Chicago buyback guns
Previous Post
Next Post

By Billy Edwards

Eric Swalwell and Robert Francis “Beto” O’Rourke each proposed radical gun control policies such as gun buybacks on “assault weapons” and AR-15 confiscation as major selling points of their campaigns.

Now both are failed candidates – forced to drop out of the race due to immense pressure, lackluster polling, and pathetic fundraising. Although both are gone, their ideas represent a radical shift in typical gun control policies amongst Democrats.

Ideas matter, and presidential campaigns, whether they’re a failure or a success, offer the best national platform to promote them to the masses.

For years, the staunchest pro-gun advocates have been labeled “fringe” or “crazy” for suggesting that Democrats’ anti-gun rhetoric was merely a ruse for much larger gun control schemes, such as nationwide registration and confiscation.

Law-abiding gun owners were told that they should only take these anti-gun talking points at face value, and not read much into them – they were only something to drum up the liberal base.

Now that the Overton Window is shifting in the Democratic Party, we have one segment of American ideologues that are hell-bent on destroying one of our great nation’s historic liberties. It’s now abundantly clear that so-called “gun buybacks” will play a major role in their schemes to dismember the Second Amendment.

O’Rourke, who established himself as the most anti-gun candidate in the 2020 race, demanded a mandatory buyback on all “assault weapons.” Under his program, O’Rourke would have increased excise taxes on gun manufacturers and fines on gun traffickers to fund his unconstitutional scheme.

Although O’Rourke dropped out of the 2020 presidential race on November 1, his ideas still live on. Other candidates such as Kamala Harris and Cory Booker support the idea of a mandatory “assault weapons” buyback.

For anti-gunners, buybacks are just one of many paths towards their dream of a drastically neutered Second Amendment and an eventual gun-free America.

Commonly implemented for so-called “assault weapons,” a government buyback usually involves law enforcement purchasing firearms from private individuals with the aim of reducing civilian firearm ownership. Of course, the buyback is mandatory, and gun owners are rarely compensated for the actual value of their firearm(s).

Although such a procedure seems innocuous to the common eye, it is simply government-forced gun confiscation by another name.

The mandatory nature of such a program criminalizes the ownership of the weapons targeted by the buyback – and refusal to turn firearms in to the police results in countless gun owners becoming criminals, compelling them to hand over their weapons lest they face criminal penalties.

On top of that, it’s an ineffective tool in curbing gun violence.

Just think about it, what criminal would voluntarily turn in their firearms? Knowing their behavior, they will do whatever it takes to stay in the shadows and make sure their weapons never appear on the government’s radar. The only people turning in their firearms will be well-intentioned, law-abiding individuals.

These buybacks are anything but effective.

Dr. John Lott explains that after the infamous Port Arthur Massacre in Australia, 1 million firearms were turned in between 1996 and 1997 during a mandatory buyback. However, this program did not have any noticeable effect on reducing gun violence.

In fact, private gun ownership exceeded its pre-buyback levels — going from 2.5 million in 1997 to 5.8 million in 2018. Nevertheless, the anti-gun crowd insists we follow in Australia’s footsteps.

In today’s post-fact world, emotions reign supreme while facts are cast aside in favor of misleading narratives that serve an agenda of control and domination.

For that reason, the anti-gun left proceeds more boldly with their gun-grabbing projects as they mislead and shock the public into accepting their unconstitutional schemes – placing gun owners in a precarious position.

Before, anti-gunners were rather dispersed and incapable of organizing effectively, despite the media hand wringing. Now, however, the environment is changing. Supposedly, pro-gun Republicans are slowly embracing gun control, while the media and corporate interests work in tandem to shift public opinion.

On top of that, gun control organizations can count on well-funded Astroturf armies, thanks to the generous contributions of oligarchs such as Michael Bloomberg and George Soros.

Gun buybacks will likely encounter roadblocks, but make no mistake about it, the anti-gun left is playing the long game. By applying relentless pressure, they’ll settle for the low-hanging fruits of rabidly anti-gun states like California. Then they will proceed to states with weak-kneed Republicans, who will likely break, if the pressure is strong enough.

