Any Mandatory ‘Buy Back’ Of Guns in the US is Doomed to Failure

national gun control confiscation

(AP Photo/Lynne Sladky)

The quote of the day is presented by Guns.com.

The United States isn’t Australia. And now, as New Zealanders have revealed, they’re not Aussies, either. They’re reacting to Jacinda Ardern’s gun grab so far with widespread non-compliance.

That’s very much the same reaction New Yorkers and other Americans have shown to “assault weapons” bans and mandatory gun registration here in the land of the free and the home of the brave. When it comes to falling into line with these laws, gun owners are increasingly choosing not to participate while law enforcement and their political masters choose not to press the matter.

That’s because no one wants to deal with the potentially violent and/or politically damaging consequences.

Most police have zero appetite for enforcing the kinds of gun bans and confiscation that prominent politicians are pushing now. That’s why no federal “assault weapons” or semi-automatic ban — should one ever pass — will have any meaningful effect on the number of guns in the United States, despite the high cultural and political costs and, in some cases, body counts that would result.

[T]he question I have for everyone who still wants to go down this road is this: What will you do in the face of the inevitable mass noncompliance? What is your Plan B?

Is the next step increased penalties for lawbreakers? If so, then how will you catch these lawbreakers in order to penalize them if the cops aren’t interested in going after them?

Is your plan to go after the police, then? Would you declare war on any local sheriffs and even state police who ignore the law? If this stood a realistic chance of happening, you’d think they’d do it in New York, of all places. But a lot of that state’s cops have been openly ignoring the country’s “toughest” gun law, and we’ve heard crickets.

Or maybe you plan to escalate to door-to-door confiscation as a last resort.

In that case, I think Meghan McCain’s prediction of violence is about as safe as my prediction of mass noncompliance and law enforcement nullification. There would probably be a lot of ugliness and not a few dead bodies, not to mention a massive waste of the political capital of any party pushing the police into a shooting war with even a relatively small number of AR-15-owning bitter enders.

Even if you think gun owners are bluffing and will hand ’em over peacefully when the time comes, you’d risk a violent escalation of America’s worsening culture war solely for the sake of outlawing a category of weapons that are involved in the low triple-digits of U.S. deaths in any given year? Really?

This doesn’t seem rational to me. It seems more like the kind of culture-war red meat you throw out there when you’re trying to revive a flagging presidential campaign.

– Jon Stokes in The Futility of a Gun Buyback

comments

  1. avatar RockOnHellChild says:

    And, let’s not forget jurors who may not be too keen on the new guns laws…

    “Sorry, your honor, I believe his boating accident story… it was convincing.”

    See: Jury Nullification

    1. avatar Jeff the Griz says:

      Just a few flaws with that line of thought. If they can trample the 2nd what makes you think they’ll follow the 6th?
      Even if you do get a Jury Trial, you’re lawyer will only get to pick half the Jury, and depending where your trial is held(remember this would potentially be Federal Court) how do you know your peers won’t be big city and left leaning?

      Locally my peers would be mostly middle class white Republicans but if I had to go to Federal Court it’d be downtown Detroit.

      1. avatar L'tl snot says:

        The threat of a national buyback is exactly why I stockpile Hi-Points.

        When Trump diverts the wall money he stole from the military (because…Mexico) to a gun buyback, I’ll cash out all my Hi-Points and retire in the Bahamas.

        1. avatar enuf says:

          There’s been a big drop in property values recently in the Bahama’s. So it’s a good time to buy!

          On the other hand, gun laws there are very restrictive.

      2. avatar RockOnHellChild says:

        Fair points. Though I doubt the Fed Courts would have the bandwidth to deal with each case.

    2. avatar Hank says:

      Well, all I know is, if I’m ever on a jury for this BS, I’m gonna act like a total liberal. Until it comes time for the jury to vote. Then I’m going to sink my heels in and at the very least get a hung jury.

  2. avatar Rick3 says:

    Never watched “The View” before…the ignorance shown by most of the women on there was painful to watch!

    1. avatar Thixotropic says:

      Indeed.

      Cumb Dunts watch this crap all the time.

      “It was always the women and above all the young ones, who were the most bigoted adherents of the party, the swallowers of slogans”
      George Orwell 1984

      1. avatar bryan1980 says:

        Orwell was a genius in so many ways.

        1. avatar sound awake says:

          unfortunately for us he wasnt genius enough to put a warning label on his book:
          “caution not to be used as a how to manual”

        2. avatar daveinwyo says:

          Orwell was a Brit flavored socialist.
          Maybe he DID intend for it to be a how to book.

        3. avatar Southern Cross says:

          *daveinwyo
          Orwell fought in Spain with the International Brigades and saw the actions of the Soviets on the other Republican factions.

  3. avatar Jay Y says:

    There are laws in effect that when used have been very effective in lowering crime rates, specifically minimum sentencing laws for use of a firearm to commit a crime and felons in possession laws.
    This was very effective in Virginia when they teamed with the FBI. The program was ended when there were complaints that too many minorities were going to prison.
    In California, when I lived there 20+yrs ago, only 1 in 5 that used a firearm for a criminal act was even charged with the use by a DA or Grand Jury. Many of those would be allowed by DA to plea away the firearms charges to avoid the 5 yr minimum that would be tacked onto whatever sentence the crime they committed would have been.
    It was rare that California would contact federal authorities on a felon in possession even when they would not charge under state law. They would say that it was feds responsibility to follow up even though they were never notified of the arrest.

    1. avatar Geoff "Hurry-up and *die*, Ruthie" PR says:

      “This was very effective in Virginia when they teamed with the FBI. The program was ended when there were complaints that too many minorities were going to prison.”

