Remember, No One Wants to Take Your Guns

This may be a bit of hate click trolling on the part of the Boston Globe, but here you do have a major newspaper calling for…. taking people’s guns.

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?

You really don’t want to know what it would look like. They later go on to suggest that they’ll be kind to us and offer $500 per gun confiscated, instead of the $200 per gun offered by Australia.

Part of the problem is the sheer scale of the enterprise. An operation on par with the Australian buyback — claiming one-fifth of American guns — would mean tens of thousands of police officers collecting some 60 million guns. It is, on some level, simply unimaginable.

But perhaps gun-control advocates can propose something smaller — something more targeted.

Yes, it is unimaginable. So is the push back you will put in motion by passing this kind of policy. What scares me is, eventually, the Democrats will return to power. It’s not a matter of if, it’s a matter of when. And if Democrats are still talking like this when they regain power, we are in for some very dark times.

The author goes on to suggest that California’s program of actively confiscating firearms of prohibited persons would be a model that would have stopped the Texas shooter. How? The feds didn’t have his record you ignorant prat. There isn’t some kind of voodoo the feds can use that will make a record in a filing cabinet on an air force base in New Mexico suddenly end up in the NCIC.

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.

But yeah, I’m a paranoid conspiracy nut for thinking that people out there want to take my guns. I’m crazy for thinking that’s the goal. Outrageous for even suggesting that’s a serious proposal. Yeah, piss off.

45 thoughts on “Remember, No One Wants to Take Your Guns”

  1. I think it is refreshing how many anti-gunners since 2012 are admitting they want to confiscate guns, instead of keeping up their game of pretending otherwise.

    Clearly, many of them believe that this is a sign of their political strength. “The nation is at a tipping point!”, they keep saying.

    But I suspect that their discarding of their disguise of moderation is actually a sign of their political weakness and personal despair. The nation may indeed be at a tipping point, but not one of their liking.

    1. I keep hearing people saying “nobody wants to take your guns”, and then articles like this appear. I believe they either don’t want to admit it, or are completely ignorant (surprise!) about it.

      1. I’ve had enough conversations with these people to realize that when they say “nobody wants to take your guns”, they really mean nobody wants to take *all* the guns from *everyone*. They certainly want to take all the guns from some people (felons, miscreancts, those who expouse “hate”), and they most certainly want to take some of the guns from everyone (guns that are too “assaulty”, too big, or too small). And come to think of it, when they say “nobody”, they really mean not everyone.

        1. Yeah, you never have to dig too deep under the fake claims of “nobody wants to take your guns away!” before revealing the ugly truth. Those claims are about as insincere as the anti-gunners claims of “I support the 2nd Amendment!”.

          Under any regime of gun-control *somebody* will still have guns. Gun-control is essentially the position that only the police should have guns. (a big reason the Lefty coalition of the gun-control movement and Black Lives Matter movement is inherently unstable)

          I long ago came to the flinty eyed realization that for all the talk about crime and “gun deaths”, that the real objective of the gun-control crowd was less altruistic and more selfish. Gun-control is nothing more than the campaign by the Rich and the Powerful, to disarm the Poor and the Powerless. Gun-control was never really about crime control, it was always about political power.

  2. The question they refuse to answer is this. There are what, 120 million gun owners in this country. If even a fraction of them say “NO” to confiscation, what then?

    I often wonder if those who want confiscation have ever given any thought to how it would work from a practical standpoint.

    1. Gun banners know the process will be slow.

      Just like the army “softens up” a target with artillery before an attack and uses strategic air attacks to cut off supplies …

      First you cut off supplies of new guns and ammunition through laws, and get as many people to turn in guns as will. You ignore the holdouts, while waiting for guns to slowly diminish in ownership through attrition because guns aren’t easily replaced when stolen, lost, picked up through some unrelated police action, etc.

      Once you’ve gotten these done, you start picking off gun owners wherever you can. This will encourage more people to turn in guns, and make sure holdouts stay underground and can’t pass their guns or culture off to others. NO more shooting ranges or anything that promotes guns. Schools officially teach the evils of past gun ownership.

      Once there are few enough gun holdouts, and that may take 20 years (but who cares), you start aggressive enforcement, one at a time. And then swat teams over a period of years will finish the confiscation by taking guns from the cold, dead hands of their owners.

