asking around, consensus is that about 3 to maybe at most 5% of American citizens would agree to comply or would fail to resist any attempted confiscations or ‘forced buybacks’ (sic)
the other 95 or 97% of Americans would be using their firearms for their Constitutionally-intended purpose
“the other 95 or 97% of Americans would be using their firearms for their Constitutionally-intended purpose”
Bundy standoff. They don’t have the testicular fortitude to try for it. They don’t have the numbers to survive the attrition if they do.
The other side of that argument offers a dark and very concerning scenario; one that may be a cold reality.
There are anti-gun, anti-Americans hard at work at political and legal levels to effectively eliminate private gun ownership.
The express statement in the Constitution that the pre-existing right to bear arms is not to be infringed, inclusion of which provision was thought to be absolutely essential to the passage of that compact, presently appears to turn on one USSC vote.
At the same time, we have a liberal education system that suspends school children from talking about or even scribbling pictures of "icky" handguns and rifles. A large number of college students believe socialist and presidential candidate Sanders offers a sensible message, while many of the rest believe candidate Clinton is the answer.
When it is deemed time to confiscate firearms, the government first will simply check its data base and freeze the assets of those who do not deliver their weapons to the designated locations. The USSC will find the enabling statute(s) provide suitable "due process" for such measures. If further action is deemed necessary, rather than the U.S. Military, a very well-armed and brown-shirted agency of the Executive Branch will be employed.
Will that leave an armed community sufficient to restore the right within the lifetime of your family?