Confiscation or “Mandatory Buyback”?

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmail
Facebooktwittergoogle_pluspinterestyoutube

If it looks like a duck… READ MORE

gun confiscation

SOURCE: NRA-ILA

It is interesting to watch certain Democrats struggle when trying to convince law-abiding gun owners how “reasonable” it is for the government to take away your firearms. Do the anti-gun groups and candidates pushing confiscation honestly believe you’ll be fooled?

The Democrat plan to confiscate your firearms isn’t in question. In fact, the plan was laid bare by Robert Francis O’Rourke when, during the third Democrat Presidential Debates, he proclaimed, “Hell yes, we’re gonna take your AR-15, your AK47….” Prior to this broadcast, most Democrats were more subtle, promoting what they euphemistically called a “mandatory buy-back” program for most semi-automatic rifles, shotguns, and handguns (so-called “assault weapons”). In the hope of capturing voters, they opted to soothe instead of share, and continually shied away from admitting the true goal: confiscation.

But as the saying goes, if it looks like a duck…

Leading up to the fourth Democrat debate, the effort to disguise confiscation as something else continued. Pete Buttigieg, the Mayor of South Bend, Indiana, complained in an interview with Snapchat’s Good Luck America about the Democrats’ “fight over confiscation,” which was distracting from other, more palatable infringements on your Second Amendment rights. Buttigieg’s comment seemed to be a continuation of his spat with O’Rourke earlier this month in Las Vegas.

After the Good Luck America interview was released, another Democrat presidential “hopeful,” New Jersey Senator Cory Booker, decided he needed to chastise Buttigieg for simply telling the truth. Booker tweeted, “Calling buyback programs ‘confiscation’ is doing the NRA’s work for them, @PeteButtigieg — and they don’t need our help.” Interestingly, Booker didn’t challenge the idea that “mandatory buyback” schemes, which he proudly supports, and confiscation are really the same thing. His complaint was over the accepted terminology for confiscation, not the confiscation itself.

Of course, part of NRA’s “work” is exposing the lies of the anti-gun movement, and bringing the truth to light. We welcome any “help” in that arena, even if it comes from hyperbolic Democrats who fundamentally misunderstand firearms. Buttigieg may be wrong about promoting other anti-gun policies, but at least he is honest about another Democrat’s desire for confiscation.

To be clear, though, he hasn’t said that he is entirely opposed to confiscation. He’s merely said he is opposed to talking about it right now.

And that kind of makes sense, politically. The four Democrat candidates that are leading in the polls–Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren, Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, former Vice President Joe Biden, and Buttigieg–have all referred to supporting a “voluntary buyback” scheme, rather than confiscation. Booker, O’Rourke, and California Senator Kamala Harris have all called for confiscation, and are all struggling in the low- to mid-single digits.

This week, during the fourth debate, banning AR-15s and other “assault weapons” was again brought up. And the sparks flew between Bittigieg and O’Rourke.

Moderator Anderson Cooper asked O’Rourke how his “mandatory buyback” would work if, as O’Rourke has claimed, police would not be going door-to-door to confiscate firearms. After insulting every single lawful owner of an AR-15 by claiming their firearm is a “potential instrument of terror,” “Beto” then stated he expects everyone to simply follow the law.

And that may very well be the case, for those who wish to remain law-abiding. But those who have malice in mind will not. Those who have acquired the tools of their criminal trade illegally will not. And while NRA strongly encourages gun owners to obey gun laws and work to change those with which they disagree, there are many otherwise law-abiding citizens who, when faced with a law they feel is unjust or unconstitutional, will simply not comply.

Cooper pressed O’Rourke to explain how he intends to treat those who currently own AR-15s and similar firearms, and do not turn them in, if his ban were to become law. The candidate said, “If someone does not turn in an AR-15…then that weapon will be taken from them.”

…if it swims like a duck…

O’Rourke went beyond mere confiscation, though, and offered a chilling, Swalwell-like statement about “other consequences from law enforcement.”

