Who says “no Progressive wants to confiscate your guns?” This one has made it clear

by Skip

Liberal Guide to an AR-15No, not US Senator Diane Feinstein (who famously said),

“If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States, for an outright ban, picking up [every gun]… … Mr. and Mrs. America, turn ‘em all in. I would have done that.”

This time, however, it is Progressive Boston Globe columnist David Scharfenberg who openly and plainly says what most Statist Democrats tiptoe up to but never jump into the deep end (full piece after the jump).  Here’s a couple of pull quotes (emphasis mine):

  •  …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.
  • New York Governor Andrew Cuomo said in a radio interview that when it came to assault weapons “confiscation could be an option, mandatory sale to the state could be an option.”
  • 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?

 

  • John Rosenthal, co-founder and chairman of Massachusetts-based Stop Handgun Violence, says it may be time to embrace a mandatory buyback
  • 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.

Go ahead and read the whole thing – and notice that instead of embracing the Second Amendment that restricts government, he sees it as an impediment to carry out American confiscation that the Australians didn’t have to contend with (and totally ignores the European problem with mass shootings (yes, terrorism) in countries that pretty much ban almost all firearms in civilian hands).

The classic “Safety is more important than Freedom” is in play here and it is clear that he holds no truck with Benjamin Franklin’s aphorism about both. He is, however, perfectly fine with grabbing lots of taxpayer money just to be able to then demand the guns from those same taxpayers.  Sure, he alludes to the fact that this may not go well at all, but hey, SAFETY!

I am quite sure that if we were to ask Zandra Rice-Hawkins of Granite State Progress (that out-of-state Socialist group that is desperately trying to make NH like Venezuela), she would demur in answer “Confiscation? Si!” but knowing her, it does lurk in her heart.  Also here in NH we could throw in that senior assaulter (alledged, my butt) and gun grabber NH Reps Katherine Rogers and “Deputy Dawg” Steve Shurtleff would do so in less than a heartbeat if they could – the ability of civilians to keep and bear arms, regardless of the Second Amendment and Article 2-A, is absolutely nauseating to them

The moral is that they will never stop.  I expect, more and more, that the taboo around “confiscation” will fall.  Why not?  Progressives are feeling emboldened and they do see that the Second is a huge impediment to their end game.  So, like all the other attempts to change the culture, they will do so in this more and more.  It fits the pattern.

Expect it.  They demand it. And when people say “no one is demanding your gun”, laugh at them.  Then start squinting real hard at them and ask “et tu”?

The piece:

IN THE AFTERMATH of the Texas church shooting last week, Democratic lawmakers did what they always do: They skewered their Republican colleagues for offering only “thoughts and prayers,” and demanded swift action on gun control.

“The time is now,” said Connecticut Senator Chris Murphy, “for Congress to shed its cowardly cover and do something.”

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.

And just a few months earlier, then-President Barack Obama offered coded support for the same confiscatory approach. “When Australia had a mass killing — I think it was in Tasmania — about 25 years ago, it was just so shocking, the entire country said, ‘Well, we’re going to completely change our gun laws,’ and they did,” he said.

Democrats have even let the word “confiscation” slip out, on occasion. After the shooting rampage at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn. in 2012, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo said in a radio interview that when it came to assault weapons “confiscation could be an option, mandatory sale to the state could be an option.”

It was an option Cuomo didn’t pursue. But five years after that slaughter of schoolchildren — and with fresh tales of murdered kids on the floor of a Texas church — might gun-control advocates expand their agenda?

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?

ON APRIL 28, 1996 a deranged man named Martin Bryant used a semi-automatic rifle to slaughter 12 people in 15 seconds at the Broad Arrow cafe in Port Arthur, Tasmania, a popular tourist spot on the site of a former Australian prison colony.

He killed eight more in the gift shop, and several others in the parking lot. And as he drove away, he came across Nanette Mikac and her two daughters fleeing the scene.

Bryant told Mikac to get on her knees and as she wailed, “Please don’t hurt my babies,” he blew a hole through her forehead and fired several shots into her 3-year-old, Madeline. Alannah, 6, ran into the woods and Bryant gave chase. When he found her curled up behind a tree, he put his gun to her neck and fired.

Bryant, who killed 35 people that Sunday afternoon, shocked Australia into action.

It took just 12 days for conservative Prime Minister John Howard to announce a full slate of gun restrictions in a nation with a long tradition of frontier firearms. There was a ban on automatic and semi-automatic weapons and shotguns, an extensive registration system, and a 28-day waiting period between getting a permit and buying a gun.

But the centerpiece was the mandatory buyback, with a temporary tax financing the multimillion dollar purchase of hundreds of thousands of weapons deemed illegal under the new law.

