Don't kid yourself--confiscation is the goal

A common theme we hear from the citizen disarmament lobby is the claim that they don't want to take our guns--they just want to "regulate" them. That, anyway, is what they say now--they were once less circumspect, as Handgun Control, Inc. (which is now the Brady Campaign) founder and chairman Nelson T. "Pete" Shields demonstrated more than once:

Our ultimate goal — total control of handguns in the United States — is going to take time. My estimate is from seven to ten years. The problem is to slow down the increasing number of handguns sold in this country. The second problem is to get them all registered. And the final problem is to make the possession of all handguns and all handgun ammunition — except for the military, policemen, licensed security guards, licensed sporting clubs, and licensed gun collectors — totally illegal.

And . . .

Yes, I'm for an outright ban [on handguns]."

Ostensibly "conservative" syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer actually wrote that the eventual goal of government should be the banning and confiscation of all firearms.

In fact, the assault weapons ban will have no significant effect either on the crime rate or on personal security. Nonetheless, it is a good idea . . . . Its only real justification is not to reduce crime but to desensitize the public to the regulation of weapons in preparation for their ultimate confiscation.

For the most part, the gun prohibitionists have gotten out of the habit of saying such things publicly, because they have learned that it outrages patriotic, liberty loving Americans, and perhaps because they've noticed that three quarters of Americans know that the Second Amendment protects the individual's right to own firearms (note that those results were obtained in February 2008--before the Heller decision--they have apparently left the poll up, and now the results are even more lopsided).

Still, even now, some of the most radical citizen disarmament advocates cannot resist letting slip some not so subtle clues about what they're after.

I've written often about the outrageously, cynically misnamed "Freedom States Alliance," lavishly funded by the rabidly anti-gun, enormously wealthy Joyce Foundation.

Here's what they're saying:

With over 30,000 gun deaths in the U.S. each year, an appropriate response to this epidemic should be bold and comprehensive policies to prevent further homicides, suicides and unintentional injuries.

“Little is being done to address the elephant in the room: the 280 million guns already in circulation and how to reduce this staggering number,” said Sally Slovenski, Executive Director of Freedom States Alliance.

You don't "reduce [the] 'staggering' number" of guns except by taking many away, and apparently, the fact that numerous Constitutional rights would have to be trampled for that to happen isn't a problem in Sally's mind.

I'm going to put my "Three Percenter" hat on, and tell Sally to come try it--come try to take our guns. We'll be waiting.

Oh--one more thing. Dress nicely, and get your hair and makeup just right--modern optics can be . . . unforgiving.