The Associated Press’ Lisa Marie Pane asks an important question
In gun buyback talk, how do you round up so many weapons?
Democratic presidential candidate Beto O’Rourke’s recent vow to take away people’s AR-15 and AK-47 rifles raised one big question: How is it possible to round up the millions of such guns that exist in the United States?
The number of AR-15 and AK-47s in the U.S. is estimated at a staggering 16 million, creating logistical challenges to take them out of circulation. Many gun owners are also unwilling to turn over the weapons, and if the government offered to buy them all back at face value, the price tag could easily run into the billions of dollars.
O’Rourke’s pointed declaration during a recent debate — “Hell yes, we’re gonna take your AR-15, your AK-47†— stoked longstanding fears among gun owners that Democrats are less interested in safety or finding a middle ground, and just want to confiscate guns. Even some gun-control advocates aren’t so sure that confiscating firearms will work.
(discussion of Democrat confiscation policies)
Democratic candidates pushing gun buybacks have also pointed to similar moves in Australia and New Zealand. However, the number of AR-style long guns in those countries pales in comparison to the United States, and neither has gun rights enshrined in their constitutions.
In those two countries they banned most privately owned firearms, not just those scary “assault weapons”.
Chipman believes an assault weapon ban should be handled similar to the machine gun rules, requiring they be registered and heavily regulated but not confiscated.
“I think it would be far more likely that we would find more of the weapons under comprehensive regulation by the government than sort of a forced buyback ban scenario,†he said.
There’s also the optics of the government taking away guns, presenting another challenge for the Democratic proposals.
The idea of outlawing and then rounding up firearms alarmed many gun owners who believe it will not solve the problem of gun violence and would only serve to take firearms away from law-abiding Americans. They point out that while AR-style guns have been used in some high-profile mass shootings, most gun deaths involve handguns.
“Once you start talking about taking guns away, especially legally owned firearms by responsible gun owners, you’re just going to alienate a whole huge portion of American citizens. They’re just not going to stand for that,†said Chris Waltz, the president and CEO of AR-15 Gun Owners of America. “This is what they feared.â€
So, one proposal is simply to make them highly regulated to attempt to get them registered, which would make it easier to confiscate later. See, again, that registration part is what was missing from Australia and New Zealand banning weapons. It’s been reported that only 20% of firearms were turned in when Australia banned them in the late 1990’s, and the number of weapons turned in in New Zealand has been rather low.
Even some self-identified liberals who own firearms question the legality of gun confiscation and even the practicality.
“Constitutional rights aren’t based on what you like. What’s the slippery slope of this?†said Lara C. Smith, the national spokeswoman for the Liberal Gun Club, a nonprofit group of liberal gun owners. “If they’re going to take away these rights, what other rights are they going to take away?â€
And this hardcore push will drive liberals away from voting in 2020. They may not vote for Trump and Republicans, but, they won’t be giving their vote to Democrats. And it is a slippery slope. And, Democrats keep moving the goal posts. But, they’ve said it when they started talking about the Australian solution even before the 2016 election.
Just like everything else, make something illegal and people will use something else. Make these firearms illegal and people hell bent on killing will use something else. Then what? Make those illegal as well? Where does it stop? Short answer, it doesn’t stop. This is just an attempt at a beginning and, as time goes on and nothing changes, it will be some other firearm that is at fault and those will be banned. Repeat until all firearms are banned. Even then, crazies will still find a way. Look at Australia. They are held up as what happens when you ban guns. Granted, mass killings by gun have decreased, but not stopped, but mass murder still happens. Comparing the twenty years before and after their ban shows that more people have died in mass casualty events after the ban than before. The only difference is the method.
They don’t want to ban weapons to save our lives, they want to ban them to save their own lives when they move to limit speech, property and Liberty even more.
Islam is right about women.
Trump 2020 Let’s get the America haters out of America
Since the goal of the Left is gun confiscation, like in all Communist countries, there is no reason at all for the Right to seek compromise, middle ground, or “sensible reform”. From my point of view, “compromise” is what we already have. The preferred position would be repeal of the NFA, disestablish the BATFE and express that gun ownership is a basic human right under the incorporation doctrine and not subject to state and local restrictions. But, because I am “reasonable”, I would be OK to keeping what we have.
I reject the idea that what is wrong with America is “not enough laws” and “too much liberty”.
It’s a red herring. No one recommending confiscation of firearms can be elected in the US.
Every single Democrat running is for confiscation of firearms and every single one has been elected.
Are you certain that every Democrat running wants to confiscate firearms?
All likely favor universal background checks, restrictions on assault weapons (which you claim don’t exist) and large magazines.
Radical extremists politicize this approach by calling it “confiscation”. Sort of like calling abortion, “murder”.
TEACH worries about registration leading to confiscation, but why haven’t the feds confiscated all the registered, but not banned, machine guns?
“Are you certain that every Democrat running wants to confiscate firearms?”
Yes. By their own words.
Beto is being paid to say it si that it becomes part of the conversation and nudges us further down the road.
I think it is more likely he is trying to nudge his popularity above 3% by being more extreme than the other extremists who are running. If there is a Democratic party grand strategy on guns, I doubt they would let Beta in on it for fear he would spill coffee on it.
You’re probably correct, but it’s a poor strategy as the fringe crazies won’t go with a white guy a d the more moderate aren’t for confiscation.
Moderate Democrat position on guns is, “don’t SAY you are for confiscation”. They are all for it. All of them. The Democratic party already rid themselves of dissent years ago. They all vote lock step for their Communist party agenda, even the things that no longer matter, like gun control (which means total confiscation except from police and politically connected people). Communists are always for total confiscation from the masses. Guns let the masses actually choose freedom.