Some feared resistance. Howard, at one point, wore a bulletproof vest during a speech to a group of gun rights supporters. But the buyback went forward peacefully, and it claimed an estimated one-fifth of Australia’s gun stock — one of the largest gun confiscations in modern history.

The seizure and the other gun control measures seem to have had a significant effect. Since passage of the law, the country hasn’t seen a single mass shooting — defined as a killing of five or more people, not including the gunman.

A study by researchers at Australian National University and Wilfrid Laurier University found a 59 percent drop in the firearm homicide rate and a 65 percent decline in the firearm suicide rate in the decade after the law was introduced. And while critics have noted the firearm death rate was already declining before passage of the legislation, the data show it dropped twice as fast afterward.

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.”

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.

“I am so struggling right now to find the strength to keep going,” he said earlier this week, a day after the Texas church shooting. “And guess what, I have been thinking a lot about Australia. They had that one horrific event, with 35 killed, with an assault weapon. They banned them, they bought them back — and there hasn’t been a mass shooting since.”

It’s a model the Aussies themselves have been touting to any Americans who will listen — suggesting it could succeed in the United States with a little political courage, especially on the right.

In Australia “many farmers resented being told to surrender weapons they had used safely all of their lives,” wrote Howard, the former prime minister, in The New York Times a few years ago. “Penalizing decent, law-abiding citizens because of the criminal behavior of others seemed unfair. Many of them had been lifelong supporters of my coalition and felt bewildered and betrayed by these new laws. I understood their misgivings. Yet I felt there was no alternative.”

THE TROUBLE WITH all of this is that America is not Australia.

As Howard himself has noted, Australia is a more intensely urban society than the United States, meaning there is a larger natural constituency for gun control Down Under — and a smaller rural opposition.

The Australian gun lobby, moreover, is not as powerful or well-financed as the National Rifle Association. And the Aussies don’t have a constitutionally protected right to bear arms.

While the Second Amendment isn’t absolute — no less than conservative Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia ruled that it’s “not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose”— it would undoubtedly serve as the basis for a robust legal challenge to any involuntary buyback program. And the courts would not be the only site of resistance.

Gun culture runs especially deep in a country born of violent rebellion. And over the last couple of decades, firearms have become one of the most important fault lines in American culture. It is hard to overstate the devotion — or if you prefer, the fanaticism — of the 3 percent of the population that owns half the guns in circulation.

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.”

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.

But perhaps gun-control advocates can propose something smaller — something more targeted.

Before Elliot Rodger killed six and wounded 14 in a shooting spree in Santa Barbara, Calif. in 2014, his mother and a social worker raised concerns with the police. But because Rodger had broken no law, there was nothing law enforcement could do.

After the rampage, California lawmakers passed a measure allowing family members to seek court orders seizing guns from disturbed people before they can hurt anybody. Similar laws are in place in Washington, Indiana, and Connecticut. And legislators in 18 other states, including Massachusetts, considered so-called “extreme risk protective order” legislation this year, according to the Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence.

Laura Cutilletta, legal director for the Giffords Law Center, says Devin Kelley, the Texas church killer, would have been a “perfect candidate” for an order of this kind. “People knew that there was something going on with him,” she says. “He was sending threatening messages to his mother-in-law. . . . He had [committed] domestic violence and animal abuse.”

Cutilletta says restraining orders and other measures designed to deprive the most dangerous people of guns — like background checks and tighter restrictions on domestic abusers — are more politically viable, and legally defensible, than gun confiscation. And they can have an impact, she says: States with tougher gun laws have fewer firearm-related deaths.

Still, even if we find a way to keep guns out of the hands of people who have engaged in disturbing or violent behavior — no small task, given all the stories of the troubled shooters who slipped through the cracks — it will only get us so far.

The United States’ astronomically high rates of firearm violence aren’t rooted in some unique American propensity for derangement and delinquency. Studies show our levels of mental illnessand basic criminality are on par with other wealthy countries.

Other common explanations, like the social fissures created by our racial diversity, have been debunked by researchers, too. The only explanation left — an explanation borne out by a number of careful studies — is the sheer size of the American arsenal. There are 310 million handguns, shotguns, and semi-automatic weapons in American homes, garages, and waistbands.

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.

(H/T: Hot Air) Read the link – some nice points there as well.

Leave a Comment

  • Bruce Currie
    • sb

      So how about you, Bruce? What are your feelings on it in 10 words or less?

      You can try to convince us that Feinstein “only” meant “assault” weapons but I don’t buy it for a second. Why not? Because in a leftist’s mind, all weapons are “assault” weapons, and two, a leftist lives in an fantasy ideological frame of mind where reality and human nature either don’t exist or can be changed to suit them.

