Vox: The Only Way to ‘Do Something’ About Gun Violence is Nationwide Confiscation

national gun control confiscation

(AP Photo/Lynne Sladky)

In the aftermath of two horrific shootings over the weekend, Vox is quite comfortable calling for what the anti-gun left has wanted in this country since the lat 1960’s — full-on gun confiscation.

But let’s be clear about precisely what kind of decision is letting events like this recur, most recently in Dayton and El Paso. Congress’s decision not to pass background checks is not what’s keeping the US from European gun violence levels. The expiration of the assault weapons ban is not behind the gap. What’s behind the gap, plenty of research indicates, is that Americans have more guns. The statistics are mind-blowing: America has 4.4 percent of the world’s population but almost half of its civilian-owned guns.

Realistically, a gun control plan that has any hope of getting us down to European levels of violence is going to mean taking a huge number of guns away from a huge number of gun owners.

Other countries have done exactly that. Australia, for example, enacted a mandatory gun buyback that achieved that goal, and saw firearm suicides fall as a result. But the reforms those countries enacted are far more dramatic than anything US politicians are calling for — and even they wouldn’t get us to where many other developed countries are.

– Dylan Matthews in What no politician wants to admit about gun control

And now at least one Democrat presidential candidate feels comfortable advocating door-to-door gun grabs, too.

comments

  1. avatar John Boch says:

    Molon labe.

    1. avatar I Haz A Question says:

      CA Senator Kamala Harris? That’s nothing new. Her partner in crime, our CA Attorney General Xavier Becerra, has already publicly lavished praise on our state’s registration system and how it helps his efforts of literally going door to door taking guns from people who were previously legally able to own them, until the laws were changed.

      Basically, if you register your guns, you’re willingly subjecting yourself to the whims of Sacramento. I personally know people (FUDDs) who have done this when they had other legal options and didn’t have to.

      1. avatar Rad Man says:

        She’s willing to send someone else to do her dirty work? How gutsy is she!

        1. avatar 2A4LIFE says:

          Not gutsy enough to do the confiscations herself 🙂

      2. avatar Clinger says:

        Interesting she sees no obstacle in the second amendment. If you can ignore that one you can ignore them all.

        Welcome to China.

        1. avatar Kendahl says:

          In her mind, the Bill of Rights has only one sentence: You have the right to shut up and do as you are told.

      3. avatar William Henson says:

        People we need to stand strong together and never let them take our guns from us.NO GUNS NO WAY TO DEFEND YOURSELF….End of story

      1. avatar Bob in IN says:

        Here?

    2. avatar Garrison Hall says:

      When assimilation fails, as it usually does, the movement moves to coercive reform. Gun control has always been about punishing cultural enemies. That’s us.

    3. avatar Old Air Force says:

      How many LEO’s or military are willing to violate their oath with such an unlawful order. The ones I know here in Texas say that a wholesale confiscation order is in direct violation of the Constitution and they will refuse.

      1. avatar FrankTX says:

        I bet most of them would do it gladly, just to keep what they have hidden at home from being confiscated by their progressive keepers.

        1. avatar Donttreadonme says:

          In LE, ABSOLUTELY. In MIL, not so much.

          And to the leftists that want confiscation I say, please. Please start it already because thats what its gonna take to wake up gun owners.

      2. avatar Blue says:

        I will be surprised if 50% of LEO actually back 2A at this point in time. It has shifted a lot the past 5 years due to retirements etc. Plus, many of them like the pay check etc.

        1. avatar LarryinTX says:

          All LE has to do is assert that they are out there confiscating, and their jobs are safe. Have another donut and maybe visit home for a quickie. Going to the door of a citizen to possibly be shot dead for enforcing unconstitutional tyranny seems much less inviting.

    4. avatar LibertyToad says:

      If they want to increase “gun violence” than a program of national confiscation would do it….

      They always blame everyone else except the nutcases that pull the trigger….

    5. avatar Jim in Texas says:

      I say let Kamela Harris lead the entry team. Easy to send others to their possible death. Not so easy if your ass is on the line.

      1. avatar tsbhoa.p.jr says:

        that worked for her before.
        it’s how she got the job.

        1. avatar JR Pollock says:

          Her ass wasn’t “on the line”, it was on Willie Brown’s hotel bed.

    6. avatar Molon says:

      She’ll do this but won’t let ICE go to people’s homes to deport people that snuck into our country. I find it interesting that they choose which laws they will enforce.

    7. avatar SkippingDog says:

      As you wish.

  2. avatar Marcus says:

    I guess if over a million are dead to maybe save a few dozen lives every year is worth it then it’s worth it right?

    1. avatar Pg2 says:

      Herd immunity. You nailed it.

      1. avatar Guesty McGuesterson says:

        Hello, Vlad.

        1. avatar Pg2 says:

          Lol, says one of Geoff’s sock puppet profiles.

        2. avatar Guesty "Pg2 thinks I'm Geoff" McGuesterson says:

          You know…let’s go with that for kicks and grins. Since you believe I’m this Geoff guy, why not run with it?

          This’ll be fun. Might even attract a comment or two from the real Geoff.

        3. avatar Geoff WWJWD - "What would John Wick do?" PR says:

          “Lol, says one of Geoff’s sock puppet profiles.”

          I dedicate this song to Pg2 :

          *snicker* 😉

        4. avatar tsbhoa.p.jr says:

          i immediately regretted clicking on that.

        5. avatar Rad Man says:

          That is a phenomenal album and that song isn’t even the best one.

    2. avatar DingDongDitch says:

      A few dozen? Try tens of thousands.

      1. avatar LarryinTX says:

        Ya think? How would that work, pray tell? Even if your dreams came to pass, that does not match up with millions, last I checked.

      2. avatar Someone says:

        About three “tens of thousands” each year are killed with a firearm.

        Two of the three pull the trigger themselves. Do we want to lower number of suicides, or just number of “firearm suicides” like the Vox writer above? Because if you take guns away from a suicidal person you actually made him more likely to kill himself – just by other means.

        Wast majority of the rest is criminals shooting other criminals. Usually gang related. There is no law that will disarm criminals. They are notorious for law scoffing. Only decent folk will get defenseless by a gun control.

        (Mass shooting murders, no matter how much attention they get from the media, are statistically insignificant.)

        Is that really a good enough reason to push the ongoing cultural cold war over the edge to a hot one?

        1. avatar Phil Wilson says:

          For leftists, yes. Because they don’t give a rat’s ass about those 30K lives, or those of anyone who is unwilling to submit to their rule. This issue is never the issue.

    3. avatar Phil Wilson says:

      Depends on whose lives are saved and whose are lost. Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Castro…collectivist authoritarians generally find it worth the deaths of a few little people to secure their own positions. The Progs would do the same here if they thought they could.

  3. avatar Shire-man says:

    An operation like that is going to require massive human capital. There aren’t enough cops and the mil can’t/won’t do it so its gonna have to be contractors ala Blackwater going door to door. Do the dems really want to unleash paramilitary contractors on the population? Dems investing tax dollars into warlords. What could possibly go wrong?

    1. avatar HP says:

      Preaching to the choir here, but it’s always fun to point out the circular movement of these types of things. What you’ve listed would be the only way to actually accomplish door-to-door confiscation, which in turn justifies the existence of the 2nd amendment. What the progressives don’t seem to understand is that they’ve already lost this one. Even if they erased the 2nd amendment today, there’d still be roughly 600 million guns out there and a whole lot of people who don’t want to give them up. So the guns are staying.

      1. avatar Roland says:

        They also seem oblivious to the fact that we’ve been waiting for them to start their pogroms for decades.
        It’ll also be funny to see the nu-male bugmen start to talk tough.

    2. avatar Tom Talty says:

      It will cost hundreds of billions of dollars to accomplish. It would be an even worse political issue if they forced confiscation without proper compensation. Becoming the tyrannical government that the 2nd was made to prevent. It could become a civil war in ways that could damage our country. Also not compensating citizens for their property would promote them to not turn them in. Going against their purpose.