Mayor Buttigieg was given an opportunity to speak on the subject, where he made clear that the confiscation plan is not off the table for him. He suggested that if O’Rourke could come up with a more developed scheme, “I think we can have a debate about it.” Harkening back to the anti-gun rally in Las Vegas earlier this month, when O’Rourke all but called Buttigieg a coward for not currently supporting confiscation, the South Bend Mayor slapped down the failed Texas Senate candidate when he stated, “I don’t need lessons from you on courage.”

Before the back-and-forth between Buttigieg and O’Rourke devolved into a full-blown slap-fight, Cooper allowed some of the other candidates on the stage to weigh in on banning semi-automatic firearms.

Senator Booker pretended to be concerned about how the candidates “talk to each other and about each other,” then began talking about his gun licensing scheme without talking about the confiscation plan he has already stated he supports.

Minnesota Senator Amy Klobuchar talked about a number of anti-gun proposals, did not say that she specifically opposes confiscation, but has stated in the past that she supports “voluntary buybacks,” rather than confiscation.

Senator Warren talked about treating semi-automatic firearms like AR-15s the same as fully-automatic firearms, invoking the registration and taxation scheme under the National Firearms Act (NFA). She also called for an end to the filibuster in the Senate to help ram through gun control legislation.

Senator Harris then grossly underestimated the number of so-called “assault weapons,” saying there are only five million, when most estimates put the number at over 15 million for just AR-15s. Perhaps she is trying to minimize the impact her anti-gun efforts will have on law-abiding Americans by lying about how many will be affected. She also repeated her audacious plan of using her executive authority as President to do what has already been done. While she didn’t actually say she supports confiscation on the debate stage this week, she has stated support for it in the past.

Former Vice President Biden stumbled through his statement next. He talked about the failed Clinton gun ban of 1994-2004 — trying to take sole credit for its passage — brought up registering AR-15s under the NFA–presumably to show he doesn’t support confiscation–and spoke of repealing the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA).

The last candidate given an opportunity to speak about confiscation was former HUD Secretary Julián Castro. He stated he is opposed to confiscation because he does not want to see police going door-to-door to implement the policy, as he expressed concerns over “police violence.”

So, while some candidates sparred over what to call the confiscation scheme, others made clear their opposition to it…for now.

…and if it quacks like a duck…

While the Democrat debate ended Tuesday night, the debate over what to call gun confiscation continues. In fact, on MSNBC the following day, O’Rourke spoke to Joe Scarborough to make sure everyone understood his position; and his preferred terminology. While Scarborough correctly referred to the plan as confiscation, O’Rourke claimed it was not, and continually referred to a “buyback.”

Scarborough labored to get the candidate to admit confiscation is his goal, suggesting a hypothetical Texas rancher who simply does not feel a ban on AR-15s is just or constitutional. In response, O’Rourke said that, as with any law, “there have to be consequences,” and in Scarborough’s hypothetical scenario, “there would be a visit by law enforcement.”

Look, if you have to send law enforcement to someone’s house to remove their lawfully acquired property under threat of penalty, you can try to say that’s NOT confiscation…

…but it is probably a duck.

 

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmail

14 thoughts on “Confiscation or “Mandatory Buyback”?”

  1. So the Swamp creatures that took an “Oath of office to support and uphold the Constitution of the United States” are now willfully and openly violating that oath and violating the 2nd amendment. First they should be removed from office for “lying to Congress” given the fact they took that sworn oath before a “ranking member” and also they’re violating the second amendment by “infringing” on the rights of Americans. All of us “Law abiding citizens” realize that the truth behind the buybacks or confiscations is to remove the resistance to the tyrannical overthrow of the government!

    1. Amen!! Our forefathers were some very intelligent men!!! If the Dem’s don’t like this country and it’s constitution then leave !!! We don’t need you!!

