Tampa Bay Times: Time for Confiscation!

Gun show guns (courtesy tampabay.com)

An unanswered question in the Florida gun debate: What to do with existing guns? That’s the scary ass headline hovering over a tampabaytimes.com article written in the aftermath of Florida’s new gun control legislation. The implication is clear: Dems don’t think it’s enough to ban “assault weapons” (which the new bill does not do). Something must be done to disarm MSR-armed civilians. No really . . .

When the Senate debated SB 7026— the gun legislation that just landed on Gov. Rick Scott’s desk — Sen. Linda Stewart, D-Orlando sponsored an amendments that would have banned the “sale or transfer” of certain assault weapons. Under the proposal, Floridians would have had until July 1, 2019, to obtain a certificate of possession or remove their assault weapon from the state.

A policy like that would pose logistical challenges, experts said.

“If all gun sales were banned tomorrow, there’d still be plenty of guns in the U.S. in 25 years,” Jay Corzine, a professor of sociology at University of Central Florida said. Corzine researches the impact of different weapon types on mass shootings. He added that such a ban would likely be subject to legal challenges.

“Once guns are out in circulation, it’s very difficult to bring them back,” said Jaclyn Schildkraut, an expert on mass shooting research and an assistant professor of public justice at the State University of New York at Oswego. She noted that many gun control measures would punish law-abiding gun owners while likely doing little to deter criminals — who commit all mass shootings — from obtaining weapons.

Thank you for that rational and realistic analysis. Precisely the kind of logic that Florida Democrats are happy to overlook. Or, worse, ignore . . .

Those factors put Florida Democrats in a tough spot. But Rodriguez said the scale of the challenge shouldn’t be an argument against addressing it.

“There are all kinds of ways of dealing with the fact that, yes, these weapons are very prevalent right now,” Rodriguez said, citing programs like gun buybacks. “It’s a question of the state dedicating resources to a problem.”

Those are the most chilling words I’ve read in a long time. The article’s closing quote from Schildkraut isn’t quite as bad, but it’s bad enough.

Even if new laws aren’t the answer, Schildkraut said, “Our job in society is to make (mass shootings) more difficult, not to make (them) easier.”

As far as gun control advocates are concerned, even if gun control doesn’t work, it works! As long as it puts Americans on a slippery slope to confiscation. In case you didn’t know.

comments

  1. avatar Philthegardner says:

    I think that a law should be passed making legislative attempts to circumvent basic human rights as punishable by a minimum of 5 years in jail and permanent disqualification from holding public office.
    THAT will make the people safer.

    1. avatar Rincoln says:

      You, sir, are too kind to these traitors

      1. avatar Ed Schrade says:

        Remove their citizenship and deport to Venezuela.

    2. avatar Flinch says:

      “Once guns are out in circulation, it’s very difficult to bring them back,” said Jaclyn Schildkraut, an expert on mass shooting research and an assistant professor of public justice at the State University of New York at Oswego. She noted that many gun control measures would punish law-abiding gun owners while likely doing little to deter criminals — who commit all mass shootings — from obtaining weapons.

      Thank you for that rational and realistic analysis. Precisely the kind of logic that Florida Democrats are happy to overlook. Or, worse, ignore . . .
      ——————————————

      But in reality, you cannot hold one aspect of society constant while completely changing other aspects. If there was a ban on new AR15s only, then that entire sector of gun industry would change. ARs for sale would become collectors items, and the prices would skyrocket. Thus nobody new could get one without significant financial capitol or connections. Hence the MAC10 in Columbine. Shootings would happen with other “assault” firearms. So there is reason for change, but the situation immediately changes as well.

      Faulty logic like Schildkraut’s also skews the gun control argument into a corner of no return. Complaining that no law can do any good is a statement that upends civil society and cuts to the very core of a democratic republic (or whatever you want to call America). Rubio stumbled on this illogic as well.

      Got to be careful what you support and promote because as Stormy showed trump, sometimes it sucks and sometimes it bites.

