill climb and requiring everyone to own a gun is more like a gentle slope.
 
Mar 4, 2020
8,614
3,691
113
#67
Yes, there's over a hundred examples from history. They know how to do it. Many states in the USA are the exception, for now. Australia was a recent example of how things change overnight.
The gun confiscation program in Australia was largely a failure. Citizens mostly didn't comply and the government whimpered and kind of stopped talking about it. How embarrassing. There are still millions of firearms in Australia by some estimations. It's difficult to quantify exactly since so few guns were ever seized or turned in.

In the USA there more guns than people. Hundreds of millions of guns and many of them aren't even registered. In many states buying a gun is just as easy as buying candy.
 

Dude653

Senior Member
Mar 19, 2011
12,660
1,094
113
#69
I am not saying it wouldn't be difficult to enforce, but it would be easier to justify requiring everyone to own a gun since there is already a constitutional framework in place that makes it a right. To make gun confiscation possible the Bill of Rights would need to be amended. My perspective is gun confiscation is an uphill climb and requiring everyone to own a gun is more like a gentle slope.
Well I keep saying this but I'll say it again. Gun confiscation is going to require repealing the second amendment which is going to require a 2/3 Senate vote
 
Last edited by a moderator:

hornetguy

Senior Member
Jan 18, 2016
7,075
1,702
113
#70
In many states buying a gun is just as easy as buying candy.
Um.... not really. Buying a gun from a dealer is a federally controlled and mandated process. It requires filling out the federal form, and being checked through the instant background check system.... NICS. Usually a person is approved, and can complete the process and purchase the gun. If, for ANY reason, your name is "flagged", you cannot purchase the gun, but must wait at least 3 days for the government to (supposedly) investigate you further. If they do not contact the gun dealer within 3 days saying "Don't sell", then you can pick up your gun.

This is federal law. If a dealer doesn't follow ALL the rules completely, they will likely end up in a federal prison. Not many dealers are willing to run that risk.

Hardly as easy as buying candy....
 

HealthAndHappiness

Well-known member
Jul 7, 2022
10,221
4,283
113
Almost Heaven West Virginia
#71
The gun confiscation program in Australia was largely a failure. Citizens mostly didn't comply and the government whimpered and kind of stopped talking about it. How embarrassing. There are still millions of firearms in Australia by some estimations. It's difficult to quantify exactly since so few guns were ever seized or turned in.

In the USA there more guns than people. Hundreds of millions of guns and many of them aren't even registered. In many states buying a gun is just as easy as buying candy.
That was a sad time for Australia. There were millions of Americans who were outraged and wished there was something we could do to help our allies who fell under the boot of tyranny.
The problem they have now is the same as the UK. The common honorable citizen is classified as an enemy of the state if they have a weapon to defend their family from perilous creatures or people intent on doing harm. I think of an old man in the UK whose been robbed numerous times and eventually shot a criminal in self defense, in his own home; a thief who threatened his life. Guess who was arrested and charged with the felony? Sadly it was the innocent victim of the crime. There are lots of examples like that one.

I'm not saying that the USA is a bastion of freedom. The God given right to defense was violated throughout history and legislatively by the mid 1800s. First and foremost, the Bible was disregarded as was secondly, the second amendment/article of our federal constitution. It's been ignored and disregarded thousands upon thousands of times since.

In Australia there was a famous celebrity who brought fame and fortune to his fine country. He did not turn in his hunting tools, so they came to steal them and put the celebrity in a cage. It didn't turn out well for anyone. However, he was made an example of and demonized by the state funded criminals who killed him.

There used to be a time when buying a new hunting tool was like buying candy or a shovel. That's only allowed now by individuals who trade in used firearms.
 
Mar 4, 2020
8,614
3,691
113
#72
Um.... not really. Buying a gun from a dealer is a federally controlled and mandated process. It requires filling out the federal form, and being checked through the instant background check system.... NICS. Usually a person is approved, and can complete the process and purchase the gun. If, for ANY reason, your name is "flagged", you cannot purchase the gun, but must wait at least 3 days for the government to (supposedly) investigate you further. If they do not contact the gun dealer within 3 days saying "Don't sell", then you can pick up your gun.

This is federal law. If a dealer doesn't follow ALL the rules completely, they will likely end up in a federal prison. Not many dealers are willing to run that risk.

Hardly as easy as buying candy....
As I said, it’s as easy as buying candy. I was referring to buying and selling guns between two private parties. Many states have no regulations, such as background checks or a gun registry, for this.
 

hornetguy

Senior Member
Jan 18, 2016
7,075
1,702
113
#73
As I said, it’s as easy as buying candy. I was referring to buying and selling guns between two private parties. Many states have no regulations, such as background checks or a gun registry, for this.
Yes, between two private citizens, that is correct. It falls upon the seller to be comfortable that the person he is selling the firearm to is a reputable person. Unfortunately, that is not always the case. It is, however, at this point in time mostly legal.
 
Jun 5, 2020
941
169
43
#75
I am not saying it wouldn't be difficult to enforce, but it would be easier to justify requiring everyone to own a gun since there is already a constitutional framework in place that makes it a right. To make gun confiscation possible the Bill of Rights would need to be amended. My perspective is gun confiscation is an uphill climb and requiring everyone to own a gun is more like a gentle slope.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The Second Amendment is about maintaining "the security of a free state" by a well-regulated militia. That is it emphasis and purpose. It has morphed into the rights of people to own guns and use them as they see fit. But that is not what it says. You can't remove the first clause.
 

tourist

Senior Member
Mar 13, 2014
42,553
17,024
113
69
Tennessee
#76
"Dems" say stuff like "Obama was going to take our guns "? I think you are really confused.
Exactly, Obama wanted to take guns. In response to the stuff that he said gun sales skyrocketed. Obama is a Dem is he not? No confusion here.
 
Mar 4, 2020
8,614
3,691
113
#77
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The Second Amendment is about maintaining "the security of a free state" by a well-regulated militia. That is it emphasis and purpose. It has morphed into the rights of people to own guns and use them as they see fit. But that is not what it says. You can't remove the first clause.
it being necessary for the security of a free state supports my proposition that it would be easier to require firearm ownership than to ban them.
 

shittim

Senior Member
Dec 16, 2016
13,751
7,753
113
#78
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The Second Amendment is about maintaining "the security of a free state" by a well-regulated militia. That is it emphasis and purpose. It has morphed into the rights of people to own guns and use them as they see fit. But that is not what it says. You can't remove the first clause.
It was understood by the Framers of the Constitution that all the people are the militia, hence the comma before the "right of the people to keep and bear arms"
 

Dude653

Senior Member
Mar 19, 2011
12,660
1,094
113
#79
Exactly, Obama wanted to take guns. In response to the stuff that he said gun sales skyrocketed. Obama is a Dem is he not? No confusion here.
Nope.. Obama never said anything about taking anyone's guns
 
Jun 5, 2020
941
169
43
#80
Exactly, Obama wanted to take guns. In response to the stuff that he said gun sales skyrocketed. Obama is a Dem is he not? No confusion here.
You wrote this earlier: "Dems" say stuff like "Obama was going to take our guns " Now you are contradicting yourself.