Guns

Beto's Impossible Gun Ban Dreams

A growing number of prominent Democrats want owners of "assault weapons" to surrender them to the government. History says most people will ignore any such law.

|

Maybe Beto O'Rourke, the long-shot presidential hopeful (polling in the low single digits), didn't get the memo about soft-pedaling gun control advocacy as "common sense" proposals, or maybe he's making a desperate move to revive his faltering bid for the Democratic nomination. Either way, he announced over the weekend that under a hypothetical O'Rourke administration, "Americans who own AR-15s, AK-47s, will have to sell them to the government."

Like prohibitionists of the past, O'Rourke has yet to come up with a credible scheme for getting people who oppose restrictive laws to obey them. But in his open call for confiscation of so-called "assault weapons"—semiautomatic rifles classified largely according to cosmetic characteristics—O'Rourke isn't alone.

"The newest purity test for Democrats is whether to mandate assault weapons buybacks," The Washington Post reported recently—with "buybacks" a popular euphemism for compensated confiscation. Donkey party potentates including Sens. Bernie Sanders (Vt.) and Cory Booker (N.J.) share Beto's taste for imposing a new form of prohibition.

Maybe that's a winning formula for harvesting votes, but it's terrible as policies go, unless they really want to make the government look thoroughly impotent. Similar bans, restrictions, and confiscations have been tried before, with minimal success.

"More than a year after New Jersey imposed the toughest assault-weapons law in the country, the law is proving difficult if not impossible to enforce," reported The New York Times in 1991. "Only four military-style weapons have been turned in to the State Police and another 14 were confiscated." Police also knew "the whereabouts of fewer than 2,000 other guns"—out of an estimated 100,000 to 300,000 privately owned weapons in the state.

Note that New Jersey officials threatened resisters with felony prosecutions and got mass defiance in return. By contrast, O'Rourke says that "individuals who fail to participate in the mandatory buyback of assault weapons will be fined." Where stiff prison sentences failed, fines seem unlikely to overcome opposition.

Honestly, New Jersey's gun confiscation was easy to defy because the state had no gun registration requirement—officials had no idea as to who owned what. Compliance, then, was on the honor system.

Registration also does not exist in most of the U.S., and it's far too late to bring it in.

Registration is a policy that works only when it appears innocuous. If people know that you want to seize their property, and then you ask them to itemize the soon-to-be-forbidden items on a list, the effort doesn't go so well.

When, preliminary to introducing restrictions on semiautomatic rifles, California made the attempt to register them, "only about 7,000 weapons of an estimated 300,000 in private hands in the state have been registered," The New York Times reported in 1990. "This non-compliance has virtually nullified the first step of a March 1989 law that set the pattern for similar attempts to limit ownership of assault rifles in other states and in Washington."

More recently, Connecticut's 2014 effort to register so-called "assault weapons" met with an estimated 15 percent compliance rate. Soon after, New York had to be sued before it released figures revealing less than 5 percent compliance with a similar registration law.

"There is some evidence from a number of countries over a substantial time period that roughly a sixth of guns will find their way into the registration system," wrote Gary Mauser, of Canada's Simon Fraser University, in 2007.

Mauser's insights are interesting since he wrote in the context of Canada's efforts to implement a national gun registry. That registry was more successful than most—it may ultimately have included half of the guns that were supposed to have been registered, though with "an error rate that remains embarrassingly high," Mauser noted. But that registration rate came at high cost. From an initial projected cost of C$2 million in 1995, the price tag soared close to C$2 billion by 2004. The registry was dumped in 2012.

Quebec has since implemented its own gun registry. As of January 2019 compliance stood at less than 20 percent of what was registered under the much-spurned national registry.

All this is to say that gun registration is almost impossible to implement because gun owners don't trust politicians to leave them alone.

Feeding such suspicion is the fact that politicians have tipped their hands, revealing that they do, in fact, have restrictive intentions. But without registration of items—like guns—that governments want to seize, such restrictions are impossible to implement.

