Nobody wants to take your guns?

Bringing this forward from my old blog:

Whenever I, or others, object to “registration” or bans on transfers, or other forms of “gun control” and firearms restrictions as steps toward an eventual complete prohibition and the confiscation that such would necessarily entail, we get told we’re paranoid and “nobody wants to take your guns.”

Well, perhaps we should consider these “nobodies”:

“A gun-control movement worthy of the name would insist that President Clinton move beyond his proposals for controls … and immediately call on Congress to pass far-reaching industry regulation like the Firearms Safety and Consumer Protection Act … [which] would give the Treasury Department health and safety authority over the gun industry, and any rational regulator with that authority would ban handguns.” Josh Sugarmann (executive director of the Violence Policy Center)

“My view of guns is simple. I hate guns and I cannot imagine why anyone would want to own one. If I had my way, guns for sport would be registered, and all other guns would be banned.” Deborah Prothrow-Stith (Dean of Harvard School of Public Health)

“I don’t care if you want to hunt, I don’t care if you think it’s your right. I say ‘Sorry.’ it’s 1999. We have had enough as a nation. You are not allowed to own a gun, and if you do own a gun I think you should go to prison.” Rosie O’Donnell (At about the time she said this, Rosie engaged the services of a bodyguard who applied for a gun permit.)

Confiscation could be an option. Mandatory sale to the state could be an option. Permitting could be an option — keep your gun but permit it.” Andrew Cuomo

“I do not believe in people owning guns. Guns should be owned only by [the] police and military. I am going to do everything I can to disarm this state.” Michael Dukakis

“If someone is so fearful that they are going to start using their weapons to protect their rights, it makes me very nervous that these people have weapons at all.” U.S. Rep. Henry Waxman

“In fact, the assault weapons ban will have no significant effect either on the crime rate or on personal security. Nonetheless, it is a good idea … Passing a law like the assault weapons ban is a symbolic – purely symbolic – move in that direction. Its only real justification is not to reduce crime but to desensitize the public to the regulation of weapons in preparation for their ultimate confiscation.” Charles Krauthammer, columnist, 4/5/96 Washington Post

Ban the damn things. Ban them all. You want protection? Get a dog.” Molly Ivins, columnist, 7/19/94

“[To get a] permit to own a firearm, that person should undergo an exhaustive criminal background check. In addition, an applicant should give up his right to privacy and submit his medical records for review to see if the person has ever had a problem with alcohol, drugs or mental illness . . . The Constitution doesn’t count!” John Silber, former chancellor of Boston University and candidate for Governor of Massachusetts. Speech before the Quequechan Club of Fall River, MA. August 16, 1990

“I think you have to do it a step at a time and I think that is what the NRA is most concerned about. Is that it will happen one very small step at a time so that by the time, um, people have woken up, quote, to what’s happened, it’s gone farther than what they feel the consensus of American citizens would be. But it does have to go one step at a time and the banning of semiassault military weapons that are military weapons, not household weapons, is the first step.” Mayor Barbara Fass, Stockton, CA

Handguns should be outlawed. Our organization will probably take this stand in time but we are not anxious to rouse the opposition before we get the other legislation passed.” Elliot Corbett, Secretary, National Council For A Responsible Firearms Policy (interview appeared in the Washington Evening Star on September 19, 1969)

Banning guns addresses a fundamental right of all Americans to feel safe.” Senator Diane Feinstein, 1993

“If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them… ‘Mr. and Mrs. America, turn ’em all in, I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren’t here.” U.S. Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA) CBS-TV’s “60 Minutes,” 2/5/95

Banning guns is an idea whose time has come.” U.S. Senator Joseph Biden, 11/18/93, Associated Press interview

Yes, I’m for an outright ban (on handguns).” Pete Shields, Chairman emeritus, Handgun Control, Inc., during a 60 Minutes interview.

“I am one who believes that as a first step, the United States should move expeditiously to disarm the civilian population, other than police and security officers, of all handguns, pistols, and revolvers… No one should have the right to anonymous ownership or use of a gun.” Professor Dean Morris, Director of Law Enforcement Assistance Administration, stated to the U.S. Congress

“I feel very strongly about it [the Brady Bill]. I think – I also associate myself with the other remarks of the Attorney General. I think it’s the beginning. It’s not the end of the process by any means.” William J. Clinton, 8/11/93

“The Brady Bill is the minimum step Congress should take…we need much stricter gun control, and eventually should bar the ownership of handguns, except in a few cases.” U.S. Representative William Clay, quoted in the St. Louis Post Dispatch on May 6, 1991.

I don’t believe gun owners have rights.” Sarah Brady, Hearst Newspapers Special Report “Handguns in America”, October 1997

We must get rid of all the guns.” Sarah Brady, speaking on behalf of HCI with Sheriff Jay Printz & others on “The Phil Donahue Show” September 1994

“The House passage of our bill is a victory for this country! Common sense wins out. I’m just so thrilled and excited. The sale of guns must stop. Halfway measures are not enough.” Sarah Brady 7/1/88

“I don’t care about crime, I just want to get the guns.” Senator Howard Metzenbaum, 1994

We’re here to tell the NRA their nightmare is true…” U.S. Representative Charles Schumer, quoted on NBC, 11/30/93

“My bill … establishes a 6-month grace period for the turning in of all handguns.” U.S. Representative Major Owens, Congressional Record, 11/10/93

