Question of the Day: Are They REALLY Coming For Your Guns?

Oregon gun confiscation order (courtesy youtube.com)

Hand over your weapons the incendiary headline at bostonglobe.com demands. “Ultimately, if gun-control advocates really want to stanch the blood, there’s no way around it,” David Scharfenberg concludes. “They’ll have to persuade more people of the need to confiscate millions of those firearms, as radical as that idea may now seem.” Only that’s not what they’re doing, is it? Oh sure . . .

There are government sponsored “gun buybacks.” But these are “no questions asked” events. Questions like “do you want to sell us your gun or go to jail?”

I’m not saying it couldn’t happen. Look at  Australia. But I am saying it isn’t happening here in the U.S.

Or is it? New York’s “emergency” middle-of-the-night post-Newtown SAFE Act is de facto confiscation. scopeny.org:

Once registered, the person who registered it may keep the assault weapon for life, but may not transfer it to another unless the person he or she transfers it to is exempt from the law. There are no exceptions that allow a person to transfer an Assault Weapon to an immediate family member. Therefore, the owner of a registered assault weapon may only transfer it to a police officer, a firearms dealer or to a person in another state where possession of the weapon would be lawful.

So, while gun control advocates pay lip service to the Second Amendment’s protection against government infringement on the right to keep and bear arms, they’re constantly looking for ways to deny and/or remove firearms from American citizens.

Ban “assault weapons”! Remove guns from veterans with PTSD!  Remove guns from accused domestic abusers! Remove guns from people the police deem a danger to society!

The majority of Americans subject to existing unconstitutional firearms prohibitions (e.g., modern sporting rifle owners in New York and Connecticut) are simply refusing to comply. They’re practicing Irish democracy: ignoring the gun laws on the DL.

The question is: do you believe there will come a time when the local, state or federal government will “get serious” about gun owning scofflaws — and others they may create — and literally come for their guns? Could you see a time when they’d come for your guns?

comments

  1. avatar FortWorthColtGuy says:

    Yes

    1. avatar TrueBornSonofLiberty says:

      Agreed. It’s not even a legitimate question

    2. avatar Huntmaster says:

      Before that they will just withhold your income tax refund. You won’t be able to renew your driver’s license, electrical or plumbers license. No liquor license or food service license for you! And you can’t register your car, motorcycle or boat. You won’t be eligible for student loans, SBA loans, VA home loans or FHA loans. Your credit cards and debit cards will have problems and last but not least the’ll grab your kids on their way hom from school. After you are found to be an unfit parent. They won’t do this all at once. It’ll happen slowly and in increments. Nobody really wants to hurt you. They jut want you to comply with the law.

      1. avatar Leighton Cavendish says:

        So just tell them you have no guns…all lost or stolen…or you had none to begin with…

        1. avatar John in AK says:

          . . . but your credit-card receipt record, your computerized store-purchase records, your Amazon account, your record ofmembership in any firearm-related civic organizations, your ever having been seen by your neighbor with a firearm or ammunition, the Form 4473 you filled out once years ago that didn’t actually get destroyed and is on file ‘forever’ at your FFL dealer, the electronic record of your NICS check that was never to exist in the first place, all of those tracks and traces that you leave behind living in the modern world are probable cause to a judge or magistrate to issue a search warrant for your property, your vehicles, your place of business, your computer, anything and any place wherein you might have secreted a forbidden item, a record of its possession, and the lack of proof that it was lost, stolen, or destroyed.
          No, claiming a tragic boating accident will not work: “Show us the boat registration. Show us the police report. Show us the insurance claim. Show us the witnesses. Give us the location, date, and exact time. Fail to tell us the truth, and we’ll charge you with THAT. Did you share this little plan with anyone else? That’s conspiracy. Did you sign any document of any kind that contained a knowingly false statement? That’s unsworn falsification.
          The only thing that can be counted on, for now, is general Government indifference and incompetence; If ‘They’ ever decide to go after you, and use even a small amount of intellect and some of the government capability available to them, you are doomed. If they really, REALLY want you, you belong to them.
          There’s no need to be paranoid; Reality is bad enough.

