MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

How to Create a Gun-Free America in 5 Easy Steps

Guns - and the Second Amendment - won't just disappear.

Want to create a gun-free America in 5 easy steps?

Here's all there is to it:

Step 1: Elect. For a gun-free America, the first thing you'll need is two-thirds of Congress. So elect a minimum of 67 Senators and 290 Representatives who are on your side.

Step 2: Propose. Then, have them vote to propose an amendment to the Constitution which repeals Second Amendment gun rights for all Americans.

Step 3: Ratify. Then convince the legislators of 38 states to ratify that change.

At this point, the Second Amendment is history, but you've done nothing to decrease gun violence. All you've done is remove the barrier for Congress to act.

Step 4: Legislate. You need to enact "common sense" reform.

You can try to do what Australia did and...ban all guns? That's not at all what they did, but whatever, fuck it. Go big or go home, right?

It will have to be passed by Congress and signed by the president.  

Great! The law is passed and guns are now illegal.  The only thing left to do is...

Step 5: Enforce. 
Guns won't just disappear because you passed a law. You need to confiscate some 350 million guns scattered among 330 Million Americans.

Sure, you can try a buy-back program like Australia, but like Australia that will still leave behind anywhere from 60 percent to 80 percent of privately owned firearms.

The rest you have to take.

You'll need the police, the FBI, the ATF or the National Guard—all known for their nuanced approach to potentially dangerous situations—to go door-to-door, through 3.8 million square miles of this country and take guns, by force, from thousands, if not, millions of well-armed individuals. Many of whom would rather start a civil war than acquiesce.

So inevitably gun violence, which is currently at a historic low, will skyrocket.

But that is how you get a gun-free America in five easy steps.

(For more in that vein, read this piece by Charles C.W. Cooke of National Review.)

Produced by Austin Bragg.

About 2 minutes.

Scroll down for downloadable versions. Subscribe to Reason TV's YouTube channel to receive automatic notification when new material goes live.

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.

  • Woodys mom||

    Wow, first. They will be prying my gun out of my cold, dead hand.

  • jmomls||

    Reason is missing the obvious solution here--just invite the whole country of Mexico to traipse across the border. Tell all the 'migrants' that they can stay forever and ever if they just find one gun each.

    Man, you guys are slow.

  • sofubar||

    Roflmfao

  • mpercy||

    That's funny, because I proposed a dual-effort plan to protect the border and generate revenue by declaring a 1 mile buffer inside the border, inside which anyone paying the $10,000 fee would be free to shoot anyone found in that zone. I figure there's a lot of nuts who would jump at the chance.

  • gaoxiaen||

    Gun buyback with no questions asked? I could imagine someone making zip guns for a dollar and selling them to the government for a hundred.

  • Akira||

    I've heard anecdotes about people buying several $20 BB guns from Wal-Mart, then turning them in and getting a $100 gift card for each one.

  • NYC2AZ||

    I did that with a $35 pellet gun that had a bent barrel. I was so fuckin smug about it, for a moment the casual observer might have thought I drove there in a Prius.

  • EndTheGOP||

    This is one of the best articles I've read on this site. I especially agree with the civil war section because that is exactly what will happen.

    Of course the majority socialist supreme court Hillary will nominate during her reign of terror will declare guns illegal for whatever reason they come up with and that will be the beginning of this civil war.

    Let the games begin.

  • Bill Dalasio||

    You forgot about the sixth step - Hide.

    The authorities engaged in a process like that are going to make an awful, awful lot of enemies. And those people won't just be enemies of the authorities. They'll be enemies of the people who set the authorities on them.

    Places like Honduras and El Salvador had armed populations that viewed their fellow citizens as enemies in that way.

  • AD-RtR/OS!||

    Buy "Body Bag Futures".

  • Orlandocajun||

    Is Austin Bragg in third grade or posting from the mother ship?

  • Res ipsa loquitur||

    I like this plan, when can we begin ?

  • some guy||

    We already did. Step 1 is just taking a lot longer than was planned.

  • Res ipsa loquitur||

    The progressive victory is within view ! Forward Comrades !!!1!1

  • Al Sharpton||

    i believe its scheduled to start just before the Libertarian Moment.

  • Libertarian Joe||

    It's so simple!
    common sense, really

  • sarcasmic||

    They'll never outlaw guns. What they will do is tax and regulate both guns and ammo to the point where few retailers will be willing to go through the trouble of selling them, and if they do they're too expensive for anyone to buy. Over time ammo and parts will dry up, and the guns that remain will eventually be unusable. But they'll never outright outlaw them.

  • techgump||

    No. 3d guns, self-manufacured ammo, and the deep web will continue to ensure that taxing and regulation becomes less and relevant or persuasive.

  • sarcasmic||

    The first time a cop is killed by a 3d gun, you can bet that those printers will be outlawed, or at the very least require a federal license and all the intrusive bullshit that goes with it. And while the black market will help somewhat, I doubt it would be able to keep most of the guns out there in working order.

    The point was that they don't have to outlaw something in order to outlaw it. They regulate it to the point where no one is willing to sell it, and/or place a prohibitive tax on it, and at that point it is effectively illegal.

  • Some Engineer||

    Well, I'm pretty sure I could build a 3D printer, so outlaw away. It will just mean my home printed guns will be worth even more money.

  • FarAlSamShaidar||

    And of course they'll have to outlaw CNC mills too. And, because it is a tool used in making homemade guns, the internet.

  • dchang0||

    They've started--at least a ban-toehold. You may have heard that the ATF banned "build parties" where a business would rent out its CNC machine to people to finish their 80% AR lowers.

    RENTING a CNC machine is illegal in one currently-limited use. They only need to expand their toehold into a wider ban someday (for the children!)

    And you may have also heard that they have banned the publication and dissemination of the plans for the 3D printed guns on the internet, another ban-toehold, claiming that terrorists could download the plans. So, by that argument, anything a terrorist could download or read that would help them could be banned from the internet...

    There is nothing that the state doesn't want to control. It's all a matter of how much they can get away with controlling.

  • LarryA||

    Making a gun with a 3-D printer is a complicated, high-tech, 21st century solution to a simple, basic metalworking, 19th century problem.

    The first production semiauto rifle was the Mannlicher Model of 1885.

    Tribesmen in rural Pakistan and India, who barely have electricity, make accurate copies of most of the world's serious firearms. Their children make the ammunition.

  • gaoxiaen||

  • Long Woodchippers||

    Abortion isn't even mentioned in the constitution, but if some regulation or tax presents a substantial burden to a woman trying to exercise her right to an abortion, that law is struck down.

    Of course, gun rights, which are explicitly defined in the constitution, won't enjoy such high scrutiny.

  • KevinP||

    Exactly. I consider myself pro-choice, but this hypocrisy drives me crazy.

  • C. S. P. Schofield||

    The first idjit who seriously proposes to outlaw 3D printers will find that he has proposed depriving people who need artificial limbs of the best jump forward in dealing with their needs, ever. Maybe he'll still have a political career when its over, but I doubt it.

  • Steve_E||

    Hmm. not very familiar with the mechanics of firearms are you?

    As long as they aren't allowed to rust away, nearly any halfway decent gun should work just fine for decades, if not substantially longer--especially if it isn't shot that often. I've got two WWI-era M1917 Enfields that still work beautifully.

