The list of Leftists demanding gun confiscation – Updated to Sep 2018


Once again proving that the Liberty grabber claim that ‘No one is talking about gun confiscation’ is a lie.

Leftists Lie about their obvious goal of gun confiscation to get people to accept the unlawful control over their private property that will lead to gun confiscation. They do this by denying that they are demanding gun confiscation while demanding gun confiscation. These lists are important in that they clearly illustrate that these denials are just bold-faced Lies.

Simply ordering gun owners to turn over their property is the easiest form of confiscation. This is facilitated with lists of gun owners gleaned from Intergalactic Background Checks [Enhanced, Universal, etc.] or registration. This is why the Leftist Liberty grabbers obsess over these critical steps to their final solution for the gun problem. Please note that this is an abridged list since there are numerous euphemisms for confiscation such as bans based on the use of open-ended phrases [“Military Style” or “Assault Weapons”].

May 2018

Esquire: Okay, Now I Actually Do Want To Take Your Guns

Ban assault weapons, buy them back, go after resisters: Ex-prosecutor in Congress

April 2018

Observer: Is It Time to Repeal the Second Amendment?

Vox: Why an assault weapons ban can’t address America’s gun problem

Miami Herald Repeal the Second Amendment — it’s not a crazy idea

Emma González [March for our Lives]: 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.

March 2018

Paste Magazine: Repeal the Second Amendment, Idiots

USA Today: Repealing the Second Amendment isn’t easy but it’s what March for Our Lives students need

New York Times – John Paul Stevens: Repeal the Second Amendment

The Charlotte News: Ban military-style assault weapons for the sake of our children

Vox: What no politician wants to admit about gun control “taking a huge number of guns away from a huge number of gun owners”

NAACP President OPINION: Gun Safety Is about Freedom [Australian style gun confiscation – making gun owners an offer they can’t refuse ]

February 2018

Maine Voices: It’s time for a gun abolition movement

We need to stand up to the NRA and push for what is so desperately needed: a complete ban on firearms.

Mercury News – Eugene Robinson

Robinson: Arming teachers is absurd — ban military-style assault rifles

PSMag: Repeal the Second Amendment Already

The Star: Want to end gun violence Mr. President? Get rid of guns

La Times: No one becomes a mass shooter without a mass-shooting gun

It’s Too Late. You’ve Lost Your Guns.

Democrat and Chronicle: Let’s repeal the Second Amendment

New York Times -To Repeat: Repeal the Second Amendment

November 2017

Splinter news: BAN GUNS

Redhawks Online: Guns must go

Boston Globe: Hand over your weapons

News-Press – USA Today Editorial Board: Renew ban on military-style assault weapons

October 2017

Dan Pfeiffer: What to Bring to the Gun Fight [national gun registry, Tracking and limiting purchases of ammunition and a national gun buyback program]

Eugene Robinson: Gun control should include buyback program like Australia’s

Washington Post: President Trump, end this ‘American carnage’.
[Members of The Washington Post Editorial Board]

The Week: Ban guns

New York Times: The Cancer in the Constitution

New Boston Post-Connecticut Professor: Repeal the Second Amendment

The New York Times: Repeal the Second Amendment

Plan A Magazine: Ban Guns. Amend the Constitution.

(CNN) Sachs: Ban semiautomatic assault weapons and save lives

Forget about ‘gun control,’ let’s repeal the Second Amendment

Prospect magazine: Dear America: it’s time to grow up and ban guns

August 2017

Mike the gun guy [A Magazine With News and Notes From Both Sides About Guns.]

What Guns To Be Safe? Get Rid Of The Guns.

December 2016

Huffington Post: Domestic Disarmament, Not ‘Gun Control’

June 2016

Rolling Stone: Why It’s Time to Repeal the Second Amendment

Washington Post – Eugene Robinson: Assault weapons must be banned in America

January 2016

W. Kamau Bell [CNN]: I want Obama to take away your guns

Huffington post: Can’t We Just Put the Damn Guns Down?

Anderson Cooper:”Speaking only for myself, watching Obama get repeatedly accused of wanting to take people’s guns away makes me sort of wish he’d just do something to earn that accusation. May as well!”

The Daily Beast: President Obama Isn’t Taking People’s Guns—But Maybe He Should.

December 2015

New Republic: It’s Time to Ban Guns. Yes, All of Them.

The New York Times: End the Gun Epidemic in America [First Front Page Editorial In 95 Years]

This editorial published on A1 in the Dec. 5 edition of The New York Times. It is the first time an editorial has appeared on the front page since 1920.

Salon: The Second Amendment must go: We ban lawn darts. It’s time to ban guns

November 2015

The Daily Beast: Yes, They Want to Take Your Guns Away

October 2015

Hillary Clinton: “In the Australian example, as I recall, that was a buyback program.”…..“I think it would be worth considering doing it on the national level”

Vox: Becoming a gun-free society would be hard. But we should still try.

Daily Kos: Effective Gun Control – A National Semi-Auto Ban

Washington Post: A gun-free society

Baltimore Sun: Repeal the Second Amendment

Obama: “We know that other countries, in response to one mass shooting, have been able to craft laws that almost eliminate mass shootings. Friends of ours, allies of ours — Great Britain, Australia, countries like ours. So we know there are ways to prevent it.”

September 2015

Grieving mom of two slain sons: Get rid of the guns!

January 2015

Tallahassee Democrat – Stop the insanity: Ban guns

June 2014

Obama: 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.

May 2014

La Times: You say gun control doesn’t work? Fine. Let’s ban guns altogether.