  2. avatar rc says:

    Yep…the next time (not if, but when) the Democrats get control of the federal government. They are going to try it.

    1. avatar Ing says:

      Yep. It’s only a question of how they’ll go about it. Slow-motion suffocation will probably be the order of the day, NY and Californistan style. But you never know…

      1. avatar MarkPA says:

        I think it’s clear that the Antis will pursue an anaconda strategy. Their expectation is that they will arrive at their desired end-point without any sort of final “round-up”.

        By way of illustration, perhaps their end-point will look something like that of the UK. Yes, there are shotguns and rifles for organized sporting activities. However, these are locked in a range armory (in a US version).

        The question we face is HOW to confront this strategy. I propose that we USE the articles and statements about confiscation to “smoke them out” in the forum of public discourse. Moreover, we should ACKNOWLEDGE that ONLY some-such draconian constraint on keeping and bearing could reduce accessibility to criminals and crazies. With a civilian inventory of 1 gun per person, there could be no impact by reducing the inventory to 0.9 or 0.8 guns/person. Only by reducing the inventory to 0.2 or 0.1 g/p will we make it somewhat harder for criminals and crazies to get guns. (Still possible, just somewhat harder.)

        So, Mr. & Ms. America, take notice: We PotG aren’t going there! Not in one step; not in death-by-a-thousand cuts (or squeezes).

        The key here is to communicate that MARGINAL reductions (10%, 20%) in civilian inventories will have NO impact on accessibility by criminals and crazies. There will remain plenty of guns for criminals and crazies to get their hands on (90% or 80%). This is understandable by most voters. Most voters are looking for SOMETHING (ANYTHING) that might be a small improvement. We must disabuse them of false hope in small measures.

        A secondary point is that the goal of MEANINGFUL constraint on accessibility to criminals and crazies could only be achieved by DRASTIC reductions in civilian inventories (e.g., rounding up almost all the guns). And THIS is politically and militarily impossible. American gun-owners won’t submit without a civil war.

        The conclusion – for any rational voter – is that an anaconda gun-control strategy is a non-starter. It CAN’T accomplish anything at the margin; and, the probability of civil war is too high to risk.

        It is NOT sufficient to stop here. Our rational voter is still looking for SOMETHING (ANYTHING). We have to turn the rational voter to some alternative hope. Nature abhors a vacuum ; including a vacuum of hope.

        First, 2/3 of deaths-by-gun are suicides. If we want to accomplish something worthwhile we ought to devote resources to screening for, then treating, potential suicides. In the process, we can also screen for symptoms that suggest homicidal inclinations. The benefits from improving social mental hygiene should justify the social expense. Reductions in suicides and homicides will be a “bonus” side-effect.

        Second, most of the 1/3 of deaths-by-gun are homicides in a few precincts of minorities in large municipalities. Most of these are by felons-in-possession. Voters must demand that governments produce the data of incarceration-time per arrest for felon-in-possession. Only with the data before us can we – as voters – decide whether rounding up illegally-held guns in such precincts is a goal we are invested in.

  3. avatar TrueBornSonofLiberty says:

    Yes. And I’m ready. “It is no longer enough to be willing to fight and die to preserve our rights, one must be willing to kill for them, too”

  4. avatar Joe R. says:

    Are They REALLY selling aborted baby parts for food / medicine / research?

    Are They REALLY globalists?

    Are They REALLY just as bad as POS (D)?

    1. avatar MarkPA says:

      For the sake of discussion, let’s suppose that they ARE really as bad as is suggested by news reports. What could we make of this? We are a “one issue” political constituency; we are only interested in the 2A.

