Biden Wants A Gun Buyback Scheme, Kamala Would Send Cops Around To Take Firearms

So, obviously, we are at the point where Democrats are just proposing the confiscation and banning of firearms from law abiding citizens, rather than looking for real solutions. Of course, it is almost impossible to stop Bad Behavior. Drugs are illegal, right? Getting drunk and driving is illegal, right? Murder is illegal, right? Expanding background checks won’t do a darned thing if relevant information which could cause a background check to fail is not reported, such as with the Dayton killer. Who is definitely a leftist, hence the reason why the media is focusing on the El Paso wackjob.

You can’t tell me that all the shooters in places like Chicago and Baltimore are Trump voters, or emboldened by Trump’s words, since that has been going on since before the Era Of Trump. Heck, according to Liberal World, we should be blaming AOC for Dayton, right? Anyhow

Joe Biden pushes for federal gun buyback program, assault weapons ban in wake of mass shootings

Former vice president Joe Biden said Monday he would push for a federal gun buyback program to take more weapons off the streets, as one effort to contain the epidemic of mass shootings.

Biden also said that he would attempt to enhance background checks and reinstitute the assault weapons ban, which he helped push through in 1994 but was unable to reauthorize a decade later.

When asked about criticism that a future Biden administration would take away people’s guns, he responded, “Bingo! You’re right, if you have an assault weapon.”

He then realized that it was a gaffe, saying what he really meant, so

He went on to say that previously-owned guns would not be confiscated, but emphasized a national gun buyback program and a hope that some weapons could be banned.

So, taking away people’s legally purchased and Constitutionally approved firearms for the actions of people they’ve never met. Let’s also not forget that the assault weapons ban didn’t work, and, despite all the gun grabbing laws in California shootings, including mass ones, occur in California. Not to be outdone

Kamala Harris willing to send cops to people’s homes to confiscate banned firearms

California Democratic Sen. Kamala Harris gave details about her gun control proposals in the wake of the deadly El Paso, Texas shooting after she addressed union members at the AFSCME forum at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas on Saturday.

When asked by the Washington Examiner if her plan would include legal gun owner databases or gun confiscation via law enforcement visits to residents who own banned firearms, she replied, “I’m actually prepared to take executive action to put in place rules that improve this situation.”

She continued, “I also have as part of my background and experience working on this issue, when I was attorney general [of California], and we put resources into allowing law enforcement to actually knock on the doors of people who were on two lists — a list where they had been found by a court to be a danger to themselves and others.

This is about the use of red flag laws. And the problem with red flag laws is the ability of gun grabbers to continuously expand exactly why people’s 2nd Amendment Right is infringed, and 4th Amendment protections are violated. Red flag laws would be fine IF they were truly meant to do what they say, but, we know they are just a death by a thousand paper cuts method to work towards making sure almost no one may have a firearm.

Other Democrats have said things, mostly about bannings and expanded background checks, really about taking people’s firearms away while they run around with armed protection.

Democrats do not want to solve the problem, they want to ban gun ownership by citizens. If they really want to do this, I dare them to attempt to get rid of the 2nd Amendment.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

36 Responses to “Biden Wants A Gun Buyback Scheme, Kamala Would Send Cops Around To Take Firearms”

  1. Professor Hale says:

    FBI HRT is going to get really busy.

  2. Elwood P. Dowd says:

    Teachwiz typed: “Drugs are illegal, right? Getting drunk and driving is illegal, right? Murder is illegal, right?”

    Are you advocating rescinding laws against drugs, drunk driving and murder? Should we just give up?

    As has been explained to you many times, you’re lying and posting a photoshopped picture to support your false claim that the AR-15 style rifle and a semi-auto hunting rifle are the same. Why do mass shooters overwhelmingly choose the AR-15 style rifle? Size, handling, available high capacity magazines, flash suppressors etc etc. There are reasons mass shooters choose AR-15s and not hunting rifles. If you’d handled either, you’d know more of what you’re typing about.

    The right-wing “argument” that domestic terrorism isn’t important is self-serving denial of the obvious. Of course mass shootings terrorize the populous – but disruption of society is the objective of the right – “America is so dangerous that only trump can keep us safe!”. Are conservatives really satisfied with the status quo – hundreds of mass shootings a year? The right will use the mass murders to frighten their voters – “They’ll take all your guns!”. Of course, the constitution and Supreme Court rulings protect our gun rights, but that doesn’t mean we cannot legislate reasonable limits on firepower. Did you know in MO a hunter is limited in the number of shells or cartridges he can load (and in some cases, carry)? Does this violate the 2nd Amendment?

