Yes, They Really Do Want to Take All Your Guns. [VIDEO]

Yes, They Really Do Want to Take All Your Guns. [VIDEO]

Yes, They Really Do Want to Take All Your Guns. [VIDEO]

The Children’s Crusade — aka The March for Our Lives — really isn’t out to take all guns away from citizens. No, they just want to remove those icky “assault weapons,” even though they really don’t know exactly what they are. They just know that they’re big and ugly and make a loud pew-pew. But if you have a handgun, you’re safe.

Except, not really.

The marchers interviewed by Campus Reform had no idea what an “assault rifle” is. But that doesn’t matter, because some would like to see the Second Amendment abolished. And they don’t stop there — some even want the entire Constitution gutted.

Here are examples of their pearls of wisdom:

“I think the Second Amendment at this time is outdated.”

“The Constitution in and of itself is something that’s outdated.”

“I don’t think it applies in today’s society.”

Just think — these numb nuts will be voting soon.

Clueless. Credit:

However, they appear to have an ally in repealing the Second Amendment. On Tuesday, Retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens wrote in an op-ed for the New York Times that he believes the Second Amendment should be repealed:

“They should demand a repeal of the Second Amendment . . . .That simple but dramatic action would move Saturday’s marchers closer to their objective than any other possible reform. It would eliminate the only legal rule that protects sellers of firearms in the United States — unlike every other market in the world.”

He can mull that all he wants in his 97-year-old cranium. However, to repeal an amendment would require massive Congressional legislation, and would end with ratification by three-fourths of the states or their state legislatures. Not gonna happen.

But the Washington Post is all excited about the prospect. Look at all those Americans who want to repeal the Second Amendment!

Which means, of course, that 80% of Americans want to keep the Second Amendment right where it is, thank you very much. The WaPo must think we can’t do math so good.

Okay, but if they can’t get a repeal of 2A, the anti-gun folks will try to find a way to pry them from your hands. It wouldn’t be the first time, either. In 1975, the Firearms Control Regulations Act passed in Washington, DC. The DC city council put the kibosh on residents registering, and thus owning, handguns.

Fortunately, the Constitution prevailed. In 2008, the Supreme Court threw out that law in the landmark case District of Columbia v. Heller. SCOTUS wrote that, “The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.”

Justice Antonin Scalia wrote for the majority. And guess who dissented? Points if you said Justice John Paul Stevens.

But that’s not going to stop anti-gun legislators in some states from trying to seize guns. On Monday night, Tucker Carlson interviewed Georgia State Rep Erica Thomas about a proposal she supported that would take guns away in her state. Thomas blustered and tried to change the subject, but Carlson had her dead to rights.

Moreover, what does Thomas think people should do with all those icky guns she doesn’t like? Why, donate them to the military, of course!

I’m not kidding.

But a writer at Vox says that even state proposals like Thomas supported wouldn’t be enough. Why, America needs to face the music and be like Australia:

What America likely needs, then, is something more like Australia’s mandatory buyback program — essentially, a gun confiscation scheme — paired with a serious ban on specific firearms (including, potentially, all semiautomatic weapons).

Vox’s dream isn’t going to happen, of course. There are too many people in Congress who really like their jobs and all those perks, so they won’t be pissing off 42% of American households.

But don’t let the Left sweet-talk you and convince you that they don’t want all your guns. They just want to take those nasty “assault rifles,” they will say. No one really ‘needs’ one, after all. You can keep your little handgun — as long as you don’t have too big of a magazine, that is.

No, don’t let them fool you — they really want all the guns. Because when an “assault rifle” ban doesn’t work out the way they want, they’ll just chip away at more rights, until no one owns any of those horrible guns at all.

Written by

Kim is a pint-sized patriot who packs some big contradictions. She is a Baby Boomer who never became a hippie, an active Republican who first registered as a Democrat (okay, it was to help a sorority sister's father in his run for sheriff), and a devout Lutheran who practices yoga. Growing up in small-town Indiana, now living in the Kansas City metro, Kim is a conservative Midwestern gal whose heart is also in the Seattle area, where her eldest daughter, son-in-law, and grandson live. Kim is a working speech pathologist who left school system employment behind to subcontract to an agency, and has never looked back. She describes her conservatism as falling in the mold of Russell Kirk's Ten Conservative Principles. Don't know what they are? Google them!

  • […] Seattle Man Arrested For Mailing Suspicious Packages To DC Military Institutions Victory Girls: Yes, They Really Do Want To Take All Your Guns Weasel Zippers: Informant Provided Info to FBI That Russia Was Helping Iran’s Nuke Program, […]

  • Flying Dutchman says:

    Moral of the story: when the government legislates or regulates away someone else’s freedom, we have put our own freedoms at jeopardy – no matter how nutty that “someone else’s” freedom may seem.