      1. avatar Jormungand says:

        On the whole, your response is well written (@Flinch) sir. However, there was one error that though small is important. The USA is not a Democratic Republic. That is an oxymoron. Democratic or Democracy is defined as “Rule by the majority”. That is technically not true here in the USA. Rule of the majority has many flaws. If you want a prime example, look at Ancient City-State of Athens.

        In a Democracy or Democratic system as long as the majority want something it is done. Even if it is insane when analyzed critically. For example, if the USA was a democracy, the majority of the citizens voted that all Caucasians must give up their houses to minorities. Guess what that is what happens! No recourse.

        In actuality, the USA is a Constitutional Republic. This is completely different than the previous. Constitution is a contract between the people and the government. Stipulating duties, responsibilities and authority to each party of the contract (people & government). It also like all legal contracts stipulates the limitations with regard to their duties/responsibilities/authority for both parties. Republic is a form of government that is representational but not based on a pure majority vote. Instead, a republic is meant and designed that all groups have equal representation under the law. (Electoral College would be an example of how this is done). In ancient rome, best example prior to the USA it is done differently. Senators were evenly divided between the aristocrats and the plebs. Plebs are the common folk.

        I hope that explains the error of describing the USA as a “democracy”.

        1. avatar John in Ohio says:

          Great comment.

          “Constitution is a contract between the people and the government.”

          Actually, it’s not even a contract. I guess, if anything, it is a charter. The document specifies what privileges are afforded government and outlines some responsibilities of government. There are no duties of the individual, as far as I’m aware.

          I hesitate to call the Constitution a contract between the people and the government (although I used to) because that blends too easily into the Social Contract; which is a load of nonsense.

        2. avatar California Richard says:

          All the paper and ink in the world doesn’t stop violent criminals any more than it would stop people from screaming for the government to take their rights away and the government obliging them….. in the end, its people with guns who are the final say in what happens, wheather those people are citizens, government drones, or (like most people) reluctant fence sitters (cops, troops, armed citizens, etc) who are just trying to get by as best they can without rocking the boat. Ideas and values are what make that paper and ink mean anything, and gun are what give those ideas teeth.

    3. avatar nativeson says:

      Great suggestion. To which I would add – confiscate the presses of the Tampa Bay Times and any other media outlet which advocates for the violation of an unalienable right.

      1. avatar Vince says:

        Molotov isn’t an assault weapon.. Neither is exposing these anti american scumbags for breaking constitutional law… These politicians are socialists and enemies of free America… Period!!!

      2. avatar Eric in Oregon says:

        “confiscate the presses of the Tampa Bay Times and any other media outlet which advocates for the violation of an unalienable right”

        o.O

    4. avatar Publius says:

      I say minimum 10 years in general pop prison, banned from ever holding any government job (elected or otherwise), and forfeiture of all financial assets to be put towards paying down the national debt.

    5. avatar Eric in Oregon says:

      Add in a diversion program for first time offenders and I’m with you. I honestly think many of these people are well meaning but don’t realize what they’re doing.

    6. avatar burley says:

      it’s long past time to show these traitors precisely why we have the 2A. We The People must enforce the law, the government clearly isn’t going to do it.

    7. avatar Fuck fl says:

      That’s like arguing the banning of swimming pools and vehicles, which kill more children in your state. It most likely boils down to Floridians just suck. They suck they suck they suck. Anytime you hear about some crazy asshole, they are always from FL. FL you suck

      1. avatar Lurker says:

        The problem with Florida isn’t NATIVE Floridians, but is with the “imports” from the northeast and Canada bringing their liberal ideas and agenda to the state. We lived there for a decade, and found native Floridians, for the most part, decent hard working folks. We got sick of the liberal imports, especially snowbirds, pushing their liberal agendas down everyone’s throats. There are Canadian snowbirds DEMANDING, and lobbying for universal healthcare, to be paid for by US! And, this anti-gun push has come from the northeast and Canada.

  2. avatar Tim says:

    I, for one, am getting pretty excited about this “California secession” thing.