April 2013

Huffington Post: Gun Control? We Need Domestic Disarmament

February 2013

America Magazine: Repeal the Second Amendment

January 2013

New York Times: [John Howard] I Went After Guns. Obama Can, Too.

Vanity Fair – Kurt Eichenwald: Let’s Repeal the Second Amendment

December 2012

Daily Kos: How to Ban Guns: A step by step, long term process

Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo: “Confiscation could be an option. Mandatory sale to the state could be an option. Permitting could be an option — keep your gun but permit it.”

Detroit Metro Times: Ban all guns, now

Opinionator – New York Times: Why Gun ‘Control’ Is Not Enough

House Dem: ‘Turn in your guns’

Huffington Post: It’s Not About the Constitution [Getting rid of the Second Amendment]

Eugene Robinson: First, Get Rid of the Guns

Economist The gun control that works: no guns

July 2012

Huffington Post: Get Rid of the Damn Guns

Mar 2012

Yes conservatives, we want to take away your guns…

February 2011

Arizona Daily Star: Reinstate ban on military-style assault weapons

April 2007

Salon: Repeal the Second Amendment

December 1993

La Times – Taming the Monster: Get Rid of the Guns : More firearms won’t make America safer–they will only accelerate and intensify the heartache and bloodshed

Originally published on the NOQ Report



Gun Confiscation Reference May 2018

May 2018
[Reverse chronological order]
May 18, 2018
Esquire: Okay, Now I Actually Do Want To Take Your Guns

May 3, 2018
Ban assault weapons, buy them back, go after resisters: Ex-prosecutor in Congress

 Okay, Now I Actually Do Want To Take Your Guns
Young people of America are now expecting to witness gun violence in their schools. It doesn’t have to be that way.
By Dave Holmes May 18, 2018

Anyway, I just wanted to drop you a line and let you know that I now actually do want to take your guns.

All of your guns.

Right now.

All along, there have been opportunities for sensible, incremental changes. This year alone, we could have banned the manufacture of bump stocks, which turn semi-automatic weapons into automatic ones. We could have raised the minimum age for gun ownership from 18 to 21, or instate a national minimum age for long-gun ownership. We haven’t, largely because you have bought our government.

What you have done is double down. What you’ve done is convince your members that the occasional school shooting, the odd literal slaughter of innocents, is an unfortunate but inevitable quirk of American life, a thing that is necessary to preserve freedom. You have taken to our television screens to tell us that the world is an apocalyptic hellscape, and that the only way to be safe from gun violence is to stock our homes with guns.

You pushed legislation that cut funding from the Centers for Disease Control for research on gun safety in America. Research that might conclude that fewer guns would mean fewer gun deaths, which leaves us with…no meaningful research on gun violence in America. Our ongoing studies on car safety have made cars, roads and highways safer—not without risk, but safer—yet no comparable studies can be done on guns.

Here’s what you get for that.

The young people of America are now expecting to witness gun violence in their schools. They are sitting in trigonometry waiting for the other shoe to drop, except the shoe can shoot 400 rounds a minute. That’s the result of all your hard work. There’s your prize. Stand up and take it!

This morning, as an active shooter situation unfolded in his town, this guy decided to show up on the scene with a MAGA hat, a full-size American flag and a pistol on his hip, to…I guess attempt to be a hero? This is what your relentless fear-mongering gets us all: an adult human being taking a gun to a school to be helpful.
So now I’m angry. Now I’m finished trying to reason with you. So now I, a guy who was ambivalent about guns just a few years ago, want to take your guns away. All of them. I want to take them all and melt them down and shape them into a giant sphere and then push it at you so you have to run away from it like Indiana Jones for the rest of your lives. I want Ted Nugent to roam the halls of his gunless house, sighing wearily until he dies. I want to end this thing once and for all, so that all of you who have prioritized the sale of guns over the lives of children have to sit quietly and think about what you’ve done. God help me, I want to take all of your guns out of your hands, by myself, right now.

It won’t happen, of course. So let’s meet in the middle. Let’s meet at…literally anything.

It’s happening. We tried it your way, and it really did not work. The ground is shifting. Get ready.

Ban assault weapons, buy them back, go after resisters: Ex-prosecutor in Congress
Eric Swalwell May 3, 2018

Nonetheless, we can give ourselves and our children the chance these victims never had. We can finally act to remove weapons designed for war from our streets, once and for all.

Reinstating the federal assault weapons ban that was in effect from 1994 to 2004 would prohibit manufacture and sales, but it would not affect weapons already possessed. This would leave millions of assault weapons in our communities for decades to come.

Instead, we should ban possession of military-style semiautomatic assault weapons, we should buy back such weapons from all who choose to abide by the law, and we should criminally prosecute any who choose to defy it by keeping their weapons. The ban would not apply to law enforcement agencies or shooting clubs.

There’s something new and different about the surviving Parkland high schoolers’ demands. They dismiss the moral equivalence we’ve made for far too long regarding the Second Amendment. I’ve been guilty of it myself, telling constituents and reporters that “we can protect the Second Amendment and protect lives.”

The Parkland teens have taught us there is no right more important than every student’s right to come home after class. The right to live is supreme over any other.

Our courts haven’t found a constitutional right to have assault weapons, anyway. When the Supreme Court held in 2008 that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm, Justice Antonin Scalia wrote that this right “is not unlimited” and is “not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”

Australia got it right. After a man used military-style weapons to kill 35 people in April 1996, that nation adopted strict new measures and bought back 643,726 newly illegal rifles and shotguns at market value. The cost — an estimated $230 million in U.S. dollars at the time — was funded by a temporary 0.2% tax levy on national health insurance.

America won’t get off that cheaply. Gun ownership runs so deep that we don’t even know how many military-style semiautomatic rifles are in U.S. civilian hands.