      The banners know it will take a generation or more to truly disarm most law-abiding Americans, but they’d like to start ASAP. And taking guns from “cold dead hands” is fine …

      1. That slow boil process pretty well describes what has been going on in the anti-gun Blue States since the 1980’s.

        The remaining Free States of America should heed the warning provided by the actions of the Blue States.

        1. to clarify

          so far the process is slower and less violent than what Stephen described!

          But I’m watching what’s been going on recently in Massachusetts with keen interest. Life in prison for possession of a “bump stock”? Okay then…

  3. Because of similar talk recently, and because of Feinstein’s rehash of the AWB, I finally got around to finishing an 80% lower I had lying around. I’ve got a whole box of other ones I need to finish in the future.

    Still, it’s nice having done something by hand that is in no official government record (probably is now, I suppose, now that I’ve mentioned it online).

  4. The amount of cognitive disconnect I’ve seen is astounding. From people denying Australia did confiscate guns, to supporting it because ‘it worked’, to proposing measures that are direct violations of several other BOR amendments. Almost all from people that were recently/currently screaming about how the (current) administration is nazi/fascist/racist and the police are actively exterminating blacks.

    For the most part, I’ve stopped even responding.

    1. The large majority if left wing people care literally nothing about the law or the Constitution. They would happily violate all of them to increase “fairness” or “caring.” Hence typical left wing support for voter fraud, illegal immigration, gun bans, speech bans etc.

      Even the left wing ACLU hates the Second Amendment and campaigns in favor of racial discrimination, as long as the right groups are being discriminated against.

      1. They don’t and they never will. We can talk about the Constitution and the rule of law forever and they just don’t care. And they are half, more or less, of the country. Sooner or later, they will regain power. We need to make encouraging them to secede a priority and then let them go when they do.

        1. Yes the U.S. is a fifty/fifty nation. Part of the reason the Democrats and the Left are so desperate to stop California succession.

          Because without California, the Left has no hope of majority control over our nation for decades.

          1. I think you will find the idea of California leaving to union is slowly going to die. A large part of so. Cal. is dependent on the military and DoD contractors. Basically So. Cal. economy would take a huge hit. Real estate values would tank for the average home owner.

            1. LOL!

              You are using logic in your reasoning. That’s not very Lefty-Liberal in thinking. You have to use hand-wavium* when you try to calculate how they think. Your results will more closely match theirs.

              *Otherwise known as “magical thinking”.

              1. Indeed, they are not like us in terms of economic thinking either. If they were, they wouldn’t be pushing single payer.

  5. Guns? What guns? I ain’t got no stinking guns. Don’t need no stinking guns.

  6. I think we ought to take this conversation seriously. Our legislative bodies want to start a conversation about death-by-guns. Fine; let’s start by looking at the numbers. The largest number of deaths is in suicides. Let’s look into the breakdown.

    What are we interested in? Is it the type of action? Magazine capacity? Barrel length? Etc.? Or, is it the demographics of the suicides? What are we going to do about the millions of people who fit into those demographics? How will we keep them from acquiring guns or take their guns away? Perhaps we should start with OldFatWhiteGuy-farmers and their .22 rifles which they use on predators. We might carry-on with Middle-AgedFWG-duck-hunters and their shotguns. How about the YoungSkinnyWhiteGirls on the high school skeet team?

    There are two conversations to have here. 1) What is the regime of qualification, medical and psychological testing that legislators will impose to license these legitimate users of .22s and shotguns? 2) What response are we to expect from those affected: OFWG; M-AFWG; YSWGs? What is our enforcement mechanism? Warrantless searches of farm houses and out-buildings? Document checks at skeet ranges?

    The gun-controllers are going to have to tell us just exactly what they have in mind. And, those affected are going to have to tell us where they’d have the legislatures stick their regime.

    Given that any gun whatsoever will serve the purpose of a suicide, we need to begin with ALL-gun-types in the demographics of statistically-probable suicides. If we don’t take this approach then we simply can’t put much of a dent in gun-deaths because suicides are 2/3’s of the total.

    Next, turn to unjustified homicides. Where are the demographics? Urban, minorities, young males. What are the gun-types? To what extent are gun-types substitutable?

    1) What is the regime of qualification, medical and psychological testing that legislators will impose to license legitimate users of various gun-types in this demographic? 2) What response are we to expect from those affected: Young, minority, urban males? Is Stop-&-Frisk a sufficient enforcement regime? Or, will we need to perform warrantless searches of urban residences? Do we need to search residences with female heads-of-households as well as male heads?