      That’s just it – When the prison population *explodes* with a particular demographic, the Leftists will be screaming “Racism!”, and at first glance, will look to be exactly that…

      1. avatar ColoradoKid says:

        …and some will balk at funding more prisons due to overcrowding. It’s a no-win argument, either courts are racist for putting the true offenders in prison, so they stop…or there’s the attitude of “Don’t increase MY taxes for more prisons, not with MY money!” If more offenders are to serve sentences, who’s gonna pay for it? Tax payers won’t, especially the left.

    2. avatar Icabod says:

      When you look at gun charges, many get dismissed or plea bargained away. Those that are jailed often have their sentences reduced due to overcrowding. The system is set up to do this. Prosecutors want a winning record. The court system doesn’t want to be overwhelmed and the government doesn’t want to build and staff more prisons.

      1. avatar rt66paul says:

        You would think the states would like the Feds to take their felons to prison for crimes with a gun involved, that means it is federal money locking the bad guys up. Sadly, this isn’t so.

    3. avatar Kendahl says:

      For a time, Boston had a program that worked very well. It combined social programs, to help gangbangers get out of that life, with harsh punishment for the worst of the worst. None of the sources I can find explain why it was abandoned.

  4. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

    First, I don’t think any of the Demoncratic presidential candidates read Reason.

    Second, this isn’t about saving lives, it is about the culture war. And they think they’re winning. They think they comprise the overwhelming majority of Americans. They think we’re a bunch of racist, homophobic, misogynist rubes who probably married our cousins while simultaneously thinking we’re the bourgeoisie standing in the way of their Marxist utopia. They have only a slightly higher opinion of us than Hitler had of the Jews. If a few of us ‘biter enders’ have to die for the cause, I think they’re just fine with that.

    1. avatar Geoff "Hurry-up and *die*, Ruthie" PR says:

      “They have only a slightly higher opinion of us than Hitler had of the Jews. If a few of us ‘biter enders’ have to die for the cause, I think they’re just fine with that.”

      Well… Progressives aren’t the ones that work in the factories in flyover country that make the food other ‘deplorables’ drive in tractor-trailers to stock their urban-suburban grocery stores. If you get my drift…

      Have fun getting your hands dirty trying to figure out how to run an agriculture combine, Leftists… 🙂

      1. avatar tdiinva says:

        Progressives don’t have a particularly high opinion of Jews. Just their money.

        1. avatar DJ says:

          We agree again.

      2. avatar DJ says:

        Bitter Clingers.

    2. avatar Phil Wilson says:

      ^This. I don’t think all leftists, much less all Democrat voters, feel this way by any means, but they ones who do seem to be in the driver’s seat at the moment.

      “And they think they’re winning.”

      This too. That or they fear it’s slipping away and they are getting desperate.

    3. avatar Vlad Tepes says:

      quote——————-They think they comprise the overwhelming majority of Americans. They think we’re a bunch of racist, homophobic, misogynist rubes————-quote

      The anti-gun people are the overwhelming majority of Americans (67% own no guns) and this very forum and ones like it proves the rest of your statement highly supportive of the views and beliefs of the majority of Americans who again do not own guns.

      If any non gun owing person stumbled upon this forum they would simply say “this is all the proof I needed to verify what I believed previously”.

      1. avatar tdiinva says:

        Not owning a gun does not equate to supporting the Second Amendment. There were periods of time that I didn’t own any firearms yet I never supported gun control. And the 33% is a low side estimate since many gun owners won’t answer a poll about gun ownership.

        1. avatar tdiinva says:

          Not supporting…

        2. avatar Vlad Tepes says:

          We have all made mistakes in the past some of us even got arrested multiple times for our mistakes. Do not worry about it since you support all reasonable restrictions on gun ownership now.

      2. avatar Timothy says:

        Support for an assault weapon ban is below 50%. Many of those who support an AWB WON’T support taking other guns. While only a third of Americans are gun owners, many of them have parents, siblings, spouses, and friends who are non gun owners. These non gun owners won’t appreciate having their family and friends slandered as bad people simply for protecting themselves or being into shooting sports.

        1. avatar Vlad Tepes says:

          According to all of the experts in the Department of Justice 93% of the relatives of gun owners will turn them in for the reward.

      3. avatar Kendahl says:

        It’s not about guns, per se. It’s about the right to defend yourself from violent criminals. If I were a foot taller, 100 pounds heavier and 50 years younger, I wouldn’t have much to worry about. Most thugs would take one look and find an easier victim. The exceptions I could turn upside down and slam head first into the ground. People like me are helpless without guns. It’s outrageous to expect us to cower in fear praying for police to rescue us before it’s too late.

        1. avatar Vlad Tepes says:

          What is so bad about cowering in fear? I have been cowering in fear my whole life I am used to it and you will get used to it too.

        2. avatar Kendahl says:

          Cowering in fear is an awful way to live. I may not have a choice if totalitarian left wingers (i.e. nanny state) get their way but I will never get used to it. No society has the resources to protect each and every private individual. But a society that won’t let the private individual protect himself, at least until designated professionals arrive, deserves no one’s loyalty or support.

      4. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

        This kind of proves my point. Vlad thinks only 33% of Americans own guns, which is about at the low end of the poling, however half of gun owners don’t admit to polsters that they do own guns. He thinks he’s in the majority. He thinks he’s winning. He doesn’t have a clue.

        1. avatar Vlad Tepes says:

          What is a clue?