      The answer to the question I pose is to identify an avenue to approaching our goal INDIRECTLY. As a “one issue” constituency we (theoretically) DON’T care what our politicians do, so long as they protect and defend the 2A. (Practically, this isn’t entirely correct, but it serves to simplify discovering a solution.)

      Our target audience is a poly-issue political constituency. They are interested in a large number of individual issues that – collectively – constitute the Progressive agenda. Our message to our target audience must be: ‘Leave our guns alone and we will let you have your Progressive agenda. Threaten our guns and we will destroy your Progressive agenda.’ (The power lies in the 2’nd statement, the threat).

      The Progressive agenda consists of lots of contentious issues; and, We the PotG are divided on most of these contentious issues. I’ll use abortion to illustrate. Our audience might be 80%/20% in favor of ALL abortion rights while we PotG are 80%/20% against abortion at various degrees of gestation; WE are divided. Nevertheless, our target audience (relatively Progressive voters) are BROADLY and DEEPLY disturbed by commercial sale of fetal tissue; it is HERE – a detestable issue – where the Progressives are vulnerable.

      Suppose we PotG identify issues such as this one – commercial sale of fetal tissue. We invest our resources in attacking a Progressive politician on account of his support for THIS detestable issue. Our target politician has to make a choice: forego the modest political benefit of advocating for gun-control; forego the substantial political benefit of advocating for the detestable Progressive agenda item.

      This is a tough choice for our Progressive politician. He MUST maintain solidarity with his caucus on EVERY element of the Progressive agenda; including this detestable issue. As long as we are not calling him out on it (e.g., in town-halls) he is able to dance and swerve around the detestable issue by deflecting attention to the more broadly accepted issue (in his constituency), “right-to-choose” in the case of abortion. But he can’t easily succeed at dancing when we are pressing a point about the detestable issue; one that may cost him enough votes that he looses his election.

      Most Progressive politicians are likely vulnerable on SOME issue that their respective constituencies will regard as detestable. Perhaps it’s commercial sale of fetal tissue in one case; accepting campaign contributions from Harvey Weinstein in another case.

      All we PotG need to do is systematically target vulnerable Progressives on whichever detestable issue we can associate them with. Any issue whatsoever: fetal tissue; sex scandals; trade negotiations with China; . . . We do NOT need to agree – as a block of PotG constituents. By way of illustration, it is not necessary for us to persuade our brothers/sisters/etc. in Pink Pistols to attack a Progressive on his support for homosexual marriage. If this Progressive candidate is running in the bible-belt the remainder of us who object to gay marriage can carry the ball against an Iowa Congressman. Conversely, the Pink Pistols will carry the ball in California and NYC where many bible-belt PotG have lost hope.

      The THREAT, here, is to make gun-control a dangerous issue for ALL PROGRESSIVES. Every Progressive politician who loses (or incurs massive political debts to win) undermines the entirety of the Progressive agenda. Every Progressive – voter and politician in a safe district – must recognize that his Progressive agenda items are less likely to pass each time a fellow Progressive politician is compelled to defend his position on any detestable issue.

      The Progressives only hope of achieving any of their goals will, then, turn on whether they can make their opponents “go away” and stop pushing their various attacks on detestable issues. THIS is the trick. Now, how to implement?

      It is COUNTER-productive to imagine the NRA taking any leadership position in this strategy. To do so would put the Progressives into a direct contest with the PotG personified by the “evil” NRA. For the same reason, none of the other gun organizations with national prominence (GOA, NAGR, CCRKBA) should take a lead.

      Instead, (I think) we need State and municipal organizations to take individual LOCAL leads; e.g., the “Walleye Rod & Gun Rights Association of Koochiching County”. THEY know who THEIR congressman is. They, and their sister organizations in the State (MN) know who THEIR senators are. These organizations – at/near a grass-roots level – can coordinate targets and campaigns withOUT making it CONSPICUOUS that the advocates are PotG.

