Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
The Democrats Go Full Gun-Grabber
One of the biggest applause lines from last week’s Democratic debate was Martin O’Malley’s cocksure, focused description of the National Rifle Association as the enemy he’s most proud to have made. Moments later, Hillary Clinton seconded the notion, though she went on to include — among other things, and in the same tones — the Iranians and the Republican Party. But, as if to make the point even clearer over the weekend, Clinton echoed President Obama’s recent allusion to Australia’s draconian licensing and buy-back policy as a model for the United States to emulate.
It’s increasingly apparent that the Democrats plan to make the abrogation of gun rights a major part of their 2016 platform. This may not be quite as bad politics as it sounds: a recent Pew Survey found that support for gun rights has waned from its high last year, and that was before the latest cluster of shootings, including that of the Virginia news crew and at Umpqua Community College. According to the same survey, gun control remains wildly popular among Democrats. The good news is that the overall numbers are still near historic highs in favor of rights, with the country nearly evenly split on the matter.
However, two things are concerning. First, we are — as Charles C.W. Cooke darkly suggests — likely not too far off from the first HD, livestreamed mass murder. Imagine the effect a Newtown-style massacre would have next fall if its horror was uploaded (unedited) to YouTube in 1080p. Second, imagine what a legacy-hunting Obama and a desperate Hillary Clinton might do with that, especially when Wayne LaPierre inevitably makes an idiot of himself and blames video games and calls for armed guards in every school.
These could well be very high stakes days ahead.
Published in Guns
I just don’t see, how any ruling, any law, no matter what the SCOTUS says, how you go from house to house and take away guns. How will that work? You want to talk about stuff getting uploaded in HD? Police gunning down family after family? How about police being shot from behind as they try to raid one house?
Taking away guns in America would be a bloody affair.
Answer!
You are thin
You are thinking old demographics with their archaic view of the rule of law. If you use firearms in self defense they will just treat you like they treat citizens in good old England. You will do time or if you’re lucky just spend a lot of money. Every time they catch you with a firearm, you will do time. Selective enforcement for the noisy will also be a likely possibility. Anybody notice that there is not exactly a huge response to Wisconsin’s night time raids on conservatives?
Tom,
It is not the shock of the murders per se that is dangerous. This is just as likely to produce a reaction in the public the other way. However, the willingness of the media to allow BHO to demagogue the issue is what really matters.
There are ample videos of criminals using (normally) illegal weapons attacking citizens. These videos are suppressed as they would yield exactly the reverse reaction from the public. The public would insist upon their legal right to carry a weapon.
Once again the conspiracy of the media and demagogues like Obama are the real threat we are facing. Until we can break this up we are in danger.
Regards,
Jim
I’m 90% sure all liberal gun control thinking goes back to this Jim Jeffries bit. It’s worth sitting through because it’s the rosetta stone of all gun control arguments.
Click here for a mix of humor, complete ignorance, and a strange respect for the Constitution of the United States by an Australian comedian. While the majority of his rant is standard claptrap, Jim is the only person on the left who actually acknowledges the primary argument for gun rights. (around the 2:00 minute mark). SERIOUS COC violation and language warning. Enjoy.
Did you mean Newtown?
I spent part of a summer in Jordan, MT. Didn’t have much contact with the people, there, as I was confined largely to an airport (big open field, basically). Anyone remember the Freemen standoff in the ’90’s? Yeah… so, let’s take that, try it all at once, and all over the country.
My in-laws are currently visiting from Montana, and my dad-in-law and I were discussing that very possibility. His comment: “It would be a bloodbath.”
Yes. It surely would.
Very good point. In all likelihood, it would happen incrementally. Self-protection is all fine and good, until you start to think that anyone actually utilizing that right gets treated like George Zimmerman.
good lord – I clicked on that link and had to quit after a few minutes. That guy was obnoxious as f***! Not even remotely funny.
Sorry! I’m not sure I promised laughs. But I think he nicely distills the attitudes and assumptions of our opponents.
Here is the thing. Who are they going to get to take the guns away? Law enforcement officials? How many of them would show up for that duty? My guess is 90% will tell their superiors to “go to hell” because they either support gun rights themselves or they don’t want to be shot at.
How exactly would they pull off the confiscation? Door to door searches? Well I’ll tell you what people are going to see you coming in that case. What are they going to do if someone starts sniping? Shell the house? If only 10% of the population resisted that would be 30 million people with guns pointed at law enforcement.
Are they going they going to pull off night time raids? Are they going to shoot me if I refuse to open my gun safe? I would be willing to bet that it would result in more deaths than all US wars combined (about 1.4 million) if it was tried in any serious way.