Based on manufacturing figures and other indirect data, there could be 15 million assault weapons out there. If we offer $200 to buy back each weapon — as many local governments have — then it would cost about $3 billion; at $1,000 each, the cost would be about $15 billion.

It’s no small sum. But let’s put it in context.

The federal government is spending an estimated $4 trillion this year; $15 billion would be 0.375% of that, not that we must spend it all in one year.

Meanwhile, the GOP’s tax “reform” — a giveaway to corporations and the rich that threw comparatively meager scraps to working families — is projected to increase the national debt by $1.9 trillion over the next decade.

What is it worth to American taxpayers to not see our families, friends and neighbors cut down in a hail of gunfire? Consider this an investment in averting carnage and heartache and loss.

America has a deadly problem, a problem other developed nations have avoided or addressed. Some say we’re already too far gone to take corrective action, but we cannot have a defeatist attitude about this. Fixing our problem requires boldness and will be costly, but the cost of letting it fester will be far higher — for our wallets, and for our souls.


Gun Confiscation Reference April 2018

April 2018
[Reverse chronological order]
April 4, 2018
Observer: Is It Time to Repeal the Second Amendment?
Is It Time to Repeal the Second Amendment?

Apr 3, 2018
Vox: Why an assault weapons ban can’t address America’s gun problem

April 02, 2018
Miami Herald Repeal the Second Amendment — it’s not a crazy idea

April 22, 2018
Emma González [March for our Lives]: Removing the assault and semi-automatic weapons from our Civilian society

Other Items:
April 18 2018
What if all guns disappeared?
Take the politics out of it. By the numbers, what would we gain – and lose – if all firearms suddenly were wiped off the face of the planet?

Is It Time to Repeal the Second Amendment?
By Donald Scarinci • 04/04/18
While the marches and rallies across the nation demanding stronger gun control laws have increased in the wake of the tragic Parkland shooting, they will not amount to much without petitioning for a constitutional amendment.

The protests will achieve legislative reaction in some states like New Jersey. Unfortunately, state laws can provide only mere tweaks to the bigger problem of gun ownership in heavily populated areas. The sole way to solve the problem is to repeal the Second Amendment.

Without federal constitutional protection, states would be free to decide for themselves what restrictions, if any, to place on gun ownership. Less populated states would be free to have liberal gun ownership, including the right to carry. More populated states would be free to create more rigid restrictions on gun ownership and even ban guns completely.

Abolishing the Second Amendment

Most recently, retired U.S. Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens lent his support to the repeal of the Second Amendment.

“[D]emonstrators should seek more effective and more lasting reform. They should demand a repeal of the Second Amendment,” Justice Stevens wrote in The New York Times. “Concern that a national standing army might pose a threat to the security of the separate states led to the adoption of that amendment… Today that concern is a relic of the 18th century.”

Why an assault weapons ban can’t address America’s gun problem
There’s not much empirical weight behind the ban, although experts say it could reduce mass shooting deaths.
By German Lopez@germanrlopez Apr 3, 2018

The assault weapons ban is one of the top policy proposals from March for Our Lives and other gun control advocates. But it’s also one of the gun control measures with the least supportive evidence behind it.

The typical argument for the ban: Weapons of war have no place in American communities. These high-velocity, high-capacity weapons are particularly deadly, even more so than other semiautomatic firearms such as handguns. They have also been used disproportionately in mass shootings. And they aren’t needed for hunting or self-defense. So they should be banned altogether.

All these claims have a certain intuitive sense behind them. What they don’t have, however, is a whole lot of empirical evidence, based on my discussions with gun policy experts and researchers. Studies on assault weapons bans have generally ranged from inconclusive to unfavorable toward a ban.

That doesn’t mean an assault weapons ban would have absolutely no effect. Consider the 2017 mass shooting in Las Vegas. In that case, the gunman parked himself on the 32nd floor of a hotel near a country music concert and fired indiscriminately into the crowd with assault weapons — which were also retooled with bump stocks to mimic the firepower of machine guns. He killed 58 people and injured hundreds.

Bump stock or not, it stands to reason that the shooting would have been much less lethal if the shooter didn’t use an assault weapon and used, say, a more conventional handgun instead. The bullets would have had shorter range, and those that hit would have had lower velocity and therefore caused less damage. In a shooting with such a high casualty count, that could’ve translated to potentially hundreds of injuries averted — although the shooter also could have changed his approach without access to assault weapons.

Still, it’s worth putting this in context: This kind of violence is already relatively infrequent. Mass shooting deaths make up less than 4 percent of gun homicides in the US, while shootings with rifles, including assault weapons, make up less than 3 percent. So pushing assault weapons out of circulation wouldn’t have a big impact on overall gun violence in America, even if it has an outsize impact on some particularly awful tragedies.

These are just some of the complications that limit an assault weapons ban’s effectiveness. So while the policy may seem intuitive, there isn’t much evidence to support it — and in a world with limited political capital for gun reforms, those gaps in the research need to be taken seriously.
Previous bans had no significant effect on gun crime

The most cited review of the evidence is a 2013 analysis by researcher Christopher Koper on the effect of the 1994 federal assault weapons ban, which lawmakers let expire in 2004.

The analysis concluded, “The ban did not appear to affect gun crime during the time it was in effect, but some evidence suggests it may have modestly reduced gunshot victimizations had it remained in place for a longer period.”

That was partially, Koper wrote, because the 1994 ban was riddled with loopholes.

To understand why, consider a surprisingly tricky question in this discussion: What is an assault weapon, and how do you define it? For lawmakers, these questions have posed a challenge over the years.

