Gun Confiscation in America

[LevelHead]

After hearing so many people say that, "no one is coming for your guns", I got curious as to how often confiscations have happened, or even how often they are considered by legislatures. I found a lot of people asking the same thing, but found only pieces of information here and there. I decided to do some Internet research and compiled a list of ten items relating to gun confiscations in America. I then took that list and put it into a blog post, which you can read here:

http://www.level-headed.net/2013/05/gun-confiscation-in-america/

My goal with these posts is to provide verifiable facts and logic without resorting to emotionalism and grandstanding. I encourage you to share them if you find them useful.

 

[Greenmachin3]

Consider the number of US politicians in places of power in the last 50 years who have held dual citizenship with other countries, I'm not terribly surprised. Not only should their absolute loyalty to the US constitution be immediately suspect, but they have historically been shown to be moved by ideologies and men of power outside the US.

As a dual UK/US citizen, I know how this feels. There are times where I feel conflicted. Who's interests do I support more? I lean, for the majority, in favor of the US because I live here, but I wouldn't be honest if I said I didn't have that whisper in the back of my mind all the time rooting for the UK.

If gun control is on the agenda of their foreign influences of power, then it is, regardless of how muffled, on their agenda too.

 

[Agsalaska]

Your very first post is a classic example of taking a singular quote out of the context of the entire interview. Sen Feinstein was answering questions specific to the assault weapons ban from 1994. She was not speaking of ALL guns. SHe was talking about guns that were effected by the 1994 ban. I am certainly not trying to defend her. She is the devil as far as I am concerned. But that is just an out of context quote repeated so many times people believe it. Both sides are guilty as sin of it. I would never use that quote as evidence that she or anyone else want to ban 'ALL' guns. That is intellectually dishonest. And I see you were kind of vague as well. Hopefully it was on purpose.

 

[LevelHead]

Do you have a link to the entire interview? I'd rather reference the entire thing if I can. Even if she's talking only about "assault weapons", it's a valid point, though I agree the snippet may be more damning than the entire interview (as is often the case with soundbites).

Edit - I found it: http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7380236n

I've added a link to the original show and added the following to that section:

What guns she wanted to confiscate isn't clear, but I assume she's talking about "assault weapons" given the content of the show

 

[BullfrogKen]

It really doesn't matter, does it? I mean, splitting hairs over whether or not the Senator from California meant if she could, she would have agents take all our guns, or just certain ones she thinks we can't be trusted with.


The fact that she's happy to openly discuss taking guns from people who have never, and likely will never do anything criminal with them is enough for me to know that she's a liar when she says that's no longer her intention today.


Look, I don't need to have it documented that gun confication has happened. Or that legislators have talked out the sides of their mouth wanting to do it.

All I need to know is human history and the nature of power.


How many promises did certain Senators, legislatures and Presidents make to Indian Nations, then have the succeeding administration come along and ignore those promises? Politicians and Administrations today cannot promise me that politicians and Administrations tomorrow won't abuse power.

 

[X-Rap]

The important thing IMO is that the wish to disarm is real and very active. We are also the last place on earth (with the exception of a few states) in which I can travel from coast to coast with the means to protect myself and much of the time with it on my person.

The last place on earth is a rare place to be and we must protect it.

 

[Agsalaska]

It really doesn't matter, does it? I mean, splitting hairs over whether or not the Senator from California meant if she could, she would have agents take all our guns, or just certain ones she thinks we can't be trusted with.


The fact that she's happy to openly discuss taking guns from people who have never, and likely will never do anything criminal with them is enough for me to know that she's a liar when she says that's no longer her intention today.


Look, I don't need to have it documented that gun confication has happened. Or that legislators have talked out the sides of their mouth wanting to do it.

All I need to know is human history and the nature of power.


How many promises did certain Senators, legislatures and Presidents make to Indian Nations, then have the succeeding administration come along and ignore those promises? Politicians and Administrations today cannot promise me that politicians and Administrations tomorrow won't abuse power.

