Gun Confiscation Masquerading as “Gun Buy Backs” Left’s 4 Part Strategy to Destroy 2A


Gun Confiscation Masquerading as "Gun Buy Backs" Left’s 4 Part Strategy to Destroy 2A
Gun Confiscation Masquerading as “Gun Buy Backs” Left’s 4 Part Strategy to Destroy 2A

New York – -( So called gun buybacks fall into two categories. (you can not buy back something you never owned)

One category utilized by various Cities in the past is “gun buybacks” as voluntary programs that antigun politicians draw out of the closet every now and again merely as a political stunt. These buybacks are directed, of course, not to the psychopathic killer, common criminal, or to those few individuals who suffer from psychoses that truly represent a danger both to themselves and others. No! These gun buybacks are directed to the average, law-abiding, responsible gun owner. But, not surprisingly, gun owners who take part in these programs do not surrender expensive firearms, but, rather, old, probably inoperable firearms.

Even the liberal weblog, Trace, admits that the truly voluntary gun “buybacks” don’t work to lower crime rates, as criminals don’t take part in these programs. Why should they? And, those individuals who do surrender firearms to police authorities for a few bucks aren’t people who misuse firearms anyway. So, then, what seemingly plausible basis is there for these buyback programs?

The implicit, but false, assumption, is that by reducing the number of guns in the public domain, especially, semiautomatic firearms, that will, ipso facto, reduce “gun” violence. Yet, that idea, on its face, is ridiculous, and not simply due to the volume of firearms in the public domain, if that is a sound factor for accounting for “gun violence” anyway because, again, the people who take part in the program are not those who commit crimes with guns—or with any other implement for that matter.

So, this category of gun buybacks is at best, a poor solution to resolving the problem of criminal violence and, at worst, it is a cruel hoax, designed to give some ignorant Americans the feeling that Government is doing something effective about crime rates in some urban areas when it really isn’t and is simply a “smoke and mirrors” scheme to create the false impression that Government truly cares about providing a safe and secure City environment for the public, when Government doesn’t really give a damn at all.

gunxgun buy back scam
The website, an antigun site, that, curiously, says virtually nothing about itself and, we surmise, is likely a vehicle of large well-funded antigun groups seeking to jump-start grassroots efforts to assist them in their agenda, undermining the Second Amendment.

Antigun groups and antigun politicians are aware of this, of course, but in rebuttal, simply assert, with zero proof, that gun buyback programs do work, especially those that are structured properly. The website, an antigun site, that, curiously, says virtually nothing about itself and, we surmise, is likely a vehicle of large well-funded antigun groups seeking to jump-start grassroots efforts to assist them in their agenda, undermining the Second Amendment, to acknowledges that, on a macro level, namely, in the public domain, these gun buyback programs, to date, don’t make communities any safer. What the site does say is that homes are safer, once firearms are removed from the home: no guns in the home means no gun violence. Well, that point is true, but only trivially so. For, this doesn’t mean people prone to violence in the home won’t or can’t find the means to injure or kill another human being whether a gun is the implement of harm or some other implement. But, what is really interesting about the comment is the implicit point made that is a running theme through all attempts to impose on the public more and more draconian gun schemes.

The running theme is that you, the citizenry cannot be trusted; that all people are potentially a danger both to themselves and to others, and that society as a whole is safer and more secure if firearms are removed from the homes.

But, what of the obverse? Aren’t particular individuals in the community thereby made less safe having lost the most reliable means available to secure both their life and that of their family, namely that a firearm provides? The fact of the matter is that the antigun New Progressive Left cares little, if at all, for the well-being and safety of individuals in society. They are only interested in protecting the wealthy, and well-connected and powerful. For these people—people who ascribe to the tenets of Collectivism—perceive our Country, our society, as an ant colony or beehive. As long as the greater Collective, the Hive, is secure—meaning that as long as they, “the elite” of society are safe and secure—that is all that truly matters. They view the mass of society, the Hoi Poloi, as expendable. That is the inference to be drawn from their policy goals.

For all their talk about concern for the masses, including illegal aliens—even those who are acutely dangerous to the life, health, safety, and well-being of the citizenry—the New Progressive Left cares little for the sanctity and inviolability of the American citizen. They seek to control all thought, and all conduct, to treat everyone equally—that is to say, subjugated, submissive to the will of the State, the Government, a Government they control. The New Progressive Left’s vision for our Nation is the antithesis of that of our founders. It is little wonder then that these people attack their memory, demolish our monuments, and seek to erase our history.