“I’m convinced that we have to have federal legislation to build on. We’re going to have to take one step at a time, and the first step is necessarily — given the political realities — going to be very modest. Of course, it’s true that politicians will then go home and say, ‘This is a great law. The problem is solved.’ And it’s also true that such statements will tend to defuse the gun-control issue for a time. So then we’ll have to strengthen that law, and then again to strengthen that law, and maybe again and again. Right now, though, we’d be satisfied not with half a loaf but with a slice. Our ultimate goal — total control of handguns in the United States — is going to take time. My estimate is from seven to ten years. The problem is to slow down the increasing number of handguns sold in this country. The second problem is to get them all registered. And the final problem is to make the possession of all handguns and all handgun ammunition — except for the military, policemen, licensed security guards, licensed sporting clubs, and licensed gun collectors — totally illegal.”Nelson T. Shields of Hangun Control, Inc. as quoted in `New Yorker’ magazine July 26, 1976. Page 53f

Our goal is to not allow anybody to buy a handgun. In the meantime, we think there ought to be strict licensing and regulation. Ultimately, that may mean it would require court approval to buy a handgun.” President of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence Michael K. Beard, Washington Times 12/6/93 p.A1

The sale, manufacture, and possession of handguns ought to be banned…We do not believe the 2nd Amendment guarantees an individual the right to keep them.” The Washington Post – “Legal Guns Kill Too” – November 5, 1999

“There is no reason for anyone in the country, for anyone except a police officer or a military person, to buy, to own, to have, to use, a handgun. The only way to control handgun use in this country is to prohibit the guns. And the only way to do that is to Change the Constitution.” USA Today – Michael Gartner – Former president of NBC News – “Glut of Guns: What Can We Do About Them?” – January 16, 1992

“I would personally just say to those who are listening, maybe you want to turn in your guns,” Representative Sheila Jackson Lee, 2012

” 4. Any person who, prior to the effective date of this law, was legally in possession of an assault weapon or large capacity magazine shall have ninety days from such effective date to do any of the following without being subject to prosecution :
(1) Remove the assault weapon or large capacity magazine from the state of Missouri;
(2) Render the assault weapon permanently inoperable; or
(3) Surrender the assault weapon or large capacity magazine to the appropriate law enforcement agency for destruction, subject to specific agency regulations.” Legislation introduced in Missouri.2013

And you can repeat the exact same thing for Minnesota

“Since assault weapons are not a major contributor to US gun homicide and the existing stock of guns is large, an assault weapon ban is unlikely to have an impact on gun violence. If coupled with a gun buyback and no exemptions then it could be effective.” NIJ Memo on a new “Assault Weapon” Ban. 2013

“The sheriff of the county may, no more than once per year, conduct an inspection to ensure compliance with this subsection” (Warrantless searches by law enforcement?) Washington State Senate Bill 5737 (2013)

“the state of Iowa should take semi-automatic weapons away from Iowans who have legally purchased them prior to any ban that is enacted if they don’t give their weapons up in a buy-back program.  Even if you have them, I think we need to start taking them,” Iowa state Rep. Dan Muhlbauer (D-Manilla) 2013

California Senate Bill 374 (Steinberg 2013) would expand the definition of “Assault Weapons” to include ALL semi-auto rifles (including rimfire calibers) that accept a detachable magazine.

SB374 would ban on the sale and possession of ALL Semi-Auto rifles and require registration to retain legal possession in the future. California Senate Bill 47 (Yee 2013) would expand the definition of “Assault Weapons” to include rifles that have been designed/sold and or equipped to use the “bullet button” or similar device.

SB47 would ban on the sale and possession of ALL those Semi-Auto rifles and require registration to retain legal possession in the future.

California Assembly Bill 174 (Bonta 2013) would ban the possession of any firearms that were “grandfathered “ for possession if registered in previous “Assault Weapons” gun control schemes. 

Californians that trusted the State of California and registered their firearms will be required to surrender the firearms to the Government or face arrest. Passage of AB174 would make SB374/SB47 (above) into confiscation mandates.

California Senate Bill 396 (Hancock 2013) would ban the possession of any magazine with a capacity to accept more than 10 cartridges. ALL currently grandfathered “high-cap” magazines would become ILLEGAL to possess and the owners subject to arrest and the magazines confiscated. (“High-cap” means a capacity that has been standard, that the firearms were designed for, since the 40’s–AK pattern rifles–or 60’s–AR pattern rifles.)

We want everything on the table. This is a moment of opportunity. There’s no question about it…We’re on a roll now, and I think we’ve got to take the–you know, we’re gonna push as hard as we can and as far as we can.” Illinois Rep Jan Schakowsky says assault rifle ban just the beginning, ‘moment of opportunity’ and seeks to ban handguns (2013).

“People who own guns are essentially a sickness in our souls who must be cleansed.” Colorado Senator (Majority Leader) John Morse. 2013 (Cleansed?  “Final Solution” anyone?)

“We needed a bill that was going to confiscate, confiscate, confiscate.”  Discussion among Senator Loretta Weinberg (D37), Senator Sandra Cunningham (D31), Senator Linda Greenstein (D14) of New Jersey’s State Legislature, May 9, 2013

“No one in this country should have guns.” Superior Court Judge, Robert C. Brunetti, Bristol, CT. September, 2013

Proposed Missouri Bill to ban “assault weapons“: 4. Any person who, prior to the effective date of this law, was legally in possession of an assault weapon or large capacity magazine shall have ninety days from such effective date to do any of the following without being subject to prosecution:
(1) Remove the assault weapon or large capacity magazine from the state of Missouri;
(2) Render the assault weapon permanently inoperable; or
(3) Surrender the assault weapon or large capacity magazine to the appropriate law enforcement agency for destruction, subject to specific agency regulations.

New York sends out Confiscation letters.

“It is extremely important that individuals in the state of California do not own assault weapons. I mean that is just so crystal clear, there is no debate, no discussion,” Leland Yee, California State Senator.

Shannon Watts (head of “Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense”): “@MikeBloomberg and I want guns gone. Period. It doesn’t matter what it takes.” (Twitter, 2014).

