Turley Explains Why the Latest Trump Indictment Is a 'Serious Threat'
They Want Him to Quit
Trump Special Counsel Insists There's 'One Set of Laws' That 'Apply to Everyone'
BREAKING: Trump Indictment Unsealed
Jim Jordan Reveals New Information About Mar-a-Lago Raid in Scathing Letter to Biden...
The White House Had an Interesting Response When Asked About the Timing of...
There's Been a Shakeup on Trump's Legal Team Following Classified Doc Probe Indictment
Trump Indictment Excitement, EVs Will Battle Racism, and Another FBI Scandal Getting Ignor...
Biden Criticized For Not Being Interviewed Yet In Classified Docs Probe As Trump...
Trump Was DJ-ing, Playing Elvis Hours After Learning of Second Indictment
Trump's Indictment Reveals Who Is On Trump's Side and Who Wants Him Destroyed
Dem Governor Vetoes Trans Student Bathroom Bill
Was Bud Light Trolled by an 'All-Ages' Dragfest?
Pro-Abortion NY AG Files Lawsuit Against ‘Extremist’ Pro-Life Organization
State Democrats Are Turning These Places Into Radical Abortion Destination Sites

Tucker Carlson: Democrats Could Be Coming For Your Guns If They Win Elections

You’ll have fewer rights if the Democrats win. That’s the point Tucker Carlson made on his show last week—and he’s right. He framed it within the current gun control debate that’s gripped the nation in the aftermath of the tragic school shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida on February 14. Shooter Nikolas Cruz shot and killed 17 people that day. In response, Democrats have proposed a new gun control bill that virtually bans firearms in this country. On top of that, a YouGov poll found that 82 percent of Democrats are in favor of banning semiautomatic firearms. Yes, that’s a gun ban. 

Tucker was amused at the notion of late night talk show hosts and the media trying to lecture the rest of the country on Christianity, while pushing for gun control. The Australian model is the one that’s peddled pervasively in the news media from anti-gun advocates, which is essentially a ban. The Land Down Under confiscated firearms under threat of prison for those who did not comply and banned semiautomatic firearms.

Hillary Clinton said this was a proposal we should look at while on the 2016 campaign trail, sparking real fears that a Clinton presidency could do serious damage on Second Amendment rights; she even said the Supreme Court is wrong on the Second Amendment, in which the high court said it was an individual right to own firearms.  In fact, that’s probably what would’ve happened if she had won. Then again, Trump proposed taking guns without due process in a meeting with Democrats and Republicans on this issue—and he’s wrong on that as well. At the same time, of course, Trump is trustworthier on this issue than a liberal Democrat. 

By the way, this is how the Council on Foreign Relations summarized Australia’s gun laws:

The National Agreement on Firearms all but prohibited automatic and semiautomatic assault rifles, mandated licensing and registration, and instituted a temporary gun buyback program that took some 650,000 assault weapons (about one-sixth of the national stock) out of public circulation. Among other things, the law also required licensees to demonstrate a "genuine need" for a particular type of gun and take a firearm safety course. After another high-profile shooting in Melbourne in 2002, Australia’s handgun laws were tightened as well. Many analysts say these measures have been highly effective, citing declining gun death rates and the absence of gun-related mass killings in Australia since 1996.

Yet, Australia’s homicide rate was low already, and the law had little to no effect on the nation’s homicide rate. All it did was infringe on the rights of law-abiding citizens (via NRO):

University of Melbourne researchers Wang-Sheng Lee and Sandy Suardi concluded their 2008 report on the matter with the statement, “There is little evidence to suggest that [the Australian mandatory gun-buyback program] had any significant effects on firearm homicides.”

“Although gun buybacks appear to be a logical and sensible policy that helps to placate the public’s fears,” the reported continued, “the evidence so far suggests that in the Australian context, the high expenditure incurred to fund the 1996 gun buyback has not translated into any tangible reductions in terms of firearm deaths.”

A 2007 report, “Gun Laws and Sudden Death: Did the Australian Firearms Legislation of 1996 Make a Difference?” by Jeanine Baker and Samara McPhedran similarly concluded that the buyback program did not have a significant long-term effect on the Australian homicide rate.

Besides the fact that the application of Australian-style gun control is unconstitutional here, the point is that we could get a slight taste of that if Democrats win back the House. Tucker mentioned that this new gun bill from Democrats could pass if they win the 2018 midterms. He added that Democrats treat the rest of the law-abiding public as felons on firearms. And this applies to the rest of the bill of rights. Tucker closed by saying if someone abuses their First Amendment rights, like starting a riot in which people are killed, does that mean that section of the Bill of Rights needs to be curtailed? 

It seems far away, but if the Left manages to win this year—our Second Amendment rights, tax reform, and other items of Trump’s economic agenda could be imperiled. Yes, right now, it looks as if Republicans are going to pick up some seats in the Senate, but that’s a more moveable chamber. If there’s one thing we’ve seen, there are some Senate Republicans who don’t always play for our team. 

Yes, we won a great victory in 2016, but every year those gains and the legislative dividends that come with it are put on the line. In 2018, a lot is riding on its outcome. Never forget that. A bill that seriously curtails Second Amendment freedoms waits to be unleashed by anti-gun liberal Democrats. Just remember that this cycle. 

Join the conversation as a VIP Member


Trending on Townhall Video