they don't want to ban guns...they just want to limit a very certain few specific firearms in order to curtail "the mass slaughter of innocents".
Not true. In the leadup to New York's new law, Governor Cuomo said that confiscation could have been an option. In fact, he told opponents of the bill to be thankful that it wasn't in there.
In January, Senator Feinstein discussed the idea of a "mandatory buyback" program. This is the same Senator who told 60 Minutes
If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them . . . Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in, I would have done it.
When it comes to protecting the innocent or stopping mass shootings, Joe Biden made a speech last week, in which he admitted: "Nothing we are going to do is fundamentally going to alter or eliminate the possibility of another mass shooting or guarantee that we will bring gun deaths down."
The takeaway? They want our guns, and they know full well their measures won't reduce violence. They've known this for awhile. Washington DC enacted a handgun ban in 1976 in an effort to reduce handgun violence. It had the opposite effect. The evidence was plain. A few antis tried to gloss the fact over or claim that other factors were at work, but in the end, the law did not achieve its purpose
. Nor did Chicago's ban.
Yet they continued to push for bans on handguns, because it could work in the future
. When that cause utterly ran out of political steam in the early 1990's, they deliberately and callously
changed their rhetoric to address "assault weapons."
So-called assault weapons weren't being used all that often in crime. That didn't matter to the antis. They needed a legislative agenda that could pass
rather than one that would be effective
The aim is the same: disarmament.