“Upon review of all the parties’ evidence, the court seriously doubts that the banned assault long guns are commonly possessed for lawful purposes, particularly self-defense in the home, which is at the core of the Second Amendment right, and is inclined to find the weapons fall outside Second Amendment protection as dangerous and unusual.” U.S. District Judge Catherine C. Blake. (The “assault weapons” being described are semi-automatic weapons–meaning one shot fired per pull of the trigger–of fairly modest power, near the low end of center fire rifles.)  As for the claim that said weapons are not particularly useful for home defense.  I address that here.

2. No person, corporation or other entity in the state of Missouri may manufacture, import, possess, purchase, sell, or transfer any assault weapon or large capacity magazine.” Bill introduced in Missouri House.

NJ.com editorial boards advocates for “mandatory gun buybacks”.http://www.nj.com/opinion/index.ssf/2014/09/nj_gun_buyback_programs.html “So do all the voluntary gun buybacks you want. But until they are mandatory, and our society can see past its hysteria over “gun confiscation,” don’t expect it to make much difference.”

“Gun Surrender” without the anonymous provision:
“We’ll take that weapon into safekeeping as a matter of practice. It’s pretty easy,” he said of the surrender process. “We are working to find ways in which we can make it easier for people to turn in weapons and firearms.”
Callers will provide their name, telephone number and address, and the reason for surrender. Once the firearm has been checked to see if it was involved in a crime police will mark it for destruction.
(So, basically, people with illegal guns, or guns used in crime, will stay away in droves.  The only purpose of such a provision is to take legally owned guns from people.)

Another shooting in another “gun-free zone” (Florida requires guns on college campuses to be locked up and cannot be carried) leads to calls for gun prohibition:
“I’m talking about flat-out banning the possession of handguns and assault rifles by individual citizens. I’m talking about repealing or amending the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.”

Another one who clings to the “The Second only applies to government ‘militias’” creed (never mind that the first time that came up was in the Miller case in 1939 and the Supreme Court’s decision, despite the government arguing their case unchallenged, was only on the basis of whether the weapon had a militia use, not whether the deceased Miller (why his side wasn’t even presented) had been a member of a proper militia and so, given the Supreme Court’s returning to the original, plain meaning of the Second in Heller and McDonald decisions sees only one possibility (recognizing the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is apparently not on the table):
Repeal the stupid Second Amendment.” Article in Wisconsin Gazette.
Note:  Normally I reserve this page for explicit calls for gun confiscation and the author of this article doesn’t explicitly call for such.  But I figure a complete repeal of the 2nd could really only be for one purpose.  So I’ll allow this one.  I’m not, however, going to include every such call for repeal.  Let this one stand for the idea.  I’ll unbend occasionally when something is egregious enough, but this page is for calls for actual confiscation.

An advisory panel charged with looking at public safety in the wake of the deadly Newtown school shooting agreed Friday to include in its final report a recommendation to ban the sale and possession of any gun that can fire more than 10 rounds without reloading.(Banning possession means you can’t have it.  I.e. they’ve taken it whether directly or by forcing you to get rid of it yourself.)

“Let’s say that one again: A gun-free society.” From an article in The Washington Post.

“In other words, yes, we really do want to take your guns.” Josh Marshall at Talking Points Memo.

I urge President Obama to ban firearm possession in America. He is the president of the United States. He can change the country. He can do it today. I believe in him.”  Opinion piece in Democrat & Chronicle, a Gannet Company (Gannet publishes a number of “mainstream” newspapers).  This individual appears to be a bit weak on how lawmaking works in this country but the sentiment is there.

“I don’t know enough details to tell you how we would do it or how it would work, but certainly the Australia example is worth looking at,” Clinton said at a New Hampshire town hall on Friday. (“Australian example” is confiscation–they may pay what the government thinks is a “fair” amount, for it but the end result is that the gun is gone.)

Some older ones recently brought to my attention:
Guns are a virus that must be eradicated.”—Dr. Katherine Christoffel, pediatrician, in American Medical News, January 3, 1994.  In the 1990s Dr. Christoffel was the leader of the now-defunct HELP Network, a Chicago-based association of major medical organizations and grant seekers advancing gun control in the medical media.  The name HELP was an acronym for Handgun Epidemic Lowering Plan.

“Data on [assault weapons’] risks are not needed, because they have no redeeming social value.—Jerome Kassirer, M.D., former editor, New England Journal of Medicine, writing in vol. 326, no. 17, page 1161 (April 23, 1992).

“Certain kinds of weapons, like the slightly modified combat rifles used in California, and certain kinds of ammunition, must be outlawed for civilian ownership. It is possible to define those guns in a clear and effective way and, yes, it would require Americans who own those kinds of weapons to give them up for the good of their fellow citizens.New York Times editorial
(Emphasis added in the above).

Screw The NRA! It’s Time To REPEAL The Second Amendment Once And For All” This one’s a little harder to accept into this list.  In the article they author claims not supporting summarily banning all firearms, but really, banning is the only justification for a repeal of the 2nd.  Look, may think it’s unnecessary but the 2nd is there.  Even if you don’t care for it, it does no harm unless you’re planning on banning.  Therefore any call for a repeal of the 2nd Amendment is a call for prohibition and to “take your guns”.  And saying that it’s not all the guns does not justify it.

“We should, that is, seek to ‘control’ access to them and their use. But even that’s not going far enough. We should get rid of them, that is, ban them. Guns create too many problems, promote too much fear, and lead to too many deaths to not consider banning them. Perhaps they were necessary at some point in our history, but let’s declare that that time has run its course.” Salon

As a person of principle let me be very clear to any “conservatives” who troll the Kos for proof that liberals want to take away thier guns.  Here you go conservatives:  We liberals really do want to take away your guns and never let you have them back. They go into a lot of “ifs” after that, but they ring a little hollow after this bold statement.

“Maryland Attorney General Brian Frosh … also provided his opinion of the Second Amendment, stating that ‘we should ban guns altogether, period.’” In a hidden camera interview.