I’d imagine it would go something more like this:
1. Ammunition “becomes” extremely scarce (this happened for a time after Obama’s election as I recall)
2. Sale of certain guns is illegal. Existing guns of the type are grandfathered.
3. That list of illegal guns grows rapidly until any sale of a gun to the public is illegal
The Democrats are skilled at playing the long game, they have the patience to get what they want while avoiding the blood bath.
Yeah until the 3D printer can print metal in just a few years. Then it is a moot point.
Oh, you silly man. Assuming that the rule law actually means something anymore. How bourgeois of you.
Barack Obama has proven over and over again that will to power works if you get a majority to vote for you and have the stones to play chicken with the feckless GOP, knowing they’re never, ever going to impeach you for any of what you do. Seizing guns is simply a matter of working up enough nerve to sign the executive order, and punishing those that resist.
Well, I did write:
A few is one thing. Mass confiscation is something else. You cannot take out 5 people in one state and have any impact.
Please walk us though how that works then. There are over 300,000,000 guns in America. over 2/3 of Americans believe in gun rights for self-defense.
I can see one raid on one home turn into a long, nightmare return to the station, much like the Redcoats long march back to Boston. If they started going door to door, it is not like people would just sit and wait for the man to come to them.
The Police cannot manage to pacify a city that declares open season on them in this nation. So now what, bring in the military and order them to shoot people for not giving up their guns? Would most of the actual troops follow those orders?
I expect, and hope, you are correct sir.
So basically everything I said in my post :-)
You can intimidate though and that can have a multiplicative effect. The confiscation can be accomplished with patience. By the way, how many law abiding citizens will risk their lives and families concerning a gun? I see that being not too many and easily killed. I agree they won’t be going door to door except in targeted situations. The problem will arise when you use the firearm or when you take it out into the public. Then you will be separated from the herd, painted into being a horrible criminal, and punished severely. Maybe schools can start programs to get kids to turn in their parents. All this has already happened in certain states. Picture it at a national level with no safe zones. All you need is a crisis and a court system that weakens the 2nd Amendment.
Not seeing it. Please go step by step on how that would work, specifically, in a “long game”.
What you propose is a reversal of CC permits in all the states that now have them. How do we get there in TX, GA, NC, SC, FL, AK?
How do they do it nationally? How do you make TX the same as IL?
I hate to break it to you but the police already enforce these laws in quite a few states already. The intimidation seems to work except for criminals. Arresting mothers and antique gun collectors doesn’t seem to bother them. The redcoats might of had a hard time in Boston but I wouldn’t get caught with an illegal gun there. They will haul you off with nary a protest. You will feel like the redcoat.
Arresting mothers and antique gun collectors has made national news, and caused an outcry, and resulted in pardons.
Please spell out not how it works in New Jersey, but how, federally, this would work in places like Texas and Georgia.
Every time Obama has made a feint at gun control, purchases go up. A move towards national control will be resisted, frankly at the level of the voter.
I want them to make gun control an issue. It is the one place where conservatives are winning in the culture.
I think you could make some progress with that list. Someplace like Texas might seem safe but Waco happened in Texas and the above playbook worked like a charm. The ATF went in with bogus charges, the people resisted, they were all killed and it seemed normal as could be.
The larger point that I am making is that our rights are very dependent on our fellow citizens. We are playing a game of Russian Roulette with our demographics. This isn’t a random process. The voting habits of our new citizens are not such that the 2nd Amendment is important at all. California is what that looks like. All you need is some help at the federal level and California gun owners won’t feel so cocky.
A few weeks ago, I purchased a new handgun. My buddy (who lives in Seattle) went with me to go pick it up, and after a few hours firing off various other handguns, purchased one of his own. I got a text message from him a few nights ago: “I told [a mutual friend of ours, quasi-liberal hipster-type, long story] about our recent gun purchases. He was surprisingly more common-sense Montana than Seattle about it. Even mirrored some of the concerns you and I raised.”
So yeah, this is a guy who is full on-board with the recycling agenda, watches soccer, forces himself to drink soda-water… about as Seattle as it gets, and he’s not quite ready to jump on the gun-control bandwagon.
I agree with much of this. That means that elections are important. But so is media, which means alternative-media, and conservatives need to be vigilant and start winning the war of ideas.
and Yes! I certainly hope so. But what that means is that Roadrunner’s points need to be publicized so that your points will be stronger. Voters will reject what they see, but they can also reject incrementalism if it is publicized.
I think you are exactly right but other choices that we make may influence how that works out. I bet Ronald Reagan didn’t foresee what his immigration policy would do to his home state. Taking in the bottom 10-20% of a neighboring country’s population might influence the way elections come out in the future. Surprisingly that seems not to be an appreciation for freedom but following the left wing ideas that were steeped into their beings in the old country.
I hope he has lots of kids and teaches them well.