As with the other posts in this series, it will be continually updated with additional content.
We’re always told “Nobody wants to take your guns,” almost assuredly right before we’re told how they’re going to take away some form of gun ownership.
We’re told, as assault weapons ban legislation is being debated, that “It’s okay, you’re just paranoid, we’re not going to take your guns. We just won’t let people purchase new ones.” But that’s the thing. You’re taking from me. You’re taking the opportunity to buy that long distance varmit rifle I’ve been saving up for. You’re taking way the ability for me to get into shooting sports like 3-gun with a newly innovated design. Yes, this modest rifle I own now will physically remain in my possession, but I’ve lost part of what it means to actually own it. I can’t lend it to a friend to go hunting with. I can’t sell it to a family member and use the money to buy a better rifle.
Anytime someone says they support the Australian solution for gun control, they want to take your guns. The Australian solution was to outright ban all semi-automatic firearms and then hold amnesties and “buybacks” that paid an insultingly low amount of money.
They weren’t taking the guns in Australia, they were allowing you to turn them in or go to prison if they caught you with one. Much different.
Registration leads to confiscation. It’s a quick little phrase that gets mocked. Yet it holds true.
Notice how reasonable New York CIty is, banning a .22LR rifle that holds more than five rounds. Seven rounds, complying with the New York State SAFE Act, is far too dangerous. It’s a race to see what city can restrict gun owners to single-shot firearms, since the supreme court ruled they can’t have an outright ban. Here we see a law-abiding gun owner that registered his firearm according to his local laws. Now they’ve moved the goal posts and banned the formerly legal firearm. He can either turn it in, sell it, or face an armed retrieval.