"Because they wouldn't. We have protestors block traffic for the tiniest butthurt and we sit by and let them do it. You think the Feds are gonna wipe out thousands of people all at once??? "

 I feel it is equally plausible as spending decades going door to door. Just one high-rise could take a days to fully clear, and this will happen across millions of homes?  By this logic I can just say the Government wont take our guns going door to door "because they wouldn't."    

 My point is if our Government chooses to eradicate firearm ownership by force, or in general implement policy to contain and kill US citizens: (The second amendment is about making the citizens safe from the government, should that ever go bad.")  I do not think door to door bullet to bullet would be the method chosen since more efficient methods exist in domestic theatre.

 Why, if given the go ahead to use physical force, or subterfuge to persuade voluntary surrender, would force be the chosen method?

 If I can get people to voluntarily surrender why would I choose using my own men increasing casualty, wounded resource allocation, and tangible goods distribution?  What would Tommy prefer?
 

Door to door
New Orleans
Been done

justin_o_guy2 wrote on 10/14/19 at 16:40:48:

Door to door
New Orleans
Been done

Ya But,
Ya gotta remember, the police, under the orders of Mayor Nagin,
(Where is he today ???)
"ONLY", took firearms, out of abandoned homes.

That is why they have agreed to return firearms,
that police officers confiscated !!!!

If I can get people to voluntarily surrender why would I choose using my own men increasing casualty, wounded resource allocation, and tangible goods distribution?

We're not going to voluntarily surrender so what are you gonna do?

Imagine this. Let's say Beto O'Dumbfxxk gets elected with a Democratic Senate and House. So he pushed through his plan to confiscate all those scary looking assault guns, all 50 million of them or however many. (Sure to double the day he gets elected...) After a bit, it's clear many, many of those scary weapons are still in the hands of citizens. What are you going to do?

"After a bit, it's clear many, many of those scary weapons are still in the hands of citizens. What are you going to do?"

 Not put together a multi-decade assault force on the US citizen that's for sure.  That would only increase the number of people who hide guns.

 If a law were passed it would most likely be enforced though investigation, some general enforcement and attrition.  Much easier and safer to convince kids to give up guns than old guys.

 But...  If... The law dictates immediate military and domestic law enforcement involvement to be exercised with no limitations of force and no prejudice, then they would not choose close quarters combat unless they want a lot of US soldiers, and law enforcement to die, and for the active mission phase to last decades or potentially forever.

 This would result in an immediate loss of recruitment so within a few years the replacement of staff would have to be negotiated internationally bringing in soldiers and mercenaries from other countries.  CENTCOM would go to Canada or Mexico, the US Navy would shift to overseas protocols for supply.  

 And that's only if the international community is ok with the US committing genocide.  So the US would have to consider fighting a multi-front international war with minimized internal resources.

 Eventually the decision would be one of how many people need to die over how many decades so an active shooter has more difficulty going to kill people at a nightclub or a school?