Gyroscopic Investing

Pointedstick wrote:

Gumby wrote: I don't claim to be an expert on guns, so perhaps you can explain it to me. But, aren't Australia's gun control laws mainly focussed on semi-automatic and pump-action firearms? Couldn't we satisfy the 2nd amendment by letting everyone own single-fire muskets and pistols to their heart's content? Certainly that would be in the spirit of the 2nd amendment, which is what defined a firearm in 1791 when the amendment was passed.

The supreme court threw out that argument in Heller and re-affirmed it in McDonald. By that logic, the 1st amendment only protects quill pens and 18th century printing presses.

So, what exactly are we "protecting" by allowing civilians to arm themselves with semi-automatic weapons? Is the idea that citizens would overthrow the government with their machine guns?

RuralEngineer wrote: Any draconian ban will require confiscation to be effective. That means civil war. The right to effective self defense is too sacred to too many for a peaceful outcome. In fact, such an action represents the very reason the 2nd amendment exists. The involuntary disarmament of its citizenry by a government is tyranny.

Tyranny is like the apocraphal boiling a frog.  Although there can be a tyrant who suddenly seizes power, one can also come to it gradually.  I've heard it said that from one point of view the real purpose of the TSA and the theater that goes on in airports is to get the public used to being docile, to getting used to following unquestioningly no matter what the orders.  There are those (80% liberals perhaps 50% republicans) who want us to live life with their values, rules, etc imposed upon us.

As the chinese curse says, we live in interesting times.

Gumby wrote:

Pointedstick wrote:

Gumby wrote: I don't claim to be an expert on guns, so perhaps you can explain it to me. But, aren't Australia's gun control laws mainly focussed on semi-automatic and pump-action firearms? Couldn't we satisfy the 2nd amendment by letting everyone own single-fire muskets and pistols to their heart's content? Certainly that would be in the spirit of the 2nd amendment, which is what defined a firearm in 1791 when the amendment was passed.

The supreme court threw out that argument in Heller and re-affirmed it in McDonald. By that logic, the 1st amendment only protects quill pens and 18th century printing presses.

So, what exactly are we "protecting" by allowing civilians to arm themselves with semi-automatic weapons? Is the idea that citizens would overthrow the government with their machine guns?

Nailed it! That's the exact intent of the 2nd amendment. It wasn't self-defense or hunting. It was to allow citizens to overthrow a future government that became tyrannical, with force, if necessary. If you're curious why the founding fathers might have included such "harsh" terms in the Bill of Rights, then you should research the "American Revolutionary War."

Apparently, the founding fathers believed if the government wasn't scared of it's people, it would do things like:

1) Impose taxation on personal wages

2) Suspend Habeas Corpus at whim

3) Silence communication networks at whim

4) Reduce the fourth amendment to be virtually non-existent

5) Change the interpretation of "speedy and fair trial" to mean a person merely accused of a crime could sit in jail for two or more years without a trial

6) Indefinitely detain people without a trial, legal representation, or legal charges, at whim

7) Seize private property without due process

8 ) Start doing things outside of the explicit activities limited to it such as minting money, defending the border, and delivering mail.

The only thing that would stop a government from growing gradually larger and larger and seizing more and more power would be if they feared an armed uprising from the citizens. Fortunately, due to the gradual erosion of gun rights over the last century, the government no longer has to worry about that and can do whatever it pleases.

Of course, gun control only started during Prohibition when criminals spilled violence on the streets, which totally wasn't the government's fault for creating a lucrative blackmarket.

And gun violence is even worse today with drug prohibition, which totally isn't the government's fault either.

Please... Your right to bear arms has not impeded the government in any way shape or form — as evidenced by your own list. I don't believe anyone actually plans on grabbing machine guns and marching on Washington, DC to change legislation or overthrow their government.

Gumby wrote: So, what exactly are we "protecting" by allowing civilians to arm themselves with semi-automatic weapons? Is the idea that citizens would overthrow the government with their machine guns?