      Moreover, such grass-roots level organizations can coordinate with non-gun sister organizations; e.g., Knights of Columbus. When Mr. Smith rises to ask about a Progressive candidate’s views on commercial sale of fetal tissue, does he do so as a member of: Walleye R&G Assn; or, Knights of Columbus? Hard to tell, isn’t it?

      Counter-attacking such a strategy by focusing on NRA (GOA, NAGR, CCRKA) would be easy. The counter-attack focusing on individuals with dual membership in various local civic organizations would be nearly impossible. Nevertheless, the Progressives will SOON FIGURE-OUT that the individuals with the temerity to ask embarrassing questions about detestable issues seem to have a common thread running through them; most are members of local organizations named something like ” . . . Rod & Gun Club”.

      Observe that this proposed strategy is NOT an “all-or-nothing” proposition. To succeed it doesn’t need to be implemented successfully in all 50 States or 435 Congressional districts in one quadrennial election cycle. To have its first sign of success it need succeed in just 1 single Congressional district. Whereupon, it’s likely to be applied successfully in a neighboring Congressional district. Then, in that State in a Senatorial campaign; thereafter, in an adjacent State. Since elections of Representatives occur every 2 years, Congressmen are in continuous campaign mode; therefore, the assault on a Representative in one district can begin 23 months before the next election. The assault on the Representative in an adjacent district might be inspired to begin 13 months before the next election.

  5. avatar Joe R. says:

    It’s ok, after they’re done fing with their citizens it’ll be much easier to go in and confiscate Oregon (without filing or asking for any permissions).

  6. avatar Joe R. says:

    They’d have to have 1.5 Million police to stop any one state from coming and kicking its ass and taking our American real estate back.

  7. avatar PeterK says:

    I can’t see it happening. But that doesn’t mean it won’t.

  8. avatar Gman says:

    Virginia is almost lost. The left is pouring out of D.C. and flooding NOVA. I’m sure there will be a time in the near future where this is the norm nationwide and we will all have no choice but to fight. Because that is what it will come down to. 90%+ of NY gun owners chose not to comply. That’s a lot of newly minted felons. And I wonder how that makes them feel. Revolution is coming. The liberals grossly overestimate our patience. We can be pushed but just so far.

    But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security. —

  9. avatar Ed Rogers says:

    It may happen, it may not. I hope it doesn’t but time will tell.

    One of the main reasons why ISIS was able to waltz into the territory they took was a lack of armed resistance.

    The sheeple ( I say this with love in my heart) believe it can never happen here…

  10. avatar TyrannyOfEvilMen says:

    Yep. It may happen and it would lead to a second American Civil War. Even if only 3% of gun owners decide they will not comply to the point of fighting with arms, you’re looking at 3 to 4 million people on one side and at least that many on the other. It would be the end of America as we know it, but that’s what some Democrats truly want.

    1. avatar Gman says:

      Revolution. I do not believe the states will start a war. The People will.

    2. avatar The Punisher says:

      “America as we know it” needs to end. But it need not be through force of arms.

      Texas or some other State needs to get serious about exiting.

      Peaceful secession is a thing.

      If the Fedgov comes in at that point and starts shooting…well…then I guess we know what kind of relationship we’ve been in this whole time right?

    3. avatar DMJ-747 says:

      If you have not read Matthew Bracken’s “Enemies Foreign And Domestic” then you should. While it gets a little far fetched at some points it paints an entirely plausible scenario on how we loose our gun rights.

      Considering how long ago these books were written it’s spooky how factual some of the passages in the book have become.

      1. avatar blahpony says:

        That is a good series. Yes, it does get a tad bit eye-rolly at points.

  11. avatar Gman says:

    I really hate the term modern sporting rifle.

    The prefatory clause mandates we the People be equally well armed to fight for the security of the State. This is a call to arms not to kill Bambie but fight tyranny or invasion. The AR-15, though not a military arm, is the closest thing we have to a battle rifle. Until we finally win back our rights, all of them, and eliminate the unconstitutional restrictions upon ownership of REAL battle arms, the AR-15 is what we’ve got. Sure it’s nice to kill dinner, so was the modern musket. But for those who could afford one, it was the best military grade arm available and not a sporting rifle.