So, what the hell is the point?

The point, almost certainly, is for political hopefuls like O'Rourke and his rivals to gin up their bases by playing to people's fears. No, not rational fear of violent crime—crime has been declining since the early 1990s. Instead, politicians play off fears of relatively rare but disturbing mass attacks that are resistant to solutions but have people clamoring for government to "do something."

That "doing something" can include lashing out at political and cultural enemies—largely conservative and suburban or rural gun owners in this case—seems to be a plus in this politically polarized country. Demonizing the enemy excites a party's core voters about smashing their foes at the polls.

But while weaponizing laws against political opponents may buy votes among the faithful in the short term, it delegitimizes laws and their enforcers in the eyes of their targets. That further reduces any possibility of compliance with laws that already have a history of being honored only in the breach. When the dust settles, the government ends up looking weak and the law pointless. And the country will be more divided than ever.

Maybe O'Rourke and his colleagues will eventually be able to turn their gun confiscation wishes into law, but history is very clear that most people will defy the prohibition.

NEXT: The Trump Administration's New Citizenship Rules for Service Members Abroad Are Petty and Pointless

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Oh, I am sure confiscatory efforts to seize firearms will have great success. It worked oh-so-well with alcohol and cannabis.

    If Beto, et al, think this will fly in a general election, he is flat-out crazy.

    1. Bu-bu-but he was born for this!

    2. Seen on Twitter:

      I considered selling my weapons back to the government, but after a background check and thorough investigation into the buyer, I determined the buyer has a history of violence and is mentally unstable. Big risk to everyone around it.

      — Justin Maloney (@JMaloneyLiberty) September 4, 2019

    3. He sounds like a Marxist subversive who should be detained indefinitely at GitMo.

      1. Then the entirety of Australia should be locked up. They did it and it worked. Gun deaths fell precipitously.

        1. Yes. And also, gun deaths fell precipitously in the US after most US states adopted shall-issue concealed carry policies.

          Or, if you want to put it another way, after Australia did its gun confiscation, gun deaths declined precipitously in the US, while after the US widely liberalized concealed carry, Australian gun deaths decline precipitously.

          You know what else declined precipitously in both countries? Non-gun homicides. And, astonishingly enough, both effects were also seen in Canada and New Zealand, countries that resembled their larger neighbors that didn’t adopt those policies.

          And, in fact, were part of a pattern seen in every country on Earth as the generation born after after new cars using leaded gasoline were outlawed reached physical maturity, because they grew up without the brain damage from breathing lead fumes that causes poor impulse control, poor impulse control being a common trait of people who commit murders.

        2. Much like America, Australia’s gun homicide rate was dropping before the ban, and continued to drop at the same rate afterwards.

          1. It should be noted that America’s gun homicide rate actually fell FASTER than Australia’s during the same time period…

            1. What are you? Some sort of fact-based guy?
              Bobby’s going to have his feelings hurt if you keep that up.

        3. Australia only had a 20% compliance rate. Crime has soared and go so bad current PM has said publicly the government may need to review the ban. In addition, Australia is a country of 28 million vs the 330 million in the US so any comparison is ridiculous.

    4. Beta is a phaggotte.

      1. 10000 upvotes. He’s a, like, really, a dork.

    5. Voluntary won’t work, compulsory will start a war between government and it’s own citizens. The exact reason the 2nd amendment exists to protect yourself from a government that no longer respects your rights.

    6. Not sure why he is still in. He is the ultimate empty suit and has zero chance in the primaries much less a general election. He made a decent showing against Ted Cruz only because people didn’t know him well and he got a lot of out of state money. Nothing kills a bad product faster than good advertising.

    7. These are the same folks who say we have no way to deport 11M illegals…but confiscating over 300M firearms shouldn’t be a big problem.

