“No one wants to take your guns. We’re just looking to enact some ‘common sense’ gun reforms.”
How many times have you heard that or some variation there of? I can’t tell you how many times I’ve encountered it. Over the years, it’s been said countless times to countless people, some of whom foolishly believed that no one wanted to take your guns.
However, as David Harsanyi writes at America’s 1st Freedom, anyone who really believes that should probably read the DNC’s gun policy platform first. They should then take a step back and think about things.
We have reached what should prove to be an infamous moment. The 2020 Democrat Party presidential ticket will be the first in American history to feature a candidate who openly supports the confiscation of firearms from law-abiding citizens.
During the primary debates, Joe Biden’s vice-presidential pick, Kamala Harris, warned that she would give Congress 100 days to pass her gun-control agenda, an agenda that includes a ban on AR-15s and other semi-automatic rifles. If Congress fails to implement her wish list? Well, then, Harris explained, “I will take executive action.” Harris has also publicly stated her support of a “mandatory gun buyback program,” which is simply how anti-gun extremists refer to confiscation without saying confiscation.
Those who believe Harris’ rhetoric is merely campaign hyperbole should peruse the draft of the 2020 Democrat Party’s national platform. It, too, supports the banning of “assault weapons,” which has the possibility of instantaneously transforming millions of gun-owners—the vast majority of whom have undergone criminal background checks and never used firearms for any illicit purpose—into criminals.
Many more Americans, of course, are murdered by fists or knives than AR-15s. But the DNC document is laden with misleading statistics and the kind of scaremongering intended to allow them to push through authoritarian gun policies.
Take, for instance, the DNC’s claim that criminal violence with guns is a “public health crisis” that takes “nearly 40,000 lives.” By conflating criminal and suicide deaths—around two-thirds of all gun deaths are self-inflicted—these politicians not only diminish the importance of mental-health struggles, but also inflate the problem of criminal use of guns. There is little evidence that tighter firearm restrictions do anything to stop suicides; for instance, nations with the highest rates of suicide—Russia and South Korea—also have some of the strictest gun laws.
Harsanyi goes on to detail and destroy each of the anti-gun provisions the DNC has laid out, and I highly recommend you go and read it. It does a great job of it. However, the official DNC position isn’t one of gun confiscation.
Not directly, at least, though it does seem that there’s at least support for that kind of thing. After all, let’s just look at that ticket Harsanyi mentioned.
Kamala Harris, as a potential vice president, is bad enough. However, let’s also remember that Joe Biden doesn’t seem to be firing on all cylinders. Whether he has outright dementia or something else, the man hasn’t been at his relative best for a while now. Also, the man is 77 years old. That alone is a reason why his vice presidential pick matters.
Should Biden die or leave office for some other reason, that leaves Harris in the driver’s seat. That means all those promises she made while campaigning can be enacted, or she can at least try.
Further, there’s nothing at all in the DNC platform that actually opposes Harris’ proposals.
Then there’s the man Biden said would spearhead his gun control efforts. That’s right, Beto O’Rourke. The very man who swore during a debate that, “Hell yeah, we’re coming for your AR-15s and AK-47s.”
Oh, he’s not elected, but if Biden wants him running point on this issue, then just how far can the two of them actually diverge on things? Especially since Biden also chose Harris as his running mate.
So-called “fact checkers” love to claim that because Biden hasn’t specifically claimed he was supportive of gun confiscation, he’s not in favor of it. Oh no, he’s clearly in favor of it. If he wasn’t, why would he try to surround himself with people who do?