◀Previous Post
Next Post▶

"A total of 1,345 firearms were sold or surrendered during a two-day buyback program organized by the Bergen County Sheriff's Office." (caption and photo courtesy nj.com)

One of the things that make this work so hard: gun control advocates pretend they’re against gun confiscation. Its Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America – not Moms Demand Civilian Disarmament. It Americans for Responsible Solutions – not Americans to Eliminate the Second Amendment. It’s The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence – not The Brady Campaign for Gun Confiscation. Gun control groups and their camp followers will never admit their true goal is to deprive Americans of their natural, civil and Constitutional right to keep and bear arms, even as they work tirelessly to degrade and destroy Americans’ firearms freedom. TTAG is Toto, pulling the curtain back on the man behind the curtain. And here he is, warming-up with a tepid endorsement of New Jersey’s expanded gun buyback program . . .

Gun buyback programs are not going to reduce murders in cities like Newark and Camden. Studies have found that buyback programs don’t have much effect overall on either gun crime or gun-related injury rates.

They don’t directly target the guns that are more likely to be used in violence, and in general, the guns collected haven’t overlapped much with crime guns. These are old weapons that some middle-aged guy found in his basement. What criminal is going to trade in his $700 Bushmaster for $250 from the state?

The biggest problem with this approach, though, is that it tiptoes around the one reform that could really make a difference, but that Americans would never accept: Mandatory gun buybacks. That’s what Australia did, after its own version of Newtown.

Paging Mr. Orwell! Will George Orwell please report to the Citizens’ Committee for Euphemistic Positivism? In case you hadn’t guessed it, “mandatory gun buybacks” is Orwellian double-speak for “gun confiscation.”

Following a mass shooting in Tasmania that left 35 dead, Austrialia banned semiautomatic and automatic rifles and shotguns, and required all the newly banned weapons to be bought back by the government. This cut the number of gun-owning households by as much as half.

Wait. nj.com (“True Jersey”) wants to halve the number of “gun-owning households”? I thought the editorial was based on a distinction between “old weapons that some middle-aged guy found in his basement” and criminals with $700 Bushmasters? Ignoring the false assumption that criminals favor $700 modern sporting rifles, nj.com is asserting that the best way to get guns out of criminals hands is to get – and keep – guns out of everyone’s hands.

And that’s why we use the term civilian disarmament to describe gun control. Because gun control advocates will not stop until Americans are disarmed.

The mandatory buybacks were also accompanied by a uniform national system for licensing and registering firearms. Gun owners have to present a “genuine reason” to buy a weapon. A claim of self-defense isn’t enough unless you have an occupational need to carry a gun.

An occupation like . . . policeman? Can’t have a police state without the police! Anyway check out this conclusion, remembering that gun control advocates say armed Americans who fear a police state are delusional.

We understand this is not going to happen. Neither American courts nor most of the public would support it. As a nation we remain wedded to the delusion that gun ownership stops crime.

But guess what? It worked in Australia. [ED: or not] The gun homicide rate fell by 59 percent, and the suicide rate fell 65 percent. It virtually eliminated mass shootings.

And there was no corresponding increase in homicides or suicides that didn’t involve firearms. In other words, people weren’t just switching to other methods of violence — when guns weren’t as easily available, they weren’t acting on these impulses at all.

So do all the voluntary gun buybacks you want. But until they are mandatory, and our society can see past its hysteria over “gun confiscation,” don’t expect it to make much difference.

So gun owners have to get over their “hysteria” over “gun confiscation” so society can get on with the business of gun confiscation. Sorry, “mandatory gun buybacks.” The day that happens is the day that the American Dream officially dies. I know I speak for tens of millions of Americans when I say, not on my watch.

[h/t DN]

◀Previous Post
Next Post▶

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

107 COMMENTS

  1. Yeah Gun Grabbers are nuts.

    The real question is what is that gun in the far right of the image accompanying this story?

  2. Having spent 6 months in Australia, I tried to get a feel for how Australians felt about the situation. People in the cities tend to be indifferent, but even the government’s data shows that quite a few goodies are now buried in the Outback.

    • When governments try to ban things that people want, new and inventive ways are found to sidestep the prohibition. Can we say s-m-u-g-g-l-i-n-g? Guns are not really “banned” in OZ because there’s a thriving black-market in firearms of all sorts. It’s not particularly hard to find a handgun to buy, any more than it’s not particularly hard to find all manner of drugs in this country. Nobody in their right mind would claim that our “war on drugs” is in any way effective. Smugglers are both inventive and skilled. For them, prohibited commodities are a growth industry. Similarly, if you want a handgun in OZ you just have to ask the right people.

    • The murder by gun rates were already dropping before the Port Arthur mass shooting, after the forced sale, assaults, robberies, burglaries and rapes started rising in Australia.

  3. If you admit that Americans would soundly reject your ideas, why are you wasting your breath?

    • To make sure people keep hearing it, paving the way for a future in which confiscation will be acceptable to enough people to make it politically feasible. Long game.

      I know you know that. Needs to be said, anyhow. Wish we had one person repeating the truth for each instance of a gun grabber repeating a lie. Makes me tired, but that’s the price of first amendment freedoms.

  4. “As a nation we remain wedded to the delusion that gun ownership stops crime.”

    … as opposed to the delusion that gun ownership causes crime?

    • Liberals believe that weapons should be eliminated from society in order to be safe. They will accept that outlaws will have guns and things may get worse for a while until all outlaws are rounded up and disarmed. Even on a global scale, Liberals believe nuclear disarmament will make the world safer. They believe weapons came first and then normally good people took up arms and used them as instruments to overpower other people. Without the weapons, the people would have been content. This rationalization is at the core of the anti gun movement and I don’t think you can change that. This battle will never end.