    1. I’m still waiting for someone to bring up that every time in America’s past when someone has tried to disarm part of the populace, it was so they could wipe out or murder some minority, race or otherwise. Native Americans, blacks, Mormons, etc, all had “common sense gun control” mandated for them, and then suffered for it.

      1. Not just America, that is the history world wide of disarming the population.

  2. Honestly, New Jersey’s gun confiscation was easy to defy because the state had no gun registration requirement—officials had no idea as to who owned what. Compliance, then, was on the honor system.

    They don’t register guns, but they do register owners. A little farther to the left, and NJ may decide that constitutes probable cause.

    1. ^ This.

      If you don’t give them a gun when they come knocking, why it sounds like some prison time might be in order!

      1. Well…mine are not in the house…search…I lost them.

  3. New Jersey truly is the shittiest state in the union.

    1. Ever been to Mississippi?

      1. New Mississippi?

      2. I used to live in Alabama, and there’s a saying in Alabama: “At least we’re not Mississippi.

        1. Mississippi would do well to adopt the saying “At least we’re not New Jersey”.

          1. “Mississippi would do well to adopt the saying “At least we’re not New Jersey”.

            Yeah, and with Mississippi’s constitutional carry law, no Mississipian will have to take any lip from anyone in the Garbage State for sayin’ it, y’all.

  4. Mauser is a pretty good name for someone studying guns.

    1. So glad someone else saw the irony in that!

    2. Yup, Made me think of a few long guns I have bearing that name. Nice design and workmanship

  5. Will Beto go door to door collecting them himself? In the event such a ban were to happen would anyone from any agency even try to go collect them door to door? I would love to see that happen.

    1. The day the Mick Who LARPs As A Spic, or any of his colleagues, actually implements such a law is the day that millions of firearms suddenly become “lost”.

    2. That’s never been the intention of anyone but a few starry-eyed naive idealists. The only get confiscated when noticed, such as when you take one out shooting, or are arrested for something else which requires a search, or some annoyed acquaintance gets revenge by reporting it.

    3. A modest proposal:

      Anyone who advocates for gun confiscation should be compulsorily drafted by the government into a gun confiscation squad, given a uniform and a gun, and sent from door to door to confiscate guns from tens of millions of angry owners.

      Beto can have Jersey #1.

      1. Love it!

  6. Like prohibitionists of the past, O’Rourke has yet to come up with a credible scheme for getting people who oppose restrictive laws to obey them.

    The credible scheme is arrest and charge anyone caught with an illegal weapon. It’s not 3d chess.

    1. But how do you catch them? Just wait for them to murder someone then charge them after the fact?

      1. All interactions with police will result in searches for guns.

        I knew a person in Georgia whose house burned down. Police laid all his guns on the hood of his car and on a blanket on the ground along with tens of thousands of rounds of ammo. To makes sure none of it was damaged by the fire or that the ammo would not cook off.

        Then police help load all those guns and ammo into the persons truck. Not a single picture was taken or accusations of “too much weaponry” like it would be in a Lefty state.

        1. I remember when our house was burglarized as a kid. The police didn’t really do anything to catch the robbers, missing very obvious clues like gloves and a stopwatch left on the scene, but did question my parents very carefully about a few Cuban cigars my mother had (as a memento of her father)

        2. “”All interactions with police will result in searches for guns.”‘

          I think a new gun law went into effect basically allowing this.

          1. In NY

    2. The credible scheme is arrest and charge anyone caught with an illegal weapon.
      Because arresting and charging drug users has eliminated illegal drugs?
      Prohibition always creates a black market, and in this case you’re trying to prohibit 19th Century technology.

  7. But in his open call for confiscation of so-called “assault weapons”—semiautomatic rifles classified largely according to cosmetic characteristics—O’Rourke isn’t alone.

    There are some gun banners who know that the “assault weapon” classification is based on scary looks, and some that think they are a completely different weapon, infinitely more powerful than a semi-auto rifle. The former are acting in bad faith; the latter are idiots.