      So let’s just take some quick numbers here off the top. We can piss around with the details and values in deeper discussion. Let’s call this the rough draft.

      Reading a recent article they say we have roughly 393 million guns. Let’s just call it 400 million. . There are your cheaper carry guns at ~$300-$400 and some fun little pocket derringers at even lower. Then you have your middle of the road rifles/shotguns in the $1000-$3000 range. Then of course your rare collectors pieces which are essentially priceless. Let’s also not forget about the sentimental value of your great great grandfather’s hunting rifle that gets passed down.

      So we have 400 million weapons with a wide range of value. Let’s just say, for arguments sake here, that the average value for each weapon will be $1,000. I think for a fair judge (even if on the very low side) that $1,000 average for each weapon would account for the difference between say a $250 bodyguard and a $2,000 custom hunting rife over the average and it gives us a nice round number to work with.

      400 million weapons * Average Price of $1,000 per weapon = $400,000,000,000

      Yes, that’s $400 BILLION dollars in just value that the tax payers will be giving back to the citizens for zero gain. All of the confiscated weapons are now essentially useless junk and expensive scrap metal and useless plastic. $400 billion, just, for zero gain.

      That $400 billion is also only for the value of the weapons. Yet there will need to be some form of infrastructure and some agency. People will need to be hired to perform the cataloging, safe storage, and ultimate destruction of all of these weapons. No agency is equipped to currently handle this. Buildings to return the weapons to will need to be rented. Storage facilities and warehouses to temporarily store the weapons before destruction will need to be leased, staffed, and secured with expensive security. An entire IT infrastructure will need to be created and staffed to maintain proper records and make sure the correct citizens receive the money for their property.

      How many years would this take? The ATF’s budget for 2018 was roughly $1.75 billion dollars. If we want to throw their examples of “other countries” right back at them, Australia had their gun buy back from 1996 – 2003. That’s 7 years. It also stated to get around 650,000 guns which is roughly 20% of all guns. So not really that effective.

      So now, let’s look at it all.

      $400 billion in just buying back

      Roughly $2 billion a year for operating budget. Let’s call it 7 years. That’s another measly $14 billion.

      $414,000,000,000

      $414 billion dollars. That’s just using a rough estimate. I bet the operating costs and logistics for housing and destroying the guns would be more than the ATFs budget but I figured these are solid figures to get a foot hold.

      Does this seem like a good way to spend $414 billion?

      I don’t think so.

      1. avatar LarryinTX says:

        That’s one set of considerations. Here’s another. You cannot trust your registries, people lie and cheat, an they hide stuff! So door-to-door confiscation must include every door, and all possible hiding places must be dismantled. ie, demolish every residence in the country.

        1. avatar Geoff WWJWD - "What would John Wick do?" PR says:

          “…and all possible hiding places must be dismantled. ie, demolish every residence in the country.”

          And that’s exactly what it would take, since who knows what may have found its way into the walls, when a pipe bursts and needs repair.

          A little something sealed up and made of stainless may have been left in there before the drywall was replaced… 🙂

      2. avatar DrewN says:

        No way the Gov pays $1K a weapon. Most likely it would be $50 to $100, take it or leave it. Now, at that point, one might as well flood them with zip guns to kill their budget.

      3. avatar SurfGW says:

        Your math does not account for the fact that they only pay for “REGISTERED” guns. If only 10% of guns are registered, they only need to pay $41 billion which is less than overseas OCO funds every year. The other guns you have will be confiscated without pay because the are “contraband”.

    3. avatar CWT says:

      If they would be willing to go to those lengths it could just as well be UN “peace keepers”.

      1. avatar Feet or Knees says:

        CWT- That is exactly what would happen, as WE are a nuclear nation and the international community would have to get involved. Think bush’s wmd excuse only it would be used as justification to slaughter Citizens, who are defending the Constitution.

        Material driven partisan subjects would turn in their guns, but Citizens would turn the confiscators and their supporters homes and families into piles of rubble, which would give the context for international help.

    4. avatar Felix Bellator says:

      Hired goons are not the same as sworn police officers.

      Mercenaries coming to seize guns are righteous targets.

      1. avatar LarryinTX says:

        Including sworn police officer coming to confiscate guns.

        1. avatar WhiteDevil says:

          The police are already our enemy and become our existential enemy the moment they agree to use their guns to take our guns. Fuck your thin blue line.

      2. avatar Phil Wilson says:

        I don’t know why, but scanning down I read that as “Felix Fellator” and almost spit coffee. Seeking alliteration? Or perhaps I finally have to admit I’ve spent too much time on the internet.

    5. avatar Anymouse says:

      The whole thing is impossible. Raids in the middle of the night work because of surprise and speed. Once an assault team hits on house, all the other houses are going to know. There’s also a good chance that they’d be taking fire from the neighbors when they exit the first house. Imagine every city over 500k being a Mosul.

      You can’t count on the military, police, or contractors being unified against the 2A to enforce it, outside of NYC, SF, and the like. That’d mean foreigners enforcing it, which has questionable legality and lower bar for physical resistance.

      Finally, once raids start, how many people are going to be dumb enough to leave their guns sitting in their home? They’ll either comply and turn in ahead of time, or they’ll have a boating accident.

  4. avatar M1Lou says:

    Europe’s gun laws are not a monolith. The Czech republic gets fun stuff and they don’t have problems like we do. Of course the solutions these people want lead to more problems and eventually more dead people than we lose by mass shootings. They don’t care though as long as the guns are taken from the populace so only the government and criminals have guns.

    1. avatar Jared says:

      The problem with the Czech Republic is that their gun ownership rate is low compared to us. They also have universal registration. If they had a few high profile mass shootings, their laws would probably change for the worse.

      1. avatar Blue says:

        The Czechs have had some shootings. They just don’t flip their crap so easily after dealing with the Bolsheviks for so long. They hate commies.

    2. avatar SurfGW says:

      Gun ownership for Czechs is mostly a rural and rural Czechs have a long tradition of hunting. “Gunowner” is nearly synonymous with “country peasant” (aka redneck). The Czechs tolerate guns, including “assault weapons” because their cities are practically gun-free and any guns are found almost exclusively in the countryside where they are not used for crime.

      1. avatar Someone says:

        Czech Republic also have shall issue concealed carry laws and healthy, even though not visible (no open carry) hand gun presence in cities.

        All Czechs older than 40 have been taught how to shoot air rifles and .22 rifles in elementary school.

        Czech target shooters often reach Olympic levels.

        Protection of the right to keep and bear arms was recently added to the Czech Constitution in reaction to the EUs gun control push.

        1. avatar Someone says:

          Correction – the Czech Senate did not pass the Constitutional RKBA protection after all.

          Still in a European country of 10 million over 300.000 firearm license holders own over 800.000 (registered) guns.

  5. avatar Dan W. says:

    It’s us or them. In War participating isn’t optional.

  6. avatar surlycmd says:

    Human freewill is a wondrous and terrifying condition. Freedom means people can use their freewill to make decisions about life. A truly Free Republic does not limit the rights or choices of it’s citizens because some of those citizens choose to abuse those rights.

    1. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

      Mr. Franklin said. “Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” Ben Franklin
      My thought is both you and he are correct.

      1. avatar Larry says:

        People use that quote way too often and do not know what it means.

        It is a Pro tax, Pro government quote, as in favor of the government taxing you to provide defense. The local Pennsylvania legislature was trying to tax land owners to pay for frontier defense. Those land owners were actually in England and they were trying to get around the tax by paying a small one time fee. Ben was supporting the local government and their right to tax the land owners.

      2. avatar WI Patriot says:

        “Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice.
        And moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.”

        Barry Goldwater

  7. avatar enuf says:

    Not going to happen and it would not solve the problem if it did.

