Newsom and Harris: On the Gun Confiscation Bandwagon
“No state does it as well or as comprehensively as the state of California and we still have a long way to go,” said Governor Newsom with a smile, as he celebrated the state’s status as an extreme anti-gun leader. This statement came on the heels of his multi-gun bill signing blitz last week.
He’s right – no state does more in choking out the constitutional rights of it’s law abiding than the Golden State. What an unfortunate claim to fame.
And as far to the left as California has swung, we can go further – in fact, Newsom has jumped aboard Kamala Harris’ train to the White House – and she’s willing to go full fanatic when it comes to “taking guns off the streets.” She’s thrown her support behind fellow presidential contender Beto O’Roarke’s plan to forcefully “buyback” what they say are “military-style” assault weapons. He raised a lot of eyebrows when he hollered “HELL YES, WE’RE GOING TO TAKE YOUR AR-15, YOUR AK-47” at a recent Democrat debate and Harris gave him a big thumbs up, calling it a “good idea.”. Of course, we know full well that their version of “military” style guns are not “military” style at all, but rather the most popular rifle platform in the country.
The plan for the gun “buybacks” is hardly simple – it includes a visit from law enforcement should anyone refuse to comply. In his own words, O’Rourke admitted this in speaking to MSNBC: “I think just as, in any law that is not followed, or flagrantly abused, there have to be consequences, or else there is no respect for the law. In that case, I think there would be a visit by law enforcement … “
So how exactly would this work? Last month Ed Morrissey penned the following for Hot Air on why the mere thought of seizing weapons from private individuals would be both impractical and useless:
“The number of weapons owned by Americans in the so-called “assault weapons” class number is in the millions. It would take years just to set up the program, let alone administrate it. Even if such a law passed constitutional muster — and it wouldn’t — how would the government ensure enforcement? At some point, police would have to conduct house-to-house searches to find them without probable cause, which would violate not just the Second Amendment but also the Fourth Amendment.”
The Left has some sort of lock-box mentality that takes uncomfortable facts and hides them in some deep, dark place. That way, they don’t have to think about due process rights, that over 60% of firearm deaths can be attributed to suicide, or that more people are killed by hands and feet than rifles or shotguns.
Morrissey continues on the potential effect: “It would barely impact it — and that assumes that malevolent actors wouldn’t just switch to handguns or other long-barrel weapons. In 2017, the last full year for which we have FBI crime statistics, the US had a total of 15,129 homicides, of which 10,982 were committed by firearms. Of all firearms-related homicides, 64% were committed by handguns. Less than four percent were committed by rifles, of which “assault weapons” are a subset…far more homicides are committed by cutting instruments (10.5% of all homicides) than long-barrel firearms (4.4% of overall homicides when combining rifles and shotguns). These patterns hold up year after year after year, and demonstrate that “assault weapons” bans and mandatory confiscations are about posturing rather than reality.”
Of course, posturing is the name of the game. Newsom’s a super skilled player, and at finger-pointing and obfuscating – whether it’s blaming the “epidemic” spread of Medieval diseases in California’s urban homeless camps on Texas (yes, he did that) or gun violence on the inactivity of Washington DC. Sadly, the truth isn’t anywhere to be found and surely won’t change their anti-gun tune.