You need to educate yourself a little bit. Semi-automatic firearms are not machine guns, in the same way that manual transmission cars are not automatic transmission cars. Semi-automatic means one pull of the trigger fires one round. Machine guns continuously fire rounds so long as the trigger is held down, and they are very, very heavily regulated, illegal in many states, and extremely expensive. By contrast, every handgun that's not a revolver is semi-automatic, and a very large number of rifles are, including the most popular one--the AR-15, which is owned by myself, craigr, and several other forum members here. Semi-automatic firearms are the most popular firearms in America, and have been for decades. They're not new, and they're not going away without pissing off tens of millions of safe, lawful gun owners.

The answer to your question of who we are protecting is: ourselves and families. There are many times more uses of firearms for defense than there are for criminal violence. Local media constantly reports examples of such defensive gun usage every day.

Guns are used by the irresponsible, the violent, and the crazy, yes. But they are also used in far greater numbers by the responsible, the trained, the proficient, and the sober-minded to defend themselves and their families against the former group, whether they wield firearms or not.

This shooting is a horrific tragedy. But it doesn't change the fact that gun violence has actually been steadily declining for decades. We shouldn't let our shock at the brutality of an individual event obscure that the greater trend is already moving in the direction we all want.

Pointedstick wrote:a very large number of rifles are, including the most popular one--the AR-15, which is owned by myself, craigr, and several other forum members here. Semi-automatic firearms are the most popular firearms in America, and have been for decades. They're not new, and they're not going away without pissing off tens of millions of safe, lawful gun owners.

What exactly do you guys use them for that you couldn't use a revolver for? You cite "defensive gun usage" but I don't see the purpose of being able to fire more than a few rounds at a time to protect your family.

I'm not trying to be rude, but WTF do you need this for?...

[align=center][/align]

Hey look, it's my rifle!

Why does someone need a Ferrari when a Honda will do just fine? What's the point of owning a car that can exceed the speed limit? Why do you need grass-fed beef when the stuff at the supermarket suffices for the majority of us? Why does someone need cable TV or hardwood furniture when YouTube and Ikea are good enough? Why do any of us need any of the luxuries we purchase?

Variety is the spice of life. Every day, 99.99999% of Americans fail to commit homicide with their firearms. Those guns look scary, but they have exactly the same firepower as this much less scary-looking one:



Realize that you're reacting emotionally to how black and scary those firearms are, and how they resemble the machine guns that hollywood movies show firing endlessly from bottomless magazines. Strip away all the black furniture and you have a fairly ordinary rifle that fires one of the lower-powered rifle cartridges.

As for why you might need to fire more than a few shots, some quick examples I can think of are:

1. multiple attackers
2. drug or alcohol-addled attackers
3. first few shots prove ineffective
4. missed shots

And to touch on what I said before about the trend, despite insane shootings like this, America is actually at a two-decade low for firearm homicides despite the profusion of all those scary-looking black rifles and 49 states issuing concealed-carry permits to more than 3 million Americans:



I broke it out by race to highlight what I think is the biggest tragedy of all: the gun violence plaguing the African-American community. We're all shocked when nice white upper-middle-class kids get gunned down, but the sad fact of life is that this kind of thing happens every day in Chicago, we've just conveniently forgotten about it. Thankfully the violence trend is negative for African-Americans as well, but these routine killings often take place in some of the most heavily gun-controlled areas of the country. Blaming guns is easy, and lets us avoid asking hard questions. But if we want to be honest, we have to ask those questions.

Pointedstick wrote:Realize that you're reacting emotionally to how black and scary those firearms are, and how they resemble the machine guns that hollywood movies show firing endlessly from bottomless magazines. Strip away all the black furniture and you have a fairly ordinary rifle that fires one of the lower-powered rifle cartridges.

I do appreciate the lesson — so keep it coming. But, I'm still having trouble seeing how the scary black faux machine-gun is the same as the less scary-looking rifle. Doesn't the scary black gun hold a lot more rounds before someone has to reload? I could be wrong, but the large multiple-round magazine coming of the bottom of the scary looking gun seems to be the problem in my mind — not the color of the gun.

The magazine seems to give someone the power to take many, many lives in a very short period of time — which seems very problematic.

A gun intended for self defense has a single purpose, to kill an attacker.  The military has recognized that a revolver is not the ideal weapon for this task and hasn't been for about a 140 years.  Why should an individual be required to use a non-optimal weapon for the defense of himself and his family?

In addition, the purpose behind the second amendment is to ensure the citizenry is capable of resisting a tyrannical government, if necessary.  This is supported by countless direct pieces of documented evidence from the time it was written. 