    I believe Beto is part of the second group. And that he’s a follower who thinks he’s a leader.

    1. I believe Beto is part of the second group. And that he’s a follower who thinks he’s a leader.

      He’s still trying to figure out why he’s no longer the Democratic Golden Child. One day he’ll realize he was the media’s pawn.

      1. “One day he’ll realize he was the media’s pawn.”

        I doubt it. I really think he’s even dumber than he looks.

      2. He’s no longer the golden child because instead of running as the only sane centrist in the race, he decided to go as Young Bernie.

    2. Which is why all gun owners with AR pattern rifles should follow the research of the Air Force in determining what color is most effective as camouflage for a stealth aircraft and paint our guns that color. Then the anti-black bigots won’t keep going after them.

    3. he’s a follower who thinks he’s a leader.

      Well, respected authority figures that he totally trusts to know what’s best have told him he’s a leader, so . . .

  8. Whenever I get into a debate about the arbitrary definition of assault weapon (usually after dispelling the way they’ve been convinced this refers to automatics), the response is always just banning all semiauto rifles period. Careful about pointing out the definition problem.

    1. Just remind them that a Constitutional amendment is required for any gun control and all the current gun control laws are void for this reason.

      Foam will start to form at the corner of their mouths.

      1. They don’t think that’s true. The beliefs range from “reasonable” restrictions that are de facto bans to outright bans because SCOTUS was wrong and only a militia is protected (and only the National Guard qualified as one, you can’t form one on your own).
        Even your beloved Trump thinks like that; that any restriction he does support like universal background checks and the bump stock ban can be enacted by Congress or simply executive fiat.

        It’s not that there’s no basis for this… all the other amendments concerning civil rights have been gutted with exception after exception after exception that are completely in violation of the plain meaning and text. Except maybe the 3rd Amendment. But rest assured that if the situation ever came up, there’d be all sorts of “reasonable” exceptions to that too, like ‘Well you can be forced to quarter soldiers if it’s an exigent circumstance.’ and ‘Oh you live in public housing or receive government assistance? Didn’t you read the fine print you waived your right not to quarter.’

        The biggest problem with the 2nd is that the exceptions already go way, way too far.

  9. “but it’s terrible as policies go, unless they really want to make the government look thoroughly impotent.”

    You do realize that you’re on a libertarian site, yes? That we don’t really view that as a bad thing?

    1. First of all, that is certainly not Beta O’Rourke’s intention. Secondly, few libertarians would gladly accept gun prohibition in return for yet one more thing making government look incompetent.
      We already think 95% of government action is incompetently executed, but somehow political mainstreamers remain convinced that government is an efficacious tool for social engineering, despite all the history to the contrary.

  10. Maybe Beto O’Rourke, the long-NECK presidential hopeful

    FTFY

  11. 2nd Amendment: 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.

    Beto should be told to sit down and shut up when he says that laws can be used to ban guns. The US Constitution specifically prohibits any gun control laws.

  12. At what point do we get to refer to these anti-Constitutional Donk assholes as Traitors?

    1. I’ve been waiting for Reason to address Wal-Mart’s proclamation yesterday or San Francisco labeling the NRA a domestic terrorist organization today. Instead we’ve had to articles assuring us that the Democrats either don’t really want to take our guns or they couldn’t anyhow. If this were a tweet from Trump on the other hand, can we speculate how Reason would respond?

      1. Is that really how you read this article? Holy fuck, you seem stupider with every post of yours I read. Your partisan biases are literally making you dumb.

        1. No, it was a general remark about Reason’s take on gun control over the past 48 hours. Or did you miss their podcast yesterday? Calling someone stupid and not grasping what they are referring to, hmmm sure sign of intelligence there. Something’s about rocks and glass houses and worrying about the specks in your neighbors eyes rather then the plank in your own eye comes to mind when I read your remark.

  13. Did banning fully automatic firearms and short barrelled shotguns work?

    1. Maybe officially. Unofficially you can still convert any gun into those categories with a very small amount of know-how.