“Needed: Domestic Disarmament, Not ‘Gun Control’ That headline pretty much says it all.

an guns. All guns. Get rid of guns in homes, and on the streets, and, as much as possible, on police. Not just because of San Bernardino, or whichever mass shooting may pop up next, but also not not because of those. Don’t sort the population into those who might do something evil or foolish or self-destructive with a gun and those who surely will not. As if this could be known—as if it could be assessed without massively violating civil liberties and stigmatizing the mentally ill. Ban guns! Not just gun violence. Not just certain guns. Not just already-technically-illegal guns. All of them. ”  Article in The New Republic

“What has to go?
All magazine fed, self-loading firearms.
Yes, that means handguns too.
Yes, that includes your 4 shot Remington hunting rifle.
Yes, that includes rigid controls on police firearms.

Your 5 shot revolver can go home with you officer, your 17 shot handgun stays inside the armory of the police station.  Armory, not your locker.  Signed-in, signed-out, via proximity card reader, with real-time computer controls at the State and Federal levels.” Daily Kos
Note:  this has now been reported to me as a satire piece.  However, also note that it’s here at all from my habit of following back from secondary sources to the original source to avoid claims that the secondary source was just making it up.  I didn’t twig to it’s satirical nature then because, no matter how over-the-top it was, it wasn’t over-the-top enough to exceed what extremists actually espouse (indeed, why somebody cited it in the first place).  This is why “Poe’s Law” is a thing.

“We could use a President who was, like, ‘OK. Everybody turn in all your guns tomorrow by 5 p.m. After that, if I catch you with a gun then I’m sending SEAL Team Six to your house with a recent Facebook picture of you and those tanks that shoot fire that we haven’t used since Waco — Ummm — I mean since World War II.’” CNN Commentator

“Bans on the manufacture and sale of all semiautomatic and other military-style guns and government offers to buy back any rifle or pistol in circulation. It won’t solve the problem, but Australia proved that such programs can help reduce gun deaths.” NY Times writer Thomas L. Friedman (Anyone who invokes Australia is calling for confiscation.)

“179 (a) Notwithstanding Code Sections 16-11-115 and Code Section 16-11-116, any person
180 who possesses any assault weapon or large capacity magazine on July 1, 2016, shall have
1801until October 31, 2016, to accomplish any of the following actions without any prosecution
182 under the law:
183 (1) Modify such assault weapon or large capacity magazine to render it permanently
184 inoperable or such that it is no longer an assault weapon or large capacity magazine; or
185 (2) Surrender such assault weapon or large capacity magazine to the Georgia Bureau of
186 Investigation for destruction pursuant to this part.
187 (b) Notwithstanding Code Section 16-11-115 and Code Section 16-11-116, any person
188 who relocates his or her residence to this state and who possesses an assault weapon or
189 large capacity magazine or who comes to possess such assault weapon or large capacity
190 magazine through probate shall, within 90 days of establishing such residency or the
191 closing of such probate, modify such assault weapon or large capacity magazine to render
192 it permanently inoperable or such that it is no longer an assault weapon or large capacity
193 magazine or surrender such assault weapon or large capacity magazine to the Georgia
194 Bureau of Investigation for destruction pursuant to this part”

“Given that even micro gun control measures will be effectively blocked by the NRA and its allies, and that promoting mini measures as potentially effective is misleading, progressives may as well go for the big enchilada: Call for domestic disarmament.”

Amitai EtzioniProfessor of international relations, George Washington University“I really don’t personally think anyone should have a gun,” Bonnie Schaefer, DNC Platform Committee member.

“We need to say loud and clear: The Second Amendment must be repealed.” At least the “Constitutional Law professor” David S. Cohenacknowledges that you actually have to repeal the Amendment to take our guns. (2/3 of the House, 2/3 of the Senate and 3/4 of State legislatures.  Good luck with that.)

“If I could I would take all the guns in America, put them on big barges, and go dump them in the ocean,” says Walker in the above video from the Oregonian. “Nobody would have a gun. Not police, not security, not anybody. We should eliminate all of them.” Multnomah County Circuit (Oregon) Judge Kenneth Walker

Just passed by the Oregon State House of Representatives (and note that it’s a Senate Bill, so at least some form has passed both houses):
“SECTION 2. (1) A law enforcement officer or a family or household member of a person may file a petition requesting that the court issue an extreme risk protection order enjoining the person from having in the person’s custody or control, owning, purchasing, possessing or receiving, or attempting to purchase or receive, a deadly weapon.

SECTION 6. (1) Upon issuance of an extreme risk protection order under section 2 of this 2017 Act, the court shall further order that the respondent:
(a) Within 24 hours surrender all deadly weapons in the respondent’s custody, control or possession to a law enforcement agency, a gun dealer or a third party who may lawfully possess the deadly weapons; and
(b) Within 24 hours surrender to a law enforcement agency any concealed handgun license issued to the respondent under ORS 166.291 and 166.292.”
So basically any any law enforcement officer or disgruntled family or household member, on their word alone, can strip someone of their rights.  Doesn’t even require review by qualified medical personnel.  Someone with no qualifications in the field can simply say “I think…” and boom, rights gone.  This whole “due process” before stripping someone of their rights seems to be forgotten.

According to Bret Stephens, Op-Ed Columnist for the New  York Times:  “There is only one way to do this: Repeal the Second Amendment.” Elsewhere in the article, regarding “buy-backs” he says: “Nor will it do to follow the “Australian model” of a gun buyback program, which has shown poor results in the United States and makes little sense in a country awash with hundreds of millions of weapons. Keeping guns out of the hands of mentally ill people is a sensible goal, but due process is still owed to the potentially insane. Background checks for private gun sales are another fine idea, though its effects on homicides will be negligible: guns recovered by police are rarely in the hands of their legal owners, a 2016 study found.” (So exactly how is he expecting to get those guns he fears so much out of private hands?  Outright confiscation?  Depriving people of their property without either due process or fair compensation, the two protections guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment.  Well, if you’re going to eliminate one of the Bill of Rights, it’s just as easy to eliminate others while you’re in there, right?)