Gun owners would be wise to take these buyback proposals seriously and make sure to discredit them in the court of public opinion and in legislative halls, should these bills present themselves. This is one battle where we can’t afford to sit out.


Billy Edwards is the public policy manager for the National Association for Gun Rights.

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. “Gun buybacks will likely encounter roadblocks, but make no mistake about it, the anti-gun left is playing the long game.”

    Don’t *ever* forget that…

    • Meanwhile, Hillary, yep the one and only, told BBC reporters, “Never say never.” When asked about jumping in to the 2020 race.

      • Perhaps she will, but the formaldehyde is building in her bloodstream and she won’t be able to put her own shoes one anymore soon, let alone hold a pen to sign bills into law. They’ll have to duct tape a rubber stamp to her fist so she can pad her signature onto them.

        On the other hand, she’s a gloryhound and can’t stay away from the cameras for long…like the Kartrashians. So she might simply be spouting off nuggets of hope for her fans in order to stay relevant just one….more….day….

        • I’ve never heard a bigger load of bull crap in my life!…. Everyone knows that Hillary hasn’t been able to put her own shoes on for years!…. and Epstein didn’t kill himself.

  2. “Although O’Rourke dropped out of the 2020 presidential race on November 1, his ideas still live on. Other candidates such as Kamala Harris and Cory Booker support the idea of a mandatory “assault weapons” buyback.”

    I am be sleepy, and unexciting, but can I get some credit, please?

  3. The 2020 Democratic Party platform is to ban and confiscate all firearms, and any who oppose will be rounded up and killed, and any that continue to oppose after that will be nuked. Yet somehow WE’RE the Nazis. Right.

  4. The real question is are Liberal gun owners going to be able to separate themselves from the gun grabbing Liberal politicians they have been voting for, for decades now?

    What will the Liberal gun owner reaction be when a state level (not city level) “buy back” happens? In California? In Washington state?

    • Of course they WON’T! My pretty black wife has seen it all. Me too. Vote dumbocrat,stay on the plantation and demonize Trump who arguably has done more for black folks than ANY president-including Abe Lincoln. I’ve had multiple supposed brown gun owner’s tell me “Obama won’t take my guns” or “It’s raciss to be a Republican”. Or my personal favorite “you a hater if you don’t love our BLACK President”. Oh yeah “the NRA lies about Obama!”…

      • Some people Liberal black or white, are just dishonest with themselves and others when it comes to 2A issues. I don’t just Liberal gun owners at all. And I don’t care what color or religion they are.

        It was Democrats who confiscated the guns of American citizens of German, Italian, and Japanese descent. And then put all three groups in concentration camps for the duration of World War II.

        It was Conservative Republican legislators in California who stood up and spoke out on the record against the Mulford act. They were members of the John Birch Society. They supported the civil rights of the black Panthers to openly carry loaded firearms in the state of California.

        Ronald Reagan is dead. But guess who endorses the Mulford act today in the state of California? Run by democrats. Controlled by democrats? Answer Democrats.

        • Assembly Bill 1591 was introduced by Don Mulford (R) from Oakland on April 5th, 1967, and subsequently co-sponsored by John T. Knox (D) from Richmond, Walter J. Karabian (D) from Monterey Park, Frank Murphy Jr. (R) from Santa Cruz, Alan Sieroty (D) from Los Angeles, and William M. Ketchum (R) from Bakersfield,[5]. AB-1591 was made an “urgency statute” under Article IV, §8(d) of the Constitution of California after “an organized band of men armed with loaded firearms […] entered the Capitol” on May 2nd, 1967[6]; as such, it required a 2/3 majority in each house. It passed the Assembly (controlled by Democrats 42:38) at subsequent readings, passed the Senate (split 20:20) on July 26th by 29 votes to 7[7], and was signed by Governor Ronald Reagan on July 28th, 1967. The law banned the carrying of loaded weapons in public.

