How Gun Control Advocates Could Take Your Guns With One Law
I thought about whether I should write an article on how gun control advocates might go about confiscating guns with almost no physical force. They might actually do it just like this.
“So, I would like you to explain with 350 million guns in 65 million places, households, from Key West, to Alaska, 350 million objects in 65 million places, if the Federal government wanted to confiscate those objects, how would they do that?”
This was a question that was asked in the great town hall gun show starring Barack Obama.
It’s simple: Pass a law that if people do not turn in their guns they will be fined $250,000 for each gun.
Trending: “So Help Me All Powerful State”
Will everyone turn in their guns? Probably not. But any use of them would almost bankrupt the typical gun owner.
Look what happened to the owners of Sweet Cakes By Melissa for not baking a cake for a same-sex wedding. They were fined $135,000 and had their bank accounts emptied.
Consider what New York City is doing with a draconian law that could fine someone up to $250,000 for using the wrong pronoun for any number of sexual preferences.
Read related article: “You Could be Fined $250,000 for using the Wrong Pronoun.”
The government doesn’t need to go door-to-door for full gun control. It only needs to make it very expensive for gun owners ever to show or use their guns.
In fact, since most guns are registered, the government could send gun owners a bill for $250,000 for every registered gun. The only way gun owners could get the bill cancelled is to turn in their guns. Failure to do so could be very expensive.
Of course, criminals would not have to worry about these huge fines if their guns had been stolen since they could not be traced to them. Any gun owner who did not report his gun stolen would be out of luck.
Like drugs, guns could be purchased at a premium on the black market, but if an otherwise law abiding citizen ever used an illegally purchased gun in self-defense, the shooting victim could very likely sue the shooter. He could claim that he only broke into the house because there was a law prohibiting gun ownership.
If guns had not been outlawed, he never would have broken into the house.