Boston Globe: “Hand Over Your Weapons”

It’s great how liberals are always saying “nobody is talking about taking your guns” right before they talk about taking your guns

From the screed

Trouble is, it’s not clear the “something” Democrats typically demand would make a real dent in the nation’s epidemic of gun violence. Congress can ban assault weapons, but they account for just a tiny sliver of the country’s 33,000 annual firearm deaths. And tighter background checks will do nothing to cut down on the 310 million guns already in circulation.

In other words, the proposals aren’t just difficult to enact in the current political climate; their practical effects would also be quite limited. On occasion, though, leading Democrats will make oblique reference to a more sweeping policy change: seizing a huge number of weapons from law-abiding citizens.

At a New Hampshire forum in the fall of 2015, Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton spoke approvingly of an Australian gun buyback program that collected more than 650,000 weapons — a buyback that, she neglected to mention, was compulsory.

Obama, Kamala Harris, and many others have talked about the “Australian solution.”

The logic of gun control lies, at bottom, in substantially reducing the number of deadly weapons on the street — and confiscation is far and away the most effective approach. Is there any conceivable turn of events in our politics that could make confiscation happen? And what would a mass seizure look like?

There’s deadly weapons in the streets …. just witness Democratic Party run cities like Chicago, Detroit, and Baltimore … being used by criminals, so, let’s disarm people trying to protect themselves who have nothing to do with the crime

Here in the United States, interest in large-scale gun buybacks — both voluntary and involuntary — has mounted with each mass shooting. Matt Miller, a journalist and onetime senior fellow with the left-leaning Center for American Progress, has proposed what he calls a “massive, debt-financed” buyback.

The idea is to supersize the small-scale, voluntary buybacks that happen in American cities — offering hundreds of dollars more per weapon in a bid to make them more effective. “Instead of $200 a gun, Uncle Sam might offer $500,” Miller wrote, in an opinion piece in the Washington Postafter Sandy Hook. “After all, overpaying powerful constituencies to achieve public policy goals is a time-honored American tradition; we do it every day with Medicare drug benefits and defense contractors, to name just two.”

Good luck with that. Most legally obtained firearms cost more than $500. Certainly, those scary looking rifles are worth more. But, perhaps some will trade in old ones not worth much and put the money towards a new firearm.

John Rosenthal, co-founder and chairman of Massachusetts-based Stop Handgun Violence, says it may be time to embrace a mandatory buyback — the relentless tide of mass shootings leaving weary activists with little choice.

Remember, Democrats are not talking about taking away guns from law abiding citizens.

Many of those hard-core gun owners see their weapons as a guard against government overreach. And sending government agents to claim them could end very, very badly. An NRA article on the specter of Australian-style confiscation coming to the United States is subtitled “There Will Be Blood.”

Ya think?

Part of the problem is the sheer scale of the enterprise. An operation on par with the Australian buyback — claiming one-fifth of American guns — would mean tens of thousands of police officers collecting some 60 million guns. It is, on some level, simply unimaginable.

Part of the problem is that law enforcement leans Republican, and officers would refuse to engage in something so anti-Constitutional.

Ultimately, if gun-control advocates really want to stanch the blood, there’s no way around it: They’ll have to persuade more people of the need to confiscate millions of those firearms, as radical as that idea may now seem.

It’s interesting how Democrats always want to disarm the law abiding while doing nothing about the criminals.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

10 Responses to “Boston Globe: “Hand Over Your Weapons””

  1. Some Hillbilly in St Louis says:

    Come & take them.

  2. Dana says:

    The government could only seize the weapons they know are out there; they couldn’t search people’s homes without a warrant, and you need probable cause to obtain a warrant. The result of such ideas? People refuse to register their weapons!

    I choose to honor the Second Amendment in the negative, but if I ever changed that, I would never register a gun.

    • Some Hillbilly in St Louis says:

      There is a de facto registration already. FFL’s are required to keep copies of all form 4473’s in their black book & it’s given to the BATFE after the license lapses. The NICS logs are also supposed to be purged according to law, they are not.

  3. Jeffery says:

    moron labe…

    Anyway, this would never work in the US, period. Why do you keep pimping it?

    In the US, the NRA and the GOP won’t even allow reasonable discussion of “bump stocks”, LOL. Your (and the next mass killer’s) AR-15 that allows you to play like a real Army man, and that will protect you against other play-soldiers carrying AR-15s, is perfectly safe!!

    We think you are upset because people mock you for playing like a real soldier.

    Our 2nd Amendment enables citizen militias but our courts don’t allow us to have the real military quality weapons necessary to repel an invasion. In addition, our courts unConstitutionally keep firearms out of the hands of those who most need protection, children and the mentally ill.

    • drowningpuppies says:

      Please tell us what a real Army man acts like, little guy, since you used to be one, oh, wait… you lied about that.

      • gitarcarver says:

        In the US, the NRA and the GOP won’t even allow reasonable discussion of “bump stocks”, LOL.

        Do you always laugh when you lie?

        (FAIRFAX, VA) – The National Rifle Association today issued the following statement:

        “In the aftermath of the evil and senseless attack in Las Vegas, the American people are looking for answers as to how future tragedies can be prevented. Unfortunately, the first response from some politicians has been to call for more gun control. Banning guns from law-abiding Americans based on the criminal act of a madman will do nothing to prevent future attacks. This is a fact that has been proven time and again in countries across the world. In Las Vegas, reports indicate that certain devices were used to modify the firearms involved. Despite the fact that the Obama administration approved the sale of bump fire stocks on at least two occasions, the National Rifle Association is calling on the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE) to immediately review whether these devices comply with federal law. The NRA believes that devices designed to allow semi-automatic rifles to function like fully-automatic rifles should be subject to additional regulations. In an increasingly dangerous world, the NRA remains focused on our mission: strengthening Americans’ Second Amendment freedom to defend themselves, their families and their communities. To that end, on behalf of our five million members across the country, we urge Congress to pass National Right-to-Carry reciprocity, which will allow law-abiding Americans to defend themselves and their families from acts of violence.”

        • Jeffery says:

          Nice try. Do you work for the NRA?

          Yes, the NRA “called for” additional regulations but opposed any law outlawing bump stocks. They asked the ATF to look into it. LOL.

          The National Rifle Association says it is opposed to new legislation in the US Senate and the House that would ban the production and sale of “bump fire stocks,” a firearm accessory that allows semi-automatic weapons to fire at a more rapid pace like automatic ones.

          “The ATF should review bump-fire stocks to ensure they comply with federal law,” said Jennifer Baker, spokeswoman for the Institute for Legislative Action at the NRA…

          If I was wrong, was in assuming the GOP was universally against “bump stocks”.

          Rep. Carlos Curbelo, a Florida Republican, introduced a bipartisan bill in the House of Representatives banning the bump stocks.

          Of course the NRA opposes this legislation as will the GOP House and Senate.

          • gitarcarver says:

            There you are laughing as you tell another lie.

            The NRA is for looking at more restrictions on bump stocks but was and is opposed to the overreaching legislation that was proposed outlawing much more than just bump stocks.

          • drowningpuppies says:

            And everyone else here is laughing also.
            The little guy is quite a clown.

  4. Dana says:

    How soon we forget our history: it was in Boston that the Royal Governor, General Thomas Gage, issued the orders to confiscate all the weapons and ammunition from the colonists on April 19, 1775. ‘Twas General Gage’s order which provided some of the inspiration for what is now our Second Amendment.

Pirate's Cove