By Dean Weingarten
Arizona -(Ammoland.com)- The Boston Globe recent ran an article where it acknowledged the obvious: the long term goal of the gun control movement (recently relabeled as “gun safety”), is to confiscate a large number of Americans’ firearms.
The Globe has almost everything else wrong in its article, but they are honest about the desire for gun confiscation.
In other words, the proposals aren’t just difficult to enact in the current political climate; their practical effects would also be quite limited. On occasion, though, leading Democrats will make oblique reference to a more sweeping policy change: seizing a huge number of weapons from law-abiding citizens.
At a New Hampshire forum in the fall of 2015, Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton spoke approvingly of an Australian gun buyback program that collected more than 650,000 weapons — a buyback that, she neglected to mention, was compulsory.
(snip)
The logic of gun control lies, at bottom, in substantially reducing the number of deadly weapons on the street — and confiscation is far and away the most effective approach. Is there any conceivable turn of events in our politics that could make confiscation happen? And what would a mass seizure look like?
Then the article goes on to praise the imposition of extreme restrictions on gun ownership in Australia, and to put forward claims that the restrictions “worked”. Those claims are easily countered. That is not what we are dealing with here.
Ultimately, the Globe admits that massive gun confiscation is not possible, at least now, at least not directly.
Why are so many people on the political left willing to consider confiscating guns, in direct violation of the Constitution, with the obvious high costs, high risks, and low chance of success? Here are some reasons:
- It is easy to support laws that do not cost *you* anything, which you perceive to be of any benefit to you. The vast majority of those supporting confiscation do not own guns. They see guns as a threat. They have no desire to own guns. They are perfectly happy to have guns confiscated because their property will not be confiscated. It is the same idea as supporting taxes on *other people*.
- They see no benefit to gun ownership. Therefore, they see gun ownership as an irresponsible act. They see the manufacture of guns as an irresponsible act in and of itself. The only things they see about guns are costs. With no benefits to the ownership of guns, they can demonize gun owners and feel righteous about any harm that comes to gun owners.
- They believe they can make gun owners pay all the administrative costs of gun confiscation, registration, inspections, storage, gun modifications etc. That is the plan used throughout the world. The payment for guns in the Australian scheme is unusual. Usually guns are just taken. If the government passes a law requiring you to store your guns in a safe, the government requires you to buy a safe. They do not issue one. If the government spends 5 billion dollars a year in gun registration administration, they charge gun owners for the cost.
- They see no risk from a confiscation effort. Over and over, people who want confiscation say if there is any blood shed, it will be gun owner’s blood, not their blood. They believe in a powerful, relentless state that will crush the opposition while they remain in their urban centers, safe and happy. They think gun owners will just passively wait for the gun confiscation police to come to their door, and only then offer resistance, if at all.
- They do not believe the Second Amendment is legitimate. That is how they rationalize their opposition. Many believe the Constitution, as written, is not legitimate.
- They are profoundly ignorant about guns, gun legislation, military history, and gun technology. They are often proud of this ignorance.
Most of these beliefs are casually held, absorbed by osmosis, as it were, in an environment where they are assumed to be true and self evident.
Second Amendment supporters can easily counter these beliefs, which are rooted in false assumptions about reality. Persuasion is best accomplished without insults or other personal attacks. Second Amendment supporters will know they have won when they are the one receiving the insults and personal attacks.
Here are simple, but powerful arguments to challenge those false assumptions.
Guns have benefits. Use examples of guns saving lives. Cite John Lott’s work.
Gun Control has high costs and no benefits. Lots of Scholarship available.
Steps below massive confiscation are futile.
The only legitimate way to confiscate guns is to repeal the Second Amendment.
Confiscation risks a bloody civil war where everyone will be personally at risk.
Second Amendment Supporters are motivated, trained, and do not share their belief structure.
Take a non-shooter shooting. It shatters false assumptions.
©2017 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included.