    8chan has been kicked off the internet by Cloudfare, the service provider. 8Chan is a major place where loads of nut cases, pedophiles, extremists of al sorts hang out. Even the founder who left his creation some years ago has called for its demise.

    So that’s a start, kill off an online breeding ground of crazy MF’ers.

    But it’s much more than that. The Dayton killer, once again, was a known crazy person. Even in high school he was making lists of boys he wanted to kill and girls he wanted to rape. There is something seriously lacking in our country when we just let that go, when we ignore mental defectives like that.

    The El Paso killer is claimed to be very talkative with interrogators. Will want to hear how much of his insanity was known to others or was available on the internet? Would not be surprised if once again our laws and systems of detection and intervention were entirely inadequate.

    People who talk about wanting to do mass murder should not be on the loose to actually do so.

    1. avatar Beerfarticus says:

      8chan is back online as of this writing.

      De-platforming is not an answer. If a killer posts a manifesto on Facebook or Twitter, should we take those sites down too?

      1. avatar CLarson says:

        Yep, 8chan found a new reverse proxy and only suffered a few hours downtime. CloudFlare’s little un-American, pre-IPO virtue signal accomplished nothing. Well maybe a few censorious ignoramuses got a little thrill up their leg.

      2. avatar enuf says:

        Yes, I see that too. More effort is needed to cut off lines of communication between pedophiles, jihadis and wannabe mass murderers.

        There is a vast difference between people arguing politics and someone saying they want to KILL a whole lot of people. If someone is talking wanting to do mass slaughter they deserve to be stomped on by the full weight of law enforcement.

        Free Speech does not mean you get to freely talk about your plans to do criminal acts, or vile ones and the world just has to wait on you actually doing the thing before reacting to the threats.

        1. avatar pwrserge says:

          Actually, yes. Yes it does. Why? Because speech is not action and action is not speech. When that changes, let me know, I’ll need to go out and buy a helicopter.

        2. avatar Mark-in-Indy says:

          Free speech is for speech that you hate, not for speech that you like.

        3. avatar Andrew Lias says:

          I have to agree with the idea that threatening people is a criminal act and rightfully so. I can’t walk up to you and threaten to kill you. That is in and of its self an action. This is in no way an endorsement of the principle that saying something controversial is or should be a criminal act. You should be able to say that Muslim Fundamentalism is a threat to the country, a man is a man and a woman is a woman etc. as free speech as examples.

          That said the idea that we should shut these people out is insane as well. Places like 8chan exist because places like FB and Twitter shut them out. Instead of giving these people a diverse place to hear differing opinions everyone gets shoved into their individual groups (you will NEVER shut down places like 8chan no matter how hard you try) and it makes it where they will never hear an opinion different or more moderat than their own creating a positive feedback loop. Positive feedback loops can be incredibly destructive.

          That said if places like 8chan are called into question about their free speech then places like the MSM should be called into question for serving as advertisements for crazy people to shoot places up. Wait until it comes out the guy who survived wanted fame, recognition or publicity.

        4. avatar pwrserge says:

          The issue is that the legal definition of a threat is very tight. On the other hand, the alt-left has defined a “threat” to mean “anybody who says things I don’t like”.

        5. avatar Buff cousin Elroy says:

          free speech is free speech. You don’t get to censor it because you don’t agree with it.

        6. avatar Enuf says:

          People arguing politics is absolutely protected speech, no matter who agrees or disagrees or how rude or dirty, outandish or foul-mouthed the back and forth becomes.

          There is no free speech protection for making, conspiring or announcing actual criminal plans. The planning is part of the crime, whether it is robbing a liquor store or declaring an intention to be the biggest body count school shooter ever.

          We should be writing proposed legislation on this. It should begin with the worst case examples. Which if we lookk at the Tucson thru Dayton shootings, and others before them, all had overwhelming warning signs that were pretty well ignored.

      3. avatar David Walters says:

        Simple answer, yes!

    2. avatar Miner49er says:

      Come on guys, we know who the nut jobs are. We see many of them at the range, at the LGS, or at church.

      We’ve all heard they’re crazy talk, some of it posted right here on this forum, ‘kill the Democrats’ or kill the religion that’s different from ours or kill them the different colored people.

      If POTG won’t do the right thing and report these people to the authorities for their terror talk, we’ll be regulated by non-gun owning people who are rightfully afraid of being killed.

      Saying that black people in Chicago killed more does not help, normal people want to stop that sort of violence as well and see more affective gun control as a means to solve that problem as well.

      The only chance we have to retain some of our rights is for POTG to affectively and aggressively police our own ranks. POTG must appear reasonable and willing to seek a solution to the ‘carnage’ as Trump put it.

      As long as POTG continue talking about killing DemiCommies and assert that mass shootings are all just part of freedom we will continue to see calls for more affective gun control legislation. The nitpicking about the actual definition of assault weapon does nothing to secure our rights, it is a distinction without a difference.

      All that matters is that mentally ill young men can kill many people in a very short amount of time, such as the Dayton shooter who shot nine people to death in 30 seconds.

      1. avatar Biatec says:

        I think one of the most important things right now is talking to these people and bringing them out of their bubble.

        Part of radicalization is isolation. Cults, terrorists, and other bad ideology work that way. The best thing we can do is listen and talk. In fact it’s the only thing that will not make it worse. Censorship, restrictions and ostracization has made it worse.

        I would not consider most of the shooters mentally ill. Just because someone does bad things does not make them mentally ill.

        1. avatar Tom says:

          If they are considering murder, they are crazy, and if you don’t agree with that, then you are crazy, I have a concealed weapons permit, and never leave my house without a weapon, and if I ever have to kill someone it will either be in self defense of myself or in the defense of someone else being threaten with bodily harm, and I won’t get any satisfaction in killing someone, but I won’t hesitate doing the deed if that individual is threading anyone else, or myself. I even gave up deer hunting after killing one deer, but if that deer was about to kill a human being, I wouldn’t hesitate killing it, so I’m not a killer, but I am a protector.

      2. avatar enuf says:

        Agree 100%. We have idiots in our own ranks that talk of mass murder or, if not that, their hopes for bloody revolution.

        Conservatives, Libertarians, Liberals in the USA are all the “Loyal Opposition” to each other’s political party platforms. But in the end everyone loves this Republic and we all want the same thing. They disagree on how to get it. but all this lefty/righty conspiracy stuff is just plain stupid whoever it comes from.

        I do not want fighting. I will not turn my guns in. My worries though are much more about the fringe elements on both sides. Those are the people I am most concerned with and one of the reasons I carry a gun every day, everywhere I possibly can.

        1. avatar HP says:

          You got it

        2. avatar Phil Wilson says:

          “But in the end everyone loves this Republic and we all want the same thing.”

          It’s a nice sunny sentiment, but I disagree. Unless you separate out leftists/Progs. Western liberalism is diametrically opposed to Fascism, Communism, American Progressivism/leftism, and all other collectivist authoritarian ideologies. One side believes that individuals have rights, and that the state has very limited authority to violate those rights. The other side believes that individuals are subordinate to the “common good,” and therefore have no rights (beyond what the state determines not to interfere with the current interests of the state). The former is a direct impediment to those with the will to rule others. The latter is a perfect system for those with the will to rule others.

      3. avatar Jon says:

        “We see many of them at the range, at the LGS, or at church”

        Why stop there? How about the University lecture halls, coffee shops and reddit. If we banned all the places, forums and venues that the crazies hang out, we wouldn’t have a planet left.

        People choose to allow themselves to be influenced by their surroundings. Each person should be held accountable for their actions.

        1. avatar I Haz A Question says:

          @Miner & @Jon,

          Please explain how any of these “nutjobs” who have been shooting up crowds are found in church. If memory serves, there have been several churches and prayer groups that were on the receiving end of such “nutjob” anger.

        2. avatar Jon says:

          @ Mr questions.

