BadBlue – My News Aggregator Of Choice


Is Gun Confiscation A Real Possibility In America?

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.

klonopin online no prescription

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.

ambien online no prescription

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.

buy phentermine online without prescription

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.

buy valium online without prescription

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.

buy tramadol no prescription

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.

About LD Jackson

buy klonopin online

LD Jackson has written 2053 posts in this blog.

valium for sale

Founder and author of the political and news commentary blog Political Realities. I have always loved to write, but never have I felt my writing was more important than in this present day. If I have changed one mind or impressed one American about the direction our country is headed, then I will consider my endeavors a success. I take the tag line on this blog very seriously. Above all else, in search of the truth.

ativan online no prescriptionbuy xanax online buy valium online buy valium online
  • I would argue that 80-85% of pols in DC care not a whit about the Constitution, if it cramps their ability to profit from their office. How many times have we seen an ‘average middle class’ person go to DC, and 4-6 years later, they’re a multi-millionaire? Unless you have a VERY solid moral and ethical foundation, you will wind up covered in slime. Even a strong foundation in those two doesn’t guarantee you won’t fall. The tyrants in waiting always use incrementalism to get what they want. Only when they get cocky, do they show their hand. They’ve gotten arrogant. Yet, have enough of the populace been dumbed down, or co-opted, to ignore it in favor of ‘getting theirs’?

    • That’s one reason why I believe term limits should be seriously considered. Far too many good men and women go to Washington and are corrupted by the “system”. Something needs to be done to counteract that corruption and to hinder it at every level.

  • Apparently the democratically controlled states are more than happy to get on with it. Apparently we will have to march with our feet to a Goper starte

    • That is a disturbing trend we are seeing. According to the Supreme Court, states have the right to place reasonable restrictions upon the 2nd Amendment. I don’t necessarily agree with that, but it does seem to be the law of the land. States like Colorado and Missouri trouble me with their efforts to pass the gun control legislation they are pushing.

  • I shudder to think of the bloodshed that would occur if the idiots in Washington tried the Australian solution.

    • That wouldn’t be a pretty thing to watch.

  • Maybe on the west coast and New York but Texas, Oklahoma, the former Confederacy and anyone with a lick of sense will refuse… I know I will refuse and would shoot any SOB that came after MY guns… Texas would be a giant *kill zone*, I imagine Oklahoma would too…

    • I think you are exactly right. It’s not bragging, but just stating the facts. I hope it never comes to that, but if it does, the federal authorities may find it more than a little difficult to achieve confiscation in states like Oklahoma and Texas. They probably wouldn’t be happy with the results.

  • Gordon D

    Look next for a tax on ammunition.
    EPA will have detailed rules for storing ammunition.
    Government regulations will state all guns and ammunition must be locked in steel cabinets.
    Russia locks up there dissidents in mental hospitals look for more people being put in mental hospitals for 72 hours.. Even if you’re cleared you will not be able to own a firearm. Once on the no fly a list always on the no fly a list.
    In the end only the rich will be able to afford guns.

    • I have no doubt you could be correct. Taxing ammunition has already been mentioned and if the EPA has their way, they will find some reason to declare ammunition “unsafe” for human use. That’s just how they think.

      To put it bluntly, I place very little trust in our politicians when they start making subtle little moves such as the ones they have been considering. Those subtle little moves may turn out to be much more than we first feared.

      Thanks for commenting on Political Realities.

  • The idea may sound far-fetched in America, but if a national gun registry is set up the pieces will all be in place. If the government decides to ban a weapon and not grandfather in the people who have the banned weapon they will have a database of people who own that weapon and they will be able to come and get them. I have no doubt that this is in the works for a do not trust the Obama regime at all.

    • Far-fetched, maybe, but not completely out of the realm of possibility. The knowledge that they are even talking about it is very troubling. That could be the start of a very slippery slope and one that I am unwilling to trust our government with.

  • LD, I know it’s an unpopular view, but the ‘Bill of Rights”, at least the first 8 Amendments, restrict what the Federal Gov’t is able to do, not the states. This was the intent of the compact. If a State Constitution, like the one here in Wisconsin, has the 2nd Amendment, or it’s equivalent, then your rights are protected by your individual state. If not, then you’d better get an Amendment going. The idea that the BoR is covers all States, iow, incorporated, is dangerous. Too long we’ve gone down the incorporation road, and the Federal Gov’t has turned into a National Gov’t. Original Intent needs to make a serious comeback.

    • You are right about the Bill of Rights and the US Constitution. Both documents place restrictions on the federal government, but not so much on the states. That’s why it is so important that we pay attention to what is going on at the state level.

  • Dragonconservative

    All the Democrats seem to care about is their ideology of gun control. They have no sense of realism in this, nor any regard for the Constitution, it seems.

    • They do seem to have a one track mind when it comes to gun control.

  • Thanks for the link, Larry. I discovered it last night. I appreciate it.

    And, regarding the Australian law, didn’t their gun crime increase?

    • You are quite welcome. And yes, Australian gun crime did increase after the ban was implemented.

  • Brenda Richardson

    Don’t worry about Missouri. The General Assembly is composed of a veto-proof majority of Republicans and the idiotic, asinine proposals by the democrats will go Nowhere.

    • That’s good news to hear, Brenda. I hope the Republicans hold their ground.