      • You’re making a generalization, and a rather ignorant one at that. It isn’t liberals, it is those who are anti-gun rights. They are found to be liberals, conservatives, and even the occasional libertarian. Making sweeping generalizations about people does not support your case very well and only makes you look ignorant. It also tends to alienate those who could very well be an ally. I would be considered a liberal on many issues, although I abhor being placed in a box with a label slapped on the top, and I am more extreme concerning gun rights than most who identify as conservative that I know or have spoken to. Also, you may want to look the word liberal, in the political sense, up when you get a chance. Here I’ll do it for you…

        Liberal – of, pertaining to, based on, or advocating liberalism, especially the freedom of the individual and governmental guarantees of individual rights and liberties.

        It isn’t the dirty word that Fox news makes it out to be nor is it the political philosophy that most of our democratic politicians reflect. The same applies to the conservative camp. Both parties couldn’t care any less for individual rights. They simply apply that lack of concern to different issues.

        When it comes to nuclear weapons, they very well may have been the single greatest factor to world peace since WW2. I’m sure you understand why that is the case.

        Assigning people to nice neat little groups is indicative of a person who has been brainwashed by the MSM and is unable to think for themself or recognize individuality.

        “If by a “Liberal” they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people-their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights and their civil liberties-someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a “Liberal”, then I’m proud to say I’m a “Liberal.”

        John F. Kennedy

        • “If by a “Liberal” they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people-their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights and their civil liberties-someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a “Liberal”, then I’m proud to say I’m a “Liberal.”

          John F. Kennedy”

          Had Kennedy not been shot, and lived to see the abuses of those feel good ideals and their massive failures he would have retracted that statement..

        • You’re barking up the wrong tree chief. Your gripe isn’t with me…it’s with your fellow Liberals. Go back and convince them that big government isn’t the road to Utopia. Then explain that Utopia doesn’t exist. You are like those “moderate Muslims” I have been hearing about but yet to hear them speak out against terrorists using Islam as a justification for murder. Go do that first then we can talk.

        • And another thing…you bring up JFK as your Liberal hero? Why not FDR? Why not Carter? Why not Barack “I am a Christian not a Muslim” Obama? Take the blinders off man and see what Liberalism has done to the greatest system of government ever for mankind. The human being is a survivor. People will do what they have to to get by. We don’t need welfare and other “social” programs that siphon prosperity from the whole of society. Don’t you want society to prosper? Both Conservatives and Liberals want that but the Liberal plan is flawed. Present examples as well as historical evidence prove Liberalism is a failure as a blueprint for a nation. A dictatorship would be a better option as long as that dictator was Jesus Christ. Just because you are “pro gun”, you don’t get a pass from me. My being “pro gun” protects me from the likes of you. I don’t exercise the right to keep and bear arms for self defense. I do it to keep your dear tyrants at bay.

        • You are confusing traditional liberalism with neo-liberalism, which is progressive (pro-regressive) leftwing statism. The only thing common between the two is using and misusing the word liberal.

  5. Someone should point out that Australian police comitionar has stated that their gun laws did,’t work. Take a look at gunfacts . info. (Not trying to link to another site here). And we are paranoid or hysterical because we do not want to loose our firearms. Forced buyback? What don’t they just call for forced turn in and save the tax payers the money to “buy back”? Like the firearms ever belonged to the police or government in the first place.
    Just my 2 cents worth. 🙂

  6. You know sir, it was the craziest thing. I was on my way here to turn in my guns and stopped for coffee and someone took all of them when I went inside… Whooda thunk? All I have left are these single shots and shot guns….


  7. Start at 1:10 and watch until 1:42. That is exactly what this speaking out of both sides of the mouth sounds like.

  8. “Gun Homicides” may have fallen, but the academics agree that the overall crime rate was not effected. The crime rate was falling before the gun confiscations.

    There have not been any more mass shootings, but there haven’t been any more in New Zealand, either, which did not engage in the hoplophobic insanity:

    http://gunwatch.blogspot.com/2013/02/gun-confiscation-in-australia-not-shown.html

    The writer ignores this “mass shooting” in Australia in 2002. It did not make the grade because he only killed two people and wounded five.

    http://gunwatch.blogspot.com/2014/06/president-obama-ignores-australian-mass.html

    http://johnrlott.blogspot.com/2012/08/some-notes-on-claims-about-australias.html

    • “And there was no corresponding increase in homicides or suicides that didn’t involve firearms. In other words, people weren’t just switching to other methods of violence — when guns weren’t as easily available, they weren’t acting on these impulses at all.”

      Forgive me, but isn’t this statement a bold faced lie? As Dean said above, the Homicide rate did NOT decrease more after confiscation. So, the rate of other types of murders would HAVE to have increased to keep the rate steady…. It’s one thing to obfuscate, but out right lying infuriates me.

      • It seems the Australian law was passed during an in-process decrease in crime, so the question would be how long after the law is the author taking his statistics.

        Sounds like those that credited the American AWB in ’94 with creating the current downswing in crime that had started before the law was passed.

        So the authors statement may be technically true, even though the drop in crime and the ozzy law are unrelated.

  9. Sorry RF, but the American Dream is already dead. It was suffocated under corrupt government officials and crippling debt.