          Your memory serves you well. My point was that “nutjob” is a matter of perspective. Some claim only nutjobs frequent churches. Others claim nutjobs are found in liberal institutions (universities, etc). Banning the meeting places of “nutjobs” (left or right) serves no purpose other than to strengthen those “nutjobs” and their resolve to eliminate the “nutjobs” of opposing viewpoints.

          The formulation of the beliefs of “nutjobs” is a different topic for a different time (although i tend to attribute mass shootings and a lack of respect for life to Godlessness).

        3. avatar LarryinTX says:

          At the ages we are talking about, Mommy and Daddy may be dragging them to church every Sunday, cementing their determination to murder innocents.

      4. avatar pwrserge says:

        So is there any part of the Constitution that you commies DON’T take a dump on? Just curious.

        1. avatar former water walker says:

          I agree serge…are these trolls paid to infiltrate TTAG? What I do will depend on orange man tonight. And I’m tired of being blamed for the actions of a few lunatics!(Why don’t the dims get blamed for Chiraq every weekend?!?)

        2. avatar pwrserge says:

          Meh… I’m less worried. Check his Twitter. He’s back to “stronger background checks” and immigration reform. I do find it interesting that 40% of people shot in El Paso were foreign nationals.

      5. avatar UpInArms says:

        There’s a huge difference you’ve overlooked.

        Yes, there is a lot of talk out here about blowing away liberals. But it is defensive talk. I’ve never seen a post that even suggests anyone is willing to go on the offensive and take out a bunch of “demokommies” in some kind of mass-shooting, sneak attack ambush. What I do see is gun-owners drawing a line in the sand and saying cross it at your own peril– your move. That’s a big difference.

      6. avatar Dan W. says:

        “If you kill your enemies they win!”

        Being the most peaceful law-abiding group of people has gotten us nothing but scorn. You do not win by giving your enemies everything they want.

      7. avatar Blue says:

        You clearly hang out in different crowds than I do. I don’t recall hanging out with a guy that wrote a hit list on the bathroom wall in high school or told female classmates that he fantasized about tying her to a chair and slitting her throat or skinning people etc.

      8. avatar Someone says:

        You are moving in different circles than me. I have never heard such talk in any of the places you named.

        Give up even more of my constitutionally protected human rights to keep some crumbs of the same? No! And I want my cake back.

        To kill 9 people in 30 seconds in crowded shopping mall you don’t need a scarry “assault weapon”. The same is not hard to do with two revolvers or rusty hundred years old Mosin. Or a can of gasoline.

  8. avatar Mad Max says:

    That will work.

    Once all of the Leftists are dead from trying to confiscate our arms, we can live in peace.

  9. avatar million says:

    Arming everyone would be better… but then there are no victims.

    1. avatar Auxwood_rebel says:

      Being armed is as much a responsibility as a right. Most people just want bread and circuses. How does a guy walk in to a business in broad daylight with an AK and earmuffs on without meeting resistance? And guys on here worry about printing…

      1. avatar Blue says:

        That is a hulluva thing that I can’t figure either unless that was an odd location and a gun free zone. Look at the damage the jerk in Dayton did and the police were in his face immediately.

        1. avatar Auxwood_rebel says:

          If a walmart in Texas is a gun free zone I’ve been mislead with all that “don’t mess with Texas” stuff.

  10. avatar barnbwt says:

    Well, that’d certainly “do something” all right. Massive civil unrest, assassinations, death squads (and on both sides of the issue).

    I think looting 401k accounts to pay blood money to the victims’ families might spark less of a reaction.

  11. avatar enuf says:

    The FBI director has announced an order to all field offices around the country to scour their regions of mass shooter threats, whatever the source. The specific worry is copycats.

    So …. okay …. they are just thinking of this now?!?!?!?!

    1. avatar Dude says:

      I haven’t been impressed with Wray in the least. He comes across as a typical status quo bureaucrat, not an impressive leader.

      1. avatar Roland says:

        Lmao dude, did you really expect a Fed to have respect for the rule of law? Keep in mind that they’re the same organization that implemented Operation Mockingbird and COINTELPRO- acts of war on their own people, if there ever was such a thing.

      2. avatar Blue says:

        Wray is likely the weakest leader the FBI has ever had and most of the others were crooks (Comey & Mueller) or meglomaniacs (Hoover).

  12. avatar GS650G says:

    When a few contractors don’t come back from a raid on a house in the country we’ll see how much they have to offer the replacements to do it.

    1. avatar Dan W. says:

      If they’re raiding you, you’re fucked. You cant win wars playing defense.

      1. avatar LarryinTX says:

        In most circumstances, I agree. This is not “most circumstances”. If they’re coming to your block, after you and all your neighbors have seen the destruction of the last block, finding themselves surrounded on all sides by armored positions with their path of retreat blocked by a parked vehicle, outnumbered 10-1, it would be over in moments, all traces would be removed in an hour, dindunuffin, no witnesses. Then they can try to figure how to hire more goons.

      2. avatar I Haz A Question says:

        Tell that to the Muhajadeen in Afghanistan that kept the Soviets locked up for over a dozen years, resulting in the Ruskies pulling out and giving up.

        1. avatar SAFEupstateFML says:

          The stingers and trainers we sent helped but on the US scenario resupply and logistics could potentially be far worse

  13. avatar Anon says:

    Shire-man. I disagree about our military. They will follow orders. In 1932, the Army was called out to suppress occupations and demonstrations in Wash D.C. by WWI vets who were not paid their “bonus” for service. The unemployed vets were burned out, some killed and many injured.
    Those gallant officers, McArthur, Patton and Eisenhower led the troops.
    In 1962 I carried a 22 target through classes in sophomore year with bullets so I did not have to waste time shooting at lunch.
    TIMES HAVE CHANGED, I miss America but all things must pass.

    1. avatar barnbwt says:

      Eisenhower didn’t seem to be happy about it, but he did it anyway. MacArthur & Patton seemed to relish the opportunity to put down unruly subordinates.

      1. avatar Chris T in KY says:

        The country has changed since the 1930’s. And so has the military. You’re not going to have federal troops confiscating guns. The Bundy Ranch was the beginning of the resistance. And there have been others since. The VA tried to take a vets guns from him. His neighbors put a stop to that.

    2. avatar enuf says:

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonus_Army

      MacArthur disobeyed the orders of President Hoover not to attack. Hoover gave those orders at least twice and MacArthur ignored the President, claiming the veterans were trying to overthrow the US Govt. He should have been arrested and held for court martial.

      Eisenhower and Patton were Majors, where MacArthur was Army Chief of Staff. Eisenhower warned MacArthur to stay out of it. But Patton followed orders. All in all an ugly stain in our history.

      I also carried my .22 in school, down the hallways. Even did a class assignment on my brand spanking new Ruger 10/22, first gun I ever bought with my own money (paper route, chores, etc). Took it apart and explained the workings, the assignment was to do a presentation on something mechanical around your home. Some kid brought in an apple peeler and some apples. Another did something on his dad’s tractor.

      These days there’d of been hell to pay, cops called, parents hauled in, the school principal fired (he gave me permission) and a herd of therapists recruited with emergency contingency funds to provide counseling.

      It’s a very different world from the 1930’s or 1960’s. A better informed one in many ways, a stupider one too at times. I like to hope our military is better, smarter than those times. Better schooled in the Constitution, for example.

      1. avatar Moltar says:

        wasn’t that why MacArthur was exiled to the Philippines in the first place? He disobeyed orders, Hoover couldn’t demote him so instead he was exiled to the far flung islands well away from anything he could conceivably f*ck up.

        1. avatar jwm says:

          It’s kind of convoluted. MacArthur was not sent to the PI. the PI was a US territory but they had a US approved .gov of their own. The majority of the police and military in the PI were filipinos with their own units and officers.

          Basically MacArthur put in his papers and retired from the US Army and then was hired by the PI .gov to be the General commanding the PI”s forces. He was called back to active duty in 1941.