    1. avatar Leighton Cavendish says:

      I got a semi-auto .50…just in case…
      only thing is…it is tough to conceal…LMAO

  12. avatar aircooled says:

    No they won’t come to your door. They will stand outside your polling station to deter you from voting and arrest you if you try to vote.

  13. avatar Noishkel says:

    Of course they are! You don’t have to take our word for it, back in the 90s a set of internal documentation from several of the big anti gun groups were leaked and began circulating a plan to systemically work towards a 100% gun ban all firearms. Starting with background check laws, then targeting of named models of guns, then on to individual features, then towards full bans on all auto loading firearms and finally onto a full 100% ban. The Clinton era ‘Brady law’ and the AWB was literally just the first two steps towards this.

  14. avatar former water walker says:

    Hmmm…New Orleans ring a bell?!? They’ll damn well try. And I live in Illinoisistan where my so-called “rights” rest on a demonrat thread. They can have my minor collection one trigger pull at a time…

    1. avatar Gman says:

      I think that in the post NOLA Katrina world, most of us will have a completely different posture for any “authority” in a disaster scenario. I think one might start seeing yard signs.

      We are safe, you are not. Stay away.

  15. avatar jwtaylor says:

    Can I reasonably see a path to the federal government signing an unconstitutional law for the purpose of confiscating commonly and lawfully owned firearms? Yes. Of course.

    Can I reasonably see a path to where those firearms are actually confiscated, or any serious attempt at confiscation occurs where I live? No, I can’t.

    The only local law enforcement we have is a Constable, the Sherriff is a solid 45 mins away at best, and in a different town. There is no city Police Department. The state police that live in my area, as well as constable, and a few sheriff’s deputies shoot quite often at my house. I actually had a new “neighbor” call and raise a concern with the sheriff that someone was shooting fully automatic weapons nearby. The sheriff’s office assured them that it was legal, and that they already knew about it. They should, two deputies were doing the shooting. They are all at least as vehement in their support of our rights guaranteed under the second amendment as I am. And a few of them have the “I wish a MF would” attitude when it comes to confiscation. This is the culture here. It is a culture that has existed before the US existed, it’s not going anywhere, and we aren’t alone.

  16. avatar Aaron M. Walker says:

    The usual “Divide and Conquer”. Effectively separate, other firearm owning US citizens from others. Criminalize, or Deprive them if their rights. It will now be up to local/state police to become draconian and violate the Bill of Rights.

  17. avatar Survivordude1090 says:

    Gun Owners grow the food, build the houses, drill for oil, and generally keep the country going weather the Left wants to admit it or not.

    Blatant confiscation won’t happen. Too risky. Their goal is to turn the children of gun owners against them. Control what’s taught in school, teach “Guns are Bad. Government is Good”, and destroy the family by getting rid of the father. They won’t dare try door to door confiscation. They’re playing the long game. I fear they will win in the end. The Second Amendment won’t die overnight. There won’t be some Star Spangled fight for the Republic with The People standing victorious in the end while globalist’s heads are on pikes. It will die with a whimper when it’s all but forgotten by the coming generations.

    I’m 27 right now. I fear I’ll see that day.

    1. avatar KekistaniSailor says:

      This.
      Your theory is the most plausible. All one has to do is look at the propaganda the Marxist teachers put out in the schools about all kinds of things + History and civics getting short thrift, if any coverage anymore. Mao called it the ‘Long March Through the Institutions’.

  18. avatar Garrison Hall says:

    Incremental confiscation—commonsense-gun-control-that-dosen’t-violate-the-2nd amendment—has been going on for quite some time now. The kind of one-party neo-fascist state America’s progressives have planned for us can’t allow individuals to own guns.

