Three Opinions on Gun Confiscation

The Atlantic published an article entitled “Do Republicans Have Any Real Reason to Worry about Gun Confiscation?” It’s written from the perspectives of an American gun advocate, an Australian living in the U.S., and an anti-gun nut.
 
I think we all know where I come down on the subject, as everyone should if they know anything about the Constitution and the founders. But sadly for most this is not the case — partly due to a woefully inadequate educational system and partly due to the never-ending flood of immigrants who arrive from countries with either much stricter control or no guns at all.
 
The Second Amendment advocate correctly claims that Obama and Hillary have told us that no one wants to take our guns, but then cite “Australia and the United Kingdom as examples to be aspired.” He states that those nations have indeed confiscated virtually all guns and Australia‘s famous gun “buyback” program was not voluntary.
 
The advocates states, “If American gun control proponents don’t want to be accused of wanting to confiscate guns, perhaps they should stop referring to the Australia and the UK as examples to be emulated.” Couldn’t have said it better myself.
 
Next up was the Australian living in the United States. He says he doesn’t think the “Australian approach would work in the USA, at least not for a long time.” He’s right but not for the reasons he cites. He claims that in Australia it took a conservative leader, Prime Minister John Howard, who was willing to challenge gun ownership. Wow! What a conservative leader.
 
He says it requires one-party control of the government, as in Australia, where the executive also runs the legislature. It’s easier to get things done this way. Evidently Australians enjoyed having their guns confiscated as they reelected Howard several times.
 
“Australians are fundamentally pragmatic and pessimistic and, if they see a serious mass shooting, will change the laws to stop it. So while both Americans and Australians are skeptical of government, the USA will use that as a good reason to do nothing about gun control, while Australians will use a massacre as evidence of government incompetence that needs to be fixed.”
Apparently in Australia, it’s neither the fault of the shooter nor the gun, it’s the fault of the government.
He claims that Australians want government involved in such things, “thus, before the Port Arthur massacre in Australia, every gun was registered at the police station and gun ownership required a license and some sort of screening. It was reasonable and not intrusive. After the massacre, people accepted more regulation as a way to stop more killings.”
What this really did was once all guns were registered and licensed  it made the authority’s job so much easier to confiscate them. They already knew where all the legal, law abiding gun owners live.
 
The Australian ends with a suggestion that expanding background checks could be implemented in the U.S. if properly sold to conservatives as, “a way to keep guns out of the hands of terrorists and criminals.” Yes, because that’s how criminals and terrorists get their guns — through legal means.
 
Finally, the anti-gun nut chimed in with buffoonery which might make Michael Bloomberg blush (probably not). He calls the Second Amendment “the most regrettable and repealable component of our Bill of Rights.” The nut claims that “the Second Amendment was never intended to allow concealed handguns or assault weapons (neither of which existed when it was drafted). How dumb is this guy?
 
An assault weapon is just a name the left likes to use to describe scary looking guns, and as for concealed carry, the Constitution makes no distinction purposely, as the founders themselves concealed carried. Heck, Thomas Jefferson concealed carried two pocket pistols.
 
The nut drones on about the evils of the NRA, the gun lobby, and that “statistically speaking, the chance that anyone will successfully deploy a firearm in defending oneself against an assault is virtually nonexistent!”
 
Yeah, tell that to the 65-year-old woman right here in New Hampshire who fought off a would-be sexual assault with her handgun just last month.
 
The conclusion to this is simple. The Australian doesn’t appear to understand that the United States Constitution is written in such a way that can only be changed through two purposefully arduous processes, not at the whim of government hacks, like in his native Australia.
The anti-gun weenie may know this, but just doesn’t care. Either way, they are both typical of all progressives who misguidedly believe in a living and malleable Constitution.