  5. avatar Jeff the Griz says:

    Whoopie starts to make a Good point, if there are laws in place why aren’t they being enforced? Then goes off the deep end saying why have 14 instead of 1? From my knowledge a vast majority of the shooters have only a few, if not just one(Las Vegas being the exception). Gun collectors are in general, law abiding. I have still yet to hear an actual solution, that will do anything but make it more difficult for me (law abiding citizen) to obtain firearms.
    First they come for the “assault weapons”, but then they’ll point to the fact Pistols make up a majority of firearm homicides, then come for those. Then those scary bolt action sniper Rifles with scopes that can kill from miles away. Last will be the shotguns, which the king may allow if you beg permission and pay his tax, just ask the English.

    1. avatar Geoff "Hurry-up and *die*, Ruthie" PR says:

      “Whoopie starts to make a Good point, if there are laws in place why aren’t they being enforced?”

      It’s deliberate inaction by Leftists to reach a political goal.

      The scam runs like this –

      Manufacture a crisis (like they are doing now with MSRs) and beat the public into a fury that Leftists can exploit to pass laws.

      Here’s the *critical* part – Don’t enforce the laws you just passed. When the next tragedy occurs, use that as an excuse to pass even more laws.

      Lather, rinse, repeat…

    2. avatar Draven says:

      my response to Whoopi would have been “I dunno, ask your armed bodyguards.”

      1. avatar tdiinva says:

        I believe Whoopie carries her own.

        1. avatar enuf says:

          She has said in the past she owns a gun and is an NRA member. But she’s said other stuff along the lines of limiting the types and quantities of guns she thinks people should be allowed to own.

        2. avatar tdiinva says:

          She might be a Fudd but she also might be trying to avoid being caught up in the cancel culture wars.

    3. avatar GunnyGene says:

      There are no solutions, simply because everyone defines ‘problem’ and ‘solution’ differently.

    4. avatar Unrepentant Libertarian says:

      An anti-gunner will have a reason (valid in its view) why every firearm should be outlawed. Even the lowly .22.

  6. avatar Tom T says:

    It is almost impossible to hide the scent of gunpowder or gun oils from dogs. But you CAN mask it. Collect your spent casings on range day and when necessary scatter them around your property with a few oily rags. Difficult to locate something when the scent is everywhere. Just saying. 😁

  7. avatar bryan1980 says:

    I hope the dem candidates all push for buybacks/confiscation. I know all of them want it, Beto’s just the only one dumb enough to say it.

  8. avatar Randy Jones says:

    First we need to define what is or isn’t a weapon of war. An AR15 isn’t, it is a semi auto. To say that because it is a semi auto it should be banned is to say that every firearm that is a semi auto should be banned because they have roughly the same rate of fire (not considering reloads.) To say an AR15 is not a sporting rifle when I have personally taken groundhogs and coyotes with them to eliminate farm problems is false. I know people who have taken game animals for their table with them.

    Should the government push for a ‘buy back’ (of something they have never owned) makes no sense because 1,000,000 people can honestly say they are used for sporting and recreational purposed. Each year, in the United States less than 100 AR15s are used for illegal shootings. There are estimates that over 3,000,000 are in the United States. That means a less than .00003% are used for illegal purposes. Obviously it is not the firearm that causes the problem.

    1. avatar Geoff "Hurry-up and *die*, Ruthie" PR says:

      “An AR15 isn’t, it is a semi auto.”

      The low-information voters don’t know that, so they will believe it.

      This is a example of them skillfully exploiting the narrative – talking points.

      We cannot allow them to continue to control the narrative…

      1. avatar Vlad Tepes says:

        All the dead children can now rest easy in their graves knowing they were not slaughtered by a true Assault Rifle.

        1. avatar tdiinva says:

          And those black people can rest easy knowing you don’t GAF about them because they aren’t white.

        2. avatar bryan1980 says:

          Indeed, they are “dead-er” than the kids in China that were stabbed to death, because they were shot with one of those scary black rifles!

        3. avatar Vlad Tepes says:

          Hey Kids! Fake Pretty Picture Boy Vlad Tepes says blood-dancing is fun! Splash Splash

        4. avatar enuf says:

          They were murdered by Adam Lanza.

        5. avatar Timothy says:

          They probably rest just as easy as children killed by pistols or knives or disease or medical errors. Guess which of those things kills less children than assault rifles.

      2. avatar SoBe says:

        As long as we keep ceding to the media on their wrong definitions, assault rifle for semi automatic, and their intentional conflation of terms, semi automatic is just another form of automatic (just as a Green Ford Pinto is just as likely to explode as any other color), and clips are just bigger magazines, and (I narrowly avoided a fist fight in a bar in Key West last weekend over this one) 5.56 is a much deadlier round because it explodes when it penetrates human tissue (I am a trauma surgeon and 5.56 is not deadlier than say 30-06 nor does it explode) people like Neal Goldfarb and his new fangled liberal leftist Corpus Linguistics as a means to rewrite all laws to their liking. The more a term is used or misused the more Corpus Linguistics will point to the more frequent definition even if wrong rather a less frequently used correct definition. When the say ban assault rifles, kindly remind them that they are already banned by the NFA. When they conflate semi automatic with automatic, kindly remind they automatics are already banned via the same NFA, etc. Don’t give in and don’t provide more fuel to Corpus Linguistics.

    2. avatar arc says:

      2A applies to ALL weapons, shall not be infringed.

    3. avatar Unrepentant Libertarian says:

      Remember that only around 400 persons are killed in a year by rifles of ALL sorts. (Note to Vlady: that means not only sporting rifles.) More folks were killed by knives, blunt objects or even no weapons at all.

  9. avatar sound awake says:

    im just glad jacinda ardens face
    -and more importantly her voice-
    isnt on tv anymore
    that voice
    that condescending and sanctimonious voice
    i was done watching and listening to her after about 2 seconds

  10. avatar DJ says:

    You never owned them. I have NOTHING for SALE.

    I don’t know what plan B would be.