    Once we engage the political communities who will be affected by regimes directed at suicides and homicides we can begin to assess the cost – political and fiscal – of the gun-control proposals.

    We need to get beyond the present superficial discussion of UBC or national registration. These proposals will have no numeric effect on suicides or homicides; moreover, a majority of gun-owners either can’t imagine UBC/registration being implemented or can’t imagine either regime having any impact on them. Such superficial proposals fail to get to the meat of the gun-death issue for any interested party.

    We won’t put this gun-control issue to-bed unless and until we start to talk about REAL measures targeted at suicide and homicide populations. Let’s have that discussion and have it now.

    1. Sebastian already pointed out this important article…

      Any person who fairly looks at the real data has no excuse supporting the typical anti-gun policy positions. It’s not up for reasonable debate. We won. That debate is over.

      The main thing represented by the anti-gunner crocodile tears over murders and suicides, is demagoguery. It’s all a trick, a game. It’s all flim-flam intended to con the public to forking over their votes.

      But the more the truth gets out there, the harder it is to pull off that con game.

  7. “They later go on to suggest that they’ll be kind to us and offer $500 per gun confiscated, instead of the $200 per gun offered by Australia.”

    My M16s cost almost $20,000 each. $500 might not excite me enough to turn them in versus for instance leaving them on the front seat of my unlocked car parked in a shady part of town overnight. If I’m being forced to give them up anyway, one of those options might feel a lot better than the other.

    1. Just as well that it isn’t true then, is it not.

      The Australian “buy-back” (aka confiscation at (threatened) gun point) included a pricing schedule for the various makes and models of firearms required to be surrendered.

      If you, as the owner, disagreed with the government’s valuation, you were free to submit an alternate valuation for consideration. In most cases these alternates were accepted without a struggle.

      By way of examples, the government offered more than I paid for my Ruger 10/22, and I submitted the original invoice for my IPSC race-gun as an alternate valuation, and was paid in full.

      I would have preferred to keep the guns, but facing arrest and imprisonment while raising a family wasn’t an option.

      1. Kind of goes against the Australian narrative I see a lot stating that Aussies happily turned over their guns for the betterment of society. That evil magazine-fed semi-auto 10/22 is a murder weapon after all that has no use by anyone but a mass shooter.

        Seems Aussies don’t want to acknowledge what you state here. You had two choices: Take or negotiate a check or face prison. Either way you were losing your gun. You received no third option. They don’t want to talk about the gun owners who might have wanted to keep their hard-earned property and paint a picture every Aussie gun owner turned them in with pride and a smile.

        Glad to see some confirmation from an Aussie that that isn’t true.

    2. You can’t put a price on my freedom. I will not surrender a single firearm, no matter what they offer.

  8. And think about this; as monumental a task it would be to confiscate that many guns, it is orders of magnitude easier than somehow controlling who in s free society gets to touch them. This is why gun control fails.

    1. I think you have a point worth exploring. Americans continue to fancy themselves as living in a “free” society; moreover, a society that lacks any formal notion of class (e.g., noblemen vs. commoners). If you qualify to drive a car, you can drive a car. If you qualify as a barber, you can cut hair.

      So, now, gentle-Antis, what do you have in mind? Tell us, specifically, how you would establish a citizen’s qualification to K&BA? What – exactly – is your regime?

      Now, cost-out that regime! We have something like 100 million gun-owners and another fraction – say 25 million – who are co-habitants of gun-owners. What is your regime to qualify these 100 million and deal with the co-habitants?

      Who will pay the estimated price? Will the tax-payers pick-up the tab for your qualification scheme? Or, will the gun-owners have to pay a “poll-tax”/”barrel-tax”? Can you collect these taxes? Will non-gun-owners pick-up the tab? Or, will you have to collect this tax from (armed) gun-owners?

      What about those gun-keepers and -bearers who do not submit? How will you enforce your regime on them?

      The Antis – when called upon to be specific – will face a continuum of regimes. The least expensive will be obviously ineffective. The most expensive might promise some measure of success but at a political and fiscal price that can’t be imposed on the voters.

      So, Antis, please be specific. If it’s universal confiscation, then Molon Labe. We’re patient; we will wait for you. If it’s some regime whereby you propose to control “who in a free society” keeps & bears arms, then let’s see the details of your proposal.