    90% of Americans want thorough background checks, but Moscow “NRA” Mitch blocks any federal legislation.

    Conservatives can help find a solution or they can continue to be part of the problem.

    • Dana says:

      If our esteemed host had intended to set a trap for Mr Dowd, he could hardly have done any better than he did:

      Teachwiz typed: “Drugs are illegal, right? Getting drunk and driving is illegal, right? Murder is illegal, right?”

      Are you advocating rescinding laws against drugs, drunk driving and murder? Should we just give up?

      Given that this article was about the Democratic candidates wanting to take away the Second Amendment rights of the American people, your real questions should have been whether we should ban automobiles.

      We already have all of the laws we need to punish the illegal use of firearms: to shoot or threaten to shoot someone else is against the law in every state. The left, on the other hand, would ban the possession of firearms by those who have committed no crime, nor have any intention of using them illegally.

      Of course, the constitution and Supreme Court rulings protect our gun rights, but that doesn’t mean we cannot legislate reasonable limits on firepower. Did you know in MO a hunter is limited in the number of shells or cartridges he can load (and in some cases, carry)? Does this violate the 2nd Amendment?

      Yes. The state has a vested interest in preventing and prohibiting the use of a firearm to infringe on the rights of others, but the number of rounds you carry has nothing to do with whether someone else’s rights have been violated. If you want to carry 1,000 rounds of ammunition for your 30.06, why is that anyone else’s business as long as you aren’t shooting at someone?

      Just what other constitutional rights do you believe ought to be subjected to someone else’s — meaning: the government’s — determination as to whether it is reasonable or not? Should your right not to incriminate yourself or to a fair trial be waived if it’s obvious that you’re guilty? Should your right not to be subject to cruel or unusual punishment be ignored if your crime was particularly heinous and burning you at the stake would still be less painful than what you inflicted on your victims? Should your right to freedom of speech and the press be taken away because the government believes you are going to say something stupid?

      • Liljeffyatemypuppy says:

        Shorter version:

        Should our right to bear arms be abridged because of some millenial nutcases and power hungry politicians?

        https://www.thepiratescove.us/wp-content/plugins/wp-monalisa/icons/wpml_cool.gif

  3. Dana says:

    I did something really radical and ran the numbers:

    In 2018, there were 276.1 million cars and trucks registered in the United States, while there are an estimated 393 million privately owned firearms. In 2017, there were 17,284 murders/non-negligent homicides in the United States though only 15,549 were committed using a firearm, while 40,100 people were killed in automobile accidents. With only 70% as many vehicles as firearms, cars and trucks produced more than 2½ times as many deaths as guns, 2.58 times as many to be more precise, yet the left are not calling for trucks and automobiles to be banned . . . at least, not due to the carnage they cause; the warmunists have other reasons.

    • Elwood P. Dowd says:

      Mr. Dana ignores that automobiles have a purpose other than killing. Trucks and autos are used every day all over America for their intended purposes – taking people to work, delivering goods, vacations etc – although occasionally a right-wing wacko like the OK City terrorist uses one for terrorism. Assault weapons are designed to make killing humans easier and more productive.

      Over many decades, autos, trucks and roads have been made safer and safer, such that the number of deaths per miles driven has plummeted. In 1950 there were 7.2 fatalities/ 100 million miles driven and in 2017 there 1.2 fatalities/ 100 million miles driven.

      If Mr. Dana wants to ban autos and trucks, he will destroy the economy in a week. If assault weapons are banned, gun nuts will be pissed. Would making firearms safer violate the 2nd Amendment?

      In your opinion did the SC overreach when they allowed govt to make fully automatic weapons (machine guns) difficult to obtain?

      • formwiz says:

        As always, the bunny suit makes an ass of himself.

        dana shows his extremist nonsense for what it is.

        Of all the semi-automatic weapons in the country, how many are used for murder?

        • Elwood P. Dowd says:

          As always, the teachwiz sockpuppet makes an ass of itself.

          teachwiz types: “Of all the semi-automatic weapons in the country, how many are used for murder?”
          Very few.