    But plan C would be Civil War. Some people will shoot back. Let’s see how many.

  11. avatar RCC says:

    Best estimate is that they got 30% of semi auto firearms in Australia. For most the “buyback” year it was impossible to buy large PVC pipe. I would hardly call that compliance!

    January this year the police found one man with 110 illegal pistols, rifles etc outside Cobar, NSW. Cobar is about 3000 people. From memory ex wife told them.

    The government story in Australia has changed over the years from we got all to most to a lot of guns, to we made Australia safer. This ignores the fact crime rates were low and going down before the gun grab in 1996. It also ignores the murders by fire etc that beat gun crimes easily.

    With 4 months to go in New Zealand I imagine the number of guns grabbed will go up. Owners are not helped by the fact they are licensed but individual firearms were not. So the police have a list of who to check. As I’ve said before a good reason to keep government away from your guns.

    1. avatar tdiinva says:

      Just make sure you have an heir and a spare. That way the cops, being lazy bureacrats will be happy that you gave them something so they can report a success.

  12. avatar Vlad Tepes says:

    Wrong. Any Government will give a certain amount of time for the law to “sink in” and after a certain amount of time draconian measures will follow. An example will be made and then the people who did not comply will get “the message” very quickly when they see a friend or neighbor’s house assaulted by elite storm troopers. Self preservation will then kick in and guns will be thrown out windows into the streets as smiling black shirted storm troopers in dark sunglasses supervise front end loaders scooping up tons of guns to take to the nearest smelter.

    When people realize they must turn the guns in “or else” everyone will know what “or else” means. The German Nazi’s were experts at this. History will repeat itself. The government people look forward to it for absolute power over the revolutionaries and Far Right Paramilitary Lunatic Fringe who would take all rights away from the general population. The Government knows the general population would not only support it but cheer it on.

    The Australian experience shows it did not take extreme violence to accomplish. In the U.S. a few televised storm trooper assaults “Waco style” would convince even the die hard’s that dying hard is “not cool”. The general population of today would view the televised assaults in the same way as the general population of Rome looked forward to the “games” in the Coliseum.

    The American people are now fed up with nut cases mowing down multitudes of people with WEAPONS OF WAR and the Government is aware of it and they know the general population will cheer the end of such weapons in civilian hands.

    Its interesting to note that when Joe Biden was heavily criticized by the Far Right Paramilitary Lunatic Fringe when he said “all you needed was a shotgun for home defense” the real facts are the “weapon of choice” in jungle warfare such as in the Philippine Islands and even to some degree in Vietnam was the short barreled shotgun.

    I might add also the the financial loss incurred by trying to hide weapons when you are caught with them will be enough to get most people to turn them in without a fight.

    1. avatar jwm says:

      The german nazis were experts at this. And now you’re bragging that the socialist nazis will be as good, also.

      Resistance to fascism is a noble cause. We’ve already started the resistance by giving Orange Man Bad a term in office. And now by exposing your fascist beliefs here you will help give him a second term.

      1. avatar Vlad Tepes says:

        I am not bragging that socialist nazis will be as good as german nazis. We socialists will be much better at it we are going to be so much better at it you wont believe how much better at it we are going to be.

    2. avatar Guesty McGuesterson says:

      Master Troll Level 90 achieved!

      Well done! You have mastered the ability to tell Big Lies and mix them with small truths to make them more tasty. Your Health is increased +1, and your Strength is increased +2.

      Keep playing.

    3. avatar bryan1980 says:

      You would know, wouldn’t you? It takes a nazi to know one.

      1. avatar Vlad Tepes says:

        You may have a point. I call anybody I dont like a nazi and I really dont like myself. You should try self-loathing and self-hatred sometime it can be a really deep dark inescapable prison.

    4. avatar dph says:

      Vlad , you are so full of shit. How would you know what the weapon of choice in SE Asia is if you’ve never left your mothers basement? In the P.I. AR’s are everywhere, they love themselves some Armalites, as far as Vietnam is concerned I’m pretty sure the weapon of choice was/is the AK/SKS. By the way, did I mention that you’re full of shit. I’ll be waiting for you to help with the “massive” confiscation you so dream of, if you can get your 300 lb lardass up the basement steps. When you talk of your own collection of weapons I guess you mean the ones you’ve gathered playing COD and MOH.

      1. avatar Vlad Tepes says:

        Your ignorance is showing I am not so full of shit. Only the bottom half of my eyes are brown the top half of my eyes are still blue.

    5. avatar Timothy says:

      You are probably right that a ban on firearms will start with a mandatory buy back followed by several “no questions asked” buybacks and have a long time before anything door to door follows. I don’t know what levels of resistance there would be against door to door confiscation.

      The problem with waiting for so long in America is that the White House changes parties on a fairly regular basis and laws get overturned all the time.

      1. avatar Vlad Tepes says:

        We socialists have a plan for that we will make the Hairy Kameltow president for life. She will make as many new additional Supreme Court Justices as it takes to make sure you never exercise any of your rights agian.

  13. It’s all about the authoritarianism yo!
    The New World Order is on the move!
    Fight the future!

  14. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

    The government can’t buy back something that never belonged to them in the first place.

  15. avatar Vlad Tepes says:

    When you really think about this logically what good what it do you to try and hide any guns that were outlawed.

    1. You could never sell them without the extreme risk of being caught and if the weapon you sold was used in a horrific crime they would crucify you as much as the nut case that used the weapon.

    2. You could never take it out and shoot it without the extreme risk of being caught even if you lived in a remote area because anyone seeing you with it or hearing you shoot it would become alarmed that there was a paramilitary lunatic fringe group in the area. Also the government now has spy drones that are watching everyone, they are not just being used to spy on foreign people in foreign countries. Even the Cops in one town using an el-cheapo civilian drone were caught spying on law abiding people mowing their lawns and cooking ham burgers until the whole neighborhood erupted in protest so what do you think the government is presently doing with high flying super drones you cannot even see or hear?