People might have a vision of an assault weapon in their heads — say, a semiautomatic rifle like an AR-15 — but defining what makes that an assault weapon can be difficult. Is it that it’s semiautomatic? Well, there are semiautomatic handguns and hunting rifles too. Is it the high velocity and long range? Traditional hunting rifles can also have those features. Is it the pistol grip? That offers an easy way around the law then — if someone could just remove a pistol grip, then it’s no longer an illegal assault weapon.

Ultimately, the 1994 ban settled on a definition of assault weapons that included, among other features, “pistol grips on rifles, flash hiders, folding rifle stocks, threaded barrels for attaching silencers, and the ability to accept ammunition magazines holding large numbers of bullets,” as well as some specific guns by name and “copies or duplicates” of them, Koper wrote. That captured some handguns, on top of the rifles that people might typically think of as assault weapons.

But the ban was still easily bypassed, Koper noted: “Relatively cosmetic changes, such as removing a flash hider or bayonet mount, were thus sufficient to transform a banned weapon into a legal substitute. In this sense, the law is perhaps best understood not as a gun ban but as a law that restricted weapon accessories.” Gun manufacturers took advantage of this, producing modified versions of previous weapons to make them legal — blowing a big hole in the law.
A young boy fires an AR-15 at a shooting range. A young boy fires an AR-15 at a shooting range. Ryan Houston via Getty Images

Plus, guns made and owned prior to the ban were grandfathered in, making them legal to own and transfer. That comprised at least 1.5 million assault weapons in the US at the start of the ban, according to Koper.

This gets into another tricky aspect of banning assault weapons: Do past guns get to stay around, or are there efforts to take those out of circulation through, for instance, a buyback program or a mandatory registration-and-tax scheme (similar to current laws for automatic weapons)? The 1994 ban took the former approach, but March for Our Lives has called for the latter with a new ban.

The 1994 ban was also attached to a ban on high-capacity magazines that carried more than 10 rounds, which Koper suggested was arguably the law’s “most important provision.” That’s in part because this ban also affected the firearms that weren’t covered by the assault weapons ban, so it could affect a much broader level of gun violence. Indeed, a study from February by Koper suggested that high-capacity magazines may be involved more often in typical shooting deaths than previously thought.

But at the end of the day, Koper found that the 1994 ban had no significant effect on gun crime — although it may have had some modest effects if it had been allowed to stay around for longer and over time pushed more assault weapons and high-capacity magazines out of circulation.

Koper’s analysis had two big gaps: It didn’t look at the 1994 ban’s effect on mass shootings, and it didn’t analyze state laws.

For that, the best review of the evidence is an extensive report by the RAND Corporation released in March, which looked at US studies on gun control, including assault weapons bans at the state level.

Here, too, the news is not good for an assault weapons ban. RAND found that the available studies were often contradictory. Focusing specifically on the most rigorous studies, RAND found the evidence for bans’ effects on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines on mass shootings and violent crime in general to be “inconclusive.”

“None of [the studies] provided what we considered to be any kind of conclusive evidence,” Andrew Morral, the head of RAND’s gun policy initiative, told me.

“The studies are pretty weak,” Morral said. “Also, a lot of these bans have been pretty weak” — noting many of the same loopholes that the Koper analysis did.

But what if an assault weapons ban wasn’t weak — and really took these guns out of circulation? The US could, for example, follow Australia’s lead and ban a much broader category of semiautomatic rifles and institute a mandatory buyback program — basically, a firearm confiscation scheme. Would that have a significant effect?
A ban would have little effect on overall gun violence but maybe some on mass shootings

Experts said that even a more effective ban on assault weapons likely wouldn’t have much of an impact on overall gun violence in the US.

That’s because only a small percentage of overall gun violence involves assault weapons, with the great majority of firearm homicides involving more conventional handguns. And Morral said there’s no reason to believe an assault weapons ban would have any effect on suicides, which have in recent years made up around 60 percent of all gun deaths.

In a country with so many gun deaths, cutting even a percentage point or two of overall gun deaths could still save hundreds of lives a year. But in terms of addressing America’s overall gun problem, it just wouldn’t have a big impact.

Still, experts said that an assault weapons ban may have a significant effect on the lethality of mass shootings.

Assault weapons’ “functionality is really most relevant in the context of a public mass shooting,” Daniel Webster, the director at the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research, told me.

The research still isn’t good in this area, in large part because there is no single accepted database for tracking mass shootings and what weapons they involve. But there are some analyses that can be drawn on.

Repeal the Second Amendment — it’s not a crazy idea
By Christopher M. Norwood April 02, 2018
Gun control will never get around the Second Amendment. We can dance around it like Muhammad Ali, perhaps jab at it with policy like Sugar Ray. But we will never Tyson TKO gun control without amending — or completely repealing the Second Amendment so that individual states can determine for themselves how to regulate personal gun use.

Retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens agrees. He recently challenged young activists to take it a step further and, “Seek more effective and more lasting reform … demand a repeal of the Second Amendment.”

We’ve never held an Article V Constitution Convention. Why not a Constitutional Convention to discuss gun control among other proposed changes? I think individual states in today’s world should decide this issues. Shootings kill more than 36,000 Americans each year; every day, there is a average of 96 deaths and 222 injuries by gun violence. Of all firearm homicides in the world, 82 percent occur in the United States. African-American children have the highest rates of firearm mortality overall; they are 10 times more likely to be killed by guns in a country where African-Americans make up 14 percent of the population.

Florida should be leading an effort for a U.S. Constitutional Convention. The country is under assault because Democrats and reasonable Republicans will not address racially charged appeals with big ideas that bring people together. But big ideas win elections.