About Dean Weingarten:
Dean Weingarten has been a peace officer, a military officer, was on the University of Wisconsin Pistol Team for four years, and was first certified to teach firearms safety in 1973. He taught the Arizona concealed carry course for fifteen years until the goal of constitutional carry was attained. He has degrees in meteorology and mining engineering, and recently retired from the Department of Defense after a 30 year career in Army Research, Development, Testing, and Evaluation.
The only legitimate way to confiscate guns is to repeal the Second Amendment.
Did the seventy men of Joh Parker’s Lexington Militia have a second ammendment? No. Fact is, they wre under orders to surrender their arms. Remembe,r it is NOT that Second Article of Ammendment that “gives’ or “protects” our right to arms. That stack of words commands government at all levels to recognise we already HAVE the right, and that NO such government can ever restrict it. For a y cause.
I beg to differ. Repealing the Second Amendment would accomplish no practical purpose. Why? Because the Second Amendment does not ‘grant’ rights, only guarantees ‘God-given’ natural existing rights. Repeal of any constitutional right does not automatically negate that right. The Second Amendment is not a right ‘granted’ by the Constitution. In the US Supreme Court case US v Cruikshank the Justices wrote, :The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence…” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Cruikshank Under the Constitution the federal government is given only limited, specific, ‘enumerated’ powers.… Read more »
Apparently this is an on-going problem. Hard to figure out if it is technical or some ‘moderator.’ Either way you are correct a ‘culled’ discussion is no discussion at all.
Two things that the gun grabbers seem to forget, 1. The government couldn’t find 11 million illegals, what makes them think that they can find 300 million guns? 2. Don’t like guns? Don’t buy one. Don’t like your rights taken away? Then don’t take away someone else’s. And a question for the anti-gun crowd. If I see that you and your family are being assaulted by a thug, do I: 1. Come to your aid with my legally carried gun. 2. Or just walk on by and let the thug do what he wants to do to you and your… Read more »
I agree with you. But the scenario between guns and illegals is very different. The government does not WANT to find the illegals. OTW they would raid every 7-11, Quiktrip, etc. any morning or any lunch time. The elite horsepetutes want their cheap gardeners, nannies, etc ‘will go to extraordinary lengths to protect them. Hence sanctuary cities, churches exist and are fully supported. Since the crime occurs largely in the ‘barrios’ and not in the burbs the cost is ‘acceptable.’ In the matter of guns they, the virtuous elite, would rat out a gun owner in a heartbeat. I am… Read more »
@PP, You are quite correct, and good opsec, too!
@OV, Many dogs die a painful death at Christmas time each year from munching the glass Christmas ornaments. Please do be careful. Place any glass ornament up high on the tree. Sammy could ruin his Christmas and yours.
You have another comment that I can partly read in the recent comments section, but I can not reach for answering. Yet.
@OV, Well, that is theoretically possible. But is that what it takes now? Police can’t read the law, Constitution, or legal decisions. Police do what ever they like until a court tells them to stop in no uncertain terms? I hope police executives are better than that.
@OV, I understand your point, and the court could make such an order after someone is harmed. The Ninth Circuit has many restraining orders against the INS (now ICE).
Yes I always get a big laugh when I see a car or pickup with all kinds of gun stickers on it. Out where I live this is considered to be an invitation to “Come and Rob Me”.
who would have thunk that one of the two fake news news papers that started the Spanish American War would call for gun confiscations. Such stupid liberalism needs to be locked up in an insane asylum.
The politicians better become familiar with the Declaration of Independence: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles… Read more »
….to effect their safety and happiness…;)
“it is their right, their duty…” critical phrase.
“Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”
Once again the Boston Glob (purposesly misspelled) along with the NY Slimes and Washington Compost and MSLSD will always get it wrong and these brain washed liberals will never change.
Let’s not kid ourselves. Confiscation is always being discussed in the “hallways” of Congress, and I mean hallways. Lots of little nooks and rooms away from the eyes and ears of citizens. Also, it’s not just Democrats doing the deed, many Republicans are coming around to their way of thinking. The Republican party is rotten to the core. Don’t believe these “so-called” NRA ratings that assign a grade to members of Congress that “supposedly reflects” their 2A support. Most Republicans won’t even support P-Trump. 2A rights are being “chipped” away everyday by corrupt and dishonest politicians of both parties. It’s… Read more »
@Chuckbone56: Highly unlikely. The Govt. would have to target gun owners to withhold food and exactly how would they do that without keeping food from everyone else? That would simply accelerate and foment further dissent. That’s not what will happen.
