Remember, Democrats Totally Aren’t Trying To Take Your Guns Away (Part Lots)

As Glenn Beck points out

We know what’s behind the Democrat talking points, so when they call for ‘common sense gun control”, we won’t allow things that even we think are good ideas, as they will then be expanded, Dems will want more and more and more. Because you see plenty of Dems responding to Lauren like

Then there’s

Isn’t it nice that a person who took an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States (with Democrats, you have to specify, as they might think you’re talking about the Constitution of a different country) is saying “nah, let’s get rid of what I don’t like”? I say we do away with all armed protect for Congress. While in session, at the Capital building, at the Congressional office buildings, when they’re traveling, heck, restrict them from even hiring private security or carrying their own firearm while in elected position. See how they like that.

Then there’s this from Esquire’s Dave Holmes

Okay, Now I Actually Do Want To Take Your Guns

Hey there, NRA:

Listen, I know the moments after a gunman opens fire in a school are hectic for you. You have to get your talking points together, you have to mentally prepare to debate a traumatized yet sensible child, you have to look at yourself in the mirror and practice saying that more guns would have made the situation less deadly. It’s a busy time! And since we are always either in the moments after or the moments before a mass shooting, you’re pretty much always busy, I have noticed!

Anyway, I just wanted to drop you a line and let you know that I now actually do want to take your guns.

All of your guns.

Right now.

Go ahead and try, chump.

And Vox’s always nutty German Lopez

I’ve covered gun violence for years. The solutions aren’t a big mystery.
America can prevent shootings. But it has to come to grips with the problem.

The problem? Well, German tries to be subtle, but finally gets around to say that the problem is guns, not mental illness, and goes on to tell us how great the Australian gun ban and forced confiscation was and still is. And that this has to be applied nationally, not just at the state and local level (because no one could possibly smuggle anything across our borders, you know). And that “America needs to go much further than anyone admits,” even further than the solution imposed in Australia

If the fundamental problem is that America has far too many guns, then policies need to cut the number of guns in circulation right now to seriously reduce the number of gun deaths. Background checks and other restrictions on who can buy a gun can’t achieve that in the short term. What America likely needs, then, is something more like Australia’s mandatory buyback program — essentially, a gun confiscation scheme — paired with a serious ban on specific firearms (including, potentially, all semiautomatic weapons).

But, wait, there’s more

Part of the holdup is the Second Amendment. While there is reasonable scholarly debate about whether the Second Amendment actually protects all Americans’ individual right to bear arms and prohibits stricter forms of gun control, the reality is the Supreme Court and US lawmakers — backed by the powerful gun lobby, particularly the NRA — widely agree that the Second Amendment does put barriers on how far restrictions can go. That would likely rule out anything like the Australian policy response short of a court reinterpretation or a repeal of the Second Amendment, neither of which seems likely.

Now, does that seem like they’re pushing for the repeal of the 2nd Amendment? Sure does. I say, go for it. Give it a shot. As Stephen Miller responded to Chris Murphy, “”Your rights aren’t absolute” Sure. Run on that one guys.” Yeah, run on attempting to take Constitutional Rights away, Dems. And try to take our guns away. You won’t like the results if you manage to do it. Which you won’t.

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

5 Responses to “Remember, Democrats Totally Aren’t Trying To Take Your Guns Away (Part Lots)”

  1. It is one of the strangely humorous self-fulfilling prophesies of politics. Government trying to restrict gun ownership is exactly the sort of government that gun owners claim the second amendment is there to protect them from. If those same people would just STFU, gun sales would decline.

    The tragedies in other countries that cause people to want to confiscate guns in the UK and Australia are the exact same reasons why Americans want to buy more guns.

    Liberal Logic goes: If you have high crime rates, you have to take guns away form criminals. Criminals are everyone who isn’t politically connected, and their security forces.

    Libertarian logic: If you have a high crime rate, it is evidence that things are dangerous and current institutions are incapable of controlling it, so any reasonable manly man will want to take reasonable steps to provide for the safety of his own family. It’s the only reasonable thing to do. Praying for better, more effective police doesn’t work. Voting for a stronger police state doesn’t work.

    The American population is more libertarian (at least in principle) than it is liberal. So when we see crises like school shootings, we stock up on guns, ammo, and visit the local range to brush up on our skills.

    But liberals can’t understand why the same logic that worked so well in the UK and Australia after a single school shooting didn’t work here after each one that happens. We aren’t like them. We refuse to be victims, slaves, serfs, or at the mercy of the bureaucratic machine.

  2. Jeffery says:

    There is no constitutional right to own whatever firearm you desire. Even Justice Scalia said so.

    Sawed off shotguns are restricted. So are fully automatic weapons. Semi auto assault weapons were once banned. All constitutional.

    Regardless of the NRA and right-wing whining, it’s not a constitutional issue, it’s a political one.

  3. Dana says:

    Our esteemed host wrote:

    Yeah, run on attempting to take Constitutional Rights away, Dems.

    That’s just it: they have been, and that’s part of the reason Hillary Clinton remains a private citizen.

    Everyone knows that the Democrats are lying when they say that they don’t want gun confiscation, just ‘common sense gun control.’ But they’re also moving on the invasion of privacy rights by insisting that mentally ill men males should be able to share public restrooms and locker rooms with 13-year-old girls. They are all for restricting your rights to conscience by insisting that the ‘transgendered’ are not only the sex they claim to be, but have been working in prohibitions and penalties if employees ‘misgender’ (meaning: tell the truth) a person.

    • Jeffery says:

      Our Constitution is largely agnostic on bathrooms.

      Con Men always whine that any development they dislike is “unconstitutional!!”

      • drowningpuppies says:

        Our Constitution is largely agnostic on bathrooms.


        Look it up little dumbass and try to use a proper term in the future.

Pirate's Cove