Christopher M. Norwood, J.D. is spokesman for the Democratic Black Caucus of Florida and a Democratic Executive Committee member for Miami-Dade County.

April 22, 2018
Emma González [March for our Lives]: Removing the assault and semi-automatic weapons from our Civilian society

Other Items:

What if all guns disappeared?
Take the politics out of it. By the numbers, what would we gain – and lose – if all firearms suddenly were wiped off the face of the planet?
By Rachel Nuwer
18 April 2018

But what would happen if that debate was suddenly and irrevocably put to rest – because there were no guns at all? What if all firearms in the world suddenly disappeared with no way to get them back?

Guns obviously cannot just magically vanish. But this thought experiment allows us to remove politics from the equation and rationally consider what we could gain – and lose – should we ever actually decide to have fewer guns around.

The most obvious effect of such a disappearance is simple: no gun deaths. Approximately 500,000 people around the world are killed by guns each year. In terms of developed countries, the biggest losses are in the US, where citizens own 300 to 350 million guns in total. There, gun homicide rates are more than 25 times higher than the combined rate of other high-income nations.

No more guns would likewise mean safer conditions for police, Miller adds. More than half of the people killed by police in 2016 were armed, and many were exchanging fire with officers when they were shot.

Guns were used in just 10% of terror attacks but accounted for 55% of deaths

Deadly mass attacks by domestic terrorists also would decline. A 2017 study of more than 2,800 attacks in the US, Canada, Western Europe, Australia and New Zealand revealed that guns are by far the most lethal way to kill as many people as possible – even more than explosives or vehicular strikes. Guns were used in just 10% of attacks but accounted for 55% of deaths. In the US, terrorists also prefer guns: out of 16 lethal terrorism-associated attacks since 9/11, all but two involved firearms.

Improbable peace

History shows that violence is ingrained in human nature, however, and guns are by no means a prerequisite for conflict. “Think of the Rwandan genocide,” says David Yamane, a professor of sociology at Wake Forest University in North Carolina. “There was tremendous violence, much without firearms.”

Even when we take the thought experiment to its extreme and imagine all guns disappearing off the face of the Earth, war and civil strife would continue. But rather than revert to more primitive weaponry like spears, swords or bows and arrows, modern nations would likely shift to other forms of killing, including explosives, tanks, missiles and chemical and biological weapons. (Nuclear war, however, would likely remain unappealing given its extreme destructiveness, Gabor says.)

There would likely be a modest net economic gain if guns disappeared

In fact, there would likely be a modest net economic gain if guns disappeared. Gun death and injury-related expenses add up to direct losses of around $10.7 billion (£7 billion) per year, and more than $200 billion (£140 billion) when other factors are taken into account. “In the US, if you look at all the financial costs of gun violence, it’s not just direct medical costs and rehabilitation for people who are shot, but costs to the justice system and lost income of victims, and even quality of life costs,” Gabor says.

Many would be able to breathe easier with guns no longer in the picture, but some gun owners would experience the opposite effect and feel more vulnerable without their weapons. “There are people in the defensive gun world who arm themselves against others – whether that’s larger people, people with knives or others with guns – to equalise the situation,” Yamane says. Removing guns “would definitely leave people who are potential victims of violence unable to defend themselves against stronger, more forceful attackers,” he says.

Removing guns would leave people who are potential victims of violence unable to defend themselves against stronger, more forceful attackers – David Yamane

Gun Confiscation Reference March 2018

[Reverse chronological order]
Index List
March 30, 2018
Paste Magazine: Repeal the Second Amendment, Idiots

Mar 28, 2018
USA Today: Repealing the Second Amendment isn’t easy but it’s what March for Our Lives students need

March 27, 2018
New York Times – John Paul Stevens: Repeal the Second Amendment

March 21, 2018
The Charlotte News: Ban military-style assault weapons for the sake of our children

Mar 14, 2018
Vox: What no politician wants to admit about gun control
“taking a huge number of guns away from a huge number of gun owners”

March 6, 2018
NAACP President OPINION: Gun Safety Is about Freedom
[Australian style gun confiscation – making gun owners an offer they can’t refuse ]

Repeal the Second Amendment, Idiots
By Roger Sollenberger | March 30, 2018

This week, former Justice of the Supreme Court John Paul Stevens, a conservative, wrote in an op-ed that Americans should “demand the repeal of the Second Amendment.” He continued, “a constitutional amendment to get rid of the Second Amendment would be simple and would do more to weaken the NRA’s ability to stymie legislative debate and block constructive gun control legislation than any other available option.”

In 1991, Former Chief Justice Warren Burger, famously conservative, said that the Second Amendment “has been the subject of one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word fraud, on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime.” Burger added that if he were to rewrite the Bill of Rights, “There wouldn’t be any such thing as the Second Amendment.”

But note Burger’s careful language: the Second Amendment “has been the subject of one of the greatest pieces of fraud.”

That’s not the same as saying the Second Amendment itself is a fraud. What Burger meant was that the amendment has been abused by the gun lobby and conservatives for political gain. It’s now a weapon of fear, and was forged in the ironworks of good old fashioned American racism. The truth is that the Second Amendment is hopelessly out of date, or in the words of Justice Stevens, a constitutional provision that might once have had relevance but is now “a relic of the 18th century.”

The Second Amendment should be repealed, and at the very least rewritten. It’s about updating the Constitution to enable gun control in the interest of lowering death rates, suicide rates, and stopping massacres. The Constitution was made to be legally broken. It’s high time we stopped listening to the one-fifth of gun owners who belong to the NRA and argue in bad faith that this is a sacred and inviolable right. It’s not.