  2. How many Americans are they willing to kill to take legally purchased firearms from them? A lot will hand them over and a lot will hide them and then you have the ones that will make you take them. If they kill a few will the rest fall in line? Will you open your gun safe for them when they come or will they drag it out of your house? These things seem like they can never happen but a local police dept. in Maryland shot and killed a man when they can to take his guns from his home. These may be scary times coming.

  3. NRA is a thug organization akin to mafia and your verbiage clearly shows what a true part of the mob you are. Lifelong dem, gun owner and hunter here…and wouldn’t have voted Beto either way, especially with his statement of hell yes. That said, it’s too easy for any dumbass to get a gun and to turn it over to the wrong person.

  4. Someone should tell these posturing fools that you can’t “buy back” something you never owned, and the only person who’s owned my semi-auto AR-15 “weapon of war” (because the military uses AR-15’s right?) is me.

    And by the way, I’m not interested in selling.

    There aren’t enough suicidal cops in the world that will go door to door trying to take personally owned legal property.

  5. It is glaringly disingenuous for the gaggles of socialist dems to proclaim that my semiauto firearms and full capacity mags are “weapons of war that have no place on the streets of the US”. And yet, none of these same hypocritical do-gooders have proposed removing these “weapons of war” from our civilian law enforcement agencies. If the socialist dems are really serious about their “common sense gun safety measures”, they should start by removing the “weapons of war” from their security staffs and from all civilian law enforcement officers. I would love to see the stuttering, spineless response from those complicit Chiefs of Police, who support the socialist dems’ confiscation schemes, when the politicians send in the Gestapo to retrieve their agencies’ “weapons of war”. Didn’t our law enforcement officers “win the west” with 6-shot, single-action revolvers and lever-action rifles?

  6. The current administrative state is incompatible with freedom, the bill of rights and the constitution!
    Add to their already overbearing, over reach for power a monopoly of violence and we are at war!
    Consider giving the government even more control of your life by enacting Medicare for all will absolutely raise everyone’s taxes and overall cost of living. Healthcare is 1/5 of our economy and will bankrupt, destroy and enslave every American.
    Time to nut up America! I WILL NOT COMPLY!! SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!!!

  7. If the ar is considered an assult rifle , then the Dems “ar” an assult/insult of the Constitution and are they ready for confiscation and destruction. For everyone they destroy one anti-idiot non 2a should go with it and be put down. Are they willing to do that for country, if not do it the legal , lawful and owners of law abiding AMERICANS.

  8. Make no mistake about it my friends… The democrat party is not what it used to be…. They are now a Communist/Socialist Party who want to have total government control over the people… If you’re looking for proof, just look at Bernie Sanders, Kamala Harris, Nancy Pelosi, Diane Finestein, Chuck Shumer, Gavin Newsome, and Cory Booker just to name a few. They believe in a Constitution for the Government by the Government. They are coming for our “Freedoms”…. The freedom of Speech, Freedom of Expression, The Right to Keep And Bear Arms, and the list goes on!!!! They’re not getting away with it if I have anything to say about it.

  9. Simple fact is anyone can make a firearm now with 3D printers and mini mills…the thought of keeping track of a firearm with serial numbers with national registry is only spewed by complete idiots, so called progressive thinkers and narrassitic tyrants. What it means is only criminals and government will be able to have them law abiding citizens will be slaughtered like sheep … history has show this will happen…without fail.

  10. A good close friend of mine was a well known gunsmith in the 80’s / 90’s, [ He passed away in 2014 ] Right before the Govt Burned Down the Devideons in Waco , He was Visiting some FBI snipers who just rotated out of Waco and they shared this info with him . Janet Reno was told by her ‘religious experts’ to Block the rear of the compound and set it on fire and all the Women would grab their kids and leave out the front door , Because , as the experts said , No women will let their kid die in a horrible fire , And so that will cause all the men to give up … If you know the rest of this story then you have your answer to the question of would the Government knock down your door shoot you and take your weapons … Or in the case of Ruby Ridge just shoot you when you leave to go get food or water …Good Luck Boys .

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *