How would gun control non-compliance be enforced?

or when states won't enforce the laws and won't allow the Federal government to enforce the laws?

We are already seeing states pushing back against the Federal government for different reasons, be it marijuana or guns.

Would make a good one. Making examples can cut both ways. Most people don't want to die for a job, but many would be willing to stand up for thier civil liberties... Becareful what you wish for you just may get it. When you have abut 5% compliance in new york state.. the lawbreakers far and away out number those that would enforce the law..

Not to mention the fact that most law enforcement are against the recently passed gun control in the first place

People that belive that they are defending their rights tend too be willing to make final stands..

(I hate posting from my phone)

just a bad attempt at a joke by the gun-humpers? .

(just askin'.......................)

After leaving in a snit last time. And saying you were tired of playing "our game" and would never post here again. Hoplophobe.

What are we then supposed to think about pot smokers, those who scoffed at Prohibition and those who refused to comply with segregation?

Putting words on paper doesn't entitle the state to civil obedience. If the entire notion of "consent of the governed" holds any value than the fact a law meets with such rampant disregard informs us that the law does not serve the people but rather the people are being expected to serve the law -- without their consent.

In a democracy who should the weight of power and deference belong to? The people or the state?

...expect a whole lot of:

If their Elected Representatives enact it, then they have given consent. That's what a *Democratic Republic* is all about! (Or did you sleep through that in grade school Civics?) If people feel it's unjust, they may fight it by civil means, but that DOESN'T mean killing the enforcers.

The blood-lust of the gun-humper crowd sometimes just floors me.

In your opinion, does that mean that *all* laws must be, if not obeyed, at least
defied by peaceable means?

All the examples of civil disobedience and non-compliance that I cited were non-violent.

Far too many Controllers, however, fantasize about SWAT-ting people or cheering acts of aggression or having gun control settled by a contest of arms.

Perhaps you would like to offer an answer to the OP. How would you see non-compliance with a registration requirement or mandatory buy-back dealt with?

On Mon Jul 13, 2015, 10:56 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

Send in people with guns to take guns....
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=171458

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

"Mow down" "undesirables" like Christians and Republicans? Really? "Way, Harmony, Spirit...the art of peace is within" my arse.

JURY RESULTS

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Mon Jul 13, 2015, 11:07 PM, and the Jury voted 6-1 to HIDE IT.

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Hide it. Advocating mass murder, really? If it was intended as sarcasm, it does not come off that way.
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: eminently hideable post.
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: What the fuck is this? I'm about to go Godwin here in a minute. Dude, you sound kinda like a na..
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Ugly post.. Hide it.
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I think the poster forgot the sarcasm smilie. I did a search and they are on the pro side of the DU gunz wars.

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

I was #7. I'm sorry, ileus.

because my search showed:
"guns kill way less than 30k...somewhere in the 0-none range.
And of course as we all know most firearms sold today are designed to save lives.
Some for collecting.
Some for competition.
Some for hunting."

I doubt ileus wanted a sarcasm smilie.

Now the alerter could very well have believed that ileus was advocating for the murder of gun owners but they could also be an anti-gun DUer who wanted to score a hide for their "team".

This happens frequently in some highly contentious sub-groups and it's been tried on me personally.

So I decided to research ileus' posts before I voted to hide this one and imo, their only mistake was not using the sarcasm smilie.

Why do you care so much about this verdict anyway, are you the alerter?

Fortunately they failed to score one in my case and got a 24 break from alerting for their trouble.

Not saying that's what happened in this instance but people who lie in order to get posts hidden make DU suck.

I.E., most guns are still out there?

Perhaps this dovetails with the penis-orientation which suffuses their other "arguments."