    Please, please God, help this to happen!

    1. avatar Mack Bolan says:

      Lets work on building a southern wall and repatriating that lot, before we build a western wall and send all former Californians back to their socialist homelands.

    2. avatar TexTed says:

      California/NY/NJ secession is the only way to put a stop to the insanity.

      We are not “one country” and “one society” anymore. Why not just recognize it, and get on with life?

      I’m good with TEXIT or CALEXIT, either way. But cramming us all under one roof when we’re fundamentally idealogically incompatible, is only going to end in war someday.

      1. avatar GunDoc says:

        Actually, the solution is simpler than anyone realized before.

        Simpler than City States for leftist population centers.

        Far simpler (and less bloody) than secession.

        Simply change the electoral college law from a “winner takes all” to each electoral vote in each congressional district going to the candidate that won.

        This is similar (but in a completely different way) from a law that is being pushed by leftists, which would give the electoral votes of a state to the candidate that won “the popular vote.”

        This change (which is already on the books in Maine, where their votes can be split), would return some semblance of balance to the system. The founders instituted the electoral college specifically to prevent large population centers (New York and Virginia) from wielding all the electoral power. California manages to do this anyway, which has subverted the system.

        Going with a district by district method would return to the original intent (many smaller entities, each with a a voice). Look at the county by county map of the country after the last election. California would have had about ten blue electoral votes, and the rest would have been red.

        This is a solution. It is achievable and attainable, within the system that already exists. No messy Constitutional amendments or bloody separations necessary.

        1. avatar MyName says:

          I have suggested something similar – In essence, since the massive growth in statehood has ended, state boundaries have become geographically fixed with little attention payed to the population within those boundaries. If state populations had an upper limit – say 2 million people for arguments sake, then we would have around 165 states instead of 50 and voting power would be more equitably distributed.

  3. avatar Esoteric Inanity says:

    The real elephant in the room: Registration before confiscation, hence UBCs are back up for discussion. Hasn’t anyone heard about “improved background checks” being discussed lately?

    Manchin-Tooney is being resurrected in the legislature. Trump is touting better background checks. Even the NRA is shying away from what this truly means. Fix NICS is just a facade for UBCs if a watchful eye isn’t kept.

  4. avatar Marcus says:

    Yea good luck with that there is a reason its called the Gunshine state!

    1. avatar Jonathan-Houston says:

      Yeah, there sure is, and that reason was that back in 1987 when Florida became the first state in the nation to offer concealed carry licenses, Florida had balls. That was a long, long time ago and, sadly no longer applies.

      State nicknames can become inapplicable over time. Sometimes, they can become laughably anachronistic, like Connecticut “the Constitution State.” Then again, others seem to have enduring relevance, like “Floriduh” and California: the land of fruits and nuts.

      1. avatar Ed says:

        “…obtain a certificate of possession or remove their assault weapon from the state.”

        Doesn’t sound very like there is very much Gunshine down there now. We need to start putting state politicians who try to pass unconstitutional laws under armed citizens arrest and deliver them to federal buildings to face tyranny charges. Period.

        1. avatar Keith says:

          The confiscation thugs are immigrants from the Northeastern States where the word gun is a horrible word and where the mere presence of one in the room will result in multiple deaths!! The confiscation was for all things semi automatic with detachable magazines and everything California!! Dems are pissed they didn’t get the ban put into law!!! They intend to try for a Special Session because Governor Scott who is now running for US Senate isn’t happy with the bill that passed. It is on his desk to sign or veto!

        2. avatar Ed says:

          Keith, pretty funny that I live in the northeast..in a CONSTITUTIONAL CARRY state next to two other constitutional carry states. Just because massholes connecticunts and slow islanders are for the most part ignorant liberal doushebags, the BIG states in New England ( N.H. ME. And VT.) are among the most gun friendly states in the Nation…hands down. We worry just as much about the morons from N.Y. and MA. moving here and ruining our way of life.

