How many times have we heard liberals say that no one’s coming for our guns? After all, there are tons of regulations surrounding cars, and no one in government is trying to ban cars, so we shouldn’t be so paranoid about gun laws and regulations and the supposed “slippery slope” that will lead to confiscation and government tyranny.
Obama used dangerous prescription drugs as an example. He said that he might want to try to keep dangerous drugs out of the wrong hands, but that wouldn’t mean that he’s trying to ban all drugs. He would just be trying to protect people. And he says that it’s the same thing with guns.
Check out these two videos here showing Obama answering questions about gun control:
It’s true that there’s no push to ban cars or prescription drugs. So, should anyone really be concerned with gun control? Maybe they are just trying to protect people, and once they get a few laws passed, they’ll be satisfied, and there won’t be anymore. They won’t try to ban all guns. Besides, like Mark Kelly brought up, how would they go about confiscating some 360 million guns across the country?
But so what if no one’s trying to ban cars or prescription drugs. That doesn’t mean that it must be the same way with guns.
And if no one in government is in favor of implementing a universal ban on firearms down the road, then why is it that media personalities and politicians always bring up the UK and Australia as examples of the “successes” of gun control? They love bringing up how Europe, the UK, and Australia essentially got rid of gun violence altogether because they were responsible enough to ban guns.
Just after the mass murder at the community college in Oregon, Obama reiterated his calls to be like other countries in their “common sense” approach to guns:
“We know that other countries, in response to one mass shooting, have been able to craft laws that almost eliminate mass shootings,” he said. “Friends of ours, allies of ours — Great Britain, Australia, countries like ours. So we know there are ways to prevent it.”
Australia did a national gun buyback for newly illegal firearms and heavy restrictions were placed on the rest. England did the same thing. It is practically impossible in those countries to own and use firearms. The ones that are still legal are so heavily regulated that they’re basically useless for self-defense purposes.
If no one’s trying to ban guns, then why do they always say that we should be like other countries which have essentially banned guns? My “paranoid” guess as to why they use these other countries as examples is that they want to ban guns in the same way. Of course, they wouldn’t call it a ban. They’d implement a national gun buyback program for all the newly illegal guns, and they’d restrict all the rest of the guns so much that they’d be rendered useless. And they’d do it all the while celebrating the Second Amendment. And hunting.