  10. The day they try ‘all out gun confiscation’ that will be the day a second revolution happens. Because, If i remember correctly, one of the reasons for the american revolution was that the British, were trying to confiscate the colonists firearms.

    • Lexington and Concord (first serious battle of the revolutionary war btw). Massachusetts militia begins training because of the tyranny and fear of the king. The king sends British troops to Concord to confiscate the militia’s weapons and gunpowder. The militia hears of it beforehand and fights the British in Lexington while they are on their way to Concord. Battle is lost at Lexington, but the militia beats the British at Concord and the British troops are attacked all along the way back.

  12. They act as if they would just love to up and move to Australia. What a crock! I bet the censorship alone would be a deal breaker for most of them.

  13. Yeah, well wait until ISIS or some other group gets their wish and commits public beheadings or starts to shoot up public places in disarmed areas. Australia almost got a taste of it this week. It will happen. And then those who are disarmed will say what?

    (CRICKETS. . . . .)

    • The PR campaign being run by ISIS is going to backfire in ways I don’t think they fully grasp.

      I believe the US will be hit by lone wolf ISIS beheadings. Then there will probably be a rash of folks of Middle East decent dropping dead by various and differing ways.

      Then the law will have a real fun time trying to question 100 million plus suspects.

    • They will say “Thank goodness they didn’t have firearms, they could have shot all those people instead of cutting off their heads! Think of the children!”

  15. But Lewis Black made fun of people that think anybody wants to take our guns away. He is critical of the government so he must be credible… Of course nobody wants to take our guns sure. I believe that the nsa is here to protect me, my taxes pay to improve the nation, and America has no free rides. Yep must all be true.

  16. Just like in America, the overall crime rate (gun involving also) was already on a steady decrease before, and after, Australia’s gun-confiscation.

    • Australia’s violent crime immediately went up after the forced turn-ins in 1996, and though it has gone down since, it still isn’t below what it was pre-1996 almost two decades later. There is also zero empirical evidence that the forced turn-ins had any part in this decline, either. For that matter, the per-capita violent crime rate there is still more than 3 times higher than it is in the U.S.

      Also don’t forget the several arson murders since then that killed more than a dozen people apiece.

      Firearms theft in Australia also went up and has since stayed up, and is even continuing to increase. More than half of all homes from which guns were stolen were found to be in compliance with the current storage laws.

      Australians are, as a matter of inescapable and mathematically-provable fact, less safe now than they were 18 years ago.

  17. Ah, another fresh entry into my “Yes, they really DO want our guns” collection. For your viewing pleasure, here’s the whole damn thing.

    Fmr. President William J. Clinton does.

    “And we should — then every community in the country could then start doing major weapon sweeps and then destroying the weapons, not selling them.”

    “When we got organized as a country and we wrote a fairly radical Constitution with a radical Bill of Rights, giving a radical amount of individual freedom to Americans …And so a lot of people say there’s too much personal freedom. When personal freedom’s being abused, you have to move to limit it. That’s what we did in the announcement I made last weekend on the public housing projects, about how we’re going to have weapon sweeps and more things like that to try to make people safer in their communities.” – MTV’s “Enough is Enough!”, 22 March, 1994

    “We can’t be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary Americans…” – USA Today, 11 March, 1993, pg. 2A

    “If the personal freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution inhibit the government’s ability to govern the people, we should look to limit those guarantees.” – 12 August, 1993

    “You know the one thing that’s wrong with this country? Everyone gets a chance to have their fair say.” – From his speech in Philadelphia PA City Hall Courtyard, 28 May, 1993

    “There is no reason for anyone in this country – anyone except a police officer or military person – to buy, to own, to have, to use a handgun. The only way to control handgun use in this country is to prohibit the guns.” – While signing The Brady Bill, 1993

    “The purpose of government is to rein in the rights of the people.” – MTV, 1993

    “I feel very strongly about it [the Brady Bill]. I think – I also associate myself with the other remarks of the Attorney General. I think it’s the beginning. It’s not the end of the process by any means.” – 11 August, 1993

    Senator Dianne Feinstein (D – CA) does.

    “Banning guns addresses a fundamental right of all Americans to feel safe.” – Associated Press, 18 November, 1993.

    “If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them; “Mr. and Mrs. America, turn ‘em all in,” I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren’t here.” – 60 Minutes on CBS, 5 February, 1995.

    “The National Guard fulfills the militia mentioned in the Second amendment. Citizens no longer need to protect the states or themselves.”

    Senator Frank Launtenberg (D – NJ) did.

    “We have other legislation that all of you are aware that I have been so active on, with my colleagues here, and that is to shut down the gun shows.”

    He died in 2013.

    Fmr. Senator Howard Metzenbaum (D – OH) did.

    “No, we’re not looking at how to control criminals … we’re talking about banning the AK-47 and semi-automatic guns.” – Constitution Subcommittee, 2 February, 1989

    “I don’t care about crime, I just want to get the guns.”

    “What good does it do to ban some guns. All guns should be banned.”

    He died in 2008.

    Fmr. Representative Charles Pashayan (R – CA) does.

    “All of this has to be understood as part of a process leading ultimately to a treaty
    that will give an international body power over our domestic laws.”     – United Nations Small Arms Conference, 2001

    Fmr. Senator John Chafee (R – RI) did.

    “I shortly will introduce legislation banning the sale, manufacture or possession of handguns (with exceptions for law enforcement and licensed target clubs)… . It is time to act. We cannot go on like this. Ban them!” – Minneapolis Star Tribune pg. 31A, 15 June, 1992.

    He died in 1999.