The fact that there have been numerous abuses of power by the government in recent years without armed revolt is not evidence that the 2nd amendment has no use.  Tyranny means different things to different people.  The line at which a person is willing to risk their life and that of their family in armed conflict to overthrow their government is deeply personal.  Very few have reached that point but that is not to say that it will never be reached.  History would seem to indicate that almost all societies will fall into armed conflict and collapse, either against a foreign enemy or due to a domestic uprising.  The 2nd amendment is meant to prevent the first and ensure that the second is possible. 

Some Jefferson quotes for your consideration:

The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.

The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance?

The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions that I wish it to be always kept alive. It will often be exercised when wrong, but better so than not to be exercised at all.

And finally one not relevant to this discussion but which I had not seen before and love:

The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.

Gumby wrote: What exactly do you guys use them for that you couldn't use a revolver for? You cite "defensive gun usage" but I don't see the purpose of being able to fire more than a few rounds at a time to protect your family.

I'm not trying to be rude, but WTF do you need this for?...

For one, you can't silence a revolver. So if you live in a state where silencers are legal, and are willing to pay the $200 tax stamp, you need a semi-automatic in order to use a silencer.

Why use a silencer?

a) If you shoot an unsilenced gun indoors, you will cause permanent hearing damage
b) You'll be able to hear the police coming and not get shot by them
c) You'll be able to hear your family member moving and not shoot them
d) You'll be able to hear bad guys coming

Revolvers cannot be silenced based on their design.

Outside of the silencer reason, I wrote a very long post earlier in this thread explaining why an AR15 is more ideal than any handgun. To summarize:

1) Handguns (both revolvers and semi-autos) can and will shoot through building materials. An AR15 (the scary looking rifle you posted a picture of) will fire projectiles that are stopped by drywall. If you shoot a revolver and miss, it will go through the drywall and hit someone on the other side.

2) Rifles are easier to shoot under stress due to more points of contact on the firearm. This makes them safer as you're more likely to hit your target. You can get a non-semi-auto rifle, but most/all non-semi-auto rifles use handgun calibers which have the previous problem of going through walls. You could probably get a bolt action rifle in .223 (and ream the chamber for 5.56) but that's kind of silly for home defense.

3) The average hit rate of trained police officers under stress is 10%. These are police officers that are on duty, with guns on their hips, and presumably expecting to shoot someone, due to being on duty. That means 10 shots are fired to get a single hit. A revolver holds 5 to 8 rounds. You could empty it with a 10% hit rate and likely not get a single shot on the attacker. Additionally, since it's a handgun, the bullets will go through drywall.

4) A rifle will more effectively stop an attacker. Handgun bullets don't do nearly as much damage to internal organs.

An ideal home defense tool is a 5.56 semi-auto carbine with a silencer and flashlight equipped. It's not like movies and it won't be silent. It will reduce the noise to a hearing safe level that will allow you to hear afterwards.

I find it interesting that most anti-gunners know virtually nothing about guns and don't understand the above facts. These facts are indisputable. I'm not making things up. No one could argue the truthfulness of everything I wrote in this post.

You could argue that people don't have the right to self-defense, or that people don't need as strong of a self-defense, but you can't argue a handgun/revolver is better than a rifle.

Gumby wrote:

Pointedstick wrote:Realize that you're reacting emotionally to how black and scary those firearms are, and how they resemble the machine guns that hollywood movies show firing endlessly from bottomless magazines. Strip away all the black furniture and you have a fairly ordinary rifle that fires one of the lower-powered rifle cartridges.

I do appreciate the lesson — so keep it coming. But, I'm still having trouble seeing how the scary black machine-gun-lookalike is the same as the less scary-looking rifle. Doesn't the scary black gun hold a lot more rounds before someone has to reload? I could be wrong, but the large multiple-round magazine coming of the bottom of the scary looking gun seems to be the problem in my mind — not the color of the gun.

The magazine seems to give someone the power to take many, many lives in a very short period of time — which seems very problematic.

It's not a function of the gun, it's a function of the magazine, which is detachable and can be removed and replaced with another one quickly. Both of the guns can accept all sizes of magazine. But the problem with limiting magazine size is that smaller magazines can still be replaced very quickly:

http://youtu.be/ksZqzPWm7VQ?t=17s

It's not really going to measurably reduce the carnage that a bad person can cause. The problem is the bad person wanting to cause carnage, not the size of the magazine in his gun. He can just carry twice as many magazines, or another gun.