That is a good point. But I think, for the sake of credibility, he was right to amend it as he said in post 4. To the grand point of gun confiscation you are exactly right. I just like the accuracy in his amendment. And, for the record, she is still a witch.

Sorry. Its just a pet peeve of mine.


Otherwise, very well done blog. I think as you continue to research it you will find more and more to add to it.

 

[230RN]

As they say, history repeats itself. They also say that those who do not know history are doomed to repeat it.

I suggest widening the scope of gun confiscation to other places, other times, besides America.

See chart of "The Mother of All Stats" a little ways down from the header... note especially the comments in the right hand column:

http://jpfo.org/filegen-a-m/deathgc.htm#chart

It might also pay to review the history of Germany in the 1930s with a view toward gradual elimination of gun rights from various classes of people.

...Just a suggestion...

Terry, 230RN

 

[PabloJ]

After hearing so many people say that, "no one is coming for your guns", I got curious as to how often confiscations have happened, or even how often they are considered by legislatures. I found a lot of people asking the same thing, but found only pieces of information here and there. I decided to do some Internet research and compiled a list of ten items relating to gun confiscations in America. I then took that list and put it into a blog post, which you can read here:

http://www.level-headed.net/2013/05/gun-confiscation-in-america/

My goal with these posts is to provide verifiable facts and logic without resorting to emotionalism and grandstanding. I encourage you to share them if you find them useful.

Confiscating guns as part of ones job would truly SUCK. They could not pay me enough to do it.

 

[mnrivrat]

I remember a program from years back when Sara Brady was on the subject of handgun control. I believe then her organization was called handgun something or other. When asked on this TV program what they wanted to accomplish, she indicated background checks for all handgun purchases.

When the subject of long guns came up she indicated they (her organization)had no interest in long guns, or passing any new laws regarding them. So then the Brady bill came about and the nics check . Has the Brady bunch gone away after reaching their goal ? Have they nothing to say about long guns or laws regarding them ?

They won't stop until they reach their real objective ,and that is an unarmed civilian population.

 

[Sentryau2]

I live here in missouri I only wish I was old enough to vote. These idiots will not stop until they have blood on their hands will they? I'm not saying its to that point but it is getting there. Cowards who set behind a desk with their families protected by body guards will not tell me what i need or dont need to protect myself or my loved ones. You want my guns? Then hold a constitutional convention other wise they can cram that piece of paper up their @$$. I'm already tired of this crap.

 

[Uncle Richard]

add to your article.....

LevelHead

In addition to your list.... If I remember correctly, NYC performed some type of registration and confiscation a couple decades ago for some handguns. Also, you could include that gun control was based on racial prejudice of minorities many years ago.

 

[Calibre44]

Confiscation is easy once your firearms are registered.

Once that happens the Gov simply change a few gun laws to make what you have illegal to own ... then they come and get them or you go to jail.

The moral here is fight firearms registration.

 

[Sol]

Heh, I'm guessing all those Japanese folks that were in internment camps during the Great War had their guns confiscated too...

 

[AlexanderA]

As a practical matter, it can't be done. Whenever government has tried to confiscate guns, all it has managed to do is drive them underground. An example is the UK, where even Scotland Yard admits that there are hundreds of thousands of illegal guns in circulation. In the final analysis, gun bans result in the promotion of criminal enterprises -- just as alcohol prohibition did. You just can't go against culturally-ingrained habits. From a policy perspective, it's better to have gun ownership open, where it can be seen.

 

[Midwest]

The important thing IMO is that the wish to disarm is real and very active. We are also the last place on earth (with the exception of a few states) in which I can travel from coast to coast with the means to protect myself and much of the time with it on my person.

The last place on earth is a rare place to be and we must protect it.

I believe it is down to the United States, Switzerland and Czech Republic.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

I would disagree with Agsalaska. Senator Feinstein has made it clear she regards almost anything as an "assault weapon" and has expressly called for the ban of all semi-automatic firearms and all handguns. I think the argument that using her exact words is "taking her out of context" just because she was answering questions on the 1994 ban is ridiculous given her stated legislative preferences. I think it is both fair and accurate to pin that quote on her - all the more so since she has had 20 years to clarify it if that did not reflect her thoughts on the matter.