    Then-Senator (now Vice President) Joe “Buckshot” Biden (D – DE) does.

    “Banning guns is an idea whose time has come.” – Associated Press, 11 November, 1993

    Representative Jan Schakowski (D – IL) does.

    “I believe…..this is my final word……I believe that I’m supporting the Constitution of the United States which does not give the right for any individual to own a handgun….” – Recorded 25 June, 2000 by Matt Beauchamp

    “We want everything on the table. This is a moment of opportunity. There’s no question about it…We’re on a roll now, and I think we’ve got to take the–you know, we’re gonna push as hard as we can and as far as we can.” – The Global Dispatch, 12 March, 2013.

    http://www.theglobaldispatch.com/illinois-rep-jan-schakowsky-says-assault-rifle-ban-just-the-beginning-moment-of-opportunity-and-seeks-to-ban-handguns-70067/

    http://youtu.be/BVz2lHODQvs – Interview by Jason Mattera

    Fmr. Representative Major Owens (D – NY) did.

    “We have to start with a ban on the manufacturing and import of handguns. From there we register the guns which are currently owned, and follow that with additional bans and acquisitions of handguns and rifles with no sporting purpose.”

    “Mr. Speaker, my bill prohibits the importation, exportation, manufacture, sale, purchase, transfer, receipt, possession, or transportation of handguns and handgun ammunition. It establishes a 6-month grace period for the turning in of handguns.” – Congressional Record, 10 November, 1993

    He died in 2013.

    Representative Bobby Rush (D – IL) does.

    “My staff and I right now are working on a comprehensive gun-control bill. We don’t have all the details, but for instance, regulating the sale and purchase of bullets. Ultimately, I would like to see the manufacture and possession of handguns banned except for military and police use. But that’s the endgame. And in the meantime, there are some specific things that we can do with legislation.”

    Fmr. Representative Craig Anthony Washington (D – TX) does.

    “This is not all we will have in future Congresses, but this is a crack in the door. There are too many handguns in the hands of citizens. The right to keep and bear arms has nothing to do with the Brady Bill.” – Mark-up hearing on The Brady Bill, 10 April, 1991

    Fmr. Massachusetts State Governor and State House Representative Michael Dukakis (D) does.

    “I do not believe in people owning guns. Guns should be owned only by [the] police and military. I am going to do everything I can to disarm this state.”

    Fmr. Representative Henry Waxman (D – CA) does.

    “If someone is so fearful that they are going to start using their weapons to protect their rights, it makes me very nervous that these people have weapons at all.”

    Fmr. Representative William Lacy Clay, Sr. (D – MO) does.

    “The Brady Bill is the minimum step Congress should take…we need much stricter gun control, and eventually should bar the ownership of handguns, except in a few cases.” – St. Louis Dispatch, 6 May, 1991

    Senator Charles Ellis Schumer (D – NY) does.

    “We’re here to tell the NRA their nightmare is true! … We’re going to hammer guns on the anvil of relentless legislative strategy. We’re going to beat guns into submission!” – NBC Nightly News, 30 November, 1993

    Representative Shiela Jackson Lee (D – TX) does.

    “I would personally just say to those who are listening, maybe you want to turn in your guns.”

    Fmr. First Lady and Fmr. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton (D) does.

    “I’m personally all for taxing guns to pay for health care coverage.”

    Vermont State Senator Mary Ann Carlson (D) does.

    “We must be able to arrest people before they commit crimes. By registering guns and knowing
    who has them we can do that. If they have guns they are pretty likely to commit a crime.”

    Colorado State Senator (and Majority Leader) John Morse (D) does.

    “People who own guns are essentially a sickness in our souls who must be cleansed.”

    New Jersey State Senators Loretta Weinberg, Sandra Cunningham, and Linda Greenstein all do.

    “We needed a bill that was going to confiscate, confiscate, confiscate… They don’t care about the bad guys. All they want to do is have their little guns and do whatever they want with them.”

    http://www.examiner.com/article/open-mike-reveals-n-j-senators-contempt-for-gun-owners-confiscation-goal

    Fmr. California State Senator Leeland Yee (D) does.

    “It is extremely important that individuals in the state of California do not own assault weapons. I mean that is just so crystal clear, there is no debate, no discussion.” – CBS San Francisco, 20 May, 2012, before he was arrested and charged with gun-trafficking, taking bribes, money laundering, and official corruption on 24 March, 2014.

    http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2012/05/20/cbs-5-story-inspires-new-legislation-to-ban-bullet-button/

    http://www.sfgate.com/file/757/757-complaint_affidavit_14-70421-nc.pdf

    Fmr. United States Attorney General Janet “Waco” Reno does.

    “Gun registration is not enough.” – On ABC’s “Good Morning America”, 10 December, 1993

    “Waiting periods are only a step. Registration is only a step. The prohibition of private firearms is the goal.”

    Fmr. Director of the ATF John Magaw does.

    “The truth is, [handguns] are used to assassinate people, to kill people, because they are very easily concealed, you can drop them in any pocket.” – When interviewed by ABC’s Day One correspondent John McKenzie.

    Boston Police Commissioner William Evans does.

    “Having long guns – rifles and shotguns – especially here in the city of Boston, I think we should have, as the local authority, some say in the matter. For the most part, nobody in the city needs a shotgun. Nobody needs a rifle.” – Boston Public Radio, 23 July, 2013

    Fmr. New York City Police Commissioner Patrick V. Murphy did.

