Liberal Political Theater Is Aimed at “Massive” Gun Confiscation, Here’s Why



The left camouflages what their end goals are with gun control but every once in a while, someone admits the truth. New York Times’ Josh Barro did when he told an MSNBC panel – in response to a question about Hillary Clinton’s gun control plans – that what would have to be implemented is a “massive” gun confiscation, but people realize that even though it would be a “positive change”, it would be a “sea change”.

“It’s what I would expect a Democratic presidential candidate to say. But if Hillary Clinton becomes president, she’ll be a president facing a Republican House at least, possibly also a Republican Senate. So I don’t think that there will be significant change in gun policy if Hillary Clinton is president. I mean, we already have a Democratic president now and we haven’t had significant change on it. But I would also note, the things that we talk about in the United States are so at the margins on this stuff that I wonder how they would impact gun violence.

If you did something like Australia did, where you really take away massive amounts of guns that people have, reduce the rate of gun ownership substantially in society, you could have a big impact on violent crime. But, I mean, changes with background checks will help at the margin, but I wouldn’t expect that to have big impacts on the rate of violent crime in the country, which I think is part of the reason you haven’t had the knock down drag out fight from proponents that could have on this. Because I think there is a sense that while these changes would be positive changes, they would not be sea changes.”

Barro is intolerant of those with whom he disagrees. When it comes to having a bad LGBT attitude, whatever that means, he would act “ruthlessly.”  He tweeted: “Anti-LGBT attitudes are terrible for people in all sorts of communities. They linger and oppress, and we need to stamp them out, ruthlessly.”

It sounds like he’d also like to stamp out guns ruthlessly.

Fox News reported that, in response to more states relaxing rules regarding open-carry firearms laws, some gun control lobby activists have decided to put law-abiding gun owners in danger by urging people to call the police on anyone carrying a gun in public.

“If you see someone carrying a firearm in public—openly or concealed—and have ANY doubts about their intent, call 911 immediately and ask police to come to the scene,” the far-left gun control group Coalition to Stop Gun Violence wrote on its Facebook page.

A situation like this sets up confrontational situations between the citizen and the police who think the person is a threat. Some are calling it a type of SWATting.

The gun control activists are relentless.

When a deranged leftist killed two reporters, it wasn’t the ideology or the man’s mental illness, it was the gun. When nine church members were killed by a crazed racist, it was the gun.

When headline after headline contains the word “gun” you get the impression that something major is going down. And it is. Again.

We have a faction of political folks bent on altering (destroying?) the U.S. Constitution and they’ve chosen the controversial Second Amendment to the Bill of Rights as their first target.

Oh wait!  We can’t say “target”, remember?

Using the word “target” is highly inflammatory, murderous political rhetoric that directly leads to people being shot to death by guns – usually (always?) by those hideous assault weapons (whatever they’re defined as today).

The liberal faction among us – Democrats primarily – have almost constantly tried to tie death to us “Bible clinging, gun toting, extremist right wingers”, but only when such horrible crimes fit their political narrative.

Case in point:

On January 8, 2011, U.S. Representative Gabrielle Giffords and eighteen other people were shot during a public meeting held in a supermarket parking lot in Casas Adobes, Arizona.  Six people were killed, including Arizona District Court Chief Judge John Roll; one of Rep. Giffords’ staffers; and a nine-year-old child, Christina-Taylor Green.

Jared Lee Loughner, a 22 year old Tucson, Arizona resident, shot them all with a semi-automatic pistol, aided by several magazines of ammunition.  He was eventually subdued and arrested at the scene.  Loughner was found to be incompetent to stand trial on five felony counts.

Please note that Jared Loughner was charged with these crimes, not the weapon that he carried.

The media went into its usual and customary whirlwind of reports and it wasn’t more than an hour after the fact that the reason for this heinous crime was….wait for it…..Sarah Palin.

Attention was immediately focused on the “harsh political rhetoric” in the United States, and Sarah Palin might just as well have fired every shot. Sarah Palin was implicated because of gun-related metaphors in her speeches and because of the website of her political action committee which “targeted” the districts of Giffords and others with pictures of crosshairs on an electoral map.

sarah palin ad

This is the ad that promoted the liberals outrage.

Also note that the “targets” are NOT a rifle scope view, they’re a common symbol used by surveyors to pinpoint locations on a map.

Of course the mainstream media instantly went insane, decrying such signs and political ads as inflammatory and the reason why deranged people take up assault weapons and commit murder.

Those targets in the Democrats ad had nothing to do with any murder, any more than Sarah Palin’s ad had anything to do with the murders in Arizona.

What makes it all different is the political agenda.  Democrats have long been known to seek the elimination of American’s Second Amendment Right to “keep and bear arms” and they’ve come pretty close to accomplishing that goal in the last decade. There is no depth too low for them to stoop.