  • DblEagle||

    You are right on the mark. My second favorite deer rifle is am M1903A3. It works like a charm. Of course my favorite is a .54 caliber Plains Rifle. (Not an original.)

    In the early days of our Afghanistan war you could buy and legally bring home antique weapons. There were some beautiful operating weapons that came home.

  • Robertn907||

    That's what I thought for I brief moment, but with a little research I found out that that won't happen they won't be able to control the making and selling of 3d printers. Appearently, the way they come when you buy them now, they come disassembled. And appearently they are VERY easy to assemble according to many people who have bought them. You don't have to build them, they are already built you just assemble it; its just as simple and putting parts (that are already built) together. Just putting parts together.

    Since it is so easy to put the parts together, whats to say that someone (or anyone) can't just buy the parts one at a time and put it together...
    and how will the state be able stop that? They can't. and you can bet that plenty of people are going to sell spare 3d printer parts everywhere on the net.

    The go dark problem IS still happening. And IT WILL work out for the best. Mark my words, IT WILL work out for the best. No one will be able to stop people from getting guns or making them; they will be everywhere. There might even come a day where everyone has one in their own home. And the result: Anyone can defend themselves; sociopathic intruders will be scared to break into peoples houses because a gun could be around any corner; so there won't be break-ins - gun related deaths might go up slightly, but overall Murder rate will plummet.

  • Robertn907||

    Government won't be able to stop it, and trust me, they will WANT to stop it because they already KNOW that if everyone has guns that overall murder rate will plummet; that's the dirty secret that they DON'T want you to know (those evil bastards) because a "problem" is a government's best friend; they WANT guns banned so that murder rate will rise so that they can say "LOOK, a problem" and then pretend to fix it by taking your money by force.
    You see?? Fascism.
    The fascist triangle: problem, reaction, solution.
    A real problem, with a misidentified root-cause; and a REAL reaction to gain acceptance for a FAKE solution.

    Anyways, sorry to rant/vent.
    but yeah, government won't be able to stop or monitor or control guns. They will just have to accept it, admit defeat and then inevitably admit that they were wrong for the past 100 years or however long.

    At first they will think the sky is falling (the ones who believe in gun control); then they will find out that it is ok - better than ok; and that they were wrong - and that it is working out for the best.

    The ones who knew and are not surprise will have to pretend like they are.
    Then find some other thing to purposely misjudge as an excuse improperly regulate it to cause more problems so that they can offer more fake solutions as an excuse to remain in power and extort more money.

  • dchang0||

    The kind of 3D printer that can print a safe-to-repeatedly-use gun is VERY expensive, in the tens of thousands to low hundreds of thousands.

    When I say "safe-to-repeatedly-use," I mean something that owners would not fear would blow up in their hands after years of use and thousands of rounds.

    Something like this--an all-steel 3D-printed copy of a 1911.

    http://www.3dprinter.net/world.....l-gun-1911

    I haven't found the article referring to the cost of the 3D printer that printed it, but IIRC, it was $300K. The US gov't could probably regulate such a device effectively because so few are made and sold at this time.

    Of course, if the price comes down far enough to where hundreds of thousands of 3D printers capable of sintering steel are sold each year, then they can no longer regulate them, but regulation is often a matter of getting the foot in the door by starting regulation of an industry early, before it grows bigger. That way, all the non-registered manufacturers in the industry are kept out of the industry and the registered ones are in cahoots with the gov't.

    Crony corporatism, in other words. Gov't says to the 3D printer makers: we'll block small startup competitors if you agree to be regulated, and we'll crush you if you refuse.

  • some guy||

    Bingo. High taxes and regulation are essentially the same as a ban. But you can't ban something that's in high demand without getting a vibrant black market/home brew of it. Just look at every other prohibition in the history of the world. In the endgame described by sarcasmic, guns will be just as hard to get as pot is right now.

  • Res ipsa loquitur||

    The last Gun store in SF just closed. Proggies successful drove them all out of their utopia through regulations. The final straw was the city requiring video taping of all transactions. One of the council fuckers said they should have no problem witht the rule if they have "nothing to hide".

  • Frankjasper1||

    Prog inconsistency

    1. Abortion is a constitutional right! Any regulations/taxes used to drive abortion clinics is against the constitutional rights. (now i am not sure abortion is mentioned in constitution)

    And then turn around

    2. We will regulate guns out of existence!!

    Which is odd because the right to bear arms is actually a constitutional right. So why aren't they concerned about depriving someone of their constitutional rights?

  • sarcasmic||

    Dude, the 2A grants the National Guard the right to bear arms! Without it our military wouldn't have guns!

  • Bill in OK||

    Sorry, but that is incorrect. According to 10 U.S. Code § 311 - Militia: composition and classes:

    (a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
    (b) The classes of the militia are—
    (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
    (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

    https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/311

  • Je suis Woodchipper||

    I'd rather not rely on that b/c how easy is it to change that one line?

  • Bill in OK||

    True, but as it stands now, it disproves Sarcasmic's point, which is my objective here.

  • GregMax||

    Sarcasm . . . ?

  • Wesley Mouch||

    How do I enlist in the unorganized militia? Sounds like the perfect outfit for me - I am about as unorganized as they come.

  • EMD||

    Good news: You already belong!

  • Tionico||

    read that pesky Second one more time, this time using ALL the great comprehension skills you (didn't) learned in the gummint skewlz. It plainly state the right OF THE PEOPLE to keep and bear shall not be infringed. It does not assign that right to the militia, naional guard, military, or anyone else... but TO THE PEOPLE.

  • LABillyboy||

    The supreme court has already ruled in Heller that the 2nd Amendment confers an "individual right" to keep and BEAR arms outside of a militia. If you read the history and debate around the 2nd Amendment it is all about "free men" having "rights". The militia argument is just pettifogging at this point.

    Even if you want to look for an example of a militia and the keeping and bearing of arms... that is Switzerland... where every household MUST keep a military capable fully automatic rifle and sufficient ammunition. The gov't even puts on shooting contests and provides the ammo for free.... I'd be fine with that.

  • C. S. P. Schofield||

    The Progs are totally consistant. They believe that;

    1) Everybody should do as the Progs tell them.

    2) Brown women should have abortions instead of babies

    3) Non-progs should not be allowed weapons.

    4) Any lie, momentary position, or dirty trick that will bring about 1,2, & 3 is completely justified.

    See how that works?

  • Je suis Woodchipper||

    They booted a gun store out of Arlington a few months ago, now they're trying to boot the same store from its new location in McLean.

    Warning: pants shitting

  • Bgoptmst||

    Northern Va might as well be a separate state at this point. The imports of those few counties are defacto changing the rest of the state.

  • Sir Chips Alot||

    let me think for a moment.....how did prohibition of alcohol work out? How is the prohibition of drugs working out?

  • Res ipsa loquitur||

    Really good for Jails, BATF, DEA, COPS and politicians !

  • eddielaidler||

    Exactly. It will increase the praetorian class into the stratosphere. Wait it already is. Into outer space.

  • Sir Chips Alot||

    let me think for a moment.....how did prohibition of alcohol work out? How is the prohibition of drugs working out?

  • Al Sharpton||

    2 words....Poll Tax.

  • toadboy65||

    Ammunition can be manufactured. It is not like building a fusion reactor. Very few people make their own powder because factory made powder is fairly inexpensive.

  • vilonia||

    There are some 300 million guns out there, we are not likely to run out of guns and few will become unusable. Ammo prices will never be too high.

