Exposing the ‘nobody wants to take your guns away’ lie

A new Biden bureaucracy is setting a record in violating the Constitution and your rights.

How many times have you heard a variation of the lie that “nobody wants to take anybody’s guns away”? Or read in an editorial that “President Biden Does Not Want to Take Your Guns Away”? 

Probably more times than you can count.  That’s because leftists are following in the footsteps of Joseph Goebbels and Vladamir Lenin in always repeating a lie to make it the truth.  They keep on saying that no one is talking about taking your guns, even though we’ve documented that they have been talking about it for more than 30 years now, in order to lull as many people as possible into a false sense of security.

Anti-liberty leftists think that if they keep on gaslighting this point, they can get people to accept the incremental moves to gun registration that will inevitably lead to gun confiscation.  

Never mind that draconian controls on your private property with so-called “universal” background checks won’t do anything to stop crime.  They are a stepping stone to gun confiscation. 

Never mind that forcing you to get “liability insurance” on a commonsense human right won’t do anything to stop crime.  It is a stepping stone to gun confiscation.

Never mind that even more draconian controls over your private property with so-called “safe-storage” laws won’t do anything to stop crime.  They are another stepping stone to gun confiscation.

Are you detecting a central theme in all of this?

Leftist liars (sorry to be redundant) incessantly repeat the “nobody wants to take anybody’s guns away“ lie to get people to accept all the steps of draconian private property controls, databases, formal firearm registration, and then finally gun confiscation when it’s too late.  People want to avoid considering leftists evil enough to deprive them of their basic human rights.

Just take a look at some of the cute little proposals they’ve made in the past, when they thought that only their authoritarian leftist side would see them.  They outline the very steps they are taking right now — with one that was particularly malevolent, implicitly involving going full Nazi for refusing to turn over firearms.  Of course, all of these have been carefully documented and archived because of the promise to the past of Never Again.

But now there’s a new bureaucracy in town, just when you thought that the sock puppet in chief has had enough of being a modern-day version of Herr Schicklgruber.  (That’s just a joke, New York Times — you need to lighten up on your heroes.)  The feral government has dialed up the unconstitutional insanity up to eleventy, violating a record number of constitutional amendments all at once.

Glen Beck explains in the video how the current regime is dictatorially violating most of the Bill of Rights — something the national socialist media will infuriatingly project on President Trump as what he might do in the future, while leftists ignore what sock puppet Biden is doing that right now.

Braden from Langley Outdoors Academy noted that he nuked the DOJ Red Flag Center from orbit, but you have to consider that the slippery slope of the way they morphed the language around these unconstitutional abominations should give everyone pause.

You’ll notice that whenever they explain these things, it will invariably be in the form of a three-element description.  The first carries the implication that these are officially sanctioned, the second tries to use the softest language possible in talking about the confiscation of someone’s private property without due process (usually avoiding the C-word), and the third element is the rationale for the order.

Over time, they’ve softened and made the language as vague as possible to entrap anyone and everyone they can, such as this from 2022 from the Washington Post:

Red-flag (“extreme risk”) laws — which generally allow police to take firearms away from people who exhibit concerning behavior ...

Note the vague terms, which could be applied to anyone to justify depriving him of his fundamental human rights: “people who exhibit concerning behavior.”  Just who determines what is “concerning behavior”?

Then consider this recent reference, which phrases the three elements this way:

Red flag laws allow family members or law enforcement officials to get court orders that temporarily take away access to guns if they feel a gun owner may harm themselves or others.

We’ve gone from “concerning behavior” (whatever that is) to feelings that someone may do something.  This makes the movie Minority Report look scientifically buttoned down by comparison. 

All of this means that they are priming the public to accept these unconstitutional gun confiscations from individuals for minimal reasons — for feelings and concerning behavior.  Thus, they can kill two pro-freedom birds with one authoritarian leftist stone.

They can easily confiscate guns from anyone, and they can use it as a punishment because they’ve weaponized another government agency because those vague rationales can be used against anyone.

Here we have unconstitutional abominations that have set a record in violating the Bill of Rights and the people’s fundamental freedoms.  We’ve gone down the slippery slope to vague feelings, and it’s only going to get worse.  Our neighbor to the north is an indication of how bad it can get.  Canada’s new “red flag” law would

enable anyone to make an application to a court for an emergency weapons prohibition order (red flag) to immediately remove firearms, for up to 30 days, from:

an individual who may pose a danger to themselves or others; and

an individual who may be at risk of providing access to firearms to another person who is already subject to a weapons prohibition order.

Anyone can “red flag” someone who “may pose a danger” or “may be at risk of providing access to firearms to another person who is already subject to a weapons prohibition order,” and the victim of this injustice may never find out who perpetrated it because the records may be permanently sealed by a judge.

So, given all the implications that these unconstitutional abominations violate multiple parts of the Bill of Rights and could be easily weaponized, why hasn’t the Supreme Court struck them down? 

Originally published on the American Thinker