What an ill-disciplined and un-socialised lot, you "gun-lovers" make your fellow countrymen sound, IMO, if you really think that "Martial Law" and internment would be required to enforce a perfectly sensible law that these pro-gun, dangerous extremists, should be disarmed, as they have been in other First World nations. There were 10,567 handgun homicides in the U.S. in 1990 but only 22 in Great Britain, before additional British gun control measures (yes, Britain has a smaller population of course, but clearly not that kind of ratio!). The British people, by and large, IMO, do not feel oppressed by "losing the freedom to own guns and to slaughter each other with guns". If we hypothesise that 70% of the current US population are (fairly insanely and) stubbornly "pro-gun extremist" at present, what would be needed then to change their minds? My (friendly) suggestion is to dope the population by re-legalising currently prohibited psychoactive chemicals. "Since most of the explosion of crime in the USA in the last 100 years seems to me to be related to various prohibitions of "mind-altering chemicals", like alcohol, opiates, cocaine, psychedelics and cannabis, the government could legalise and tax them all. Then the general population could get so stoned and would be so grateful that the prohibition was over, they would probably gladly surrender their machine guns IMO."
There are of course other, less pleasant and "morally dubious" ways, of getting the "general population" to change their "collective minds". If after 10 years or so of ending prohibition and letting the population have their psychoactive drugs back, they still wished to be armed, then again there are further steps that could still avoid Martial Law and imprisonment of the remaining recalcitrant hold-outs. All animals, that are amenable to domestication, (like humans, cows and dogs etc.), can apparently be mentally conditioned through the "carrot and stick" approach of behavioural psychological "conditioning techniques". The "carrot" could be called free access to psychoactive drugs but the "stick" would be something else, rather less pleasant. Generally the motto can be summed up as "order out of chaos" or to "shake the kaleidoscope up a bit" and whilst the pieces are still in flux, you can try to reorder the world. The ethics of "utilitarianism" are also that the "end justifies the means" or, "you cannot make an omelette without breaking eggs". If we remember that in the summer of 1941 about 70% of the US population were isolationist and stubbornly not in favour of entering the war in support of the British, what event changed their minds virtually overnight? The attack of Pearl Harbor of course! Therefore, if 70% of the US population currently supports private militias and private gun ownership, a number of dramatic acts of mayhem, by private militias and private gun owners, could be used to reprogram the population to "swing the other way" without Martial Law or concentration camps or overt oppression.
If you tried to force these well armed people to do something you might simply end up with Civil War and millions dead. The absurd idea of Concentration Camps and Martial Law could therefore end up with a lot of people, perhaps millions of Americans dead. However, the sacrifice of a few thousand Americans, in a short period of time, in dramatic and well-publicised propaganda events, could mentally reprogram the stubborn holdouts to see how antisocial the "private militias and private gun ownership" business was. Naturally the sacrifice of a few thousand people quickly, necessary to shock the population psychologically, would be very sad for the loved ones that needed to be sacrificed "for the greater good". However if a sacrifice of say 5,000 lives quickly could then reduce the annual death toll in the USA down from about 11,000, to say a more reasonable and proportional 110 people per annum, think of the thousands of people that will then live in the future?
