Yes, gun control activists want to disarm everyone over time
Except of course for the lawmakers and law enforcers. Listen carefully to the politicians and the gun control crowd – including many law enforcement leaders whose jobs are tied to politics – as they talk about the future of gun control. To them, it’s not confiscation, rather a “removal of firearms” from the public realm over time through restrictive legislation.
A perfect example is San Diego’s Chief William Lansdowne.
San Diego’s Lansdowne, who plays an active role in the western region of the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP), said in the interview it may take a generation, but guns will eventually be taken off the streets through new laws.
He also has personally advocated for a legislative solution that would allow current lawful firearms owners to keep their assault weapons if new sales are banned, but prohibit assault firearms from be passed down to living relatives after death, meaning the weapon would be destroyed when the current owner dies.
Semi-automatic weapons are the first step for people like Lansdowne and many politicians simply because they already have a leg in the door. The National Firearms Act and assault weapons bans in states like Connecticut and California get them close and they want to extend and expand them to the point where when you die, your family will have to pay your death tax and turn over your semi-automatic rifles.
It’s obvious what they will do next. Tragically, we’ll see another Virginia Tech-style massacre leading Landsdowne and the anti-gun crowd to determine they did not go far enough as they take away semi-automatic pistols that hold ten-round magazines “over time.”
If they can take away semi-automatic rifles from future generations, the logical next step is to take away semi-automatic pistols with 10-round magazines from future generations. The Virginia Tech shooter killed 32 people and wounded 18 using a pistol with 10-round* magazines.
If they can take away the rifles, what stops them from declaring the pistol “too dangerous to be in public hands” while using Virginia Tech-style massacres as an example?
*Yes, the VT shooter did have a couple of 15-round magazines, but almost all of the ones he had were 10-round capacity.
10 Comments
The website's content and articles were migrated to a new framework in October 2023. You may see [shortcodes in brackets] that do not make any sense. Please ignore that stuff. We may fix it at some point, but we do not have the time now.
You'll also note comments migrated over may have misplaced question marks and missing spaces. All comments were migrated, but trackbacks may not show.
The site is not broken.
Slow boiling the frog in the pot.? Systematic infiltration of liberalism and its associated permeating incompetence can be tied to all the problems this country has, be it education, law enforcement, the economy etc.
?
Keep a close eye on one group of law enforcement officers in this country, “the sheriffs”. I have been reading online that a number of sheriffs WILL NOT enforce any new federal laws in regards to “gun control.”
An in kind response to the fed’s failure to enforce immigration laws??
?
I hope so.
A whole group of sheriffs in UT and there is even a sheriff in WI even calling on folks to take up arms because of cutbacks.
Oh, my! Ban all guns? That’s just plain crazy. No one would have any guns? Really? Wow! How perfect is that? NO ONE has any guns? Oh, how lovely will that will be!
?
Dude! That’s some good Kool-Aid! /SARC/
?
To all of these politicians and cop-types: Who benefits from banning all firearms?
And, will they give up their guns when they retire?
?
Would it not then follow that off duty cops must be disarmed too?
Yes.
Even on duty, only be special officers in special units would have access to firearms. This would help minimize accidental shootings. Liberals would be less likely to be traumatized by the mere sight of guns.
All snarkiness aside, the gun banners want to make the tragedy in Sandy Hook all about their agenda and their fervent desire to rid everyone else of guns. I personally take extreme objection to the gun-grabbers jumping on the deaths of innocent people to advance their uber-political dream.
Every time anyone brings up the current liberal “gotta do something” rush to legislate new, useless laws to restrict firearms’ rights, I point out that a murderous maniac was responsible for this latest liberal opportunity to ban guns. Timely mental health intervention would have gone a long way to avert this truly sad situation. In every mass murder situation, there were people who knew of the perpetrator’s torment and homicidal ideation.
It is too easy to fall into the liberal trap of hysterical response and play their game. The “hearings” in Hartford are a case in point.
My time in this den of liars and thieves is limited, when I move, I’ll be considering things like these totalitarian tendencies of the local governments when I decide on somewhere better.? CT is screwed and will never be prosperous, the progressives will never give up their grip on the counting of the ballots.
Today’s accepted self defense weapon is tomorrow’s “big scary gun”.? Ad infinitum.