I’m not going to trot out a bunch of statistics about gun deaths, massacres, and suicides. We all know those arguments, and you can feel free to debate them elsewhere. I’m not interested in that anymore. Hunt, fine. Keep a revolver locked up in your home for protection, fine. I wouldn’t do it, and it’s dangerous as hell, but I understand. Semi-automatics, though? Ban them all, confiscate them, and burn them. Here’s my defense of that opinion.

This article is now about the Second Amendment.

America First and Only

The United States is the only country in the world that gives its constituents a blanket right to own weapons. This isn’t a reason in itself to enact any sort of policy, but it’s worth noting because the parallel consequences are undeniable: The U.S. is the only country with this kind of law, and the U.S. is the only country with these kinds of single-shooter massacres of targeted innocents.

Repealing the Second Amendment isn’t easy but it’s what March for Our Lives students need
Jonathan Turley, Opinion columnist Published 3:15 a.m. ET March 28, 2018
A full repeal of the Second Amendment is hard work, but it is the only way March for Our Lives won’t be hijacked by political figures wanting to harness energy and votes more than save lives.
Retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens has caused a stir by calling for the repeal of the Second Amendment. It was a call that young protesters should heed if they want to work for real change — and not simply be hijacked by political figures wanting to harness their energy and votes. Putting the merits of a repeal aside, Stevens, 97, was doing something that has been missing in the aftermath of the massacre at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Fla. He was being honest. These kids have been sold a bill of goods by politicians exaggerating not just the impact of proposed legislative changes but their actual ability to significantly curtail this individual right.

If it is real reform that these students want, they must convince their fellow citizens, as Justice Joseph Story once said, that part of the Constitution “has become wholly unsuited to the circumstances of the nation.”

It is not impossible but it is not easy. Circumstances and politics change. However, what does not change is the process for achieving real change. Even if the Second Amendment is, as Stevens describes, a “relic of the 18th Century,” it will take more than rhetoric to remove such a relic in the 21st Century.

John Paul Stevens: Repeal the Second Amendment
By John Paul Stevens March 27, 2018
Rarely in my lifetime have I seen the type of civic engagement schoolchildren and their supporters demonstrated in Washington and other major cities throughout the country this past Saturday. These demonstrations demand our respect. They reveal the broad public support for legislation to minimize the risk of mass killings of schoolchildren and others in our society.

That support is a clear sign to lawmakers to enact legislation prohibiting civilian ownership of semiautomatic weapons, increasing the minimum age to buy a gun from 18 to 21 years old, and establishing more comprehensive background checks on all purchasers of firearms. But the demonstrators should seek more effective and more lasting reform. They should demand a repeal of the Second Amendment.

Concern that a national standing army might pose a threat to the security of the separate states led to the adoption of that amendment, which provides that “a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” Today that concern is a relic of the 18th century.

In 2008, the Supreme Court overturned Chief Justice Burger’s and others’ long-settled understanding of the Second Amendment’s limited reach by ruling, in District of Columbia v. Heller, that there was an individual right to bear arms. I was among the four dissenters.

That simple but dramatic action would move Saturday’s marchers closer to their objective than any other possible reform. It would eliminate the only legal rule that protects sellers of firearms in the United States — unlike every other market in the world. It would make our schoolchildren safer than they have been since 2008 and honor the memories of the many, indeed far too many, victims of recent gun violence.
An earlier version of a picture caption with this article misidentified the 18th-century firearm depicted. It is a musket, not a rifle.

John Paul Stevens is a retired associate justice of the United States Supreme Court.

A version of this article appears in print on , on Page A23 of the New York edition with the headline: Repeal the Second Amendment.

Ban military-style assault weapons for the sake of our children
by Susan OhanianMarch 21, 2018

Because I do not think Vermonters can stand in silence while students ask for safe schools, I introduced the following advisory motion as the last item at Town Meeting on March 6, 2018:

<i>I move that the Town of Charlotte request that the Vermont State Legislature modify our gun laws in imitation of the federal assault weapons ban that was in effect from 1994 to 2004, which act imposed a ban on the manufacture, importation, and sale of assault weapons, and restricted their possession and disposal, and which laid down specific conditions in such a way as to maintain consistency with the Constitution and the Second Amendment.

I move that the chair of the Charlotte Select Board send this motion to the President Pro Tem of the Senate, the Speaker of the House, and our Representative, Mike Yantachka.</i>

The motion passed with acclaim.


Vox: What no politician wants to admit about gun control
By Dylan Updated Mar 14, 2018

Realistically, a gun control plan that has any hope of getting us down to European levels of violence is going to mean taking a huge number of guns away from a huge number of gun owners.

Other countries have done exactly that. Australia, for example, enacted a mandatory gun buyback that achieved that goal, and saw firearm suicides fall as a result. But the reforms those countries enacted are far more dramatic than anything US politicians are calling for — and even they wouldn’t get us to where many other developed countries are.

Unless something dramatic changes, gun violence will remain a distinctly American problem for the rest of our lives — background checks or no.

OPINION: Gun Safety Is about Freedom
March 6, 2018 / By Derrick Johnson
In the wake of the Parkland massacre, NAACP President and CEO Derrick Johnson says that comprehensive, sustainable gun control is achievable. Johnson uses Australia’s gun control policies as an example.

Unfortunately, years of ridiculously easy access to guns and ammunition has yielded an epidemic with deadly consequences for all Americans, but has been particularly fatal for communities of color who are disproportionately impacted. Gun violence is the number one killer of African Americans ages 15 to 34. Though African Americans make up only 13 percent of the U.S. population, we represent nearly 50 percent of all gun homicide victims. Over 80 percent of gun deaths of African Americans are homicides. Roughly speaking, 1 out of every 3 African American males who die between the ages of 15 and 19 is killed by gun violence. African American children and teens were less than 15 percent of the total child population in 2008 and 2009, but accounted for 45 percent of all child- and teen-related gun deaths. These numbers are tragic and intolerable, but most of all they are preventable.