    3. If you were caught you would get a huge fine, a jail sentence, a job loss and asset confiscation and property confiscation and would be permanently banned from owning any firearm for life. Cops love to take peoples cars and then sell them for a 100 per cent profit.

    4. Face facts big government owns your ass from the time you wake up until the time you go to bed and while you are sleeping as well. Its not something of the future because the future is now the present with cameras on every street corner, eves dropping on your every telephone conversation, your movements are tracked by black boxes in your car and by your cell phone. The Government knows where you are every minute of the day and night. Your credit card purchases tell the government everything they need to know about you, your income, your purchases , your hobbies and even if you like to handcuff your wife when having sex. There is nothing the Government does not know about you already so do you think they will not know you have guns. Get real you have no privacy, you have no rights, you will obey “or else”. If you think Capitalvania is any less intrusive then the long ago extinct Communist Governments of China and Russia you are naive indeed and living in your own fantasy world.

    1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      I usually disagree with Vlad Tepes on, well, just about everything. In this case, I think he is almost totally correct on his points (3) and (4).

      Regarding point number (3), he is parroting what I stated within the last few days. It will be extremely difficult for us to combat state or federal government draconian civil penalties for failing to comply with firearm laws. And those civil penalties could be devastating, including confiscation of your bank accounts, retirement accounts, property (especially your home), and even include claims on future earnings which employers and banks would dutifully facilitate.

      Regarding number (4), he is also parroting what I stated within the last few days. Our banks and credit card providers have detailed records of our income and spending. And technology companies have even more detailed information on what we do and who we are because they log everything we do, constantly analyze our data, and continuously update their digital profiles of us. Handing over that information to a state or fedzilla is as easy as dragging-and-dropping a file folder on a computer screen.

      And, related to point number (3), we have not even discussed how government can publish our names (as criminal “violators”) on a public record knowing that countless entities will refuse to do business with us and/or employ us since we would be on the government’s black list.

      These are indisputable facts. Period. The only question that we should be debating is whether government would ever “stoop” to that level.

      1. avatar tdiinva says:

        Everything you say is true except that is not why gun confiscation is impractical. Any organized force fears indiscipline in the ranks. If it is known that a sizeable percentage of the force will not carry out its orders than the order will not be given. Since the police are drawn from a crossection of the population you can expect the number of police who refuse to carry out their orders will be too high to give the order. What do you think caused the Ferguson Effect?

        Even if a confiscation order neutralized the general public’s ability to use those weapons it will not neutralize the weapons held by individuals who would conduct a mass shooting. If you are willing to kill then you are willing to ignore the requirement to turn in your weapons. Therefore, confiscation will have minimal impact on mass shootings.

        1. avatar Vlad Tepes says:

          This is a no brainer we will make a law that says the police have to enforce all of the new commonsense gun control laws.

      2. avatar Vlad Tepes says:

        quote——————–These are indisputable facts. Period. The only question that we should be debating is whether government would ever “stoop” to that level.————–quote

        PAST WORLD HISTORY HAS PROVEN THEY CAN AND THEY WILL. The sole reason people seek governmental positions of POWER is that the only thing they live for is ABSOLUTE POWER over everyone. Adolf Hitler could very easily have fled to South America at the end of WWII but chose suicide over life because without absolute power life was not worth living for him.

        1. avatar paul says:

          That just makes our government one that needs to be changed. There are those that might even use those weapons to rebel against the draconian laws of this NWO.

        2. avatar Vlad Tepes says:

          How are you going to rebel when we socialists have ABSOLUTE POWER over everyone?

      3. avatar Vlad Tepes says:

        to Uncommon Sense

        Actually I did not parrot anything of yours because I did not even read the post you are referring to. This might come as a shock to you but you are not the only one in this world that has studied what the government has done and is doing to us.

        1. avatar Vlad Tepes says:

          Here is another shock for you I never read anything I copy and paste. It could be an ad for brylcreem for all I know or care.

    2. avatar Vlad Tepes says:

      5. I remember reading about this one time some bad guys did something and the cops and the government and the superfriends caught them and now there are no more guns.

  16. avatar uncommon_sense says:

    Will a state or fedzilla decide to go “all in” and initiate a concerted effort to remove certain classes (or maybe even most) firearms from society — including kitted-up confiscation squads raiding several homes — in the next 20 years? I honestly think it could very well happen.

    On the one hand, many people say that a state or fedzilla would not have the appetite to withstand how messy it would get. They then direct our attention to the recent push-back in Nevada at the Bundy ranch when something like 1,000 armed people showed up and instigated a stand-off with fedzilla for a few days, which ended when fedzilla backed down.

    On the other hand, we can look to the Weaver family fiasco in Idaho and the Branch Davidian compound fiasco in Texas. In those cases, fedzilla applied an obscenely heavy hand and murdered multiple people — including truly innocent women, children, and babies. And there was ZERO pushback, accountability, or retribution from the populace.

    Given the above, I personally put the odds at 50:50 whether a state or fedzilla embark on a serious forced disarmament campaign. I suppose it all boils down to far disconnected from History and reality future lawmakers in a state or the federal government will be.

    1. avatar UpInArms says:

      ” kitted-up confiscation squads raiding several homes ”

      Not gonna happen. If the gubmint decides to do a search-and-sieze with the goal of picking up every gun, it means searching every house. Aside from not having the manpower to do that, this would immediately kill any public support and unleash blow-back like we’ve never seen. And I’m not talking about gun owners making a heroic stand. I’m talking about the non-gun owners who are having their mattresses and sofas slit open by gubmint thugs. I can just imagine the look of shock on the faces of liberals when “but officer, I’m anti-2a” doesn’t stop the search. It would be priceless, and it would in fact stop the searches in short order.