      2. avatar Defens says:

        Just a point of clarification. I had my first concealed pistol license – issued by the state of Washington – in 1980 or so. Long before Florida adopted the concept.

  5. avatar When Bullets Collide says:

    It’s easy to propose nonsense when you have no chance of passing your bill. Sort of like RINO’s constantly passing Obamacare repeal while Obama was president. Crickets once Trump took over. I’m not going out on the ledge with the inevitable few of you guys.

    1. avatar Stereodude says:

      You must have missed it with all your Fudd’ing… They have repealed the individual mandate.

      1. avatar William B says:

        And that’s all they repealed. The requirement to cover preexisting conditions, the massive recordkeeping burden on employers, and all the rest are still there. All that’s been eliminated is the requirement that everyone have coverage. End result is, hundreds of thousands now can go without coverage, and if they get sick, they can sign up. That’s not how insurance is supposed to work, so the end result of this plan full of credits but fewer debits, is that premiums are going to increase even more than before, combined with ever greater deductibles and copays.

        No the repeal that happened was not even good news, except for the people who don’t want to buy health insurance.

  6. avatar Omer says:

    Easy.

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

    1. avatar John in Ohio says:

      In the course of human events, it has been demonstrated that sometimes “come and take them” isn’t enough and “go and show them” is required.

      1. avatar burley says:

        indeed.

  7. avatar RV6 Driver says:

    They’re just throwing crap up against the wall to see what sticks. What we’re seeing is meaningless feel good legislation with absolutely no enforcement strategy in place.

    Btw Florida is one of the most heavily armed states. Good luck with confiscation day…

    1. avatar Just Sayin says:

      “Btw Florida is one of the most heavily armed states. Good luck with confiscation day…”

      And, BTW, well maintained and trained militias are abundant here as well.
      That thought alone should be bring a moment of sanity back to any notion of confiscation. I am sure that any such “confiscation day” would be monikered with a far more ominous name if it were to occur.

      1. avatar BehindEnemyLines says:

        Day of the bloodied limousines is more like it. Whenever some idiot with no knowledge of military history starts spouting off about how rifles are useless against tanks, I point out how they’re still quite effective against the luxury automobiles tyrants usually ride around in.

      2. avatar BehindEnemyLines says:

        Day of the bloodied limousines is more like it. Whenever some idiot with no knowledge of military history starts spouting off about how rifles are useless against tanks, I point out how they’re still quite effective against the luxury automobiles tyrants usually ride around in.

  8. avatar Bloving says:

    Hey! GMAN! If youre out there, follow that link so you can cut, copy and paste that thing of beauty you posted yesterday to their comments!
    Artwork like that should not be confined solely to TTAG, it must be shared with the world.

    1. avatar Gman says:

      It’s been on the web for years. Not my original. Just search 72 killed.

      1. avatar burley says:

        This:
        https://www.americangrit.com/2016/06/21/72-killed-resisting-gun-confiscation-boston/

        Since when do Americans opposed to taxes constitute “radical”?!

        Need this to happen more often. Stuff like this and the Battle of Athens…

        1. avatar William B says:

          I have a copy of that text from about five years ago, I think. Original author was already unknown to the site where I found it. Every so often I encounter someone who needs to be reminded why we really have the 2nd Amendment. Not for hunting and not [just] for keeping ourselves and loved ones safe from ne’er do wells, but to stop the next tyrannical government’s excesses.

  9. avatar WARFAB says:

    Welcome to New Yorkistan.

    The SAFE Act was passed 5 years ago and bans the sale or transfer of “assault weapons”. All “assault weapons” were supposed to be registered with the state by a certain date, but about 95% of the owners of such rifles decided to say FU to the state instead.

    1. avatar Icabod says:

      The SAFE Act estimated that 1,000,000 “assault weapons” were in New York. When people asked the numbers registrated, the state refused to say. After a two year court battle, the state was ordered to release the numbers, it was discovered that only 44,000 had been registered! Worse, as it’s now time to renew the registrations it found that only 20% of the guns are being renewed.
      Should registration/ confiscation be tried there is no doubt similar results will be obtained. Worse, to go in and seize guns, when you don’t know who has them means a massive fascist government would appear.

