Gun Control -> Gun Confiscation

Gun confiscation (courtesy

Gun control advocates want to ban guns. That’s the plain and simple truth of the matter. It starts with “assault rifles” and “high-capacity magazines” and “bump stocks” and proceeds to all civilian firearms. Not that you’d catch them saying that. Well there is a guy . . .

Well yes, that guy. But he’s a YouTube nutter stuck in the 70’s, when men wore mullets and liberals openly called for a ban on handguns. And while his microphone dropping threat to gun owners is worthy of a call to the FBI’s tip line, there’s this other guy . . .

“They want mandatory buybacks, that’s what they push,” NRA spokeswoman Dana Loesch said in a recent NRA-TV appearance.

Loesch cited media appearances by Guns Down co-founder Mark Glaze, whose newer group favors reducing firearm ownership nationally and employs harsher anti-gun rhetoric than established advocacy organizations, in which he mentioned Australia’s forced sales as a possible model. But even Glaze told NBC News that approach was far down his priority list.

“Compulsory buybacks would be a tough sell here, certainly federally,” Glaze said.

Add “down my priority list” to the dog whistles that anti-gun rights groups send to their supporters. Comments like “taking guns out of the hands of dangerous people” (hint: they believe all people are as mentally unstable as they are).

If you want some more between-the-lines reading, check out the rest of’s article Australia’s mandatory gun buyback inspires U.S. activists, but few lawmakers. It’s a farrago of gun confiscation nudge-nudge wink winkery. Like this:

With some exceptions at the state and local level, nearly all policy proposals to restrict certain types of guns include a grandfather clause that allows people to keep existing firearms and accessories. Advocacy groups are wary of feeding accusations that they plan to take guns away rather than place restrictions on sales that would keep them from bad actors. Calls for a federal effort to ban and then forcibly remove private guns have mostly been limited to individuals.

“Some exceptions.” “Mostly been limited.” I suggest a ban on qualifiers used to hide the truth about gun control advocates’ secret desire to disarm their fellow Americans.

Meanwhile, it’s pretty clear where NBC’s Benjy Sarlin stands in this “debate.” As always, look to the last quote for the author’s take . . .

One option might just be patience. Advocates said that restrictions on high-capacity magazines or assault weapons could eventually make them harder to obtain, but only over a long timespan.

Jon Vernick, co-director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research, likened the problem of existing firearms to an overflowing sink that had flooded every room.

“Even if it means it’s going to take awhile for your house to dry out, that doesn’t mean turning off the tap isn’t the right thing to do,” he said.


  1. avatar GS650G says:

    Good luck rounding up 300 million guns.

    1. avatar HP says:

      For what it’s worth, it’s probably double that number.

      1. avatar mandrake the magician says:

        quadruple would be nearer-the-mark;

    2. avatar Ed Schrade says:

      It would be a short career move to be a gun confiscator seems to me. What do you folks think.

  2. avatar ColoradoKid says:

    Go to the UK asshole!! You’ll never get our method to defend ourselves from the likes of you and our government!!

  3. avatar DaveL says:

    Even if it means it’s going to take awhile for your house to dry out, that doesn’t mean turning off the tap isn’t the right thing to do,” he said.

    Except we can’t “turn off the tap”. The closest we can get is to ban the private possession of potable water sources, and place potable water under the exclusive control of criminal gangs, along with the very same authorities who engineered the original flood. Doesn’t that sound like a great idea?

  4. avatar Joe R. says:

    “Gun Control -> Gun Confiscation”

    W O R S E



    KILL A COMMIE FOR MOMMY (IT’S U.S. LONG TERM STRATEGIC POLICY, AND WE’VE ALREADY DEDICATED A SHIT-TON OF BLOOD/SWEAT/TEARS TO THE JOB. So you don’t have to do it too fast, you can take your time and enjoy it without any compunction).

  5. avatar Jim Bullock says:

    Let’s not forget Senator DiFi, “If I could just say ‘turn them all in’ I would.”

    Who else? Help me out here.

    1. avatar TexasGunGal says:

      Difi is not all that popular with her own voters anymore according to recent polls!
      Of course they will probably replace her with a younger version of her. After all it is California.

      1. avatar Raoul Duke says:

        It will be with Kevin “Ghost Gun” deLeon.

      2. avatar neiowa says:

        Actually it is because she is not sufficiently progtards enough for modern Kommiforninan’s. If that isn’t disturbed.

      3. avatar Big Bill says:

        As neiowa says, that particular show of displeasure with Feinstein is because she is not considered as far enough to the left for California. They want even more movement towards total government control of everything than Feinstein has been willing to go.
        That should be scary to Californians.