      Liberals are notoriously short-sighted. I’m certain that they never considered a door-to-door confiscation (ala Harris) includes their doors too.

  17. avatar Shire-man says:

    Seems to me we live in an age of law as fantasy. Hardly anything is enforced anymore from assault to gun running to false reports and if pressed to it those who propose more laws will admit they won’t work so I have to ask what the point is of any of it?

    It’s like we live in a state of anarchy in denial.

    1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      Shire-man,

      Seems to me we live in an age of law as fantasy. Hardly anything is enforced anymore from assault to gun running to false reports …


      There is no “seems” about it, that is reality. Unfortunately, we have become a “nation of men” (of power) rather than a nation of justice. The ruling class now uses our criminal justice system and civil courts primarily to advance political agendas, suppress political enemies, and fill the treasury.

      It’s like we live in a state of anarchy in denial.


      There is no, “It’s like …” about it. We DO live in a state of anarchy and no one wants to admit it to themselves or publicly. The only reason that society has not completely unraveled is because there are still a LOT of us who choose to act honorably and righteously.

      Perhaps you have heard the saying, “Socialism is great until the government runs out of other people’s money.” I like to apply the same sentiment with a twist: socialism and secularism are great until you run out of honorable and righteous people.

  18. avatar Kendahl says:

    Guns are a secondary target of the leftists. Their primary target is the right of the private individual to use sufficient force to protect himself or another innocent party against attack by violent criminals. Guns are a target only because they are the most effective tool yet invented for defending yourself.

    In this week’s Knowledge Dump, Greg Ellifritz (activeresponsetraining.net) has a story about two off duty Montreal cops who were beaten by six thugs after they were recognized as cops. Suppose some public spirited citizen, seeing that they were outnumbered and losing the fight, had stepped in with whatever impact weapon was handy and started breaking heads. I believe he would be facing more serious charges than are the thugs who beat up the cops.

    A gun is of no value, for recreation, hunting or self defense, unless you can use it. Suppose you use your stashed gun to shoot a home invader. Unless you can cover up the entire incident, your possession and use of the gun will become apparent. Then, you can expect to be charged with its illegal possession and, probably, for using it against the criminal. A gun you can’t use, for fear someone will find out you still have it, is of no more value than one confiscated and destroyed by the government.

    1. avatar tdiinva says:

      Depends. If that impact weapon was a baseball bat and you were on your way to or from a baseball game it would be legal to use it in self defense or defense of others since the primary purpose of the bat was not a weapon.

      1. avatar Kendahl says:

        You’re missing my point. Whether the tool (or method) you use in defense is inherently a weapon or just an object you re-purpose as a weapon is a technicality. What I’m worried about is the notion that the use of force is reserved to the state and prohibited to private individuals regardless of the circumstances. I remember reading an exhortation (which might have come out of Australia), “Never resort to violence, not even to save your own life.” If that became the law, defending yourself or others would become a crime at least as serious as the attack against which you defended. There is a Rory Miller quote which ends in “better to fight than to die.” There are people, including some prosecutors and politicians, who believe the order of those two options should be reversed.

  19. avatar Larry says:

    “ I want to live in a place, where I can walk into a Mall , and not have to worry about someone coming in with a SHOTGUN . “

    Let that sink in Fudds .

    1. avatar Kendahl says:

      “I want to live in a place, where I can walk into a Mall , and not have to worry about someone coming in with a shotgun, knife, club, rock, bare hands . . . . . .”

  20. avatar SteamTroller45 says:

    Just in case y’all missed it, they don’t ahve to do bybacks if anyone with a gun is red flagged, as our benevolent Texas overlord just forced on us:
    https://gov.texas.gov/news/post/governor-abbott-issues-eight-executive-orders-in-response-to-el-paso-and-odessa-shootings

  21. avatar Ark says:

    The “buy back” isn’t the point. The point is imprisoning anyone caught with a firearm after that.

  22. avatar Wally1 says:

    So they do ban guns, Who, I ask again, WHO will be confiscating firearms?. The obvious answer is the “Police”. The problem the crazy leftist lawmakers have is that Police officers took an oath to uphold the constitution. The majority of officers will not be coming for your guns. The few millennial type cops who never read the constitution (because it wasn’t on instragram) will stop any type of gun confiscation after about the 30th or 50th all out gun battle. You see there are a majority of veterans and Police who took an oath and it actually means something, even worth dying for. I believe any gun confiscation scheme in the United States will trigger a civil war.

  23. avatar Rusty - Molon Labe - Chains says:

    Confiscation just isn’t gonna happen:

    The thought that all those deplorables spread out all around, will just sit around watching reruns of “Friends” while the gun police head out every day from the local federal building is moronic. A significant percentage of them will go on vacation to do some “hunting.” The jack booted thugs will find there are no safe corridors and that hill a half mile away from that federal building is only one of hundreds of thousands of places that a sharp shooter might use to drill a thug or two before ghosting away.

    That problem just describes part of the suburban and exurban situation. Creative people with explosives, or even just a hammer and screwdriver, or a truck and a monkey wrenching plan present problems that the ban bunch will be unhappy with. Utility services are completely vulnerable in this country, an unhappy person with a stolen box truck loaded with flammables could easily take out an electrical substation or a natural gas distribution pump station. You don’t have to be particularly creative to think up a bunch of this sort of thing.

    1. avatar Geoff "Hurry-up and *die*, Ruthie" PR says:

      “Utility services are completely vulnerable in this country, an unhappy person with a stolen box truck loaded with flammables could easily take out an electrical substation or a natural gas distribution pump station.”