      1. What do the anti-gunners want? I’ve seen the future they want for us; and it’s already here, now, in the most populous city of the United States.

        Check out the New York Times story, “The Rich, The Famous, The Armed” from 2011. It describes the sorts of people who have permits for gun ownership (not carry! just private ownership) in New York City. The metaphorical One Percenters of Lefty rage are the literal 1% of NYC gun ownership.

        I compared the gun permit numbers from that NYT story to public records of the population of NYC. And at best only 1% of the population of New York City legally own guns. If you assume some overlap of long-gun and handgun permits (which seems reasonable) the actual numbers are closer to half of 1%!

      2. The general public would have to pay for the confiscation. Otherwise, it would violate the Fifth Amendment’s Takings clause: You can’t take a person’s property while compensating them and simultaneously assess a tax against them for having that property in the first place, because that nullifies the very idea of “just compensation”.

        So if you’re looking at confiscating 60 million-ish guns, each worth an average of $500, *PLUS* all the accessories (magazines, etc.) that are now worthless because the guns they go to are illegal, you’re looking at probably $600 per gun minimum, that’s $36 billion dollars. If you taxed ever single man, woman, and child in the US, that’s about $112 for every single one.

        If you look at it on a per household basis, that’s a tax increase of $286 per family. But it would have to be worse than that, because if you assess the tax on the people who are having their guns confiscated, you’re violating the Constitution. If you’re being paid $500 for your AR-15 but you’re getting assessed an extra $286 in taxes, you’re only being paid $214 for the gun: Hardly “just compensation”.

        So if there are 124.82 million households, and only (say) a third have a gun that would be confiscated, then you’re looking at the tax coming out of a base of 83.62 million households, which means they’ll each have to chip in $450 extra in their taxes that year.

        1. People keep using the ‘300 million guns’ number, and have been for decades. I know it’s been discussed here before, but after 8 years of the ‘Top gun salesman in chief’ in the White House, that number must be 425 million at a minimum, just looking at manufacturers numbers and background checks.

          Is it a good idea to push this new figure as the baseline? Does it make confiscation seem any less possible to fence sitters, or does it just fuel the fires of the anti-rights activists to get more accomplished before we hit 500 million? I believe the former, it’s just another nail in the coffin of the losing side.

          1. First, it’s hard to nail-down the number of guns for a variety of reasons. My thought is that someone (e.g., the editors of TTAG) to assemble the wisdom on the point in a coherent essay and then say something like: ‘The number of guns in the hands of American civilians is probably in the range of X to Y, with a Z% confidence factor. The median (X+Y)/2 is a likely useful approximation.’ Then, revise this figure annually or quarterly based on some published formula (e.g., the median figure multiplied by 0.6 of the NICS checks less 1%/month attrition). Now, we would have a current and respectable number.

            Second, whatever the number might be, your point would be the same: Confiscation is impractical. Yet, I agree with your sentiment. We can make this point simply and consistently if we have a current and authoritative estimate of the inventory.

            Finally, I agree that it’s a good idea to push the issue. We need to communicate to the open-minded voter that confiscation is impractical; and, more importantly, marginal reductions in the number of civilian guns will leave an enormous pool of legal guns adequate to support leakage into the black market. “There are too many guns” is a fool’s errand to mitigate in some marginal strategy.

  9. For those that keep a file of “nobody wants to take your gunz” quotes, here are a few:

    ?“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” (Pete Shields, founder of the Brady Campaign, July 26, 1976).?

    ?“As you know, my position is we should ban all handguns, get rid of them, no manufacture, no sale, no ?importation, no transportation, no possession of a handgun” (RI Senator John H. Chafee, June 11, 1992).?
    ? ?
    ?“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 them all in.’ I would have done it.” (CA Senator Diane Feinstein, February 5, ??1995)?

    ?“If it was up to me, no one except law enforcement officers would own handguns” (Chicago Mayor ?Richard M. Daley, November 13, 1998).?

    ?“You have a mayor who hates guns. If it was up to me, we wouldn’t have any handguns in the District of ?Columbia. I swear to protect the Constitution and what the courts say, but I will do it in the most ?restrictive way as possible.” (DC Mayor Muriel Bowser, January 8, 2015)?

    ?“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” (The Editorial Board, ??“End the gun epidemic in America,” New York Times, December 4, 2015).?