      Fortunately, it seems those people with that small amount of know-how aren’t going around blowing people away.

      That might change when brown shirts arrive at their home to remove the unmodified weapons.

      1. Correct. After the first felony, all the others are free.

        The gun banners should be really careful about what they wish for; they might get it.

    2. First of all, these items are not banned. They don’t even fall under the same category of law.

      Secondly, define “work”.

  14. Beto’s “impossible dream” to ban ARs would be a failure only in the sense that it wouldn’t take guns “off the street”. But like most Libertarians, Tuccile is so excited about the prospect of Sticking It To The Man that he fails to recognize the practical effect of this law.

    The real intent of gun control laws is to turn gun owners into criminals, this stigmatizing them and making them easier to intimidate. And in this sense, assault weapons bans have been a roaring success.

    Even if no one complied with Beto’s Ban it still would be a success by driving AR owners underground. In addition, those weapons would become useless to their owners: they wouldn’t be able to hunt with them, they wouldn’t be able to go to the range and shoot, they wouldn’t be able to share them with family or friends (cousin Joe might be a snitch). Even buying ammo would be problematic.

    The argument is, of course, that the People will resent the law and eventually rise up and demand its repeal. The continued existence of gun bans in New Jersey would argue otherwise.

    In terms of controlling the population, Gun Bans work. Which is why Democrats keep pushing them.

    1. This on wheels. There’s a wide chasm between “the law won’t keep X out of the hands of those who want it” and the fact that lives are hurt and damaged when the state flails around enforcing the law.

      1. It’s a variation of Ayn Rand’s “you cannot rule honest men” quote; by criminalizing millions of mostly Republican gun owners, you make it easier to harass and punish them.

        Civil disobedience isn’t a bug of gun control laws; it’s a very desirable feature as far as Beto is concerned.

    2. This is a fucking comical comment.

      As someone who actually lives in fucking New Jersey, I can emphatically say that gun bans do not work. The fucking impotent assault weapon ban in NJ that is still on the books did nothing to prevent me from legally buying an AR-15 and an AR-10 over the Internet and have it shipped to this state. Manufacturers have “state compliant” models for their semi-automatic firearms. Hence, why I have them.

      Ask folks in NJ if they still have their >10-round magazines. They’ll say “no”, but the answer is “yes”. I can drive 5 minutes to PA to get high-capacity magazines and drive them over the border.

      Did you know that lighting off fireworks has been illegal in NJ for decades, but even the police will drive to PA to buy them and light them off? Now NJ sells fireworks in the grocery stores, yet it is still illegal to light them off.

      Bans do not fucking work. People who are criminalized because of bans don’t really fucking care. If so, then you’d have compliance. Yet it is fantastically low.

      So, no, gun bans do not work. It just turns law-abiding citizens into criminals. The vast majority of this new class of criminals has accepted the risk of being convicted of violating a law they disagree with. If Dems were to actually confiscate and imprison all of the offenders, there would be no spaces left in the jails and no voters left.

      And maybe that’s the plan: Arrest all of the offenders, make them felons, and ensure they cannot vote ever again.

      Now that would be fucking brilliant, but NJ politicians are the dumbest motherfuckers on this planet. I’ve met rocks that are smarter.

      1. You got it right with your second-to-last paragraph: by holding a legal Sword of Damocles over the head of AR owners, they become easier to harass, intimidate, and neutralize.

        As the saying goes it’s not about the guns, it’s about the control. Gun owners need to stop assuming that politicians like Beto are actually trying to reduce crime and violence.

      2. “I can drive 5 minutes to PA to get high-capacity magazines and drive them over the border.”

        I think you’re missing Beards point. Good for you that you live 5 minutes from the border. You’re still effected by the law. And people that live farther away are affected more. You can still thumb your nose at the law, and that may be fun for you, but the law still makes people less free.

