Nobody wants to take your guns. That’s what most mainstream pro-gun control Democrats say ad nauseam at various rallies. There’s also the “I support the Second Amendment, but…” that advocates of gun control say prior to offering some pie-in-the-sky policy proposals that usually venture into bans on so-called assault rifles, limiting magazine sizes, or an all-out ban on semi-automatic firearms. That’s essentially a gun ban.

Both Hillary Clinton and President Barack Obama have praised the Australian-model of gun control, which the National Rifle Association decided to explain at length in a recent video. It deals with gun buybacks, confiscation, and bans. Oh, and personal protection isn’t a sufficient reason to own firearms down under.

Handguns are prohibited weapons and require special permission. Firearms and shotguns require a certificate from the police for ownership, and a number of criteria must be met, including that the applicant has a good reason to possess the requested weapon. Self-defense or a simple wish to possess a weapon is not considered a good reason. The secure storage of weapons is also a factor when licenses are granted.

[…]

There are a number of firearms that are prohibited in Britain. It is an offense to possess, purchase, acquire, manufacture, sell, or transfer these prohibited weapons without the written authority of the Defence Council or Scottish Ministers.[40] The Defence Council or Scottish Ministers can attach any conditions that they believe are necessary to any authority permitting ownership to ensure that a prohibited weapon or ammunition is secured and will not endanger public safety or the peace.[41]

Prohibited weapons include military style weapons, firearms disguised as other objects, and

a) any firearm which is so designed or adapted that two or more missiles can be successively discharged without repeated pressure on the trigger;

(ab) any self-loading or pump-action rifled gun other than one which is chambered for .22 rim-fire cartridges;

(aba) any firearm which either has a barrel less than 30 centimetres in length or is less than 60 centimetres in length overall, other than an air weapon, . . . a muzzle-loading gun or a firearm designed as signalling apparatus;

(ac) any self-loading or pump-action smooth-bore gun which is not an air weapon or chambered for .22 rim-fire cartridges and either has a barrel less than 24 inches in length or . . . is less than 40 inches in length overall;

(ad) any smooth-bore revolver gun other than one which is chambered for 9mm. rim-fire cartridges or a muzzle-loading gun;

(ae) any rocket launcher, or any mortar, for projecting a stabilised missile, other than a launcher or mortar designed for line-throwing or pyrotechnic purposes or as signalling apparatus;

(af) any air rifle, air gun or air pistol which uses, or is designed or adapted for use with, a self-contained gas

cartridge system;

(b) any weapon of whatever description designed or adapted for the discharge of any noxious liquid, gas

or other thing; and

(c) any cartridge with a bullet designed to explode on or immediately before impact, any ammunition containing or designed or adapted to contain any such noxious thing as is mentioned in paragraph (b) above and, if capable of being used with a firearm of any description, any grenade, bomb (or other like missile), or rocket or shell designed to explode as aforesaid.

It’s no wonder why the firearms industry is on “alert” this year. Any gun owner or Second Amendment supporter who hears a politician praise UK or Australian-style gun control should look at someone else. Moreover, it’s grossly unconstitutional, but that doesn’t mean Democrats, anti-gunners, and their allies in the liberal media will push a like-minded agenda. Right now, Democrats are trying to lay the groundwork for people to sue gun manufacturers out of existence. It has no chance of passing, but the fact remains; we have to be vigilant regarding the protection of our gun rights and heritage.