    “We are at the point in time and terror where nothing short of a strong uniform policy of domestic disarmament will alleviate the danger which is crystal clear and perilously present. Let us take the guns away from the people. Exemptions should be limited to the military, the police, and those licensed for good and sufficient reasons. And I would look forward to the day when it would not be necessary for the policeman to carry a sidearm.”

    He died in 2011.

    Fmr. San Jose Police Chief Joseph McNamara does.

    “My experience as a street cop suggests that most merchants should not have guns. But I feel even stronger about the average person having them…most homeowners…simply have no need to own guns.”

    East Palo Alto Police Detective Rod Tuason does.

    “Sounds like you had someone practicing their 2nd amendment rights last night. Should’ve pulled the AR out and prone them all out! And if one of them makes a furtive movement … 2 weeks off!!!”

    He is currently being investigated for ethics violations.

    http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/02/14/gun-rights-advocates-target-california-detective-following-facebook-posts/

    Branford, Connecticut Police Officer Joseph Peterson does.

    “I [would] give my left nut to bang down your door and come for your gun.” Those are his exact words to a long-time “friend” of his . . .

    http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/03/10/officer-reportedly-tells-citizen-i-give-my-left-n-to-bang-down-your-door-and-come-for-your-gun/

    Connecticut Superior Court Judge Robert C. Brunetti does.

    “No one in this country should have guns. I never return guns.”

    http://www.examiner.com/article/connecticut-judge-declares-no-one-should-have-guns

    Connecticut Superior Court Judge Edward Mullarkey does, too.

    “Those who support the Second Amendment should be ashamed.”

    http://ctcarry.com/News/Release/631a41bd-55f3-4b63-9644-c79617bd54d9

    New York State Governor Andrew Cuomo (D) does.

    “Confiscation could be an option. Mandatory sale to the state could be an option. Permitting could be an option — keep your gun but permit it.” – New York Times, 21 December, 2012

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/21/nyregion/cuomo-says-he-will-outline-gun-measures-next-month.html?_r=0

    Chicago Mayor Rahm Emmanuel does.

    “We’re bending the law as far as we can to ban an entirely new class of guns.”

    Fmr. Stockton, CA Mayor Barbara Fass does.

    “I think you have to do it a step at a time and I think that is what the NRA is most concerned about. Is that it will happen one very small step at a time so that by the time, um, people have woken up, quote, to what’s happened, it’s gone farther than what they feel the consensus of American citizens would be. But it does have to go one step at a time and the banning of semi-assault military weapons that are military weapons, not household weapons, is the first step.”

    Deborah Prothrow-Stith, of the Office of Government and Community Programs and the Community Violence Prevention Project at the Harvard School of Public Health, does.

    “My own view on gun control is simple: I hate guns and I cannot imagine why anybody would want to own one. If I had my way, guns for sport would be registered, and all other guns would be banned.”

    Chester M. Pierce, Fmr. Harvard psychiatrist, does.

    “Every child in America entering school at the age of five is mentally ill because he comes to school with certain allegiances to our founding fathers, toward our elected officials, toward his parents, toward a belief in a supernatural being, and toward the sovereignty of this nation as a separate entity. It’s up to you as teachers to make all these sick children well by creating the international child of the future.” – Speaking as an “expert” in public education, 1973 International Education Seminar

    Fmr. Chancellor of Boston University John Silber did.

    “I don’t believe anybody has a right to own any kind of a firearm. I believe in order to obtain a permit to own a firearm, that person should undergo an exhaustive criminal background check. In addition, an applicant should give up his right to privacy and submit his medical records for review to see if the person has ever had a problem with alcohol, drugs or mental illness . . . The Constitution doesn’t count!”

    He died in 2012.

    Sarah Brady, fmr. Chairman of Handgun Control Inc. (now The Brady Campaign) does.

    “…I don’t believe gun owners have rights.” – Hearst Newspapers, October 1997

    “The House passage of our bill is a victory for this country! Common sense wins out. I’m just so thrilled and excited. The sale of guns must stop. Halfway measures are not enough.” – 1 July, 1988

    “We must get rid of all the guns.” – Speaking on behalf of HCI, with Sheriff Jay Printz (of Printz v. U.S. fame no less!), “The Phil Donahue Show”, September, 1994

    “The only reason for guns in civilian hands is for sporting purposes.” – Tampa Tribune, 21 October, 1991

    James Brady, husband of Sarah Brady, did.

    “For target shooting, that’s okay. Get a license and go to the range. For defense of the home, that’s why we have police departments.” – Parade Magazine, 26 June, 1994

    He died in 2014.

    Nelson T. “Pete” Shields, Sarah Brady’s predecessor at HCI, does.

    “Our ultimate goal – total control of handguns in the United States – is going to take time…The first problem is to slow down the increasing number of handguns being produced…The second problem is to get handguns registered. And the final problem is to make the possession of handguns and all handgun ammunition –except for the military, policemen, licensed security guards, licensed sporting clubs, and licensed gun collectors– totally illegal.” – The New Yorker Magazine, 26 July, 1976, pg. 53F

    Josh Sugarmann, Executive Director of the Violence Policy Center, does.

    “Americans are ready to hate somebody, and it’s going to be the gun industry.” – Newsweek Magazine, 16 ay, 1994

    “The word ‘hate’ is a very carefully chosen word. There’s got to be a real sense of revulsion and disgust. People are looking for someone to blame, someone who’s the cause of their problems, and it should be the gun industry. These guys are the living embodiment of the slogan, ‘Guns don’t kill people-people kill people’. They’re complete mercenaries.” – The New American Magazine, 13 June, 1994

    “A gun-control movement worthy of the name would insist that President Clinton move beyond his proposals for controls … and immediately call on Congress to pass far-reaching industry regulation like the Firearms Safety and Consumer Protection Act … [which] would give the Treasury Department health and safety authority over the gun industry, and any rational regulator with that authority would ban handguns.”

