An op-ed that appeared in the Boston Globe on Friday did away with the formalities and admitted that if gun control advocates really want to achieve their desired goal, they have to call for a complete gun confiscation:
With no end in sight for America's gun epidemic, it may be time to consider a radical approach: seizing millions of weapons from law abiding citizens. My latest in @GlobeIdeas: https://t.co/i4hS6DOo8p
— David Scharfenberg (@dscharfGlobe) November 10, 2017
“Congress can ban assault weapons,” David Scharfenberg wrote for The Boston Globe. “But they account for just a tiny sliver of the country’s 33,000 annual firearm deaths. And tighter background checks will do nothing to cut down on the 310 million guns already in circulation.”
The logic of gun control lies, at bottom, in substantially reducing the number of deadly weapons on the street — and confiscation is far and away the most effective approach. Is there any conceivable turn of events in our politics that could make confiscation happen? And what would a mass seizure look like?
Scharfenberg points to Australia, where it implemented a mandatory gun buyback program after a mass shooting in 1996. He went on to compare the Australian approach to the United States:
Here in the United States, interest in large-scale gun buybacks — both voluntary and involuntary — has mounted with each mass shooting. Matt Miller, a journalist and onetime senior fellow with the left-leaning Center for American Progress, has proposed what he calls a “massive, debt-financed” buyback.
“It’s a model the Aussies themselves have been touting to any Americans who will listen — suggesting it could succeed in the United States with a little political courage, especially on the right,” he added.
When it comes to the Second Amendment and how it could stop a mandatory gun buyback program, Scharfenberg noted:
While the Second Amendment isn’t absolute — no less than conservative Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia ruled that it’s “not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose”— it would undoubtedly serve as the basis for a robust legal challenge to any involuntary buyback program. And the courts would not be the only site of resistance.
“Ultimately, if gun-control advocates really want to stanch the blood, there’s no way around it: They’ll have to persuade more people of the need to confiscate millions of those firearms, as radical as that idea may now seem,” Scharfenberg concluded.