In 2012, less than an hour after the first reports trickled in about Sandy Hook – and I timed it – CBS News had Bob Schieffer on camera calling for more gun control in America.  It’s almost as though his phone rang and it was the President saying “Great time to promote gun control, Bob…Do your thing”.  Schieffer wasn’t alone.  One talking head after another chimed in right on cue, promoting the abolition of those terrible “assault weapons”.  Not a SINGLE suggestion that perhaps – considering that Jared Loughner and Adam Lanza were both described as mentally deficient – that allowing deranged people to walk our streets might be an issue to seriously consider.

It just had to be those guns.  And this is how they roll.  Dust off an old political agenda item and insert wherever and whenever it might fit – all for political gain.

It happens with every gun crime, even when the killer is a racist. Within hours the administration and the media are out shamelessly politicizing it.

Now we have the liberal parents of Alyson Parker, one of two reporters murdered by a deranged racist, an Obama supporter, demanding stricter gun control and they will not be “intimidated”. Who is intimidating them? No one.

The only intimidation is coming from the left and innocent law-abiding Americans are in their crosshairs. They are considered the weakest link to the gun grabbers, the first step to eliminating all guns.

Then there is the potentially biggest gun grab of all via the U.N. small arms treaty. We signed it but the Senate hasn’t ratified it though that doesn’t necessarily stop an imperial president.

They just wound up their conference in Cancun, Mexico where the U.S. was again presented as a major player in the illicit arms trade though we aren’t. The Conference of States Parties (CSP1) to the international Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) is the first step in implementing a gun grab under the guise of controlling the world’s illicit arms trade. Some of the worst offenders are not signing on to it.

They claim to have made significant progress. They have agreed to rules of procedures for future CSPs; they are developing reporting templates for treaty implementation and arms transfers; they are working on establishing the Secretariat, the massive bureaucracy that will govern the world’s arms, and they are developing guidelines for future success.

Progressives are patient and they will take their time with this until they succeed.



  1. First off all the guns in Australia have not been removed. They are in hiding. Secondly if all guns were removed I’d hate to face a crowd from an American ghetto. It would be a return to rocks, spears, knives and (my favorite) machetes. I’d rather carry a pistol concealed having been in the riots of Chicago in the 60’s and have faced a charging tribe of charging natives. The reality is quite different from the fantasy of a liberal.

    • If NATOs small ARMS agreement goes through then who will control NATO because Five of the countries that make up NATO are the ones that make the majority of illegal large ARMS shipments to war torn countries. And this has gone on for a long time. OUR goverment in the 60s ( the CIA) put train boxcars in the yard at Watts California thinking that the blacks would break into them and use these weapons to Kill each other. As you know this backfired. Then our so called president allowed the Cartels to get guns through the term FAST&FURIOUS that turned to crap. This was done thinking that the Cartels would kill each other off. And what happened is that the U.S. had another black eye. Yet Obama wants to take away our legal guns and have us face the Cartels and who ever invades our country. This is a plan that can’t be allowed and if the gun owners dont hide their weapons then we will no longer be a safe nation to live in. GUNS AND MEN MADE OUR NATION GREAT. DONT ALLOW OBAMA ( THE DICTATOR )TO ALLOW THIS TO HAPPEN!!! Foot note Obama is one that allowed FAST & FURIOUS to happen so.. He should be known as AMERICAS ILLEGAL GUN DEALER…

    • More macho b–s…t by a nutsy gun owner. If you were honest with yourself, you’d realize that your guns are no match for tanks, howitzers, airplanes, control of all communication devices and the array of weaponry if the cops or the army were to break the Constitution by entering your homes without warrants and taking away something the Supreme Court proclaimed you have a constitutional right to have–to keep and bear arms. You’ve all fantasized about actions the government cannot take according to our highest law–the US Constitution. You’re all constitutional morons and fear-driven imbeciles.

  2. I see the Nazis are at it again, Taking guns away from lawful citizens just makes it easier for thugs and hooligans to commit heinous acts on disarmed citizens, wheres they have illegal guns and don’t care if there is a confiscation law. Secondly the 2nd amendment was put into place by the founders to protect the citizen from a despotic government like we see with what the Demonrats want to happen. The people that are committing gun crimes are not law abiding citizens, but mentally ill, gangs, terrorists and thugs. When England and Australia took all the guns away from law abiding people, home invasion robberies went up 1000%! Do you really wonder why? I don’t! In the 20th century Hitler, Stalin and Mao were the biggest gun confiscation advocates and as a result 150,000,000 souls perished!

  3. What are a few million guns compared to the piece of mind that after they’re confiscated, you can’t be shot by law-abiding gun owners? Additionally, the government can now do what it wants to assure our “protection”…provided of course that we give them protection money.

Comments are closed.