Skip to comments.Is Gun Confiscation A Real Possibility In America?
Posted on 02/21/2013 5:49:40 PM PST by LD Jackson
When I first browsing the news articles and blog posts in Google Reader this morning, there was one blog post that caught my eye. Conservative Hideout gives us some of the details about a leaked Department of Justice memo that has troubling connotations for those of us who have little trust in the federal government. Matt is getting his information from Gateway Pundit, who has a link to the memo itself. Both blogs have the newest ad from the NRA that highlights why the group feels the ideas expressed in the memo are so dangerous. First, from the memo itself. I would urge you to read it in its entirety, so you can get the full context of what the DOJ is talking about.
Since assault weapons are not a major contributor to US gun homicide and the existing stock of guns is large, an assault weapon ban is unlikely to have an impact on gun violence. If coupled with a gun buyback and no exemptions then it could be effective. The 1997 Australian gun buyback was massive in scale and, while it appears to have had no effect on gun homicide, Australia has had no mass shootings since the ban was put in place.There is a debate going on in American society that questions the need for any American to have what the government describes as an assault weapon. The description is completely inaccurate, but we seem to be stuck with it. My contention has always been that these weapons are not the problem. People are the real problem and that is laid out perfectly in the memo from the DOJ. I am sure they would rather the general public not have access to their internal memos, for one main reason. In spite of their public claims to the contrary, they know full well that an assault weapons ban will have virtually no effect on gun violence in America.
The NRA ad may actually be factually incorrect, as the memo does not call for mandatory gun buybacks, which would amount to gun confiscation. However, there is something else in the memo that troubles me. We have been told all along that President Obama is not after our guns. He only wants reasonable restrictions, such as completely banning certain weapons, as well as limits on large capacity magazines. Those of us who have tried to warn that these small steps on gun control were only the first salvos of full-blown gun control have been laughed at and accused of crying wolf when the wolf wasn't at the door. This memo from the DOJ shows just how right we are.
No, the memo does not call for mandatory gun confiscation, but it does lay out why gun confiscation, with no exemptions, is the only way to effectively implement any kind of gun ban. That tells me they are thinking about gun confiscation, no matter how much they try to deny it. So, to those who declare we are crying wolf for no reason, I beg to differ. There are people in power in our government who care not one whit about our rights under the Constitution. They have their own ideas about how things should be in America and they are taking steps, however small they may be, to implement that thinking at every level of our government.
Be warned, this is no small thing. The memo, which I urge you to read for yourself, describes how the DOJ knows full well that the Australian gun ban has been largely ineffective at curbing gun violence. In other words, they know gun bans do not work, yet they continue along the path towards implementing just such a plan. The next time someone tells you that no such plans exist, show them this memo and explain to them that the Bible is so very true when it says "out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh". The next step from talking about gun confiscation is its implementation. I suggest we watch for it carefully.
Won’t happen without a shooting war.
Just ask yourself, how many things have come to pass when everybody said...
“Oh, that will NEVER happen.”
You have your answer.
We The People who vote and are out voted and cheated by the democrips and not defended by the Republicants are now reaping what has been sown these many decades under democrip establishment of a dependency society which insures democrips win elections. There have always been sufficient conservatives to votes the lying, cheating, murderous democrips out, but election after election these people fail to get off their snobbish asses and vote to remove democrips. Regrdless of the alternative republicant weasels, voting the criminal enterprise party out is what the lazy conservatives have failed to address. Now, they can enjoy the plummet into eurotrash socialism and the end to the Constitutional Republic over which they were once absentee sovereigns. ... lock and load
Stop and think about that.
They didn't have a lot of steel back then. Iron. Brass. Lots of the projectiles were stones.
We're not talking about technology that requires computers or even steel files.
Gun bans can't work. Ever.
The meme is out there.
The rest, as they say, is simple engineering.
Even a cook could build one.
If things keep going the way they are, it is a real possibility, maybe even likely.
At least they would try.
It may work in San Francisco and New York or Chicago (where guns are already illegal), but in the South...no one would dare try to confiscate our weapons.
But why bother, they were already lost when our jon boats sank in the Okefenokee last year.
Darn gators...can't round 'em up and sure just can't trust 'em.
But if the Feds want to look for my weapons...I will show them on a map of the swamp where they should start looking.
Maybe Obama can order up some drones. Gators love drones. Mmm...crunchy!
It should also be noted that Australia had only one significant mass shooting prior to the buyback. Furthermore, the compliance rate wasn't even a dismal 25%. Australian authorities expected 2.8 million weapons would fall under the '97 ban. A mere 680,000 were turned in. Lots of Aussies said "no thanks" to the buyback (a little detail that often gets neglected when the "success" of Australia's ban is brought up).
THE PERSON DYING WHILE TRYING TO CONFISCATE MY FIREARM IN AMERICA IS A REAL POSSIBILITY!
I don’t see a door to door search. IMO this is an attempt to criminalize a large segment of the population. Selective enforcement and prosecution will be directed toward conservatives, of course. A big bloody shot em’ up with attendant MSM propaganda may be the progressives view of the end of the Tea Party.
“In other words, they know gun bans do not work”
Their objective of course is not safety, that’s just the government’s excuse. Their objective is disarming citizens.
The Huguenots (French Protestants) gained their independence with personal firearms and at the end of the French Religious Wars they refused to stack arms. They kept them.
Many of our Founding fathers had a father, grandfather, great grandfather, or great great grandfather who had been a Huguenot ~ and who left France to evade the later tyrannies of Louis XIV!
