Regular readers will know that TTAG has highlighted the fact that gun control advocates are now calling for confiscation. And how. It bears repeating. Frequently. The Gun Owners of America have this to say about that [via an email blast]:
President Obama took to the airwaves on Sunday night and told the nation we need more gun control. Hillary Clinton — the one who will most likely be the Democrat nominee for president in 2016 — recently called for an all-out war on guns, as well. And then, for the first time since 1920, the New York Times published an editorial on the front page of their newspaper. This is important because the editorial page of the Times reflects the thinking of the anti-gun Democrat Left. And what is the theme of the Times‘ most important message in nearly a hundred years? In two words . . .
Left “drops the gloves,” calls for gun confiscation
The New York Times said this weekend that:
It is past time to stop talking about halting the spread of firearms, and instead to reduce their number drastically — eliminating some large categories of weapons and ammunition.It is not necessary to debate the peculiar wording of the Second Amendment. No right is unlimited and immune from reasonable regulation.
The Times continues that there would be no grandfather clause for the 300,000,000-plus firearms we currently own:
[I]t would require Americans who own these kinds of weapons to give them up for the good of their fellow citizens.
So there you have it. You need to give up your guns — for the good of the country. Ironically, the editors at The Washington Post are furious with the Times for letting the “cat out of the bag.” They called the Times’ editorial “predictably polarizing.”
But as one insightful journalist noted, the Post editors are only upset because the Times’ piece confirms “every gun owner’s worst fear — namely, that all the talk about gun safety and reducing gun violence is just a sham, and the real agenda of the gun control movement is total confiscation.”
Gun confiscation has always been the goal of the anti-gun Left
Everyone has known that a Hillary presidency would result in greater restrictions on our Second Amendment rights. But now her mouthpiece at the Times has explicitly revealed what we knew already was the case — the Left wants to CONFISCATE YOUR GUNS.
Anti-gun radicals usually try not to say this publicly, because they know that talk of gun confiscation loses elections. But when caught on “candid camera,” they tell you they want to confiscate guns.
Take Maryland’s Deputy Attorney General — a liberal Democrat — who was recently caught on hidden camera stating “we should ban guns altogether, period.”
Or remember when New York Governor Andrew Cuomo (D) said, in the wake of the Sandy Hook shooting, that among the different gun control proposals that were being bandied about, “[gun] confiscation could be an option.” Or when several Democrat state senators were caught on an open microphone in New Jersey saying, “We needed a bill that was going to confiscate, confiscate, confiscate.”
This is their agenda.
Anti-gunners blame YOU for massacres like San Bernardino’s
In its editorial, the Times lambasted pro-gun, Republican politicians who “abet would-be killers by creating gun markets for them, and voters allow those politicians to keep their jobs.” That’s what the Left thinks of you. They think that your rights and freedoms … that your guns which have NEVER harmed anyone — are the problem because you are aiding and abetting killers.
These are the stakes we face in the 2016 elections. If Clinton wins, we can expect her to push the same Times’ agenda, which will include the elimination of “large categories of weapons and ammunition” — probably by executive fiat. And we can expect the Obama-packed courts to roll over and ignore the “peculiar wording of the Second Amendment.”
You have eleven months before the November, 2016, elections. And everything we believe in is at stake. Please forward this alert and encourage your pro-gun family and friends to sign up for GOA alerts. And take this holiday season as an opportunity to give Gift Memberships to your family and friends.
We need your support and activism more than ever!
Not a GOA member yet? You can join Gun Owners of America today for only $20!
And we are many more than 300. Remember that.
Perhaps gun confiscation will occur state by state. In theory, the federal court system should step in and find any gun confiscation law to be unconstitutional. But one or two more liberals on SCOTUS and that check/balance might fail.
Gun confiscation only occurs if it is allowed by the citizenry. The only question is who will be the highest bidder in terms of blood to take them or keep them.
Teddy Cruz , please !
In social movement theory this is called “coercive reform”. Lifestyle oriented movements like gun control attempt to convince people through assimilation but, when attempts at reasoning with their opposition fail, their sense of a moral imperative causes them to justify more authoritarian measures. The gun control movement was always about confiscating guns. Their lack of success in convincing the rest of us to accept their viewpoint is now causing them to be honest about what they really want. Buy guns. Join the GOA. Join the NRA. Molon Labe!
And since they couldn’t convince people that guns needed to be banned with “nice talk” or now with the vitriolic editorials, they won’t be asking when Obama/Clinton’s SA come to your door to collect your guns, or yourself if you don’t comply.
That’s the inevitable conclusion if Obama or Clinton are President in 2017.
“You WILL be assimilated. Resistance is FUTILE!” – The Borg.
How’d that work out for ’em?
I believe the operative phrase is “Die on my feet rather than live on my knees.” Resistance to tyranny may not be successful, but it is never futile.
Well that escalated quickly, didn’t it? So much for the cries for “sensible” gun control.
So far they haven’t gotten what they want so why not take the proverbial gloves off? Put on your big boy pants. Things might get a little crazy.