@Vanns, If it were me, I would create a nationwide emergency. Create a domestic a EMP incident. That would shut down all three grids, resulting in no electricity, no clean water, no resupply, no gasoline or diesel, and very few operating vehicles. Stores looted, pantries run out, the old, weak, and untalented die off, FEMA sets up, lines form to get a daily ration of one MRE per person in line, and an extra ration for a gun turned in. The bureaucracy declares itself “the Government”, sets aside the Constitution, and issues emergency orders. A generation later… everyone is used… Read more »
It’s an idea but won’t work because the Govt itself would be in such disarray that by the time they could think about mobilization that the men who man the National Guard, who were at home, would be forming with their neighbors into enclaves. Remember there are very few govt resources that are hardened against an EMP. The sheer number of civilians would overwhelm any attempt at order after two weeks. Estimates are that after the first year we’d likely lose 50% of the population. Not to mention that govt forces would have a far more serious problem to contend… Read more »
@Vanns, I hope that you are right, but every federal regulatory agency has a Continuation of Government plan that the agencies practice once per year. The COG plans do not include Congress, the S.Ct. or the president. Also every military base in CONUS has been ordered to be able to produce their own electricity, if civilian sources of electricity fail.
Correct on the electricity EXCEPT they are not equipped to resist an EMP. They’d be fried in an instant along with all the rest of everything that relied on computers and circuit boards. It’s a very few top level Govt facilities that have been hardened. All their vehicles…..BAM, useless.
Actually the COG plans do include the President, SCOTUS, and Congress.
@DLC, The COG plans that I participated in did not include Congress, POTUS, or S.CT. I knew that the Congress and POTUS have their own plans. So, I would like to hear about the COG plans that include the Cong., Pres, and S.Ct.
I don’t doubt you, but I can’t just take your word for it.
@Vanns, a coalition of federal regulatory agencies would want the rest of the government, the military services, and local police in disarray. The hypothetical coalition of fed. reg. agencies would want everyone to experience a shortage of resources, and then everyone would have to come to them for food, water, and logistics of every kind. We would all have to fall in line to get fed. If the military services, who might oppose the take over, had no vehicles, or electricity, then they would have to get in line, too. After the young, healthy survivors are used to the idea… Read more »
The first part wouldn’t be feasible and a survey of the military, some dozen years ago, revealed that 78% of the military would refuse ANY order to fire on Americans. Your theory falls flat. They cannot and will not attempt to disarm the American public.
This discussion only has merit if our system of govt completely collapses. If that occurs many of the current military and police will be fighting with us against whomever is attempting to rule.
@Vanns, This is only a hypothetical, but with the deep state, Obama true believers, hidden in the federal bureaucracy, they could see a total collapse of our system as a viable alternative to DJT and going back to the Constitution.
An incident like that reads more to me like a way to get this issue resolved once and for all. If the grid goes down because the SHTF everyone in my immediate neighborhood left standing is going to be a full fledged 2A supporter.
@OV, I believe that EMP only effects circuitry that is on or not protected by a Faraday cage. Thus if my hypothetical coalition of federal regulatory agencies were to cause an EMP to deprive the nation, military, and any one else that might oppose them, that coalition would put their vehicles indoors and turn them off. Thus the coalition would have vehicles, and those of us that would oppose them would have horses and carts.
I had nothing to do with Weststar Energy or Gordon Evans. Moved to Kansas in `78 and worked for a Beech dealer as a pilot/flight instructor.
Spent my spare time with Phil Journey hanging out at gun shows passing out information. Eventually Phil became a State Senator and wrote the first concealed carry law that passed. Now he’s a District Court [county judge].
There are a few Macklin’s, but I’m not related to most of them 😎
The current scientific thinking on EMP is that most modern vehicles will not be affected by the EMP because they have so much shielding to prevent computer noise from interfering with the entertainment system, plus, they are not grounded and therefore there is no ‘potential difference’ (voltage) between circuit terminals. They won’t operate very long, though, because fueling stations require electricity to pump fuel, and even if generators are available and still working, they, too, will run out of fuel.
The government will use food supply to take our weapons. Be ready. Prepare. Plan. Food and water for a year is a lot.
As you said, the people in favor of confiscation have no skin in the game. I would let them get involved by donating the money necessary to offer full retail price for any firearms voluntarily turned in by their owners. Of course many gun owners would choose not to sell back their weapons, but this move would go a ways toward injecting some credibility into their “movement”.
@jh45gun Macklin: Probably tweeting “the gun confiscators are coming”! :). The compliance rate in NY, with their SAFE law is around 7%. Folks will just not comply with illegal laws, the one exception being Australia and they sealed their fate. California May have the laws with more on the way but the compliance rate is still just about New York’s.
In the Boston suburbs gun confiscation has been tried and it resulted in several innocent deaths and teh Birth of A Nation.
I guess Boston has forgotten their heroes.
Steering his Mustang along Boston roads, shouting The Democrats are coming, to arms, they’re comeing to take you away.
To Arms.
The result was this… war, and victory.
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state? [Yes, true, therefore]
“The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
Is that clear?
@OV, I admit that when it comes to knowledge of Gordon Evans, I an a no go. So learn me up. Who is Gordon Evans?
@OV, “They” must be on to us! “They” will send the men in black out to nuralize our memories!
I’d like to believe a basic premise of Dean’s, but it fails on a reality test basis. He states, “Second Amendment supporters can easily counter these beliefs, which are rooted in false assumptions about reality. Persuasion is best accomplished without insults or other personal attacks. Second Amendment supporters will know they have won when they are the one receiving the insults and personal attacks.” Unfortunately we cannot “easily counter these beliefs” because, like all beliefs, they are not based on logic, but on faith. They KNOW that guns are evil and only have one use. They are not open to… Read more »
The bottom line is that if the 2nd Amendment is ever repealed or if gun confiscation ever becomes the “law of the land” and a similar program of Australian buy back or seizure is initiated, who is going to enforce it? I know a lot of LEOs (Federal and local) and the vast majority of them are not stupid. Think about it. Suddenly, if AR and AK owners who refuse to turn their weapons in are now classified as felons, they would be heavily armed felons with most likely a lot of ammo. Most LEOs in that situation, when ordered… Read more »
More Marxist materialist drivel oozing from the zombie DemoRats. The DemoRats can’ stop their compulsion to interpose evil into the world. Clearly a case of psychotic displacement.
Okay, you’ve made yourself feel better with your comments and little else. How about a comment that actually offers something of value rather than the usual bitching, complaining and calling names?
Any attempt at confiscation will result in prosecution under 18USC2383 and associated statutes for “Rebellion and Insurrection” against the United States Constitution. And repealing the 2nd Amendment does not change our right to keep and bear arms, which we will use to protect our right to keep and bear arms.
how about this……..if confiscation comes, bring it home to those voting “they’s”. Start sending THEM bullets (at per second, per second)
Fight islam Now
You’re conflating two separate issues and not really addressing either successfully. Stick to one: I ask the gun banners if they will volunteer to be on the front lines to confiscate guns. The answer is always “no, that’s what the police are for”. So, they’re willing to toss the police as cannon fodder for those who believe that the Second Amendment and the right to self defense is inviolate, assuming the police would even be willing to violate their oaths of office, but they’ll stay nice and safe? Hah, I’m sure that’ll go over very well. My next question is… Read more »
@FIN, You have to have a list, by name and address. Then you have to surveil them to get their pattern down. Got time and money for all that? On the other hand… holding your nose, registering every voting age member of your family, and going to the primary elections to vote for the nonparty hack, uncorrupted candidate costs almost nothing!