      A major caliber rifle bullet punching into those transformers will ruin them real quick…

      1. avatar Rusty - Molon Labe - Chains says:

        That was tried out in California (and they never caught them), but they didn’t aim low enough to drain the cooling oil, so the test case of whoever did it failed. As I remember they shot the transformers some hundred and something times.

        1. avatar UpInArms says:

          Well, now we know. Aim low.

    2. avatar Don from CT says:

      It doesn’t even have to be that creative.

      A rented box truck lined up with a target and then a brick placed on the accelerator.

      Creating mayhem is not rocket surgery.

      And I’ll tell you something. I’ll admit it. I’m soft. I’m a northeast gun guy with a wife, family and two young kids. I’m going to push for a political solution almost always.

      But I’ve spent time in “flyover country”. I’ve pheasant hunted in North Dakota, where the only things to do are farm, drill for oil, hunt and fish. Those people are TOUGH AS NAILS. They don’t give a crap about what any politician says.

      Further, their cops are THEM. They won’t be fighting against their police. Their police will be fighting next to them.

      Don’t fear me. I’m a relative puy55y. Fear that soy farmer in ND who has 20,000 lbs of ammonium nitrate fertilizer in his barn, a front end loader, a combine, an 18 wheeler, a private plane, and a disaffection for Government, specifically the federal Government.

      And guess what, guys like that are a dime a dozen for vast vast swaths of America. It is, or should be, enough to make anyone think long and hard about any kind of confiscation. (or “mandatory buyback” as the liberals like to now call it)

      I hope to god it never comes to that.

      1. avatar Rusty - Molon Labe - Chains says:

        “I hope to God it never comes to that.”

        Me too brother! That is the largest part of what I was trying to say, I am old and fat (though I am trying to improve my fitness a bit) and almost as tough as a marshmallow. There are lots of truly tough people who live here in Georgia and they will take even less kindly to confiscation than I. All modern technology dependent countries are way too vulnerable, to risk that kind of conflict, I just pray to God the crazy leftists realize this enough to not want to destroy what we all have.

      2. avatar UpInArms says:

        One thing that I find striking is that the average suburban mom- the kind that watch The View- genuinely does not realize what could happen if forced confiscation happens. The ones I talk to think it’s like taking a toy away from a 2-year-old. Just sign some kind of edict from the gubmint, and it’s all good and done. They have no clue that some people – a lot of people – are serious enough about this to actually start shooting back. It just doesn’t enter their reality.

        Which is why what Megan McCain did is kind of important. To go on to a lefty gab-fest like the The View, which gets injected right into the hearts of the suburban moms, and declare that blood will flow will maybe shake a few of them out of their complacency. It’s unfortunate that McCain was shut down and drowned out in the subsequent idiotic chatter, but hopefully the message was enough to find home with a few.

      3. avatar Unrepentant Libertarian says:

        Remember to get a copy of “The Anarchist Cookbook” for some interesting reading from the 60s.
        Even when they confiscate the guns, people will just replace them from the black market. Kind of hard to kill the signal. (Just do not tell Vlady that.)

  24. avatar former water walker says:

    And WE know where a lot of cop’s live…this ain’t the gestapo or stasi.

  25. avatar OBOB says:

    DID dummy Joy Behar actually start to say–they did without them for many years during the ban—-referring to the 1994 to 2004 AWB Clinton signed??
    Bitch that is not how that ‘ban’ worked you brainless left lib moron! ..it banned ‘new’ sales not keeping and using!

    God the stupidity of that woman…..I have seen hamsters with more brains!

  26. avatar Don from CT says:

    Here is the reality. I’ve got friends who are pro-gun cops. But most of them owe their primary allegiance to their family’s well being.

    That means that if they are ordered to enforce a red flag law, they will. Can’t give up the pension over one questionable guy.

    But if push comes to shove and it really comes down to civil war. i.e. they are forced to pick sides, every cop I’ve ever known will come down on our side.

    Realize that chiefs are not cops. Chiefs are political animals that need to survive in the high profile world of city and state politics. In many states that means playing to the anti-gun crowd. But its no secret that the average “cop on the beat” is on our side. It will just take more than we’ve ever seen to get them to put their pension on the line over it.

  27. avatar Timothy Toroian says:

    If that crap is attempted the promoters of such will DISCOVER why the Second Amendment was written and ratified and what its purpose is. They should read the second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence if they never have and re-read it in case they forgot what it says about Unalienable rights and transient reasons. You should also if you haven’t recently.

  28. avatar Sam I Am says:

    Local law enforcement may be reluctant to deal with mandatory buybacks; not so, the feds. But even locals can be anti-gun to the point of arresting someone outside their homes.

    So, you have a banned firearm, eh? Depending upon the lack of a national register to keep your banned guns secret, eh?

    Thinking you will stockpile your banned guns in anticipation of the third American revolution, eh?

    First, we write the gun ban law such that there is no “grandfather” provision. Once a gun ban is in place, those guns become essentially unusable; locked down in your possession; no need for confiscation. Where can you take those banned firearms, and use them? Thinking that you aren’t really in danger of having to use those banned firearms in self-defense in the home, so you can take your chance at trial if it should come to that?

    Well, next we partner with lending organizations again…chokepoint; guns and ammo. Next, we encourage local authorities to visit gun ranges, and find out who is using banned guns (no arrests, just report…oh, yes, locals in sanctuary cities will gladly help identify gun owners and users of banned weapons). Following that, we declare “probable cause” includes anyone with a gun rack in their vehicles (after a gun ban, people with rifle racks are most likely to possess banned weapons). In companion, we declare “probable cause” includes anyone visiting a gun store because they are likely buying supplies and accessories for banned weapons. To add flavor, we begin to use the Federal Protective Service to monitor federally funded roads and highways, implementing traffic stops for safety, looking for people who may be transporting banned guns that pose a direct and imminent threat to public safety.

