Mainstream media now openly admitting that gun control advocates want mass gun confiscation by force.
The Daily Beast – by James Kirchick
Thirty thousand people are killed by firearms each year in the United States, an astronomically high figure for a developed Western country not in a state of civil war.
President Obama reminds Americans of this sad statistic with depressing regularity, and he did so again last month after a mass shooting in Oregon took the lives of nine people. “We know there are ways to prevent it,” the president said.
We do indeed know there are “ways” to stop gun violence in the United States, yet we adamantly refuse to name them. The perennial “national conversation” about guns is predictably stale because its contestants—those favoring a largely unfettered right to personal gun ownership and those opposing it—are talking past each other. Prevarication characterizes the debate, as each side adheres to a core principle that, for reasons of propriety and political calculation, it is unwilling to admit publicly.
For the gun-control side, the unspoken belief is that nothing short of all out confiscation will have an appreciable effect on decreasing gun deaths. Then again, it’s not that unspoken—gun-control advocates just prefer tergiversation to clarity. Democratic candidates, officeholders, and liberal websites frequently invoke the example of Australia, for example. After a 1996 shooting rampage killed 35 people, the Australian government outlawed an array of firearms and instituted a compulsory buyback program that effectively eliminated private gun ownership. Since then, gun violence has dropped precipitously.
Rarely in American gun-control advocates’ references to the Australian policy, however, do they acknowledge that the program amounted to confiscation. “When Australia had a mass killing—I think it was in Tasmania—about 25 years ago, it was just so shocking, the entire country said, ‘Well, we’re going to completely change our gun laws,’ and they did,” Obama said after a June shooting in a Charleston church killed nine people. Curiously, the president omitted just what “change” the people of Australia decided to implement.
Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton told an audience in New Hampshire last month that “Australia is a good example” of gun-control laws, so much so that it “would be worth considering” the Antipodean solution here in the United States. She, too, neglected to mention the obligatory nature of the gun buyback scheme.
The following week, after having explicitly praised gun confiscation, however, she mocked the National Rifle Association for supposedly scaring its members into thinking that “they’re the only thing that’s going to stop the black helicopters from landing in the front yard and people’s guns being seized.”
Holding up Australia as a model of sensible gun policy without mentioning how that government forced its citizens to turn over their weapons is like praising Chinese population-control efforts without mentioning the one-child policy.
These advocates of gun control note the efficacy of the confiscations they only hint at while sidestepping the fact that none of the restrictive measures they explicitly endorse—banning so-called assault weapons, limiting the size of magazines, or requiring background checks on the private transfer of firearms—would have prevented these mass shootings, committed as they were by individuals using legally obtained firearms that did not fall under the definition of “assault weapon.”
That the perpetrators violate a host of well-intentioned laws, like bringing a weapon onto a “gun-free zone,” just goes to show how difficult it is to eliminate such crimes when people are determined to inflict harm in a society so permeated with guns.
But if it would seem that confiscation on a massive scale is the only way to solve American gun violence, why don’t we talk about it more?
To understand why, we must first recognize the incompatible nature of the values at stake. Those advocating for stricter gun laws believe that the harm produced by private gun possession outweighs whatever benefits it entails.
Writing in the aftermath of the 2012 mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, certainly the most horrific in recent American history, Gary Wills likened this country’s enthrallment to guns as the equivalent of a perpetual human offering to the biblical Moloch, “the sacrifice we as a culture made, and continually make, to our demonic god.” America’s decades-long debate over guns boils down to this: Gun-rights advocates are willing to make that sacrifice for their right to bear arms; gun-control advocates think it’s too high a price.
Which leads to the second unspoken truth of America’s gun debate, that held by the pro-gun side: Americans should be willing to tolerate tens of thousands of gun deaths per year as the cost of the inalienable right, as enumerated in the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, to bear arms.
“Guns don’t kill people; people kill people,” goes the proverbial pro-gun mantra. That is, of course, true, but a whole lot fewer people would be killed in the United States were there not some 350 million guns—more than one for every man, woman, and child)—in private circulation. (Stabbings, for instance, are eight times less likely to kill than a gunshot wound.)