Dan Pfeiffer, a former senior adviser to President Barack Obama “‘We are nibbling around the edges instead of proposing bold, meaningful solutions,’ Pfeiffer wrote. His suggestions included implementing a national gun registry, mandating ‘smart-gun technology,’ and rolling-out a buy-back program similar to Australia’s.” “Similar to Australia’s” IOW, manadatory confiscation with whatever the government decides is “just compensation.”

Boston Globe Columnist David Scharfenberg in his article “Hand over your Weapons” concludes with:  “Ultimately, if gun-control advocates really want to stanch the blood, there’s no way around it: They’ll have to persuade more people of the need to confiscate millions of those firearms, as radical as that idea may now seem.” (In the article he talks about a buyback, at about $500 each of some 60 million guns.  Only 60 million is a conservative, very conservative, estimate of gun owners.  The number of guns in private hands is upwards of 300 million, that too a conservative estimate, so at $500 each, that would cost $150 billion dollars.)

Lieutenant Governor of California Gavin Newsome tweeted:
“It’s been 5 years since 20 first graders were shot dead at Sandy Hook. Since then:
14 killed in San Bernardino
49 killed in Orlando
58 killed in Vegas
26 killed in a Texas church
Enough.
We have a message for the @NRA: If you hurt people, we ARE coming for your guns.”
(Note that four of those five locations were “gun free zones”.  There is a reason for that.)

Sorry, some of your guns have got to go….I’ve heard your arguments against all that I’ve said here, but the body count of innocent people keeps getting higher no matter how many ‘good guys’ have guns” (Actually, violent crime is down.  The “higher body count” is in places where the good guys are forbidden from bringing their guns, but, of course, the bad guys don’t care.)

CNN “analyst” Kirsten Powers wants to ban semi-autos and handguns:
“‘I want it let you respond to what Kirsten said earlier about the AR-15 and semiautomatic weapons, pointing the blame at them,’ Tapper asked. ‘I don’t think you agree?’
“‘Well, is the answer to ban them?’ Ham asked.
“’Yes,’ Powers responded.” (See link for what she says about handguns.)

Editorial at Portland Press Herald: “We need to stand up to the NRA and push for what is so desperately needed: a complete ban on firearms.” Doesn’t get any more clear than that.

Minnesota Bill Introduced 2018: “Expand the definition of an “assault weapon” to include many semiautomatic pistols, rifles or shotguns and makes possessing them a felony, with the exception of some that were legally registered before February 2018. Those owning a grandfathered assault weapon must undergo a background check, renew their registration annually, and use them only on their property or at a shooting range. Such weapons could not be sold or transferred, only surrendered to law enforcement for destruction.” Even ignoring the “possessing” part the inability to transfer makes it a ban with delayed enforcement.

East Lansing School District has made an official resolution which includes: “Whereas, no civilian should ever be allowed to purchase, possess or use a weapon of mass destruction, including but not limited to automatic and semi-automatic guns, nor be allowed to purchase, possess or use any magazine, clip or other tool designed to deliver rapid-fire ammunition without the need to reload;” (That’s the vast majority of all firearms in American and pretty much anything but single-shot firearms.)

“Kerry Picket, Sirius XM Patriot:  ‘Now some would argue that then guns and ammunition would only be available to those with money, those who are wealthy. And that those who are in the lower classes as far as financial terms are concerned would not be able to afford such weapons. Tell me about that.’

“Congressman Danny Davis (D-Ill.):  ‘Well I would be just as pleased if neither group were able to get them [guns]. So what I am saying is it doesn’t pose an issue for me because I would like to outlaw them altogether. I am saying I would like to make it where nobody except military personnel would ever have access to these weapons. So it wouldn’t bother me that one category of people couldn’t get them even if the other one was willing to pay the high price for them. Then we use that money for services that are needed and people could make use of them.’
“Picket: ‘So rich people only could own firearms?’
“Congressman Davis:  ‘So if rich people could only get firearms then only rich people would be able to pay the price. And if that could prevent some people from getting them, I would want to prevent all people from getting them. But if rich people were willing, and would continue to pay the high price then I’d be happy that we kept the other group from getting them.'” Audio of interview included at this link.

An article at VOX.COM: “Realistically, a gun control plan that has any hope of getting us down to European levels of violence is going to mean taking a huge number of guns away from a huge number of gun owners.”

House Bill effectively a delayed ban on the vast majority of firearms in the US:  “The bill prohibits the ‘sale, transfer, production, and importation’ of semi-automatic rifles and pistols that can hold a detachable magazine, as well as semi-automatic rifles with a magazine that can hold more than 10 rounds. Additionally, the legislation bans the sale, transfer, production, and importation of semi-automatic shotguns with features such as a pistol grip or detachable stock, and ammunition feeding devices that can hold more than 10 rounds.” By banning the transfer  they are, in effect, creating a delayed ban.  As soon as the current owner of a covered firearm (most of those in the US) dies or otherwise is unable to keep the firearm it cannot be passed on to someone else–like ones heirs.  That gun is then gone and no more can replace it.

Daryl Fisher (A Democrat candidate for Sheriff in Buncombe County NC):  “Any weapon that is designed for use by the military I think we should ban. You’ve heard people say you have to pry my gun from my cold dead hands. [shrugs] OK.” (Up front about willing to kill to take people’s guns.) What is interesting to note is that while my 1893 Argentine Bolt Action (an antique, old enough that it’s not even regulated by the ATF), my Mosin Nagant rifle, and various other bolt actions, including the extremely popular Remingtin 700 have been used by the US and other militaries, that AR-15 is not (the similar appearing M-16 and M-4, both having full auto or “burst” fire that the AR-15 lacks, are different beasts).