    1. I’ve been saving a file of high profile gun-banners, who have come out publicly since 2012. Editorial boards, high profile Liberal Pundits, former advisors and high level aids of Obama, all published in prestige papers or CNN. Not a list of anonymous online cranks, a list of powerful/influential people/institutions.

      They number more than a dozen, and the file keeps growing…

      1. “One of the frequent refrains of gun freaks about President Obama is “He’s coming for our guns.” Obama never said such a thing. But I will: We’re coming for your guns. And someday, we’ll take them.” — Gerald Ensley, columnist, Tallahassee Democrat, November 22, 2014

        “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. … Firearm possession should be banned in America; President Obama can orchestrate this directive.” — Dr. Barbara LeSavoy, Director and Assistant Professor of Women and Gender Studies at The College at Brockport, State University of New York, “Obama’s legacy on guns should be to ban them,” Democrat & Chronicle, October 9, 2015…/obamas…/73682284/…/its-time-ban-guns-yes-them

        “My complete answer, off the record, is we should ban guns altogether, period.” — Maryland Deputy Attorney General Thiruvendran Vignarajah, 29 October 2015…/maryland-deputy-ag-reveals…/

        “If I could I would take all the guns in America, put them on big barges and go dump them in the ocean. Nobody would have a gun. Not police, not security, not anybody. We should eliminate all of them.” — Judge Kenneth Walker, Portland, OR, 26 September 2016

        “I don’t care about crime, I just want to get the guns.” — Senator Howard Metzenbaum (D-OH), 1994

        “Our main agenda is to have all guns banned. We must use whatever means possible. It doesn’t matter if you have to distort the facts or even lie.”— Senator Howard Metzenbaum (D-OH),The National Educator, January 1994, pg. 3

        “In truth, there is no rational argument for guns in this society. … Ban the damn things. Ban them all. You want protection? Get a dog.” — Molly Ivins, 1993

        “I don’t care if you want to hunt, I don’t care if you think it’s your right. I say, sorry, 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

        “Banning guns addresses a fundamental right of all Americans to feel safe.” — Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), 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. The votes weren’t there. ” — Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) on CBS’s 60 Minutes, February 5, 1995

        “I don’t believe gun owners have rights.” — Sarah Brady, Hearst Newspapers, October 1997

        “We must get rid of all the guns.” — Sarah Brady, Handgun Control, Inc. on the Phil Donahue Show, September 1994

        “We’re going to hammer guns on the anvil of relentless legislative strategy! We’re going to beat guns into submission! — Senator (then Representative) Charles Schumer (D-NY), 1993

        “The only way to discourage the gun culture is to remove the guns from the hands and shoulders of people who are not in the law enforcement business.” — New York Times, September 24, 1975

        “There is no reason for anyone in this 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.” — Michael Gartner, former NBC News President, USA Today, January 16, 1992

        “The goal is an ultimate ban on all guns, but we also have to take step at a time and go for limited access first.” — Joyner Sims, Deputy Commissioner, Florida State Health Dept., Chicago Tribune, November 7, 1993

        “We are inclined to think that every firearm in the hands of anyone who is not a law enforcement officer constitutes an incitement to violence. Let’s come to our senses before the whole country starts shooting itself up on all its Main Streets in a delirious kind of High Noon.” —Washington Post, August 19, 1965

        “We are beyond the stage of restrictive licensing and uniform laws. We are at the point in time and terror when nothing short of a strong uniform policy of domestic disarmament will alleviate the danger which is crystal clear and perilously present. Let us take the guns away from the people. Exemptions should be limited to the military, the police and those licensed for good and sufficient reasons.” — Patrick V. Murphy, New York City Police Commissioner, December 7, 1970

        “As you probably know by now, Time’s editors, in the April 13 issue, took a strong position in support of an outright ban on handguns for private use.” — Time Magazine, Letter to NRA, April 24, 1981

        “If it was up to me, no one but law enforcement officers would own hand guns” — Chicago Mayor Richard Daley, Federal Gun Legislation Press Conference in Washington, D.C., November 13, 1998

        “My own view on gun control 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 the Harvard School of Public Health

        “I shortly will introduce legislation banning the sale, manufacture or possession of handguns…. It is time to act. We cannot go on like this. Ban them!” — Senator John H. Chafee (R-RI), Minneapolis Star Tribune, June 15, 1992

  10. I am not a veteran of the fight against gun controll, but I have debated a few people who said that nobody wants to take my guns. When they say that, what is usually left unsaid is that they want to take *somebody’s* guns. Usually those high powered assault rifles that only mass shooters and a few dangerously insane gun nuts own, and surely aren’t possessed by good gun owners.