Gun Confiscation AKA “Gun Buy Backs”

The Second category of gun “buyback” programs and one championed by recent Democratic Party nominee for U.S. President, Eric Swalwell, and a signature component of his campaign before that campaign came to an abrupt end, isn’t a gun buyback program at all. It’s a confiscation scheme, similar to the infamous gun confiscation schemes employed by the Australian and New Zealand Governments, neither Government of which recognizes the fundamental, unalienable, immutable right of its citizens—really subjects—to keep and bear arms.

In respect to the second category for which the expression, ‘gun buyback,’ is used, the expression as used by Joe Biden and, as pushed by Eric Swalwell, as his signature plank before he dropped out of the U.S. Presidential, race is not a buyback at all, under any reasonable interpretation. It is a blatant gun confiscation scheme scarcely cloaked as a “gun buyback,” for there is nothing voluntary about it. If a gun owner doesn’t wish to turn his firearms over to the Governmental authority, that authority will take them by force. The program as envisioned isn’t voluntary. It’s mandatory. As conceived, and as it would likely be implemented either by any Democratic Party New Progressive Left—if that Candidate is elected U.S. President—any firearm designated by the New Progressive Left to be an ‘assault weapon,’ would be illegal. Any American citizen who presently has one or more such weapons would be required to surrender them to Governmental authority. The New York Times, in an article, published on September 12, 2019, the Times, says that Beto O’Rourke [the skateboarding imbecile] “. . . has gone so far as to call for a mandatory government program to buy back the weapons of war [i.e., semiautomatic firearms].” ‘Mandatory gun buyback’ equals, by definition, ‘gun confiscation.’

So, why doesn’t the seditious Press or the sleazy Democratic Party candidates for U.S. President say what they mean? Who do they think they are fooling by refusing to use the expression, ‘gun confiscation?’

If the Democratic Party controls both Houses of Congress we can expect Congress to enact mandatory gun confiscation, along with other draconian “muscular” laws. If the Republicans retain control of the Senate, mandatory confiscation is unlikely to be enacted. But, if a Democrat secures the U.S. Presidency, the American public may very well see a flurry of executive orders operating as law, and accomplishing, then, the same thing as a Congressional enactment. Kamala Harris has threatened to issue just such an executive order were she to secure her Party’s nomination and then secure the Presidency. Such law or executive order would be immediately challenged. A mandatory gun confiscation scheme amounts to an illegal taking under the Fifth Amendment’s ‘just compensation’ clause as semiautomatic weapons–essentially every weapon, now, that the New Progressive Left lumps under the fictions of ‘assault weapons’ or ‘weapons of war’–manufactured by reputable companies like Smith and Wesson, Colt, Sturm Ruger, Beretta, Sig Sauer, Heckler and Koch, Remington, and many others, all of which produce extremely well-designed and engineered products.

These firearms cost, on the retail market, several hundred and even several thousand dollars. A gun confiscation scheme would not provide just compensation and would, therefore, infringe the just compensation clause of the Fifth Amendment, and amount to an unconstitutional taking of private property. A gun confiscation scheme would also, and obviously, infringe the Second Amendment. And such a gun confiscation scheme would infringe the Searches and Seizures clause of the Fourth Amendment. The gun confiscation scheme targeting semiautomatic weapons would impinge on both the Equal Protection and Due Process clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. Even the Freedom of Speech clause of the First Amendment would be implicated and violated as well.

But, then, the New Progressive Left doesn’t give a damn about the Bill of Rights, and never did.

It is all sham for them to even suggest that they do. But, if it should come to pass the New Progressive Left does take control of Government—both Houses of Congress, and the U.S. Presidency—the American citizenry will see Government imposing a flurry of unconstitutional, unconscionable gun restrictions on the American citizenry such as this Nation has never seen before. The New Progressive Left intends to force their new vision of America on the Nation, a vision diametrically opposed to that of our founders, the framers of our Constitution. And the New Progressive Left will commence with an attempt at de facto destruction of the Second Amendment. The founders of our free Republic would not abide this; and those of us who believe in our Nation as a Constitutional Republic, where the American people, the citizenry, are the ultimate sovereign of their Nation, not Government, and where Government was created to serve the people and not the other way around, should not abide this occurrence either, and most likely, won’t. Now you have a civil war.

Democrats War on Guns
It should be clear to all Americans that the goal of gun control is not, and never was, public safety. The goal is citizen/population control and always has been.

When firearms are removed from average, law-abiding, rational citizens in violation of Due Process requirements, and when those American citizens, for whom draconian gun laws do not preclude gun ownership and possession, are oppressed by complex gun registration requirements making gun ownership and possession an increasingly difficult, time-consuming and expensive process, and when guns are treated less like personal property and more like State-owned property that Americans can only rent for use at a particular time and at a particular place, after which guns must be returned to the State, to be secured and stored, then it should be clear to all Americans that the goal of gun control is not, and never was, public safety. The goal is citizen/population control and always has been.

