Beto O’rourke announced that, in the even a gun owner doesn’t comply with his confiscation scheme, the police will visit to recover that firearm and to make sure it is purchased, bought back, so it cannot potentially used against somebody else.
Well, as a service to the Democrats, here is a video of what this will look like, once they begin door to door confiscation, courtesy of ABC news:
Recently, many bloggers have noted that media outlets published footage of the Knob Creek machine gun shoot and tried to pass it off as if it was a battlefield.
Let this be a warning to the politicians who are wanting to confiscate firearms: Gun people go out and, in one single range session, unleash an amount of firepower that scares the media into thinking it is a warzone. How are you going to take that on? Nuking a US city? Seriously?
Some music for those who want to repeal the Second Amendment from the group ‘No One Special:’
And a second one from Hogjaw:
As I read yet another article about trannies taking over women’s sports, I realize that we really are living in the ‘crazy years.’
Unless they specifically address it, if there’s an assault weapon buy back, all you sell back is the serialized lower, because that’s the gun. Get some 80% lowers and get them ready to assemble or swap them out in advance and sell back stripped lowers.
Uppers are not guns, stocks are not guns, trigger groups or drop-ins are not guns.
He is rightly pointing out that the ATF has long held that the lower is a firearm and everything else that attaches to it is merely an accessory. With that in mind, is my stripped lower an assault weapon? After all, even using the new definition of “assault weapon”:
The term ‘semiautomatic assault weapon’ means any of the following, regardless of country of manufacture or caliber of ammunition accepted:
“(A) A semiautomatic rifle that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and any 1 of the following:
“(i) A pistol grip.
“(ii) A forward grip.
“ (iii) A folding, telescoping, or detachable stock, or is otherwise foldable or adjustable in a manner that operates to reduce the length, size, or any other dimension, or . otherwise enhances the concealability, of the weapon.
“ (iv) A grenade launcher..
“ (v) A barrel shroud.
“ (vi) A threaded barrel.
(D) A semiautomatic pistol that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and any 1 of the following:
“(i) A threaded barrel.
“(ii) A second pistol grip.
“(iii) A barrel shroud.
“(iv) The capacity to accept a detachable magazine at some location outside of the pistol grip.
“(v) A semiautomatic version of an automatic firearm.
“(vi) A manufactured weight of 50 ounces or more when unloaded.
“(vii) A stabilizing brace or similar component.
“(E) A semiautomatic pistol with a fixed magazine that has the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.
While researching AR-15 parts, I discovered that the liberal (redundancy alert) antigun media has managed to find out that the El Paso shooter was seeking ammo referred to as 8M3 ammunition because his WASR-10 wasn’t as deadly as an AR-15. As near as I can tell, the 8M3 number is merely a designation for a hollow point 7.62x39mm bullet. It became legendary among people who claimed that it was some sort of super bullet. More hype from Internet chairborne commandos. So much for this source being a reliable source of information. That leads me to:
That same source talks about how much a so-called buyback of “Assault Weapons” would cost. They claim that there are 265 million firearms in the US, with 33% of them being rifles. That number is ridiculously low. Since the NICS system was put in place, there have been more than 325 million NICS checks. Even assuming that, on average, each NICS check symbolizes one firearm transaction, that would mean that there are many more firearms in the US than they claim.
The article then goes on to claim that a mandatory buyback would mean that the government would take your property and reimburse you a percentage of its market value. So I would be reimbursed, according to them, $200 for each AR-15. In an Op-Ed that they link to, Swallwell claims that his bill would pay $200 to $1000 for each AR-15. Even the cheapest AR costs more than that. I would argue that you will not get many rifles turned in for only $200. The select fire version of the AR-15 is the M-4 rifle, which costs the US Military more than $600 each would be a heck of a buy for them at $200 a unit. I would argue that this would make a mandatory buyback at anything less than $600 an unconstitutional taking, violating the takings clause of the Fifth Amendment.
Further, there are a couple of important points here:
1 No one can even define what an “Assault weapon” IS. I own some stripped lowers. Since they have not yet been made into weapons of any type, they are NOT assault weapons under any of the proposed definitions.
2 No one knows how many there are. There is no way to know, and that is without taking homebuilt lowers into account.
3 There is no way to gauge compliance with any sort of buyback, since you don’t know what or where all of the objects that you wish to “buy back” are.
4 Even if you did, now what? Who is going to go door to door when compliance rates are low? There are tens of thousands of gun owners that would use this as the trip wire event that would result in hundreds of thousands of deaths of both cops and citizens.
Here is the reason why the Democrats need a disarmed American public:
If the Constitution prohibits Democrats from doing what they want, they should simply shred it and do what they want anyway? This is why they want to ban guns- banning guns allows them to do what they want without fear of what the public will do about it.
It also shows me that HRC is a major player behind this attempt to overthrow the legitimately elected government.
School resource cop who pled guilty to molesting a 14 year old girl gets probation and will not have to register as a sex offender.