  • AD-RtR/OS!||

    San Francisco writ large.

  • tom in SC||

    Excessive taxation and regulation can be construed as a violation of your 2nd amendment rights. These can be particularly onerous in the inner cities, where private gun ownership by it's most at risk citizens could be of the most benefit. Some municipalities have tried some of these tactics and been shot down by the courts.

  • LABillyboy||

    Yeah... I don't think that will work either.

    Just like Pot, Cocaine, Meth, Heroin... it's called a "black market" guns and ammo will always be just as readily available as they are now.

    In fact, with a black market, you don't even have to fill out all those pesky Federal forms, do background checks or pay any gov't fees... Most gun owners would prefer it. The Criminal gun owners definitely will, it's how they buy guns now.

  • Foo_dd||

    they will try. but then they will get addicted to the revenue from the taxes... just like tobacco.

  • Brian Patronie||

    Wrong.
    You`re assuming they can outlaw hands and arms and the power of the human mind. Parts can be made, gun-powder can be refined, weapons can be manufactured. Ever hear of re-loading? A billion dollar industry. For every AR-15 in circulation there is probably ten spare parts kits assembled and ready to see service. The liberals are screaming because they`ve realized the horse has left the barn sometime ago, and has since been re-purposed as a gun shop...

  • gordo53||

    It won't matter. When guns and ammo get too expensive, the black market will thrive. Besides, there are so many guns in circulation we probably don't need any more. A modern firearm, well maintained will last for hundreds of years. Hundred year old ammo still works fine. And speaking of ammo, all the manufacturers are running at capacity and there are still shortages. What that means is that the public is hording the stuff. I know of one guy with north of 50,000 rounds in his basement and he thinks he needs more. You'll never get rid of guns until the culture changes. It could take many generations.

  • ||

    Even the most concerted national effort would never survive past step 4. Right then would be the start of the civil war, when entire states went ballistic.

  • some guy||

    I don't know. If you got past step 3 then the country would have to already be progtopia (and it would take decades to do this). Gun ownership would have already plummeted compared to today. Gun owners would be rare and the road to disarmament would be all downhill from there.

  • B. Woodrow Chippenhaus||

    Legal gun owners would be rare.

  • AD-RtR/OS!||

    When Guns Are Outlawed, Only Outlaws Will Have Guns!

  • C. S. P. Schofield||

    When guns are outlawed, the outlaws are likely to start shooting at Progressives.

  • Dilligaf||

    C.S.P. Schofield - As much as I hate those dead-thread-fucking-grammar-nazis' I have to say "Progressives"?!....Seriously?...Precision of language people. I believe "Slavers" is the preferred nomenclature in this context.

  • sarcasmic||

    Hillary has been talking about changing culture so that gun ownership is no longer acceptable. Can you say public school curriculum and public service announcements, along with blatantly preachy television program plots?

  • ||

    Quit being such a "The bottom half of the glass isn't a gun-free zone." kind of person.

  • ace_m82||

    Can you say public school curriculum and public service announcements, along with blatantly preachy television program plots?

    The 1990s?

  • LDRider||

    What would Hollywood do? Can't have a blockbuster film without lots of guns...

  • Rusty Rebar||

    This is the only reasonable answer though. To use public education and pressure to make gun ownership taboo. That solution is totally consistent with the constitution.

  • rocks||

    The left may have taken over schools, but lots of kids rebel against what they are told in school. Schools have been anti-gun for decades, yet somehow the public is not swinging over to them despite all of the "education" we've received.

  • LABillyboy||

    There are over 300,000,000 untraceable guns in the U.S. Few, if any people are going to be giving them up once the gov't starts a gun banning process. Americans are too smart not to see what would be coming once all the guns are gone. We don't want the fate of the Germans in WWII, the Russians under Stalin, the Chinese under Mao... 56.000,000 people have died immediately following gov't gun banning in the last Century... don't believe me?

  • LABillyboy||

    Here is a great article from the late great Paul Harvey.

    "Are you considering backing gun control laws???"

    Do you think that because you may not own a gun, the rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment don't matter?

    CONSIDER THIS...
    -In 1929 the Soviet Union established gun control. - From 1929 to 1953, approximately 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
    -In 1911, Turkey established gun control. - From 1915-1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
    -Germany established gun control in 1938. - From 1939 to 1945, 13 million Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, the mentally ill, and others, who were unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
    -China established gun control in 1935. - From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
    -Guatemala established gun control in 1964. - From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
    -Uganda established gun control in 1970. - From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
    -Cambodia established gun control in 1956. - From 1975 to 1977, one million "educated" people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

    That places total victims who lost their lives because of gun control at approximately 56 million in the last century.

  • Jordan||

    That is far too much work.

    *Open up map of U.S. and places "gun free zone" sticky note on it*

    And done.

  • ||

    I was thinking similarly;

    Find the nearest area of gun-freeness and define that as America.

  • Bill in OK||

    Right. Make it so NO ONE can defend themselves against the crazies who will get guns one way or another. Simple.

  • some guy||

    At this point, the Second Amendment is history, but you've done nothing to decrease gun violence. All you've done is remove the barrier for Congress to act.

    HAHAHAHA. Someone hasn't been paying attention. That old piece of paper has hardly any stopping power these days.

  • DH||

    I question whether it ever had any stopping power. I think Alexander Hamilton was right those many years ago.

  • sarcasmic||

    With all this hoopla about ending this epidemic of mass-shootings by stopping crazies from getting guns, it's only a matter of time before someone acts on it. After that incrementalism will creep in, and before long it will be totally legal to own a firearm, except that everyone except the cops and political class will be prohibited persons.

  • LynchPin1477||

    Step 6: Prepare for the likelihood that some portion of the police, FBI, ATF, National Guard, Army, Marines, Navy, Air Force, and/or Coast Guard will not obey your commands to disarm the population.

    Step 7: Prepare for the possibility of states seceding from the Union and/or armed rebellion.

    Step 8: Fap furiously while gazing at the peaceful, harmonious world you have wrought.

  • sarcasmic||

    I don't think they'd have to worry about the police, FBI and ATF going along. Maybe some people in the military may refuse, but I seriously doubt many in law enforcement would have a problem with it.

  • LynchPin1477||

    FBI and ATF maybe not. I suspect that, at the very least, rural sheriffs/police depts would refuse.

  • sarcasmic||

    "That's a nice federal grant you've got there. It would be a shame is something happened to it."

  • ace_m82||

    Sheriffs are elected. Pissing off the people is not an option, even if doing so gets them more money.

  • LynchPin1477||

    I also kind of think that some of those sheriffs might value the 2A more than the federal grant. People take this pretty seriously.

  • Tionico||

    true enough. When Bloomie bought that new gun law in Washington State, all but a few sheriffs declared it would not be enforced in their counties. Same thing in Oregon. I also know of a few sheriffs in California, of all places, who have been on the TeeVee set telling their people to arm themselves, if you legally can own a gun you legally can qualify for the Mother May I Card, and we'll happily give it you upon payment of the state mandated fees.

  • to_each_his_own||

    I can vouch for this. I live in California, in one of those counties, with one of those Sheriffs. Pretty much shall issue. :-)

  • C. S. P. Schofield||

    They will once they realize how badly out-shot they are likely to be in a firefight with gun nuts instead of the kind of imbecile who holds up banks. Amd the ones with the guts to buck those kind of odds are the ones who won't obey the orders to disarm the public in the first place.

