Gun rights advocates have a great deal of experience with being accused by the forcible citizen disarmament jihadists of "paranoia" in our assertion that the ultimate goal* of the "gun control" agenda is government seizure of all privately held firearms--that every new gun law ever passed will be the beachhead from which the next infringement on that which shall not be infringed will be launched.
We can document members of Congress referring to a potential ban on so-called "assault weapons" as the opening move toward a ban on handguns, we can note that the Brady Campaign has awarded California "extra credit" for using the state's gun registration database for the purpose of confiscation, we can expose the fact that the Obama administration's own National Institute of Justice has determined that various "gun control" holy grails, such as "universal background checks" and bans of "high capacity" magazines would accomplish nothing without registration and confiscation, and that when the time seems ripe, even California's ultra-restrictive "assault weapons" ban--once proudly touted by the Brady Campaign as the ultimate AWB--suddenly becomes riddled with "dangerous loopholes" when they think they have a chance to implement something even more draconian.
We can point to gun haters' fear and loathing of the Oath Keepers, for their vow to not confiscate firearms from peaceable citizens--why is that a problem, unless confiscation is a desired goal? We can even provide a recording of New Jersey Democrat legislators stating that the goal is to "confiscate, confiscate, confiscate."
None of that matters, though--all who make these points are portrayed as either cynical "gun lobbyists," ginning up hysteria in order to sell guns, or unsophisticated rubes, taken in by those "gun lobbyists."
Well, perhaps exhibit 4,769 will do the trick. The Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence (formerly the Legal Community Against Violence), a bunch of anti-gun attorneys who hope to develop the strategy to rape the Second Amendment under the color of law, has actually gone to the trouble of articulating what they claim is Constitutional justification for gun confiscation:
In short, because laws banning dangerous guns and ammunition seek to protect the public rather than to confiscate private property for public use, they are perfectly consistent with the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
Slippery slope? If the other side gets its way, it will be a Teflon precipice.
- Brady Campaign promoting gun recall as solution to violence is nuts
- Brady Campaign awards 'extra credit' to prove registration leads to confiscation
- The 'slippery slope' of 'gun control' is clearly very real, but not the point
- NIJ memo shows new gun laws can only 'work' with registration, confiscation
- No 'slippery slope' toward total forcible citizen disarmament? Think again