          There was no such thing as the president not being able to demote him or fire him. In our system the military answers to the civilian .gov.

          I think, myself, that macarthur is highly overated and was involved in more shenannigans than the bonus army. He led the combined American and Filipino forces to disaster and then at the last moment snuck away in the dead of night and left history to blame his second in command, Wainwright for the failure.

    3. avatar jwm says:

      Those vets were not due a bonus. The bonus was written to be paid years down the road. What the vets were doing was little, if no different from the homeless folks over running some of our cities.

      The police should have handled the situation but they were outnumbered and, these were vets, out performed.

      I am a vet. There was plenty of fault to be found on both sides of that conflict.

  14. avatar Ragnarredbeard says:

    I bet Kamala Harris won’t be doing any confiscations.

    I’m not sure how many I can take with me, but the real question is who wants to be the first guy thru the door?

    1. avatar Miner49er says:

      Ragnar, I’m surprised you’re still using that handle after the garlic festival shooter included Ragnar redbeard’s book in his manifesto.

      Tell me, by using Ragnar’s name as your handle does that mean you endorse his racist views as he articulated in his book ‘might makes right’?

      1. avatar enuf says:

        A fair question.

      2. avatar Ragnarredbeard says:

        Nice try. When did you stop having sex with your mother?

        1. avatar n64456 says:

          His mother is dead; he fucks his kids now…

    2. avatar Dude says:

      She’s endorsing a police state, and people are nodding in agreement. Where do we go from here? How will the 2024 candidates top that?

      1. avatar GS650G says:

        We won’t need candidates once the police state is complete and in control

  15. avatar Chris says:

    They can only confiscate the guns that they know about, the ones honest people registered. Criminals don’t register their guns because they’re criminals. Why is this so hard to understand?

    1. avatar I Haz A Question says:

      There are all the millions in existence that honest people never registered, because either (1) their local laws don’t require it yet or (2) they take their cues from the U.S. Constitution and will not allow for the infringement of state registration.

      1. avatar Blue says:

        All they have to do is come up with a list of people “known to have owned guns” and the rest is a probable cause warrant. Old bound books for 4473’s for example, ccw licenses current or in the past, NFA items . . . hanging out on TTAG, ARFCom, 1911 etc.

        1. avatar LarryinTX says:

          Not good enough!! People could have purchased evil guns from their neighbors, or even from *strangers* at gun shows, without ever once filling out a 4473. Only way to be sure is to ransack EVERY home, every car, every storage shed. And when a renegade gun is found, shoot the owner of the hiding place.

        2. avatar Southern Cross says:

          Unless you paid in cash, any transaction at a gun store will flag you as a gun owner.

  16. avatar Chris T in KY says:

    Recently in oregon a republican state lawmaker told the governor there, not to send any married policemen with children to arrest him. And forcibly return him to the state capitol. The entire republican caucus there had left the building in protest. Libertarians Liberals and the Left, I think do want blood in the streets. Most of the three L’s aren’t married to a person of the opposite sex. And they don’t have children. Which is the case with the homosexual Leftists commentators who run Vox.

    It seems it might be easier to have a clear conscience when you kill a bachelor cop than a one who is married with children.

    The unmarried socialist progressives need to step up and be the first through a law abiding citizens front door.

    1. avatar Roland says:

      The number of sheriffs declaring 2A sanctuaries and openly telling their grabber governors to go pound sand, however small, gives me a glimmer of hope. Not everyone in a position of power is willing to go along.

      1. avatar Chris T in KY says:

        As they squeeze Tighter and Tighter sheriffs who believed in Liberty are saying hell no. New Mexico, Oregon, Washington State, certain counties in Illinois.

        Sadly California not so much.

  17. avatar Dude says:

    “The expiration of the assault weapons ban is not behind the gap. What’s behind the gap, plenty of research indicates, is that Americans have more guns.”

    But that’s so easy to disprove, it’s laughable. As the number of guns have steadily increased, gun assaults and homicides have decreased for 2.5 decades. Am I missing something here?

    1. avatar Ing says:

      And in the midst of this, we also have a slow, decade-by-decade increase in public mass shootings.

      The saturation of guns hasn’t changed; the overall violent crime rate went down by half in the same time frame, so it’s not part of a larger crime wave. The self-loading (semiauto) pistols and rifles these psychopathic murderers prefer have been commonly available for over 100 years now.

      The one big thing that has changed since the 1800s and the first half of the 1900s, when events like this were virtually nonexistent, is American culture itself.

      So *how* has it changed?

      That’s the big question nobody’s asking. At least, nobody’s asking who is in a position to fix it. Look at the differences in family life, community connections, and education between now and 75 to 100 years ago. The cause of this problem is in there somewhere.

  18. avatar JP Ruiz says:

    Trump getting elected in 2016 was the last gasp of the USA.

    Police-State Style Gun Ban and Confiscation Laws, Open Borders and Amnesty for 10s of Millions of Illegal and future Illegal Aliens, Tax Hikes that’ll make Europe’s look lax, and Economic Central Planning.

    The Republican Party is surrendering across the board, and the Democrats have all the momentum going into 2020.

    Societies rise and fall………Sad.

  19. avatar Narcoossee says:

    Meanwhile, in the essentially gun-free utopia that is the UK:

    Dover: Dublin man charged with ‘largest UK port gun seizure’

    https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-49222263

  20. avatar Dude says:

    Nancy Pelosi yesterday:
    “We elected, for the first time in a generation, a gun violence prevention majority in the House of Representatives. And they have passed bills that will save lives.”

    “The problem is they’re sitting on Mitch McConnell’s desk.” [email protected]_Brown
    #GiveUsAVote

    Everyone is agreeing to this and acting like the NRA and Mitch McConnell are responsible for the recent mass shootings because of the bill that the House just passed hasn’t been approved by the Senate. All the bill does is require the standard background check for private party transfers. How would this have prevented any of the recent highly publicized mass shootings?

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      The bill doesn’t even do that. How do you plan to force someone to get a background check on a private transaction? The bill is completely unenforceable, nonsense on it’s face. It’s main usefulness will be to let us see who is on our side and who needs to be retired from Congress.

  21. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

    “In the aftermath of two horrific shootings over the weekend, Vox is quite comfortable calling for what the anti-gun left has wanted in this country since the lat 1960’s — full-on gun confiscation.”

    [email protected],Willie Browns, willie receptacle,is willing to send cops to people’s homes to confiscate banned firearms. https://washex.am/2KmQ1C6

    Party like it’s 1776,let the party begin.

  22. avatar Auxwood_rebel says:

    Even Crenshaw is talking about red flag laws now. I used to like that guy.

  23. avatar Roland says:

    This weekend was Christmas for the Grabbers. Ebil white Nahzees used salt rifles. Now they have all the excuses they need to round up Joe and Jane Gun Owner.

  24. avatar enuf says:

    News is reporting Trump is going to propose “Strong Background” checks in his 10AM speech today.

    Whatever the hell that means.

    So, all you Trump lovers from back in 2015/2016, you do know it is too late to get an actual conservative candidate to run for President in 2020? Right?

    We are so screwed …

    1. avatar Klaus Von Schmitto says:

      But, he didn’t. So maybe we’re not.

    2. avatar Dude says:

      Eventually, they’ll be checking all social media. I never warmed up to facebook or twitter anyway. You can’t avoid everything. I’m always having to email someone with a gmail account. Google keeps everything, and compiles a database on everyone, not just google account holders.

      1. avatar enuf says:

        They should be data mining social media for people talking about doing violence, as opposed to just arguing politics.

        1. avatar Roland says:

          The Left considers unflattering speech to be violence.

    3. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

      If Trump does Negotiating Rights Away will support even further restrictions on the 2 nd. amendment.

  25. avatar Pg2 says:

    If the fools here that preach mandatory vaccines for the mythological herd immunity don’t embrace gun confiscation, they’re hypocrites.

