Please disable your Ad Blocker to better interact with this website.

Boston Gobe: Gun Confiscation is Needed… and Impossible

The Boston Globe recent ran an article where it acknowledged the obvious: the long term goal of the gun control movement (recently relabeled as  “gun safety”), is to confiscate a large number of Americans’ firearms. The Globe has almost everything else wrong in its article, but they are honest about the desire for gun confiscation. From the bostonglobe.com:

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.

(snip)

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?

Then the article goes on to praise the imposition of extreme restrictions on gun ownership in Australia, and to put forward claims that the restrictions “worked”.  Those claims are easily countered. That is not what we are dealing with here.

Ultimately, the Globe admits that massive gun confiscation is not possible, at least now, at least not directly.

Why are so many people on the political left willing to consider confiscating guns, in direct violation of the Constitution, with the obvious high costs, high risks, and low chance of success? Here are some reasons:

1. It is easy to support laws that do not cost *you* anything, which you perceive to be of any benefit to you.  The vast majority of those supporting confiscation do not own guns. They see guns as a threat. They have no desire to own guns.  They are perfectly happy to have guns confiscated because their property will not be confiscated.  It is the same idea as supporting taxes on *other people*.

2. They see no benefit to gun ownership. Therefore, they see gun ownership as an irresponsible act in itself. They see the manufacture of guns as an irresponsible act in itself.  The only things they see about guns are costs. With no benefits to the ownership of guns, they demonize gun owners and feel righteous about any harm that comes to gun owners.

3. They believe they can make gun owners pay all the administrative costs of gun confiscation, registration, inspections, storage, gun modifications etc. That is the plan used throughout the world. The payment for guns in the Australian scheme is unusual. Mostly guns are just taken.  If the government passes a law requiring you to store your guns in a safe, the government requires you to buy a safe. They do not issue one.  If the government spends 5 billion a year in gun registration administration, they charge gun owners for the cost.

4. They see no risk from a confiscation effort. Over and over, people who want confiscation say if there is any blood shed, it will be gun owner’s blood, not their blood. They believe in a powerful, relentless state that will crush the opposition while they remain in their urban centers, safe and happy. They think gun owners will just passively wait for the gun confiscation police to come to their door, and only then offer resistance, if at all.

5. They do not believe the Second Amendment is legitimate. This is how they rationalize their opposition. Many believe the Constitution, as written, is not legitimate.

6. They are profoundly ignorant about guns, gun legislation, military history, and gun technology. They are often proud of this ignorance.

Most of these beliefs are casually held, absorbed by osmosis, as it were, in an environment where they are assumed to be true  and self evident.

Second Amendment supports can easily counter these beliefs, which are rooted in false assumptions about reality. Persuasion is best accomplished without insults or other personal attacks. Second Amendment supporters will know they have won when they are the one receiving the insults and personal attacks.

Here are simple, but powerful arguments to challenge those false assumptions.

Guns have benefits. Use examples of guns saving lives. Cite John Lott’s work.

Gun Control has high costs and no benefits.  Lots of Scholarship available.

Steps below massive confiscation are futile.

The only legitimate way to confiscate guns is to repeal the Second Amendment.

Confiscation risks a bloody civil war where everyone will be personally at risk.

Second Amendment Supporters are motivated, trained, and do not share their belief structure.

Take a non-shooter shooting. It shatters false assumptions.

©2017 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included. Gun Watch

Editor’s Note:  If you listen carefully and a gun control proponent has their guard down, you can hear them slip up from time to time and admit that their TRUE goal is not “common sense gun laws” but rather gun confiscation.  That’s their end game.  That’s their goal.  From Obama, to Clinton, to Feinstein to Bloomberg.  They want to take away law abiding citizens guns.

I have a wry grin on my face that the Boston Globe had the stones to actually put that truth into writing as a matter of record.  The Boston Globe is FOR the confiscation of firearms. ALL of them.  For those of you who read that rag, remember to view their articles through a lens which acknowledges that truth lest you inadvertently get duped into their hype.

 

Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.

Send this to friend