    Michael K. Beard, Fmr President of The Coalition To Stop Gun Violence, does.

    “Our goal is to not allow anybody to buy a handgun. In the meantime, we think there ought to be strict licensing and regulation.” – The Washington Times, 9 December, 1993

    Time Magazine does.

    “As you probably know by now, Time’s editors, in the April 13 issue, took a strong position in support of an outright ban on handguns for private use.” – Letter to the NRA, 24 April, 1981

    The New York Times does.

    “The only way to discourage the gun culture is to remove the guns from the hands and shoulders of people who are not in the law enforcement business.” – Unsigned editorial, 24 September, 1975

    The Washington Post does.

    “The sale, manufacture, and possession of handguns ought to be banned…We do not believe the 2nd Amendment guarantees an individual the right to keep them.” – “Legal Guns Kill Too”, 5 November, 1999

    The Star-Ledger Editorial Board does.

    “So do all the voluntary gun buybacks you want. But until they are mandatory, and our society can see past its hysteria over “gun confiscation,” don’t expect it to make much difference.” – “What N.J. really needs is andatory gun buybacks: Editorial”, 19 September, 2014

    Michael Gartner, Fmr. President of NBC News, does.

    “There is no reason for anyone in this country, for anyone except a police officer or a military person, to buy, to own, to have, to use, a handgun. The only way to control handgun use in this country is to prohibit the guns. And the only way to do that is to change the Constitution.” – USA Today, “Glut of Guns: What Can We Do About Them?”, 16 January, 1992

    Charles Krauthammer, a nationally syndicated columnist, does.

    “In fact, the assault weapons ban will have no significant effect either on the crime rate or on personal security. Nonetheless, it is a good idea . . . . Its only real justification is not to reduce crime but to desensitize the public to the regulation of weapons in preparation for their ultimate confiscation.” – From “Disarm the Citizenry. But Not Yet.”, The Washington Post, 5 April, 1996

    “I have no problem in principle with gun control. Congress enacted (and I supported) an assault weapons ban in 1994. The problem was: It didn’t work. (So concluded a University of Pennsylvania study commissioned by the Justice Department.) The reason is simple. Unless you are prepared to confiscate all existing firearms, disarm the citizenry and repeal the Second Amendment, it’s almost impossible to craft a law that will be effective.” – From “The root of mass-murder.”, The Washington Post, 20 December, 2012

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/charles-krauthammer-the-roots-of-mass-murder/2012/12/20/e4d99594-4ae3-11e2-b709-667035ff9029_story.html

    Molly Ivan, another nationally syndicated columnist, does.

    “Ban the damn things. Ban them all. You want protection? Get a dog.” – 19 July, 1994

    “Professor” Dean Morris, Director of the Law Enforcement Assistance Association does.

    “I am one who believes that as a first step, the United States should move expeditiously to disarm the civilian population, other than police and security officers, of all handguns, pistols, and revolvers…No one should have the right to anonymous ownership or use of a gun.”

    J. Elliot Corbett, Secretary of the National Council for Responsible Firearms Policy, does.

    “We are now supporting the President’s bill which provides stringent restrictions on rifles and shotguns. We shall also get behind the bill which provides for national registration and licensing. I personally believe handguns should be outlawed.” – 17 June, 1968

    “Handguns should be outlawed. Our organization will probably take this stand in time but we are not anxious to rouse the opposition before we get the other legislation passed.” – Interviewed for the Washington Evening Star, 19 September, 1969

    Rosie O’Donnell does.

    “I think there should be a law — and I know this is extreme — that no one can have a gun in the U.S. If you have a gun, you go to jail. Only the police should have guns.” – Ottawa Sun, 29 April, 1999

    “I don’t care if you want to hunt, I don’t care if you think it’s your right. I say, sorry, you are not allowed to own a gun, and if you do own a gun I think you should go to prison.” – The Rosie O’Donnell Show, 19 April, 1999.

    The American Civil “Liberties” Union does.

    “We urge passage of federal legislation … to prohibit … the private ownership and possession of handguns.” – National ACLU Policy #47, adopted by its Board of Directors in September, 1976

    The United Nations does.

    “Tighten controls on the gun trade in the United States and other member nations.” – UN Disarmament Commission

    Poughkeepsie, NY Mayor John Tkayik (R) knows the truth.

    “I’m no longer a member of MAIG. Why? It did not take long to realize that MAIG’s agenda was much more than ridding felons of illegal guns; that under the guise of helping mayors facing a crime and drug epidemic, MAIG intended to promote confiscation of guns from law-abiding citizens.”

    He is currently running for New York State Senator, 41st District.

    Sioux City, MO Mayor Bob Scott knows the truth, too.

    “I was never an active member. They’re not just against illegal guns, they’re against all guns.”

    So does Madeira Beach, FL Mayor Patricia Shontz.

    “I am withdrawing because I believe the MAIG is attempting to erode all gun ownership, not just illegal guns. Additionally, I have learned that the MAIG may be working on issues which conflict with legal gun ownership. It appears the MAIG has misrepresented itself to the Mayors of America and its citizens. This is gun control, not crime prevention.”

    Nashua, NH Mayor Donnalee Lozeauk nows.

    “I simply cannot be part of an organization that chooses this course of action instead of cooperatively working with those that have proven over a lifetime of work their true intentions.”