    2. avatar HP says:

      I’ve always enjoyed that quote.

      To which the response would be, “No thank you, we’ll keep them.”

  6. avatar Philthegardner says:

    Gun control advocates cite that the reason they want to ban AR-15s is because they feel that these wespons were designed only for killing.
    Well, hello… ANY gun can kill. Admit it, even a lowly .22 LR can kill if used properly. So in the end, these disarmament advocates would like to see any gun on the “banned” list because they ALL can kill. They don’t have to explicitly admit it, but total bans and gun confiscation are not exactly anathema to them. More like an aspirational fantasy.

    1. avatar george lortz says:

      Vincent ‘Vinnie’ Antonelli: Richie loved to use 22s because the bullets are small and they don’t come out the other end like a 45, see, a 45 will blow a barn door out the back of your head and there’s a lot of dry cleaning involved, but a 22 will just rattle around like Pac-Man until you’re dead.
      Quote from the movie ‘My Blue Heaven’ w/Steve Martin & Rick Moranis. ANY gun can kill. It’s the shooter, not the gun.

    2. avatar Red in CO says:

      Check the data on the number of murders committed with .22s; it’s a surprisingly high percentage. Most gang-bangers are retards who use any gun they can get their hands on, and know so little that they can’t even be bothered to optimize their ammo or select a caliber based on data

  7. avatar Aaron M. Walker says:

    Wish I could move to another Earth 🌎 like planet without any people….with enough modern-day survival gear to last a lifetime…..

    1. avatar tsbhoa.p.jr says:

      sounds like you’ll need modern day ~inflatable~ survival gear on
      the planet of purely sporting purposes.

  8. avatar uncommon_sense says:

    Here is the crux of the matter: “gun control” is actually people control. As we all know, it is impossible to control violent criminals who do not respond to existing “controls” (laws). The inevitable result is a perpetual cycle where violent criminals continue to harm us and gun-grabbers ask for ever more draconian “gun control” until the only remaining “gun control” available is banning all firearms in civilian hands.

    Whether gun-grabbers realize it or not, they will ultimately demand that government confiscate all firearms.

  9. avatar Bob from Chicago says:

    Funny how these people don’t claim that the first amendment will not work because TV and the internet was not yet invented.

    1. avatar neiowa says:

      As stated by others before – “if they interpreted the 2nd as they do the 1st we all would be REQUIRED to own/carry an M16/SAW/M-28 Davy Crocket”

  10. avatar Mack Bolan says:

    The will to use a gun is more important than the gun itself.

    Go ahead and take the guns, I would wager it wouldn’t be too long before we took all ours back, and some of the states as well.

  11. avatar OPPOSE - HR - 4909 says:

    ANTI-GUN bill to get vote this week says Rep Thomas Massie ; HR – 4909 , is a sugar coated … reworked FIX NICS bill , very bad , pushed by Finestine + Schumer.

    H.R.4909 / S.2495 / “STOP School Violence Act of 2018”H.R.4909 would eliminate funding for metal detectors and physical crime deterrent measures at schools. It would also mandate the creation of “anonymous” reporting systems that could be used for “swatting” gun owners, and additionally would allow for funding of gun control initiatives with taxpayer dollars.

  12. avatar anonymous says:

    Gun Control -> Gun Confiscation

    Can we stop calling it “gun control” and start calling it “gun-owner control“?

  13. avatar Pete says:

    If you think logically this is impossible in the US. Too big, too many people and too many guns.

    As far as confiscation goes that would primarily be the job of local, state and federal law enforcement. Sure they can bumrush people to confiscate guns here and there with swat and militarized police units but not on a mass scale.

    Prepared people working in groups to fight back and in turn “knocking on their door” first would be devastating to an underfunded and undermanned agency going after guns.

    I think back in the mid 90s 2 guys with ak’s and body armor went head on with the LAPD and walloped em. Now imagine instead of 2 guys it was 100 or 1000.

  14. avatar tsbhoa.p.jr says:

    i don’t think it’s necessarily all intended to confiscate, at least not by 100% of the gun restriction voters. many of these doodlewhoppers default to knee jerk ineffective legislation.
    “discussing” in the immediate aftermath of the latest atrocity i was asked, “so it’s okay then, what happened down there?” this from an intelligent reasonable guy. it illustrates how clouded by helplessness it makes some feel. i’m pretty sure he knows i don’t think ‘it’s okay’ so why ask something so dumb?
    the machinations orchestrating these incremental usurpings are definitely understood to be working towards the end game by those with the most to lose.