RuralEngineer wrote:In addition, the purpose behind the second amendment is to ensure the citizenry is capable of resisting a tyrannical government, if necessary.  This is supported by countless direct pieces of documented evidence from the time it was written.

I understand. But somehow I doubt a semi-automatic weapon is going to be effective against hellfire missiles and M1A2 Abrams tanks. The 2nd amendment generally seems to be more symbolic than realistic since the citizenry would not be able to resist a tyrannical government that easily outclasses a rough militia armed with semi-automatic weapons.

So, while I appreciate the government allowing us to protect ourselves with firearms... when someone buys a semi-automatic weapon, I honestly don't believe that the owner has any intention of using it to overthrow the government. I just don't believe that's what it's intended for.

Gumby wrote: The magazine seems to give someone the power to take many, many lives in a very short period of time — which seems very problematic.

One could presumably drive a large 4WD pick up truck through the sidewalks of NYC, killing dozens of people in a very short period of time.

One could presumably go to Home Depot with a basic knowledge of chemistry and build a device that is used to kill hundreds of people in a very short period of time.

It's unfortunate that semi-auto firearms could be used with large capacity magazines and reloaded quickly to be used to murder people. However, that's not a problem limited to firearms.

Even if all semi-auto rifles were banned, then a terrorist criminal could use a bolt-action single shot rifle to cause havoc. This person might do something crazy like drilling a hole in a car trunk, hiding in the trunk, and taking single shots through the vehicle, killing people, inducing mass panic, because no one would know when he or she would strike next.

This is actually scarier than a spree killer, because a spree killer will ultimately be stopped within 10 to 15 minutes. Either an armed citizen will take him out or a police officer will arrive on scene and do it. However, with a sniper and a single shot rifle, it could be several weeks or longer before that perpetrator were found.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beltway_sniper_attacks

Pointedstick wrote: It's not really going to measurably reduce the carnage that a bad person can cause. The problem is the bad person wanting to cause carnage, not the size of the magazine in his gun. He can just carry twice as many magazines, or another gun.

That's what the Virginia Tech shooter did.  He used only handguns and carried multiple magazines.  He managed to kill 32 people.  An assault weapons ban would have done absolutely nothing to prevent this tragedy.  The Clinton AWB would likely have done nothing to prevent the school shooting since it didn't ban AR-15's, only certain combinations of mostly cosmetic features.

Gumby wrote: I understand. But somehow I doubt a semi-automatic weapon is going to be effective against hellfire missiles and M1A2 Abrams tanks.

Are you former president George Bush? He also thought a bunch of guys with semi-automatic AK47s would be no match for our army of hellfire missiles and M1A2 tanks.

However, a decade later, we're still in the Middle East, fighting against insurgents armed for the most part with nothing more than semi-automatic rifles.

You'd be surprised what a group of motivated individuals with semi-automatic rifles can do.

RuralEngineer wrote:That's what the Virginia Tech shooter did.  He used only handguns and carried multiple magazines.  He managed to kill 32 people.

Over the span of two hours. Didn't Lanza fire something like 50 to 100 rounds in 20 minutes? I still don't see why anyone needs to fire 50 to 100 rounds in such a short amount of time.

Gumby wrote: I understand. But somehow I doubt a semi-automatic weapon is going to be effective against hellfire missiles and M1A2 Abrams tanks. The 2nd amendment generally seems to be more symbolic than realistic since the citizenry would not be able to resist a tyrannical government that easily outclasses a rough militia armed with semi-automatic weapons.

So, while I appreciate the government allowing us to protect ourselves with firearms... when someone buys a semi-automatic weapon, I honestly don't believe that the owner has any intention of using it to overthrow the government. I just don't believe that's what it's intended for.

Go ask the Taliban or the Iraqi insurgents about fighting the U.S. military without tanks or aircraft.  Non-conventional tactics can be devastating as we've seen in both Iraq and Afghanistan.  The U.S. civilian population is better armed than either of those countries, and there are more of us.  If you think the U.S. military could defeat a civilian force despite being outnumbered potentially 50 to 1, you're delusional.  In addition, portions of the military would defect in any civil war.