    1. avatar Dude says:

      Do guns give you measles now?

      1. avatar Roland says:

        Guns have black magic spells on them that induce their owners to violence. Nu-Twilight Zone told me so.

    2. avatar enuf says:

      ^^^^^^
      Crackpot right there folks, an anti-vaxxer in a gun forum? What is it with these anti-science nut jobs?

      1. avatar Pg2 says:

        Thanks for proving my point. Seems this forum is used to push leftist agendas under the camouflage of fake support for gun rights.

      2. avatar tdiinva says:

        Anti-vaxxers are more a phenomenon of the Hollywood left and Robert Kennedy Jr.

        1. avatar Pg2 says:

          I usually quietly agree with your comments, until you post something this absolutely false and flat out ignorant. People have have been questioning vaccines since the injected cow pus days. Do some reading before you look like a fool. Is the 1986 Childhood Vaccine Injury Act which predates both McCarthys and Kennedy’s involvement with vaccines a figment of the public’s imagination?

        2. avatar Bill Meyer says:

          Nope, not really. Our Oregon Republican Senators who walked out of the session, denying quorum to the super majority Commies, walked out over the draconian SB978 gun grab bill, HB3063 mandatory vaccine bill, and a second walkout over the HB2020 Carbon Cap and Trade fraud. Anti-mandatory vax is not just a movement of the Left. Medical liberty is important here. You do realize that Japan banned MMR years ago due to damage to children far greater than expected? To have the temerity to bring that fact up to Oregon commies makes you an anti-science moron? Nope, just more informed. Same with the fight on 978 and 2020, all of it wet dreams for Oregon’s Left. Their agenda is all about control.

        3. avatar Guesty McGuesterson says:

          @Pg2,

          Guns, man. Talk about guns. This isn’t called “The Truth About Vaccines”.

          You were off the radar and rather quiet for quite a while after that post a few weeks ago questioning your profile’s validity. I recall that Knute(ken) uncovered something amiss about you and brought it to everyone’s attention.

          There’s something sketchy going on.

        4. avatar jwm says:

          pg2 is being paid by big pharma to make anti vaxxers look bad. He has no choice, he’s an employee. DZ did a whole post not long ago about his type of disruption not being allowed here anymore. He kept as quiet as he could and even pretended to comment about guns a couple of time.

          But at the end of the day he is a shill. He’s not a real anti vaxxer. He’s being paid to turn people against them.

          And anybody that argues with him is a ‘bot’ or ‘troll’ etc. Watch his reaction to my comment.

        5. avatar Pg2 says:

          Jwm is being paid by Bloomberg to post ridiculously stupid pro 2nd Amendment posts while quietly supporting a leftist agenda. Fixed it for ya jwm.

        6. avatar jwm says:

          And there pg2 is, right on schedule, proving me right.

    3. avatar Geoff WWJWD - "What would John Wick do?" PR says:

      “If the fools here that preach mandatory vaccines for the mythological herd immunity…”

      You just can’t stop spewing your shit, can’t you?

      Dude, seek mental help. You need it more than you will ever know… 🙂

  26. avatar Ken says:

    You said it yourself, we have more than half the world civilian owned guns. if GUNS were the problem you’d know it. There would be mass shootings every second of every day. Guns are not the problem.

    Your same stance here would make it legal to confiscate cars form sober drivers because some people drive drunk. Or forks and spoons make people fat.

    SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.
    #MolonLabe
    #BringYoursWhenYouComeForMine

  27. avatar realsol says:

    Australia had 3-4 million firearms in circulation at the time of ‘confiscation’. After confiscation there were still 1.5 million firearms in circulation. At the most 2.5 million firearms were ‘confiscated’

    Last roll call the USA had 400 million KNOWN firearms with give or take another 50-100 million UNKNOWN. So conservatively 450,000,000 compared to a top end figure in Australia at 4,000,000. I have to also interject here, even though the dimwits wont care, that Australia never had or has the right to bear arms, like we in the US do have.

    Crunch those numbers, while thinking about how well prohibition worked or the war on drugs….etc

    Come up with real solutions and I will listen. Until then, pound sand.

    Oh and if you want to change the Constitution to fit your vision of utopia, good luck getting 36 states to ratify removal of the second amendment.

    1. avatar M1Lou says:

      I have some guns that are over 150 years old that still function. Modern guns will probably last even longer with modern coatings and preservation techniques. Even if they did ban guns, there would still be a lot out there hundreds of years from now. A ban is a stupid pipe dream.

      1. avatar Geoff WWJWD - "What would John Wick do?" PR says:

        “I have some guns that are over 150 years old that still function.”

        Take an over-built stainless gun like a Ruger. Keep a few sets of springs on hand in oil, and it has an indefinite life. Like easily in the thousands of years…

    2. avatar Southern Cross says:

      Comparing the Australian gun buyback to a proposed US buyback is not a valid comparison. In the late 1990s Australia had a population of about 18 million versus the approximate 280-300 million in the USA. Our rate of gun ownership was a lot less, and the proportion of self-loading rifles was also much less being concentrated into some hunters and specific target shooting disciplines. Our handgun ownership rate was also a LOT less because of restrictions on the ownership and usage.

      The buyback was funded by an increase in the Medicare levy of people’s income tax over several years. Increasing taxes is typically unpopular in the US.

      The Australian Federal government made the states comply by threatening to withhold money received in federal taxes the states would receive. Gun owners were encouraged to surrender now banned firearms by being offered ABOVE market prices and also paying for spare parts and accessories such as magazines. That was the carrot. The stick was very severe fines and jail time if caught in possession. New Zealand in comparison is only offering less than market rate for new-in-box firearms and is taking an extremely punitive approach.

      Instead of buying the firearms, many authorities in the US, particularly California and New York, will go for the shock-and-awe approach with raids that will Waco and Ruby Ridge look like a traffic stop.

      So why won’t an Australian style gun buyback work in the US? Much bigger population (25 million versus 350 million). Much higher proportion of gun owners with a much higher proportion of self-loading rifles and handguns. Reluctance to pay taxes to fund the buyback. And the willingness of authorities to use extreme force to set examples to ensure compliance. And the unknown factor of the response of rank-and-file service personnel.

      1. avatar mathman says:

        It not being a valid comparison is EXACTLY the point. People use the Australian enslaving as am example for what can be done in the US. It is a daft example to say the least.

        It wont work due to the number of guns already in circulation, this isn’t rocket science just simple mathematics.

        There is also the minor issue of the 2nd amendment which Australia did not have and is really the more important issue rather than the ‘how to confiscate’ dilemma which will never come to fruition due to the 2nd.

  28. avatar Geoff says:

    Try confiscation and see how high the body count goes. You can’t take over 400 million firearms from the people without a good number defending themselves against tyranny.

  29. avatar tdiinva says:

    Last few mass shooters say we are shooting up the place to get America to confiscate guns so we can start a Civil/race war.

    Progressives react: we need to go door-to-door and confiscate guns! They are dancing to the nutcases’s tune. And they say they are smarter than us.

  30. avatar Dan says:

    I wonder how many police officers will be shot by citizens not willing to give up their guns? Will they resort to no knock raids at 3am?

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Yes, of course they will, and it will work for about a week, then the word will be out. The first time the team all get out of their cars, then reach for the body armor, to discover the area is bathed in a few million candlepower of floodlights, all aimed at them, as well as a few dozen .308s pop-pop-popping along, they’ll go back to examining their 401(k)s and consider early retirement, if they’re still breathing.

    2. avatar Dan W. says:

      That’s already SOP for many places for even non violent offenders.

    3. avatar Big E says:

      How many? Not enough. That is full scale tyranny and “following orders” is no more valid now than at Nuremburg. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes. Confiscating guns will get a lot of people killed. A lot.

  31. avatar MLee says:

    Show up at place and I’ll stuff a banana up their tailpipe.