Going back in time a bit, to a bill Senator Diane Feinstein introduced in 2013. “‘The purpose is to dry up the supply of these weapons over time,’ Feinstein said. ‘Therefore, there is no sunset on this bill.'” After all, ending transfer of the firearms means that when, for whatever reason (including eventual death) a person cannot own their existing weapon it has to be surrendered.  A slow confiscation over time is still a confiscation.

Rep. Eric Swalwell, D-Calif “In a USA Today op-ed entitled ‘Ban assault weapons, buy them back, go after resisters,’ Rep. Eric Swalwell, D-Calif., argued Thursday that prior proposals to ban assault weapons ‘would leave millions of assault weapons in our communities for decades to come.'”

Deerfield, IL bans possession of “assault weapons” and “high capacity magazines” with a $1000 per day fine if residents fail to comply.  As of this writing (June 20, 2018) they have two weeks to turn them over or.  This isn’t just a 2nd Amendment issue, but a 5th Amendment (“nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law”–and simply passing a law saying you can’t have it doesn’t qualify as “due process”).

Editorial in the Houston Chronicle claims “Every Gun is an Assault Weapon” (and thus should be banned): “But as long as we continue to condone personal firearms of any shape or size, we’ll remain trapped in a brutal, heart-breaking version of ‘Groundhog Day.'”

NBC News reported: “WASHINGTON — A Democratic congressman [ed: Eric Swalwell, D-CA] has proposed outlawing “military-style semiautomatic assault weapons” and forcing existing owners to sell their weapons or face prosecution, a major departure from prior gun control proposals that typically exempt existing firearms.” And when challenged on possible armed resistance to such a mandatory “buy back” (which would violate both the 2nd and 5th–deprive of property without due process of law) said that the government has nukes.  Yep, suggested (and even as a joke?) nuking American citizens who resist his gun confiscation proposal.

Former NYC Mayor Mike Bloomberg as reported in the Aspen Times: “Bloomberg claimed that 95 percent of murders fall into a specific category: male, minority and between the ages of 15 and 25. Cities need to get guns out of this group’s hands and keep them alive, he said.
“‘These kids think they’re going to get killed anyway because all their friends are getting killed,’ Bloomberg said. ‘They just don’t have any long-term focus or anything. It’s a joke to have a gun. It’s a joke to pull a trigger.'” Anti-gun and racist all in one.

“But nobody wants to take our guns?”

Advertisements

65 thoughts on “Nobody wants to take your guns?”

  1. Of course they *want* to take our guns, but the way it’s usually (snarkily) phrased is “See? Nobody is coming to take your guns.” Because unless cops are going door to door and physically confiscating them, they always can claim to be right.

    Like

      1. They’ll use the people who’s health care, livelihoods and pensions they control. They’ll use the people who’s children can be taken by CPS. It’s one thing to expect a man to be generally good, and another to expect him to give up food, future and family in order to keep a stranger out of jail.

        Like

  2. You might consider including, as a footnote under the quote from Leland Yee (former Democratic California State Senator) that he is currently serving 5 years in Ft. Worth federal penitentiary for money-laundering, having confessed to money-laundering, racketeering, corruption, and conspiracy to import illegal firearms charges stemming from the attempted sale of machine guns, sourced from Filipino terrorists, to an undercover federal agent. The hypocrisy is hilarious.

    Like

  3. Don’t forget all the states that have banned various guns, and ammunition, or that put restrictions on some of them. What do they expect you to do if you are out of compliance? Turn them in? etc? That is a fertile field of research for this topic.

    Like

  4. Gun Control is now, and always has been, not about guns, but Control. This rogues gallery of Leftists are all about controlling everything you do. Taxes, regulations, rules, EPA edicts, etc are all about how the people live. They know how to live your life much better than you do.

    Like

    1. What is a “Leftist?” I have seen that word a lot recently and can’t quite pin it down. How does it relate to “liberal,” “Democrat,” “democrat,” “socialist,” “progressive,” etc. Does “leftist” refer to policy positions, voting record, attitude, or other things?

      Thanks.

      Like

      1. Most people–no matter what their position, on anything–don’t really give their positions a lot of thought. They go with what “gut instinct” (basically what sounds good to them) or “if it was good enough for granddad…” This is not really a criticism. Nobody has time for careful consideration of all the facts in every position about which they might be called upon to make a decision (even if it’s just “who to make that decision on my behalf”).

        In politics most voters–Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Socialist, Green, Independent, whatever–are “low information voters”.

        However, there are some people, espousing “left wing” political views (and that’s a complicated issue itself because neither “left” nor “right” is well defined–has to happen when you want to take two things that have far more in common than they have differences and put them at opposite ends of the spectrum) that aren’t “low information”. They, for their own purposes–which can be truly “the good of the nation” or it can be, and most often is, the good of themselves–know exactly what they’re doing. I use the term “leftist” to distinguish those folk from the honest but misinformed who follow along in their wake. It includes “liberal” (as the term has come to mean in use as opposed to its original meaning), “Democrat”, “Socialist,” “Progressive” et al. The folk who are actually shaping those policies whether they are “true believers” or simply cynically using them for their own selfish ends.

        That’s what I mean by “leftist”.

        Like

        1. “Nobody has time for careful consideration of all the facts in every position about which they might be called upon to make a decision (even if it’s just “who to make that decision on my behalf”).”

          They’d have a lot more time and inclination to do research and give the results careful consideration if they weren’t watching 44 hours[1] of the aptly named, “Boob Tube” each and every week.

