Guns ’n’ Liberals

By

November 8, 2017

How do liberals expect to grab our guns? That’s one thing they never explain when, after an incident like the shooting at the Texas church, they start calling for gun control.

They’ll advance things like Dianne Feinstein’s 1994-2004 ban on “assault weapons” – which aren’t a real category, just a cosmetic description of mean-looking rifles. Her ban didn’t work anyway.

Or they’ll call for a ban on gun sales at gun shows. Or registering all weapons. But the only thing that really would have an effect is something the gun controllers really want, but almost never mention: full confiscation.

Liberals sometimes point to Canada and Australia, which have imposed serious gun bans. But America is a much crazier, and freer, country than those once-free lands. They separated from Britain peacefully; we did with a violent revolution. Our population is 10 times that of Canada, and 14 times Australia’s. Even before the recent influx of immigrants, we were more “diverse,” as it’s now called.

But, really, how would liberals go after our guns, of which there are well over 300 million? How would they go door-to-door to grab our weapons?

As even the liberal New York Times has reported, in Baltimore the police presence has been reduced because of political attacks on them, resulting in a surge in killings, mostly by guns. Let’s send in a battalion of liberal gun-controllers to straighten things out.

Keith Olbermann, the TV loudmouth, responded to President Trump’s call for prayers with this Tweet, “You pig, Real Donald Trump. If the shooter were a person of color or a Muslim, you’d be heading home calling for the death penalty.”

Apparently Olbermann didn’t realize the shooter already was dead, killed by – Olbermann will not like this – a brave citizen with a gun.

Here are some options for who would take our guns:

1. Your local police. In conservative areas, they won’t do it because they’re conservatives. In liberal areas, such as California, where I live, the police unions are so strong there’s no way they would allow their members to knock down doors searching for guns – and get shot half the time they tried.

2. Your local sheriff. The sheriff system actually goes back to the “shires” of Ye Olde England. The sheriff is the main enforcer of the “reeve,” or peace, in the shire; hence, shire-reeve/sheriff. In England, he worked for the king. Here, he’s elected by the people. So if he tried to grab guns, he’d be voted out of office posthaste. In liberal states, the unions of deputy sheriffs are strong.

3. State police. In most places their main duty is patrolling freeways, although they do other things, such as supporting local police and sheriffs. They also have strong unions in liberal states.

4. The U.S. military. It’s not trained to attack our own people. Except for the Marines, most of our troops are not even trained for combat, but for support, intelligence, etc. As to combat troops, they’re mostly deployed overseas, so the Establishment would have to end the foreign wars, which it doesn’t want to do. If you sent the troops to grab domestic guns, they would fail to re-enlist. A draft? Impossible. Youngsters would bring back Vietnam-era protests, joined by their gray-haired, hippy grandparents decked out in old bell-bottom trousers and granny glasses, now age-appropriate.

5. FBI, CIA, IRS, DNS, Marshals and other federal agencies. There aren’t enough agents to go around. And they’d have to be taken from their current duties “to harass our people and eat out their substance.

If Olbermann, Feinstein and the other liberals want to take our guns, why don’t they propose doing it themselves? There must be many tens of thousands of liberals who have called for gun control in public, like those two, or on Facebook, Twitter and other social media. How about if we draft them and send them going door-do-door?

John Seiler

John Seiler

3 Responses

  1. Harry Colin says:

    I would particularly enjoy having Olbermann stopping by to try and separate me from my firearms.

    On a kinder note, this piece does illustrate the stupidity of the gun grabbers and their puerile schemes to disarm law-abiding Americans. If they weren’t so historically ignorant, they would recall the last time the government allowed social meddlers to ban something they didn’t want us to have – booze – and recognize the unintended consequences certain to follow.

  2. Kellen Buckles says:

    All very true. But the enemy isn’t going to be knocking down doors to pry guns from cold, dead fingers. They will enact punitive laws that make it impossible to use a firearm for self-defense. The story of the farmer in England illustrates this; he used a shotgun against thugs who had repeatedly broken into his house and was arrested for doing so. Insurance companies can refuse to insure known or suspected gun owners.

    Then there are all those millions of background check records that were supposed to be destroyed. Eventually they will want people to explain under threat of perjury what happened to those guns. What will we do when our employers fire anyone who is known to have a gun — after all, who knows when such a person might go “postal”? I doubt that all those good Australian gun owners were the docile sheep we proud Americans assume. I’d like to think our people are brave enough to resist at the polls if not at the doors, but once my generation is gone I don’t think that will happen.

  3. James D. says:

    Mr. Buckles, you are correct. There are a thousand other ways that the feds could begin to round up guns. Even excluding the background checks, have you ever purchased a gun, ammunition, a hunting license, camouflage clothing, a gun safe, etc.? Have you ever donated to the NRA, FOAC, etc.? Have you used a FFL dealer to transfer a weapon? I’m sure they have a record of all this and could/will use it against you. After all of the low-hanging fruit has been gathered, they could move on to freezing assets, taking your kids, repossessing you car/home, etc.