  10. avatar neiowa says:

    Florida Dept of Tourism

    http://www.visitflorida.com

    NO No I won’t. Screw Fl

  11. avatar Hank says:

    The liberals are finally out in the open about what they truly want. Confiscation. It’s always been about confiscation. Every single gun control law ever proposed has been a step towards confiscation. It’s what they dream about every night. I’m not gonna stress over it. Because they can keep talking a big game about the “right side of history” and “outdated rights” and using “tanks and drones” to confiscate guns. But when the bullets start flying in the other direction, we’ll see what they’re really made of. Come and take it.

    1. avatar Nameredacted says:

      Hear! Hear! I always have that vision of the Australian gun grab, with the stacks of guns being moved around by a scrap metal electromagnet. Do the US gun grabbers for a moment think they can make that happen in the US?

      1. Set up gun collection stations for voluntary turn in – watch those manning the stations to be sniped from a distance, or the whole station being immolated.
      2. Regional collection points – hard to operate a crane, when the operators keep getting sniped.
      3. Door to door – really? Who’s going to lead that charge, Shannon and the Moms?

      If the currently state lie er, goal, is to prevent mass shootings, they ain’t seen nothing yet.

    1. avatar Ing says:

      Looking at that tweet, it occurred to me that the whole gun control premise is a gigantic exercise in begging the question.

      “If easy access to guns is the problem,” they always say, ignoring the great big IF and proceeding as if the question doesn’t matter.

      The real question after the Parkland fiasco isn’t what to do about guns, it’s what to do about the fact that a tiny number of dangerously broken people keep trying to kill other people by the dozen.

      Giving more authority to a different bunch of dangerous people (i.e., government authoritarians) who historically have killed by the million is an incredibly stupid answer to the wrong question.

      1. avatar John in Ohio says:

        +1

        “what to do about the fact that a tiny number of dangerously broken people keep trying to kill other people by the dozen. ”

        (I know that you are aware) It’s the same solution since the beginning of human existence. Be armed, be aware of your surroundings; of course. 🙂

      2. avatar burley says:

        the other question is why to we keep funding ineffective law enforcement?

      3. avatar MyName says:

        Exactly! I’ve been harping on the flawed premise for a while now. The antis usually just skim past the “IF” availability part and go straight to the proposed solution to availability. We, as POTG, need to continually point out the flaws in their premise that, somehow, all the guns, and gun owners that are not involved in crime somehow contribute to the crime.

        This premise, cannot be reasonably supported in a country with the vast quantity of guns we have. Antis will, and do, ask, “Then why do we have a higher volume of gun crime than other countries?” I reply, “Not per gun, we don’t.” Less than one tenth of one percent of the guns in this country are used in crime. Stated another way: If just 0.1% of the privately held firearms in this country were used in crimes, we would expect to have between 300,000 and 400,000 firearms related crimes each year – we are nowhere close to that.

        I’ve even heard people say, “Well, 99% of gun owners may not be the problem but we still need to do something.” I tell them that if merely 99% of gun owners were responsible then 3 million people would be getting shot each year. The truth is, 99.95% of gun owners are responsible an commit no crimes.

        1. avatar burley says:

          No per capita, either. Far from it…

        2. avatar William B says:

          I came across a slightly disturbing set of statistics recently. I apologize for losing the source and even the exact numbers, but the recalled essence is this. Only 10% of crimes committed in this country are with legally purchased and owned firearms. The other 90% are “borrowed” or stolen guns. Over 240,000 guns are stolen every year. And it is estimated that the actual number of guns stolen is much larger, as only 40% of the 240,000 were reported by the owners when the guns were identified as used in a crime.

          Kate Steinle was killed with a gun stolen by an illegal immigrant from the car of a U.S. Forestry officer. Former sheriff of Harris County Texas lost his service weapon when he left it on a table in his home–with no security system and the gun not in a safe when he departed for an event. I personally know two people who have had guns stolen from their cars. My friends, a million stolen guns every four years. Guns stolen from our 99% of “law abiding gun owners.”

          Two things. 240,000 gun owners a year, more or less, demonstrate gross negligence. Maybe a few thousand were taken at gunpoint or confiscated by NOPD, but the overwhelming majority, including that Forestry guy, have been careless in the storage and handling of their guns. While it wouldn’t have made a difference in the recent high profile mass shootings, a requirement of a gun safe for anyone who wants to own more than a single handgun or any number of rifles, would almost certainly reduce the 240k stolen guns per year, and that would put fewer guns into the hands of people who shouldn’t have them (and probably are blocked by NICS otherwise.) I believe that every one of the bill of rights come with a responsibility to not cause harm in the exercise of that right. Secure storage is not an unreasonable requirement–and in fact is required the legendary gun owners’ paradise, Switzerland (which is not nearly the paradise we like to imagine, but it’s still better than Newark!) Frankly, I can’t think of a legitmate argument against secure storage of guns. “Can’t afford it.” definitely is not one.

        3. Would a gun being inside a locked dwelling or a locked vehicle constitute safe storage? If not, why not?

        4. avatar MyName says:

          @William B. I agree that 240,000 guns stolen a year sound like a lot and it would be great if everyone stored their guns safely but, that said, 240,000 still only amounts to about 0.07% of the guns in the country. Even if each gun owner robbed only lost one gun, that would be 240,000 owners which is about a quarter of a percent of the nations gun owners. So, even in a worst case scenario, 99.75% of gun owners will not have a gun stolen in the coming year.

        5. avatar John in Ohio says:

          “a requirement of a gun safe for anyone who wants to own more than a single handgun or any number of rifles, would almost certainly reduce the 240k stolen guns per year, and that would put fewer guns into the hands of people who shouldn’t have them (and probably are blocked by NICS otherwise.) I believe that every one of the bill of rights come with a responsibility to not cause harm in the exercise of that right. Secure storage is not an unreasonable requirement”

          No.

  12. avatar Imayeti says:

    After they are done with guns, they’ll start with word processors. Isn’t that the historic precedent?

  13. avatar TStew says:

    “It’s a question of the state dedicating resources to a problem.”

    Yeah, that’s pretty chilling. Glad to know I’m a problem to which resources could be dedicated in order to solve. Equally glad to live where I have the right to own some of the same resources.

  14. avatar John in Ohio says:

    “It’s a question of the state dedicating resources to a problem.”

    A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state… I hope that many are seeing the wisdom in that clause.

  15. avatar Sian says:

    Scott said he’ll be ‘going over every line’ of the bill before deciding to sign.

    Is the GOP playing 4d Explosive Chess?

    I can only hope. I have doubt.

    1. avatar Geoff PR says:

      “Scott said he’ll be ‘going over every line’ of the bill before deciding to sign.”

      There is a second part to that – He also said he would consult with the families of the victims.

      That is *not* good.

      I *hope* someone has whispered in his ear that bill has *problems*.

      If not, it won’t be good…

  16. avatar Jim Bullock says:

    Even if new laws aren’t the answer, Schildkraut said, “Our job in society is to make (mass shootings) more difficult, not to make (them) easier.”

    Here’s a few ideas…

    – Maybe allow arms in the schools, so the targets aren’t so soft.

    – Resource officers that are actual resources.

    – When the cops show up, go in. Suspending people who show up to help, maybe not so good.

    – I’m thinking maybe do something about the guy who said he wants to shoot up a school, before he shoots up a school.

    – How do we make more kids and teachers like the ones who did what they could for their peeps, though disarmed? Or maybe at least not break people inclined that way.

    In general collecting a big bunch of targets – er – people – unprotected, where you advertise that fact, then stopping or punishing the people who try to help anyway – um – maybe a bit less of all that.

    1. Or deploying the National Guard to defend our schools.

  17. avatar Bierce Ambrose says:

    But nobody is coming for your guns. I’m sure I heard somebody say that.