          1. According to 2010 US Census data

          Like

      2. IMO, Leftist, in this and most contexts, mostly refers to those pepole who oppose an individual persons right to make decisions which are in their own best interests. Leftists see people as groups, who are seen as unitary, sharing motivations, attitudes, and prefrrences.
        This is why they are so hateful to those “group members” who leave the reservation, and hold non-group ideas.
        The dual fallacy of most leftists is that they think that their ideas can be imposed without resistance, and that they will be the ones in charge after the individualists are eliminated as an effective group.
        Never mind that these individualists are among the most productive members of society, see for a negative example, Soviet factory productivity.
        Leftists are also often terroristic in their thought patterns, in that they see as a means to reach their goals activity for the purpose of causing the government to enforce their desired ends. They are about control, and the direction of the power of the State to raise themselves up, in any way they can. They feel that they are, like the Muslims, entitled to lie whenever it may be needed to accomplish their goals.
        They are without honor, and cannot be trusted.
        John in Indy

        Like

      3. NO! Its NOT funny, that MOONFLAKE will RUN for CA. State Office once he’s out. And the DAMN fools will vote him in, legally or not.
        THEN guess what’s going to happen………………………………………….

        Like

  5. It’s true, though. Nobody wants to take your guns away. They want to send other, more expendable people to take your guns away. Except that if they try that they might discover that obedience to orders isn’t quite as ingrained as they think it is.

    Like

  6. The Daily Kos piece by 43North: that isn’t what he is saying he WANTS. That’s what he’s saying the gun controllers want. The guy is very pro RKBA, and was, like me, banned from there for that reason. I know him personally. Lemme see if I can chase him down and get him in here.

    Like

    1. Maybe he was writing it as satire but if so, Poe’s law comes into play. It certainly read as straight up advocacy and I’m pretty sure Kos published it as same. Much like the Krauthammer piece from the Washington Post, people have claimed he was pointing out what others want, not what he advocated but, again, the article did not read that way to me.

      Like

      1. Again, I know him personally. I’m a pro RKBA activist, and your yabut yabut doesn’t fly. I am reasonably certain he’l show up in this thread. I don’t give two shits in a blizzard “what it read like to you.” I know the guy. I’m telling you what’s up.
        Now, if you just want to chill and wait till he gets here and makes you look more like a fool than you already do, I’m good with that.
        And you obviously don’t get how Daily Kos works. Users post diaries and the commuity receives them however they do. You can’t hide behind “Kos published it.” If you don’t believe me, you want me to post a diary about you right now? Can do – with a sockpuppet, and it does NOT require the permission of Markos Moulitsas.
        Dude, you look really stupid right now.

        Like

          1. “Dude, you look like a six year-old in the midst of a tantrum!
            I worry that someone like you has firearms.”

            And I worry that an idiot like you has a keyboard.

            Like

      2. TLDR? Note the timeframe and context.
        Post-#occupy
        During – #blacklivesmatter

        NB: Kos “published” nothing. It’s a community blog, essentially self-publishing.

        Note the mention of “Japanese-Americans” – if you don’t understand why, google is your friend.

        Act V: could have been titled: “A cautionary tale to the Progressive Democrats on DailyKos”.
        They weren’t amused.
        To quote George W Bush: “Mission Accomplished”

        Eventually in the year 2061, when many of the affected citizens are dead, Congress passes a Resolution offering “an official apology for the so-called unconstitutional gun confiscation, coincidental loss and damages”.
        No funds are appropriated.
        Japanese-Americans, knowing of their history under the Roosevelt Administration, merely nod with a wry smile.

        Act IV: Disarm the local cops. Either return them to revolvers and possibly shotguns, or transition to disarmed local policing. That precludes raiding the police station for weapons.
        Serious incident? The State Police can render tactical aid if needed.
        State police can be armed with appropriate levels of modern weaponry to end any threat to law and order. That’s how it’s done in Europe, a closely supervised select few have serious weaponry at-hand.

        THAT is how you get it done. ALL of it done.

        Act V, an Afterword:
        The danger? Is in the American people finally understanding they live in, and pay to support, an Oligarchy of the Corporate Interests, by The People, for the Corporate Interests. Pigs to slaughter, cows to be milked.
        Use whatever metaphor you choose.

        The danger of knowing that the distinction of Democrat or Republican has little meaning.
        Neither respect the limits of the Constitution, and pass laws exempting the government from adhering to the Constitution. (do you see the irony in the DOJ website banner)

        It’s your choice of white or wheat, comprising the same, shit sandwich.

        No matter, the means of revolution has been disposed-of.
        Welcome to the new American Century, one where your vote doesn’t count, you’ll shut-up and do as you’re told.

        The massive coordinated workers strike? Never happened. Filtered from existence.
        The spontaneous occupation of the streets and squares? Went great for a while, then it went predictably when the Oligarchy tired of non-compliance.

        Like

        1. To quote George W Bush: “Mission Accomplished”

          If the mission was to make a complete Poe, then mission accomplished indeed.

          However, “over the top” the article may have seemed to its author, it is not in comparison to what people have actually endorsed. Those bad results? “You can’t make an omelet…” and all that.

          Like

          1. And on reflection it stays because I got it actually in following up from a secondary citation of it: someone who did take it as a serious proposal and endorsed it as same, citing it and I simply followed my habit of tracking things presented to me back to their original source. So, disclaimer to that effect added.

            Like

          2. “someone who did take it as a serious proposal and endorsed it as same”

            Of course someone said “Hell yeah, let’s get it on.”
            I’d bet there’s at least 20, if not 200 people who self-identify as “anti-gun advocates” who view nearly the entire Constitution and Bill of Rights as an “inconvenience”.
            Inconvenience to “true progress” or to “law and order” or to “security and safety”.
            This shouldn’t be news.
            They’ll enjoy all the Constitutional protections, while actively seeking to deprive you – (a domestic terrorist for who else would have guns) – of yours.
            It’s binary: You’re *woke* or “evolved” – therefore good, and a Citizen.
            Or you’re a hateful/vengeful/fearful reprobate, deserving of any fate that befalls you, Barbarian.
            Choices matter.