      • allen

        there are leaked documents from the Violence Policy Center that specifically state that after an “assault weapons” ban, they will go after “sniper rifles” (hunting rifles with telescopic sights) and then weapons “too inaccurate for hunting” aka shotguns. too big, too small, too accurate, too inaccurate, too powerful, not powerful enough..until the only thing left is a Brown Bess musket firing shot (a patched ball or rifling would be “too accurate” and make it a “sniper rifle”)

        https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/6ee3eaeea000ec70be27438ea2f125f0ed142611937dfec80eb7720af3a328e3.jpg

        a tyrant usually tries to make it safer for his sturmtruppen to round up the opposition before they go for the brass ring…

        • Bruce Currie

          Links? Proof?

          • allen

            you first bruce. we say she wanted to confiscate firearms.

            you say, and provide links, saying “oh no you conservatives are wrong again she only wanted to confiscate a certain type of firearms”

            “assault weapons” however you want to define them, are indeed firearms, are they not? so the statement saying she wanted to wanted to confiscate firearms is provably TRUE.

            please, provide links and proof to your original statement.

          • Bruce Currie

            Your response is pathetically lame. My links above are clear on what Feinstein said and meant. And it’s nothing at all like the claims about Feinstein’s quote repeated here. Which shows again, that on topics from climate change to gun control, to taxes and voter fraud, this site often plays fast and loose with the facts, and has little or no regard for accuracy and truthfulness. We won’t hold our breath waiting for a retraction or correction, which is what good journalism practice would dictate. Just don’t pretend–as some on this site have claimed– that this site comes close to practicing journalism in any principled shape or form.

            Skip’s post repeating a known falsehood exemplifies this practice. And you’re doing the same by claiming the existence of “leaked documents” that say gun control advocates want to confiscate all guns, yet are unwilling/unable to substantiate your claim with even a link. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence: put up or shut up.

          • allen

            this is binary bruce.. did she or did she not want to confiscate guns? ANY guns? any class, style, color, or model, inclusively or exclusively? let’s refresh your memory…

            “If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them, ‘Mr. and Mrs. America turn ‘em all in,’ I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren’t here.’”

            even if she was only talking about one brand or style, the answer is YES. therefore the statement is TRUE. you can try to split the hairs any way you want, but the wolverine is still attached to them.

            you put up or shut up. DID SHE OR DID SHE NOT SAY SHE WANTED TO CONFISCATE GUNS? YES OR NO?

            the only answer is “yes” bruce. yes, she did.

            and honestly bruce we’re all sick and tired of people like you who think fundamental rights are subject to majority vote. the 2nd amendment is no longer negotiable. the reality is it never should have been. we’re patient and peaceful people. but we’re not backing up any longer. you are almost at the point where you are giving gun owners like me nothing left to lose. and that is a dangerous place indeed. tread carefully.

            http://daysofourtrailers.blogspot.com/2008/02/for-hunters-who-dont-believe-theyre-on.html (plenty more links for you to follow from there.)

            for the people who need “VPC-to-english translation” (that’d be you bruce) “intermediate” sniper rifles are exactly like the deer rifles owned by any hunter worth a damn. I’ve probably got about 8 that would qualify. go ahead, try to ban them, or anything I’ve got. I double dog dare you. not only will you wake up all the “fudds” out there, but you’ll give me damn good reason to distribute my collection to well-trained people who can put them to good use. and I am not alone. we won’t start the fight, but we sure as hell will finish it.

            your move.

          • Bruce Currie

            None of the first ten amendments in the Bill of Rights is absolute. The First is better written and more plain than the 2nd, and yet it has limits. The Heller decision (the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of what the Constitution means) pointedly said that the right to keep and bear arms is subject to regulation, such as concealed weapons prohibitions, limits on the rights of felons and the mentally ill, laws forbidding the carrying of weapons in certain locations, laws imposing conditions on commercial sales, and prohibitions on the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. It also stated that this was not an exhaustive list of the regulatory measures that would be permitted under the Second Amendment.

          • allen

            the supreme court is an infallible arbiter of what the constitution means?

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott_v._Sandford
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Miller

            it seems they can get things wrong. and it’s not the first or last time.

          • allen

            I notice you still haven’t answered the question…

            did she, or did she not, say that she was going to confiscate firearms?

          • sb

            He hasn’t answered my question, either. Are you as shocked as I am?