  15. avatar uncommon_sense says:

    There is a simple way to prove that gun-grabbers want to ban and confiscate all firearms. We should be asking gun-grabbers the following simple questions:

    Mr./Mrs. Gun Grabber, suppose that “assault weapons”, bump stocks, and ammunition magazines that hold more than 10 rounds are banned tomorrow and everyone dutifully destroys all of them immediately. What happens when a spree killer uses two semi-automatic handguns with 10-round magazines to maim/murder dozens of people?

    Of course the gun-grabber will state that we would have to ban semi-automatic handguns and 10-round magazines as well.

    Then ask them:

    And what happens when those are banned and destroyed and the next spree killer uses revolvers or lever-action rifles to maim/kill dozens of people?

    Of course the gun-grabber will dutifully demand that we ban those as well.

    Finally, ask them:

    How far do we go with bans which dial down the capacity of remaining available firearms to harm multiple people? When is the potential casualty count of a spree killer low enough that we can stop banning and destroying remaining firearms?

    This will force the gun-grabber to admit that they want ALL firearms banned and confiscated.

  16. avatar Ralph says:

    And while the leftists are stroking each other over planned gun confiscations, Austin has a serial bomber on the loose.

    1. avatar MouseGun says:

      But bombs kill the body. Bullets kill the soul (sarcasm)

  17. avatar former water walker says:

    Ya’ know I saw a gun “buyback” ad on FB offering 250bucks per gat. I have a shotgun I would gleefully sell for that. In Baltimore I believe…they hate OFWG in Chiraq and they’re CHEAP…😧😖😏

  18. avatar ironicatbest says:

    Ban freedom of speach, it has caused countless deaths. Why doesn’t our government understand this, something must be done. America can never be free until we get some of these death producing amendments out of the Constitution.

  19. avatar Indiana Tom says:

    Gun control advocates want to ban guns. That’s the plain and simple truth of the matter. It starts with “assault rifles” and “high-capacity magazines” and “bump stocks” and proceeds to all civilian firearms.
    Yes. Is this so hard to understand?

  20. avatar J says:

    Please help save our 2nd Amendment rights. Look at these petitions and decide which to sign.

  21. avatar Justsomeguy says:

    “Even if it means it’s going to take awhile for your house to dry out, that doesn’t mean turning off the tap isn’t the right thing to do,” he said.

    Hence my recent article suggestion. I aim to make it take a long time for the house to dry.

    Have I mentioned just how bad I think this comment system is?

  22. avatar JD says:

    Quote “well Mr Heston that can be arranged” Really? How? Is this mullet wearing snowflake going to come and kill me for my guns? Notice he has the comments disabled on YouTube just like all the other chicken shit little pricks who talk a big game about taking guns away from free Americans. Anybody want to place odds on who is alive after the dust settles? This pussy or millions of gun owners that still own their guns.
    I never thought I would live to see the next civil war in this country. Now I’m almost certain I will be a participant. It won’t be a battle to keep our guns, it’s a battle to keep our liberty and that is something that is well worth fighting for. The soap and ballot box have failed. The third option is rapidly approaching and it will be bloody but short.

  23. avatar Southern Cross says:

    The view from a first-hand witness downunder. Australia at the time of the “buy back” had a population of about 20 million (as opposed to the population of the USA of about 300 million), a much lower rate of firearms ownership and a much lower proportional rate of self-loading firearms and handgun ownership as well.

    The next point to remember is the Federal Government was very generous often paying more for used guns than when they were new. And they also paid for spare parts and accessories. This was the carrot. The stick was the penalty of severe fines and long jail sentences.

    The “buy back” was paid for via an indirect tax. When your annual tax return is submitted there a “Medicare Levy” that has to be paid (discounts for those paying at least a minimum in private health care) that is proportional to your income. This was raised from 1.5% to 2% for several years.

    I do not think any of the above would be practical in the USA. Much bigger population, much higher rates of firearm ownership, a much higher proportion of self-loading firearms and handguns, and a reluctance to pay more tax will surely stop any Australian style gun buy back. I think the chosen method will be to “shock and awe” people into compliance. Ruby Ridge and Waco will be like Sunday Picnics in comparison.

  24. avatar mandrake the magician says:

    why link an “article” where no possibility of comments is permitted [?]
    (the NBC article)
    that automatically invalidates any-thing and every-thing the article says;
    two quick points-of-invalidation:
    (a)the ex-Australian Prime Minister that was interviewed (Kevin Rudd) was, in fact, pro-gun and had been the member of a “clay pigeon” shooting club;
    (b)the current Australian gun laws, introduced in 1996/1997 following a highly dubious “mass shooting” in Tasmania, were predicated on a unique set of socio-political circumstances that do not exist and have never, in fact, existed in the US and do not currently exist in Australia nor ever will again

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