The squeal is louder when the balloon is almost out of air.
Two statements, three words each.
WILL NOT COMPLY.
BRING IT ON.
We are heading towards a civil war.
That’s not the worst thing that could happen.
You know that the Progressives will accuse you of threatening a civil war, but you and I know that the chess pieces are moving toward one inevitable conclusion if the Democrat Party wins this election. This is why this election is more important than any other election in the history of the US.
The reality of resurgent islam likely is overtaking the delusional utopian wetdream of dinosaurs. Does nicely distracts the attention of the normal people from the climate change BS agenda.
i agree , it is time for the tree of Liberty to be refreshed ! This type of tyranny has gone on long enough ! Be prepared and ready . Keep your powder dry .
So let them try and confiscate the guns, watch what happens. Talk is cheap. Everyone knows what happens when the population ignores laws and there is ZERO chance of that actually happening.
All this talk is sinking Clinton’s chances of being elected. It’s idiotic.
I’m a little worried that it isn’t. Lots of even moderately pro gun dems will throw the 2A under the bus ‘for the greater good’, especially if someone like trump takes the nomination, and moderate dems are going to decide the next election.
I’ve heard democrat gun owners justify their support for anti gunners by saying “oh they only want assault weapons not my guns”.
But with calls for widespread confiscation, I think many of them will change parties or skip out on this election due to conflict of interests.
One party will ban the exercise of the individual RKBA while the other will infringe upon it until it is nothing but a shriveled up government privilege. Under the former, we may see a revolutionary correction within our own lifetimes whereas with the latter, individual rights will continue to erode while the People cower in fear and apathy; only to one day have to engage in a revolutionay correction. That’s partyarchy for you; just shitty choices all the way around. The only constant is that the People will have to fight for their rights. It has always been this way and probably always shall be. Thomas Jefferson was a wise man.
Enjoy your November vote. If I decide to join in the circle jerk, i’ll be deciding on revolutionary change now or later.
Keyboard commandos, arise! You have nothing to lose but your high speed connections!
Do tell, Ralph, how is that reply warranted? Simple reading comprehension would tell you that I was saying if I bother to vote it would be probably Republican to extend the misery or Democrat to see things come to a head earlier.
No keyboard commando here. Of I were going to do something controversial like that, I damned sure wouldn’t write it out here or anywhere else on the web. But, I suspect you already knew that.
See, there in lies the problem. The ‘if I vote’ camp decides elections. The problem is that you don’t understand election math. If you stay home and don’t vote at all it is the equivalent of 2 votes for the ‘greater evil’ choice. Why? Because if you casted that vote for the ‘lesser threat’ than in order to move ahead of your vote the ‘greater evil’ would need one more vote to tie, then another to move ahead.
I’m an independent and I’m pro-2A. I believe the populace as a whole is ignorant and doesn’t understand the consequences of walking or Not walking into a voting booth.
So, which one is the greater evil? Is it worse to vote in favor of extending the misery just to arrive at a revolutionary correction later, when such a movement may be so weak as to be unsucessful or not even possible ? Or, is it worse to vote in favor of allowing the government to ratchet up the heat high enough for the people to bring about a revolutionary correction sooner, while there still may be a chance?
No, the choices have essentially been the same for my entire lifetime; right statists or left statists. Either choice keeps us in bondage. At any given time, one party just might jump the shark enough to arouse the righteous indignation of the People but neither group is going to free the People. The People must do that for themselves. This is how it has always been and always shall be.
This is what Shannon’s Sugar Daddy said he wanted to accomplish post Sandy Hook. He has used his dollars to convince democrat politicians that gun control is an election winning issue. He will cheerfully sacrifice them on the altar of his anti civil rights agenda.
100 million new firearms sales during President Hope and Change’s administration,
NRA’s national approval rating pushing 60%,
The loss of 1,000 democrat state level office holders over the past 6 years,
Democrats respond to terrorist attacks in the US with a “bend over and take it” strategy,
November 2016 will be remembered for decades to come as the date of the utter destruction of the democrat party.
I would like to know who they plan on using for door to door confiscation? You have to be suicidal to take that job.
Homeland Security purchased something like 2400 armored vehicles a few years back. Various agencies have ordered millions of rounds of 9mm ammo. Every federal agency now has a SWAT team and police powers. The BLM thugs were quite prepared to start shooting at the Bundy ranch. I don’t think the government would have much trouble finding people to kick in doors with the intent to confiscate guns. I hate to say that, but I think it’s true.
Thats going after one target at a time with a different reason. They also backed off pretty quick when militia showed up. If the order is to go out there and confiscate 300 million guns i cant imagine a bunch a feds raising their hands saying me first. Was it last year or year before that ex LAPD went nuts and starting targeting cops and pols. One ex cop locked down half of California for days. What would 10 guys do? 20? 50? 1,000? Any politician or so called journalist that calls for bans and confiscation should be first in line to do that job.