            There’s a similar number who want the guns all gone – as they have a known or suspected dangerous relative, who, if adjudicated a danger to himself and others, will remain an albatross around the family neck.
            Banned from certain publicly-funded housing options or programs:
            “So screw your guns LEAVE MY FAMILY ALONE!!! We’re VICTIMS!!!”

            For those persons, it’s a single issue when voting:
            I have the right to A LIFE thank you, and I shouldn’t bear the cost of my personality disorder relative.
            Violating the Constitution? If it means I don’t have to mind my relative, and can live my life without that responsibility? DO IT.

            There was a DailyKos “Front Pager” (which is a person given Editorial status) who advocated for a “violent Statist response” to civilian gun ownership.
            Essentially calling-for the extrajudicial killing of gun owners, post-Sandy Hook.
            He was adequately brow-beaten, however remained unrepentant.
            His supporters? Few, but extant.

            Like

  7. It is my considered opinion that employing the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights to advocate for the violent murder of people who exercise the Second Amendment automatically entails forfeiting the entire Bill of Rights. Hoplophobic leftists and others who behave in this manner badly need to be forcibly arrested and dragged, screaming and crying, off to labor camps to be worked to death. I suggest using the North Korean political death camps as a pattern. This would be sublime, poetic justice.

    Like

  8. This article makes very many claims and supposedly direct quotes but without any citations. One quote, attributed to janet reno, is blatantly false, regardless of how legitimate it sounds.

    Nowhere in her speech on the day quoted does she say, “Waiting periods are only a step. Registration is only a step. The prohibition of private firearms is the goal.”

    I read through the entire thing and she never said that. It makes me wonder what else is fiction is this article. Since I don’t have time to validate every supposed quote, and know at least one to be utterly false, I can only assume there are myriad other falsehoods in this article, so I have little choice but to discount the entire thing.

    The entirety of the speech can be found at https://www.justice.gov/archive/ag/speeches/1993/12-09-1993.pdf

    Like

    1. You, of course, are free to discount anything you choose to, but since most of the items are sourced, well, the validity of that can stand for itself.

      The original list came from things I had found online quite a few years ago. Over time, people have brought to me corrections as well as additions. And, as a result, I have made the appropriate edits.

      As soon as I hit “send” here, I will be doing that with this one.

      Readers, of course, can draw their own conclusions.

      Like

    2. “so I have little choice but to discount the entire thing.” There’s plenty of other examples of gun grabbers saying out loud how they intend to grab guns. A long time ago there was a fake quote of Adolf Hitler saying that he had achieved “gun control” in Germany, in 1935. Turns out nothing happened with guns in Germany in 1935 of any significance. “Gun Control” laws were passed in Germany in 1928 and 1938, not 1935. Does that mean Hitler was really a swell guy and his enemies have been lying about him? I don’t think so.

      Like

      1. There’s a reason why when someone points out errors, and can back up that the statement was an error, I correct it. A lot of the early items came to me from an older list. Some of the items have been challenged, the challenge was valid, and I removed them. The things I’ve added since then, I’ve linked back to the original source (I take no responsibility for whether or not the original sources are still online, but everything that’s in quotes was a direct copy-paste from the original source, and I’ve generally been modest in my editorializing about them.)

        Their own words are generally enough.

        Like

  9. ““If someone is so fearful that they are going to start using their weapons to protect their rights, it makes me very nervous that these people have {weapons} -RIGHTS- at all.” U.S. Rep. Henry Waxman” There, I fixed it for him.

    I was arguing with a communist professor at California State University, East Bay, about “Gun Control” not long ago and I brought up that when the English Bill of Rights was instituted in 1689, Roman Catholics were denied the right to keep & bear arms that was recognized for the king’s subjects who were Protestants, because, when you want to oppress people and keep them down and out of power, you deny them the right to keep & bear arms.

    It was very amusing to me that that was the end of the conversation.

    Like

  10. The modern Democratic party is not the one of old. That party died no latter than the 1990’s. The current version is descended from the communist/fascist/socialist movements that made the twentieth century the bloodiest in 5000 years of recorded history. They killed more human beings (men, women, children) in time of piece than were killed war. Here is a video on that:

    This video deals in facts the left likes to deny and leftist YouTube is trying to censor it now.

    Molon Labe!
    Keep your powder dry and your faith in God.

    Like

  11. Just wanted to see the activity on this since Parkland. I see you’ve been very busy. The leftists have dropped their masks as of late.

    Like

  12. I like this one:
    “If the opposition disarms, all is well and good. If it refuses to disarm, we shall disarm it ourselves.” — Stalin (Works, Vol.10, p.378., from a speech in 1927)

    Like

  13. “If someone is so fearful that they are going to start using their weapons to protect their rights, it makes me very nervous that these people have weapons at all.” U.S. Rep. Henry Waxman

    EXACTLY what the 2nd. Amendment is about.
    Be careful what you wish for.

    Like

    1. ““If someone is so fearful that they are going to start using their weapons to protect their rights, it makes me very nervous that these people have weapons at all.” U.S. Rep. Henry Waxman”

      I have a meme picture of this statement by Waxhead with the 2nd “weapons” changed to “rights,” which makes it make a lot more sense and more clearly expresses what’s in the guy’s wax head and stone heart.

      “”“If someone is so fearful that they are going to start using their weapons to protect their rights, it makes me very nervous that these people have RIGHTS at all.” U.S. Rep. Henry Waxman””

      Like

  14. “Arms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property… Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them.”
    — Thomas Paine

    Like

  15. In order to present a viable option for consideration, READ THIS in its entirety , and recognize that cars KILL FAR MORE PEOPLE THAN GUNS. THEN merely INSERT CAR at every place GUN is used. This may give you a new perspective on just how foolish BANNING GUNS really ois.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s