          Governor Ronald Reagan, who was coincidentally present on the capitol lawn when the protesters arrived, later commented that he saw “no reason why on the street today a citizen should be carrying loaded weapons” and that guns were a “ridiculous way to solve problems that have to be solved among people of good will.” In a later press conference, Reagan added that the Mulford Act “would work no hardship on the honest citizen.”

          In short, a bunch of Republicans supported the Mulford Act ( a racist piece of legislation as there ever was), and it is true that the current Democratic majority in the state not only support it, but have extended the ban on loaded firearms (unloaded firearms were still legal) to any open carry of any firearms.

          The US applied detention only to Italian nationals, not to US citizens, or long-term US residents, holding a grand total of less than 2000. About 11,500 German nationals or naturalized German Americans were interned, out of 1.2 million. The Japanese were a different story.

        • Thanks for a moment of clarity, Mark.

          It is interesting that when one actually looks at the legislative history, it’s clear that the Republicans were just as involved in restricting Californians’ gun right as the Democrats, Ronald Reagan signed the bill into law.

          ‘Law and order’ Republicans of the 60s and 70s and even the 80s were responsible for much of the restrictive gun legislation, remember, it was Saint Ronald who banNed carrying firearms on federal lands. Of course, this was corrected by Barack Hussein Obama removing that restrictions, authorizing the carrying of firearms by citizens on hundreds of thousands of acres of federal lands in 2009.

          Thank you Barry Soweto for giving us our gun rights back!

        • to Mark N
          Thank you for listing all the 20th century dead white people, including the dead Ronald Reagan, who wrote and supported the racist Mulford Act.

          Now in the 21st century its living white homosexual law makers who have publicly supported the Mulford Act. Like the white homosexual democrat state senator Tom Ammiano. This racist pig white homosexual publicly told law abiding black gay men to not open carry their UNLOADED guns.

          Senator Tom Ammiano also wrote the law making rape victims, stalking victims, and everyone else, wait up to an extra 10 days to get a gun.
          What makes a white homosexual man think he knows better than a woman who has been raped on how she can protect herself???

          As I said before I don’t trust Liberal guns owners. Their color, sexual orientation, religion does not matter to me. They are racist pigs who support a racist gun control law. They have the power to repeal the law.
          And have refused to do so when they were asked.

          The thing about white Liberal gun owners is they are always living in the past. I assume it helps them to avoid looking in a mirror and seeing their own racist gun control believe system. Because they have certainly voted for it.

          You either don’t know, or you forgot and left out an important fact.

          California State Senator Alan Sieroty, Democrat, co-author of the Mulford Act was a member of, the Los Angeles County Democratic Central Committee, American Jewish Committee, the Anti-Defamation League of b’nai b’rith and he served on the board of directors of the American civil liberties Union.

          This why I say the ACLU helped write the most racist gun control law in modern US History. I hold every member of the ACLU accountable for supporting this historical racist gun control policy.

          And why is a racist white jewish lawyer writing gun control laws????

        • to Mark N
          You are like a holocaust denier.

          “The US applied detention only to Italian nationals, not to US citizens, or long-term US residents, holding a grand total of less than 2000. About 11,500 German nationals or naturalized German Americans were interned, out of 1.2 million. The Japanese were a different story.”

          So you believe white Americans of German and Italian descent never had their guns confiscated because of their race, creed or national origin?

          And you believe these same white american citizens were never forced at the point of fixed bayonets into concentrations camps in texas, tennessee, and many other states???

          You are one uneducated Liberal gun owner. Or you are just a liar.

          the World War Two Experience: The Internment of German-Americans by Don Heinrich Tolzmann

          citations and links to books and journal articles on the internment of German American civilians in the United States during World War II.

      • miss leslie took the time to explain that the guy who bit her on the arm did it because of trump. hates his voice like i hate shrillary’s.
        good gal tho. way misguided.

    • I’ve asked my wife those questions more than once…so far, the answer to question 1 is no and the answer to question 2 is mostly silence.

      She really, really, really does NOT want to believe that the party she’s voted for over the past 30 years no longer holds the liberal principles she believes in…that is, if it ever did. She also doesn’t want to believe that the mainstream media isn’t the neutral, trustworthy institution she grew up believing in.