Critics might call such policy interventions naively ambitious in our current political climate. However, comprehensive, sustainable gun control is achievable. We know this because someone has done it.

Just look to Australia.

In the past 20 years, Australia has proven that sensible reform can prevail over partisan divides and high rates of gun ownership. In the spring of 1996, Australia faced the deadliest mass shooting in its history when a 28-year-old man opened fire at a tourist resort in Tasmania, killing 35 and wounding 23 with a semi-automatic rifle. Following the massacre, the party in power—the center-right Liberal coalition—surprised the country and world by joining with groups across the political spectrum to implement a radical intervention on gun violence. Over the course of mere months, the Australian government bought and destroyed over half a million firearms, banned automatic and semiautomatic weapons, created a national firearms registry, and enforced a 28-day waiting period for gun purchases.

The results were both clear and staggering—there has not been a single mass shooting in Australia since 1996. Additionally, data shows that in the ten years following the Tasmanian massacre, gun-related homicides and suicides dropped by 59 percent and 65 percent, respectively. While there is still room for improvement, the immediate and directly correlative impact of Australia’s gun control reform demonstrates the potential of policy to promote peace.

Australia’s gun control intervention was not achieved without encountering significant opposition. Like America, Australia holds a near fetish-like obsession for rugged individualism, which caused many to resent the government’s action and to perceive it as an insult to gun owners and a breach of power. To be fair, a 28-day waiting period on gun purchases hardly fits the image of the reckless, rough-and-tumble Outback presented by media and movies. But, as President Obama praised in 2015, the Australian people ultimately united in favor of national safety and progress.

Video: You’re Not A Liberal!

A Truth Revolt Original from Bill Whittle that succinctly explains why Leftists aren’t Liberal.

 Published on Oct 10, 2014

The 4:20 minute mark in the 6 minute video has its most important point:

The founding fathers were the True Liberals because they believed in Liberty – with both words having the same origins.

They believed in individual Liberty, private property,
limited government and the common sense civil rights of free-speech and
armed self-defence.
They believed in the freedom to be left alone.

The point of the video is that the collectivists of the nation’s Socialist-Left do not meet the definition of the word Liberal. They
believe in collective rights, Collective ownership of property,
unlimited government, limitations on speech and gun confiscation.

Those of that mindset (Leftists) are not Liberal by any stretch of the imagination.


Originally published on the NOQ Report

A Memo to the Liberty Grabbers of the Left from the Pro-Liberty Right.

Hat Tip: Nazis Are Socialists (Meso)

A dose of reality for you Leftists opposing freedom on behalf of the gun owners of America.

Seeing that we gun owners been your rhetorical punching bag for
several weeks, there are a few things we would like to point out to you
folks opposed to the most essential of Liberties. You’ve spent all
manner of airtime talking down to us, dictating what we ‘need’
with regard to our basic human rights. So now it is time for you to
listen to a couple of brutal truths in the matter. These aren’t going to
be ‘politically correct’, by any means, but such is usually not the case with cold hard reality.

From your ever so self laudatory language, you Liberty grabbers on
the Left like to think of yourselves as noble warriors, out there ‘changing the world’ for the ‘Common good’ [Gemeinnutz in the German vernacular]. Fighting for Socialister. Social ‘Justice’ and all manner of flowery folderol [Cue mournful violin music]. Yes, you think of yourselves as ‘sacrificing’ for the ‘the children*’
no matter what that entails. Whether it’s all manner of fame on Youtube
or Facebook, to endless praise from your echo chamber, there are no
limits as to your willingness to signal your virtue to everyone.

*Unborn children excluded

Well, sorry to break it to you, but in the words of the Marchers: “We call BS!”

The fact is there is nothing more selfish than demanding that others be deprived of their ‘essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety’
for yourselves. You want others to sacrifice their freedom for some
mythical gains in your perceived security. It would be one thing for you
to give up your Liberty, but that isn’t the case is it? You are
marching to demand that the basic human rights of others be stripped
from them, that is self-centred in the extreme.

“Those who deny freedom to others, deserve it not for themselves” ― Abraham Lincoln

Empathy is a very important human quality, so perhaps you should
consider giving up some of your essential liberties to understand what
is at stake for those of us on the Pro-Liberty side of the aisle. Maybe
you should demand that you be stripped of your First amendment rights?
Or perhaps Liberty Grabbers groups should be licensed before they can
demand that others be deprived of their rights?

Oh, what’s that you say? You have a Constitutional right to free-speech or freedom of the press? That those rights ‘Shall not be infringed’? [to coin a phrase] Or that the slightest amount will lead to a slippery slope towards the loss of them all. Welcome to our world,
where every time a Leftist lunatic decides to go on a mass murder
spree, our Constitutional rights are suddenly on the chopping block.
With it just being a question of how much of those rights we’re going to lose – if not everything.

Can we dictate what you ‘need’ in exercising your Rights?

Can we demand that you justify the keeping of your liberties? Can we arbitrarily decree that certain modes of speech are ‘Militaristic’ in style? Do you really ‘need’ to appear on the Tele 30 times a day? Do you really need a ‘high capacity’ smart phone? Do you really need to fire off 5 tweets in a minute just to kill off a basic human right?

Hypocrisy on parade: Liberty Grabbers have guns to protect themselves while denying that right to others.