  • Brian Patronie||

    And who are you?
    J. Edgar Hoover?
    I seriously doubt many in law enforcement would bother risking their necks to enforce it.
    See how easy that was?

  • Wesley Mouch||

    Step 9: Write a book about the mean old knuckle-draggers and how they thwarted your gun free social utopia.

    Step 10: Go on Oprah. Have a good cry together.

  • fche||

    Alternative step 1: pack the SCOTUS to overturn Heller.
    step 2: oh crap.

  • Constantvigil||

    Incorrect: Obama will ban guns with an executive order...and have the UN enforce it...Impeach the traitorous Obama and his minions...

  • Rusty Rebar||

    You are smoking something. He said that he would go as far as he could with EO's, and I think he did that. He knows there is nothing more he can do without congress, and has said as much. Not really sure what you are on about, but it does not help your cause to bloviate about things that are clearly not true.

  • Long Woodchippers||

    but that's the same thing he said about immigration, and six months later...

  • RogerN||

    I'll agree on the 5-steps but I TOTALLY disagree on the "easy" part.

  • cugger||

    Assuming the government COULD get this done, the hard part will come later. When only the criminals, police, crazies, and military have guns or weapons. The honest and working people will be hunkered in bunkers as the criminals and crazies have a field day in the "gun free zone". It will take years, maybe decades for the police and military to root out all those "illegal" guns. If ever.

  • CarlosMateo||

    So, what are the 5 easy steps to win the 3 decades old war on drugs? Oh yeah, the same steps ... which haven't worked.

  • gaoxiaen||

    *8+ decades

  • Cahal the Mad||

    "How to Create an Oppressive Communist Dystopia in Five Easy Steps".
    Hey.. there's a bunch of left-wing laws and some Constitutional stuff that I personally don't like, do I have the right to demand they all be changed to satisfy my own personal feelings?

  • Harold||

    For a New World Order supporter this would be a dream come true. Of course exerientially, this has already been an accomplished fact in such places as pre-war Germany, the Soviet Union, Mao's China, Cambodia, and a few others.

    There is a slight downside, of course of a few hundred million dead, BUT we will be able to achieve a New World Order where ONLY the CORRECT people will lead!

  • Doug Huffman||

    I liked the enforce part, the part where I get to say that I would rather die as a citizen standing with my guns blazing than kneeling to the state. Notice which contemporary activist states kill their dissident citizens.

  • UseBatmanVoice||

    You guys are usually much, much better at recognizing, and then operating within the realm of sarcasm.

  • killroy101||

    this is all nice the old saying is those who ignore their history are doomed to repeat it, lets say you manage to confiscate all fire arms with out starting civil war, history shows that has worked out not so well for the citizens, take Russia for instance, after disarming the populace Stalin killed an estimated 34 to 49 MILLION of it's own people. To harsh? how about Adolf Hitler, after making it illegal to own a gun if you were a Jew he then managed, with help from the government, to kill 12 Million Jews. History is full of those "it could never happen here" moments, until it happens here. Are you tired of mass murders happening at schools? then protect them like you do for the president, or a bank, or a factory, or are they just not worth that kind of effort?

  • sasob||

    Only about half of those 12 million people were Jews - the other half were an assortment of various peoples the Reich considered to be a "problem." Gypsies, Poles, Slavs, various religious minorities, the mentally and/or physically infirm, etc.

  • ranrod||

    1,000,000 gun owners in New York State in 2014 REFUSED to register their guns..

    DISARM THE POLITICIANS AND MEDIA..................

  • Bill in OK||

    It's an amazing sight to see the left burying their heads in the sand on just about any subject.


    "Oh, we can get rid of gun violence by declaring all of America a gun-free zone." Simple! Done! Now it's all sunshine and rainbows!


    They don't see the possibility of creating an environment where no one can defend themselves from the crazies, who will not stop just because the law says they can't bring a gun into a school. There are laws against robbing banks, but people do it anyway. It would be a perfect world for the violently mentally disturbed.


    And don't come back with that gutless crap that all guns will be confiscated. There will always be ways for a nut to get his hands on a gun. Just like there will always be ways for a drug addict to get his fix.


    This is worse than simple-mindedness. It's idiocy that extends into the realm of dangerous.

  • The Grinch||

    You needed a step 6: Win the resulting civil war because that's what would happen.

    Of course, the gun grabbers know this and will attempt to achieve their ends incrementally through legislation that whittles away at recognized rights a little bit at a time until nothing meaningful is left.

  • Ceci n'est pas un woodchipper||

    Hey, genius. If you want to help protect our right to self-defense, next time there's some mass shooting or whatever maybe try not writing an article that boils down to, "guns are everywhere and there's nothing you can do about it!!!"

    The gun grabbers already believe you, and now when they're trying to sell their vision of a "gun-free" America they can point to shit like this as evidence of how cold-blooded, selfish, and obstinate gun owners are mere days after a tragedy. This was almost as bad as the article about how all the guns dude used were legally purchased. No shit! That's not what the anti-gun crowd is arguing; they agree on that point, dumbass, that's why they're arguing that half-measures aren't sufficient. And you're helping their argument.

    Instead of this "nanny nanny boo boo you can't take my guns" shit maybe you should talk about why self-defense is in inherent human right, how government regulation of firearms exacerbates gun violence, why it would be a bad idea to disarm the American public, etc. People on the fence need to read the arguments against gun seizure so that they understand why it's wrong in every sense, not just be told that guns are all over the place and you'll never get rid of them so don't even try, hippy!

  • Tionico||

    read what the PEOPLE i Roseburg have been saying about the recent false flag incident at the Umpqua college. Start with their sheriff and his statements to the press, and to the White House. I'm quite certain the locals will rise up and DEMAND the pro tem president of that college reverse her liberal-left position that Rogue Community College will be safer as a gun ban/target rich environment. We know that one man was carrying on that campus that day, but was too far away from the scene to even know it was happening. I'm certain that, particularly now, many others are also carrying in spite of the "gun free zone" meme.

  • Lanceman||

    " I'm certain that, particularly now, many others are also carrying in spite of the "gun free zone" meme."

    Before, too. I guarantee it.

  • Bill in OK||

    "Reason.com". Seriously.

  • Bill in OK||

    Austin Bragg: as simple-minded as they come.

  • cbpelto||

    RE: Austin Bragg

    Obviously another failure of the vaunted American public education system. He failed History AND Civics. And is therefore my working definition of 'stupid'….

    Stupid, adj., Ignorant and proud of it.

    Either that or he is outright 'evil'….

    Evil, adj., Knowing the Truth but denying it.

  • Jordan||

    Wow, there are a lot of people here (none of the regulars, though) who need to calibrate their sarcasm detectors. I would not recommend you guys read "A Modest Proposal".

  • cbpelto||

    RE: Sarcasm?

    Hardly….. ;-)

  • Trigger Hippie||

    Yes. There appears to be a few new faces posting on this blog who are unaware of the general cheekiness that goes along with many of the articles here.

    *Attention new readers: Austin Bragg is not advocating the notion of taking your guns. He's illustrating the point that there's already a process in place for repealing the second amendment and that it will be next to impossible to do for the foreseeable future. Calm down.

  • Bgoptmst||

    Shhh ... It was getting good reading their rants. Don't ruin my popcorn eating!

