[direfungasaur]

Are you implying that gun-owners would suddenly wage war on the nation if they were told to hand over (some portion of) their guns in the next year or face civil penalties? Doesn't it seem far more likely that most law-abiding folks would hand over their weapons to avoid interruption to their lives, possibly retaining one or two illegally?

Most of the people I know would complain and protest any confiscation, but I doubt they would shoot a law officer to protect that privilege. They would simply lose too much in return for that exchange.

[zaroth]

Gun confiscation from law-abiding citizens at a Federal level? Yes, I believe that has a pretty significant chance of going sideways quite rapidly.

Target a vulnerable sub-population and you just might be able to pull it off (mentally impaired, under 21, etc.)

[direfungasaur]

I just don't understand the generality of the assertion. Law-abiding folks are suddenly going to become violent because the government changed one law? I can certainly believe that some segment of the population might revolt, but broad-scale revolt seems rather unlikely. Most of us are well-fed and entertained enough that the loss of firearms would be an irritant, not an issue worth risking life and limb over. Something like prohibition seems far more likely. Some folks would retain whatever weapons were deemed illegal, while the vast majority of folks would hand-over the bulk of their weapons and possibly retain whatever they thought they could conceal.

[zaroth]

I think there’s a sizable part of the population which believes very strongly that what would come after gun confiscation is worth fighting a war to prevent.

And you can’t fight that war if you aren’t armed for it. So it’s a do or die / back up against the wall proposition at that point.

Men rise up in violence all the time to protect what is sacred to them. “Change one law” is I think not an accurate depiction of the premise I was responding to - which was repeal of the 2nd amendment and large scale gun confiscation.

[direfungasaur]

With respect to the 'change one law' phrasing - I don't think a repeal of the 2nd immediately leads to confiscation. It only removes the federal restrictions, but several state constitutions have the right explicitly enshrined. Pennsylvania is a good example, but I believe there are others. Confiscation would probably require not only an appeal of the 2nd, but also repeal of any state laws as well. I tend to believe that would result a slow, piecemeal process where individual states go through confiscation one by one.

That said, your point can certainly stand at a state level. I still think how the process is managed impacts the broader social response. An approach that attempted to leave bolt-action/small capacity shotguns and files in place may be received differently than a wholesale ban. An approach that only eliminated 'assault weapons' but left handguns would have a different impact than an approach that required both to be turned-in. There's lots of ways to drive a confiscation, with lesser or greater outcomes on how people resist, I would think.