  19. avatar Tom says:

    It looks like the left has finally shown their hand as to supporting violence to enforce bans. And the fact that its acceptable for government to use violence if the goals are desirable.
    Some on the Globe website made the suggestion to make gun possession a felony. Do they not understand or care that it costs over 100 million dollars just for one prison. And what about the social impacts on families? You can be sure there will be more demands on programs like food stamps, Medicaid and the foster care system. And what about those who are released from prison? They will not be able to provide for themselves or their families. The anti gunners have no clue as to unintended consequences.
    Just the talk of confiscation will only harden attitudes and stiffen resolve.

    1. avatar ironicatbest says:

      Dependance propagates dictatorship.

    2. avatar Andy says:

      How about a felony conviction with a suspended sentence? No jail time, let you go about your live, just now as a Prohibited Person.

  20. avatar Mad Max says:

    One of the ill-informed liberal commenters to the Boston Globe article thought that the Government should be able to confiscate because only 3% of the population were the “gun nuts” that owned 1/2 of all guns in the United States.

    Let’s say the commenter is correct about the 3%. That would be a force of nearly 10 million; which wound be larger than all of law enforcement and active duty military combined (and I think about 50% of law enforcement and the military are members of the 10 million).

    I think it would actually be a force of 30 million and the Government won’t stand a chance.

    Actually, the way I see it playing out is that the slave States will attempt some small scale confiscation but the Supreme Court is going to rule substantially in our favor over time. The slave States will then, due to this issue and several others, attempt succession from the Union. Some of the States will divide into multiple States and we’ll probably kick the fragmented States that want to succeed out of the Union (tell ’em don’t let the door hit them in their arse on their way out).

  21. avatar Darkman says:

    Sign outside my property reads: Premises Protected by Shoot to Kill Security. Unauthorized Entry May Result in Death. Choose Wisely… As a side not many surprises await those who choose incorrectly. I made my choice long ago and will live or die as need be.

  22. avatar WI Patriot says:

    “Question of the Day: Are They REALLY Coming For Your Guns?”

    Well I don’t know, but what I do know is that after hurricane Katrina, they(LE) went door to door confiscating firearms, it’s happened before, and it could happen again…

    1. avatar Leighton Cavendish says:

      They never tried that in Texas or Florida..,.LOL

  23. avatar Mad Max says:

    While wearing my tin foil hat, it dawned on me that maybe the Boston Globe was actually doing fundraising for the NRA with this article.

    It will certainly help. The Boston Globe just proved the NRA’s point.

  24. avatar ATTAG Reader says:

    At some point the D’s will win the Presidency and the Congress. It is looking more and more like 2020 what with both Trump and the RINO’s in Congress showing themselves as idiots and slaves to the filthy rich and sell-outs against the middle class. With Sanders’ success it is obvious that the D’s will go openly Socialist with candidates such as Warren, Cuomo, Newsome, and Harris drooling at the possibilities. If elected, they and the D Congress will make it their mission to continue to steal from the middle class, just for different recipients, while punishing gun owners, the Devil-incarnate NRA, all heterosexual males (Devil incarnate), etc. who dared to vote against Queen-in-Waiting Hillary. Would they confiscate the millions of non-registered firearms, purchased second-hand outside of an FFL? They couldn’t. Will they ban “assault rifles”, semi-auto pistols with more than 10 rounds, and private sales without background check therefore creating records for future confiscation? Absolutely. Will they continue to indoctrinate children in schools? Absolutely. Will they run stings against otherwise law-abiding private sellers soon to be labelled as felons? Absolutely. Will they run NSA searches against all of us that post or read this site? Without Question.

  25. avatar Mark Kelly's Diapered Drooling Ventriloquist's Dummy says:

    The Libs/Progs aka Democrats (Marxists/Leninists/Trotskyites) seem to be hankering for a “Mag Dump Heard Around The World”.