The fallacy of the left is assuming that people will line up and dump their guns into the government’s hands like (supposedly) happened in Australia. I say ‘supposedly’ since even the Australians admit they only got about a third of the existing inventory. And they didn’t have that many to begin with.
Now let’s be honest here. The government probably has a rough idea as to who has the guns. They can use the NFA (NFA item owners probably have multiple guns), the purported NICS pseudo-registry, and data mining to ferret out a lot of gun owners. It’d be a time-consuming process, and the nature of the confiscation would mean the first ones subject to it would be canaries in the coal mine, but even with this, a overreaching confiscation would be very difficult to execute.
And the price of executing might just be a very high one.
The control-freaks from the left are getting desperate and are spouting more b.s and hate every day.
The metaphorical balloon might be going up soon. :-/
Yup, we thought 2008 was interesting, but 2016 is going to make it look like a walk in the park.
I sold all of my guns. When the recession hit. Move along now. Thank you,
That’s not something a true 3%er would say.
I have items on the NFA registry, and I don’t care that the gov’t knows. For the day that I am arrested for owning my weapons, 100 citizens shall mobilize in my place.
Edit: strikethrough “citizens” and replace with “Patriots”
Count me in. I’m not worried though. My State will not be invaded by the Federal government again.
“@GovMalloyOffice 2 hours ago
We’re taking common sense steps in #CT to close the loophole and allow firearm permits to be denied to those on gov’t watch lists”
If you think that Hillary is bad news, I offer Dan Malloy as proof that things can always get worse. He is a savage gangster. Nothing more and nothing less.
The “talent” pool is amazingly shallow at the demtard party.
The GOP is at least having a vigorous healthy war between the RINOs who insist on continuing to run the party/screw things up and the citizens who are fed up and are going to take control. Encouraging that at present the RINOs (Bushy3, Cristyblimp, Grammnisty, are going nowhere, at least in Iowa. If the NH Republicans get there heads out there is hope.
The East coast “intelligentsia” who think they own the GOP are more disturbed by Trump and Cruz that they are by Hillary. That should tell you all need to know.
Which is more of a threat/dangerous, enemy in your camp or the one at the gate?
I’ve been doing my share by buying every gun I can, to keep them out of the hands of evil doers, ou course. 🙂
If confiscation becomes the Law of the Land then I will be a lawful citizen and give up my guns.
Well, I would, but…
Awww shucks, I’m embarrassed to admit this, but I was sea kayaking last week and damned if my Canon Series CA23 gun-safe didn’t slip out of the bungee cords I’d used to secure it to the kayak. It fell right into the Atlantic Ocean.
Now, I’m going to do my due diligence and see if it doesn’t turn up somewhere. It might wash up on shore. So I’m not going to file the insurance paper-work just yet. I’m an optimist; glass half-full kind of guy.
But if I had ’em. I’d be sure to obey the law and give them up.
Many years ago I took an oath to defend our republic from all foes foreign and domestic. I spilled my blood for that oath and will do so again.
For those who raised your right hand you may recall that there was NO sunset on your oath.
If enlisted you might be concerned with “obey the orders of the President of the United States”. This POS long ago shredded and has disregarded the Constitution so I think you can disregard this section.
The oath officers take is solely to the Constitution.
Why have very few on either side of the political spectrum pointed out that our own government has done a crap ton of weapons proliferation – both abroad and here at home? AR’s would not be everywhere had the DoD not made adopted the M-16, purchased loads of them (ammo too), and then tweak the heck out of it. Ditto for M1’s, M9’s, 1911’s and it holds true of other weapons in the hands of other countries; nobody blames Warsaw Pact countries for deaths due to AK’s . . . and that number is high.
Norinco and China would have the most blood on its hands as it is the closest you can come to one-stop-shopping for a modern military. So many of the weapons in civilian hands are the direct or indirect result of a government’s acquisition of better weapons.
I am not saying that disseminating weapons, ammo, and the tech involved w/ it is a good or bad thing. I am stating that if you want to blame people and entities who did not pull the trigger then blame the stars & stripes and “the republic for which it stands” . . . and China, Russia, the UK, etc.
WHAT does that have to do with the subject?
Been a lifetime member since ’99 and I can’t even get on their mailing list. Weird.
Good luck with that.
The amazing thing, to me, is how bonehead stupid these people are. Their proposition is garbage, and statistics indicate the opposite effect of availability of firearms from the one they espouse. And yet they deny all reason and logic.
This is the same as the radical left’s propositions concerning so-called “Global Warming”. AlGore (BS journalism) suddenly manifests as a climate science expert. Barry, Hillary and Bernie call it the biggest crisis of our age.Non scientists everywhere jump on the bandwagon touting forged data from NOAA and East Anglia CRU to support a hypothesis that every other data source indicates is pure bunk! Ideology trumps reality every time.
What could possibly be the reason these people would deny the world around them? Perhaps there is some basis to the theory that smoking dope causes psychosis later in life, because we sure are seeing a lot of old hippies with disordered thinking.