          • allen

            nah. standard procedure if he can’t answer it honestly without looking foolish, he moves on to another topic or moves the goalposts.

            like the “None of the first ten amendments in the Bill of Rights is absolute” post above. he can’t say “yes, she wanted to confiscate firearms” so he changes the subject.

            the same with the “we don’t want your deer rifles” when they clearly have laid the groundwork to do that by calling them “intermediate sniper rifles”.

          • Bruce Currie

            Again, the Politifact link is quite clear on what Feinstein said. And this post’s comments continue to distort that meaning, without the slightest acknowledgement that their claims do match reality.

          • allen

            again…did she want to confiscate firearms? yes or no?

            “mr. and mrs america turn them all in”

            it doesn’t matter if she was talking about the XYZ model of .96 caliber unobtanium rifle with the optional shoulder thing that goes up where only 3 were made or phased plasma rifles in a 40-watt range or a Colonial Marines M40 pulse rifle or every item that goes bang including the cork-gun I bought at cabella’s years ago.

            did she, or did she not, want to confiscate firearms? YES or NO?

            the only answer is YES, she did. you can try to parse it however you like. she wanted to confiscate firearms.

      • Bruce Currie

        Translation from sb talk: “I can rationalize my lies about what Feinstein said because I ‘know’ [cough, cough] that Feinstein was really lying.”

        • granitegrok

          That’s a direct quote from Feinstein, Bruce – we in the gun community have been quoting it for years. Given that it is her words DIRECTLY, how can it be a lie?

          • Bruce Currie

            I’ll leave you to ponder the answer to that question, after observing that your understanding of “directly” must be different from that in common usage.

        • sb

          You didn’t answer my question.

        • Bryan W

          For those too lame to look for the truth, and not someone’s politically slanted “summary” disguised with the word “fact,” here is what she said:

      • Michael

        Right. They’ve moved the goalposts on what defines an “assault” weapon. It was originally three restricted features. Then two. Now, in some states, it’s one restricted item.

    • allen

      http://sipseystreetirregulars.blogspot.com/2009/08/son-you-dont-poke-wolverine-with-sharp.html

      There are things in life that you can do.

      There are things in life that you shouldn’t do.

      For example, you CAN urinate on an electric fence, but it will undoubtedly
      be a far more religious experience than you had bargained for. Likewise
      it is with mandatory gun registration.

      All this pointy-hatted constitutional “scholar” stuff is good for the sort of parlor chat that some folks favor, I suppose, but in the real world there is for the academician kibitzer and citizen disarmament advocate legal beagle this
      unfortunate (depending upon how you look at it) set of historical and
      political truths:

      One, universal gun registration is the precursor to gun confiscation, always has been, always will be.

      Two, gun confiscation is the absolute precursor to tyranny and genocide.

      Three, there are enough armed citizenry in this country who have internalized these lessons to make it suicidal for any would-be tyrant to try,
      “constitutional” or not. (The Founders would say “not,” but why waste
      time debating the point?)

      Ergo, as my Michigan farmer grandfather once told me about arguing with Grandma: “Son, you don’t poke a wolverine with a sharp stick unless you want your #####$ ripped off.”

      Oh, by the way, WE are the wolverine.

      Are we done here? I think we are.

    • Michael

      “If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them, ‘Mr. and Mrs. America turn ‘em all in,’ I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren’t here.’”

    • 175jfs

      Right on cue. Tell us Bruce how confiscation IS NOT the end game. (Seeing as how you socialists have made a mess of everything else.) More Pravada-by-Currie.

      • allen

        registration leads to confiscation leads to tyranny and genocide.

        it’s the progressive three-step waltz that’s been in fashion since the 1930’s or so, but they just can’t get that tune out of their heads.

        • Bruce Currie

          You boys have swallowed the gun lobby’s kook-aid on this issue. Your grasp of the facts and history is self-serving, and half-vast. As is the resort to name-calling. But that’s because the claim being made here was shown to be false, yet like Chicken-Littles, you all continue to parrot the same mindless nonsense. The 2nd Amendment isn’t going anywhere; no one is taking away one’s right to defense of home and hearth, nor is this country’s long tradition of hunting for recreation and game going away.

  • Michael

    I actually applaud the few leftists who are at least honest about confiscation. The other ones dance around it like it’s some political third rail. Maybe it is. The reality is that it would never work in the United States. Unless you want to see complete and total chaos.

    • allen

      I’ll admit there is something refreshing about an honest communist. sure, I’ll happily put them against the wall and put a bullet in them right along side the rest, but at least his head will be held high and he’ll have some dignity, rather than the pleading sniveling cowards that make up the rest of the group..

      of course, given the opportunity they would happily treat us likewise, so I will feel zero remorse about the whole affair.

Previous post:

Next post: