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.
Repeal the 2nd Amendment
Some have given up the facade entirely and are now calling for a rolling back of the bill of rights. Some say that the 2nd amendment is outdated or irrelevant.
“I’ve been saying in the pages of the Times, we should repeal the Second Amendment… I say this for a variety of reasons, but one of them is often piecemeal gun control efforts don’t work…”
– Bret Stephens, New York Times columnist
It’s almost refreshing to hear him admit that gun control is about incremental steps leading to an end goal of confiscation; that slippery-slope arguments too often dismissed out of hand are not without merit.
“Overturning [DC v. Heller] via a constitutional amendment to get rid of the Second Amendment would be simple and would do more to weaken the N.R.A.’s ability to stymie legislative debate and block constructive gun control legislation than any other available option.”
– John Paul Stevens, US Supreme Court Justice, retired.
John Paul Stevens: Repeal the Second Amendment
Assault Weapons Bans
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 varmint 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. I can’t loan it to my sister when she has a crazy stalker harassing her despite multiple restraining orders.
“Our country is in the midst of a significant conversation on gun reform, and our bill to ban assault weapons, which is before the Judiciary Committee, deserves a hearing.”
– Senator Dianne Feinstein (D – CA)
“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. I could not do that; the votes weren’t here.”
– Senator Dianne Feinstein (D – CA)
60 Minutes Interview, 1995
In fact, the assault weapons ban will have no significant effect either on the crime rate or on personal security. Nonetheless, it is a good idea . . . . Its only real justification is not to reduce crime but to desensitize the public to the regulation of weapons in preparation for their ultimate confiscation.
– Charles Krauthammer, columnist,
“Disarm the Citizenry. But Not Yet,” Washington Post, Apr. 5, 1996
I support the real 2nd Amendment, not the imaginary 2nd Amendment.
And the real #2A isn’t absolute. It allows Congress to wake up to reality and ban these assault rifles that are designed for one purpose only – to kill as many people as fast as possible.
— Chris Murphy (@ChrisMurphyCT) May 19, 2018
And Shannon Watts with Moms Demand Action (a Michael Bloomberg subsidiary) posts up comparisons of guns being free compared to displays of government overreach and comes to the conclusion that rather than overturning the obviously idiotic decisions, we should ban guns instead.
Semi-Automatic Weapon Ban
(4/4) Removing the assault and semi-automatic weapons from our Civilian society, instituting thorough background checks and mandatory waiting periods (and raising the buying age and banning the production of high-capacity magazines) are the ways to stop shootings in America.
— Emma González (@Emma4Change) April 22, 2018
Australia-style Gun Control and Confiscation
Anytime someone says they support the Australian solution for gun control, they want to take your guns. The Australian solution is banning all semi-automatic firearms and holding mandatory “buybacks” that pay an insultingly low price. Now former gun-owners accept pennies on the dollar for their firearm, or else.
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.
That’s what happened in other countries when they experienced similar tragedies. In the United Kingdom, in Australia, when just a single mass shooting occurred in those countries, they understood that there was nothing ordinary about this kind of carnage. They endured great heartbreak, but they also mobilized and they changed…
– President Barack Obama, September 22, 2013
Washington Naval Yard Memorial Service
…What are my biggest disappointments…My biggest frustration so far is the fact that this society has not been willing to take some basic steps to keep guns out of the hands of people who can do just unbelievable damage. We’re the only developed country on earth where this happens. And it happens now once a week. And it’s a one-day story. There’s no place else like this. A couple of decades ago, Australia had a mass shooting similar to Columbine or Newtown. And Australia just said, well that’s it, we’re not seeing that again and basically imposed very severe, tough gun laws.
– President Barack Obama, June 10, 2014
Tumblr Q&A at the White House
In response to a question “Recently, Australia managed to take a way tens of thousands, millions, of handguns. And in one year they were all gone. Can we do that?