 

[Deanimator]

She was not speaking of ALL guns. SHe was talking about guns that were effected by the 1994 ban.

So if somebody says they want to gas Chasidic Jews, without mentioning Reformed or Orthodox Jews, that means they're not anti-Semitic?

Maybe you're not that interested in history, but forty five plus years of reading tells me that people with bad intentions are often less than forthcoming about them. On occasion, they've even been known to actually LIE...

 

[X-Rap]

Parsing the meaning of an anti gunners words add little to the debate. Her motive is quite clear and if it was in her power to disarm us all today she would do it.
I don't have much time for those who think they can weed out the bad guns no matter what side they are on.

 

[RaceM]

Recently I was given a severely beaten up copy of The American Rifleman , May 1953 edition. In it is an article stating that at the time there were more than 276 bills introduced in state legislatures that would have effected ownership/use of firearms and ammo. Some even went as far as banning air rifle use/possession (Pennsylvania House Bill 803).

So as you can see, the meatheads have been at this a very long time, and have no intention of stopping any time soon. Remain vigilant.

 

[we are not amused]

As a practical matter, it can't be done. Whenever government has tried to confiscate guns, all it has managed to do is drive them underground. An example is the UK, where even Scotland Yard admits that there are hundreds of thousands of illegal guns in circulation. In the final analysis, gun bans result in the promotion of criminal enterprises -- just as alcohol prohibition did. You just can't go against culturally-ingrained habits. From a policy perspective, it's better to have gun ownership open, where it can be seen.

I won't disagree with the fact that it is unworkable, but that doesn't mean it won't be tried.

Look at Australia. They didn't get them all, but they sure got a lot!

 

[danez71]

In this link is a video of Liarstein saying, if she could, she get an outright ban she would.

This was said after Sandy Hook. Its current and it shows her desire to have a total outright ban.

http://www.policymic.com/articles/2...ons-ban-could-be-the-start-of-a-total-gun-ban

Feinstein: If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them — Mr. & Mrs. America, turn them all in — I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren't here.

 

[mljdeckard]

Read "The Great New Orleans gun Grab".

http://www.amazon.com/The-Great-New...8-1&keywords=descent+into+anarchy+new+orleans

Remember, in California, they required registration, and promised that no one would confiscate. Then they decided that some classes of SKS rifles were no longer allowed, and used the registration information to confiscate them.

A NJ lawmaker was recently recorded on an open mic saying that they should be talking about a confiscation bill.

Janet Reno said all along that total confiscation of all guns was the ultimate goal. So, when people say Dianne Feinstein was only talking about 'assault weapons' when she wanted to confiscate, I flat don't believe it.

 

[Agsalaska]

I would disagree with Agsalaska. Senator Feinstein has made it clear she regards almost anything as an "assault weapon" and has expressly called for the ban of all semi-automatic firearms and all handguns. I think the argument that using her exact words is "taking her out of context" just because she was answering questions on the 1994 ban is ridiculous given her stated legislative preferences. I think it is both fair and accurate to pin that quote on her - all the more so since she has had 20 years to clarify it if that did not reflect her thoughts on the matter.

Listen I probably should not have commented on it. It takes away from the point of the OP. This is not the spot to debate the evilness of Feinstein. There is no debate. She is a witch. Contextual representation is just a pet peeve of mine. But this is probably the wrong spot to debate that.

Sorry about that.

 

[we are not amused]

Been watching the confiscation videos, again, and am really, really hacked off, again!

This is America! Not some third world hellhole!

There are a few lessons to be learned from Hurricane Katrina, and the Greensburg tornado.

The police will obey any order issued by their superiors, and it doesn't matter if the orders are legal or not.

Some individual officers may disobey illegal orders, but the vast majority will simply click their heels together, give a stiff armed salute, shout "Jawhol, Mien Furher!" and carry them out.

If they are told to confiscate weapons, they will do it, because they have done it in the past, when told to do so.

By the way, they want mine, they can have them, bullets first.