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/11/02/yes-they-want-to-take-your-guns-away.html
I’m all for it! The sooner we get down to business separating the sheep from the lions, the dance will begin. Gun confiscation is a trigger for open revolution that will burn this nation of lies to the ground and then we can begin the process of the post revolution power vaccuum war. With luck it will be those of us who abhor the ideology of men and their laws ruling over other men, who come out on top. Only then will this land know true liberty.
We knew this was coming. The staged shootings and propaganda aren’t working, so they have to move to the next step.
What’s more important to notice about this particular article is that the “Daily Beast” is another Zionist propaganda outlet disguising itself as “alternative mews”. They subtly appear to be working on our side, but what they don’t say here is more important than what they do say.
“Thirty thousand people are killed by firearms each year in the United States, an astronomically high figure for a developed Western country not in a state of civil war.
The article begins with a gun-grabber favorite, and doesn’t explain that almost all of these people were either killed by cops, or were killed by people defending themselves.
Why no mention of the genocides that followed EVERY gun confiscation is the past? (England and Australia are not really exceptions to this rule, because the genocides there can’t begin until America is disarmed too)
They’re pretending to be against gun confiscation, but if they were sincere about it rather then just paying lip service to the second article, there’s a lot more they should have explained to make that point.
Actually Jolly, most of those are suicides:
In 2011, the latest figure available from the Centers for Disease Control,
Accidental discharge 851
Suicide 19,766
Homicide 11,101
Undetermined Intent 222
If we take out suicide as suicidal folk will always find a way, we are down to 11,101 homicides from which we would have to deduct defensive gun use. When all things are considered, our gun death rate is really quite low.
By any measure, the 30k figure w/ in a population around 310 million translates to less than one tenth of one percent.
How many die from crop mutilation (GMO) that is the norm for food for the masses…
– from Rx
– from cancer, those that are entirely preventable
– and so many others that are prohibited to speak of as they yield big money for the pockets of the politicians the mega corps bribe to remain in business or form & continue their monopolies.
Ummm.. 30,000 gun deaths a year…terrible to be sure..but around 2.5 million times a year a gun is used to prevent / stop crimes from murder to rape to robbery. Australia may have less gun violence, but they have increased violence of every other source. And when the powers that be are orchestrating / faking mass shootings , of course they will be reduced after confiscation to validate their efforts.
This article is all about gun confiscation. It’s main core describes all the bad about guns and it’s conclusion is week in the defense of gun ownership. The last paragraph states it unequivocally. Which makes me wonder why “Trenches” posted it all all. I have often wondered if this is just another propaganda website that is trying to create distrust and hate and the classic divide and concur. While one article does not prove this theory, when viewed in total, you have to wonder who is really behind this website and many like it. Question everything, and don’t give up your guns.
This article is an admission that mainstream media is working to take our guns away, and you, you low life piece of troll shit, are not as good as the dirt on a freeman’s feet.
Question is, how much are you getting paid, you low life f#@king troll?
In short, speaking for From the Trenches, go f#@k yourself, troll.
Judging by his mis-spelling and retarded sentence structure Henry, my opinion, this thing is too stupid to be a troll. If it is a troll, his supervisor should be awarded for incompetence. His writing is week! lol
Take it as a sign that this site is drawing the attention of the dark side.
They would not waste their time here if they thought it no threat.
Be they paid trolls or otherwise, it shows me the word From The Trenches is getting out there and some of the things they says is not in compliance with the dark side.
Good job Henry.
Thoughts rattling around Obama’s little pea brain. “I, Barack Obama, with my superior opinion of myself, have decided guns are bad and should be confiscated. Our founders didn’t have it right, I do. Oh, I am so great, feed me grapes while I lay here pondering how great I am. Now that we have decided how great I am and guns are bad, what other problems can I solve with my superior self before I explode from all the bullshit?”
“Writing in the aftermath of the 2012 mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, certainly the most horrific in recent American history,…”
BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!
Stop it, you’re killing me…
… with laughter.