  • Rusty Rebar||

    Not sure if any of that is exactly "easy", but those are the steps.

  • cbpelto||

    RE: Easy?

    The implementation would be not nearly as 'easy'….. ;-)

    God is alive….and Airborne-Ranger qualified. -- Chaplain, US Army Airborne School Chapel, Benning School for Boys, a.k.a. The Infantry School

    P.S. So am I….. ;-)

  • Jack Q. Public||

    No need to go gun free, just legislate and reap the profits and favors from privately run correctional facilities.

    If the influx of immigrants hasn't already prompted you, you'd be wise to invest in the GEO Group, Corrections Corporation of America, and their ilk if it looks like guns will be outlawed.

  • cbpelto||

    RE: I Wonder

    If Austin had his way and so many people who love this country and honor the Constitution of the United States, e.g., veterans of the ground-gaining combat arms of the United States Armed Forces would resist such a blatant violation of the Bill of Rights…..

    ….would Austin have the gonads necessary to be the first one through the door in a raid to seize such weapons?

    I have serious doubt that Austin loves his country as much as those combat arms veterans do.

    After all, they swore an oath to lay down their lives to "uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic". And Austin looks for all the world to be an 'enemy domestic'…. ;-)

    Our safety, our liberty, depends upon preserving the Constitution of the United States as our fathers made it inviolate. The people of the United States are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution. -- Abraham Lincoln

  • DFG||

    I hope you don't miss your targets as badly as you seem to have missed Austin's point. His piece illustrates the utter impossibility of any of that happening.

  • cbpelto||

    RE: Impossibility?

    It's already happening. Look at the efforts in New York and New Jersey. Fortunately there's enough armed people there willing to resist those government efforts to seize their weapons.

    P.S. Shooting skills. I can nail a target half the size of a human head at 100 meters. CONSISTENTLY.

  • MacDaddy81||

    Dude, he's being sarcastic.

  • cbpelto||

    RE: Sarcasm

    It doesn't come across well in this venue.

  • Sevo||

    Even easier:
    1) Buy an acre of land.
    2) Call it "America".
    3) Live there and don't own any guns.
    4) Don't let anyone who has a gun on your land.
    You're welcome.

  • ||

    *Places 'Eye laser free zone' sticker on nearest globe. Dusts palms. Proceeds to hand 'Mission Accomplished!' banner.*

  • Sevo||

    See? A snap, right?

  • cbpelto||

    RE: Item #4

    And just HOW will he prevent them?

  • DarrenM||

    I think that's the point.

  • WORDS OF TRUTH||

    Austin is obviously STONED STUPID if he believes this hippie bullsh!t.....

    MOLAN LABE!

  • SimonJester||

    ...you must be new around here. Of course it is stupid, that s the point.

  • biljay||

    If we make guns illegal does that mean the government employees will not need guns. They will say they are our protectors and need guns. Who will protect us from out protectors?

  • DWKeller||

    Step 6 - an eventual Police State

    Step 7 - FEMA camps used for "protectors"

    Step 8 - executions

    Oh boy I can not wait.

  • ||

    Austin, u fail to realize that military, cops n citizens who protect the 2nd Amend and love America will hunt down All the politicos , JOURNALISTS, bad cops n bad soldiers and kill them regardless if this risks second revolution even at the expense of their own lives. Too, these anti American , anti gun nuts will have to hide their spouses, kids and relatives because they will be marked for death. The model used ,,,as a methid of conformity,,will be similar to what currently used by drug cartels. God forbid. Frankly these anti gunners have NO clue what strength they are playing with. absolutelu no clue.

  • anzablazer||

    I can give you a 100 reasons why there won't be any gun control in America.

  • cbpelto||

    RE: 100 Reasons

    Is that single shot? Or full auto?

  • SimonJester||

    Austin sings,

    My articles bring all the crazies to the yard
    And they're like, "Let me go full tard!
    "Damn right, I'mma go full tard!
    "Din't RTFA*, but get outta my yard.

    (*Pronounced in context as "Ert-fuh")

  • DFG||

    ^ This!

  • cbpelto||

    RE: Crazy R US

    You have to be somewhat crazy to jump out of perfectly good airplanes in flight.

    Then again, what have YOU—SimonJester—done for all the rests of US? Anything like 27 years in the infantry? Airborne? Jumpmaster? Ranger?

  • SimonJester||

    A, it is the internet, so it doesn't matter what I tell you, you have already decided to believe me or not. So flexing my history, whatever it may be, is useless. But, since you still type "RE:" at the top of your messages, you are probably about 150 years old, on dial-up, and using AOL with a tube monitor, so the complexities of the interwebz may be a bit difficult for you.

    B, you said that the sarcasm above doesn't come across well in this venue. See point A.

    C) what the fuck does it matter? Does your value increase because you volunteered to go fight in some unjust war and kill people who were probably forced to do what some illegitimate government told them to do? Does veteran status make a person more or less important? That is some seriously stupid shit, right there.

    D) I wasn't responding to you when I wrote my little song (it is a reference to a pop song, in case you are wondering, called Milkshakes, with one of the best music videos ever created.) However, if the shoe fits...

  • cbpelto||

    RE: Heh

    A — So you say you can't be trusted. Okay. But don't worry. I can be…... ;-)

    B — It doesn't.

    C — What matters? What have you done for the rest of US? Nothing? As for 'unjust war', I guess you'd let Hitler gas and burn every Jew and homosexual in the world and not lift a finger to stop him.

    D — Doesn't matter. I'm responding to you.

  • UseBatmanVoice||

    50 internets for SimonJester

  • anzablazer||

    These gun grabbing freaks want to not only to take your 2 amendment rights they also want to take your 1 amendment rights right along with them. These gun grabbing freaks are has violent as they clam everybody else is. They would use a gun to take your guns. Can anybody say hypocrites. You give up your guns to these gun grabbing freaks you can kiss the American constitution good-bye.

  • cbpelto||

    RE: Crazy R US

    You have to be somewhat crazy to jump out of perfectly good airplanes in flight.

    Then again, what have YOU—SimonJester—done for all the rests of US?

  • MacDaddy81||

    Jump out of a planew all you want. I'll take a Stryker anyday.

  • cbpelto||

    RE: Stryker

    I'll take em too.

    Think thermite.

    Hunting tanks is easy and fun. -- 82d Airborne Division Anti-Armor Axiom

  • cbpelto||

    RE: Stykers, MRAPs, MBTs vs. Thermite

    One minute an armored fighting vehicle full of combat soldiers.

    The next a molten pile of slag full of cinders.

  • ||

    From 120 miles off shore.

  • cbpelto||

    RE: Miles Away

    "Grid square in the open. FIRE FOR EFFECT!"

    I thought they turned the Missouri into a museum.

  • MacDaddy81||

    Look at Normandy, how many paratroopers died in planes? Every method of getting to the target has weaknesses and drawbaks. Airborne assaults can have shit hit the fan too. Look at Operation Market Garden.

  • cbpelto||

    RE: D-Day Airborne Assault

    Crummy pilots, sh¡t their pants and flew all over the place trying to clean up the mess. Only to get shot down.

    RE: Operation Market-Garden

    Would have worked if the Brits hadn't suffered from a terminal bout of vaneglory. The 6th Para should have taken Einhoven, the 101st Neijmagen and the 82d Arnham.

    We played it out at IOAC in '80 using SPI's mega game Highway to the Reich.