    Edgewood, KY Mayor John D. Link found out.

    “Sometime ago, I attended a meeting with many city officials from throughout the United States. At this meeting there was a table with the title “Mayors Against Illegal Guns.” Not wanting illegal guns, I signed the form not knowing what kind of spin would ensue. As it turned out, I was against the 2nd amendment, etc. I have since been removed from the “Mayors Against Illegal Guns” movement. On our city website I have a letter to all stating my position. I’m not against the NRA, guns, or hunting, and never will be.”

    Oldmans Township, NJ Mayor Harry Moore knows better now.

    “It is simply unconscionable that this coalition, under your [Michael Bloomberg’s] leadership, would call for a repeal of the Shelby/Tiahrt amendment that helps to safeguard criminal investigations and the lives of law enforcement officers, witnesses, and others by restricting access to firearms trace data solely to law enforcement. How anyone, least of all a public official, could be willing to sacrifice such a law enforcement lifeline in order to gain an edge in suing an industry they have political differences with is repugnant to me. The fact that your campaign against this protective language consisted of overheated rhetoric, deception, and falsehoods is disturbing.”

    I could go on literally for days and days, listing pages upon pages of people saying exactly how and why they’re coming for our guns. Not a single bit of it could ever be supported, defended, or refuted by them, either.

  18. I get that: things are a lot better in Australia (England, etc) since their gun bans, from anti gunners.
    Anyone into crime stats can help me out?
    Also, the “no one blames the car when drunk drivers kill”, because cars are licensed and registered and, the only purpose for a gun is to kill.
    I’ll never convince this guy……

    • I don’t know, I kind of like the mythology of America as the wild west. Something about frail little grabbers cowering in the dark at that idea makes me grin inside. When I debate them I usually encourage them to indulge in that fantasy, even going so far as to make stuff up to help them along. For example, I will casually infer that just about everybody I know carries a gun (not true at all) and that it is I who is weirded out by their anti-gun attitude. 🙂 Kidding aside, though, the right answer to the euro comparison is to reject the premise, which is that we should even desire to be like a european country in the first place. America enjoys an abundance of wealth and liberty, and it’s not because we’ve emulated the old kingdom. The founding fathers could have also given up their guns to be more like europe, and it WOULD have actually saved lives…. because there would have been no revolution. But knowing what they (grabbers) know now, would they go back and urge them to do that? If it shouldn’t have happened then, it shouldn’t happen now.

      The basic attack on any car comparison argument is that guns are “made to kill.” Cars are not made to kill, but kill more than guns. Hospitals are actually “made to save,” and yet also manage to kill more than guns. To put the icing on the cake, the vast majority of gun murderers DROVE themselves, or were DRIVEN to, the scene of their crime. In a car. Indeed, having a car makes most crimes much easier to commit. I personally am more terrified at the loose vehicle laws in this country, knowing just how much freedom of mobility criminals have when they drive. But whenever there is a “multi county/state shooting spree” they for some reason never mention the car, as though such a thing were possible without one. ^This is an argument that makes exactly as much sense as blaming the gun, which might just get your friend to think a little harder about it.

  19. Gun confiscations and the origins of antis are racism. Gun confiscation will hurt inner city law abiding residents who them will have nothing to defend themselves and their families from armed home invasions, criminals. mentally unsound, and jihadists. Democrats are usually the authors and instigators of gun confiscations and antis, just as they founded the KKK, and opposed the Civil Rights Movement and legislation.

    • And to back that up, the first gun laws came after or before (I don’t remember) the civil war to prevent blacks and former slaves from being able to own guns. Historical FACT.

  20. “It virtually eliminated mass shootings.”

    Confiscate now and we’ll also throw in this brand new freedom of speech abolishment act! Tired of thinking of something to say? Don’t worry, we’ll think for you! This sale will guarantee violence free living for ten easy payments of one civil right a month!

    When I see the word virtually I always pause and think of what they’re trying to sell me. It’s a marketing buzzword that drives me insane because the manner in which they use it means absolutely nothing. They claim “Virtually pain free!” Does it still hurt? Yes… Then it isn’t pain free, even if it’s little pain…

    • virtually = almost like. virtual reality= almost like reality, and so forth. However you are correct it is a marketing buz word.

  21. Over your dead body. Let’s be just like Britain or Australia and let the Al Qaeda/ISIS hoards
    chop our heads off. This is AMERICA jack. It’s amazing how 80000000 gun owners are continually threatened by unarmed proglodytes(I like that better than progtards) 🙂

    • Honestly I don’t think that we are threatens by these bloviators (the only Bil O word that still sticks with me). Its the ideas they might give to politicians and more importantly the hidden army that most of the departments in the executive branch have. Why the EPA has armed forces is beyond my wildest attempts at understanding, they don’t need guns to be terrorists. And I don’t even want to think about the DO Education….

  22. OK I’ll trade you “mandatory buyback” for “mandatory press edits” from the government. Yeah, I didn’t think that the press would go for that…

  23. By this logic, we should do a mandatory buyback of digital cameras and high capacity memory cards if we want to crack down on child pornography.

    Is it not the perfect analogy?

    • I’d go along with banning children, but I’ll only give up my camera when they pry it from my cold, dead tripod.

      • Was that supposed to be helpful? I refer people to this blog as an example of rational arguments against gun-control hysteria. Please don’t assert that Liberals, many of whom support the Second Amendment (or would, upon realizing that most fun owners are responsible adults), are supportive of child pornography.