    The conversation usually takes a nosedive when you clue them in to just how many people own AR-15s.

    1. It’s a really important thing to communicate, how commonly owned “assault weapons” really are. Good job spreading the word!

  11. Just curious. Who’s going to do the confiscating?
    The police? Aren’t sheriffs in New York refusing to enforce the SAFE Act? Police in Colorado ignoring the magazine ban? How many cops are gun owners themselves?
    The Active Duty military and/or the National Guard? Good luck with that.

    Maybe it will be some nationalized ATF SWAT team. And when the first no knock raid goes bad (a la Waco) the confiscation plan will get even uglier. For everybody involved.

    Gun grabbers conveniently ignore history. It was confiscation of “assault weapons” that kicked off the American Revolution.

    1. “Gun grabbers conveniently ignore history. It was ATTEMPTED confiscation of “assault weapons” that kicked off the American Revolution.” (FIFY)

      Human nature at work. Most humans are ignorant of history. If you don’t know, you can’t learn the lessons of history.

      Then there are those who are unable to learn from history. We call those: politicians.

    2. Sheriffs and many local police departments in upstate NY are complying with the NY SAFE Act for themselves and their officers, because their jobs depend on them following the law, but you are correct that they aren’t actively enforcing it. The evidence I have for this is that when the numbers of registered “assault weapons” came out, it was a tiny fraction of what was expected based on estimates, and a couple thousand of them were from NYC counties. NYC had an “assault weapons” ban dating back to the very early 1990’s, and they have complete registration of handguns and long guns, so those guns “shouldn’t be there”. But there is an exception in NYC law: Law Enforcement Officers can register and own such guns in NYC. So the “assault weapons” registered in NYC have to be owned by LEO’s.

      Back to the topic at hand, though, most sheriff departments and local PD won’t investigate on allegations that the NY SAFE Act is being broken by someone, but if they run across a violation in the course of a regular criminal investigation, they will charge that person with violating the SAFE Act.

      Though there is no guarantee: Get an anti-gun sheriff or police chief in office, or even just piss off the wrong cop, and they very well could decide to actively enforce it.

      1. “…even just piss off the wrong cop, and they very well could decide to actively enforce it.

        And that’s the problem. ‘Laws’ like this are used as a political hammer. Piss off someone with the power to ruin your life? No, a lot of people will knuckle under. This goes straight to the line in Atlas Shrugged.

        “There’s no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren’t enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What’s there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted and you create a nation of law-breakers and then you cash in on guilt.”

        And the ‘authorities’ use that power to ruin who they want, when they want. Goes right to ‘Prosecutorial Discretion’ as well. Corrupt

        1. John Ross of “Unintended Consequences” once noted that although there had been laws against concealed carry in Missouri for many years it wasn’t until (as I remember) the early 1970’s before a white person was ever charged with the crime.

          1. As it was related to me, the statistic was that before the Civil Rights Act of 1964 passed, no white person in Missouri had been charged with concealed carry as the “only” charge.

            “Our Mileage Apparently Varies”

            1. For purposes of this discussion, let’s suppose this is true for Missouri. Let’s further suppose that it’s more-or-less the case in several other States. Now, then, . . .

              What spin could we put on such (presumed) facts? (I don’t see one; so, I’m soliciting the collective imagination of the readers here.)

              Arguably, there is a spin that would work AGAINST us. Suppose there were a racially-conscious community of Black voters who were mildly/moderately disposed toward gun-control. In such a community, the response might be along the lines of: ‘About time white folk suffered the heavy boot of the State and got charged for carrying guns just like our fellow Black folk.’

              White people are not especially racially-conscious in a self-serving way. I can’t imagine a white voter (mildly/moderately disposed toward gun-control) rising up in indignation about the news that white folks have only been charged with unlicensed carry since the Civil Rights era. Those so racially-conscious are already supporters of the 2A.

              Only if we can identify and market a constructive spin on such a fact would it pay to carry-on the research for other States and then fashion a meme to contribute this observation to the public debate.

            2. Miles – you’re right. I left out details in the interest of brevity.

              1. No problem Hank. Nothing professional :-). The ‘mileage varies’ was a take-off on the ‘Your Mileage May Vary’ joke.

Comments are closed.