    6th Para had no business at Arnham. Too many glider borne assets. 82d had the best airborne assets. They could have jumped almost on top of the bridge, in the large open fields south of its approaches. And then walked across the bridge into Arnham.

  • chowthen||

    "Step 2: Propose. Then, have them vote to propose an amendment to the Constitution which repeals Second Amendment gun rights for all Americans."

    The author forgot the 2nd amendment is part of the "bill of rights", the first 10 amendments of the constitution. These rights were understood by the founding fathers as God given birthrights and guaranteed by the government as written in the constitution. The bill of rights cannot be repealed by act of congress or the 3 branches of the government, not by the majority of the people, and not by any court of the land. If congress or government has the authority to repeal any of the "bill of rights" we no longer have a constitution; thus, we are nothing but slaves ordered around and whipped by tyrants.

  • MacDaddy81||

    God above, he knows the process. He's bring sarcastic! He's pointing out that violencephalitis would actually skyrocket.

  • MacDaddy81||

    Being sarcastic. And violence would skyrocket. I need to read my posts better.

  • cbpelto||

    RE: [OT] This Forum Needs….

    ….editing capability for authors of comments.

  • MacDaddy81||

    No, I just need to be less of a dumbass and read what I wrote BEFORE I post it.

  • DarrenM||

    The bill of rights cannot be repealed by act of congress or the 3 branches of the government, not by the majority of the people, and not by any court of the land.

    I guess you didn't make it to Step 3.

  • toadboy65||

    You did not mention securing the borders against gun smuggling, and coming up with a process of continually inspecting anyone who owns machine tools or a drill press, to ensure that no guns are manufactured

  • cbpelto||

    RE: Machine Tools?

    Those 3-D printers are shaping up quite nicely….. ;-)

  • gerald brennan||

    So, "Reason" is just the *name* of your magazine.

  • vilonia||

    No, No, No..... they just want somebody to do "something". What you suggest is to substantive and difficult (and Constitutional). They want something completely useless or at least against the Second Amendment to feel better. If you fixed it they would have one less issue to uselessly complain about.

  • ||

    That presumes that a gun-free America is even desirable. I don't think it is. Why do you think _all_ these mass shootings happen in gun-free zones?

  • RealityBites||

    Disarmed slaves are so much easier to kill and control.

    You would disarm in the country that murders its own citizens without due process, you deserve slavedom more than most.

  • libsarescum||

    Stopped at "enforcement" and did not succeed at accomplishing the "gun free" America. Remember the British tried it in 1775, and...

  • apetra||

    And yet Liberals say they'll do exactly that.

    While, out of the other side of their mouths, they say we can't enforce actual immigration laws.

  • Strandstone||

    The Second Amendment does not grant the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, but only prohibits the federal government from infringing what the founders recognized and believed to be a God given natural right.

    So, the 28th Amendment will have to be worded something like, "A well regulated malitia, no longer essential to a free state, the Second Amendment is hereby repealed. The Government may infringe upon the right of the people Right to Keep and Bear Arms. This Amendment shall take effect if ratified by 38 States within seven years after it is passed by Congress."

    Will it take three more Amendments, like it did for Prohibition, to have this Amendment itself repealed?

  • Major Kangaroo||

    Why not ban drugs or air ?

  • Vernon Depner||

    Of course, the "progressives" will denounce this as a straw man attack because WE DON'T WANT TO TAKE YOUR GUNS.

  • Vernon Depner||

    Yep.

    straw man

  • Vernon Depner||

  • AD-RtR/OS!||

    The SJW's will be in the forefront of this effort, first in turning in their guns (declining compensation, of course, because it's the right thing to do), and they'll volunteer to be the "door knockers" when the police/NG/etc are sent door-to-door, because "They Care!".

    Now, back to our regularly scheduled program, a preview of the new weekly reality show:
    Funerals Across America!

  • Alan@.4||

    Interesting, most interesting, it seems to me to be.

  • Alan@.4||

    Sounds good, especially the bit about electing the necessary anti gun rights/anti civil rights majorities in both the U.S.House and Senate. Of course there would then be that interesting bit about enacting and enforcing appropriate legislation, enforcing of enacted legislation striking me as a particularly interesting.

  • Mills Bros||

    Gotta laugh at this one.
    Their cold, dead fingers won't even get close to prying it out of my live, warm hands.

  • Subpoena'd Woodchipper||

    Phew! Glad my lumber shredder was saved from that. You may take my guns, but you'll never take my Woodchipper

  • cbpelto||

    RE: Taking of Guns

    The dog ate all of mine.

    And the squirrels buried all the ammo!

  • gravestperil||

    The police and military won't try area or neighborhood sweeps, for multiple reasons. First, to get their stats up all they need to do is use the records created when a firearm is sold to target those who who legally own one. After a few such owners are made (possibly fatal) examples of, the rest will submit. Second, if authorities were to attempt mass sweeps that included homes without legally-owned weapons, the usual suspects would protest, successfully, about profiling, racism, etc. Third, mass sweeps into some neighborhoods would be seriously dangerous and could get the sweepers seriously killed.

    The upshot: only legally-owned firearms will be confiscated, leaving only the armed authorities nervously avoiding confrontations with criminals and better-armed gangs = pure hell.

  • Diogenes||

    Same old Reason bullshit.

    Straw man arguments.

    We need universal background checks. The NRA (and Reason) is fiercely opposed to it, because:
    1. Customers' money is green, just like everyone else's.
    2. Reason gets $ from the gun manufacturers, i.e., Olin, but certainly considerably more from the Koch brothers who never met a regulation they didn't hate.

    Harper-Mercer had been involuntarily committed, when he got off his meds, by his mom though he was not "5150'd." So he might have slipped by a background check. Half his weapons were purchased by a reported "family member." (straw buyer) which makes one wonder what that was about.

    He

  • Sevo||

    Feelin' sad, Diogenes?
    Fuck off, slaver.

  • Akira||

    "Half his weapons were purchased by a reported "family member." (straw buyer)"

    So tell me, which law would you put in place that would stop transactions like that from happening? I'm not talking about a law that would add a few extra years to the buyer's sentence after the massacre is committed - I mean, how would you PREVENT transactions like this from occurring BEFORE the maniac goes on his rampage?

    Take your time. I've got all night.

  • Tarmangani||

    Of course. This sounds so simple. But we have seen that the government cannot keep out millions of people who illegally enter our country. And they can't keep millions of dollars of illegal drugs from coming into our country. Anybody feel confident that they can keep millions of illegal guns from coming into the country?

  • Thogek||

    Exactly.
    For reference on how successful just this sort of approach has been in the American past, see the story of the U.S. Constitution's eighteenth and twenty-first Amendments.

  • Momo||

    Does "Reason" realize the 2nd amendment is to keep Bullies in government from doing what they suggest?

  • Bgoptmst||

  • Demetrius||

    Bring it, bitch.

  • SKowalski||

    I highly recommend keeping a data base of names, addresses, phone numbers of people that you are aware of that intend on participating repealing your 2nd amendment rights. This should include your neighbors, "friends", anyone you see online or any authority figure. Any shred of evidence, even a user name on a comment board or a Facebook name or Alias could be helpful one day. I recommend keeping several copies of the list, including on Zip drives or CD-R discs.