    While some of the above may not be absolutely correct (or limited) to the scenarios depicted, we, your government servants, are all too happy to fine-tune, or invent new, methods for keeping the ownership of guns pretty much useless, except for hunting and sporting with firearms capable of holding no more than one cartridge in the chamber of the firearm. We may be stupid, incompetent, illogical, power hungry tyrants, but we are incredibly cunning and focused on making citizens feel safer.

    1. avatar Mark says:

      Thanks for your essay. I needed a good laugh.

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        “Thanks for your essay. I needed a good laugh.”

        Glad you were entertained. It is one of several in a theme of the folly of looking foe SWAT to come get your guns, while ignoring the all avenues attack that is already underway. the front line troops of leftism may be utterly devoid of an independent mind, but the leadership is not stupid, not ignorant of politics (if they were idiots, they wouldn’t have the power and influence they deploy). Think of the anti-gun mob as a bunch of people wearing “shoot me first” garb, distracting 2A supporters, exhausting their resources. We are seeing Sun Tzu in play, against us. Standard guerilla tactics: avoid the frontal assault, wear the enemy down, relentlessly.

  29. avatar Been There says:

    Because all that worked so well with the war on drugs. Didn’t it.

    1. avatar Vlad Tepes says:

      The war on drugs failed because we criminalize addition. You would think the Right Wing Neanderthal Republicans would know a least a little about the European programs. Instead of spending millions on law enforcement and millions more throwing people in jail they instead put them in treatment programs that are far cheaper than the above expenditures. Drugs are given free to addicts when they agree to enter treatment. This runs drug dealers out of business and addicts do not have to steal stuff to get money to buy drugs. Now all this is not rocket science except to the low I.Q, Republicans that have fought these European style programs for decades because they consider giving anything free to people immoral and it might cost them more in taxes never realizing they pay 100 times more taxes the when they lock people up and pay police to chase their tails trying to find drug dealers who when caught are replaced immediately by hundreds more drug dealers. If anybody deserved the title of a retarded Neanderthal its the Republicans.

      If you ever wondered by this country is so fucked up look no further than the Republicans.

      1. avatar Unrepentant Libertarian says:

        YAWN!

        1. avatar Vlad Tepes says:

          I work my fingers to the bone copying and pasting and all you can do is YAWN? A little gratitude for my hard work and leadership would be nice.

      2. avatar GJ says:

        When ever I see Vlad, I hit the page down button. So much blabbering….If I wanted to hear left wing talking points, I’d just turn on CNN or MSNBC. If I wanted to read that crap, I’d just go to the NY times or Washington Post. So post all ya want Vlad, but know that most of us ignore you anyway.

  30. avatar Docduracoat says:

    You are completely wrong with this article.
    They will not go door to door, precipitating a civil war.
    Just like they did with bump stocks, all they will do is declare assault rifles as felony contraband.
    They need do nothing else.
    You won’t be able to shoot one at any range, as you may be arrested for a felony.
    You can’t then shoot it on Public land as a cop may see you and arrest you for a felony.
    You could shoot on private property in the country, but you may get stopped or have an accident en route.
    When they search your car, you are arrested for a felony.
    So all you can really do is keep it in your house.
    And if your ex wife “ red flags” you, then you are arrested for a felony when they search your house and find the assault rifles.
    So no invading houses needed.
    Slowly people will be arrested in ones and twos and the rest will fall in line.
    When you die, what will your wife and kids do with an illegal item?
    Get rid of it. Like as if you had left a pound of heroin in that safe.
    I got rid of my bump stock as I could not afford to lose my medical license by being arrested for a felony. Especially as I could not use it anywhere without fear of arrest.
    It will be the same for assault rifles.
    Some people will bury them
    Or keep them in a safe.
    And in one generation, their inheritors will rid themselves of felony contraband.

  31. avatar 7.62x54r says:

    Maybe the doomsday scenario advocated by a few above will occur. But somewhere along the line, a widowed Vet, disaffected from his kids or possibly without any, and with inoperable cancer, will decide he has had enough. Someone will pay the ultimate price.

  32. avatar Vlad Tepes (the fake) says:

    What “multitudes” were mowed down with “weapons of war?”
    None of the mass shootings I have read about involved “weapons of war,” unlike the distant Sarin attack in Japan. Sure keep feeding misinformation to the Corpus Linguistics!

  33. avatar Lawman45 says:

    There is good reason to believe a ban/buy back will work. Unfortunately.

    https://www.alloutdoor.com/2016/08/31/democrats-will-never-confiscate-guns-instead-youll-hand/

  34. avatar kap says:

    Lot’s of Waco’s and Ruby ridges coming, the HRT snipers will have a quota, bang bang one house at a time!
    Younger generations go what the F when told about this, if they can get away from the smart phone.

  35. avatar Bubba says:

    What I find amusing is their coice of words. “Buy back” this implies former ownership. If the were smart they would of gone with “buy”. They might get some to sell that way.

    But the slack jawed fools just had to go and try to sound authoritative.

  36. avatar Gerald Mann says:

    I read that the Austrailian Parelement was not happy with the result of thier gun grab especially since they distroyed the guns confistgated and could not give them back ! They did mention there people that witheld there guns , several times bad guys tried to break in to armed homes and were shot , and the person defending his or her property ate the ones that went to prison !

    1. avatar Chief Censor says:

      “the person defending his or her property ate the ones that went to prison !”

      What do you expect? They are squishy and taste good with ketchup.

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