Our Founders lived among those who knew what personal ownership of firearms meant. It means liberty itself ~ and freedom to think.
The news spread fast ~
it all depends who’s on the side ofthe people.
if your state and local gvt leos are with you, you have a chance. if not, you don’t. in the long run individuals fighting without coordination and leadership and the necessary equipment and resupplies aren’t going to win against a force that does. having local leos and state govt with you gives you the logistics and ability to be more of a match.
i mean we’ve got a potential enemy that will just pick off individuals with drones, and is developing micro drones. it’s effing crazy. they’re arming and training fema youth corps - aka homeland hitler youth - for “disaster response” which is funny because the pics I’ve seen of them have them holding mock seamiauto rifles.
The combined weight of the US and allies hasn't stopped the Taliban.
The Taliban doesn't have a logistics tail nearly as impressive as the US has. Or the Soviets had.
The Taliban may not be winning, but they are still there, and they haven't lost.
You might want to adjust your world view to include some on-the-ground reality. Life ain't TV.
I can see how confiscation would work in my old home state, where you need a license to buy and keep in your home. But in my new home state, what you have in your house is your own business.
Are they going to go door to door and search the place from basement to attic to make sure you’re not lying to them when you say “Why, no officer, we don’t have any guns here.”? Every single house?
Confiscation is not gonna happen up here in the snowy mountains of the American Redoubt either RR. We will ‘go down swingin’ if that attempt ever comes. As far as a drones/’gators battle goes, I would add our big Bears to that fight also!
if your state and local gvt leos are with you, you have a chance. if not, you dont. in the long run individuals fighting without coordination and leadership and the necessary equipment and resupplies arent going to win against a force that does. having local leos and state govt with you gives you the logistics and ability to be more of a match.
History suggests you are incorrect. No, I'm not going to list them all, it would take me an hour, but one man, and just one gun can accomplish much more than you think.
An order for confiscation is possible. Actual confiscation would be, ahh, problematic. They would have to get used to receiving the ammunition first.
Attempted gun confiscation is as unlikely as a second civil war - exactly as unlikely. I'm hoping neither will happen.
The Port Arthur Shooting was - at the time - the worst single gunman massacre in history (35 killed, 21 wounded), but it certainly wasn't the only significant mass shooting in Australia.
Hoddle Street, Melbourne, in 1987 - 7 killed, 19 wounded.
Queen Street, Melbourne, in 1987 - 8 killed, 5 wounded.
Surrey Hills, Sydney, in 1990 - 5 killed, 11 wounded.
Strathfield Shopping Centre, Sydney in 1991 - 7 killed, 6 wounded.
And these are just the four worst.
It doesn't do the cause of gun freedom any good when facts are misrepresented. Australia went from having about one single gunman massacre every 18 months from 1978 to 1996, to none at all, in the nearly 17 years since then. That's undeniable. It's a fact. How much it has to do with the gun laws can be debated, but the fact can't be.
It's also clearly true, though, from the facts, that even if the gun laws had an effect on that one very rare crime, they had no positive effect on crime in general. Most crimes are not spree killings.
Should it come to a shooting war, the citizenry will also have armed drones: there has already been a proof-of-concept demonstration with a drone armed with a paintball gun. Yeah, yeah, I know, firearms will have greater recoil, but if it comes to it, we’ll used heavier drones. . . and there’s always dropping IEDs from drones.
You are right, we should insist on accurate facts no matter what they say.
One thing which strikes me as odd, is the number of gun deaths is not really important. What is, is how many homicides period, well actually how many not including justifiable homicides.
If a person is intent on mass murder he must be pretty unimaginative if the fact there are 25% less guns of some type keeps him from doing his deed then he probably wouldn’t have succeeded anyway.
Probably the best article I have ever read on gun control was by of all things, a British cop. His name was Colin Greenwood and he was a visiting speaker at Cambridge, I think they called him “a fellow”. He also spoke before Parliament.
One of the facts which really caught my attention was before 1919, (I think that is the date), the amount of violent crime in the UK, not including Northern Ireland, was near zero. At the time there were no controls at all on most firearms and the only one on handguns was you had to buy a stamp which was issued as routine by the post office.
My own guess is the Russian Revolution scared the heck out of the aristocracy including one man who I greatly admire. That is of course Winston Churchill.
As Britain’s gun controls have tightened more and more, their crime rate is in some ways, higher than the U.S.
Memo DOJ (Department of Justice) Link: http://www.nraila.org/media/10883516/nij-gun-policy-memo.pdf Since assault weapons are not a major contributor to US gun homicide and the existing stock of guns is large, an assault weapon ban is unlikely to have an impact on gun violence. If coupled with a gun buyback and no exemptions then it could be effective. The 1997 Australian gun buyback was massive in scale and, while it appears to have had no effect on gun homicide, Australia has had no mass shootings since the ban was put in place
5th paragraph, 1st sentence from above article:
No, the memo does not call for mandatory gun confiscation, but it does lay out why gun confiscation, with no exemptions, is the only way to effectively implement any kind of gun ban. That tells me they are thinking about gun confiscation, no matter how much they try to deny it.
It’s possible that they might try. It wouldn’t be possible to accomplish.
I stand corrected. Port Arthur was the only one I knew off the top of my head. I should've researched the issue a little better.
Not a problem - that’s why those of us who know the facts need to speak up, because nobody can be expected to know everything.
Port Arthur made world news because it was so large - I doubt the others were noted much outside Australia at all, but obviously here, they were huge stories.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.