  • GÄC||

    To all the regulars here on Reason: wonder why we've gotten an influx of random commentors that really don't know the sarcasm that is prevelant here? It was linked to on Drudge. The link, which has since disappeared, read something along the lines of "Mag: How to ban guns in 5 easy steps"

    To all those coming here from Drudge: Welcome! But before posting, please realize this is a (somewhat) libertarian magazine, and a (somewhat more) libertarian comment-posting community. General rule of thumb - if you read something advocating the increase of the government powers, it is sarcasm/satire. Unless it is posted from some of our resident trolls. And those will be obvious.

  • Trigger Hippie||

    Thank you. I'm far from the smartest peanut in the commentariat turd but even I recognized this article for what it is. This is not a gun grabber piece. The point Bragg is trying to get across is that their is a repeal process. And that process ONLY should be how you we should go about restricting the ways one may defend themselves. Any and all other means are unlawful and should be fought tooth and nail, evey step of the way. That's the gist. Jesus titty fucking Christ! How people missed that is beyond me.

  • Sevo||

    "It was linked to on Drudge. The link, which has since disappeared, read something along the lines of "Mag: How to ban guns in 5 easy steps""

    Oh
    Em
    Gee
    No WONDER!

  • GÄC||

    Yeah, when I saw the link, I was expecting a Salon, HuffPo, or some other address showing up. When I saw it was Reason I knew there would be a great deal of confusion. I can only imagine some intern over at Drudge thought they had a great hunk of meat to throw to their readers, only to have a more experienced person come in with a I-do-not-think-that-means-what-you-think-it-means and remove the link.

    Only hope that some of them stick around a bit to have their eyes opened...

  • DarrenM||

    "Mag: How to ban guns in 5 easy steps"

    That explains it. People read the 'headline' at Drudge, get all worked up, log into Reason.com, post their outraged comments, then *maybe* read the article.

  • Thogek||

    For reference on how successful just this sort of approach has been in the American past, see the story of the U.S. Constitution's eighteenth and twenty-first Amendments.

  • american socialist||

    This article is bullshit plagiarism. Want proof? Here it is...

    From the Reason Gazette... Charles Koch (August, 1854 ed.)

    Want to create a slave-free America in 5 easy steps?

    Here's all there is to it:

    Step 1: Elect. For a slave-free America, the first thing you'll need is two-thirds of Congress. So elect a minimum of 40 Senators who agree with you.

    Step 2: Propose. Then, have them vote to propose an amendment to the Constitution which violates several provisions of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

    Step 3: Ratify.

    At this point, you've done nothing to decrease slavery. All you've done is remove the barrier for Congress to act.

    Step 4: Legislate. You need to enact "common sense" reform like no beating your slaves after cow-milking hour.

    It will have to be passed by Congress and signed by the president.

    Great! The law is passed and slavery is now illegal. The only thing left to do is...

    Step 5: Enforce. Slavery won't just disappear because you passed a law. You need to confiscate millions of slaves scattered among law-abiding white women

    You'll need the police, and the army all known for their nuanced approach to potentially dangerous situations—to go door-to-door, through 3.8 million square miles of this country and take slaves, by force, from thousands, if not, millions of well-armed slave-owners. Many of whom would rather start a civil war than acquiesce.

  • ace_m82||

    Only 620,000 dead in that war. How many will there be in the one you propose?

    After all, you can't make an omelette without killing a few million Ukrainians!

    Oh, and Molon Labe. No balls to be the pointman entering my house...

  • DarrenM||

    Molon Labe

    Can't you people speak English? :)

  • YankeeLiberty||

    More of a clever adaptation... point is that we are still "enforcing" 150 years later, right or wrong. I would not expect guns to go more quickly.

  • JeremyR||

    Realistically, all the Dems have to do is wait for a conservative supreme court member to die off and replace him with a liberal.

    Bingo, all the court decisions about gun control will be reversed and guns will be defacto banned

  • YankeeLiberty||

    I'm afraid the US government, as a practical matter, will never be able to take away all the guns.

    On the bright side, no one else will, either.

  • ||

    Google pay 97$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12k for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it out.
    This is wha- I do...... ✹✹✹✹✹✹ www.buzznews99.com

  • John Hendry||

    I'm sure this was joke but the problem with this type of writing style is some will read it and say what a good idea it is. The fact is there is a reason there is escalating crime involving guns and it simply deals with the physics of cause and effect. If black people were not brought to America as slaves that alone would have made a tremendous difference in the crime rate and that is only one of many contributing causes not to single it out and blame any minority. We are all a minority standing alone.

    The important thing to realize regarding guns is great intelligence went into creating America and the most important intelligence based solution that creates a template designed to steadily reduce crime in relationship to prosperity and growth is broken because it is being ignored and in doing so it is increasing crime through hate as well as desperation and an animal based need to eat and survive while staying warm. I am referring to US Law founded on the principle of the term "reasonable man" being raped by corrupt attorneys that go on to be corrupt judges supporting corrupt politicians and run their Courts based on conflict of interest rather than the rule of Law.

  • John Hendry||

    I was evicted as a renter given 6 days to vacate a house I was buying with about 40 thousand dollars paid down despite already paying of the two adjacent 10 acre lots and showing the eviction judge the binding sales contract. It may just have been part of the deception in place to steal real estate by stopping a multi-million dollar HOA lawsuit involving many attorneys that had made many mistakes putting the insurance companies paying them at risk, but to be fair I must say the judge acted very surprised that I was showing him I could not be evicted because I was buying the house... not renting it. But any innocence stops there because I did show I was not a renter by producing the sales contract in place of a renters contract.

  • John Hendry||

    I need to mention the seller was not only a developer, but a well known local political lobbyist who I thought was my friend I could trust. He was even helping me win a 9 yr dispute and lawsuit to pay off the house I was buying from him. Beware of the friendly smile... it's more powerful than a gun used as a tool of deception and theft. After blaming his wife for the evection due to the time it was taking to win the lawsuit and pay off the house on June 9, 2009 he changed his position from being a good friend to being my worst enemy when he exposed his deception and used the local Sheriffs to break a Superior Court Order outlined in the eviction writ to steal the case evidence and legal papers 21 days away from winning the lawsuit at binding arbitration. They all knew about it. They all knew in a game of power over money all I had to do to win and get my hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees back was to simply present the Maluhia Country Ranches subdivision plat map that showed a board member stopping my access so he could build illegally in violation of our CC&Rs; did not own the road adjacent my property.

  • John Hendry||

    The Sheriffs not only assisted him steal the case evidence and legal papers needed they assisted hem steal everything else I own without a land title by telling me in writing to remain at the house past the eviction date faxed to the Sheriffs so he could come pick up the keys after signing a written storage contract that prevented my putting everything on my own 10 acres 200 ft away. This political lobbyist was helping me win a lawsuit over 2000 miles away in Hawaii to pay off the balance of the house still owed and then he deceived me to stop the lawsuit where the only question I have is how much was he paid under the table to do so with over 25 million dollars in damages to the other HOA members my lawsuit was protecting as well as myself. I know what was in it for the Sheriffs as shown in what they did to acquire my new truck and camper shell thinking no one of importance would ever notice what they did.

    But that's not what happened.

    The eviction judge appearing to have no time to think out his words and put logic together that must include the money paid down (why I think he didn't have a clue what was really going on) even agreed we had long standing verbal agreement but since we talked about it so much... more that the short basic straight to the point written contact showed we wrote about it... it somehow became a verbal agreement technically and a verbal contract did not apply to buying real estate which is false on both accounts if you can prove it.

