NY Times Writer: CONFISCATING GUNS Would Be Only Real Way to Reduce Violent Crimes (VIDEO)

Every single time there’s a high profile incident of gun violence, the first impulse of progressives is to interfere with the rights of the millions of law abiding, responsible gun owners who didn’t commit the crime.

Josh Barro of the New York Times is no different. He thinks America could prevent gun violence if we had stricter gun laws like Australia.

Of course, Australia has much stricter immigration laws than the United States.

Should we adopt those policies, too?

Mark Finkelstein of NewsBusters:

NYT’s Barro: ‘Massive’ Gun Grab Only Way To Impact Violent Crime

Give Josh Barro credit for candor. When it comes to guns, the New York Times correspondent makes no bones about the kind of draconian, Second Amendment-defying approach he thinks is necessary.

Forget about expanded background checks or other such measures. The only way to have a “big impact on violent crime,” according to Barro, is to emulate Australia and “really take away massive amounts of guns that people have, reduce the rate of gun ownership substantially.”

Barro made his comments on MSNBC’s Up With Steve Kornacki this morning [with Jonathan Capehart guest-hosting] during a discussion prompted by the on-air shootings of two TV station employees in Virginia.

Here’s the video:

Simply amazing.

Very few people in media seem to understand the Second Amendment.

(Image:Source)

Comments

  1. NotKennedy says

    Massive “gun grab” is a certain way to see a massive number of gun shot wounds, on both sides of the assault.

    • Ron Hunt says

      People like Barro do not understand people in fly over country and how violent we can be when we are thoroughly pissed off. Veterans that were willing to die for their country while in service will still do so out of it.

      That is the one place you simply do not want to go Barro.

      • NotKennedy says

        They really do not have any idea just how badly that proposition would become. So these liberals really do not comprehend that this nation was formed by armed civilians.

        The instant the military or police turn their weaponry against civilians, they will have no recourse, nowhere to go, nowhere to hide. Betrayal against Americans is unforgivable.

        I do not believe that huge majority of US military and civilian law enforcement would carry out the coup that simple minded, liberal, pabulum puking television entertainers are heaving.

        • TexTopCat says

          All of the armed agents of government take an oath to the Constitution, most will honor that oath and not obey an unlawful order.

    • TexTopCat says

      Hamilton clearly states there exists a right of self-defense against a
      tyrannical government, and it includes the people with their own arms
      and adds:

      [T]he people, without exaggeration, may be said to be entirely the
      masters of their own fate. Power being almost always the rival of power,
      the general government will at all times stand ready to check the
      usurpations of the state governments, and these will have the same
      disposition towards the general government. The people by throwing
      themselves into either scale, will infallibly make it preponderate. If
      their rights are invaded by either, they can make use of the other as
      the instrument of redress. How wise will it be in them by cherishing
      the union to preserve to themselves an advantage which can never be too
      highly prized!

      Quote from http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndpur.html

  2. sandyindestin says

    There would be a dramatic change in crime rates alright!

    Crime would skyrocket as the criminals wouldn’t participate.

    How do these people even get dressed in the morning….

  3. says

    Kate Steinle was shot by a gun that was stolen from a federal agent. If you confiscated every gun in private ownership in the world, you wouldn’t have prevented this shooting. You would, however, make every private owner of a legal firearm more vulnerable to those who did not obtain their firearms legally.

    • kristierhoots says

      WORKAT HOME SPECIAL REPORT………After earning an average of 19952 Dollars monthly,I’m finally getting 98 Dollars an hour,just working 4-5 hours daily online….It’s time to take some action and you can join it too.It is simple,dedicated and easy way to get rich.Three weeks from now you will wishyou have started today – I promise!….HERE I STARTED-TAKE A LOOK AT….fb…..

      ➤➤➤➤ http://googlefreeinternationalnetworkszone/start/earning/…. ⚛⚛⚛⚛⚛⚛⚛⚛⚛⚛⚛⚛⚛⚛⚛⚛⚛⚛⚛⚛⚛⚛⚛⚛⚛⚛⚛⚛⚛⚛⚛⚛⚛⚛⚛

  4. olddog says

    The Japanese would sure liked to have had this (D)erelict in office prior to 1941…The GAY BAY would be speaking Japanese and the New Yakkkkers, German..

  5. Americadies says

    Are these idiot liberals going into black neighbor hoods to start? Should be fun to watch.

  6. Dr. Devil says

    If a white person kills blacks he is racist and the racist confederate flag is to blame.

    If a black person kills whites he is a troubled by racism of whites and the gun is to blame.

  7. RetMSgt says

    Exactly how does our college-educated correspondent propose that all guns in civilian hands be confiscated? He didn’t exactly think this through. In New York State, and California, Hawaii and the District of Columbia, all guns are supposedly registered with the government, except when they’re not. New York’s SAFE Act compliance rate? Maybe five percent. Connecticut’s recent attempt at registering all evil-looking rifles? Maybe fourteen percent. California’s attempt at the same a number of years back? That’s a good question.
    No, Americans will not just hand over their property to the government. If necessary, we’ll make our own guns at home (it isn’t outrageously difficult). Will the government use their guns to come and get our guns? We’ve got more guns.

  8. Geoffry K says

    Violent crime actually increased in the U.K. after their gun grab, the criminals didn’t give up their guns, and people could no longer defend against an attack. In fact, a British Subject ( and that is why they are Subjects and not Citizens) can be sued by the perpetrator of a crime if harmed in the commission of the crime. There is no self defense in the U.K.
    Same goes for Australia, violent crime increased, and the bad guys still have guns, and they also started using knives and bombs and arson.
    Just check Wikipedia.

  9. Ron W says

    Well, he won’t do the confiscation. He wants the government’s hired guns to do it for him. And then, I suppose, those hired guns would only be our caring protectors. The repeated historical, mass murder of millions of people by their own governments after disarming them could never happen here–they say. But then this guy would probably be OK with it happening to those who didn’t comply with his gun confiscation plan.

  10. John Deer says

    Killers use guns to Kill a few People per year but what are you going to do with all the Drivers of Motor Vehicles, Not Intentionally, that kill millions of People per year on the Roads. Are you suggesting to BAN all Motor vehicles, Trucks and Motorbikes and all modes of Transport.????? NY TIMES, you are EXTREMELY STUPID.

  11. pjt says

    I nominate these two dummies to personally go into the ghettos and take their guns away from them. Bwahahaha !!

  12. EmmyP says

    Hey jackwagon,
    Who, exactly do you think will go around and collect the 300M+ firearms currently out there?
    Hint: it won’t be police officers (ask a few of them if they would obey an order to confiscate civilian firearms)
    Hint: it won’t be the military (ask them the same question)

  13. Dave Weaver says

    All this proves is that while you can’t fix stupid, you can allow it an MSNBC commentator.

  14. luckyintheorder says

    How did this guy feel about Stop and Frisk? Take that program and multiple by about a hundred in the invasiveness of the Federal government coming for everyone’s guns.

  15. luckyintheorder says

    Read a book once where they talked about someone using a “stone” to commit an act of violence. We should probably outlaw stones too.

  16. FiftycalTX says

    And another prog socialist that doesn’t know history. The U.S. revolution started when the occupiers came for the gunz. The Texas revolution started when the mex’s came for the gunz. And the NEXT revolution will start when the occupiers come for the gunz.