          How many mass murders are committed with semi-automatic assault weapons?
          Almost all.

          Why?
          Because assault weapons are designed for the wholesale killing of humans.

          These are simple facts that even teachwiz should be able to understand.

          Question 1: Are mass murders in America really even an issue?

          Question 2: If mass murders are an issue, are there actions we can take to reduce them?

          • formwiz says:

            A hammer is an assault weapon. So is a screwdriver and a paring knife and a car.

            A GI 45 is a semi-automatic weapon. So is an M-1. The jerk in Dayton bought a legal weapon and then modified it illegally.

            1 Considering how many people, especially blacks, are murdered each year in shootouts and other crimes, no. Mass murder is an unusual crime.

            Instead of infringing on people’s rights, maybe it’s time to start putting these nuts away again. Until the courts made it next to impossible to have some nut committed, we never had these crimes.

            2 Issue or not, the answer is institutionalization. And the death penalty for the ones who aren’t nuts.

          • Kye says:

            “How many mass murders are committed with semi-automatic assault weapons?
            Almost all.”

            Almost zero. For starters a “semi-automatic” is not an assault weapon. Which means the civilian AR-15 is not an assault weapon no matter how “evil” it may look. Aesthetics don’t make a weapon more deadly except to an ignorant leftist. Assault weapons are fully automatic. I know, I used them in Vietnam and yes they are explicitly made for the “wholesale killing of humans”. Which is why they are currently illegal to own in America without special licensing.

            By the left’s definition which is WRONG, a Ruger Mini 14 and a Marlin Camp Carbine are “assault weapons” and they are NOT! I know I own both and along with my AR-15 none are “assault weapons”. They are semi auto carbines. They just scare the shit out of Beto and that’s not how it works. Being scary doesn’t make them more deadly.

            The leftists like Betoff or Kameltoe or Spartacus do this shit all the time and sadly sometimes it works. They re-define something to make it scary to pajama boys and leftist chicks to try and make the item eeeeevil. That’s what they did with snub-nosed revolvers by renaming them “Saturday Night Specials” and Teflon bullets by renaming them “Cop Killer Bullets” even though at that time they had never killed a cop. Now they’re calling a bullet resistant vest “body armor” to make a look worse than he is. Like they need to.

            Trump 2020 Let’s make the left use the correct nomenclature.

  4. Dana says:

    “Red flag laws”? You mean turning over to people who think that girls can be boys and boys can be girls control over your constitutional rights? You mean letting people who thing that copulation between two males or two females is somehow normal becoming the judge of whether you are mentally stable enough to own a firearm? You mean allowing the people who think that a full gestation child two minutes short of birth is not a living human being and can be killed with no moral, ethical or legal consequences to be the ones who are judging if your reasons to want a gun are acceptable? Or letting bureaucrats who believe that people who sneaked into our country illegally are somehow more deserving of protection than American citizens who were born here take decisions?

    Thanks, but no thanks.

  5. Professor Hale says:

    it’s very boring to watch Jeff print the same arguments I have seen over an over since before the internet was invented, as if he is the first person to ever think about it and as if those same arguments weren’t rejected over and over by the American people for decades. Socialists are really boring in a free society where they don’t have a real aristocracy to overthrow.

    • Elwood P. Dowd says:

      The “professor” keeps making the same arguments over and over.

      Yawn.

      What part of we’re not interested in anything you type don’t you understand?

      • formwiz says:

        What part of nobody cares what interests you and your cartoon characters do you not understand?

        PS There’s a graphic floating around the ‘Net showing all the mass murderers of 2019. Lot more dark faces than white.

        Maybe you should start looking to your own crowd if you’re so interested in domestic terrorism.

        • Elwood P. Dowd says:

          There are lots of graphics floating around the internet.

          Every word teachwiz types aims to mislead, even the “the” and the “and”.

          What part of we’re not interested in anything you type don’t you understand?

          • formwiz says:

            Notice he can’t rebut it.

            All he can do is go ad hominem.

            And what part of nobody cares what interests you and your cartoon characters eludes you.