Arbalest Quarrel

About The Arbalest Quarrel:

Arbalest Group created `The Arbalest Quarrel’ website for a special purpose. That purpose is to educate the American public about recent Federal and State firearms control legislation. No other website, to our knowledge, provides as deep an analysis or as thorough an analysis. Arbalest Group offers this information free.

For more information, visit:

Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Gene Ralno

Most paying attention already know the democrat approach is deceptive in two ways. First, the term “mandatory buyback” is oxymoronic because in a free enterprise system, buying requires the existence of a willing seller. Use of the term “mandatory” negates the need for a willing seller. Without a willing seller, the process is defined as theft. Secondly, democrats justify this colossal gun grab with Article 1, Section 8, Paragraph 3, which says, “…Congress shall have power…To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states…” Sorry, confiscating legally owned products because they’re unpopular with a political party is not… Read more »


What kind of political leader would disarm his people while howling about the peril they face?” The kind that needs to be tried for TREASON and then when convicted taken out and SHOT. Building a hangman’s scaffold is too expensive.


@CL; Trees will work JUST FINE!


As well as; bridges, cliffs, buildings, cell towers, water towers, etc. There are plenty of tall places to tie ropes to. And I’ve had making the noose mastered since grade school, when I used to tie them in the blind cords as fast as the staff took them out…

Wild Bill

Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

Will Flatt

Our position will not change no matter what threats the enemies of liberty may use, or what edicts they may issue. WE WILL NOT COMPLY. PERIOD. NOT ONE INCH!!

Your turn, Mr. gun-grabber. If you intend to use unlawful force under color of law, “Send bachelors heavily armed.” And, “If you send that many men with guns, remember one thing; BRING A GOOD SUPPLY OF BODY BAGS.”


Better yet, if they send them ANYWHERE, we will go looking for them rather then wait for them to come to us.

Wild Bill

@CL, Who and how?


Get creative. Observe. Remember. Learn. Communicate. Read about how Paul Revere and others of his sort built up a system of information gathering and distrivutung. Paul KNEW about that powder raid Gage would be launching against Lexington and Concord two weeks before Gage ever told ANY of his underlings to stage and launch the raid. How? Dozens of individuals, going about their daily affairs, eyes and minds wide open, would “notice things” and report them. About ten days before, Revere got the report that all the British Ships of the Line moored in Boston Harbour had uncovered their ships’ smallboats,… Read more »

Wild Bill

@wjd Flatt, First they will do surveillance. When they know your routine, then they will take you. For example, you are coming out of the grocery store, and have something in your hands. Four of them come from behind. After you are in the US Marshalls’ lock up, they go to your house, take what they want and what they discover at their leisure. So … what is the defense plan?


@WB & OV – See CourageousLion and Tionico’s posts above. Coordination, surveillance, intelligence and aggressive defense are necessary. No-one should know that you possess any contraband (ie firearms), except your team members. Determine who is carrying out gun-raids and hit them when they are at home alone at night. Anyone carrying out violent home invasions is a criminal. If they are acting on behest of the government, “the system” will not deal with them, so it falls upon patriots to do so. When facing such an asymmetric assault – defenders must act aggressively yet anonymously. It would be critical to… Read more »


may I suggest reading ” Unintended Consequences “. Be smart. The best kept secret is one you never tell anyone.

Will Flatt

@gunnerdd517 – There is security is total secrecy, but at some point you HAVE to have a team you can depend on, even to the point of trusting them with your life. Those kinds of friendships take time to cultivate so patriots need to be doing that NOW. The government WANTS us to be terrorized and isolated. We must DENY them what they want!!


The plan is to be enough aware of your situation to know when a dozen men are following you around in a half dozen vehicles… well before a troop of them get behind you without you knowing.


@Knute Knute – A well organized tail is very difficult to detect. When performed correctly, only one vehicle tails at a time and only for a short period. If they have sufficient time and training, can afford to lose you occasionally, and are disciplined in their approach – they will not fall for any “tricky” maneuvers you pull such as doubling back or circling a block. The trick is to not be on their radar as such surveillance takes manpower and money. They can only cover so many people at a time, and there are 100 million gun owners in… Read more »

Will Flatt

Those of us who are blessed to live far outside any city or town can lose a tail quite easily. As you pointed out, only one car can be in the tailing position and any other units have to run parallel to the street/road the subject is on. Easy in the city, very hard out on county roads and low-volume rural highways. But because the authorities tend to rely on technology and tend toward laziness, their #1 tool is a GPS tracking device attached to the underside of the vehicle magnetically. Know your vehicle’s mechanical layout and perform Surveillance Detection… Read more »


TY @ WF. So if you do find a tracker stuck under your car, what do you do? Seems to me that removing or destroying it would tell them you are aware. Do they occasionally fall off, so it would be believable to drop it near a bump on the road? Do you leave it, knowing they know where you are – until you need to remove it?