      Maybe when they ban the standard-size magazines for her compact pistol (which holds 12 rounds), or when they tell me to give up my AR-15 and the “high capacity” pistol I carry (she won’t carry hers), then she’ll come around.

      Aside from the weight of tradition, part of the problem is that the Republican party is so astoundingly stupid. I can’t blame her for not wanting to vote for them. She also hates Trump with a foaming passion, and although I disagree on that, I can’t really blame her for it, either.

      The Democrats say they’re fighting for the rights of my gay daughter, but they also want to turn me into a criminal. I say if they want to criminalize my exercise of a civil right that’s spelled out in the Bill of Rights, they can’t be trusted to truly protect anyone’s rights. My wife takes their gay rights statements at face value and says they don’t really want to make me a criminal, and that if they do pass more anti-gun laws, I could maybe comply just a little.

      So where does all this go? I wish I knew.

      • Are you willing to ask the same questions of your party? I did, now I’m stuck feeling ways about stuff.

        • I don’t have a party; never really did. Both of them suck. The stupid Republicans get my vote for now, purely as a practical matter, because they’re the only way to keep the vile Democrats at bay.

      • Where does this all go? Divorce, likely.

        My wife told me she’d divorce me if I voted for Trump again. I’m calling her bluff…

        • Ha! I’ve received a few veiled threats as well, but she’s known for quite a while now that I *will* vote for Trump over any creature the Democrats nominate. It’ll be a bone of contention for sure, but not worth throwing 23 years of marriage away. I hope. 🙂

      • Sincere inquiry, what’s left for the rights of your gay daughter? I am under the impression there is gay/straight parity in all things. All things real anyway. Maybe there’s a paygap or life expectancy or happiness inequality I’m not aware of but those are not real metrics. Now they’re caught up and can experience rights being taken away like the rest of us.

        • That’s my impression, too. We all have the same rights and protections under the Constitution, and putting ever more special considerations into the law for certain special people is an endless treadmill to nowhere.

        • Speaking of pay gaps, there actually is one — in favor of LGBT people. They earn more, have less debt, and have more retirement money than the average American. Lesbian couples have higher income, on average, than any other married/coupled demographic.

          My daughter aims to widen that gap if she can, and more power to her. (I’m sure she’ll be kind to her poor ol’ dad when she’s rolling in dough.)

      • Trump was the first president that supported gay marriage when he came into office. Obama was explicitly against it until the political winds of change forced him to flip. The Trump administration is trying to make it legal to be openly gay across the world. It’s punishable by death in some countries. What are the great national or global policies that democrats have done for gay people? Don’t ask don’t tell? Put special lights on the White House when the Supreme Court does the heavy lifting for you? Democrats “fight” for gay people the same way they fight for black people and women. They just try to convince you the other side hates you.

        • Like many issues, trump just lied about his support during the campaign.

          He made promises and commitments that he had no intention fulfilling.

          The actual record shows he is just as discriminatory as the religious extremists.

          “However, in March 2017, the Trump administration rolled back key components of the Obama administration’s workplace protections for LGBT people.[122] The Trump administration rescinded requirements that federal contractors prove that they are complying with the LGBT workplace protections, which makes it difficult to tell if a contractor had refrained from discriminatory practices against LGBT individuals.[122][123] LGBT advocates have argued that this is a signal that the Trump administration would not enforce workplace violations against LGBT people.[122][123][124]

          On July 26, 2017, the Department of Justice argued in court that federal civil rights law does not ban employers from discriminating against employees based on sexual orientation. The Obama administration had decided that it did.[125][126] In March 2017, the Trump administration rolled back efforts to collect data on LGBT Americans.[124] The Health and Human Services removed a question about sexual orientation in a survey of the elderly.[124][127] The U.S. Census Bureau, which had planned to ask about sexual orientation and gender identity in the 2020 Census and the American Community Survey, scrapped those plans in March 2017.[128]

          In 2019, the Trump administration argued to the Supreme Court that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act does not include sexual orientation or gender identity.”

