Watch Senator and Presidential candidate Kristen Gillibrand discuss gun control on CNN.

She supports gun buybacks.  She is clear that she wants to ban assault rifles and non-arbitrarily limited capacity magazines, and she does not want them grandfathered in.

The CNN host asks her if that means prosecuting gun owners who refuse to participate in the buyback.

Senator Gillibrand then goes into hemming and hawing.  I think she realizes that saying “yes, I’m going to charge millions of gun owners with a federal crime because they refused to sell their guns to the government” sounds bad.

But, she’s painted into a corner where without enforcement the law is meaningless.

So she says she’ll only go after people who “use assault weapons.”  My takeaway is not people who commit mass shootings, because after you kill a dozen people, does the upcharge from using a banned gun make a difference?

I think she means anybody caught using an assault weapon.  As in, if you take your rifle to the range and get caught with it in public, that becomes an aggravated felony.

Then she goes into some nonsensical part about “a special certification” for a suppressor.  By that, I guess she means the tax stamp.

So now she’s equated assault rifles to NFA items, which are not outright banned.  So is she saying that my AR will become an NFA item or am I totally banned from owning it?

Lastly, she goes into what to me is the most disqualifying part of her whole interview.

She says that the NRA is funded by the gun makers and the gun makers don’t care about people’s lives, they only want money.

This is the gun maker blood libel.  It is an absolutely despicable position to take.

It dehumanizes every single person who works in the firearms industry and turns them into a caricature of a super-villain that somehow turns suffering into profit.

When your talking points include writing off hard-working, tax-paying, patriotic Americans as people who don’t care if children die for money, the conversation is over.

From this interview what I can surmise is that the Democrats who want to run this country want to put millions of gun owners in prison for life because they hate us personally.  I feel like we all knew that already, they are just getting closer and closer to actually saying it.

Spread the love

By J. Kb

11 thoughts on “United States Senator implies she wants to send millions of people to prison”
  1. She represents the State of NY, right?

    Aren’t Remington, Kimber, and several other gun makers located in NY? The fact that this idiot is making a Hickenlooper move by disenfranchising a measurable number of employees and employers in their state demonstrates how clueless she actually is.

    1. Those people don’t matter to her, anymore than anyone living in upstate NY matters. She has the support of NYC, which means she gets to be Senator here as long as she wants.

  2. They don’t want all gun owners in prison, they want all gun owners dead. But it’s going to take another 6-7 years for it to be socially acceptable to say “I will see that millions of gun owners and executed for owning guns”. We will get there eventually. But right now Americans do not like making large portions of the population instant felons nor do they like the government seizing property from millions of people en masse.

    They may hate the United States, the people of the United States, the values and traditions of the United States and wish for a day they can get the power to kill every single solitary person that opposes them with total impunity they know right now that if they were honest no one except the super far left would vote for them. Hence losing the power they so crave.

    Until then they have to verbally dance around, deny or lie about what they really want: ALL guns banned, private gun ownership banned with door to door confiscation and the execution of every single gun owner in the country. All white males exterminated. All Jews (that don’t keep voting for them and even then) exterminated. Criticism of them illegal. The execution of every registered republican. The dissolving of our national borders and end to the country to be replaced with a totally new ‘country’ that has no borders. Permanent suspension of the bill of rights and constitution to be replaced by a document they make where they control everything and have unlimited power and all who oppose executed. To sum it up the extermination and execution of every single person in the country that opposes them and the seizure of unlimited power and erasure of individual rights. And the means, method and body count is irrelevant. Let’s say that’s 100 million people. That is a perfectly acceptable number to them and can be replaced with illegals in a couple decades. I’d go so far to say they’d be fine with a body count of 300 million.

    1. “The dissolving of our national borders and end to the country to be replaced with a totally new ‘country’ that has no borders. ”

      Disagree totally with that statement. As soon as they get unfettered control borders will become vitally important. The difference will be the borders are to keep people in, not out.

    2. Who exactly is going to “exterminate all gun owners and white males”????? There aint enough of liberals to do it. It would be a real short war. And door to door confiscation?? The state of new jersey alone would take 824 man YEARS to do that alone. They start this they will get a few, then the gun grabbers will start getting met with 30 or 40 guys at one house instead of one gun owner. States that have enacted bans of any type have been met with large non compliance. Lots of We the People are very close to having our fill of these assholes bleatin about more laws. How many fukkin laws do these criminals break in committing these crimes???

      1. I constantly say they are insane, I don’t say they’re smart. They also have no concept of compassion and do not hold any value to human life. Let me ask you a hypothetical yes or no question: When the far left gets in power do you think after they banned all private ownership that they would not use nuclear weapons to kill the millions of people that resisted? If I asked that question in 2012 people would think I was a crazy right extremist. But I admit, repeatedly in my comments that the things I talk about and bring up tends to be insane hyperbole. I ask that same question today and I suspect you and many others would not immediately say no. You would have to ponder it even if only for a few seconds. What does that say about the current state of things right now?

  3. About the “upcharge” thing, I’ve heard it said quite a few times that if simply possessing semi-autos becomes a felony, in clear violation of the Constitution, a lot of folks will just say screw it and go for a two for one and just start converting their rifles to full auto SBRs. If the Gov is gonna label you a felon anyway you might as well go all out.

    Also, screw gun buy backs. It’s the Gov purchasing something that they never owned, at a tiny fraction of the real value, with money that they stole from you under threat of lethal force. And if folks don’t think taxes are collected by threat just think about who comes to your door if you continually “fail to comply” and what they’re allowed to do to you if you resist.

    1. “buyback” is a fascinating linguistic construct, the only example I know of two lies squeezed into a single word. The “back” part is a lie because the government never owned it, and more importantly the “buy” part is a lie because you can only buy that which is offered by a seller, which is a person who voluntarily agrees to part with the item in exchange for something he values more.
      By their definition, a mugging is a “buyback”.

Only one rule: Don't be a dick.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.