Who is delusional?
Gun Confiscation Laws
-
Millions of Americans would simply refuse to turn in their firearms.
-
There isn’t enough jail space to detain the estimated 100 million - plus people who would refuse.
-
Most police officers would decline to enforce such an order.
-
Even liberal Supreme Court Justices would strike it down as unconstitutional because the Court has already affirmed that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right.
-
The government has no accurate count of how many guns exist or who owns them, making total confiscation impossible.
-
Criminals, by definition, would ignore the law even if every law-abiding citizen complied.
The poster concluded that anyone who believes full gun confiscation is achievable is “delusional.”
Here is the response:
1. Voluntary Turn-Ins Already Happen - And People Do Comply
Several states, counties, and cities have already asked gun owners to voluntarily surrender firearms, and many people have done exactly that. Programs such as buybacks in places like West Palm Beach, Florida, and various counties in North Carolina demonstrate that some citizens willingly bring firearms to law enforcement when asked - often in exchange for tax credits, gift cards, or other incentives.
Voluntary compliance, however, is very different from a mandatory nationwide confiscation.
2. Prison Capacity Wouldn’t Be the Issue - State Force Would
Assuming the government ever attempted mandatory confiscation, they wouldn’t rely on jail space. History shows that governments facing mass non-compliance often resort to force, labeling dissenters as threats, extremists, or even “terrorists.”
Under such classifications, the state could justify arrests, raids, or the use of deadly force under the pretext of “public safety,” “reasonable force,” or “resisting law enforcement.” The idea that lack of jail space would stop enforcement is naive.
3. Assuming Police Would Refuse Is Wishful Thinking
The claim that “most police would refuse to enforce” a confiscation law ignores the reality of modern policing. We already see widespread examples of excessive force, militarized law-enforcement units, and a near-total lack of accountability - officers often face no consequences even when innocent citizens are killed.
In a society drifting toward an increasingly authoritarian model, it is unrealistic to assume that the police would become the defenders of civil liberties in such a scenario.
4. Trusting the Supreme Court to Defend Rights Is Not a Guarantee
The assertion that the Supreme Court would protect the Second Amendment relies on an assumption that the Court consistently defends constitutional rights. If that were true, Americans would not be constantly fighting to maintain their rights, freedoms, and liberties.
The judiciary is not immune to political pressure, shifting interpretations, or ideological realignment. Depending on the Court to block a federal gun ban is far from assured.
5. The Number of Guns Won’t Matter If Force Is Used
It is true the government cannot track every firearm. But if an outright ban were implemented, those identified as retaining firearms could be treated as hostile actors - again, tying back to point 2. The sheer quantity of guns in civilian hands would not stop enforcement actions against individuals labeled as threats.
6. Criminals Ignore Gun Laws - And Always Have
Cities with the strictest gun regulations - Washington, DC; Los Angeles; New York City; Chicago - consistently experience some of the highest levels of gun crime. Criminals do not obey gun laws; that is the defining trait of being a criminal.
Believing that confiscation would disarm criminals is the real delusion.
Final Question
Given all of this, who exactly is being unrealistic? Those who understand the consequences of government overreach - or those who assume that 330 million people will peacefully hand over their rights without resistance?
Comments