        • Can you articulate how any of that has harmed LGBTQ, or can you only copy and paste what others have done?

        • Please re-read just this one paragraph:

          “On July 26, 2017, the Department of Justice argued in court that federal civil rights law does not ban employers from discriminating against employees based on sexual orientation. The Obama administration had decided that it did.”

          The meaning of that paragraph is that employers may now discriminate against employees based on sexual orientation.

          Is that not clear to you?

        • If I own a business with employees that have to meet clients, and suddenly one of my masculine employees begins dressing like a girl, it creates a problem for my business. It could become a distraction with client interaction and hurt my business. Just like I have the right not to hire someone covered in piercings and tattoos, I should be able to not hire a guy that dresses like a girl. Could you imagine being in that situation and the government swooping in and saying, nope you have to keep that person.

          With that being said, if your sexual orientation or gender identification doesn’t interfere with your job or your employer’s religious beliefs, then you shouldn’t be fired. This is why protected classes are dumb. EVERYONE should be treated equally. Just like a church is allowed to fire an employee that is screwing around on his wife with other women, they should also be allowed to fire him for screwing around with other men.

        • Dude, you’re right on.

          Miner49er, I think you need to take a closer look at this sentence: “LGBT advocates have argued that this is a signal that the Trump administration would not enforce workplace violations against LGBT people.”

          The only fact here is that someone made a claim about Trump’s intentions.

          They imply that it’s literally open season on LGBT people, but they have no evidence to support it. This is a scare tactic designed to keep people on the plantation. (Those other people hate you…we’re the only ones who will keep you safe.)

      • Its called “pandering.” Government has no business fighting for the rights of any special interests or groups. Especially moreso when they claim that other REAL rights must be sacrificed. Practical laws can only apply to all, or else noone. It is probably best not to cherry pick human/civil rights. Injustice anywhere is an insult to us all.

      • ” I say if they want to criminalize my exercise of a civil right that’s spelled out in the Bill of Rights, they can’t be trusted to truly protect anyone’s rights ”

        Well said. I’ve been using this line of reasoning as a litmus test for years, and people always accuse me of being a one-issue voter. I suppose it’s a matter of me not finding the right way to explain that 2A is not a one issue kind of issue. The fight for 2A is the front line in a much broader war to defend ALL of the rights we have. Either it’s my failure to explain it right, or I’m talking to a bunch of bricks.

  5. Trump’s heroism in ‘Nam, coupled with the fact he’s a self made man, make him worthy of our collective awe, deference and respect! MAGA for 1000 years!

        • There are many Republicans who have doubts about Trump, but he is better than any of the Democratic alternatives. How many middle class citizens really want to see half their income disappear in taxes to fund a socialist paradise where they do all the work and the bums, drug addicts, and illegals get all the benefits? “Income equalization” sounds great when you struggle to pay your bills, but really sucks when the government says that taxing the living s**t out of rich people isn’t enough to pay for their trillions of dollars fantasy land, and the rest of us have to pay “our fair share.”

          I am not affiliated with any party, but I can tell you that there is not a single democratic candidate or potential candidate that I could possibly vote for. It is bad enough when I have to start paying a fine to the State of California next year because I can’t afford to pay a grand a month for health insurance in order to pay for the health care of millions of illegals and drug addicts.

        • Trump is better than any republican alternatives so far, except Rand Paul. Too bad Paul will never make it to the White House.

      • With his incredible courage and sacrifice, President Trump was able to overcome the agony of bone spurs and win a shiny bowling trophy for his prep school.

        Today we will hear testimony from William Taylor, a state department diplomat and Vietnam veteran.

        Unlike Trump, William Taylor only earned his Ranger tab and airborne wings, before volunteering for Vietnam. And in-country, obviously he was a REMF, commanding an airborne infantry company in combat, earning a bronze star. How can we trust anything William Taylor says as a sworn witness in the impeachment hearings?

        What risk or sacrifice did William Taylor make for his country, when compared to President Donald Trump’s incredible record of five draft deferments? Why, that’s even more than heroic dick Cheney!