As for the motives behind modern gun ownership, it's irrelevant.  A gun purchased as a hobby can easily be used to fight tyranny.  However, the gun that was never purchased because it was banned can't be used to defend anyone's freedoms.

Gumby wrote: Over the span of two hours. Didn't Lanza fire something like 50 to 100 rounds in 20 minutes? I still don't see why anyone needs to fire 50 to 100 rounds in such a short amount of time.

No, you disagree with the reason for needing to fire that many rounds in a short period of time.  We've explained multiple times what that reason is.

Gumby wrote:

RuralEngineer wrote:That's what the Virginia Tech shooter did.  He used only handguns and carried multiple magazines.  He managed to kill 32 people.

Over the span of two hours. Didn't Lanza fire something like 50 to 100 rounds in 20 minutes? I still don't see why anyone needs to fire 50 to 100 rounds in such a short amount of time.

Actually, The bulk of Cho's attack took place over a 10-12 minute time span; there was a 2-hour gap between the initial killings and the majority of them, raising pointed questions about the competence of the university's security policies and first responders.

And anyway, Cho's handguns and Lanza's rifle were all semi-automatic and thus had exactly the same fire rate. Again, it's not about need. I don't need to exceed the speed limit, though my car is capable of it. It's horrifying when Lanza uses a high fire-rate weapon with multiple magazines to murder children, but it's praiseworthy when a shop owner or single mother uses one to protect themselves and their dependents. There are many reasons why a high fire rate and rapid reloading capabilities may be important or useful in a defensive situation. It's all about the person behind the trigger, not the color of the gun or the size of its magazines.

A powerful firearm in the right hands can prevent the deaths of innocents; in the wrong hands, it can cause them. It's the hands, not the gun. The gun just magnifies the intentions of its wielder.

RuralEngineer wrote:

Gumby wrote: Over the span of two hours. Didn't Lanza fire something like 50 to 100 rounds in 20 minutes? I still don't see why anyone needs to fire 50 to 100 rounds in such a short amount of time.

No, you disagree with the reason for needing to fire that many rounds in a short period of time.  We've explained multiple times what that reason is.

I think I've only heard two reasons.

1) To defend one's family — and I still don't see how anyone needs 50 to 100 rounds to defend their family. But, hey, maybe you live in a really bad neighborhood.

2) To overthrow the government — though I don't see how using the Taliban as an example of sane, level-headed, gun-owning role models helps your argument.

But, hey... I get that you guys love your guns. So, I think I'll slowly — very slowly — back away and bid you adieu.

Simonjester wrote:

Gumby wrote:

RuralEngineer wrote:In addition, the purpose behind the second amendment is to ensure the citizenry is capable of resisting a tyrannical government, if necessary. This is supported by countless direct pieces of documented evidence from the time it was written.

I understand. But somehow I doubt a semi-automatic weapon is going to be effective against hellfire missiles and M1A2 Abrams tanks. The 2nd amendment generally seems to be more symbolic than realistic since the citizenry would not be able to resist a tyrannical government that easily outclasses a rough militia armed with semi-automatic weapons.

So, while I appreciate the government allowing us to protect ourselves with firearms... when someone buys a semi-automatic weapon, I honestly don't believe that the owner has any intention of using it to overthrow the government. I just don't believe that's what it's intended for.

insurgent military's fighting asymmetrical warfare have a long history of giving larger better equipped military's a very hard time, also the solders you are talking about behind the hellfire trigger and Abrams steering wheel are American citizens.. many of whom will have the same attitude about tyrants as those fighting them... and last but not least the free market/black market always finds a way, if American citizens need bigger better weapons some how i suspect somebody will finance them being bought and somebody will be ready to profit from them being sold... as long as the threat of a gun behind every blade of grass is out there that purpose of resisting a tyrannical government is served

I'm less optimistic than you that this will be the case. I believe it will be a NATO or UN standing army brought into the US to confiscate privately-owned firearms, if the time comes.

The government won't get US Troops involved because they won't shoot at US citizens. Most US Soldiers are from the "south" and most southerners in the US have strong gun cultures.

What will happen is a large war will occur overseas requiring the US military to go fight in it.

