What would the gov­ern­ment con­fis­cate next?

The Morning Call - - TOWN SQUARE -

Mr. O’Rourke’s com­ment is not new as it echoes Sen. Dianne Fe­in­stein’s 1995 state­ment: “If I could have got­ten 51 votes in the Se­nate of the United States for an out­right ban, pick­ing up ev­ery one of them, ‘Mr. and Mrs. Amer­ica, turn ’em all in,’ I would have done it.”

With the can­di­dates set on do­ing away with the fil­i­buster, they would need only 51 votes. So an at­tack on the Bill of Rights seems as­sured if they pre­vail in the elec­tion.

Manda­tory buy­back is a gen­tler term for what is ac­tu­ally forced con­fis­ca­tion. Such a dra­co­nian step is not some­thing that is done in a free coun­try and, no mat­ter what your opin­ion of “as­sault­style” firearms, that your gov­ern­ment could do such a thing has to frighten you to your core.

As Pres­i­dent Ger­ald Ford said: “A gov­ern­ment big enough to give you ev­ery­thing you want is a gov­ern­ment big enough to take from you ev­ery­thing you have.” What could they con­fis­cate next? What other rights are ex­pend­able?

Bot­tom line: Not only is this a bad idea, but it can’t pos­si­bly work. Only law-abid­ing own­ers will turn in their “ugly guns,” forc­ing the gov­ern­ment to break down doors of those that don’t

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from USA

© PressReader. All rights reserved.