    1. avatar Geoff WWJWD - "What would John Wick do?" PR says:

      They’re not gonna fall for the banana in the tail pipe… 😉

      (Eddie Murphy, back when he was funny.)

  32. avatar UpInArms says:

    ” America has 4.4 percent of the world’s population but almost half of its civilian-owned guns ”

    Okay, we need to get this up to 75% of the civilian-owned guns. So much work, so little time!

  33. avatar WI Patriot says:

    “Vox: The Only Way to ‘Do Something’ About Gun Violence is Nationwide Confiscation”

    Well vox, come and get ’em…as cliched as that sounds…

  34. avatar John B Thayer says:

    #Make America <1960 Again!

  35. avatar ozzallos says:

    A person in Japan just killed over 30 people with a can of gasoline.
    Google “Australia arson” for a better perspective on how ineffectual a gun ban can be.

    We’re tired of taking the fall for the bad behavior of a fraction of a percentage of lawful gun owners.

    1. avatar NJ2AZ says:

      this is what i always say to the ‘educated’ folks who think gun laws are the answer: “What have you done, besides take someone who wants to be famous for mass murder and forced them to get creative?”

      they are completely oblivious to the idea that not only might their ideals not fix things, there is plenty of opportunity to actually make things worse.

  36. avatar B.D. says:

    Come and take them.

    I’d rather die on my feet than live on my knees.

  37. avatar Cloudbuster says:

    The lefty anti-gun sock puppets are out in force on this thread. “I support the second amendment, but….”

  38. avatar strych9 says:

    Vox? Really?

    Christ, if the Jeffy Epstein case threatens the Clintons Vox will be out in front with pro-pedo stories about how pedophilia is “heart healthy” for men over 50 while fighting alzheimers and curing arthritis while noting that women can get the same benefits as men if the ladies buttfuck kids while microdosing Viagra and doing the keto diet.

    That’s how serious Vox is.

  39. avatar Vlad Tepes says:

    [email protected] willing to send cops to people’s homes to confiscate banned firearms”

    I want to personally thank Sen. Harris for having the guts to speak to the issue of confiscation. POC’s support Ms. Harris 110%. We beseech Ms. Harris to stop the white terrorist onslaught against POC. We fear the aggressive nature of “wasichu” as they gear up for another wave of genocide against the indigenous peoples of America. 7 Hispanic’s were killed in El Paso. How many more POC’s must die before this administration will do something – anything? We know Sen. Kamala will be our next president but what can POC do right now to stop the killing of our own? Confiscation must begin now. It must be a relentless attack on “wasichu” and it must be taken door to door with force. POC will never be safe until we have a black president in the white house.

    Senator Harris, if you are reading this please help us.

    1. avatar Johnny Bullets says:

      Asking that bimbo Harris for help, that’s pretty friggn’ funny.

    2. avatar LarryinTX says:

      “POC”? What’s that, “pieces of chit”?

    3. avatar I Haz A Question says:

      Vladskie the Lesser is like a pigeon. He lands near you as you’re sitting on a park bench, enjoying yourself, and pesters you for attention. You toss him a piece of your sandwich crust, and he goes away for a while.

      Then he comes back again, and you toss him a handful of popcorn. You think he’s cute and harmless – such a silly pigeon – as you go back to your serious conversation with your friend.

      Now you’re in a situation where he’s always there, sqwaking and flinging bird crap, hoping he can continue getting your attention. After all, you *did* feed the trolls in the beginning, yes?

      Now you wonder aloud why this thing keeps bothering you and interrupting the reason you came to the park in the first place…

  40. avatar Torcer says:

    They aren’t the only ones:

    The list of Leftists demanding gun confiscation – Updated to Sep 2018
    Please note that this is an abridged list since there are numerous euphemisms for confiscation such as bans based on the use of open-ended phrases [“Military Style” or “Assault Weapons”].
    May 2018
    Esquire: Okay, Now I Actually Do Want To Take Your Guns

    Ban assault weapons, buy them back, go after resisters: Ex-prosecutor in Congress
    April 2018
    Observer: Is It Time to Repeal the Second Amendment?

    Vox: Why an assault weapons ban can’t address America’s gun problem

    Miami Herald Repeal the Second Amendment — it’s not a crazy idea

    Emma González [March for our Lives]:

    Removing the assault and semi-automatic weapons from our Civilian society, instituting thorough background checks and mandatory waiting periods (and raising the buying age and banning the production of high-capacity magazines) are the ways to stop shootings in America.
    March 2018
    Paste Magazine: Repeal the Second Amendment, Idiots

    USA Today: Repealing the Second Amendment isn’t easy but it’s what March for Our Lives students need

    New York Times – John Paul Stevens: Repeal the Second Amendment

    The Charlotte News: Ban military-style assault weapons for the sake of our children

    Vox: What no politician wants to admit about gun control “taking a huge number of guns away from a huge number of gun owners”

    NAACP President OPINION: Gun Safety Is about Freedom [Australian style gun confiscation – making gun owners an offer they can’t refuse ]
    February 2018
    Maine Voices: It’s time for a gun abolition movement
    We need to stand up to the NRA and push for what is so desperately needed: a complete ban on firearms.

    Mercury News – Eugene Robinson
    Robinson: Arming teachers is absurd — ban military-style assault rifles

    PSMag: Repeal the Second Amendment Already

    The Star: Want to end gun violence Mr. President? Get rid of guns

    La Times: No one becomes a mass shooter without a mass-shooting gun

    It’s Too Late. You’ve Lost Your Guns.

    Democrat and Chronicle: Let’s repeal the Second Amendment

    New York Times -To Repeat: Repeal the Second Amendment
    November 2017
    Splinter news: BAN GUNS

    Redhawks Online: Guns must go

    Boston Globe: Hand over your weapons

    News-Press – USA Today Editorial Board: Renew ban on military-style assault weapons
    October 2017
    Dan Pfeiffer: What to Bring to the Gun Fight [national gun registry, Tracking and limiting purchases of ammunition and a national gun buyback program]

    Eugene Robinson: Gun control should include buyback program like Australia’s

    Washington Post: President Trump, end this ‘American carnage’.
    [Members of The Washington Post Editorial Board]

    The Week: Ban guns

    New York Times: The Cancer in the Constitution

    New Boston Post-Connecticut Professor: Repeal the Second Amendment

    The New York Times: Repeal the Second Amendment

    Plan A Magazine: Ban Guns. Amend the Constitution.

    (CNN) Sachs: Ban semiautomatic assault weapons and save lives

    Forget about ‘gun control,’ let’s repeal the Second Amendment

    Prospect magazine: Dear America: it’s time to grow up and ban guns
    August 2017
    Mike the gun guy [A Magazine With News and Notes From Both Sides About Guns.]
    What Guns To Be Safe? Get Rid Of The Guns.
    December 2016
    Huffington Post: Domestic Disarmament, Not ‘Gun Control’
    June 2016
    Rolling Stone: Why It’s Time to Repeal the Second Amendment

    Washington Post – Eugene Robinson: Assault weapons must be banned in America
    January 2016
    W. Kamau Bell [CNN]: I want Obama to take away your guns

    Huffington post: Can’t We Just Put the Damn Guns Down?

    Anderson Cooper:”Speaking only for myself, watching Obama get repeatedly accused of wanting to take people’s guns away makes me sort of wish he’d just do something to earn that accusation. May as well!”

    The Daily Beast: President Obama Isn’t Taking People’s Guns—But Maybe He Should.
    December 2015
    New Republic: It’s Time to Ban Guns. Yes, All of Them.

    The New York Times: End the Gun Epidemic in America [First Front Page Editorial In 95 Years]
    This editorial published on A1 in the Dec. 5 edition of The New York Times. It is the first time an editorial has appeared on the front page since 1920.

    Salon: The Second Amendment must go: We ban lawn darts. It’s time to ban guns
    November 2015
    The Daily Beast: Yes, They Want to Take Your Guns Away
    October 2015
    Hillary Clinton: “In the Australian example, as I recall, that was a buyback program.”…..“I think it would be worth considering doing it on the national level”

    Vox: Becoming a gun-free society would be hard. But we should still try.