Then NATO/UN will be brought into the US to seize privately held firearms. The French soldier in the Abrams tank, who is used to private citizens not owning guns, will have no qualms about launching a rocket at your house if you refuse to turn over your guns and barricade yourself in.

I'm not saying this is a guaranteed future event. What I am purporting is if the US government decides to seize/confiscate firearms, it will likely happen in the above manner.

Gumby wrote:

RuralEngineer wrote:

Gumby wrote: Over the span of two hours. Didn't Lanza fire something like 50 to 100 rounds in 20 minutes? I still don't see why anyone needs to fire 50 to 100 rounds in such a short amount of time.

No, you disagree with the reason for needing to fire that many rounds in a short period of time.  We've explained multiple times what that reason is.

2) To overthrow the government — though I don't see how using the Taliban as an example of sane gun-owning role models helps your argument.

But, hey... I get that you guys love your guns. So, I think I'll slowly — very slowly — back away and bid you adieu.

Nice straw man there.  The Taliban were held up as an example of a civilian force successfully fighting a powerful traditional military.  No argument was made regarding their cause or motives.

I think we love freedom, particularly those freedoms espoused and preserved in the Constitution of this nation.  I get it that you're ok with removing some of those freedoms.  That's your choice to support that opinion.  I wonder if your willingness to preserve the Bill of Rights is equally weak when it comes to things like freedom of religion or speech?  Are you consistent in your view that the Bill of Rights is subject to the whims of the modern populace or do you cherry pick the rights that are acceptable to strip from the citizenry?

Gumby wrote: 1) To defend one's family — and I still don't see how anyone needs 50 to 100 rounds to defend their family. But, hey, maybe you live in a really bad neighborhood.

Don't get hung up on "50 to 100 rounds". The fact is that detachable magazines that can hold many rounds of ammunition are useful, especially for handguns which TripleB accurately pointed out are harder to shoot and do less damage to humans. There are many many stories of now-dead police officers emptying their 6-round service revolvers into suspects with no results; this is in fact why police officers switched to high-capacity semi-automatic handguns in the 80s and 90s. Private citizens (especially those living in rougher neighborhoods) face the same threats, but typically lack the body armor and instant backup of police officers.

If you're a responsible and moral person, and you've mentally committed to defending yourself and your family should the need arise, wouldn't you want the more effective tools rather than the less effective ones? I know I do. I want the threat stopped ASAP. My thoughts are to preserve the welfare of the innocents, not hamper my efforts to disable the attacker.

Simonjester wrote:

TripleB wrote:

Simonjester wrote: the solders you are talking about behind the hellfire trigger and Abrams steering wheel are American citizens.. many of whom will have the same attitude about tyrants as those fighting them

I'm less optimistic than you that this will be the case. I believe it will be a NATO or UN standing army brought into the US to confiscate privately-owned firearms, if the time comes.

The government won't get US Troops involved because they won't shoot at US citizens. Most US Soldiers are from the "south" and most southerners in the US have strong gun cultures.

What will happen is a large war will occur overseas requiring the US military to go fight in it.

Then NATO/UN will be brought into the US to seize privately held firearms. The French soldier in the Abrams tank, who is used to private citizens not owning guns, will have no qualms about launching a rocket at your house if you refuse to turn over your guns and barricade yourself in.

I'm not saying this is a guaranteed future event. What I am purporting is if the US government decides to seize/confiscate firearms, it will likely happen in the above manner.

you could be right although the police didn't hesitate to confiscate during Katrina and it seems like every federal agency has an armed division nowadays, the best way to disarm is quietly, one gun one bullet at a time through legislative creep, armed foreign troops on American soil would piss a lot of people off including any us soldiers still here...

Thankfully I'll be long dead by then.  The number of people who would support foreign troops coming into this country for ANY reason is miniscule.

No, what they are more likely to do is to ban the sale, importation, and transfer of guns (similar to what's been proposed).  They will make gun shows, gun stores, and any other source of firearms illegal.  They will then set up "gift cards for guns" stations and let attrition do the work for them.  Steep penalties for gun ownership plus the removal of ammo availability would be sufficient to get a sizable portion of gun owners to take the cash payout (see California).  I don't think the will to preserve the 2nd amendment would survive multiple generations in that kind of a situation.

Of course, that assumes that the civil war wouldn't be sparked by these actions, which I believe would be the case.