        • looks like they both kept their eyes on the prize. gosh, one of them is prexy.
          there’s an accomplished taylor round these parts as well.
          and oh, yeah, you whine alot.

        • No whining, just pointing out some comparisons that apparently make the right wing conservatives uncomfortable.

          Donald J Trump, profit over patriotism.

        • It is written, ‘a man cannot serve two masters’.

          “Jesus said “The love of money is the root of all evil”.

        • Profit *is* patriotism. If the God Emperor Trump has shown us only one true thing, surely it is that. Have you learned nothing?

  6. That the root objective of the Democrats is gun confiscation may come as a shocker to Billy and ilk, but it has always been their most dearly held goal. Has Mr. Edwards not forgotten Feinstein’s, “If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States, for an outright ban, picking up everyone of them (every gun) Mr. and Mrs. America, turn ‘em all in. I would have done it.” That was in 1995, by the way.

    • Moore this information by the right wing extremists.


      Our ruling

      Cox said that Feinstein had once said “if she had 51 votes in the Senate for ‘Mr. and Ms. America , turn in all of your guns,’ they would do it.”

      This is an inaccurate characterization of what Feinstein said in a 1995 interview on assault-type weapons. It is clear in context about loopholes in the 1994 assault weapon ban that Feinstein would have liked the ban to apply to all assault weapons but did not have the votes.

      That is a far cry from banning all firearms, and Feinstein has said she supports the right of people to own a weapon for hunting or self-defense.

      We rate this claim False.”

    • Am I the only one who gets sick in the stomach every time I see a “buyback” photo?

      Some of those guns are junk, but there are some sweet revolvers in that pile, and a lot of history.

      • Hipoint carbines are perfect for getting more money than you paid if the state offers an assault weapon rate. Knew a few people that would turn those in and use the extra money to upgrade their collection.

      • All property is public property. Oh and you don’t know how best to use your property so ……..

  7. The left needs to read the second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence, carefully and thoroughly and remember that the reference to a long train of abuses DOES NOT indicate whether it is time or length of the list.

  8. Who the heck in this forum is eligible to vote in any of the Democratic Primaries? A few, in states that allow cross-party primary voting, but not many.

    Does is really matter to us who wins ANY of the Democratic Primaries?? Probably not!! Do you really think there are going to be any pro-gun or even less-than-rabidly-anti-gun Democrats on any ballot above the local dog catcher level?

    No, the Democrat Primaries aren’t even the least bit of a concern to people here.

    What we need to be looking at is the REPUBLICAN 2020 PRIMARY ELECTIONS!

    THAT is where we need to be weeding out the RINOs, especially incumbent RINOs.

    And the time to take an interest in the 2020 Republican Primaries isn’t on primary voting day — the time to get involved (not just interested) is NOW! Get out there and get involved in the local Republican Party. Find and support pro-gun candidates — not just after their name is on the ballot, they need our support now. They need campaign workers, they need contributions, and they need our support. If you really are too poor to kick in a few bucks, and really are too busy to spend an hour or two each week at their campaign office, the fact that you are reading this proves you have time to get online. Fine – if you really can’t do anything else, you can at least “like” the pro-gun candidates on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, etc. You can talk them up with your buddies at work or when you stop for a beer on the way home. Don’t just sit there: DO SOMETHING!

  9. The stated number of guns “bought back” in Australia is too high. The one million was “revised” to 650 thousand. Politicians fudge numbers what a surprise. As the article gets correct there are now way more guns than before 1996.

    The most optimistic estimate is that they got 80% of semi autos with some estimates as low as 40%. In spite of paying well over market value for most things.

    New Zealand is currently offering below cost and so far is at about 18% compliance.

    I can’t imagine the various sections of government having the money or time to do the same in USA.

  10. There’s much more than just the 2A up for grabs in 2020. There is also an assault on the 1st, and other amendments in the BoR, and the body of the Constitution itself that are at risk. 2020 is likely to turn very ugly on many levels and the threat to our remaining Freedoms and Form of Government is coming from many quarters; and not just political ones.