I disable all guns except the one I carry. Bolts, trigger groups, etc. and behind 3 layers of locked storage. Plus I keep a list of all serial numbers. I dont suggest others do this. With satellite tech. to-day, if the Gov. wants to know where your guns are,its not a problem. Best way to protect your guns are to not let others know you have any. Thats a problem.Because we like to share our sport. At least I do & have. Ive also lied to a few characters of dubious honesty, when I was asked if I still owned… Read more »

Will Flatt

Good thing I don’t have a routine of any kind. Hell, I don’t even sleep regular hours. And when I’m coming in or out of any building or even coming or going, I make sure I’m not encumbered to where I can’t draw. Most jackboots operate just like criminals, albeit in a much more organized manner. Having worked for the government, I’ve learned a lot of the “tricks of the trade”.

The point being, if they intend to make targets out of us, we all need to be HARD targets.


You seem to speak as if these notions of collectivism and elitism only come from the “left”. So called Conservative politicians also benefit whenever our rights as sovereign citizens of this Republic are abridged and power shifted from We The People, to government. I’m telling you now that all public servants need to be held to the strictest standard of our US Constitution or be sent packing. It’s long past time to put these arrogant servants back into their place, and retake the reigns of this Republic. Republicans and Democrats have made themselves our generations Hitler. They exist to do… Read more »


^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^TRUTH^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 21 thumbs up!

Ryben Flynn

Any mandatory confiscation law would be unconstitutional under the 2nd. Amendment and immediately challenged in Courts of Law and up to the Supreme Court. Meanwhile the confiscators will be suffering great losses while attempting to enforce the unconstitutional Law,


If they have these scams in my town I’m turning in a dozen shotguns made of PVC pipe and brass fittings.


beautiful idea and then use the money to go buy some nice ones!


This program will increase crime three fold, 1) criminals will be unleashed to commit more havoc on the now unarmed innocent, 2) black market for firearms will flourish ever more, and 3) probably the most disturbing, burglaries will rise expeditiously by scumbags seeking firearms to turn in for profit.

Why Is three most disturbing, because the progressive left cares less about the trauma perpetuated upon the innocent, you see, even criminality justifies their means.

I suspect, unlike you and I, not one scumbag would be charged for turning in stolen property for profit.


The FACTS of the matter is that

Is that the GOVERNMENT cannot be trusted; that all that work for it are potentially a danger to EVERYONE, and that society as a whole is safer and more secure if firearms are removed from those in government. This has been proven historically over and over..


Bingo criminals and crime are not the problem, POLITICIANS are.


they want our guns so they and their friends will be safe to commit whatever crime they want with no one to stop them.


As pointed out in the article ‘gun buy back’ is an incorrect term for the the exchange. The funds used for most of these actions are taxpayer dollars, so in effect you will pay twice for your firearms. Once at the point of sale and again when the gov’t levies a tax to buy them back. As a suggestion let the politicians and anti-gun groups foot the bill for the ‘buy back’ at twice the cost.


IF they want a weapon OWNED by an American, THAT American has the choice to sell that weapon at 5 times the normal purchasing price. This procedure is the American way of life. OH! The state/government MUST be ready to PROTECT INDIVIDUAL Americans WHEREVER they happen to be an time of the day. WE ALREADY know, the Supreme Court STATED this FACT, the Police are NOT RESPONSIBLE to PROTECT INDIVIDUAL Americans. The SUPREME COURT has already stated that SECURITY IS the RESPONSIBILITY of the INDIVIDUAL!!!!!!!!!!!!!
THUS, this announcement FROM the Supreme Court “short circuits” all protection claims by government!!!!!!!!!!!

Wild Bill

@Laddyboy, you are correct, of course, Americans do have the choice to sell or refuse to sell, but where does that choice come from, in your opinion?
You are also correct about police not being responsible to protect people, but states routinely pass statutes claiming that those statutes are necessary to protect the public. How does that square?


One can not buy back what one never owned.


AMEN, they are IDIOTS,dripping with gut wrenching rotting hog entrails.


They stand proud at tables with the firearms, ‘we go them off the streets’. NO.
The firearms were stored in the home of law abiding citizens.
Sure a few unsavory individuals will turn in a piece with a body count, because it is no questions asked.


Tis easier to take a 2×4 to someone’s head, than to raise the bar. So say we all on the left.


My choice if possible would be BALKANIZATION, over a second CIVIL WAR.
It’s one or the other.