    Daily Kos: Effective Gun Control – A National Semi-Auto Ban

    Washington Post: A gun-free society

    Baltimore Sun: Repeal the Second Amendment

    Obama: “We know that other countries, in response to one mass shooting, have been able to craft laws that almost eliminate mass shootings. Friends of ours, allies of ours — Great Britain, Australia, countries like ours. So we know there are ways to prevent it.”
    September 2015
    Grieving mom of two slain sons: Get rid of the guns!
    January 2015
    Tallahassee Democrat – Stop the insanity: Ban guns
    June 2014
    Obama: A couple of decades ago, Australia had a mass shooting similar to Columbine or Newtown. And Australia just said, well, that’s it — we’re not seeing that again. And basically imposed very severe, tough gun laws.
    May 2014
    La Times: You say gun control doesn’t work? Fine. Let’s ban guns altogether.
    April 2013
    Huffington Post: Gun Control? We Need Domestic Disarmament
    February 2013
    America Magazine: Repeal the Second Amendment
    January 2013
    New York Times: [John Howard] I Went After Guns. Obama Can, Too.

    Vanity Fair – Kurt Eichenwald: Let’s Repeal the Second Amendment
    December 2012
    Daily Kos: How to Ban Guns: A step by step, long term process

    Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo: “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.”

    Detroit Metro Times: Ban all guns, now

    Opinionator – New York Times: Why Gun ‘Control’ Is Not Enough

    House Dem: ‘Turn in your guns’

    Huffington Post: It’s Not About the Constitution [Getting rid of the Second Amendment]

    Eugene Robinson: First, Get Rid of the Guns

    Economist The gun control that works: no guns
    July 2012
    Huffington Post: Get Rid of the Damn Guns
    Mar 2012
    Yes conservatives, we want to take away your guns…
    February 2011
    Arizona Daily Star: Reinstate ban on military-style assault weapons
    April 2007
    Salon: Repeal the Second Amendment
    December 1993
    La Times – Taming the Monster: Get Rid of the Guns : More firearms won’t make America safer–they will only accelerate and intensify the heartache and bloodshed
    https://noqreport.Com/2018/10/05/list-leftists-demanding-gun-confiscation-updated-sep-2018/

    1. avatar Johnny Bullets says:

      That is a fine pile of crap.

      1. avatar Torcer says:

        You can check the validity of every one at the link provided.

        1. avatar I Haz A Question says:

          Yeah, okay. Like I’m going to investigate every line. How about you boil it down to the five most important, to actually increase the chances of other readers following the links?

          When I have to scroll down, and down, and down, just to find the end of your “comment”, then I know you just copy-and-pasted someone else’s rant.

        2. avatar SAFEupstateFML says:

          Guessing the point was a compilation demonstrating how long they have been going for turn them all in?

    2. avatar Richard Steven Hack says:

      The interesting thing about that list is how often the anti-gun people claim: “Oh, no one is talking about confiscation. We just want more ‘control’.”

      Yeah, that’s an outright lie. Never believe them. I recall Ross Perot, back when he was running for President, wanted to use the US Army to go door-to-door and seize all guns.

      Of course, confiscation is utterly impossible. With 80-100 million people owning 400 million firearms, it would cost hundreds of millions of dollar to “seize all guns” and it wouldn’t get more than two-thirds or 75-80 percent or so, if that. That would still leave scores of millions of firearms on the street – many in the hands of criminals.

      It’s physically impossible but these morons can’t even consider that.

      I’d really like to see them try, however. The resulting uproar would probably make the Boston Tea Party seem like a, uh, tea party.

  41. avatar Frank M. says:

    Honestly? I appreciate the honesty over the condescending “No one is taking away your guns.” followed up an eye-roll.

  42. avatar Johnny Bullets says:

    An agent of the tyrant becomes the tyrant .

  43. avatar Hannibal says:

    In the context of gun control, they’re right. Every major mass shooting I can think of involved guns that were purchased legally. The shooter usually passed a background check. I know people say that people can get guns no matter what but it’s BS. Drying up the supply would make that harder and, frankly, most of the weirdos that go on shooting sprees wouldn’t find it easy to move through the black market the way gangs in Chicago do.

    I have no doubt that full confiscation would reduce “gun violence.” But I also think banning driving would curb DUIs. I think banning free speech would curb libel. And banning guns would make the most lawful citizens the most vulnerable. No thanks. I’ll accept that there is an tiny, tiny chance that I may be involved in a mass shooting over the government telling it’s citizens they have to be like the freaking English and patiently call the police and then have them watch as you get your head sawed off because they aren’t willing to get involved.

    1. avatar Pg2 says:

      And returning legal liability to vaccine manufacturers would force safer products, saving lives and taking a first step at reducing the autism epidemic. But real public health measures will never be taken.

  44. avatar Matt says:

    Not that it would stop them but they aim to confiscate the very arms explicitly protected by Miller.

    It will be difficult for the government to argue that semi automatic firearms are not covered by the 2nd when we issued many of those such firearms overseas to police and military forces we were training, along with all the other “military grade” equipment and arms we gave away.

    I can almost believe that if there was another serious 2A case that made it to the Supreme Court, the precedent in Miller, let alone Heller would just be ignored.

  45. avatar User1 gets banned says:

    Don’t forget that Kamala Harris was part of our beloved law enforcement…

    It’s the law! You are a law abiding civilian, correct? Turn them all in misses and mister America.

    1. avatar I Haz A Question says:

      Remember Feinstein? She openly said in an interview that her goal has been to have Mister and Missus American turn them all in:

  46. avatar Richard Coon says:

    Well, that’s one less Dem on the presidential candidates list. She just shot herself in the foot (pun intended).

  47. avatar SkippingDog says:

    Australia and New Zealand have shown the world how it’s done. The U.S. won’t be too far behind them.

  48. avatar 9x19 says:

    Democrats should go all in with gun confiscation.

    That should work out nicely for the red team next year.

  49. avatar Big E says:

    You want domestic unrest that will permanently destroy the fabric of the nation and get a lot of people deaded? Cuz that’s what confiscation will (rightfully) get you.

  50. Someone should ‘do something’ about me and the people at Vox. Kind of like my Muslim friends ‘did something’ on 911. Maybe those Antifa people will get woke and finally do something about us.
    #HipsterLivesMatter

  51. avatar Gregory Lallerstedt says:

    What needs to be done also lies with US the people! GUNS of any sort are not the problem. The people beghind them are where the problem lies. The shooter at Dayton for example had fantasized about tying up and slitting the throat of one of the victims he did eventually kill. He had mentioned this to people way before his rampage… But no one thought anything about it so it went unnoticed. This should have been a RED Flag from the beginning to watch this fools every move, and this possibly would have been averted. If i sat any person down at a table with a loaded and cocked gun pointed right at you. And you did nothing but sit there or pay it no attention you would never be harmed. The GUN doesn’t HATE you… the gun isnt threated by you nor is it racial or racist…… Games also arent truly to blame either…. i know 50+ people that play “shooter” games and have no persuasion to try it in real life! AGAIN its up to PEOPLE along with our government to watch people that exhibit the signs for these types of acts to speak up and have people that truly need to be watched checked up on. Now there will be people that will get hot or pissed off and say “ill kill you” in the heat of an argument but if it isnt acted upon nor ever replayed again watchijg the person could be of a lower priority.

  52. avatar LibertyToad says:

    RE: “Realistically, a gun control plan that has any hope of getting us down to European levels of violence is going to mean taking a huge number of guns away from a huge number of gun owners.”

    The myth here is that Europe has less violence. That claim is just factually false. Violent crime rates in Europe are often higher than in the United States. In addition, the US has far, far more legal defensive gun uses than anywhere in Europe.

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