Australia is a good example. Canada is a good example. The UK is a good example. Why? Because each of them had mass killings. Australia had a huge mass killing about 25 years ago. Canada did as well. So did the UK. And in reaction, they passed much stricter gun laws. The Australian example, as I recall, that was a buyback program. The Australian government, as part of trying to clamp down on availability of Automatic* weapons offered a good price** for buying hundreds of thousands of guns and then they basically clamped down going forward in term of having, you know, more of a background check approach, more of a permitting approach, but they believed, and I think the evidence supports them***, that by offering to buy back those guns, they were able to curtail the supply and to set a different standard for gun purchase in the future. Now communities have done that in our country. Several communities have done buyback programs. But I think it would be worth considering doing on the national level. If that could be arranged… I think that’s worth considering. I don’t know enough details to tell you … how we would do it or how it would work, but certainly the Australian example is worth looking at.
– Hillary Clinton, October 2015
Keene, New Hampshire Town Hall Meeting
*Note the deliberate use of “automatic” when referring to the semi-automatic weapons. Another example of purposefully confusing terms so that listeners will mistakenly believe machineguns are being banned, not grandpa’s hunting shotgun.
**”Good price” means pennies on the dollar. $100-$200 payouts for firearms worth $600 to $2000 or more.
***On the contrary, evidence shows that the gun ban in Australia had almost no effect on the current trend in violent crime.
After a Mass murder-suicide in Australia, there are now calls for total confiscation, with only a narrow window for farmers and hunters who are allowed to store guns at a police station and able to access them with a two-week notice.
“[A]ll legal owners of firearms – such as farmers or weekend pig-hunters – are responsible, legal gun owners until they become irresponsible and kill spouses, former partners, children and others.”
– Phil West, Sydney Morning Herald
I shortly will introduce legislation banning the sale, manufacture or possession of handguns (with exceptions for law enforcement and licensed target clubs). . . It is time to act. We cannot go on like this. Ban them!
-Sen. John H. Chafee (R.-R.I.),
“In View of Handguns’ Effects, There’s Only One Answer: A Ban,” Minneapolis Star Tribune, June 15, 1992, at 13A.
“My staff and I right now are working on a comprehensive gun-control bill. We don’t have all the details, but for instance, regulating the sale and purchase of bullets. Ultimately, I would like to see the manufacture and possession of handguns banned except for military and police use. But that’s the endgame. And in the meantime, there are some specific things that we can do with legislation.”
– Rep. Bobby Rush (D – IL)
Evan Osnos, “Bobby Rush; Democrat, U.S. House of Representatives,” Chicago Tribune, Dec. 5, 1999, at C3
Mr. Speaker, my bill prohibits the importation, exportation, manufacture, sale, purchase, transfer, receipt, possession, or transportation of handguns and handgun ammunition. It establishes a 6-month grace period for the turning in of handguns. It provides many exceptions for gun clubs, hunting clubs, gun collectors, and other people of that kind.
– Rep. Major Owens (D – Brooklyn, NY)
139 Cong. Rec. H9088 at H9094, Nov. 10, 1993.
“We need much stricter gun control, and eventually we should bar the ownership of handguns except in a few cases,”
– Rep. William L. Clay (D – St. Louis, MO)
Robert L. Koenig, “NRA-Backed Measure May Derail Brady Bill”, St. Louis Post Dispatch, May 8, 1993, at 1A
All Firearms Ban
God help me, I want to take all of your guns out of your hands, by myself, right now.
-Dave Holmes, Editor-at-large
“Okay, Now I Actually Do Want To Take Your Guns,” Esquire
Fisking Blog Post
“There is little sense in gun registration. What we need to significantly enhance public safety is domestic disarmament . . . . Domestic disarmament entails the removal of arms from private hands . . . . Given the proper political support by the people who oppose the pro-gun lobby, legislation to remove the guns from private hands, acts like the legislation drafted by Senator John Chafee [to ban handguns], can be passed in short order.”
“The Case for Domestic Disarmament”
– John B. Anderson (Presidential Candidate, 1980)
– Henry Cisneros (Former Mayor, San Antonio, Texas)
– Kurt L. Schmoke (Former Mayor, Baltimore, Maryland)
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.
Professor Eugene Volokh for his compilation of gun ban quotes.
NRA for their rebuttal to a CNN article