        And any law enforcement agency in New Jersey can use existing gun laws, regardless of how effective they are overall, to fuck with otherwise law abiding citizens when they feel like it.

        1. Exactly. The point isn’t whether or not you can get illegal stuff on the “black market”; you can, and you always will. The point is that it is illegal, and allows the government another way to influence and control your behavior.

          Many gun owners still don’t get it: gun control laws are a “win-win” for anti-gunners, regardless of how effective or practical or relevant these laws are. That’s why Democrats continue to push them, even though they always cost them votes in “purple” Congressional districts.

          If a ban passes, and you comply and turn in your guns, then you have reduced the threat that you pose to their power. You’re also less likely to support other gun owners who didn’t comply, or vote for political candidates — primarily Republican ones — who oppose gun control. The gun banners win.

          If you don’t comply and refuse to turn in your guns, then you have given the State an excuse to send its agents to smash down your door, terrorize your family, perp-walk you out of the house in front of your neighbors, and shoot your dog for good measure. All to set an example; “pour encourager les autres” as the saying goes.

          The gun banners win again; I would argue they prefer this option because it allows them to sadistically crush those gun-owning troglodytes who resisted them.

          Ayn Rand didn’t get everything right, but she nailed it with her “you cannot rule honest men” remark. Honest men who have no skeletons (or illegal ARs) in their closets cannot be easily intimidated, which makes them more difficult to control.

          And it’s all about control.

          1. There’s value in pointing out that gun control laws don’t work, though: it emphasizes the need to oppose the laws that impose them, and it highlights the fact that the only purpose of such laws is to harass the law-abiding people who do no harm.

    3. Fair points, but you’re way off base with your “most Libertarians” remark. Libertarianism was my first exposure to unintended (or intended, as the case may be) consequences. Indeed, libertarians were harping on about the unintended consequences of drug prohibition long before the left ever started making those arguments in public. We constantly harp on the unintended consequences of all sorts of seemingly-sensible legislation.

      Speaking for myself, I’m always the guy going “yeah, but think of how this will be used to harm poor people and those without legal advice on retainer”, regardless of whether the room is full of leftists or rightists.

      1. I was addressing the juvenile frisson of excitement that Tuccille and many other Reasonoids get whenever they discuss defying laws they consider unjust. It’s kind of like how a couple of eighth graders were considered cool for flipping off the vice-principal behind his back in junior high school. Emotionally satisfying, but largely symbolic.

        Gun owners like to put up a brave face and yell “WILL NOT COMPLY!!! MOLON LABE, BITCHES!!” but the reality is that once a gun ban is enacted they have lost the battle, even if no one complies with it.

        As long as that law is on the books, every gun owner faces the threat that his or her life could be ruined for simply owning a piece of metal. And that threat will continue to exist as long as the law exists, regardless of who many refuse to comply.

        1. However, we (the gun owners) are fighting back. More cases then ever are headed to or in queue to be heard by SCOTUS. Many gun laws have fallen in recent years. If the SCOTUS grows a pair and actually rules on some of these cases, the laws will tumble.

        2. How did the 18th Amendment work out?

  15. I wonder how many of Beto’s Secret Service body guards have guns?

    1. Don’t you have to poll at higher than single digits to warrant ss protection?

    2. Most all of them. But answer me this. Where did the Secret service get the permission to carry those guns? They are employees. The power to carry arms had to be delegated to those agents from someone that already has the power. (that would be you and me)

      1. ROTFLOL….

        This is what none of the left, and few of the right get: individuals “are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights” whereas governments and their employees have only the authority delegated to them by the people, that is to say, individuals.

  16. Politicians generally should not be taken too seriously or literally; indeed, much of our socio-political climate is intoxicated by doing just that (even if disingenuously so) with Trump.

    Patches O’Rourke isn’t a serious candidate and gets more ridiculous with each passing week. He’s the white guy version of AOC.