    The Left best prepare itself to hear an updated rendition of “The World Turned Upside-Down” as law-abiding Americans will not as forgiving to the totalitarians as Gen. George Washington and his troops were at Yorktown and this time around we don’t need the French to be victorious.

    1. avatar KekistaniSailor says:

      Bing Boom Bam!

  26. avatar GS650G says:

    When they go for it they will use the military to do it. Forget laws against it, the states will start with cops, then national guard, and up with the 5 branches. The big question is will the troops follow through and will the required support systems be in place to be successful?

    1. avatar Bob says:

      No, in most of the country, the cops and military will not follow through. See the way the local police and sheriffs are not enforcing the SAFE Act. Eventually, the law makers will have to repeal their confiscation laws, because they will not be able to enforce them.

  27. avatar Crabbyoldguy says:

    They won’t come for your guns. They’ll pussy out and make somebody else do it.

  28. avatar Darkman says:

    Remember as good as our military is they can’t win a war against gorilla tactics. Not because they aren’t good enough. Because of the political leadership can’t stand the heat of collateral damage(i.e.) civilian casualties. The powers in government have caused this country to loose every conflict we’ve fought since WWII because of their weak stomach for death. If the SHTF and they do attempt to confiscate firearms. All that needs to be done to defeat them is leave large body counts everywhere. Charlie realized this in Vietnam. The NoKo’s and Chinese realized it in Korea. The Islamic terrorist are using it now. Look how leaders all over the world are capitulating to Islamic groups in order to appease them to stop the killing. As long as politicians control the military it’s effectiveness will be greatly diminished due to the inability of the politicians to stomach the carnage of war. Keep Your Powder Dry.

  29. avatar raptor jesus says:

    When they did it in NYS the response from everyone else was “Oh well, glad it wasn’t me. Why don’t you abandon your prosperous small business, abandon all your friends, pack up and move?”

    Can’t wait to see what happens as it cascades across the country.

  30. avatar DUG says:

    If by “yours” they mean all citizens that do not have political connections or are part of a powerful lobby, then YES, yes they are.

  31. avatar Jim Bullock says:

    “Ultimately, if gun-control advocates really want to stanch the blood, there’s no way around it,” David Scharfenberg concludes. “They’ll have to persuade more people of the need to confiscate millions of those firearms, as radical as that idea may now seem.” Only that’s not what they’re doing, is it? Oh sure . . .

    Fascinating how even in the wake or a couple more known prohibited whack-jobs doing violence with guns, they keep talking about “gun control”, not the whack-jobs of the violence.

    It’s almost like confiscating guns is the goal, and the other things just pretense.

    Naaah. That’s crazy talk.

  32. avatar Jimmy Bobby says:

    Just thought I would point out that it’s the 14th admendment to the Constitution, not the 14th admendment to the Bill of Rights.

    Kinda looks bad when you can’t get that right…

  33. avatar Wally1 says:

    It’s one thing to create a new law, it’s another thing to try and enforce it. Rural police, sheriff departments will not enforce these new confiscation laws. In the Larger metro areas (Eastern cities) after the first 100 gun fights where the citizens are better armed and trained than the police, no one will be coming for your guns.

    It’s not the guns, it is societal decay that is the problem. It will come to a head. A few of us are prepared, Get a lawn chair, a nice scotch and watch America burn. I believe that gun confiscation will lead to civil war.

    1. avatar TrueBornSonofLiberty says:

      What the elitists fail to realize is that confiscation will initially lead to an insurgency. It’s one thing fighting thousands of miles away, it’s completely a different story when the insurgents share the same soil as the elitists who give the orders. Sure, you could fight the ones who stack up at your front door. Or, instead, you could arrange a small assault team and and attack the person who gave the orders, in his home, in the middle of the night, while he sleeps next to his wife and down the hall from his children. It will only take a few of these missions before their successors realize that the geographical proximity makes giving similar orders a hazard not worth repeating. “It is no longer enough to be willing to fight and die to preserve our rights, one must be willing to kill for them too.”

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email