            Get ready for a lot more facts about the lies in your white nationalist diatribes. We’re going to drop the hammer on you. https://www.thepiratescove.us/wp-content/plugins/wp-monalisa/icons/wpml_negative.gif

  6. Elwood P. Dowd says:

    As we’ve said repeatedly, the random and frequent mass murder of children, women and men is the price we pay for this freedom. We just need to adjust our thinking.

    But it’s also been said that our Constitution is not a suicide pact. “The laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation. To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to the written law, would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty, property and all those who are enjoying them with us; thus absurdly sacrificing the ends to the means.” — Jefferson

    • formwiz says:

      Tom had very little to do with writing the Constitution.

      Unfortunately, it was written as the basis for a republic, not a democracy, where the mob, not the law, rules.

      That’s what Jeffery wants, along with all the other Lefties.

    • gitarcarver says:

      Elwood doesn’t realize that in the context of the quote, Jefferson was arguing that the rights of man exceed those of the written law.

      One has to appreciate the irony that Elwood is saying that the rights of people – such as the right to bear arms – should not be subverted by those (such as Elwood and hating people of his ilk) who wish to write laws that deny people their rights.

    • gitarcarver says:

      But it’s also been said that our Constitution is not a suicide pact.

      The phrase was first mentioned in a 1949 Supreme Court case called TERMINIELLO v.CHICAGO.

      In that case, Justice Jackson argued in a dissent that any speech that could ignite civil unrest and violence should be banned.

      The majority rejected that belief and later in Brandenburg v. Ohio stated that speech that speech is not protected when it incites imminent violence.

      Elwood doesn’t realize or know that he is, in fact, arguing for the suppression of the rights of people. That would mean that the government could clamp down on the threats and “hate speech” he has made in this forum.

      In his hatred, which is all the left has, Elwood is arguing the exact opposite of what he exhibits.

      • Liljeffyatemypuppy says:

        Neurotic little sissybitch is always confused.

        https://www.thepiratescove.us/wp-content/plugins/wp-monalisa/icons/wpml_cool.gif

      • Elwood P. Dowd says:

        All the NuCons have is hate and cruelty. Which is their point.

        “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

        Do you consider that an absolute right to keep and bear any available arms?

        • formwiz says:

          The bear suit is with us.

          He must have seen all the pushback the Lefties are getting.

          And last I looked, there were no restrictions in the 2nd or the 9th on any type of weapon.

        • gitarcarver says:

          All the NuCons have is hate and cruelty. Which is their point.

          The protection of freedom and responsibility is “hate and cruelty?”

          That’s a new one.

          Do you consider that an absolute right to keep and bear any available arms?

          We’ve been down this path before. There is no such thing as an “absolute right.” The government can impose regulations on some rights. The government has done just that in the case of weapons such as cannons, machine guns, etc.

          What the government cannot do, which is what you want, is an absolute denial of the right to bear arms.

          I know that you are going to jump on that statement as some sort of “proof” that I agree with you. Nothing could be further from the truth. If you want to restrict a right, there has to be due process in that restriction. Machine guns are still available through a process because the government can’t ban them. The Supreme Court has ruled that time and time again.

          So once again, we see that all the left has is hate, and that even when an argument has been defeated and shown to be false, those who hate bring up the same argument as if stomping their feet and repeating the same lies will somehow make it true.

          • Elwood P. Dowd says:

            gitar typed: “… what you want, is an absolute denial of the right to bear arms.”

            That’s untrue (and you know it). Our Supreme Court has reaffirmed the right of Americans to keep and bear arms for defense.

            So in your mind, access to machine guns can be restricted (not banned) by law without violating 2nd Amendment rights, but limiting access to modern sporting rifles violates the 2nd Amendment?

            You used to be reasonable, now you rely on vitriol – “All the left has is hate!!”

            Do you really believe that the left expresses more hate than the right?

            Do you really believe that wanting to reduce firearms deaths in the US is a symptom of hate?

          • gitarcarver says:

            That’s untrue (and you know it).

            You have aligned yourself with people on the left who want to ban all firearms.

            Our Supreme Court has reaffirmed the right of Americans to keep and bear arms for defense.

            They have also reaffirmed the right for other purposes as well.

            So in your mind, access to machine guns can be restricted (not banned) by law without violating 2nd Amendment rights, but limiting access to modern sporting rifles violates the 2nd Amendment?

            Yep. And whether or not you realize it, your statement is the very reason.