  • John Hendry||

    The eviction judge acted in conflict of interest to support the judge acting as the political lobbyist's attorney who also knew I was buying the house with the un-defendable lawsuit almost over grossly in my favor and in doing he became part of a criminal conspiracy to steal real estate by using the US Legal System in bad faith (illegally) with no defense of his actions because in a criminal conspiracy the guilty party making an overt act to assist in the criminal conspiracy is not required to know the details and intentions beyond his own unlawful act to support someone else involved.

    And this is just one of many examples I experienced first hand of the law being deliberately broken by judges and attorneys over greed showing the template of US Law that creates Order when working... and disorder when abused associated gun violence is a mechanical structure that can be described in many ways just as you would describe the strong force in Nature that holds positive charged protons in their place next to other positive charged protons inside the nucleus of an atom needed to maintain it's atomic structure of Order. Take away the strong force and all the atoms in the Universe will self destruct. And the same thing applies to ANY society as History shows when you take away the template enforced Laws put in place that establish Order.

    But good luck telling that to an ape flipping it's own table of wealth in time by taking away your gun.

  • John Hendry||

    Typo,,, was evicted as a renter given 6 days to vacate a house I was buying with about 40 thousand dollars paid down despite already paying off the two adjacent 10 acre lots and showing the eviction judge the binding sales contract.

    That's what I meant to say... Humm and that says it all really.

  • tom covenant||

    Or we could skip all of that and just get a big magnet

  • John B. Egan||

    This article is a prime example of the 'Straw Man" logical fallacy. The author sets up 'the opposition' then destroys it. Truth is Australia is just one of several approaches to our gun problem. Remarkably, their government actually tackled all the obstacles and produced real results. One result was that any politician,including the very conservative PM who pushed this legislation, lost their jobs. Our politicians wouldn't trade their salary for anything that would benefit our people. At any rate, today the Australian experiment is widely accepted and Aussies think we're idiots to allow our gun problem to continue.

    I pointed out that the Aussie model is just one approach (which didn't remove all guns from society BTW..In fact, I could find no country that has a blanket no-gun rule, including even North Korea), but there are other answers such as the Swiss model which keeps bullets at central armories, and disallowing multi-round clips and/or assault style rapid fire weapons.Mainly though, we Americans have to grow up. Some toys aren't safe in the hands of overgrown kids with a lack of self control and a wild west mentality.

  • Dilligaf||

    FUCK OFF SLAVER!

  • Goat Herder||

    While there would be much kicking and screaming I doubt gun confiscation would result in mass armed resistance. If it does the US military will win. Its the same reason I don't understand the concept of needing a gun to fight tyranny. They have helicopters and rocket launchers. It's not 1861 where everyone is armed with the same technology.

  • Dilligaf||

    Ah yes, the old "Helicopters and Jets" fallacy. Based on the fact that modern helicopters and jets and the like can quickly turn a bunch of people armed with rifles into small bits of badly burnt BBQ, or at least any that may be so foolish as to gather in one convenient spot and stand around. Which is why this never happens in the real world. Successful guerrilla warfare tactics do not dictate that you must win every battle or even most of them. You simply just have to outlast your occupiers, while constantly harassing them and destroying any targets of opportunity that chance may afford. The only sure fire way of controlling a piece of ground where there are armed insurgents or rebels and a sympathetic populace would be to wipe the entire place clean with nerve gas or something similar and immediately send in settlers of your own to fill the void. And while this time tested technique may have been effective in the past, it is now known as "Genocide" and is a thing very much frowned upon by the rest of the human race. Not to mention being damn near impossible to hide now due to advances in technology.

  • Nosea||

    A gun free America is a futuristic America without humans. We will be 3D replicated along with our guns. No one will actually pull the trigger--what would be the point.

  • Chimo||

    No, that will not result in a gun free America. The Constitution does not grant rights to people, it only outlines the powers of the federal government. The 2nd Amendment and other amendments known as the Bill of Rights do not grant rights to the people, they merely attempt to guarantee pre-existing rights. The right to defend ourselves, our families and our communities, with the means of our choosing, is a basic human right that predates all governments and constitutions. Period.

    So you can mess with the Constitution all you want, but Edward Abbey said it best: “When guns are outlawed, only the Government will have guns. The Government - and a few outlaws. If that happens, you can count me among the outlaws.”

  • jalank||

    Hey, I think I can go along with the repeal of the 2nd amendment, as long as the new restriction applies as well to criminals and law enforcement...but, I repeat myself.

  • jerryg1018||

    Hillary and the gun grabbers constantly use Australia's gun ban as an example but neglect to mention that out of Australia's 25 million population only some 3% owned firearms. In the US an estimate 100 plus million own some 300
    million firearms. Between the active military, army reserve and national guard units the government would be lucky to field 1 million troops. Many of the active, reserve and guard units are also firearms owners.
    Firearms confiscation in the uS is virtually impossible.

  • ||

    "...repeals Second Amendment gun rights for all Americans."

    One small quibble Austin: Rights are inherent, not granted. They cannot be repealed because the second amendment is only a recognition of the right. The right to defend yourself does not flow from the second amendment.

  • Lorenzo Zoil||

    Enforce is a cute euphemism for war.

  • Chocolate Starfish ( . )||

    I don't need gun powder to propel a projectile.

  • CatoTheYounger||

    You want to know how to really reduce the number of guns?

    Legalize drugs.

    Not even kidding - if even just marijuana is legalized, the drug cartels would go out of business, and leave the Southwest. What would follow is a massive arms reduction as the common person would no longer need to defend themselves from drug gangs.

  • Free Oregon||

    What if the problem is culture, not guns?

    Some countries have lots of guns, and massive violence. Some, lots of guns and relative calm.

    Some countries have gun control, and massive violence. Others, gun control and little or no violence.

    Why these differences?

    If the challenges are cultural, then to achieve peace why not start working to change culture?

    A good beginning might be to refrain from doing to others what we ourselves find hateful.

    Then, why not begin treating others as we want to be treated, with dignity and respect? With acknowledgment that we, and they, exist with the potential to be autonomous, constructive human beings?
    ]

    And while we're at it, those Ten Commandments, going back long before Moses found them, might also be useful, starting with Exodus 20:17, "You Shall Not Covet ..." What would a society look like where everyone, including all politicians (if any) internalized those Ten Commandments?

  • Matchstick||

    Step six: Conscript new law enforcement officers after the majority quit because they either refuse to draw weapons on innocent civilians, or got shot by "illegal" guns.

  • mesaman11||

    Let's not forget one other problem - the Fourth Amendment. The government can't just go house to house searching for guns - they need a search warrant. That means they need probable cause. Since most guns aren't registered in the U.S., the ATF, et al can't just look at a list and go get the guns. They will have to conduct intensive and expensive investigations to develop probable cause. Unless, of course, the Fourth Amendment is repealed, allowing unreasonable searches and seizures. Then we're back to the constitutional amendment process. In the end, totally eliminating guns in America is just not feasible, or would result in trashing a large part of the Bill of Rights, not just the Second Amendment.

  • ha91070||

    Incredible data! I as of late ran over your online journal and have been perusing along. I thought I would leave my first remark. I don't comprehend what to say with the exception of that I have. Combat Handgun Training

Click here to follow Reason on Instagram

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online