        When you do so, you sink to the same level as those who churlishly claim that gun owners don’t care about children accidentally killed with firearms.

        Thank you.

  24. The Ruger Standard Auto .22 (lower left of pic) makes me sad. It looks like an oldie with the hard rubber grips and dull/brushed aluminum medallion.

  25. I invite Shannon Watts, MDA and all the others who claim to support the Second Amendment (while calling for “reasonable” gun controls) to step forward and condemn NJ.com’s clearly anti-2A stance.

    Or is there no such thing as unreasonable gun control in their view?

  27. “The gun homicide rate fell by 59 percent, and the suicide rate fell 65 percent. It virtually eliminated mass shootings.

    And there was no corresponding increase in homicides or suicides that didn’t involve firearms. In other words, people weren’t just switching to other methods of violence — when guns weren’t as easily available, they weren’t acting on these impulses at all.”

    Uh huh. Sure. People in a homicidal rage just chill out when they don’t have access to a gun. I’ve got a bridge up for sale that you might be interested in.

    First, homicides were falling starting in the 1980s, well before the ban took effect in 1996.
    http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected]/Lookup/4524A092E30E4486CA2569DE00256331

    Second, while the number of homicides has gone down, the number of assaults went up by over 30% over the period 1996-2007. So did the number of sexual assaults, by ~25% over the same period. Then you have robberies, which spiked immediately after the ban, and then fell back down to a level still appreciably above the 1996 rate.
    http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/violent%20crime.html
    http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/violent%20crime/sexual%20assault.html
    http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/violent%20crime/victims.html

  28. So is that the same NJ where our next most likely REPUBLICAN presidential candidate is governor? As much as I hate Hillary, I think he might be worse.

  29. This article could not be more true. Look at it this way ; let’s say last year the so called universal background checks were passed. Would all the gun control groups be disbanded now? Or how about if they got the background checks and Feinsteins ban. Surely they would just leave us alone then, right? Don’t bet on it! They will not stop until private ownership of firearms is outlawed in this country.

  31. “And there was no corresponding increase in homicides or suicides that didn’t involve firearms. In other words, people weren’t just switching to other methods of violence — when guns weren’t as easily available, they weren’t acting on these impulses at all.”

    The Australian Institute of Criminology website seems to show that as firearm use in homicides decreased the use of knives and other sharp implements increased.
    http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/homicide/weapon.html

    Homicide in Australia and the U.S. has been decreasing steadily for decades and has nothing to do with the availability of weapons. To say otherwise is just turning a blind eye to the bigger picture.

    I do wonder thought if Australia’s 1996 firearm confiscation had anything to do with their increase in robbery, kidnappings, assaults, and sexual assaults. 😉

    http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/violent%20crime/victims.html

  32. I got into an argument with someone who was advocating the gun buybacks, Australian style, so I dug a little deeper. I found out that he and the author is right, homicide by firearm decreased by 30%, however the article forgot to mention that homicide by knife went up 41%, so literally the homicide rate was not effected by gun control.

  33. The country is on edge, and the catalyst that will push it over the edge is gun confiscation. Do these people have any clue what they propose?

  34. Let’s assume for the sake of argument that the gun homicide rate did indeed fall by 59% and the homicide by other means incidence remained approximately the same.

    That’s hardly comfort to the remaining 40% of people who will be killed by a gun who have been forcibly disarmed by the government. It’s also not going to make all the people feel better who are killed with a knife or strangled happy that statistically, they’re less likely to be killed with a gun as they lose consciousness.

  35. This piece by NJ.com is just silly. Must have been a slow day there, or shows how abjectly desperate they are to stir up anti-gun sentiment. It’s the paradigm of cowardice to call for something tyrannical to be done that you don’t have the courage or intention of doing yourself, but will gladly have someone else do it at your bidding.

    It’s the height of stupidity to call for something tyrannical to be done, then say that you know it will never really happen.

    The experience of the Australians ONLY proved that when criminals have no fear of being effectively resisted they will victimize more and more people at will. Firearms in the “keeping” of ordinary folks are a deterrent to crime. It really is that simple.

    Oh…and New Jersey can keep Chris “Ralph Kramden” Christie all to themselves. Thank-you very much.

  36. “So gun owners have to get over their “hysteria” over “gun confiscation” so society can get on with the business of gun confiscation.”

    +1, totally describes what that person is saying….or in other words: “Why won’t you stop being hysterical and stand still so I can give you your beating?!”

  37. Perhaps if judges would do the job they were appointed/elected to do & put the criminals in jail for the max including the polticians no more plea bargains. 2 appeal limit for all sentences & no parole because they suddenly found Jesus. They all become saved because it looks good to liberal probatio/parole boards, as most are appointed by liberal politicians.
    Stop playing social worker because the poor youth had a bad childhood that’s why he broke in & raped your wife/daughter or even you. He will not be rehabilitated just become a better scumbag. I am sick of the race card, gun owners fault, liberal mentality in this country. My wife is from NJ & Newark the best thing that could possibly happen is take the libtards put them all in NJ & install laser fencing. They can all live in utopia then. The rest of the country will be better off.

    If Chris Christie becomes president we are as screwed as Hillary being elected. It’s getting closer too the tree of liberty needing water.

  38. Check out Armatix P1 for NJ
    If you have access to policeone check the comments cops think the NJ mandated smart gun is stupid, unnecessary & won’t work.

  39. I found it encouraging that at least a couple of those idiots found it necessary to amend the Constitution before engaging on their wild plans. Now, if I just trusted our system of voting, I’d be confident that can’t happen.

Comments are closed.