Please note that the people in the Liberty Grabber movement you
idolize are also complete hypocrites in that while they work tirelessly
to take away our property and our Liberty, they are safe and secure
surrounded by ARMED security. Yes, think about it, the people who rail
against guns have no problem being protected by them. Were they to be
true to their words, they would disarm their security details. If
Citibank and Bank of America didn’t care to be hypocrites they would
dismiss their armed security and announce it to the world.
Oh, they have to deal with threats? So do the rest of us – and yet they want to make everyone else vulnerable to those threats while they stay safe and secure.

Here’s a hard dose of reality for you: We gun owners protect everyone, even you Liberty Grabbers.

The truth is that while you uselessly virtue signal your inestimable
magnanimity, it is those of us on the Pro-liberty side who work to keep
you people safe. This may come as a shock, but if you live in one of the
states or localities that value Liberty, you are around concealed
weapons every time you go out in public. Yes, you might find this to be
too scary to think about, but every day you are protected by the
deterrence effect of ordinary folks just like you [aside from their cherishing freedom that is] carrying around *Gasp* Firearms hidden from view.

Consequently, you don’t know who might be carrying a gun…. and neither do the criminals.
Thus the value of an armed citizenry. They don’t know who may have the
means to defend themselves, so they don’t know who to victimize,
therefore everyone is protected.

The exception being The “Gun-Free” zone, that vestige of the
Utopian fantasy world of the Left. Most mass shootings take place where
the innocent are denied their basic human Liberty of self-defence. So
what does that mean for you Leftists of the so-called “Party of Science”? It means that your absurd idea that a sign will stop a mass murder results in dead children. That is what you want everywhere, how does that even reach the threshold of rationality?

If you aren’t going to thank us for keeping you safe, could you at least leave us alone?

So why is all of this important? Because the people you have demonisd
for weeks are the ones keeping you safe. Those you label as terrorist,
splattered in blood are the people providing for your security. How is that for irony?

  • We’re the ones who take the time endure the draconian hurdles put in the way of our basic human rights.
  • We’re the ones who take the time to select the proper firearm and holster to carry concealed out in public.
  • We’re the ones who practice with our weapons in case an emergency arises.
  • We’re the ones who carry a cellphone and extra magazines for that potential emergency.
  • And We’re the ones who will most likely have to deal myriad legal
    problem and legal fees for merely protecting ourselves, our families and even you people should it be necessary.

Now, we don’t expect you people to grateful for this protection you
are afforded. Goodness knows you wouldn’t lower yourself to talk to
those of us on the Pro-liberty side. But could you at least acknowledge the effort and perhaps stop obsessing over taking away our Liberty that keeps you safe?


Originally published on the NOQ Report.


We need to call it Liberty Control instead of Gun Control.

The current debate is over Liberty and Freedom, the national
Socialist Left wants it to be about scary objects they don’t understand.

“She who defines the terms, wins the debate”

For all of their inherent faults, one must have a begrudging respect
for our comrades on the national Socialist-Left in how they exploit
language to very good effect. They enforce an iron discipline when it
comes to the words they use to frame the discussion to their cynical
advantage. An article in The Atlantic exemplified this with: Don’t Call It ‘Gun Control’.  Or more recently in New York magazine: ‘Gun Control’ Has Outlived Its Usefulness

While we will never adopt it’s immoral base ideology of collectivism, it is time we maintained the same discipline in the words we use. This occurs in various instances, with the incorrect use of the term Liberal being the most prominent, but that is for another column.

The debate is rightfully over the cause of Liberty, so why not act like it?

At present the important point is that we use the term ‘Liberty’ in place of the word ‘gun’ in the discussion over the common sense human right of self-defence. It is the underlying issue of the debate over the 2nd amendment. A Pew research poll from last June showed that For most gun owners, owning a firearm is tied to their personal freedom.  The best way to convince non-gun owners of this critical issue [ aside from taking them to the range having fun shooting an EBR ] would be to instantly frame the debate as being over Liberty instead of guns.

It is absurd to ascribe rights or controls to inanimate objects, but
that is the implication when using those terms instead of the underlying
issue. Consider some other essential topics of freedom such as the
right to vote or the right to privacy, would we really talk about a ‘War on ballots’ or ‘assault search warrants’ instead?

Framing the debate over Liberty instead of scary objects the Left doesn’t understand.

The national Socialist-Left would love to keep this debate framed as one over scary looking pieces of aluminium instead of freedom. Even though polling has shown there are about 120 Million gun owners
in the country, many have no direct experience with firearms. Still
further many gun owners don’t have personal experience with every aspect
of the issue. Sad to say, but many people don’t care about subjects
that do not impact their lives directly. Never the less, they do care
about the subject of Liberty, they can see as something immediately
important to them.

Just compare the emotional influence of a polling question with just one word difference Liberty in place of Gun:

Do you favour more gun control?

Do you favour more Liberty control?

That changes the thinking from that of objects to one that personally impacts their lives. This Liberty instead of Gun phraseology also goes directly to the heart of the Left’s deceptive use of the term ‘Liberal’.
Even if they don’t know it implicitly, both words have the same
underlying meaning – they both come from the same root word after all.

The Takeaway.

It should be obvious why the national Socialist Left does things in a
certain way with an iron grip on words being at the forefront.
Revealing the underlying issues will cause them to lose the argument. So
now, en mass they are playing games with language the use to avoid the
word ‘Control’ but still framing the debate as one over inanimate objects. They’ve begun to use the alternative phrase ‘gun reform’ but this is still an issue over everyone’s freedom. Thus a phrase such as ‘Liberty reform’ will nail them to the wall as to their true intent.

Originally published on the NOQ Report