They aren’t coming for your guns until they are. Liberals pushing their bullshit “commonsense” gun safety reforms (AKA gun control) always insist “no one is coming for your guns.” It may be kind of non-shocking to most people, but liberals are liars. The Boston Globe has had enough of this Constitutionally protected freedom and is actually calling on the government to confiscate firearms from law-abiding citizens.
You know me, I don’t exaggerate this stuff, I just calls ‘em like I sees ‘em. Check out this very real BG headline: Hand over your weapons
Why? Liberalism, of course, but more specifically because the liberal writer recognizes that gun control is ineffective at reducing crime in any way:
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.
The Globe also seems to think that confiscating all semi-automatic weapons in America will be no big deal because they did it in Australia. He leaves out the part about how the US has a 2nd Amendment while no such Constitutional guarantee exists in the Land Down Under.
It took just 12 days for conservative Prime Minister John Howard to announce a full slate of gun restrictions in a nation with a long tradition of frontier firearms. There was a ban on automatic and semi-automatic weapons and shotguns, an extensive registration system, and a 28-day waiting period between getting a permit and buying a gun.
But the centerpiece was the mandatory buyback, with a temporary tax financing the multimillion dollar purchase of hundreds of thousands of weapons deemed illegal under the new law.
The writer also believes that the Supreme Court DC v. Heller decision that cemented gun ownership as an individual right would be the grounds for confiscating weapons from American individuals.
While the Second Amendment isn’t absolute — no less than conservative Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia ruled that it’s “not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose”— it would undoubtedly serve as the basis for a robust legal challenge to any involuntary buyback program. And the courts would not be the only site of resistance.
Also in that ruling, Scalia stated that the government had no authority to deny ownership of firearms in common use. Semi automatic weapons are by far the most commonly owned guns in America, both rifles and handguns.
But what about the ridiculous notion that to confiscate guns, the government will have to go door-to-door and try to disarm millions of Americans who won’t be too keen on surrendering their weapons? The author has that covered. He thinks laws allowing anyone to file a gun restraining order on someone else will do the trick:
…restraining orders and other measures designed to deprive the most dangerous people of guns — like background checks and tighter restrictions on domestic abusers — are more politically viable, and legally defensible, than gun confiscation. And they can have an impact…
After making no valid or realistic points whatsoever, the writer of this abomination concluded things like this:
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.
Just for fun I want the liberal asshole who wrote this to kick in one door and try to confiscate one firearm. Molon Labe.