Washington Post: We Need to Confiscate Guns
I am going to say it right out, I hate these Lefty jackals who are determined to take away my right to own a gun. They are all in for protecting the rights of gays, the rights of illegal aliens, and the rights of Black Lives Matter rioters destroying public property. But when it comes to 2nd Amendment, Constitutionally guaranteed rights that allows me to own a firearm to protect me and my family, not so much.
President Obama just did an end run around Congress, you know, the fellows we elect to make the laws, and instead decreed his own executive action laws to try and prevent law abiding citizens access to legal weaponry. The proposals seem benign, but will have many unintended (or completely intended but undisclosed) consequences.
Obama cites the mass murders that have occurred in recent years as justification for his actions, but fails to mention that not one of his proposals would have had any impact at all on the instances that he cites. Instead, his proposals would simply increase the prices of guns dramatically, and would prevent the gifting of guns from father to son or between friends. All this at a time that Obama has opened up the floodgates to tens of thousands of Muslim immigrants who we cannot properly vet to see if they are refugees or ISIS terrorists.
That is the very definition of insanity.
It is hard to understand why the Left, as exemplified by the Washington Post newspaper, would be so insistent about disarming the law-abiding citizens of the U.S. They cannot point to one instance of an NRA member who “went rogue” and shot up the town. If that happened, they would shriek to the high heavens about the need to dismantle the organization. Instead, they offer up their pipe dream, which is not only dishonest, but completely irrational.
According to WAPO, confiscation “is likely the only policy that would dramatically reduce gun violence in the United States.” They cite the possibility of disillusionment with the executive actions Obama put forward on January 5, based on the fact that Obama admitted the actions “might have only a modest impact” at best.
WAPO quoted Obama speaking at the January 7 gun control town hall, saying, “We’re not going to eliminate gun violence, but we will lessen it. If we take that number from 30,000 down to, let’s say, 28,000, that’s 2,000 families who don’t have to go through what the families at Newtown or San Bernardino or Charleston went through.”
The Washington Post observed:
Obama believes his policies can save thousands of lives a year, but acknowledges that gun shots would still kill tens of thousands of Americans annually. That intense level of firearms violence is one that Obama and other gun-control advocates might be forced to tolerate unless they push measures that are more invasive than background checks.
The Post says one policy that has worked in other countries is confiscation. They point to “Australia’s mandatory buy-back scheme” as an example of such a policy. And Obama and Hillary Clinton have both pointed to such a confiscatory scheme at various times themselves.
In quick review, it is worth pointing out that the 30,000 gun deaths include about 20,000 suicides, and there is little doubt that those individuals would find other ways of removing themselves from the gene pool.
Background checks, as a precursor to confiscation, will engender deep distrust, and the bad guys don’t buy their guns from Wal-Mart in any event. It is entirely likely that Obama will come up with other programs that will seek to limit access to guns, and the biggest irony is that Obama himself has been the most successful gun salesmen ever seen as the people start to recognize his plan to take their guns away. U.S. citizens have seen what took place in other countries and they will not be fooled.
Gun confiscation may indeed be the next step the Left wants to try, but they should be ready for a long, pitched battle since few gun owners will hand over their personal security system without a fight.
Source: breitbart.com