  11. The 2A is the canary in the mine when it comes to the rest of our individual rights. A government that doesn’t trust average citizens with firearms sees itself as their master and not their servant. Our government “representatives” have come to see themselves as princes and princesses who are somehow empowered to force us to live our lives the way they tell us. Our having firearms is a threat to them.

  12. built my own ARs, all the State of California will be able to require that they “buy back”when they pass that law (it’s coming…) will be stripped lowers. The lowers are “firearms,” the rest are just parts. Then when I retire to a free state, I can put them back together. No way am I giving up what I have invested for the cost of a $350 PSA parts kit build, which all I expect that the controlling Dems will be willing to pay.

  13. If one were to total up all those things that each side wants regardless of how extreme, radical, or far from center….make two lists, one for the left and one for the right (and be real with it)

    What Trump wants (in general) seems more normal to me. I really don’t understand why this is such an issue.

    What the left wants (in general) seems so evil and destructive to me. I really don’t understand why so many people can’t see this for themselves.


    I know there has always been certain elements of society that truly wants to dissolve the USA and perhaps we have reached a tipping point where a large enough portion of the population is ignorant enough, lazy enough, drugged enough, and moved away from the church enough to make it all happen. Anti-gun is absolutely part of it but it is so much bigger in my opinion.

    For most of my life, I’ve seen the Democrats as actively pursuing the destruction of the country and the Republicans as just sitting back and letting it happen.

    I think this is precisely why there are so many people that can’t see any difference between the left and the right. They both achieve the same end result.

    For me, I understand the philosophical differences but that isn’t enough when faced with politicians that so badly need to act and wont. The first two years of Trumps Presidency when the reps had full (well maybe not entirely full) control of all three branches and nothing got done is just an example. So much of what we are seeing right now could have been easily dealt with then.

    • “ I know there has always been certain elements of society that truly wants to dissolve the USA”

      Yes, and I still see the traitorous scum’s sad rag flying today in the deep South.
      Some call it the flag of the confederacy or stars and bars but it’s nothing more than the wretched symbol of treason and racism.

  14. …and the Republicans as just sitting back and getting rich. FIFY

    “The first two years of Trumps Presidency when the reps had full (well maybe not entirely full) control of all three branches and nothing got done is just an example.” Trump was a political amateur, and was just trying to get his feet under him in the White House when they immediately began the Russia collusion attack. So he that to deal with, along with constant leaks and fires to put out. That’s when he needed a great ally in the House of Representatives in order to do something great, and he had…Paul Ryan.

  15. On top of that pile of shit is a hipoint standing proud. I see a few with broken parts or missing parts. I bet they paid far above market for all of them.

  16. A lot of interesting items in that picture. I count at least 3 top break revolvers that I’d like to know more about. I wish I could find a few $50 Rohm or Jennings junkers that I could turn around for a fast $200 at the next local buyback.

  17. All gun owners have to understand…any vote for a democrat is a vote to end the 2nd Amendment…and this includes pump action shotguns and bolt action deer rifles……any decision to not vote for a republican, to deny a democrat a seat, is a decision to help the democrats. It really is that simple. Republicans are weak and can be pushed for gun control…but democrats will attack guns as soon as they get the power to do it…and they will take no prisoners, they will not leave one gun in private hands. The time to get rid of anti-gun republicans is in the primaries…after that, the goal needs to be to keep democrats out of power.

  18. Interesting that none of the Demons who are supporting confiscation are volunteering to do the job themselves. Yeah, I’m sure that the Crushers will be happy to do the job for them and maybe rack up a few dozen “justified” kills in the process, but still, you’d think that at least one of the Dem grifters would want in on the process.

  19. Say what you want to, that’s the first amendment. Now l’m going to do the same. I have not voted since George Wallace ran for President. That’s my right and my way of protest. As for Trump, I refuse to vote for a commander in chief who was a draft dodger period. Whatever that makes me, I’ll own it with pride. 61 to 65 USAF honorable discharge.

Comments are closed.