    1. Except AOC has an actual following.

  17. Why even bother discussing voluntary or involuntary confiscation of firearms? It will never become law, it will never be enforceable and Americans will never give up their firearms. It is an impossibility.

    The NRA and other gun rights groups use that scare tactic to raise money and the shills like this guy use it to score points with the gun grab crowd. It’s silly.

    1. What do you mean it will never become law?
      Confiscation is already legal and in effect in some states.

    2. The NRA and other gun rights groups use that scare tactic to raise money

      No one wants to ban guns. Ever! It’s a crazy and paranoid idea!

      New York City is advising rifle and shotgun owners that if their registered firearms
      meet the new definition of an “assault weapon”, they must surrender them immediately. Note that the assault weapon definition in NYC includes .22 rifles with tube magazines that can hold more than 5 rounds.

      http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/12/05/nypd-targets-owners-multi-clip-shotguns-rifles/

      Quote:
      The demand came in the form of some 500 letters mailed out to owners of registered long guns that are in violation of a 2010 city ordinance. The first option for the letter’s recipient is to, “Immediately surrender your Rifle and/or Shotgun to your local police precinct…

      1. Immediately surrender? But I’m only 25% French.

  18. I live in a very lefty area and I usually just tell people I’ll support a change in gun laws if you can get a constitutional amendment passed. Their answer is always “yeah but you know that’s impossible.” To which I reply: that’s not my problem.

    1. Yeah that’s usually my response. Unless I’m drunk in the mood to argue.

      It would be nice to see a few more existing laws go to scotus and get shot down to make this clearer to the fascists though. Maybe after RBG croaks.

    2. “I usually just tell people I’ll support a change in gun laws if you can get a constitutional amendment passed.”

      Most people would assume the Democrats could do that with a simple majority in Congress. People who support unconstitutional laws generally don’t know what the Constitutional actually says.

      Regardless, even if they could repeal the Second Amendment, the Bill of Rights doesn’t grant any rights, it merely enumerates them:

      “…it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment, like the First and Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it “shall not be infringed.” As we said in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 553, 23 L.Ed. 588 (1876), “[t]his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed ….”
      District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) at 592

      1. You’re not wearing your special glasses that you’re mandated to use when looking at that document. You know the one’s. They’re the glasses that say that the constitution grants rights rather than those rights limiting government.

        If you wear them, you can do whatever the fuck you want while in government posts.

  19. Once they get hold of any somewhat comprehensive gun registry, then you start to be concerned. Resist that at all cost.

    The problem with unenforceable gun bans is that there are so many other laws that give police permission to search your property that you still could be on the hook when they find your contraband.

    1. ^^ This.

      And they are working on getting a registry. They may not call it one, but when all guns sales require registration and/or approval, there is your registry.

      1. There are soooo many unregistered guns already out there that registration upon sale cannot change that. Those people for the most part aren’t giving those guns up.

        1. There are soooo many unregistered guns already out there that registration upon sale cannot change that. Those people for the most part aren’t giving those guns up.

          As long as you are not black, you have nothing to worry about in this context.

  20. Don’t be naive. We certainly will not be “ignoring” such a law.

  21. The left needs to give up on the “gun control” crap – it ain’t gonna happen, and could be just the trigger for a second American civil war. (The right needs to give up on “illegal alien” routine as well, deportation of a couple tens of million people ain’t gonna happen either, although a civil war wouldn’t be the result, just more unenforced law and black eyes for anyone who tried to enforce it.)

    1. How many people would be willing to fight a civil war arising from mass confiscation of firearms in predominantly black neighborhoods.

  22. Do the despocrats actually want another civil war? ‘Cause this is how you get another civil war.

  23. Maybe they missed it, but last week was the 80th anniversary of the start of WW2, when Germany invaded Poland. Yet one more reason to keep the Second Amendment around.

  24. Why do I get the feeling the buyback schemes, or is it scams, involve $10 credits only good for specific types of items at Wally World.