    1. avatar Chris Morton says:

      Anybody who’s ever said that nobody wants to take your guns is a LIAR.

      1. avatar Raoul Duke says:

        When Bullets Collide has been saying that, the site’s very own Fudd. He even thinks his Timney triggers are safe!!

    2. avatar William B says:

      Chris, the whole statement (you usually don’t hear the second part) is “Nobody is coming for your guns [silent] as long as you have so many.” NSSF estimates 5 to 10 million privately owned AR15’s. I can’t find numbers on AK47’s, but I might guess a quarter as many as AR’s. No, they’re not used often in crimes, but they could surely be used by a local militia fending off a constitutionally illegal confiscation.

      No. No one is coming for your guns–not all of them. Just give us your scary black rifles “for the children.” We’ll wait a while before asking for your other firearms with high capacity magazines. Once we see you’re no longer a significant threat, then we’ll come get the rest. We might be socialists, but we’re not crazy.

  18. avatar little horn says:

    glad i dont live in florida

  19. avatar tmm says:

    “Once guns are out in circulation, it’s very difficult to bring them back,”

    Of course, back where? A privately owned company (arms manufacturer) dealt with other private entities (distributor, retail outlet, individual) in the manufacture, selling and purchase of arms. It wasn’t the government’s to “let out” in the first place.

  20. avatar Red Forman says:

    Nobody wants to take your guns. If we pass a law, they will magically go away.

  21. avatar Richard R. Powers says:

    When they peel my cold dead fingers…….

  22. avatar bobo says:

    when I hear Tampa Bay??

    all I can think is Scientologists!

    Hey blue shirts! Your short alien ship is leaving!

  23. avatar Ralph says:

    Come and take them.

    1. avatar Rusty Chains says:

      Along that line, it might be fun to see a law that says that any private party that believes it is up to the task is hereby authorized to attempt to remove firearms from any citizen, but that no publicly employed person is allowed to participate, or attempt to rescue any person attempting to remove those firearms, further no person may be arrested or prosecuted for defending themselves from the parties attempting to remove those firearms.

      If Shannon, Bloomberg, Feinstein want to take the guns they should have to try to take them themselves, instead of offloading the task on some cannon fodder they care nothing about.

      1. avatar Geoff PR says:

        That would be called ‘gun bounty hunters’.

        And they will raid you home when you aren’t there.

        Not just no, but *fuck* no!

  24. avatar Chris Morton says:

    NO, I REFUSE.

    So, I guess they’d better think of something else.

  25. avatar GS650G says:

    If they feel that strong about confiscation they can suit up and try.

  26. avatar Support the Second says:

    It’s time for these AR death machines to go.. they have no legitimate hunting or recreational use, nor are they suitable for self-defense. Let’s get these machine guns off the streets before the NRA kills more of our kids.

    1. avatar Raoul Duke says:

      More people are killed by hands and feet than rifles every year.

      Let’s bound our feet and hands together to stop more violence, for the children!!

      Stop with the lies!!

    2. avatar MyName says:

      If troll, carry on.

      If not, Molon Labe.

  27. avatar Joe R. says:

    Shutter the Tampa Bay Times, imprison the staff and employees. If they’re going to chuck the Constitution, we’re going to chuck it first and harder.

    It’s part of what Soros wants, but he’ll have to hide on another planet after that.

  28. avatar ironicatbest says:

    What to do with the confiscated guns? Shove em your asses and jump butt first off a ledge you communist fuks

  29. avatar glenux says:

    “Tampa Bay Times: Time for Confiscation!”?

    Well if that is true, then it is time to shut down the Tampa Bay Times first.

  30. avatar former water walker says:

    A gun behind every blade of grass…

  31. avatar MyName says:

    It has occurred to me, that were I walking down the street and someone tried to grab my gun, I would consider that an imminent threat of death or grievous bodily harm. Hmm.

  32. avatar GoD says:

    Go ahead and try that and watch the wrath of GOD swoop down

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