            You used to be reasonable, now you rely on vitriol – “All the left has is hate!!”

            Oh please. You were the one that when you first visited this blog made physical threats against people. You call that “reasonable?” Because all the left has is hate, they must constantly play the victim.

            Do you really believe that the left expresses more hate than the right?

            Yes. And an objective look at comments for the mainstream right and the mainstream left confirms that observation.

            Do you really believe that wanting to reduce firearms deaths in the US is a symptom of hate?

            But you don’t want to reduce firearm deaths or else you would be railing against the cause of those deaths which is not the firearm. You keep blaming the firearm instead of the people.

            You hate law abiding citizens by wanting to take away an effective means of self defense. You hate responsible gun ownership. You hate freedom.

            More people are killed by drug overdoses than with firearms but because you are in the drug business, you don’t want the money to stop flowing into your pocket. Yet you hate people that want to protect themselves.

            Why is that? It’s because all the left has is hate.

          • Elwood P. Dowd says:

            You’ve become a hateful old liar. Oh well, good luck with your pseudoreasoning.

            Take care.

          • Elwood P. Dowd says:

            gitar typed: “You have aligned yourself with people on the left who want to ban all firearms.”

            But do I support the ban of all firearms, you liar?

            Do you agree that you’ve aligned yourself with white supremacists, people who massacre Hispanics, people who send bombs in the mail to political enemies, people who support massive debt, tax cuts for the wealthy, trade wars, feckless foreign policy, people who deny global warming, hatred of Muslims…

            Don’t you align yourself with what was once the Party of Lincoln?

            No need to respond. Take care.

  7. Kye says:

    Good quote . Now apply it to allowing Mohammadans in America because their cult of murder has 1st amendment protection. Or Allowing the communist or Nazi parties a free pass on sedition based on another part of the 1st.

    When Jefferson was around he knew how bad the Mohammadans were but communists didn’t exist yet. (yes, I know Zach, people were practicing what we now call communism). Since in his day Mohammadans had no desire to invade the West and the commies didn’t exist he failed to exclude them by name but we have no such luck. So it’s up to us to make sure we “don’t lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to the written law”.

    Trump 2020 Let’s not continue “absurdly sacrificing the ends to the means” .

  8. formwiz says:

    Notice he can’t rebut it.

    All he can do is go ad hominem.

    And what part of nobody cares what interests you and your cartoon characters eludes you.

    Get ready for a lot more facts about the lies in your white nationalist diatribes. We’re going to drop the hammer on you.

    • Elwood P. Dowd says:

      sockpuppet,

      Rebut what? Your unsupported, unproven (there’s that word again) claim?

      By all means, if you have facts to support your claims, supply them. There’s a first time for everything.

      What part of we’re not interested in anything you type don’t you understand?

      Waah! Edward is whining about ad hominem. Hypocrite.

  9. Kye says:

    As a nation we really got to get the lefts to settler down. They have been on an anti white, anti Christian rampage sine the election of 2016. Read this UC-Riverside professor’s chilling remarks are possibly the most vengeful and hateful response on the left to Saturday’s El Paso massacre,

    https://bigleaguepolitics.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/RezaAslanEradicate.jpeg

    This guy TEACHES COLLEGE. And some here wonder why guys go berserk? If you’re a white kid and spend your school years being taught that you are “privileged” just because of your race, that you are a racist, phony baloney Islamophobe, white supremacist and a misogynist all through school then see a vast majority on TV either from Fake News or commercials or just shows deliver you the same message PLUS the entire culture has abandoned God, family and fathers how much of a push do you think you’d need to go postal?

    The left has destroyed churches and families, erased the need for two parents let alone sexually straight parents, killed every moral idea and organization from the PTA to the Boy Scouts then blame some white nationalists when the shit hits the fan. The “white nationalists” are about as potent a force as the Knights Templar, the Royalists and the Copperheads. Why are we allowing ourselves to fall into this trap? To show our “wokeness” and love of diversity? American Patriots should not have to defend “white nationalists.”

    Trump 2020 Just because some nut goes crazy doesn’t mean it’s not okay to be white. It still is!!

  10. […] Pirate’s Cove – Biden Wants A Gun Buyback Scheme, Kamala Would Send Cops Around To Take Firearms […]

Bad Behavior has blocked 5417 access attempts in the last 7 days.