    So-called “progressives” have been getting away with this since World War I, using the “it’s for the public good” justification. It’s horsecrap, and they know it, but they keep doing it because it works.

    Be prepared. We’re going to have to learn to tolerate a few things we may not like very much, and the bureaucrats who are invested in Mao’s Long March aren’t going to give up their social-engineering powers without a fight.

  • wodun says:

    They know they can’t ban guns outright, so they engage in incrementalism, pushing the boundaries of punative regulations until they meet resistance. SCOTUS has ruled that guns can be regulated but that we also have the right to own guns. Where the boundaries are is unknown. This means we get people enacting pro and anti gun rights legislation at different levels of government and that that legislation is challenged in court. It also means that we will see many regulations that exceed what is lawful but we will be lucky if courts push back against the people who want to strip us of our rights.

    Normal people expect that the courts would rule based on an honest view of the constitution but the problem is that half of us view the constitution as illegitimate and the application of laws as fluid and put judges in power who rule based on this philosophy.

  • It’s vital that “reasonable” Americans come to understand this: they will not be satisfied with any little sliver of our rights. Indeed, they seek to destroy the very concept of rights — to become the arbiters of all things, absolutely, without limit, and with no possibility of being overruled.

    Your guns are the last protection you have. Never surrender them.

    • Douglas Loss says:

      Exactly so. None of their confiscatory legislation matters–they’re not getting my guns, no matter what laws they pass.

  • SED says:

    I’ve been saying for years, unfortunately, that I believe handguns will be banned by the end of my lifetime. They keep chipping and hammering away at the issue until many begin to believe their rhetoric. The events of the past few weeks have been a major blow. They’ll keep hammering…

    Haven’t seen anything to change my prediction yet. Give it another 5-10 years. How about 20?

    If we don’t take the narrative back from the Left, and soon, Lady Liberty will be a gone girl.

    • MarkJ says:

      An observation based on historical precedent:

      Banning something doesn’t make it go away, especially in an age of 3D printers and well equipped machine shops.

  • Ming says:

    Seize all “assault rifles” … in Georgia. That will go well.

  • GWB says:

    “The Constitution in and of itself is something that’s outdated.”
    Well, then, kindly move somewhere they don’t have one like ours. Zimbabwe has openings, I’m sure. Or Malaysia.
    The Tyranny of the Present in which these idiots live should be diagnosed as a mental illness. It makes me want to snatch away all their tech goodies – insisting that if they can’t understand how important the past is, then they get to invent their own stuff, from scratch. And no, they don’t get to ride the bus, either. (Like the old creation joke, “Get your own dirt!”)
    Nope, you dirty proles, not gonna let you steal the means of production, you’re gonna have to make your own.

  • TSUGambler says:

    Just to make sure we’re being as clear as possible, “assault rifles” are military rifles with a select-fire mode, meaning they can go full auto–the public already does not have general access to these. “Assault weapon” is a made-up phrase to indicate a scary-looking semi-auto “black rifle,” and has no legal, or even agreed-upon, definition. We need to make sure we’re using the terms consistently and not conflating the two, even if the gun-grabbers mock us for being pedantic and hiding behind “jargon.”

    • GWB says:

      meaning they can go full auto
      Minor nit: modern “select-fire” includes a three-round burst instead of the normal “fully automatic” in some cases. Those three rounds are fired with a single trigger pull. We could debate whether that meets the criteria for “assault rifle” (stürmgewehr) as originally used. 🙂

      But, yeah, actual military usage vs normal civilian usage.

  • Tyler Anderson says:

    That woman irritates the crap out of me. I am glad that he was pointing out the facts and TRULY questioning her and giving possible scenarios of how do you think the people are going to respond when you take their guns away. She avoided every question and had absolutely no idea what she was talking about. It makes me wonder how she got her job in the first place.

  • Cherylgu says:

    Um… affirmative action? Nahhh!

  • thor47 says:

    Those of you so insistent on the accurate description of an assault rifle versus what an AR-15 actually is might as well stop. The ban crowd doesn’t care, and won’t listen. They won’t listen to any truth about guns, mass shootings statistics, responsible guns owners, or whatever logical argument we might make. So it is time go a different route.

    Make the assault rifle question an employment question. Firing an automatic weapon burns through ammo in a hurry, so you need to buy more. Ammo producers stay in business, hire more people. Lots of rounds through that barrel mean it wears out. Barrel producers need steel. They can buy from American producers. You get the picture.

    Any adult over 35 who has never had any criminal conviction should be able to buy an assault rifle after a background check. The best part? Leftys go insane in record numbers.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Become a Victory Girl!

Are you interested in writing for Victory Girls? If you’d like to blog about politics and current events from a conservative POV, send us a writing sample here.
Ava Gardner