    1. You’d be surprised. Chicago was recently in the news for getting a rocket launcher off the street. $300 well spent!

      Of course, the tube is one-use-only, the one purchased was already used, and you can by them at Army Surplus stores for about $50 a pop.

      But hey, think of the rash of people in Chicago killed by rockets! It’s a good thing they got that rocket launcher off the street!

  25. what about the billions of assault pencils on the streets? or books… my god, lord! the damage a book can cause when a thick one’s spine is rammed into another person’s mouth with brute force. these deadly objects need to be banned, immediately!

    while we’re at it, let’s ban everything. because true ‘progressives’ realize everything is dangerous. and if we can save just one ‘tards life… you KNOW your deprivation and slavery to your fellow man will be worth it!

  26. “Americans who own AR-15s, AK-47s, will have to sell them to the government…”

    Okay. But you have to pay my price. I’m thinking $10 million a piece. I can buy lots of non-ARs for that. I do like M1s. Give me a head’s up before you pass this law, so I can go out and buy a few hundred ARs, please.

  27. According to me, the owners should surrender their weapons to the government. With this, the government cannot blame the owners for the assault on the growing weapons. I Was searching for a good smartphone between 30 to 40 thousand in the last week and my search ended by reading this article.

  28. IF NON MEMBERS OF THE NRA WOULD STOP SHOOTING PEOPLE GUN VIOLENCE WOULD DROP 100%.

  29. The point, almost certainly, is for political hopefuls like O’Rourke and his rivals to gin up their bases by playing to people’s fears. No, not rational fear of violent crime—crime has been declining since the early 1990s. Instead, politicians play off fears of relatively rare but disturbing mass attacks that are resistant to solutions but have people clamoring for government to “do something.”

    That “doing something” can include lashing out at political and cultural enemies—largely conservative and suburban or rural gun owners in this case—seems to be a plus in this politically polarized country. Demonizing the enemy excites a party’s core voters about smashing their foes at the polls.

    But while weaponizing laws against political opponents may buy votes among the faithful in the short term, it delegitimizes laws and their enforcers in the eyes of their targets. That further reduces any possibility of compliance with laws that already have a history of being honored only in the breach. When the dust settles, the government ends up looking weak and the law pointless. And the country will be more divided than ever.

    This is a great point that needs to be brought up every time someone claims that there is a mass shooting crisis.

    It is ironic that so many of these people want gun control laws just to lash out at “largely conservative and suburban or rural gun owners in this case”. But the burden of the enforcement of these laws will fall on inner city neighborhoods, and result in more incarceration of young black men who have not even been accused of endangering anyone.

    1. I would also add that when criminal homicide rates and violent crime rates were at an all-time high in the early 1990’s, there were calls to “do something”, and Congress answered that call by passing the 1994 Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act. It was signed by President Bill Clinton. After the bill was signed, violent crime rates dropped over the next few decades. It had been hailed as a success.

      But now, Democratic candidates for the presidential nomination have turned against this law, even though it was enacted in response to calls to “do something” by a frightened population.

      Now they want to enact more gun control laws to “do something”, which will have pretty much the same costs as the 1994 Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act.

  30. This article is a political article. This article talks about surrender of weapons. This is true to a great extent. By doing this, no such weapon holders will be blamed at the time of attack. If you want to read more articles on Jesus then go to jesus is our saviour. On this site you will get to read many articles related to Jesus.

  31. This bucktooth intellectual zero should go back to counting his wife’s money. I’d rather yank a dingleberry out of Rachel Jeantel’s derriere and listen to its policy proposals than listen to Robert Francis play Butthead’s evil twin. Fuck this idiot.

  32. I didn’t buy my gun from the government . So how can they buy it back?

  33. It is a very useful news, thanks!
    I admire your knowledge and on the basis of advertising I want to recommend to all students a company for the implementation of essays and get your writers for students. Check aussieessaywriter website if you want to be the best in study!

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.